Even 12 Year Olds Get It

29 comments

This video is of a great little speech given by a very impressive 12 year old girl.  She presented this speech to her class as part of a competition.  And despite some teachers and judges walking out on her and trying to have her disqualified (seriously? omg) – she still managed to win it all in the end.  Congrats to her for standing up for truth! If we could all be so brave.

The video’s not perfect – but she does a pretty dog-gone good job!  Full story here.  Video below.

29 comments Add comment

Phil February 18, 2009 at 11:47 pm

Very bright girl! Although I do take issue with the rape/incest stat she leverages off of. i don;t care if it’s just 1% – it happens. One baby born by a woman who is raped by her father is one baby too many, I am sorry.

“you were raped?”

“yes”

“how terrible. well guess what else you win?”

“what”

“Not only do you get a lietime of misery and emotional distress from the act of rape itself but you also MUST have that incestuous baby as a further reminder for the rest of your days on this earth of this horrible event which ruined your life forever”

“*sobs*” (for life)

I am all for 99% of all abortions going away but that 1% just kills me inside…they have to come up with a way to deal with the 1%. And as far as I’m concerned, just saying “it’s ONLY 1%, sheesh” is not the right answer.

Attila February 19, 2009 at 2:55 am

What the hell Phil?! You are way off line here! Born after rape or not, it is still a human being! If the mother won’t keep the baby, well then let her give the baby up for adoption!!

1 percent! If you were 99 percent good in your life, and “just” 1 percent a murderer, well all of your 99 percent goodness goes down the gutter! And you will pay for that murder when the Time comes!

Kari February 19, 2009 at 4:22 am

Phill,

I have spoken with and listened to many women’s stories on abortions after a rape. You would not believe the numbers of women who stated that the child who grew as a result of that event, helped them to heal from the trauma of the rape. For those who aborted those children, the statistics this girl quoted apply, if not in a greater degree, because they also deal with the rape itself. I hope also you make yourself aware, if you’re not already aware, that great compassion exists in the pro-life camp for women who are in a situation that would compel them to abort a child. No such compassion usually exists on the pro-choice camp, if they deal directly with the women themselves. Believe me, I know. I’ve been in the trenches, and I know. And I am appalled by the lack of compassion and the “stoniness” that exists among abortion facility workers, and by individuals who are staunchly pro-choice because they do not know of the great great compassion that exists among pro-lifers as they aid women who are considering, or who have had, an abortion. Prochoicers deny that many women suffer postabortive stress syndrome, yet prolifers are the only ones who offer counseling for such women. It is still a butchery of women and so few receive the “relief” they are promised for killing their child.
I hope you understand, great compassion exists for women who have been raped from prolifers. It is not heartless as you seem to believe.
God Bless!

Matthew Warner February 19, 2009 at 8:40 am

Yeah, when I said the “video’s not perfect” i was mostly referring to the rape explanation in the video…but for opposite reasons as Phil.

When she seems to make an exception for “rape” then she undermines her pro-life argument quite a bit. Phil’s right…”it’s only 1%” is not the answer.

The answer is that the baby is a human being no matter how it was conceived. And the right to live for that human being is a more fundamental right than any mother’s sobs – no matter how tragic it might be. That’s the reality.

And as others have noted…I don’t see how killing an innocent human being (this baby) is supposed to make the situation better for this tragic situation a mother finds herself in. And in reality – it certainly doesn’t…it makes things worse.

All that aside…we’re sitting here talking about whether or not a mother can justify intentionally killing an innocent human being because of some tragic situation in her life. It’s pretty sick. Yet, that’s where we are…in fact, we’re much worse off than that.

Phil February 19, 2009 at 10:28 am

Like I said 99% of abortion should be outlawed. But I take issue when a) the health of the mother is a SERIOUS, life threatening concern and b) when a woman is raped by her father, an a-hole boyfriend, a thug on the street, anyone.

a)I don’t think a woman should be FORCED BY LAW to risk her own life to save the baby. In a way, that goes against creation (catch-22). Who knows, maybe this woman goes on to produce 5 children if she doesn’t die delivering the first.
b) And as far as rape is concerned, it’s just a difference distribution of morals and compassion. One scenario gives greater compassion for the fetus whereas the other gives greater compassion for the rape victim. It’s a lose-lose IN MY OPINION. I don’t care what studies you look at, when a woman who is raped by her father or by some thug on the street and now she is FORCED to have that baby, I just don’t see how that could be a pleasant thing, no matter how you spin it. And those stats on trauma and the unpleasantness of life would ONLY come to light if woman were suddenly FORCED to birth these children. Of course the ones who decide to have the baby would say it has brought joy to their lives. After all they made the decision.

