Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They asked 3 weeks ago, too late. It would have been more of a danger to her than giving birth by cesarean. It was a good decision based on the timing. If it was denied at less than 6 months it would be a poor decision. I will add that the parents views are pretty pathetic. It was an uncle who raped this child yet they are ashamed of the child and the baby which is why they wanted to abort.
Status:
"This too shall pass. But possibly, like a kidney stone."
(set 25 days ago)
36,130 posts, read 18,424,220 times
Reputation: 51237
What a misleading headline.
How horrid would it be to purposely kill a 32 week otherwise healthy baby? That baby is completely into the "viability" stage, now at 35 weeks, and was probably completely viable at 32.
There's no word about charges against the rapist in the article.
How horrid would it be to purposely kill a 32 week otherwise healthy baby? That baby is completely into the "viability" stage, now at 35 weeks, and was probably completely viable at 32.
There's no word about charges against the rapist in the article.
IT may have been , how would you have headed it.... maybe I should have types.. Ten year tiny body of ten year old isnt meant to carry baby full term.. hows that. it seems her family want nothing to do with the baby and have told the girl she had a stone in her stomach that had to be removed.. awful thing to happen but seems its quite common in India.. How can they have decided that a ten year old girls body was able to carry this baby, shouldnt this have been considered before the baby..
The Press Trust of India news agency said the girl was unaware that she had delivered a child and the parents had decided to put the baby up for adoption.
Her parents have told her that she had a stone in her stomach and had undergone surgery to remove it, PTI said.
India has a grim record of sexual assaults on minors with 20,000 cases of rape or sexual assaults reported in 2015, according to government data. Im still in shock at their decision not to abort, a childs body isnt meant to carry a baby far less carry it full term...
Last edited by dizzybint; 08-17-2017 at 11:01 AM..
They asked 3 weeks ago, too late. It would have been more of a danger to her than giving birth by cesarean. It was a good decision based on the timing. If it was denied at less than 6 months it would be a poor decision. I will add that the parents views are pretty pathetic. It was an uncle who raped this child yet they are ashamed of the child and the baby which is why they wanted to abort.
How can it possibly be right..... The placenta will take nutrition from the mother, who really is a child, and needs nutrition herself... how can all these Pro lifers be shouting about the baby when the mother is no more than a baby herself..
How can it possibly be right..... The placenta will take nutrition from the mother, who really is a child, and needs nutrition herself... how can all these Pro lifers be shouting about the baby when the mother is no more than a baby herself..
Could not agree more! Shame on the parents for not taking the child in when she was just a couple months along.
Status:
"This too shall pass. But possibly, like a kidney stone."
(set 25 days ago)
36,130 posts, read 18,424,220 times
Reputation: 51237
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzybint
IT may have been , how would you have headed it.... maybe I should have types.. Ten year tiny body of ten year old isnt meant to carry baby full term.. hows that. it seems her family want nothing to do with the baby and have told the girl she had a stone in her stomach that had to be removed.. awful thing to happen but seems its quite common in India.. How can they have decided that a ten year old girls body was able to carry this baby, shouldnt this have been considered before the baby..
The Press Trust of India news agency said the girl was unaware that she had delivered a child and the parents had decided to put the baby up for adoption.
Her parents have told her that she had a stone in her stomach and had undergone surgery to remove it, PTI said.
India has a grim record of sexual assaults on minors with 20,000 cases of rape or sexual assaults reported in 2015, according to government data. Im still in shock at their decision not to abort, a childs body isnt meant to carry a baby far less carry it full term...
I think the way CNN titled it was perfect, actually. "Ten year old rape victim gives birth". It's a horrible story, which IMHO would not have been made better by delivering and killing a 35 week baby.
I think the way CNN titled it was perfect, actually. "Ten year old rape victim gives birth". It's a horrible story, which IMHO would not have been made better by delivering and killing a 35 week baby.
Status:
"This too shall pass. But possibly, like a kidney stone."
(set 25 days ago)
36,130 posts, read 18,424,220 times
Reputation: 51237
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzybint
what if it had killed the mother aged ten..
I think that's one of the things that were looked at by the medical team. Was the mother's health at risk? I don't know any specifics obviously but it sounds like it was determined that at 35 weeks, she was healthy enough to deliver a full term baby, which she did by c-section at 38 weeks.
It seems unlikely that adding an additional 3 weeks on to a 35 week old pregnancy would cause unexpected health risks, and I would bet she was monitored closely.
What would you have done, honestly? Deliver the baby forcefully at 35 weeks and then done the medical interventions required to help it survive? Deliver it and kill it? Kill it and then deliver it?
There really aren't any great answers here. This is a tragedy. BTW, I used to teach childbirth and I tough an entire class of 12 year olds once. 7 12 year olds, many of whom got pregnant when they were 11.
And the rule of thumb with young pregnancies is "the younger the mom, the older the dad". So a 13 year old is likely to have been impregnated by a man in his late 20's, where a 17 year old is likely to be impregnated by a similar age boy.
And the rule of thumb with young pregnancies is "the younger the mom, the older the dad".
So a 13 year old is likely to have been impregnated by a man in his late 20's, where a 17 year old is likely to be impregnated by a similar age boy.
I now want to throw up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
