Wednesday, July 13, 2022
I appears that...
I looks like there is a suspect in the rape of a 10 year old in Ohio. We still don't know if it's the same 10 year old from what I've seen. The most interesting factor so far is that the guy in question is an illegal immigrant. We don't know what his past criminal history is, so I won't speculate on that. Of course this is just one more story that will disappear because the left wanted the 10 year old rape vicitim who had to drive a couple of hours for an abortion as the exception that would underpin the unlimited abortions narrative. Now they have an illegal immigrant who raped a 10 year old story, and we don't talk about how this guy shouldn't have even been in the country to rape this girl. Or how a background check might have shown reasons why he shouldn't have been in the country.
It's all good. The girl got rid of her baby, Ohio is evil, and there's nothing else to see here.
The spin on this one is interesting. The reality is that when Biden used this example, many people rightly pointed out that the story was an unconfirmed (single sourced) story that was being treated with more gravitas than unverified (single sourced) stories are. The OH AG said that he was unaware of any case specific case being pursued at the time he was asked that matched the information know at the time.
Just to be clear, if this guy is convicted of raping this 10 year old, there is no punishment too severe for him. Castration is the minimum, and a sppedy appointment for the next execution is preferred. I suspect that there'll be some folks who'll push for him to be deported, because setting him free in Guatamala is the appropriate punishment for him.
So Jill, what kind of taco is this guy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
You're sick. The racism bug is burrowing into your soul
Stop.
Be better.
I was actually surprised when they came out with "We arrested someone for it." Seemed like all anyone cared about was "She couldn't kill the baby." No one ever made the case that her life was at risk. No one pointed out that even Ohio allows abortion in the case threat to the mother's life. And, up until now, no one seemed to care that there was a rape of a 10-year-old. I'm just tired of those controlling the narrative. (Oh, and I'm sick to death of that Jill Biden story. "She's a racist!" Or maybe she just had a delicious breakfast taco and, without connecting the racist "taco" stereotype with the people she was talking about, she simply said, "I like these. They're complex and delicious and these people are complex and delicious." The assumption of "racist" is just over the top at this point. No one is innocent until proven guilty today.)
Dan,
I'm not sure that pointing out the reported facts of the case actually qualify as "racism". I know that the reality that the stance held by you and your party regarding border security possibly played a role in this little girl getting raped, but throwing out the meaningless "racism" bullshit is just a way to divert from the reality.
The fact that I literally wrote an entire post dedicated to correcting what I'd written earlier immediately after new facts were reported unlike many doesn't seem to have penetrated yet.
Stan,
I'll admit that there's a cynical side of me that suspects that they cut a deal with this guy in order to shift the narrative. Although, I'm not sure that highlighting the border security failures of the recent past makes a lot of sense. At this point, until we see a conviction, I'll probably harbor at least some doubt. Especially if there is a plea bargain that let's him off lightly.
I agree that the narrative was all about pushing her "need" for an abortion, and the inconvenience of driving a couple of hours to get one. She literally got everything "she wanted", within a couple of days. I haven't seen any claims that she was in danger physically, or that a delay of a day or two increased her theoretical risk.
You also correctly point out that the Dr. (who is an advocate for increased abortions, which isn't a conflict of interest), who is bound by law to report the rape, seems to have chosen to skip that responsibility and involve the media.
Why exactly is making this 10 year old's story front page in the national media helping the girl? It's not like she was denied anything, why go public?
I'm absolutely tires of the prevailing narratives controlled and pushed by the MSM and the left. Unfortunately, it forces responses that are more about countering the narrative, than dealing with the issue.
As far as the Biden/taco story, I've got mixed feelings.
On the one hand it's one more example of the double standard of the MSM and those on the left that allows DFL politicians a free pass on all sorts of remarks that would be considered "racist" from anyone else. It's also an example of just how bad the Biden administration is at communicating. Obviously someone thought the taco analogy was a god choice. I guess I see it being a thing less because of the remark itself, and more because of the double standard it highlights.
As we see above, "racism/racist" now means everything and anything. Which of course renders it meaningless. It's simply the latest verbal bludgeon the left uses to stop any conversation they don't like.
