![]() |
Quote:
Statement: The vaccine was developed using foetal tissue. Factcheck: False! The vaccine does not contain foetal tissue. They do this over and over again. |
Quote:
A woman could make the choice not to continue a pregnancy but once she's carried it for 9 months and gives birth, it's not an easy thing to give it up for adoption. So many, if not most, women will keep the child and raise it... often without the participation of the father. It's her life that is profoundly changed. His? Not so much if at all. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
10-year-old girl denied abortion in Ohio
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...rtion-in-ohio/
Quote:
|
Quote:
and getting further and further.... Quote:
|
Quote:
My sister helped deliver a baby to a 10 year 'mother' old years ago. She said it was absolutely horrible. |
If there were more intellectual honesty on the part of those drooling for complete bans I might not mind the Supreme Court's decision so much. But IMO it's an absolute fact that hardly anyone really believes a zygote is a human being. If they did Missouri's AG would not have ruled that Plan B (which can either prevent conception or prevent a zygote from attaching to the uterine wall) is acceptable for now. No Indiana doctor would have performed the abortion on the 10-year-old girl. Etc. They're not going to condone MURDER because technically they can get away with it.
I'm not saying no one believes this but I'd say it's fewer than 10 percent of people. Unfortunately it may be more than 10 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court. I also believe very few people actually want to force a woman to bear a child WITHOUT A BRAIN who is 100 percent going to die within minutes/hours absent heroic measures to preserve heartbeat/respiration. Not even the Bible equates a fetus with a human being. A person who causes a miscarriage is guilty of the Bronze Age equivalent of a CIVIL offense. I don't know how this is all going to play out, I think the U.S. has taken a step backward, but with any luck it will force a more honest look at what's really going on here. I think many people who support choice are still somewhat uneasy with abortion as an "easy" form of emergency birth control, or for selecting the sex of the baby etc. If you think it through, IMO the arguments really do support the position that it's a woman's choice. But that doesn't mean I'm always perfectly comfortable with that position either. |
Quote:
Women had many children because 1) there was no reliable birth control 2) using any form of birth control was against religious teachings and you'd 'go to hell' if you used it. 3) doctors could not even discuss birth control with their patients 4) getting an abortion was illegal and extremely dangerous 5) husbands had a 'right' to have sex with their wives whether the wives wanted to or not. There was no such thing as 'marital rape'. Take a few history classes before spreading such nonsense. |
|
Quote:
Or if the right-wing idiots try to make it illegal in all states? IOW would they write new law the federal gov couldn't tell the states what to do about abortion? On what legal basis do you imagine they would base said decision on? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Typical numbers for infant mortality would have been something like 20% back then. Children not making it past their first birthday was not a significant barrier to larger families than we have today. The whole thing varies around hugely depending on what period you are talking about. During the black death? During a famine? During the mini-ice age? Very clearly they must have had significantly larger families than we have today, because civilisation survived the middle ages. Your average medieval family had above replacement rates of children surviving into adulthood. Given that, they were clearly having at least 4 or 5 children per family. So, we go back to the issue that today middle class people are not having children because they can not afford it, but in medieval Europe peasants were having lots of children. Quote:
Can we knock off the throwing sass at one another, and just talk about the issues in the thread? Now we've thrown sass at one another, can we just argue about the topic please? I've read plenty of history. Maybe I interpret it differently to you? Any errors I make are not for lack of a general knowledge of the past. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Such situations *will* come up in states that have outlawed abortion. Why wouldn't they? That's not a rhetorical question. What is the mechanism that would prevent them from happening? |
Quote:
I am sure there are plenty more questions that need answers, but this is enough for now to get the conversation rolling. |
That’s a lot of violation of privacy of a child to convince
|
Quote:
Know what is in the Bible? It's a sin for men to spill their seed on the ground. Skeptics Annotated Bible: Abortion. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The best part about the story is that it is a clickbait headline...with barely anything of detail about that claim. Mostly just a lead in for general complaining about abortion law. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
The Indy star has greater integrity than you. |
Quote:
"Pro-lifers" have been able to hide behind Roe v. Wade for decades to avoid the real-world implications of banning abortion, but the Ridiculous Six have stripped away their cover. "Pro-lifers" now have to deal with stuff like this, either by saying its fine, or by making abortion exceptions. |
Quote:
