Here are a couple of comments from anti-abortion activists that is simply mind boggling, meaning I don't have a clue as to what they are saying.
Quote:
In a House hearing on Capitol Hill this week, an anti-abortion rights advocate said ending a pregnancy isn't an abortion when it involves a 10-year-old rape victim.
The comment stunned the Democratic lawmaker questioning her.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines abortion as a "medical intervention provided to individuals who need to end the medical condition of pregnancy."
"Wait, it would not be an abortion?" said Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif.
Catherine Glenn Foster, head of the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, told Swalwell she didn't think it was.
"If a 10-year-old with her parents made the decision not to have a baby that was a result of a rape, if a 10-year-old became pregnant as a result of rape, and it was threatening her life then that's not an abortion," Foster told the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
|
Here there is only one parent and the rapist seems to be the said parent's live in BF.
And this:
Quote:
Around the same time as Foster's testimony, the top lawyer for the National Right to Life Committee, had a decidedly different take.
In a phone interview with Politico, James Bopp said the girl should have been forced to carry the pregnancy to term under model legislation he wrote last June as NRLC's general counsel. That legislation is being used by states to adopt abortion restrictions.
"She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child," Bopp is quoted as saying.
Bopp did not respond to requests for an interview.
|
....."we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child".
So what is the benefit of carrying an unwanted child to term, especially by a 10yr old?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/case...ry?id=86814201