Skip to main content

Our buddy, Leon H, over at Redstate, has opined about "The Real Meaning of Roe v. Wade".  Link.  He read an article in New York magazine about New Yorkers who help out-of-staters get abortions.  And Leon got angry!  Hoo Boy!

Haven [the group in question] not only caters to women seeking late-term abortions, but also caters to underage girls seeking these late-term abortions. The article frankly admitted thus:

This year, Haven members have opened their homes to 125 of them (including a 10-year-old).

For emphasis: a ten-year-old.

Yes, Leon, for emphasis: A ten-year old.

Hi Leon!

Leon, I was going to quote lots of comments (there were 283 of them) following your RedState Diary, but I was so enamoured of your incorrect use of the word "thus" that I stopped myself.  You are the most literate of RedStaters, and I feel it would be cruel to quote your peers.

Leon, you are a miracle of misplaced outrage.  Horrible, horrible, most horrible, for New Yorkers (gasp!) to help a 10-year-old child 24-weeks-pregnant, hoping for sympathetic arms.  

The fact is, Leon, dearest, you don't know this child, and neither do I.  Given this, rather than passing universal DON'T YOU DARE WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT laws about minors and abortion, Leon, perhaps . . . this is just a "perhaps" . . . it's possible that the horrors experienced by 24-week-pregnant 10-year-old children can't be universilized into Federal Law.  

It's just barely possible that you don't know this ten-year-old's story.  It's just barely possible that she had good reasons to run.  

You jackaninny.  You lame excuse for a cerebral cortex on lunch-break.  You intellectual gerbil.  Give us a hug.

Love,

LithiumCola

Originally posted to LithiumCola on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 08:05 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  come on now... (none)
    don't give them any advertising....

    they are so dumb...the less hits they get, the less people are exposed to their stupidity.

  •  What a maroon (4.00)
    Catering?  To a pregnant 10 year old?  Unbelievable.  Did anyone follow up with a, "If she didn't want a baby, she shouldn't have had sex" line?  It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

    Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

    by Barbara Morrill on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 08:06:26 PM PST

    •  Thanks for the link to the RedState! (4.00)
      Without your pointing me in their direction, I would have had no idea of the otherwise unfathomable views held by many Red Staters.  (Well, I guess it should be kind of obvious that their views are hard to fathom - they voted for Bush after all.)

      So. . . for those of you lacking the patience to read through the whole discussion, I'll quote a few bits for you (suggesting that yes, girls and women who end up raped and/or with unwanted pregnancies surely must be at fault somehow.)

      One person opines (with no links to said studies of course)

      "There are several studies from CDC and HHS that document the paternity of younger mothers. Pregnancy by way of incest is not as frequent as you guys imagine it to be. Typically these young moms are latchkey kids. The paternity patterns for 10-14 year olds is no different than that of 15-16 year olds."

      Facinating - who knew that 10 year olds were just as likely as 16 year olds to date and have sex?

      When a pro-choice Red Stater spoke up in favor of the 10 year old and suggested that the child was a victim of some kind of sexual assault and said she knew many women who had been sexually assaulted, an anti-choice person responded as follows:

      "As to your first question, I know one woman who was raped and a few (4 or 5) molested or exposed as children (but none raped as children).  Maybe some of the difference has to do with my circle of friends.  We are not bar-hoppers, sorority girls, drug addicts or any other class of people who are exposed to drunken, drugged, testosterone filled men.  The girls who go to frat parties and drink ectasy would be well served to find another way to amuse themselves.  Rape statisticians would have less to do.  And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they deserve it or that all rapes are the result of those types of situations.  The woman I know who was raped was sleeping in her home when an unknown intruder broke in and attacked her.  But most rapes are in circumstances where the woman has gone out with a loser and got too close to the fire."

      In sum, thanks LithiumCola for an eye-opening read!

      The problem with these Havenites is that they don't know or care about the home life of the child.  They are taking their assumptions about the possibility of a bad home situation and taking over.  If the home life is that bad, law enforcement should be involved.  Not some well-heeled feminist with an agenda.

      If the child is living under threat of real abuse, the family needs counseling and/or state intervention.  If the child was raped or suffered from an incestuous relationship, the perpetrator should be arrested and killed.  (I know, they will only put him in jail, I'm just saying what should happen.)  These

  •  Free advertising (4.00)
    for creepy Red Staters who want to ruin the lives of women and girls is ok.  It will help Kossacks to know and understand their creepiness so as best to fight against it.

    And I absolutely agree - whatever brought a 10 year-old girl (with or without her parents' consent) to the situation that she needed an abortion is horrifying enough.  The idea that anyone would try to stop the child from having an abortion is terrifying.

  •  That's right, a 10 year old. (4.00)
    The correct thing to do, of course, would have been to make her carry the pregnancy to term and give birth.  Because at 10, that's exactly what our bodies are supposed to be doing.  That's why you see all those 10 year olds walking around with wide, child-bearing hips.  That baby would just shoot right out, I'm sure.

    My feeling is, if you feel the kid was too young to be having sex, you should feel the kid is too young to be having a baby.  So unless anyone over at Red State wants to argue for sexually active 10 year olds...

