International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

johnny karate 14th July 2022 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13855670)
As long as is determined by law. Sorry, but that is your answer.

Yes, conservative are law and order all the way.

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

Stacyhs 14th July 2022 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13855706)
Almost as wild as it is to see conservatives who openly admit they don't care if poor people die try to claim moral high ground on any issue, ever.

I posted this earlier:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13855162)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13854929)
That seems like a bit of hyperbolic rhetoric, to me. I mean, at worst the right is quasi-evil, I'd say. But I feel the same way about the Dems, too. For true evil you would need to have a knowing intent to harm, and I am just not sure that is the case for either party.

Not necessarily. Just not giving a damn if your actions are hurting others as long as it's good for you is evil and dangerous. And that is exactly what we're seeing in today's GOP.


Quote:

I think there is a misconception that all people are obligated to care about the healthcare of the poor. Personally, I don't really care too much. I don't even care if they die a little bit sooner, tbh. I have good healthcare, and I am not poor. My medical insurance is mostly covered by work.

But taxes?" Yeah, I feel that directly. Now, if there is a way that me paying more taxes for healthcare of the poor will lead to me paying less taxes overall, that sounds great.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post13834942

This way of thinking demonstrates what I was referring to.

Warp12 14th July 2022 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13855738)
This way of thinking demonstrates what I was referring to the kind of honesty that is all too rare in politics and on social media.


FTFY

Dumb All Over 14th July 2022 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13855721)
It was in the original post, I believe, but here it is again:


https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/...on/7788415001/

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.

TheGoldcountry 14th July 2022 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13855740)
FTFY

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.

Stacyhs 14th July 2022 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13855740)
FTFY

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

Stacyhs 14th July 2022 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13855743)
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.

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.

cosmicaug 14th July 2022 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13855743)
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.

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?

cosmicaug 14th July 2022 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13855530)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13855496)
Dr. Bernard now under investigation by Indiana Repub. AG:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/todd-...b0c0bdba666332

It looks like the trumped up charge would be failing to report. This would be frivolous charging as the reporting was already done in Ohio. I imagine it's grandstanding & that he'll quietly never even file charges. However, a message is being sent even with just the threat.

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/

Dumb All Over 14th July 2022 04:28 PM

For anyone interested,
Arrest Warrant for Gerson Fuentes.

Stacyhs 14th July 2022 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13855771)
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/

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.

Shalamar 14th July 2022 06:54 PM

Once again:

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

Why does that fetus lose rights when it is born?

cosmicaug 14th July 2022 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13855812)
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.

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).

johnny karate 14th July 2022 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13855874)
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 donít actually care what the law says and they donít 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 thatís what fascists do.

This is only the beginning.

Warp12 14th July 2022 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalamar (Post 13855871)
Once again:

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

Why does that fetus lose rights when it is born?


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

Puppycow 14th July 2022 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13855496)
Dr. Bernard now under investigation by Indiana Repub. AG:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/todd-...b0c0bdba666332

Guess what:

Abortion report confirms Indiana doctor followed law after AG vowed investigation

Quote:

INDIANAPOLIS ó After Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita threatened to go after the license of an Indiana physician who provided an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio, documents obtained by FOX59 through a public record request proved the physician not only filed a terminated pregnancy report but filed the report within the required timeframe.

The terminated pregnancy report, obtained by FOX59ís Angela Ganote, shows that Caitlin Bernard, an Indiana obstetrician-gynecologist, reported the abortion on July 2, two days after the abortion was performed and within the three days required for terminations to be reported to the Department of Child Service and the Indiana Department of Health.

In the report, Bernard also indicated that the child suffered abuse.
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.

Skeptic Ginger 14th July 2022 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13855567)
It's a 10 year old rape victim. I don't think narrowing down exactly how long she was pregnant is anything but a rape apology red herring.

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.

Andy_Ross 15th July 2022 03:31 AM

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

cosmicaug 15th July 2022 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13856015)
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.

ďThe Biden Administration seeks to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic,Ē 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?

JoeMorgue 15th July 2022 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13855740)
FTFY

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

Susheel 15th July 2022 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13855740)
FTFY

Projection much?

cosmicaug 15th July 2022 07:26 AM

Didn't know this:

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

She says that the whole basis for Missouri putting the pause on a divorce proceeding until a child is born is because Missouri divorce law "does not see fetuses as humans."


"You can't have a court order that dictates visitation and child support for a child that doesn't exist," she says. "I have no mechanism as a lawyer to get that support going. There's nothing there because that's not a real person."


This aspect of Missouri divorce law has gotten more attention in the weeks since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, triggering a ban on abortion in Missouri except in cases of medical emergency. Though what is meant by medical emergency is still ambiguous.

shuttlt 15th July 2022 07:29 AM

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

pgwenthold 15th July 2022 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13856108)
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.

JoeMorgue 15th July 2022 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13856108)
Does this law actually say it doesn't see foetuses as humans, or is that being read into it?

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

shuttlt 15th July 2022 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 13856110)
It's an implication of the law. If foetuses were considered humans, then this law would not be needed.

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?

shuttlt 15th July 2022 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13856112)
What the laws says has nothing to do with how the Republicans will enforce it, so who the **** cares?

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.

JoeMorgue 15th July 2022 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13856117)
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."

Suddenly 15th July 2022 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13856115)
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?

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.

cosmicaug 15th July 2022 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13856115)
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?

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

shuttlt 15th July 2022 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13856123)
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.

johnny karate 15th July 2022 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13855877)
Uhhh...we don't allow a "born fetus" to indiscriminately commit murder, do we?

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

Texas sues Biden admin for requiring abortions in medical emergencies

cosmicaug 15th July 2022 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13856141)
Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13856123)
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.

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

JoeMorgue 15th July 2022 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13856169)
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!"

shuttlt 15th July 2022 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13856169)
OK. So that's "the mistake". What is the answer to my question?

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.

JoeMorgue 15th July 2022 09:57 AM

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

cosmicaug 15th July 2022 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13856194)
Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13856169)
OK. So that's "the mistake". What is the answer to my question?

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.

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 ófor 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?

shuttlt 15th July 2022 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13856198)
What the **** does any of that have to do with abortion?

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.

JoeMorgue 15th July 2022 10:07 AM

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.

JoeMorgue 15th July 2022 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13856204)
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.

"Nothing" would have taken less time to type.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.