The real question is how do you weight your compassion and morality. Are you more for the fetus or more for the victim. This is just my opinion. As I said, these are the ONLY two instances that I think there should ever even be a debate about. All other abortions should go away.

Phil February 19, 2009 at 10:51 am

And Attila, you make an excellent point. However, I feel as though by me not having the utmost compassion for a rape victim, or for a mother dying when her wish was not to trade her own life for her baby’s life, “I will pay” for that lack of compassion too! Like I said, I view it as a lose-lose.

Ever notice that human beings tend to feel bad for folks that have been though a lot? That ‘feeling bad’ is compassion. Having genuine care for another human being – recognizing what they have experienced. Seems we have more compassion for those who have had tough times, and rightfully so. They need our added compassion to get through the sour hand they may have been dealt by life.

It is my belief that forcing a ‘victim’ to do something that was a result of that person being ‘victimized’ is not real compassion and I will be judged accordingly for that belief. Like I said, lose-lose. Turning a blind eye on a rape victim by telling her ‘sorry, it’s the law – you must give birth no matter how emotionally painful it may be, or regardless of whether or not you have a high probablility of death’ is no less compassionate then turning a blind eye on the fetus and saying the same thing. Either way I will be judged.

Phil February 19, 2009 at 11:10 am

Wanted to mention too something that is eating at me. And by now you all probably know where I stand on abortion…

Nadia Suleman. The woman has 8 miracles and no one seems to get it. Not once have I heard anyone in the media call this a miracle. She just brought 8 kids into the world! That’s fantastic! Who cares whether or not she did it responsibily. Those things can work themselves out. Responsibility can be learned…achevied…kids are a blessing not an acheviement! I know a number of people who have recently lost children…it’s a tradegy. They should leave this woman alone and treat her with a little dignity rather than reprimanding her. I for one could care less why she did it…the fact of the matter is it’s done, she will find a way, and it should be celebrated not shunned…

Just had to get that off my chest…

Attila February 19, 2009 at 12:41 pm

It’s not the point will she “feel better” after killing an innocent human being, or delivering it.
The point is that she WILL continue her life. The baby must ALSO have the right to continue his/her life.
And God will do the rest (speaking as one who actually believes in these words!).

Marsha February 19, 2009 at 1:38 pm

After reading all this I can only think 1.) I have never been a victim of a violent crime such as this. But, with that being said. I believe with all my heart and soul that god has a purpose for every child formed in every mothers womb. If you believe in HIM then the 1% does not matter it may be tough but its his plan, his decision, we serve him not ourselves. The 1% deserves to live, god created the 1% and god is perfect and good we cannot second guess his decisions. Ever.

I read a great verse today I really loved and wanted to share.

“My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” Psalm 139:15-16

micaela swift February 20, 2009 at 9:51 am

Dear Phil,
I understand your point. But as adults,we need to think “higher” than violent solutions. Maturity…that is what we all need.The above-all point is this baby,who’s rolling,jumping around in his/her mom’s belly,biting his finger,grabbing his foot,feels every movement-emotion etc.He has NO idea of the situation circumstance,but that he needs nourishment,+above all LOVE.We as matured-people need to give every baby what he/she deserves.’Life’ as ur mother did.We were given that chance the”freedom to be born”.Yes there r struggles, yes comes painful remembrances, yes it is always a difficult situation.God didn’t make life a smooth ride..but one to “shape”us into stronger souls! Always remember these words “life is not a ‘joy’ ride unless you allow it to be” God is there…He smoothes the path 4 U,so long as you act in accordance with his plan. And one thing He asks all mothers and fathers in this situation is”Life”
Did you ever read the story of that very young nun who was raped?I forget her name,but she wrote a letter explaining her horrible situation,+how she handed God all her struggles etc.(If someone can help me out here with a link to this letter)
Anyway, The story is incredible,+ so deeply humbling.She is a great example of adhering to God’s plan w/love and joy.
So yes, rape is horrible, but no matter what, the child is there,+ its only an opportunity to come to know Christ better + give this “unplanned” innocent baby, the gift of life + love

Matthew Warner February 20, 2009 at 10:09 am

Micaela – excellent point. We should and must find better remedies for helping rape victims than executing an innocent child. If we truly think that such a violent act somehow makes the situation better then we’ve got our heads in the sand.

And phil, I certainly understand your emotion on the subject and your compassion for these victims. It is a very loving act of compassion. But we can’t force ourselves into thinking this is an either/or situation (either the baby is executed or the mother lives in agony forever). These are false choices.

