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)

cosmicaug 3rd July 2022 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847306)
If the only evidence offered in these case histories is no more than was offered in the dubious story, then yep.

No, there will be ad nauseum information about clinical details regarding the case. However, when it comes to the PII that you disingenuously claim to be required to even consider that a case might be real there will be zero (as anything else would violate ethical guidelines and would get the doctors writing the article into real trouble).

Bob001 3rd July 2022 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847337)
This assertion sounds more idiotic every time I hear it.

It's idiotic, alright. It's also the truth.

Warp12 3rd July 2022 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13847354)
Technically/scientifically a fetus is a parasite.


I'll add you to the list of those comfortable using such language to describe the unborn.

Skeptic Ginger 3rd July 2022 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847258)
Do try to pay attention.

We're talking about a made-up story of a nine-year-old girl who was statutorily raped just a handful of weeks before the Supreme Court overturned Roe and has since travelled to Indiana for her abortion. That's what we're talking about, Skeptic Ginger. Not whether 10-year-olds have ever gotten abortions, but rather about how many 9-year-olds who were impregnated shortly before the SC decision will need to travel to another state for an abortion because they are just now slightly over six weeks pregnant and therefore ineligible to receive an abortion in the state of Ohio. It hasn't happened, not in this case or any other.

:boggled:

So just this one? Then WTF is your point claiming without a shred of evidence this case didn't happen? What an utterly insignificant thing to bother arguing.

Bob001 3rd July 2022 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847346)
Appeal to Authority fallacy duly noted.

You don't really know what that is, do you?

cosmicaug 3rd July 2022 11:39 AM

But really, what so special about the Bill of Rights, anyway? Shouldn't that be left to the states too? Like if someone distributed information about abortion that someone in a state banning abortion might be able to access shouldn't that be illegal?

It seems some lawmakers in South Carolina think so:
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/30/s-c-bill-would-apparently-outlaw-news-sites-writing-about-legal-abortion-clinics-in-neighboring-states/

Quote:

The law's ban on "knowingly or intentionally aid[ing or] abet[ting]" an abortion "includes, but is not limited to knowingly and intentionally,"

Quote:

(1) providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone, internet, or any other mode of communication regarding self-administered abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an abortion; [or]

(2) hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing access to an internet website, or providing an internet service purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this State that provides information on how to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used for an abortion.


Skeptic Ginger 3rd July 2022 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847337)
This assertion sounds more idiotic every time I hear it.

This is the guy that appointed those 3 religious extremists that made overturning Roe possible.

It takes until 1:10 for him to say "there has to be some kind of punishment"
"For the woman?"
"Yeah."
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Skeptic Ginger 3rd July 2022 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847358)
I'll add you to the list of those comfortable using such language to describe the unborn.

You think that bothers me? :rolleyes:

Warp12 3rd July 2022 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13847370)
This is the guy that appointed those 3 religious extremists that made overturning Roe possible.

It takes until 1:10 for him to say "there has to be some kind of punishment"
"For the woman?"
"Yeah."
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


"Extremists". LOL.

As for the video, that is not a civil discussion, and the fellow is clearing trying to frustrate Trump. Clearly though, if an abortion law is broken, there must be punishment. Obviously the woman is likely to be part of that equation.

Warp12 3rd July 2022 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13847354)
Technically/scientifically a fetus is a parasite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847358)
I'll add you to the list of those comfortable using such language to describe the unborn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13847373)
You think that bothers me? :rolleyes:


That remains to be seen. I wouldn't consider it anything to be proud of, however.

You can call it whatever you like, but it is ultimately a developing human.

catsmate 3rd July 2022 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847003)
The story is pure BS.

:rolleyes:
Oh look, you're wrong.

Minoosh 3rd July 2022 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847180)
Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.

You believe abortion is OK under some circumstances. Can you elaborate on the circumstances under which abortion should be allowed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847180)
However, loudly screeching over such things is pointlessly dramatic. These incidents are not statistically significant. Let's say 100 instances of this were to occur each year; in the US, over 600k abortions are performed annually.