    Argh.  This makes me so mad, I know I'm not being coherent, and I don't fucking care.  On the other hand, thanks for the diary.  I'd vaguely heard of this group and I'ma have to see if there's anything I can do with/for them.

  •  How can (none)
    a female human be pregnant for "24 months"? I believe elephants have a 24 month gestation. Did you mean "2-4 month" as in 2-to-4 month?

    Just asking. I was a SICU nurse for 8 years, but Pre-natal and L&D weren't my forte'.

  •  Leon's a bit outspoken on that issue (none)
    So yeah, it's par for the course for him.

    "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

    by RBH on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 08:11:22 PM PST

    •  Leon's an arrogant moron (4.00)
      I've read a few of his posts on this subject, and don't intend to read any more.  He has that tiresome arrogant truculent attitude conservative "thinkers" bring to a topic when neither their hearts nor their minds are engaged.  His dogmatic ignorance and utter lack of empathy are contemptible.  The fact that he assumes intellectual airs about them renders him laughable.

      He is, in other words, a typical contemporary Republican talking-head.  His only virtue is that he appears not to be on the RNC hotfax list, so his talking points are rather stale and a little confused.  A refreshing change from the Stepford Con, at least.

      -4.50, -5.85 Lies are the new Truth.

      by Dallasdoc on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:27:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm laughing (4.00)
    and crying at the same time.

    I love your humor. Spot on!

    But that poor frightened little girl. I was raped when I was 10. Didn't get pregnant. Never told anyone about it until I was 38.
    I'll be 64 in a month, but let me tell you, I still suffer. It's like battle fatigue, I am told.

    A vote for any Republican is a vote endorsing a jihad against our country.

    by Maine Atticus on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 08:15:12 PM PST

    •  (((Maine))) (none)

      "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

      by LithiumCola on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 08:16:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That is so terrible, M.A. (none)
      By the way, you are another one whose gender I had pegged wrong. "Atticus" didn't help of course.
      •  I chose Atticus (none)
        because he was so good to his children. And gender doesn't matter to me. The suffering of children anywhere in this world does matter.

        And, it was terrible at the time, but I have been helping other children because of it. So not all bad.

        A vote for any Republican is a vote endorsing a jihad against our country.

        by Maine Atticus on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 08:40:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Atticus Finch (none)
          I rarely enjoy a movie if I've already read the book it is based on.  "To Kill a Mockingbird," was one of the rare exceptions. Atticus Finch (played by Gregory Peck) is one of my favorite movie characters...a great role-model, indeed.

          And I'm so sorry for what you went through as a child. It says a lot about your character that you are helping other children in like situations.  :-)  

          Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

          by Barbara Morrill on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:39:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry about this late comeback (none)
            Our cable went out right in the middle of this discussion. : (

            Wish I had the money to help more rape victims, but we do what we can. I am going to check out Haven and see if I can help there.

            I don't know about my character -- there's many who would disagree, with good cause. ; )

            A vote for any Republican is a vote endorsing a jihad against our country.

            by Maine Atticus on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 07:53:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  me too (4.00)
      I was a bit older, but the scars don't ever completly go away and it takes a long long time to gain any wisdom about it.  You were 38 when your healing began, I was about 32 or 33.  
      Think of one little effect, that smallest one and imagine what your life would have been like without that small effect or scar.  I wonder how my life would be different if for instance I had not spent years being irrationally afraid of the dark...having no idea why and not being able to control that fear.
      Might I have gone to NYC and auditioned for the theater?  I had a few great contacts but the idea of  living in NY, being in an appartment by myself checking the doors and windows, sitting up at night hyper aware of every little sound was impossible.
      Yes, I did not get pregnant either and since I have bloked the worst of the incidence I am not sure I was ever at risk of getting pregnant.  But I can imagine that the only thing worse than having to have an abortion at that age is being forced to give birth.

      The sad thing is that there are people here at dkos who will argue for parental consent laws, totally oblivious to the damage of such laws, telling the bullshit stories about all the friends they have who were traumatized by abortions.  Some on the left have swallowed the whole "abortion is horrible and traumatic" nonsense and will spout it just as readlity as those fools at redstate.

      Having gone and read the page it seems there is at least one sane and educated member there.  

      I am too teh point where I really do not believe any debate or discussion is helpful.  Women who are pro-choice/pro-women should just demand our politicians vote our way or refuse to support them.  If all pro-choice women and men who wanted to join in would refuse to vote for anti-choice politicians, that would be that.. prolbem solved.  
      Unfortunately many women are still afraid to own their power.  

  •  Ah hah (4.00)
    Sadly this is yet another example of a 10 year old flaunting her sexual freedom and then making a choice of convenience instead of living with the consquences of her immoral actions.

    *snark*

    I'm not sayin'... I'm just sayin'.

    by AriesMoon on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 08:22:51 PM PST

  •  Jesus (4.00)
    I clicked the link.

    Ahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    My mind! My Mind! My Beautiful Mind!!!

    Excuse me while I go scrub myself with pumice stones and lye.