That is probably exactly what the author was thinking when they wrote it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Per Duke University, puberty in girls is NORMAL between the ages of 8 and 13. Girls are raped, girls get pregnant every day. It is the intention of Ohio to deny abortions to pregnant 10-year-olds. Why even try to deny that fact? Good, bad or indifferent, it's just an inevitable result of an abortion ban. It's a case of statutory rape by definition. Do you honestly need an answer to that question? Do you think the rapist should have a say in the girl's abortion? If she was impregnated by a 12-year-old, should it matter that the 12-year-old, or his mom, or whoever, thinks it would be nifty to make her carry the pregnancy to term? If you think so, own it. I suspect you think it does matter. Otherwise, why ask the question? This is the inevitable outcome of abortion bans. If that's not what you want, own the fact. It seems to me you're doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "La-la-la, I can't hear you," because you don't want to believe it can happen. Well, it can. It does. If pro-lifers want to step up and say, "That's not what we want, that wasn't our intent," well, good then. But none of them appear to be doing so. Why wasn't the child being properly supervised ... oh come on. Children do get impregnated by family members. Sometimes the people who are supposed to be supervising. Are you going to deny that happens? What are you going to ask next? "What was she was wearing?" You think the Indiana doctor is lying. I don't. And one reason I don't think so is that there is no need to lie about it. It will happen. If a ban is on the books in one state, those pregnancies will be terminated in another state. A sympathetic doctor isn't going to go, "Oh well, these are unusual circumstances so I'm sure it will be fine this one time." In my state, abortions have stopped. If a girl or woman's life is in *imminent* danger I would hope a courageous doctor would go ahead and perform the abortion. But the female person in question certainly has no automatic right to end a pregnancy. There was a legislator, in Texas I think, who thought women's bodies in cases of "legitimate rape" just shut down and would not get pregnant. There is no such mechanism. If you are fine with 10-year-olds being denied abortions, that's OK. I disagree, but we can discuss the merits of that. But what I'm seeing is knee-jerk denial that it can even happen. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If they could own such outcomes and still stick to their guns I would at least give them props for consistency. After all, the circumstances of conception are not the fetus's fault. But to deny that such circumstances happen - honestly I don't get it. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
If a law bans abortion except to save the life of the mother these things will happen. If that's what society wants, so be it. But to write off this reality as a bogus attempt to foment outrage is, IMO, naive at best. |
Quote:
Is it possible? Yes. But it still seems too good to be true. I will also note that, if the story is true, this girl is still getting an abortion despite the ban. |
Quote:
Do you think Bernard is lying? Are you willing to spell out why you think so, or would you rather stick to snarky one-liners that do not commit you to a position? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
At the end of the day, though, it doesn't really matter whether she's telling the truth. Such cases are possible. They will be rare. Assuming the story is true, she is getting an abortion anyways, and so will many (most?) others in similar situations. If a case like this changes your mind, then you never thought deeply about the problem to begin with. |
Quote:
Yes, the girl in question is still going to have access to abortion. But that's an accident of geography. Look an abortion-ban map and it's pretty clear this circumstance will occur and in the deep South, for example, it will be much harder for the girl to obtain the procedure, especially if she is poor. And that is what legislators in such states want. Or at least, they claim that's what they want. You say she'll still have access, and that is so. It could be seen as a mitigating factor. Even if this story is true, people can say, she still got the abortion. As if that is a good thing. And IMO, by and large it IS a good thing. She might have to jump through some hoops, but it's still an outcome that did not force her to give birth. A lot of these laws IMO are aimed at just that. Making female people jump through hoops so politicians can point to their pro-life records. I think it's dishonest. I hope that as a result of the Supreme Court's decision people will get more honest about this subject. As soon as you identify access to abortion as a public good in some circumstances you open the door to questions about the details of those circumstances. This case might seem like an outlier or "too good to be true" but it's a circumstance that absolutely happens. If people really want to make that 10-year-old girl give birth, I would rather see them defend their positions than deny such circumstances happen. It would make for a more honest and meaningful discussion IMO. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I do want people to think about it. IMO, the position that a zygote = a fully formed human does not really hold up to any kind of scrutiny under a common law framework or even a Biblical framework, and certainly not in everyday practice. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...rape-abortion/ https://theintercept.com/2022/06/20/...stupro-aborto/ Considering how many kids are molested every year, it shouldn't be a surprise that some pre-teen girls are made pregnant. But we haven't heard about them because for the last 50 years doctors have been able to resolve those cases quickly and quietly. We are soon going to be hearing horror stories from doctors and social workers across the country in states where abortion has been prohibited. |
Quote:
No 10 yr olds have ever gotten abortions? :rolleyes: |
Quote:
Truthiness, whatever is convenient. A 10 yr old did not need to go to another state to get an abortion and the election was stolen. :rolleyes: |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.