Yes, conservative are law and order all the way.

Unless, of course, it interferes with their desire to **** underage girls.

I posted this earlier:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post13834942

This way of thinking demonstrates what I was referring to.

FTFY

That's what the doctor said, I get it.

kookbreaker said, "The state considered her pregnant for more than six weeks." I'd like to know where kookbreaker got the information that the state itself has weighed-in on how long the state believed the little girl was pregnant.

Yes, everybody is a callous, uncaring prick, they just don't admit it like the honest ones do.

What a glorious life you must lead. with the mental powers you have.

You are consistent, that's for certain. Delusional, but consistent.

According to state law, already provided, the state would have also considered her 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant as they would have used the same standard equation as the doctor. The doctor would have been very well aware of this which is why the girl was sent to Indiana. It doesn't matter whether or not the state was actually informed as the law is very clear.

What do you mean by "the state"? Do you think that there's an official working for "the state" and as a stand-in for "the state" who sits in on all ob-gyn visits of the great state of Ohio to determine (and perhaps dispute) the ages of pregnancies?

It would have been established by this doctor when initially seeing this 10 year old. Presumably, that is what "the state" goes by for purposes of their laws.

Why are you making this distinction? Why is this so important to you?

It looks like this was wrong. What I had not understood is that there's an abortion reporting requirement. That's what this may have been about. Also a ******** charge and malicious.

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/abortion-report-confirms-indiana-doctor-followed-law-after-ag-vowed-investigation/

For anyone interested,
Arrest Warrant for Gerson Fuentes.

Most of those who claimed this was a hoax/fake news are not retracting their claims. Gym Jordan tried to get out of it by tap dancing. The doctor has hired a lawyer who says she is considering a lawsuit against those who defamed her.

Once again:

Why does an unformed fetus have more rights than a grown woman?

Why does that fetus lose rights when it is born?

The flip from "she must be lying" to "she must be prosecuted... for something" by that DA should not be a great look. I guess, for folk like Warpie, it is (because it pwns teh libs... or something).

This is the exactly the point and none of it is by accident.

Remember the Texas woman who was charged with murder after she had an abortion?

Republicans don’t actually care what the law says and they don’t care if their enemies are in compliance with it. They will continue to use the power of the state to terrorize and harass people any way they can because that’s what fascists do.

This is only the beginning.

Uhhh...we don't allow a "born fetus" to indiscriminately commit murder, do we?

Guess what:

Abortion report confirms Indiana doctor followed law after AG vowed investigation

So she reported the abortion, she reported it within the required timeframe, and she indicated in the report that the child suffered abuse.

So the AG can go get bent. She followed the letter and spirit of the law.

I know right. And it's no big deal how hard it would be to find an abortion provider if said 10 yr old was 12 weeks along, let's focus on the fact maybe she didn't need to go to another state, ergo the law is just fine.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration over federal rules that require abortions be provided in medical emergencies to save the life of the mother.

“The Biden Administration seeks to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic,” Paxton said in a statement announcing the lawsuit on Thursday.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/s...47782873247745

OK, so that took what,... 7 days?

I don't know how this works now. Who gets to hear this, then? Is it the Texas Supreme Court? It seems that the issue raised is not specifically Texan. Does that mean it goes to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit? How do they work?

The idea that everyone is really deep down as horrible as you is very important to you isn't it?

Projection much?

Didn't know this:

From https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/pregnant-women-cant-get-divorced-in-missouri-38092512

Does this law actually say it doesn't see foetuses as humans, or is that being read into it?

It's an implication of the law. If foetuses were considered humans, then this law would not be needed.

What the laws says has nothing to do with how the Republicans will enforce it, so who the **** cares?

Is that so? It looks like one long run-on argument by equivocation based on loose and contradictory definitions of things like "human". What is it about a foetus being human that means there should be a child support entitlement?

I was responding to a post talking about the law implying foetuses weren't human. Don't complain at me if I reply on the topic of the post.

The topic isn't "technicalities that don't matter."

Yeah, pretty much.

The ambiguity of the legal status of a fetus has been a thing for all of legal history.

It makes sense to not want to cement child support obligations until after birth and have to deal with the rest of the context of a divorce and then potentially have to revisit everything immediately thereafter. It makes some sense to delay the thing just as a matter of legal efficiency.

Connecting this to some deeper idea of personhood as a basis or implication is unnecessary and kinda frivolous.

What is is about any human that means that there should be a child support entitlement?

The mistake is treating child support as if it was some natural right derived from the child's status as a human, and the denial of which is, by implication, a denial of their humanity.

Allowing fetuses to kill pregnant women is exactly what Republicans want:

Texas sues Biden admin for requiring abortions in medical emergencies

OK. So that's "the mistake". What is the answer to my question?

"Well of course I will no answer your question, you see my answer is HEY LOOK A SQUIRREL!"

I told you that it is a mistake to think that an entitlement to child support derives from some property of being human. You acknowledge that, but still want to know what it is about being human that an entitlement to child support derives from. One could be against all child support, or in favour of narrowly targeted child support, or be in favour of an entirely different scheme for distributing benefits and yet be saying nothing what so ever about the humanity of children.

What the **** does any of that have to do with abortion?

Maybe I expressed myself poorly. What is it about any human (where I am only referring to the subset of humans who are sometimes currently acknowledged to be entitled to child support —for instance, 73 year old grandpa, who is human, is not likely to be entitled to child support nor will they likely be expected to be entitled to child support in the future) that means that there should be a child support entitlement?

When somebody posts something, sometimes the replies to that post are about the things said in that post. If everybody just made statements about the OP, the thread would just be a crowd of people stating their beliefs into the void.

Now, typically the claims about child support are part of an argument that goes.... because some other law, perhaps concerning custody, or a benefit, like child support, only applies after birth.... then this is an acknowledgement that foetuses are not regarded as humans in law. When one states it plainly, it's pretty obvious that the argument relies on inserting the required assumptions into the reasoning behind the law.

Why what's this thing on a platter with such pretty gift wrapping someone left out in the open?

Why it's the "Define a Human" pointless semantic hijack.

"Nothing" would have taken less time to type.