A pro-life position does not “force” a woman to have a baby. It is very different.

#1) It recognizes that an abortion is not good for ANYONE. And if we truly love this woman then we would not allow her to kill her child and pretend it’s going to numb the pain of her life for her. It won’t.

#2) Being pro-life is first and foremost about PROTECTING the life of an innocent human being – which has a right to live no matter how it was conceived, how anyone feels emotionally about its existence, and independent of whether or not anyone wants it.

The question is do we recognize and protect that right? Or do we, in turn, rape that right from the child? These are the real options on the table. That is the real choice…if you can call that a choice.

Everything else is a distraction. All of these other things muddy the water to where some people can sit around and pretend to justify taking the life of an innocent human being.

Maureen February 20, 2009 at 11:40 am

The rape/pregnancy statistic is irrelevant–but because proabortionists like to bring that up, it gets mentioned. Murder of the innocent is not the solution to an act of violence committed against the mother.
I have a dear devout Catholic friend who is a mother and a grandmother. She herself was adopted when she was an infant. One day she asked her adoptive mother, “Was my mother raped? Is that how you came to adopt me?” The adoptive mother was shocked that she somehow knew the right question to ask–she had figured it out as a child. The answer was “Yes.” Now that woman understands what a phenomenal sacrifice it was for her birth mother, who had been raped, to have given her the gift of life; she is a staunch pro-life advocate and a huge fan of Father Pavone and the Priests for Life!

Charlene February 20, 2009 at 10:13 pm

Micaela, the nun you were asking about may be Sister Lucy Vertrusc. Her letter can be found here: http://www.realclearreligion.com/index_files/9700d87ecef59271ce15f9554f57fe47-436.html

Phil February 21, 2009 at 3:05 pm

Matt, Micaela & Maureen: Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I understand where you all stand on rape, and you make many good points. But no seems to want the address the issue of the Mother’s health.

Just curious – hypothetically speaking, if your sister, mother, wife, best girlfriend was told by her docter that she had a 99% chance of death by delivering her baby, would you still feel that she should be required by law to have the child? And how would you deal with knowing that she begged and pleaded for her own innocent life but was essentially put to death because of a law? I guess what I don’t understand is how this is all about the rights of the innocent child and not about the rights of the innocent Mother. Why should the innocent unborn child’s rights come before that of the innocent Mother? Especially when she could potentially try to bear children again?

And I’m sorry but I doubt that anyone could truthfully tell me that if their wife or sister had virtually a 100% chance of death you would not pursue means to ensure she doesn’t die. To say otherwise, in my opinion, is nothing more than grandstanding. If death were a certainty, you would not stand by and watch your wife die before your very eyes. At least I know I wouldn’t.

Matthew Warner February 21, 2009 at 4:49 pm

Phil – We’re not putting one person’s rights as higher than another. We’re saying they should be treated as equal…because they are.

Of course we should “pursue means” to help save anyone’s life. But when those “means” include killing another human being they go too far. They violate that other person’s right to life.

For the record – I know of people who have faced such situations. And I know (very closely actually) plenty more that would faithfully do the right thing in that situation (as hard as it might be).

Let me answer your hypothetical with a similar hypothetical back to you.

What if your Wife had a rare disease and there was a 99% chance she would die if you did nothing.

Now what if (for whatever reason) your son held the cure within him…but he had to die in order for you to use it and save your wife. So all you had to do was kill your son and your wife’s life would be saved.

Would you do it? Would you kill your son? Should it be legal in this country to make that choice? Is this the kind of “means” we should pursue to ensure the safety of another’s life?

If you say “no, I wouldn’t do it” – I promise I won’t call it “grandstanding.”

Phil February 21, 2009 at 6:48 pm

I’m not sure that is a fair analogy. First of all, it’s not realistic. Woman die every day birthing children (mostly in 3rd world countries) – deaths that could have been prevented if aborted. While I understand the point you are trying to make, i don;t think it’s fair to use such an unrealitic analogy. One scenario is happening every day, the other has never happened and probably will never happen (based on what we know today).

With that said I do appreciate your analogy. Furthermore, I would probably choose my wife’s life. Perhaps she and I could go on to have 5 more children after the unfortunate death of my son. Remember, you are giving me a scenario where I have to choose one person to die…

What a terrible decision to have to make, to choose one life over another. And I’m not sure there is a right answer. But that’s my whole point. I just don’t see how you could say you are 100% sure you have the right answer.

Phil February 21, 2009 at 10:06 pm

One more note: if a doctor tells a Mother-to-be with 100% certainty that she will hemmorage and die if she delivers and she is not allowed to abort does that note violate her own very fundemental right to existance in the same way it violates the right of an unborn fetus?

