1,2 and 3 she’s a minor. A minor. A child without the legal rights afforded to the rest of us. If she had cancer, it wouldn’t matter what her opinion on the matter was. Her legal guardians would likely order her to undergo medical treatment, even against her will. That is how the legal system works. At least in the US (or rather many of their states) and to a large extent in my country of Australia.
Her medical decisions are defaulted to her parents or legal guardians. That’s just reality.
Medical experts have given their expert opinion that abortion is favourable in such a scenario. That is not surprising given her age and the large amount of medical complications that accompany underage pregnancies. A doctors job is to keep her alive and healthy. The fetus comes second. That sounds harsh but is a medical reality.
It is what it is. Would you rather she undergo a potentially dangerous pregnancy? Risking her own life and her inner organs? Risk life long medical complications just to undergo an equally medically inadvisable birth? Going against strict expert medical advise?
Is that the preferable option?
That's a very good point, but I was not talking about the abortion (which is surely the best solution to preserve the child's psychological and physiological welfare).
I was talking about the people having the parental authority over the child.
Because there have been cases of fathers who raped their own young daughters since they were prepubescents. And as soon as they got pregnant, the same fathers made them have an abortion, to eliminate any evidence of that horrendous crime.
So the American people have the right to know what really happened behind the scenes.
I have never cast doubts on the child's right to have an abortion.
I just want to know who got her pregnant.
Because having your first period at 9-10 is extremely rare, so it necessarily means that that girl used to be raped frequently, probably even before she hit puberty.