    Bush - the ultimate example of the Peter Principle.

    by PatsBard on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 08:38:00 PM PST

    •  I will spare my mind (4.00)
      ... and not go there. Why in the world would someone be outraged that a 10 year-old is getting an abortion. Just thinking about that makes my brain hurt. If it is more outrageous that a 10 year-old is getting an abortion than it is when someone older seeks an abortion, that means that a 10 year-old girl should have a greater expecation to give birth than someone older would. It hurts my brain.

      But I understand what they are doing - it's a shell game. Most people are appalled by a 10 year-old girl having sex. They are even more apalled by a 10 year-old girl getting pregnant. Red State takes that and does a "nothing up my sleeve" moment, and shifts it to outrage over that 10-year old having an abortion. Most sane people would think that a 10 year-old girl should not give birth if they do become pregnant.

      •  It's a blur now (none)
        But apparently the guy thinks that an abortion would be more damaging to his child than the rape that caused it. Or possibly equal, since he said he'd hunt down both the rapist and the person who took her to New York for the abortion. (He said he'd be receiving a "damaged child" upon her return from NY.)

        'Scuse me...I have to go scrub again.

        Bush - the ultimate example of the Peter Principle.

        by PatsBard on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 08:54:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Studies (none)
          Quite a few people on this RedState discussion group talk about "studies" of how damaging abortion is for girls and women.  Funny thing is that, unlike on dkos, I did not see one link to a single study to back up the claim.
          •  Red herrings (none)
            Those studies are red herrings anyway.  Do they compare abortion to the effect of child-bearing on pre-teens.  I don't know, but I would very much doubt it.  Unwanted pregnancy is traumatic, so it is going to be "damaging" to a girl's psyche no matter the outcome.

            When you are going through hell, keep going! - Winston Churchill

            by flo58 on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:24:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  24 week =6 months (none)
        too late for an abortion.

        Stop Corporate Influence; buy DEMOCRACY BONDS!!! http://www.democrats.org/democracybonds.html

        by timber on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 08:58:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Incorrect n/t (none)

          "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

          by LithiumCola on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:02:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  not too late (4.00)
          in the case of life and health of the pregmant female and a 10 year old is at serious risk to her health and life if she continues to carry a pregnancy to term.  
          •  third trimester (none)
            too late for an abortion

            Stop Corporate Influence; buy DEMOCRACY BONDS!!! http://www.democrats.org/democracybonds.html

            by timber on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:15:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Also incorrect n/t (none)

              "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

              by LithiumCola on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:18:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why? (none)

                Stop Corporate Influence; buy DEMOCRACY BONDS!!! http://www.democrats.org/democracybonds.html

                by timber on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:21:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Here is why (4.00)
                  According to the statistics on the Alan Guttmacher Institute, over half of the abortions in America take place during the first 8 weeks of pregnancy and close to 90% take place in the first 12 weeks.  Click here.    Fewer than 1.5% of abortions take place after the 21st week.  Read here.  

                  To find out more about why an incredibly small number of women and girls do have abortions at the end of the 2nd trimester or later, try reading here and here.  

                  Maybe this information will help you to understand.

              •  Baby might survive after 23rd week...... (none)
                http://www.webmd.com/...

                What's Happening
                Inside You?

                By the end of the sixth month, your baby is about 12 inches long and weighs about 2 pounds. His or her skin is reddish in color, wrinkled, and veins are visible through the baby's translucent skin. Baby's finger and toe prints are visible. The eyelids begin to part and the eyes open.

                Your baby may respond to sounds by moving or increasing the pulse, and you may notice jerking motions if baby hiccups.

                If born prematurely, your baby may survive after the 23rd week with intensive care.

                Stop Corporate Influence; buy DEMOCRACY BONDS!!! http://www.democrats.org/democracybonds.html

                by timber on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:30:30 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  23 weeks in the womb is not enough (none)
                  The following comes from the Life and Liberty for Women web site:

                  "In a recent Newsweek special issue in an article titled "New Hope for Preemies," a 23-week female preemie was described thusly, `She fluttered on the very edge of viability. Her skin was paper-thin and tore open easily. Fetal fuzz, called langugo covered her shoulders and back. Her ears, still developing cartilage, ran seamlessly into her jaw line. Her eyelids were fused together. While some things were amazingly complete - her fingernails, the life lines across her palms - her heart, lungs, and brain were not up to the task of keeping her alive.'"

                  While there may be a few preemies who can make it at 23 weeks, they are very few.

                  Similarly, there are very few women and girls who seek abortion after 23 weeks.  To condemn them to give birth when they choose not to (and condemn the newborns to a miserable and short life) is wrong.  I imagine it is quite a difficult choice for women and girls to decide to abort so late in their pregnancies and it is not for us to judge them or to make the experience any more difficult than it would otherwise be.

                •  but the ten year old girl night NOT (none)
                  Are you really incapable of understanding that the living child's life comes first?
            •  What is wrong with you? (none)
              Seriously, what demented religious idea are you scarred by that you think a 10 year old girl is less important than a fetus?  10 year olds are not built to bear children and give birth.
            •  Your ignorance is astounding. (none)
              Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself on these matters.  You look like a fool.  