If she was given no alternative it would be no different than a GOV mandated death sentance. The means to save her life are readily available but it becomes against the law to do so. Is that ensuring the safety of another’s life?

It seems to me that allowing the Mother to die and saving the child is no better solution than allowing the fetus to die and the Mother to live. So how is it that it MUST be one way and can not be the other? Essentially in this scenario it is the same end result – murder either way. Forcing a woman, by law, to death by denying her the right to save her own life is murder just as abortion is murder. If you locked a woman in a room, preventing her from eating and drinking until she dies, is that murder? So wouldn’t passing a law that prevents her from treating her life threatening medical condition be murder as well, when we have the means available to save her life?

I think most Mothers and Fathers would choose to take their own lives to save their babies lives – I know I would. But every human being should be allowed the choice to do so. It shouldn’t be written as law that you MUST give your own life to save another. No GOV should be able to FORCE you to trade your life

Matthew Warner February 22, 2009 at 12:30 am

Phil – my analogy, at least in the aspect of its ethical choice, is entirely realistic. In fact, it happens all the time. Parents choose to KILL(abort) one person(their child) to increase the chance of saving theirs.

And your two situations are not moral equivalents. A mother going forward with a risky pregnancy because she isn’t allowed to murder her baby is not AT ALL murder (as you suggest). Intentionally killing an innocent child because you think that it the mother MAY have died otherwise IS in fact murder. You can not equate the moral implications of each scenario. They are drastically different. Which is entirely my point.

Just because they each may have the same END result does in no way mean they have the same moral implications. (That would mean the ENDS justify the means).

In one case you are murdering another person(the baby) to save your own. In the other no such act takes place. To morally equate these two things, while I see the reason for wanting to, is totally bizarre.

No matter how tragic the situation may be, just because my life may be in danger or at risk of ending does not give me the right to murder another person to save my own life.

You keep coming back to GOV forcing you to trade your life. That’s backwards. The GOV does no such thing. The gov should merely protect the life of every innocent person. Therefore, it is not your option to take another person’s life just to save your own.

Matthew Warner February 22, 2009 at 12:34 am

It’s the same way the GOV is forcing me right now to not murder my neighbor. Are they really forcing me not to murder my neighbor? No. They are protecting the right of my neighbor to not be murdered.

To view “not allowing an innocent baby to be murdered” as FORCING anyone to do anything is very backwards thinking.

Phil February 22, 2009 at 10:21 am

Simple question. By disallowing a woman to save her own life when treatment is readily available are we not violating her basic human rights?

Analogy – a pregnant woman gets bitten by a snake and doctors tell her at the hospital it’s against the law to give you the anti-venom because your baby will die. The woman dies. Is that murder? Did we just violate her most basic human rights to live? Shouldn’t she have the right to choose whether she lives or dies or should doctors have that right? Seems like the exact same argument for the fetus, no?

Forget about the alternative for now. Just a yes/no question. If the GOV takes away the option to abort in instances of certain death for the mother, and has essentially chosen the life of the fetus over the life of the woman, if the woman loses her life, does that violate her basic human rights to existance? Yes or no?

Phil February 22, 2009 at 10:34 am

And in my examples, Matt I did not give you a ‘risky pregnancy’ scenario – I am speaking on terms of certain death, which although may be far less frequent of an occurance, certainly does happen. And by your inconsistent logic you will have just handed these many woman a death sentance, taking away their rights to live while many stand by, disallow them to be treated,and watch them die.

Sorry but watching someone die when they can be saved is the MORAL eqquivelent of killing someone. Help thy neighbor. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise. It’s as if you are trying to read a book on morality. Try to think practically not over-analitically in order to prove a point. Sheesh. Is it moral for a doctor to refuse treatment to save a life? Is it moral to lock someone up and not give them food and water until they die? Is it EVER moral to ever ALLOW someone to die when there is an alternative to death? If you think so, we have a difference of morals not opinions…

Matthew Warner February 22, 2009 at 10:48 am

Phil – you’re overlooking a huge point in your analogy (the snake bite).

The treatment you are saying she “has a right to receive” is in fact itself THE DEATH OF An OTHER HUMAN PERSON.

So NO – she does not have that right to KILL ANOTHER HUMAN PERSON in order to receive treatment at all.

Her right to treat herself and save herself ENDS before it ENDS THE LIFE of another human person (which would violate that person’s rights).

You are arguing that a person has the right to KILL another human person in order to save their own. It doesn’t hold up.