I don't know if I've heard that the abortionist didn't report the rape, but only that no one could find any evidence the story was true. The vile want us all to acknowledge that such things happen in order to promote the notion that denial of the "right" to murder one's own child is harmful to the "mother" (hard to use that term in relation to anyone willing to murder her own child). Somehow, thinking about that innocent life about to be snuffed...having any compassion for it and desire to see it's life protected...equates to forcing some unholy situation upon the pregnant. How cruel to encourage a woman to have compassion for her own child and do everything in her power...even putting herself at risk...for the sake of another. I mean, "no greater love" and all, but we'll ignore that principle in favor of unjustly taking a life rather than burden nine months of one's own.
Art,
If the abortionist actually is a Dr as has been reported, then they are mandated to report the rape. As far as I've seen there's no indication that it was reported. Based on in interview by Telemundo, it appears as if the rapist is somehow connected to the child's mother, and that there might have been (be) some reasons to try to protect him.
While I agree that it stretches credulity to think that a mother would end the life of their unborn child, I'm not sure that expecting a 9/10 year old who's been raped to be able to be capable of a reasonable, mature, thought process regarding this incident is appropriate either. I'm torn between empathy and sorrow for this girl who's been raped, and concern for the life of the unborn child. I'm clearly not wise enough to balance those two and come up with the right answer. My default is to lean into grace toward both of the victims, and acknowledge that these incredibly rare cases are just that. There's a reason why we don't make law and policy based on things that are incredibly rare, because they don't lend themselves to simplistic answers.
I, too, am sympathetic to the girl's plight. But the damage is done and I can't see how she benefits from compounding it with an abortion. Physically, it might be more risky to proceed with the pregnancy. But risky doesn't mean impossible...not by a long shot. I can see donations flooding in to any fund established for her care, and thus, her care would likely be extremely good. That care can extend to any psychological treatment which might be appropriate for her specific situation and I would expect there would be no shortage of people stepping up in that arena as well.
What I can't see is jumping to the notion that this child is must not be encouraged to do the right thing for so brief a time in her life lest she somehow suffer mightily as a result, as if that's the only or most likely outcome. Who is asking the child how she wants to proceed, and who would dare mention abortion at all until it can be confirmed she's not in any way capable of enduring the pregnancy? Again, it is presented as if it that's a given.
My empathy for the child does not see abortion as improving her situation at all. We have no info regarding her physical condition or that of the unborn which could possibly present abortion as the only and most necessary option for her. My hope is that if abortion is forced upon her (I don't even know the status of this story at this point, so I'm speaking as if no move has been made in any direction)...because that is what we seem to be seeing taking place...that there is long term care for her emotionally. I would hate to find down the road a young woman who is psychologically damaged by the knowledge her child was destroyed for her sake. Abortion proponents never think about guilt experienced by women who submit to it.
The rape is more than bad enough. There's no way abortion can't compound the negative effect on the child. I think if she has the child, she'll grow up with far less self-doubt and self-reproach often felt by victims of rape. I think it will more than likely leave her to believe some good came of the harm done to her.
continuing...
Vermin like Dan choose to indulge in inflammatory rhetoric in supporting the murder of the unborn. (Indeed, they're immoral enough to regard what I just said as inflammatory despite it being the unvarnished truth of what abortion is.) Saying those like me want to "force the child to give birth"...or words to that effect...is akin to saying, "force her to do the right thing", except they regard truth and light as lies and darkness because it's too inconvenient. For sure, to carry a child to term following a rape is about as inconvenient as it gets, but it is the right thing.
We have laws in various parts of this country which hold people accountable for choosing against doing the right thing. The mother of this girl could be one such person if she was aware of the abuse of her child and did nothing. Criminal negligence is hold accountable someone who chose not to do the right thing. Such laws "force" people to do the right thing. "Forcing" this 10 year old to bring her unborn to term is to see her do the right thing, but creeps like Dan disparage anyone who would dare suggest any rape victim should do the right thing by their child. Wanted or not, the unborn brought about by rape is still the rape victim's child, as well as the rapist's child. I see them both as obliged to the care for that child, at least for the subsequent nine months. Obligation forces us all at various times in our lives. Pretending one is wrong for expecting another meet their obligations, and calling that "forcing" the person is absurd and just another lie from merchants of death like Dan.