I'm not sure why "statistically significant" should be the bar, but if it is, I'd say it's better to work with accurate statistics. Something else is rare - late-term abortions of the type the "right" would lead people to believe are common.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847180)
This is all just a game the liberals play, anyway. The only reason they keep bringing those examples up is that they are seemingly more outrageous and extreme. If you said rape and incest abortions are ok, they will then make something else the issue. The bottom line is they want the right to terminate the unborn, with as few limitations as possible.

This exact sentence construction applies equally to the "right" - if you equate "right" with anti-choice. The pro-lifers will bring up healthy babies being torn from limb to limb and forcibly extracted from a woman's body. (If this happened, would you say that statistics make it an invalid concern?) I might say, "The bottom line is right-to-lifers want the right to control women's reproduction, with as few limitations as possible." And that's *true*, at least in my state. Rape or incest won't cut it.

As I said earlier, if I felt like the arguments were intellectually honest I'd be more comfortable with the decision. We could decide as a society if a zygote is a "body." We could decide if culling after IVF constituted murder. My position was that almost no one believes a zygote is a body, and that equating a fetus with a fully developed baby is problematic under common law, biblical examples and centuries of everyday practice.

If you believe it, then the rape or incest exception makes no sense. I actually think it's more intellectually honest NOT to allow abortions except to save the life of the mother *if even then*. Because if someone accepts the personhood argument, it's murder, or at least homicide. If they don't accept the personhood argument, then their objections to abortion rights are based on something else. What is that something else? Unless we can look at that honestly, entrenched views will remain on both sides.

Warp12 3rd July 2022 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 13847386)
You believe abortion is OK under some circumstances. Can you elaborate on the circumstances under which abortion should be allowed?


Sure. It's easy:

I accepted Roe. I didn't lobby against it. I felt that in most states abortion law was reasonable, although not always ideal. I am not fond of late 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions without cause.

My personal preference would be that more focus was placed on personal responsibility than is currently the case. Most unwanted pregnancies are entirely avoidable without surgery or abstinence.

I can't say that I am shedding a tear over this ruling, however. Some of the liberal rhetoric being put forth makes me think the action was overdue. Now we will just have to let the chips fall where they may.

catsmate 3rd July 2022 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847306)
If the only evidence offered in these case histories is no more than was offered in the dubious story, then yep.

Your pathetic desperation to avoid facts that are uncomfortable to your opinions is disgusting.

catsmate 3rd July 2022 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kookbreaker (Post 13847353)
Welp, thereís a fallacy you donít understand right there.

Indeed. Demanding facts and references and then handwaving them if they're inconvenient to his beliefs, very Trumpian.

arayder 3rd July 2022 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kookbreaker (Post 13847005)
You decided that because you wanted all her personal details and didnít get them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847006)
The story is lacking in so many more ways.

Oh, please, Dumb. You have used every trick in the book to deny the story.

You ask for sources. But when two doctors get cited as sources you pretend the response is an appeal to authority debate trick.

When you can't get answers to pointless questions you know people here don't have answers to (like whether the rapist dad had a criminal record) you pretend the story is incomplete and thus must be phony.

Okay, sure there's a chance that Rudavsky and Fradette at the Indy Star phonied up the story. It's happened before. Reporters have been known to add inaccurate details into stories so as to make them more interesting and news worthy. Sometimes they just make up the entire story.

But there's a chance you are a Russian Paid troll sent here to destroy faith in America's free press.

Prove you are not. . .see how easy that was.

Dumb All Over 3rd July 2022 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13847383)

When you find any new evidence in your cited article to further support the truthfulness beyond what was offered in the original story, be sure to let me know.
Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13847395)
Your pathetic desperation to avoid facts that are uncomfortable to your opinions is disgusting.

Please, what facts might you be referring to?

arayder 3rd July 2022 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847405)
When you find any new evidence in your cited article to further support the truthfulness beyond what was offered in the original story, be sure to let me know.

When you find solid evidence that the story is faked let us know, Dumb.

The_Animus 3rd July 2022 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13847397)
Indeed. Demanding facts and references and then handwaving them if they're inconvenient to his beliefs, very Trumpian.

This is pretty common. Just yesterday I was discussing covid with someone and first they claimed the vaccines made your immune system worse and so you're more likely to die or have severe symptoms from covid if you get the shot.

