|Via Amnesty International's facebook page|
There's something fishy about this.
I don't dispute that a 10-year-old could be pregnant from rape; that, sadly, is something we have seen before. What's fishy is the timeline.
By now, the unborn baby is 22 weeks old. A recent study in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine found that 22-week-old babies can survive outside the womb when given proper medical attention. Of course, it's better for the baby to be born at term; the more premature, the greater the likelihood of disabilities. But if the girl's life is actually in danger and the baby has a chance, wouldn't the obvious solution be to induce birth?
An abortion on a pregnancy this advanced is performed by lethal injection to the unborn baby's heart, after which the mother goes into labor to expel the corpse. That means this poor 10-year-old is going to experience labor* no matter what happens. For that, and for all the trauma he has inflicted on her, I hope her stepfather rots in hell.
The only question is whether she will give birth to a live baby or a dead one. But Amnesty International doesn't even consider the idea of allowing this baby to take a breath. They're just using this case to push a "safe abortion" agenda. I'm afraid the days when Amnesty International actually stood up for human rights are long gone.
What would have happened to this girl if she had lived in a country with the "right" to "safe abortion," like the United States? We don't have to guess. We already know, because it has happened over and over again: her stepfather would have taken her to a Planned Parenthood for an early abortion and some birth control pills, Planned Parenthood wouldn't have asked any questions, and the sexual abuse would be ongoing.
*or possibly, if doctors deem it safer, a C-section