              Jesus + Fetus = SCOTUS

              by lightiris on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 06:36:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  how??? (none)
            the big question is how did a 10 year old get pregnant? rape, incest?that should be what red state should worry about.
            i agree though that at 24 weeks an abortion is infancide but this would be a special circumstance.my daughter was born at 26 weeks and is a healthy 9 year old so i can`t condone  abortion after 20 weeks except to save the life of the mother.
            •  I really do not care what (none)
              you condone seeing as you do not understand a very basic concept.

              WOMEN WHO HAVE AN ABORTION AFTER 23 WEEKS (AND MOST AFTER 16 WEEKS) ARE NOT HAVING THEM FOR ANY REASON BUT TO SAVE THEIR LIFE OR BECAUSE THE FETUS IS FATALLY DEFORMED.

              There is NO issue with women having late term abortions just because they don't feel like being pregnant.  So what you condone or not condone is really completely immaterial.

              Women who are between 16 and 24 weeks will have an abortion sometimes because they do not want to give birth, but mostly because they have some health issue which makes the pregnancy a threat to life)and a cesarean is not appropriate at that time.  No woman should be forced to have major surgery which threatens their life because the D&E is distasteful to some people who do not understand the issue.  

              Women who abort after 24 weeks rather than having a cesarian section do it because the fetus is dead or will die immediately at birth.  A woman can decide for herself to remain pregnant with that doomed fetus..but she shouldn't be FORCED to make that choice.

              •  Late term abortions (none)
                Teresa is correct, and I appreciate her comments.

                I would like a add a few things.

                Women have late term abortions because of serious complications, either with their fetus or with their own health. There are very few done in the United States every year, very few, but there are no firm numbers on exactly how many.

                Most people that are pro-choice would not support a woman having an abortion on a viable fetus unless her life is at risk. There are not huge numbers of people that support abortion rights that think that women should be able to abort viable fetuses for convenience reasons. If a woman decides at that point in time that she does not want the baby, then she should carry the child to term and give it up for adoption.

                Most all people, even those that are anti-abortion, would agree that parents can decide health issues for their minor children, right?

                So, if a woman gives birth to a child who will not survive beyond a few days, or or that infant has medical issues that are almost guaranteed to be insurmountable, most all people would agree that the parents should be allowed to discontinue life support. If the child's quality of life cannot be greatly enhanced, and the child has horrific birth defects, we allow parents to let the baby die. We let parents stop medical treatment when that medical treatment is simply delaying the death of someone (a minor) terminally ill, right?

                So, why would it be different, and disallowed, to give a mother the right to make those decisions for herself while the life inside of her is still a fetus? Why must she wait until the child is born to allow it to die?

                Those are the kinds of abortions that are done late term. Abortions that remove fetuses that will not survive, and in some cases, fetuses that, if allowed to go to term, will endanger the woman's health.

                IF the woman can make that decision post-birth, why not pre-birth? Why would anyone demand that the decision be delayed when they have great diagnostics available today?

                ...but not your own facts.

                by slouise217 on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 07:48:21 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  "If men could get pregnant, (4.00)
          abortion would be a sacrament." ---- Florynce Kennedy

          A vote for any Republican is a vote endorsing a jihad against our country.

          by Maine Atticus on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:07:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Actually... (none)
        They're even more clever than that. If they came out and said "I think a ten year old having an abortion is evil/sinful/wicked/the work of LIEberal DEMONcrats!" or whatever they'd be laughed out of any serious discussion of the topic.

        So instead they're attacking the people who are helping the girl. It's even one more step removed. If we tear down this stupid idea they'll put up another one--one more step removed from the real issue. And on and on ad infinitum.

        The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

        by Shapeshifter on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 10:18:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  here's a hint (none)
    people who view the world in black & white terms are generally not interested in details, especially if they may mitigate their particular dogma.
  •  here is my thought: (4.00)
    In a healthy family, the girl will tell her parents. Of course, in a healthy family, a 10 year old won't get knocked up. So if the girl chooses to not tell her folks, she probably has a fucking good reason and the government ought not mess with her.

    I re-did my website! See how pretty DailyGranola.com is now.

    by OrangeClouds115 on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:41:34 PM PST

    •  Not all people are family. (none)

      Ten-year-old girls who were raised by a healthy and good family have been raped by people outside the family.  Though I doubt that a healthy family would insist that the ten-year-old carry the child to term.  
      •  Exactly (none)
        A raped and pregnant 10 year old should have parents who she can tell (without being legally required to) and they will help her.

        An AFA lawyer proudly told me about how his organization persuades kids to keep their babies. I think he mentioned something sick like a 13 year old they persuaded to carry a kid to term and keep it (not give it up for adoption). How the FUCK is that pro-family I would like to know? That's child abuse to both the 13 yr old and the newborn.

        I re-did my website! See how pretty DailyGranola.com is now.

        by OrangeClouds115 on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 12:16:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Redstate is what it is (none)
    They don't really attempt to hide their views. I don't agree with most of them, but then giving them free publicity doesn't serve much purpose either.
  •  Off topic, related (none)
    is the trafficking in young children for sexual purpose. I've heard of different countries who turn a blind eye or make it a low law enforcement priority. Cuba, Colombia, and others in this hemisphere and the orient. I personlly winessed this in Costa Rica, a place I dearly love despite it's flaws, and there are many.