The only way you can try and make that argument is if you want to somehow say that this human person in the womb is either NOT a person or is LESSER of a person. And neither of those arguments hold up either.

I understand your frustration and it’s a tragic situation. But we can not willfully take the life of one innocent person to save another.

You speak of instances where death is “Certain” for the mother if she delivers this baby. Even if that WERE true (i’m not sure any of those things are ever CERTAIN…high probabilities, sure) – you are overlooking something else.

YOu are substituting this high probability of death for one person (the mother) for the true CERTAINTY of death for the baby.

Further, the moral implications of the two choices are miles apart. In one we willfully murder a baby. In the other we heroically and bravely try to save it (even at the risk of ones own life).

Phil February 22, 2009 at 10:56 am

I notice you never answer my questions. Please:

1) is it moral to watch a non-pregnant woman die when she can be treated and saved?

2) is it moral to watch a pregnant woman die when she can be treated and saved?

3) does it not also violate a woman’s constitional right, her human right, to existance by denying her treatment and watching her die?

Please, JUST yes/no to all three. Forget the alternatives for now…

Phil February 22, 2009 at 11:01 am

and by the way, the only reason I speak of ‘grandstanding’ is because when innocent baby is repeated 5,000 times without once using the term innocent mother, it seems to lose it’s luster. There are times when we must use innocent mother also…not sure how one innocent human being can be so favored over another innocent human being.

Again, that is my whole point. It is a terrible tragic situation. One human must live while the other dies. There may be no right answer. But that’s my whole point – how you can be so sure in such an unsure situation is troubling. And I also don’t believe that the GOV should be able to dissallow you to get life saving medical attention.

Matthew Warner February 22, 2009 at 1:09 pm

I answered your question already:

So NO – she does not have that right to KILL ANOTHER HUMAN PERSON in order to receive treatment at all.

But just to clarify to make sure you realize I am answering your questions:

1) & 2) We should always do whatever we can to help somebody in need – especially if they are dying, of course. But in the process of doing so we DO NOT have the right to directly, intentionally KILL another innocent person. You keep acting like I’m trying to DENY treatment for somebody who is dying. I never did this. I’m just suggesting that we shouldn’t intentionally, directly kill more innocent people in the process.

3) Our right to life ends when it goes into the realm of directly, intentionally killing other innocent lives to save it. In other words, we DO NOT have a constitutional right to directly and intentionally kill other innocent people in order to save our own life. And it is certainly mistaken to refer to such an act as “treatment.”

And the reason the emphasis is on the innocent baby is because 1 million of them are killed under this procedure every year in our country alone. And it is a truly pro-life view that recognizes the right to life of BOTH people involved – not just one person (the mother). THey both must be loved and respected. That’s definitely tragic and hard in some of these tough situations.

Matthew Warner February 22, 2009 at 1:16 pm

You keep referring to KILLING A BABY as “medical treatment” for someone else. That isn’t right. There’s something very wrong with that.

Maybe if you presented a more concrete example of this CERTAIN DEATH situation for a mother we could analyze it more clearly. I’m not trying to over-simplify some often very complex moral and ethical issues. But my main point is that we can not intentionally and certainly kill one human being for the sake of maybe saving the life of another.

There ARE however, some complex moral situations where the principle of Double Effect would come into play. For example, dealing with a tubal pregnancy or some type of cancer, etc.

Here is a good write-up that analyzes the situation rather well. Please check it out. I think it will clear up some of these very complex moral issues that I’m quite sure I’m doing a disservice to explaining. I agree with everything in this link:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609uan.asp

Would love to know what you think…

monique February 25, 2009 at 7:04 pm

I just read the entire thread of comments on the video and feel like the one very important aspect being left out is the will of God. Doctors can only predict outcomes. They can predict that the mother’s life in in danger but there is no certainty in that. Who are we to take God’s hand out of it. Both the mother and baby should receive all available medical treatment and leave the rest up to God. But, by aborting the fetus to increase her chances of survival the Mother is denying that God can work miracles. I know a woman who doctors said was carrying a baby that was certain to die and recommended she abort. She went to a pro-life perinatal hospice program and carried the baby as long as she could. The child is now 4 years old. But other doctors would have ended its life. God works in wondrous ways.

sarah March 2, 2009 at 3:00 am

ive been raped and im only 12 i dno if im pregnant i dont want 2 tell no 1 :'(

Matthew Warner March 3, 2009 at 3:35 pm

Sarah, Check out this website. http://www.rapevictimadvocates.org/ There’s a number you can call. Please make sure and talk to somebody about this! God bless you.

Previous post:

Next post: