Your right to an Abortion

Monty Burnz

fluorescence wrote: »

Because the only thing that happens to a woman during pregnancy is a bit of weight gain :rolleyes:

The edit was posted long before you posted your reply. That's a bit disingenuous on your part tbh.

Suaimhneach

teaandtoast wrote: »

Thanks for wishing me well. I would never judge women who had abortion I just feel sorry for them. In many cases it does affect women mentally and psychologically.

There are also physical side affects and who is to know how many women die during abortion or the number who cannot have a child again or have complications as a result of having an abortion. There is also research showing that abortion is linked to breast cancer. Who is to know what it really does to women physically at any stage in their life after.

This blog talks about the above statement and basically debunks EVERYTHING you have just said.

Excerpt here:

This is at heart a scientific claim, and can thus be tested. All you'd have to do is study a large group of women who have abortions and see if they're more likely to have mental issues than a control groups who don't. And that is precisely the methodology used by a group of doctors in Denmark, who tracked the psychological health of 365,550 women including 84,620 who'd had abortions. The results ? No increase in psychological damage, nor any elevated risk of suicide. You can read the actual study from the New England Journal of medicine here.

I am sure you felt, and some people feel effected, but overall, evidence suggests this is not the main factor. I would encourage EVERYONE to have a read of that blog.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

There will always be people to adopt children, there is a shortage of kids atm.

In addition you may very well have gay couples adopting.

I think other people are doing a great job targetting your points, and I dont know a huge amount about the specifics, but essentially, we do not have adoption here in Ireland. My understanding is the consititution puts the rights of the family before that of the child, so if a parent wishes to 'reclaim' a child they can do so. If anyone knows more, please share.

Regardless, a "shortage" of kids does not mean that women having unwanted pregnancies should "supply" them.

I am thrilled to see such great responses in this thread, I have learned a lot, and I am as horrified by some opinions on this thread as I was when the pro-lifers/anti-choice groups hurled abuse at us. I would love to know if people think I should start a different thread, or try to encourage this thread to change into a conversation with the question "What are you going to do about it?" - as in, challenge the social norms, attend rallies (slut walk as previously mentioned), and help to force the change to the status quo?

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The edit was posted long before you posted your reply. That's a bit disingenuous on your part tbh.

I posted after fluorescence and your post was unedited when I hit reply...

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Rather than being sarcastic and glib about it - look up SPD, pre-eclampsia, episiotomy, emergency caesarean, the time that is required to be taken out of a job to have and recover from having a baby in all eventualities, etc, etc - why not look at things from another perspective....if millions of women have no issue with taking contraceptives and having uterine devices implanted that ensure a fertilised egg never becomes a viable baby - what huge difference is there in getting a chemical abortion that flushes the same fertilised egg plus a few more cell divisions out of their body?

Again, I made the edit clarifying that the second sentence of my post came across as sarky (when that was not my intention) well before your reply was posted. Are people seeking out offence?

I'd rather my question was addressed thanks - I know well the possible medical implications of pregnancy. It goes to the heart of the rights of x versus the rights of y debate I feel.

metrovelvet

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Metrovelvet, at what point do you think that a foetus/baby becomes a person? Because this seems important in addressing whether a woman getting fat is sufficient reason to end a (potential/actual) life.

Edit - actually, the second sentence sounds very sarky - it wasn't meant like that. Apologies.

I really dont think the time line is relevent. To me life is a continuum. By the time you know you are pregnant, a life is formed.

But as I have said before, there are two lives at stake and it is the most unanswereably moral question there is, abortion. It is deeply problematic.

Im not talking about fat, im talking about other stuff like caesarians, bleeding out, dying, stuff like that. Not to sound glib or anything. Oh yeah... lets not forget about those Irish women who had their hips broken by Irish Obstetricians.

God sake. I just can't go one day without being reminded how how much this country hates women. Everyday....something is there to remind me... today its the broken hips.

Fluorescence

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The edit was posted long before you posted your reply. That's a bit disingenuous on your part tbh.

I'm sorry, I didn't see your edit. It certainly wasn't there when I clicked the Quote button anyway. Your original post was rather flippant though, and it annoyed me. Apologies.

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Again, I made the edit clarifying that the second sentence of my post came across as sarky (when that was not my intention) well before your reply was posted. Are people seeking out offence?

I'd rather my question was addressed thanks - I know well the possible medical implications of pregnancy. It goes to the heart of the rights of x versus the rights of y debate I feel.

Again, when I hit reply your post was unedited.

If you make such a silly point that it's all about women's figures in a debate on abortion in the Ladies Lounge, you can depend on being pulled up on it - edit or not.

Fluorescence

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Again, I made the edit clarifying that the second sentence of my post came across as sarky (when that was not my intention) well before your reply was posted. Are people seeking out offence?

I'd rather my question was addressed thanks - I know well the possible medical implications of pregnancy. It goes to the heart of the rights of x versus the rights of y debate I feel.

To answer your question, I believe life begins when a creature forms cognitive awareness. In humans, this stage is reached when it becomes a foetus (at approx. 12 weeks).

bronte

Broken hips that Mary Harney turned her back on.

It saddens me how my country feels it's acceptable to treat women.

Monty Burnz

metrovelvet wrote: »

I really dont think the time line is relevent. To me life is a continuum. By the time you know you are pregnant, a life is formed.

But as I have said before, there are two lives at stake and it is the most unanswereably moral question there is, abortion. It is deeply problematic.

Dead right. I've no satisfactory answer.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im not talking about fat, im talking about other stuff like caesarians, bleeding out, dying, stuff like that. Not to sound glib or anything. Oh yeah... lets not forget about those Irish women who had their hips broken by Irish Obstetricians.

Yeah, once again, I apologise for the 'fat' thing - it belongs to a more flippant thread, not one suited to a serious discussion like this. It was an attempt to contrast the value of a human life versus something else, but beyond clumsy.

metrovelvet wrote: »

God sake. I just can't go one day without being reminded how how much this country hates women. Everyday....something is there to remind me... today its the broken hips.

I don't think this country hates women. But to the extent that it does, I think women are at least as much to blame as men are. I could also argue that this country hates men, and cite the examples of how men are royally rogered in terms of retirement ages (live shorter, but expected to work longer?) and family law (say goodbye to your kids).

Back to the abortion issue, I think quite an interesting issue is how societies like India and China where males are actually preferred as children see the abortion of female foetuses (and even infanticide) on an epic scale. From a certain feminist perspective, I can see this posing a problem as they can't really argue that this is wrong.

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Again, when I hit reply your post was unedited.

If you make such a silly point that it's all about women's figures in a debate on abortion in the Ladies Lounge, you can depend on being pulled up on it - edit or not.

It seems a tad ridiculous to do so when I already pulled myself up on it before anyone else did when I read back my post. There's no note at the end of the post to state that it was edited - I'm sure an admin will know how quickly it was edited based on that and the time the posts that followed it were made.

beeftotheheels

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Back to the abortion issue, I think quite an interesting issue is how societies like India and China where males are actually preferred as children see the abortion of female foetuses (and even infanticide) on an epic scale. From a certain feminist perspective, I can see this posing a problem as they can't really argue that this is wrong.

WTF???

Infanticide is always wrong, no feminist I know of would dream of arguing against this. In answer to your earlier post equating infanticide with abortion (I didn't think it needed spelling out) but by the time the child is born there are options for raising it other than by the mother. No one else can take over the pregnancy, there are no other options.

In relation to choosing to have a male child in preference to a female child the same is true, that equates the female child with being lesser so of course a feminist can argue it is wrong, while having a certain sympathy for any mother forced by a society into making such choices (which is also a feminist issue).

WesternNight

fluorescence wrote: »

To answer your question, I believe life begins when a creature forms cognitive awareness. In humans, this stage is reached when it becomes a foetus (at approx. 12 weeks).

Do you have a source for that, out of interest?

metrovelvet

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Dead right. I've no satisfactory answer.

Yeah, once again, I apologise for the 'fat' thing - it belongs to a more flippant thread, not one suited to a serious discussion like this. It was an attempt to contrast the value of a human life versus something else, but beyond clumsy.