    There's a place in the capital, San Jose, a hotel called the Del Rey. It's imfamous and famous. Fairly classy, and well-staffed. Security is omnipresent and very professional.

    The customers are -each and every one I saw- were American and European businessmen. After a day of billfishing in cuban waters, smuggling cuban cigars back to the states (despite the fact that the Nicaraguans make far suprior cigars and are legal to import), eating some of the greatest food around, gambling in the hotel casino, and drinking in the bar, they might desire some company.

    The bar had at least 200 hookers in constant flux throughout the main floor of the hotel and casino. Some looked very young, but prostituion is legal in Costa Rica and a girl must have a health card and follow fairly rigid protocols enforce by the hotel. So ther was no tales of girls spiking a rich guy's drink and ripping him off.  

    I was in conversations with this guy I saw a few times at the sports betting. We talked about the sureal scene around us, all the while very attractive (and a few not quite so) "ladies" would approach us and ask us if we desired company. I enjoyed talking to the women and girls. Most were uneducated, but smart nonetheless, and much better informed than I would have imagined. I was amazed to find out that almost all of them were sold by their families as virgins to older men, usually "rich gringos" who wanted sex with ten or twelve year-old girls. After that, it's almost inevitable they will not marry in their community and their only way of making any kind of real money is catering to the sick desires of rich men. Most all these men had families, sometimes with them! And I heard more than one or two stries about the wives joining the husband, or searching on their own for the particular objects of their desire.

    I knbow I ran on with this. But everytime I see an article, I see the faces of some of these women and VERY young girls. The pall of indifference and inevetability about their lives and futures.  

    Talking to a few of these guys they were all, to a man, Bush supporters. Loved his policies, loved his pro-business stance. Didn't find out how "religious" any of the were: They all had hookers around their necks. The girls told me that "Gringos" always ask for the youngest girls and ask the hookers themselves where they can find really young girls. Costa Rica is the wealthiest Central American country,the one most like ours.  But there is still corruption.  Child prostution will continue until it's made a higher priority to stop it. But for these poor countries, they NEED these middle-upper class twits and their tourist money.

    So sad.

  •  Mr(s). Cola, (none)
    Thank you so much for the thoughtful review of my work. I always enjoy it when my material is well-received on the other side of the aisle.

    FWIW, I was involved in an email discussion with some friends about the article I wrote, and I expressed regret almost immediately upon finishing it that I even bothered to mention the 10-year-old, as that's been the one section of the article that has received all the focus, whereas it very much was not the central point whatsoever. The central point, of course, was that elective late-term abortions such as these are extremely unpopular with the American public, even moreso when they involve minors without parental consent (the story itself, IIRC, focused on a 15-year-old, who had a 15-year-old boyfriend. I believe that we are closer to a consensus in such a case than we are for a 10-year-old.)

    In any event, I suppose that, as one of your commenters noted, I was simply shocked by the extremely young age of the girl and made note of it. This has led to numerous folks (including yourself) pulling that one sentence out of the article and lamenting the fact that I would oppose abortion for a 10-year-old. That's fine - low hanging fruit, and such.

    Upon reflection, of course the 10-year-old probably had the greatest justification for any of the late-term abortions mentioned in that story, as she undoubtedly had the greatest health risk of carrying the child to full-term. I am certainly not an expert on those matters, nor on the comparative danger of a late-term abortion to a child so young, so I will not opine upon it, except to say that to the extent that I don't know her situation, you are absolutely correct, and it may be that she has a reason that even a "wingnut" like myself can accept.

    I do wish, however, that you'd address the larger point of the article itself, though I won't exactly hold out much hope to that effect.

    •  unpopular? (none)
      was that elective late-term abortions such as these are extremely unpopular with the American public, even moreso when they involve minors without parental consent

      Schwartenegger and the CA Religious Right tried to require parental consent for abortions for minors in last year's special election.

      The voters did the sensible thing and decided this was a bad idea.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 01:30:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  unfortunately once you are pregnant (none)
      you must be an adult and make adult decisions.  No one else can make them for you because the consequenses are uniquely yours.  Therefor parents should never be allowed to overrule a girls choice.
      Most young girls who get pregnant will go to their parents and ask for help, because no matter how much they fear the "good" parents, they fear having a surgical procedure more.
      In the case of chilren who will not tell their parents, there is almost ALWAYS a very good reason.  If my ten year old or 15 year old really felt they could not tell me about a pregnancy that would make me very sad, however I would rather she be able to go to a clinic legally and get an abortion than to try and do it herself or go to some illegal butcher.
      You should be greatful these women do what they do.  They are saving the lives of children.
      What the anti-choice crowd doesn't ever get:

      1. The vast majority of abortions happen before 12 weeks.

      2.  Only about .03 to 2.0 percent of abortions are after 23 weeks and when they happen it is always for a good reason....death of fetus, extreme deformity not compatible with life such as NO BRAIN due to severe hydrocephaly.