Art,
I guess I'm uncomfortable with all of the assumptions you're making. In a vacuum, with an adult, I'd be more sympathetic to those assumptions. I'm simply not prepared to make assumptions about how it will or won't affect the child. I'll grant you that a go fund me campaign would probably have raised ample funds to care for both children and that there would be plenty of families who'd gladly adopt the baby. I agree that from my perspective that those would be great options. But I'm not sure about the actual risk of physical, mental, and emotional harm that carrying a pregnancy to term would cause. Given the fact that it's exceedingly rare for 9/10 year olds to become pregnant, it seems reasonable to conclude that their bodies haven't matured enough to be able to carry the child without harm. The reality is that I don't know (I know I sound like Dan), and that in these very limited circumstances I'm personally inclined to extend grace to a child who's in an unimaginably horrible situation. As I've pointed out in other contexts, there's no way that a child of this age can even give informed consent to either option. I'm personally ok with allowing exceptions in these exceedingly rare circumstances, and leaving the moral/spiritual consequences in God's hands.
The biggest problem I have with this whole story is that it was a blatant attempt by Biden and the left to use this girl's tragic circumstance as a way to manipulate the narrative to support their goal of unlimited/unrestricted abortion. My fear is that the right will try to use this tragedy for it's own political ends. In either case, the best interests of the victims are going to get lost in political bullshit.
In general I agree with you about responsibility and agency. In over 99% of all abortions the questions of responsibility and agency are clear. The woman who is pregnant has already made multiple choices that would have prevented the pregnancy, and has multiple other choices besides abortion.
However, in this @1% of cases, the responsibility/agency question is less clear and should be considered more carefully.
If the mother knew about the rape and did nothing, should she be prosecuted, absolutely. Obviously the scumbag should be harshly treated. No matter what the decision regarding abortion, the 10 year old girl's life has been shattered, and I don't see how using her as a political football and putting her tragedy in the public spotlight helps in any way. Obviously the Dr, Biden, The MSM, and the left led the way in exploiting her tragedy, how about if we on the right choose compassion instead of exploitation?
Are there legitimate things to discuss regarding how this case was handled and reported, sure. But I see no value in rehashing a decision that was already made.
Given our laws regarding age of consent, and the like, no matter what happened this little girl was going to be "forced" into a choice. She's legally unable to consent to ANY medical treatment and legally the decision belongs to the parent. It's absurd to treat this girl as if she was an adult and with the maturity to make a reasonable, informed decision about this.
If you want to place blame in this circumstance, place it on the adults in her life.
I'm well aware of who should be blamed, and it ain't the kid.
I don't expect that the kid should be making any decision in this case. Were the law be such that there is no exception which allows abortion, there'd clearly be no decision for her to make with regard to murdering or delivering the unborn. But that isn't the case. Yet, there should still be the culturally held position that we just don't kill innocent people and one is noble to endure whatever a situation imposes in order to ensure an innocent isn't killed. That's the honorable position and honor has no value these days. More's the pity.
It's a moot point given the abortion took place from what I understand. But the decision will continue to be rehashed with every occurrence of rape resulting in pregnancy. For the left, this one had the added bonus of a 10 year old victim, but age doesn't really matter here. If a female can get pregnant, that female can deliver. If a given female can't naturally bring a child to term, the "mother's" age is irrelevant, but so is the demand that abortion must be available. The science tells us this.
With every case, be it an adult, a child, a rape...whatever...it will be exploited as if there is some legit privacy issue upon which government infringes by denying the practice. That's bullshit and it always was. No one has the right to murder in private and there's no legit reason to abort. Ever. We can provide for the possibility, but to pretend we're honest while suggesting that such possibilities are really likely is not a culture of honorable people. Such makes me glad the bulk of my life is behind me. I don't want to live given what's coming from a culture which allows what's so clearly so heinous and unnecessary.
So what about the young girl? From what I've gathered thus far, that she's still under the protection of her mother is a far greater risk to her than carrying that child could ever have been. The mother didn't press charges against the rapist. It's possible she never would have had the girl not gotten pregnant and attracted all the attention from baby-murdering assholes exploiting the case in order to continue murdering babies.
But it's not about wondering how she'll fare. With proper guidance and counseling, I insist she'd be better off carrying the child as long as her young body could tolerate it. Now, she'll come to find she was used for this purpose and an innocent died needlessly. I guess we can hope she grows up to be a hard-hearted bitch like most pro-abortion women are. But she could grieve for what I hope is a long and otherwise happy life. That would not be good.
Compassion for only one of the two victims is not compassion at all in my mind. I won't assume what the future holds, but pretending abortion was the best option is just bending the knee to the murderers who have no compassion at all. They lie in pretending they care for this girl, as they're only exploiting her to protect their ability to abort for convenience.
There are many who specialize in difficult pregnancies. Medical professionals who insist abortion is never necessary. No doubt there are more than few who've seen situations like this and are well versed in providing care which results in a positive outcome for both young mother and child. But even when that isn't possible, they still deliver the child and if such is the case that the child dies, it's not a willful act of murder as all abortion is.