I don't think this country hates women. But to the extent that it does, I think women are at least as much to blame as men are. I could also argue that this country hates men, and cite the examples of how men are royally rogered in terms of retirement ages (live shorter, but expected to work longer?) and family law (say goodbye to your kids).

Back to the abortion issue, I think quite an interesting issue is how societies like India and China where males are actually preferred as children see the abortion of female foetuses (and even infanticide) on an epic scale. From a certain feminist perspective, I can see this posing a problem as they can't really argue that this is wrong.

Well its all about choice right? If you want choice than you cant complain when people abort girls. You are right too, they cant argue this is wrong.

Fluorescence

WesternNight wrote: »

Do you have a source for that, out of interest?

I don't have time to find a decent one at the moment, but wiki will give you the bare bones. This article says the foetal stage begins at 8 weeks, but I'm almost certain my school science books said 12. Whether that's my faulty memory or out-dated textbooks to blame I'm not sure :pac:

Monty Burnz

beeftotheheels wrote: »

WTF???
Infanticide is always wrong, no feminist I know of would dream of arguing against this.

Is it always wrong? This is just a cultural thing. I agree, for what it's worth. On the subject of China and India, I was thinking of the abortion rather than infanticide when I raised the question of how some feminists would address the issue of the abortion of females due to the preference for males. Of course, if it can be picked up in a more controversial way, you can bet your house that someone will do so. :rolleyes:

beeftotheheels wrote: »

In answer to your earlier post equating infanticide with abortion (I didn't think it needed spelling out) but by the time the child is born there are options for raising it other than by the mother. No one else can take over the pregnancy, there are no other options.

That depends on the logic behind allowing abortions in the first place. If you say that it is because the foetus cannot survive independent of the mother, then you could say the same about a newborn in a jungle or somesuch. It's just a thought experiment - I'm not actually advocating infanticide...

beeftotheheels wrote: »

In relation to choosing to have a male child in preference to a female child the same is true, that equates the female child with being lesser so of course a feminist can argue it is wrong, while having a certain sympathy for any mother forced by a society into making such choices (which is also a feminist issue).

The (hypothetical) feminist can't argue that, because to do so would require that they acknowledge that a female existed in the first place. But they are surely arguing that no person exists and therefore nobody dies and nobody is chosen (for or against) when an abortion occurs?

I'm trying to keep this in the realm of thought experiments and abstracts if possible - the real world is a lot grayer and dirtier.

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote:

It seems a tad ridiculous to do so when I already pulled myself up on it before anyone else did when I read back my post. There's no note at the end of the post to state that it was edited - I'm sure an admin will know how quickly it was edited based on that and the time the posts that followed it were made.

For the nth time - it wasn't edited when I hit reply. I'm not sure in how many other ways I can put that. Regardless, you cannot make inflammatory and glib statements and expect them to be protected from all and any reply due to some late added caveat.

If you wish to discuss this further then please PM me.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well its all about choice right? If you want choice than you cant complain when people abort girls. You are right too, they cant argue this is wrong.

Who's "they"? You make it sound like there is one block singing in agreement about abortion when really nothing could be further from the truth.

And of course they can complain when people abort girls - they can complain if abortion is after 5 weeks, or 8 weeks, or chosen based on gender, or whatever else they wish to argue on.

Advocating choice doesn't necessarily mean absolute choice in all and every scenario, that's a silly argument. That's the same argument that because one is pro-choice one must be willing/wish to have an abortion oneself and/or not mind if it is on a 30 wk fetus.

WesternNight

fluorescence wrote: »

I don't have time to find a decent one at the moment, but wiki will give you the bare bones. This article says the foetal stage begins at 8 weeks, but I'm almost certain my school science books said 12. Whether that's my faulty memory or out-dated textbooks to blame I'm not sure :pac:

I don't see anything there about a cognitive awareness. Can't say I've ever heard of a 12 week old foetus having awareness of anything..

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

For the nth time - it wasn't edited when I hit reply. I'm not sure in how many other ways I can put that. Regardless, you cannot make inflammatory and glib statements and expect them to be protected from all and any reply due to some late added caveat.

If you wish to discuss this further then please PM me.



Who's "they"? You make it sound like there is one block singing in agreement about abortion when really nothing could be further from the truth.

And of course they can complain when people abort girls - they can complain if abortion is after 5 weeks, or 8 weeks, or chosen based on gender, or whatever else they wish to argue on.

Advocating choice doesn't necessarily mean absolute choice in all and every scenario, that's a silly argument. That's the same argument that because one is pro-choice one must be willing/wish to have an abortion oneself and/or not mind if it is on a 30 wk fetus.

If you are pro choice you are pro choice, not pro-choice 'when I say so," then it's not pro choice in any meaning. The whole argument for pro choice is not telling a woman what she can and cant do with her body. So... if its her choice to abort girls well then you have to support that, whether its at 6 weeks or six months, is irrelvant, because well...who are you or anyone to tell a woman what she can do with her body.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

If you are pro choice you are pro choice, not pro-choice 'when I say so," then it's not pro choice in any meaning. The whole argument for pro choice is not telling a woman what she can and cant do with her body. So... if its her choice to abort girls well then you have to support that, whether its at 6 weeks or six months, is irrelvant, because well...who are you or anyone to tell a woman what she can do with her body.

Nonsense - you can be pro-choice under certain circumstances, just as one can be anti-violence unless for self-defence. There is no clear line; no clear line for the anti-abortion/pro-contraception stance, no clear line for the pro-choice side. That's why it's currently legal to have an abortion if certain criterion are met. There is no reason why people can't want that criterion extended without lifting a criterion all together.

Claiming it's black and white is just being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous to both sides.

beeftotheheels

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Is it always wrong? This is just a cultural thing. I agree, for what it's worth. On the subject of China and India, I was thinking of the abortion rather than infanticide when I raised the question of how some feminists would address the issue of the abortion of females due to the preference for males. Of course, if it can be picked up in a more controversial way, you can bet your house that someone will do so. :rolleyes:

I know that this is a bit controversial, but have you considered writing posts that stick to the point and don't also open up a whole can of worms??? I mean, you included infanticide.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That depends on the logic behind allowing abortions in the first place. If you say that it is because the foetus cannot survive independent of the mother, then you could say the same about a newborn in a jungle or somesuch. It's just a thought experiment - I'm not actually advocating infanticide...

An infant in a jungle cannot survive without an adult so in that respect you are right. Well done you. I think the Arctic might pose similar problems so if you're pro choice, you must also be pro-infanticide for single mothers isolated from all human society in incredibly harsh climates. I agree.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The (hypothetical) feminist can't argue that, because to do so would require that they acknowledge that a female existed in the first place. But they are surely arguing that no person exists and therefore nobody dies and nobody is chosen (for or against) when an abortion occurs?

No one has argued that "nothing" exists to be terminated. Of course a pregnancy exists, the fetus simply does not have the same rights as the mother in my opinion. However, where a society chooses to terminate certain pregnancies over others because of the gender of the potential child, that is offensive to me as a feminist. Gender would never be a criteria for me in determining whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

However, as a feminist I am not going to jump up and down about the evil Chinese/ Indian mother who terminated a female pregnancy because of societal norms, that individual woman has as much right to chose whether or not to continue with a pregnancy, and bearing a daughter (under the one child policy in China for example) could have consequences as negative for her as forcing a young Irish girl to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

I am, on the other hand, perfectly capable of jumping up and down about a society which values male children over female children and by extrapolation values men over women.

Fluorescence

WesternNight wrote: »

I don't see anything there about a cognitive awareness. Can't say I've ever heard of a 12 week old foetus having awareness of anything..

Maybe awareness is the wrong word, sentinence might be more apt. I'll find you a proper article tomorrow when I'm not on my phone.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Nonsense - you can be pro-choice under certain circumstances, just as one can be anti-violence unless for self-defence. There is no clear line; no clear line for the anti-abortion/pro-contraception stance, no clear line for the pro-choice side. That's why it's currently legal to have an abortion if certain criterion are met. There is no reason why people can't want that criterion extended without lifting a criterion all together.

Claiming it's black and white is just being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous to both sides.

That's not pro choice. That's ITS OK WHEN I SAY ITS OK.

That's trying to have your moral and legal cake and eat it.

That's bull****.

You would actually enforce stopping a woman from having an abortion if you knew it was because she was having it because she was carrying a girl? You would actually FORCE her to keep a pregnancy she didnt want?

Would you enforce throwing her in prison for having an abortion at 5 months? You would actually force her to carry out a pregnancy she didnt want?

Doesnt sound very pro choice to me.

southsiderosie

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That depends on the logic behind allowing abortions in the first place. If you say that it is because the foetus cannot survive independent of the mother, then you could say the same about a newborn in a jungle or somesuch. It's just a thought experiment - I'm not actually advocating infanticide...

No, a baby in a forest can survive if another adult takes care of it. A fetus at 24 weeks has a 50-50 chance of survival with medical intervention. There are only two known cases - ever - of a fetus surviving birth at 21 weeks. So basically anytime before the 23-24 week point, a fetus cannot physically survive without its mother specifically - apart from not being able to feed itself, it cannot breathe and lacks sufficient neurological function. Post 24 weeks, it does not physically need the mother anymore for survival, although the odds still are not great.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The (hypothetical) feminist can't argue that, because to do so would require that they acknowledge that a female existed in the first place. But they are surely arguing that no person exists and therefore nobody dies and nobody is chosen (for or against) when an abortion occurs?

An embryo dies during an abortion. It may have male or female sex characteristics, but I would not call it a person.

Selecting to have an abortion due to gender characteristics is a different animal altogether - it is essentially saying that gender is itself a birth defect. There are scary eugenicist overtones here. Not to mention the fact that to have a gender-based abortion requires waiting until the fetus is at a relatively late stage of development (I think around the 20-week mark) and a ultrasound.

Ultimately abortions under regular circumstances are for women to terminate an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, usually during the first trimester. Gender-based abortions are for women to terminate a planned, wanted pregnancy of a healthy fetus very close to the point of viability. There is something fundamentally more disturbing about the latter than the former.

Monty Burnz

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I know that this is a bit controversial, but have you considered writing posts that stick to the point

So we are going down the childish point-scoring road, are we?

beeftotheheels wrote: »

An infant in a jungle cannot survive without an adult so in that respect you are right. Well done you.

So we are going down the point scoring road, thanks for clarifying that. Well it's a road you can travel on your own. I'm interested in a serious discussion on this subject, not some childish shouting match. Please ignore the rest of my posts, I won't be addressing or engaging with you.

southsiderosie

metrovelvet wrote: »

That's not pro choice. That's ITS OK WHEN I SAY ITS OK.

That's trying to have your moral and legal cake and eat it.

That's bull****.

You would actually enforce stopping a woman from having an abortion if you knew it was because she was having it because she was carrying a girl? You would actually FORCE her to keep a pregnancy she didnt want?

Would you enforce throwing her in prison for having an abortion at 5 months? You would actually force her to carry out a pregnancy she didnt want?

Doesnt sound very pro choice to me.

Because you are asking for pro-choicers (and pro-lifers) to have a degree of black and white orthodoxy in their positions that are too simplistic for the real world. The pro-choice camp is a broad tent: it includes people who believe in abortion on demand at any point in a pregnancy, and others who believe that there needs to be some kind of balance between a right to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term and the right of the fetus once it has reached a certain stage of development where it can survive outside of the womb and/or has reached a certain threshold of development.

I also don't think anyone here is advocating throwing people in prison; that is simply hyperbole on your part.

iguana

MissFlitworth wrote: »

Jesus could I ask roughly around when that was? I always remember a friend of the family telling me that if someone suspected I was pregnant and thinking of travelling for an abortion that I could be reported to the Gardai & my passport confiscated! This would have been in the mid 90's, bit fuzzy on when things changed

It was like this until the referendums which followed the X case in 1992.

metrovelvet wrote: »

You see this tells me again, they dont really see anything wrong with it morally.

Did you miss the post I made which addressed this particular issue the last time you made it. (Not being sarky, this is a v.long thread;) )

You seem to be under the impression that this is just a simple "sweep it under the carpet" solution. It isn't. This issue was one of the biggest controversies in the state. The state actively prevented women from leaving the country for abortions (when they knew that was happening) only 20 years ago. It was like this until the state actively stopped parents from bringing their suicidal, 14 year old rape victim, daughter to England. It was a massive, divisive issue across the country. And in the aftermath the state tried to ensure that they had the power to stop travel and information for and about abortions.

They also tried to ensure suicidal woman weren't considered "at risk" as the constitution has always enshrined the mother's physical safety above the foetus. They encouraged the people to vote Yes, No, No in the three referenda, but the people did the opposite.

The case involved a fourteen year old girl (named only as "X" in the courts and the media to protect her identity) who had been raped by a neighbour and became pregnant. X told her mother of suicidal thoughts because of the unwanted pregnancy, and as abortion was illegal in Ireland (in both Northern Ireland and the Republic), the family travelled to England for an abortion. Before the abortion was carried out, the family asked the Garda Síochána if DNA from the aborted foetus would be admissible as evidence in the courts, as the neighbour was denying responsibility.

Hearing that X planned to have an abortion, the Attorney General, Harry Whelehan, sought an injunction under Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland (which outlaws abortion) preventing her from having the procedure carried out. The injunction was granted by Justice Declan Costello in the High Court.

The High Court injunction was appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned it by a majority of four to one (Hederman J. dissenting). The majority opinion (Finlay C.J., McCarthy, Egan and O'Flaherty J.J.) held that a woman had a right to an abortion under Article 40.3.3 if there was "a real and substantial risk" to her life. This right did not exist if there was a risk to her health but not her life; however it did exist if the risk was the possibility of suicide.

X had a miscarriage shortly after the judgement, before an abortion could be carried out. Her rapist was sentenced to 14 years in prison, which was reduced on appeal to 4 years.

K-9

Yep, adoption is unimaginable. Inconceivable.

Monty Burnz

southsiderosie wrote: »

No, a baby in a forest can survive if another adult takes care of it. A fetus at 24 weeks has a 50-50 chance of survival with medical intervention. There are only two known cases - ever - of a fetus surviving birth at 21 weeks. So basically anytime before the 23-24 week point, a fetus cannot physically survive without its mother specifically - apart from not being able to feed itself, it cannot breathe and lacks sufficient neurological function. Post 24 weeks, it does not physically need the mother anymore for survival, although the odds still are not great.

What you say is true, but I'm wondering what it implies (if anything)? In the forest example, you invoke a third party to take care of a baby. But what if there is no third party? It's just the mother and the baby - the baby is dependent on the mother for its survival, agreed? So how is this different from a foetus at 20 weeks?

southsiderosie wrote: »

An embryo dies during an abortion. It may have male or female sex characteristics, but I would not call it a person.

Ok - I'm not sure what I think on this to be honest, but we will run with your interpretation while I straddle the fence.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Selecting to have an abortion due to gender characteristics is a different animal altogether - it is essentially saying that gender is itself a birth defect. There are scary eugenicist overtones here. Not to mention the fact that to have a gender-based abortion requires waiting until the fetus is at a relatively late stage of development (I think around the 20-week mark) and a ultrasound.

Well, it's not a birth defect, but it's just not the type of baby that they want. Should they not have the choice? If a woman wants a son, is that wrong? And the lateness of the development is surely a red herring if we agree that at 21 weeks the child has a negligible chance of surviving outside the mother?

southsiderosie wrote: »

Ultimately abortions under regular circumstances are for women to terminate an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, usually during the first trimester. Gender-based abortions are for women to terminate a planned, wanted pregnancy of a healthy fetus very close to the point of viability. There is something fundamentally more disturbing about the latter than the former.

But if there is nothing wrong with abortion, how can there be something wrong?

(Please don't assume that the arguments I'm making are things that I believe - I'm just trying to learn how others see things to help form my own opinion)

Ickle Magoo

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, adoption is unimaginable. Inconceivable.

To what? A 14 yr old rape victim?