      3.  In the case of a child giving birth, it's a threat to her life and health.  No child should be forced to give birth and this is not about you and your good relationship with your child.  Your child will come to you.  This is about the child who was raped by Dad, or the child who has parents who are so delusionally religiously brainwashed that they would rather see their child die than have an abortion.

      Whatever someone's religion is, that is their business, FOR THEM. But no religious conviction can be forced on another person...even your child when that other person is the one who has to bear  what could be very harsh consequences.
      •  With all respect, (none)
        I can only assume that you are not a parent, or at the very least are not a parent of any child who has had to undergo any medical procedure of any kind. If you were, you would know just how wrong the first sentences of your post are.

        For instance, I have a son who broke his femur through some activity that is, as of yet, still unclear. Guess who was required to make all the decisions about treatment, pins, traction, surgery, etc.? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't him.

        In the case of chilren who will not tell their parents, there is almost ALWAYS a very good reason.  If my ten year old or 15 year old really felt they could not tell me about a pregnancy that would make me very sad, however I would rather she be able to go to a clinic legally and get an abortion than to try and do it herself or go to some illegal butcher.

        I don't doubt that this is true. When I was in high school I had a very senseless friend named Colin. During the course of one six-month period, he had to go to the emergency room 3 times within a six month period. I won't go into the details (you probably wouldn't believe them), but they included some incredibly stupid and dangerous activities. During the third visit, his enraged father declared that if he ever had to go to the emergency room again, not to bother to call him. Sure enough, about two months later, my friend broke his arm doing something else stupid. We took him to the ER ourselves (following his father's advice), and once they determined he was not dying, they wouldn't even so much as X-Ray his arm without his father present. I guarantee you he did not try to splint his arm himself, or find a quack to do it for him.

        You should be greatful these women do what they do.  They are saving the lives of children.

        Not so much the children in the womb, eh? Keep in mind, we're talking about fetuses that are generally viable in this story. My sympathy for the mother does not exactly run over.

        The vast majority of abortions happen before 12 weeks.

        No, I'm perfectly well aware of that. Around 83 per cent, to be exact. My story had nothing to do with that 83 per cent.

        Only about .03 to 2.0 percent of abortions are after 23 weeks and when they happen it is always for a good reason....death of fetus, extreme deformity not compatible with life such as NO BRAIN due to severe hydrocephaly.

        You need to read the NY Magazine story again. All of the stories specifically covered were simple cases of not bothering to get the abortion sooner, or not being able to afford it sooner.

        In the case of a child giving birth, it's a threat to her life and health.  No child should be forced to give birth and this is not about you and your good relationship with your child.  Your child will come to you.  This is about the child who was raped by Dad, or the child who has parents who are so delusionally religiously brainwashed that they would rather see their child die than have an abortion.

        You may have a case when referring to a 10-year-old. OTOH, I can assure you that a 15-year-old is more than capable of carrying a child to full-term. Incidentally, the CDC keeps track of these things, over 90 per cent 10-16 year old females who become pregnant do so at the hands of a non-related male between the ages of 16-24.

        Whatever someone's religion is, that is their business, FOR THEM. But no religious conviction can be forced on another person...even your child when that other person is the one who has to bear  what could be very harsh consequences.

        It doesn't exactly take a religious conviction to determine that a viable fetus is deserving of legal protection. And besides which, no one is trying to force a religion on anyone, we're just trying to protect the lives of the unborn.

        My religion says that it is wrong to murder. Guess I shouldn't try to legislate that, either?

        •  well you asume wrong (none)
          I am a parent and my children have both had medical issues and operations.

          But a broken bone is not a pregnancy and trying to compare the two is insane.  

          I can't believe how completely stupid your response is.  This is why I do not go to sites like Red State.  Your arguments are idiotic and I won't even bother to address them with the exception of this one statement:  
          Of course your friend didn't try to fix his problem himself or go to a quack HE DIDN'T HAVE TO.  That was not his only choice.  That is a completely different situation than being pregnant.  Shame on your for being so funcking simple minded to even make such a comparison.

          •  Well. (none)
            But a broken bone is not a pregnancy and trying to compare the two is insane.

            Oh. I was not aware that abortion was no longer a medical procedure. So much for "framing," I guess. Can we pass your message along to Dr. Dean?

            I can't believe how completely stupid your response is.

            Your arguments are idiotic and I won't even bother to address them

            Shame on your for being so funcking simple minded

            Yes, I can see how you wouldn't like coming to such a simple, cretinous place like RedState. We're beneath you.

        •  A pregnant female (none)
          of any age is an emancipated female in most states.

          A pregnant female makes any and all decisions regarding her prenatal and natal treatment as well as the postnatal treatment of the baby.  Parental rights do not trump a pregnant female's rights to the decision-making regarding her pregnancy.  There is an enormous contradiction, however, when it comes to abortion, primarily because of religious nuts like yourself.  In reality, there is no clinical difference and the female minor should be entitled to make both the decisions in maintaining a pregnancy as well as the decision to terminate a pregnancy.  

          Pregnancy is the only condition that confers legal emancipation in such a fashion.