However, it is my understanding that abortion requires more prep which is more threatening to the well being of the mother than delivering the unborn could ever be. In the simplest terms, one could go in today and have their three month pregnancy delivered more quickly and safely than an abortion, which requires prep time of two or three days, during which complications from that prep can result. Said another way, the time between going in for the abortion the abortion itself puts the mother at risk in a way a cesarean doesn't.
I truly hope this child doesn't suffer from the choice imposed upon her by selfish adults. It will be a miracle if she's able to endure any adverse effects and still grow up to be a morally sound and well adjusted woman. The activists have made that less likely to be the case.
Art,
It seems like you're making my point. This event was a tragedy on multiple levels, and I don't think we know the extent of it yet. My problem is with the reality that the left is trying to use this tragedy to expand abortion access way beyond the circumstances of this case. They're trying to use this (less than 1%) as an excuse to legalize the other 99%+ of abortions. Basing law or policy on exceptions is simply a bad way to make law and policy. In 2020 there were 930,160 abortions in the US. If we were to ban abortions EXCEPT for cases of rape, incest, and risk to the life of the mother, that number would drop to less than 10,000. If there's a political compromise that prevents more than 90% of abortions, I can live with that as a step in the right direction. Using this tragedy to expand abortion is simply an absolutely hideous political strategy.
I'm not suggesting a lack of compassion for both victims, but the reality is that one of the victims was sacrificed by it's grandmother before anyone ever knew about this situation. Therefore, it only seems reasonable to focus our compassion on the only victim available, and using her as a pawn in a political argument doesn't seem particularly compassionate.
The risks of harm from abortion are well known, and deliberately kept from women who only hear one option. The reality is that this particular little girl is not likely to get the support she needs as it appears that her mother is trying to protect her rapist.
I understand your position, and I don't disagree philosophically with it. I'm simply choosing to acknowledge that this is a problem that is going to be addressed in legislatures and courts, not ivory towers. The reality is that the pro-life side has the ability to make huge strides legislatively over the next few years. The pro-abortion position being advanced is so extreme (taxpayer funded, unlimited, unrestricted, abortions up to and past birth), and so out of touch with most people's views, that we have a huge opportunity. To squander that by simply adopting the other extreme position (zero abortions for any reason) simply ensures the status quo of almost a million abortions per year.
I simply realize that striving for the perfect, carries the risk of losing something better than we have now. I further would suggest that if we can get significant limits (12-15 weeks, rape, incest, left of the mother) in place, that there are going to be a whole lot of people who are going to realize that reasonable restrictions on abortion are not the end of the world, which changes the dialogue around the issue in our favor as well.
Don't get me wrong. I will grudgingly accept any reduction which results from better legislation than what allowed the unconscionable numbers of abortion thus far. Indeed, we should jump on such legislation should we have the opportunity to enact it. But in doing so, we can never leave it at that, and there must be more done to alter hearts and minds away from that option.
Art,
I see no reason to grudgingly accept anything that moves things closer to the goal. At a minimum, if it's possible to reduce the number of abortions, that allows the pro life groups to be more effective in persuasion of those who seek abortion.
Because achieving the goal is what's important. So yeah, I'll grudgingly accept that which gets us closer without achieving it, knowing it can result in never getting there. The fewer infants murdered, the better. But that's no where near as good as no infants ever being murdered again. That's all I'm saying as well as the importance of never letting up until the goal is achieved.
The problem is that we live in a fallen, sinful, imperfect world. The reality is that we'll never get to zero abortions, zero murders, zero rapes, etc. I guess we can choose to advocate for what's achievable and makes the situation better, or we can lament the fact that it's not perfect. To use a football analogy, it's like complaining that every drive isn't a 1 play 80 yard TD pass, instead of a 12 play drive that eats clock.
I'm saying that failing to acknowledge and work for the achievable is better than lamenting the failure to reach the unachievable.
There's no scenario by which reaching for the stars won't result in touching far higher than before. Thus, to back off from the pursuit of perfection because perfection is impossible results in mediocrity at best and failure at worst.
I'm saying that working only for the achievable and being content with that (assuming it is indeed achieved) is not justification for patting ourselves on the back and is never more than a small step in the right direction, which is toward perfection. And when it comes to saving innocent lives, we should never be satisfied. How can we when there are still innocents dying needlessly?
Post a Comment