A 10-year old girl pregnant as a result of rape refused abortion in Paraguay - she is 22 weeks pregnant. There is an outcry, but nobody has said that a late-term abortion would be akin to another rape. Here's why.
The cervix, the entrance to the womb, has to be artificially widened to allow the passage of the baby, (dead baby in this case). Or the passage of limbs and skull if the abortionist dismembers and crushes the body parts. To widen the cervix, the abortionist puts a series of rods into the girl's body. These expand within her and widen the cervix over a few days before the abortion is carried out.
Don't you think that would be a horrible experience for a rape victim?
So, someone asks, why not induce 'fetal demise' with an abdominal injection and induce labour by pitocin, allowing the cervix to open naturally during labour? That would put the girl in labour for days, and she may well be too small yet to deliver vaginally. Many child brides in poor countries like the Sudan or Ethiopia die or are seriously injured in childbirth because they are too small.
The best for this poor child and her child would be a c-section and have the baby adopted or have a relative care for him or her. It is a tragic situation. But abortion would be a horrible experience for the poor young girl. Why does nobody say that?