          You really do need to get your facts straight.  You reveal yourself to not only be a lazy thinker but also a misinformed one at that.  

          Jesus + Fetus = SCOTUS

          by lightiris on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 08:24:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are we allowing (none)
            Facts to intrude on your analysis of the issues at hand, now? Because if so, I have some bad news:

            http://childsupportguidelines.com/...

            Scroll to: Becoming pregnant or having a child as emancipation.

            •  Nice try. (none)
              The emancipation conferred by pregnancy does not rise to the level of legal emancipation noted in your link.  She is emancipated for the purposes of decision-making regarding her pregnancy, not legally emancipated in the in the full sense.

              If you had read the American Academy of Pediatrics position paper on this, you'd know the difference.  

              Jesus + Fetus = SCOTUS

              by lightiris on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 09:14:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, no, I understand the distinction (none)
                And I understand that in many jurisdictions, that is the rule (which is to say, jurisdictions that do not have parental consent laws. It seems circular to argue this way to me, but hey.)

                Your point, however, in the context of your argument, was that the act of getting pregnant confers upon a minor the right to make all the decisions that emancipation confers, thus clearly establishing that there is something unique about pregnancy and abortion, from a legal standpoint.

                Instead, what you've proved is that some states have made a political decision to eschew parental consent laws, and have circumvented normal parental responsibility uniquely in the case of abortion through these statutes.

                •  No, no, no (none)
                  My point is that a pregnancy female has historically had the right to make decisions about her pregnancy--even in the "olden days"--because of the exceptional status pregnancy confers.  This has been medically accepted practice and still is.  I am merely pointing out the inconsistency in restricting a female's rights if she decides to terminate her pregnancy.  I maintain that she should have the right to control the decision-making of both without parental inferference--as has been historically the case with pregnant females irrespective of their ages.    

                  Jesus + Fetus = SCOTUS

                  by lightiris on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 10:48:32 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  American Academy of Pediatrics (none)
    Anyone who is concerned or has questions about parental consent laws and judicial bypass should read and become familiar with the AAP's position on this issue.  

    Here is the link to the American Academy of Pediatric's position paper.

    Pregnancy in females aged 15 and under represents a mortal risk exceeding the risk of abortion.  In other words, it is safer for girls to have abortions if they are 15 years and younger than it is to carry a pregnancy to term and deliver.

    Moreover, the AAP does not support mandatory parental notification laws because they hurt girls in substantial and life-threatening ways.  Judicial bypass provides virtually no relief and is a further burden for girls who need clinical care.  

    Jesus + Fetus = SCOTUS

    by lightiris on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 06:42:56 AM PST

    •  News (none)
      Given that the risk of mortality is several orders of magnitude higher for delivering a child than having an abortion for women of all ages, I fail to see how this is either news or relevant - since by this rationale, all pregnancies should be aborted.
      •  you fail to see it because you are (none)
        incapable of higher thinking.  Go back to red state and continue your delusional thinking.  
      •  Actually (none)
        Given that the risk of mortality is several orders of magnitude higher for delivering a child than having an abortion for women of all ages,

        This is factually inaccurate.  

        Dolt.  

        Jesus + Fetus = SCOTUS

        by lightiris on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 08:12:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  When insults trump facts. (none)
          Whatever you may think of my intellectual abilities, I do not invent facts out of thin air:

          http://www.guttmacher.org/...

          Scroll to, "Health Benefits of Abortion."

          If that research from the AGI, which is the most respected gatherer of abortion data in the United States, is unsatisfactory to you, let me know and I can find material from, say, the CDC if you would prefer.

          It is, quite simply, a fact that carrying any pregnancy to full-term is approximately ten times riskier than having an abortion at any stage. This is a point which is conceded by both pro-life and pro-choice advocates:

          http://www.womenscommunitymedicalclinic.com/...

          http://www.drkline.com/...

          http://www.rffm.org/...

          There is some discussion about whether abortion increases the long-term incidence of breast-cancer, or miscarriages in future pregnancies. But in terms of the actual pregnancy itself, I don't know of a single study anywhere that would show that abortion is more dangerous, or even nearly AS dangerous, as carrying a child to full-term.

          •  No one disputes that (none)
            legal abortion is statistically safer than childbirth.  My factual quibble with you is your use of "orders of magnitude," especially in view of the fact that the stats you cite reflect women in the United States/developed nations where the standard of clinical medicine is high and not the world's female population in general.

            As a strident supporter of safe and legal abortion for all females at any age, I highly respect the work of Guttmacher.  I'm pleased you view their work as valuable, as well.

            That said, however, unsafe, septic, or nonclinical abortion carries a risk of death roughly 1 in 150 in Africa to 1 in 1900 in Eastern Europe.  Attended childbirth, by comparison, however, carries a risk of death roughly 1 in 3700 in North America and 1 in 8,700 in Swizerland.  Risk of mortality is highly dependent upon where the woman lives, the legality of abortion, and quality and availability of clinical medicine.

            Clearly safe and legal abortion should be protected here and supported in nations abroad if one cares about maternal morbidity and mortality.  

            Jesus + Fetus = SCOTUS

            by lightiris on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 09:01:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Given that (none)
              My post was specifically about the abortion laws in the United States, I thought it appropriate to consider United States statistics.

              Now, this is a liberal place of discussion, so I won't come over here and poke you with Pointy Sticks about why I disagree with the conclusion you draw from the evidence - but I do want to ensure that at the very least we are operating from the same set of facts.

              P.S. Generally, in a non-scientific discussion, "order of magnitude" is defined thusly:

              order of magnitude

              n 1: a degree in a continuum of size or quantity; "it was on the order of a mile"; "an explosion of a low order of magnitude"

              However, even if we are using the scientific definition, the overwhelming consensus is that childbirth is more than 10 times more dangerous than abortion, thus placing them in different orders of magnitude.

              •  I'm glad, then, (none)
                that you understand and appreciate that the only condition under which abortion is safer than childbirth is when abortion is legal.  

                There's orders of magnitude of hope for you yet.  

                Jesus + Fetus = SCOTUS

                by lightiris on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 10:50:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not so much (none)
                  Really, what you view as a minus, I view as a plus. Kind of the whole reason certain acts are criminalized is to disincentivize them by making them dangerous, and attaching potentially negative consequences to them.
                  •  Ah, yes, (none)
                    here it is at last:  the punish "bad" women portion of your show.  

                    Your "plus," the death and maiming of millions of women and the suffering of their existing children as a result of unsafe abortion reveals your depravity like no other statement you've made here today.   The belief that "negative consequences"  "disincentivizes" women from getting abortions suggests two things:  you are pathetically ignorant about what motivates women to seek abortions and you are pathologically driven to seek hegemony over women's reproductive organs.  Big surprise.  

                    Jesus + Fetus = SCOTUS

                    by lightiris on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 12:44:20 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Your knowledge (none)
                      Of my life story is positively shocking. I simply must learn to use Google better, apparently, so that I may discover these things about myself.

                      I could care less about the reproductive organs of any woman or what she does with them, so long as it does not involve the systematic execution of 1.1 million unborn children in this country every year.

                      Truly, I am diabolical for even expressing such a desire. Back to the cave with the rest of my fellow cro-magnons I shall slink.

                      •  Google isn't necessary, you see. (none)
                        Your own words belie you; no amount of searching, Google or otherwise, is necessary.  

                        Worse, however, you malign Cro-Magnon by claiming association with them.  Neanderthal is more like it.  You'd do well to worry about your own reproduction and less about the reproduction--or lack of it--of women whose lives have nothing to do with you.    

                        And you insult the millions of motherless children in this world with your claims of concern for your so-called unborn children.  If you were concerned about children, your priority would be the living, breathing ones whose mothers have died from unsafe abortions.  But, alas, you are concerned about women's uteri, your protestations about "unborn children" is merely code for such.  

                        Now off to the cave with you; a rock with your name on it awaits.    

                        Jesus + Fetus = SCOTUS

                        by lightiris on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 01:40:04 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  The links to figures don't back up your assertions (none)
              In Africa, there is a 1 in 16 chance that a mother will die from having a baby.

              In Africa, there is a 1 in 150 chance that a woman will die from an unsafe abortion.

              Even an unsafe abortion is 10 times safer than childbirth in Africa.

              In Asia, there is a 1 in 65 chance of death as a result of pregnancy and childbirth.

              In Asia(excluding developed countries), there is less than a 1 in 250 chance of death as a result of an unsafe abortion.

              In All Developed Countries, there is a 1 in 1800 chance that a woman will die as a result of having a baby, and in North America, that number is closer to 1 in 3700.

              In Developed Countries, like the United States, the risk of dying from an abortion is about 10% of what the risk is with a full term pregnancy.

              So, in ALL areas of the world, it is statistically a very significant difference.

              You tried comparing apples and oranges. I am not sure why you did so. He was right. Not only is it safer for young women and girls to have abortions than to have full term pregnancy,  but it is safer for all women, on average, in any part of the world, to have an abortion than to carry a pregnancy to term.

              ...but not your own facts.

              by slouise217 on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:05:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I promised to leave this discussion, but (none)
                I am glad to see that some folks are capable of discerning that the mortality figures of everything to do with the availability of things like basic antibiotics, and nothing to do with the legality of abortion.
        •  Did you misread what he said? (none)
          The facts are that it is more dangerous, for all women, to carry a pregnancy to term than it is to have an abortion.

          Pregnancy is a life-threatening condition, at times, and at other times it simply complicates life and the health of the mother.

          Abortion complications can be dangerous, and even deadly.

          However, looking at all women who become pregnant, they have a greater statistical chance of a negative impact on their health from carrying a baby full term than undergoing an abortion.

          Leon's point was that it is not simply young girls that are more at risk from full term pregnancy than from abortion - it is all women, and he is correct.

          ...but not your own facts.

          by slouise217 on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 08:35:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understood his point. (none)
            Perhaps "orders of magnitude" mean different things to different people.  Additionally, only safe and legal abortions are safer for women than childbirth.  See my post below.  

            Jesus + Fetus = SCOTUS

            by lightiris on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 09:09:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site