I told them the data shows the exact opposite and anyone could find this info with relative ease.

They said prove it, cite a source. So I did and also gave them the summary of the findings because it's not like they're going to actually read it.

Suddenly their argument changed to "imagine caring if 2 people die of covid instead of 1.

It's just sad.

Dumb All Over 3rd July 2022 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arayder (Post 13847410)
When you find solid evidence that the story is faked let us know, Dumb.

A very reasonable request. I shall do so.

Off topic: Would you please address me by my forum name, Dumb All Over? You may even call me by the initials DAO.

catsmate 3rd July 2022 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847405)
When you find any new evidence in your cited article to further support the truthfulness beyond what was offered in the original story, be sure to let me know.


Please, what facts might you be referring to?

:rolleyes: Utterly pathetic.
Your inability to accept the reality of the new anti-female regime in the USA doesn't alter it's reality in the slightest.

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13846938)
Did you notice the bit in my post where I said lots of those children died?

I have a teaching credential in history and passed my 3 hr. final exam in the 97th percentile and I say your post was historically ignorant because it was.

Yes, I noticed it but that was not the point of your post at all which was "From an economic standpoint, it's interesting how a modern, middle class person can look at having children as an economic catastrophe, where as a medieval peasant could afford to keep pushing out children (all be it with only half of them surviving to adulthood)."

The highlighted is merely an acknowledgment that many children died but it does not change what your main point was: it wasn't an economic hardship on women to keep having children. That is patently false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13846938)
Also, do you have a non-****** article backing up your claim? That is a blog post, by somebody saying they did some research as an undergraduate 46 years ago that indicated nutrition in some parts of the middle ages wasn't great. Was there not an old geocities site you could link to?


Despite your attempt to discredit my source as a 'blog', the writer was referring to his senior thesis. You know, that thing a graduating senior has to write and present to professors as evidence of their mastery of their major. Do you think malnutrition in the MIddle Ages has changed in the last 46 years? As the author included in his 'blog', he "was particularly interested in a recent study of bones from medieval London (National Geographic, Feb 2016, p. 97):

Quote:

Isotope and bone analysis from a collection of 14th- and 15-th century skeletons unearthed during an excavation at Charterhouse Square paint a harrowing picture of life in medieval London. Many showed signs of malnutrition, and one in six suffered from rickets. Severe dental problems and tooth abscesses were also common, as was a high rate of back injuries and muscle strains from heavy labor. People from the later period in the 1400s, had disturbingly high rates of upper body injuries, possibly consistent with violent altercations that resulted from a breakdown in law and order in the wake of the plague.
This backs up exactly what I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13846938)
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 size of families was not determined by infant deaths alone but by all child deaths which was about 50%:

Quote:

"Many researchers have independently studied mortality rates for children in the past: in different societies, locations, and historical periods. The average across a large number of historical studies suggests that in the past around one-quarter of infants died in their first year of life and around half of all children died before they reached the end of puberty."
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past
AND
Quote:

Estimates of infant and child mortality are often elusive in the Middle Ages. When they are available, they range from 30% to 50% of births, depending on the context and the socio-economic circumstances of families. Fertility patterns are even more difficult to ascertain. What is clear, however, is that both rates varied depending on a number of factors. Of these, wealth was the most important since it directly impacted the ability of individuals to properly feed their children and to have access to health practitioners. This, in turn, largely determined their fertility and life expectancy.
https://www.medievalists.net/2021/06...sant-families/

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13846938)
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.

False:

Quote:

...although it is true that death did take a dramatic toll on medieval children, families were, from the beginning of the medieval era, smaller than we had once thought.
Quote:

In rural England, between the twelfth century and the Black Death, the average number of children who survived infancy in poor families was slightly below two. This average improved to over two surviving children in landowning peasant families, and climbed to as high as five among the wealthiest noble households. The situation was similar in the southern French diocese of Maguelone in the late Middle Ages, where peasant families had on average two living children at the time they made their wills, while wealthy families counted an average of three.
Quote:

In the rural areas of the diocese of Maguelone, Languedoc, between c. 1325 and the outbreak of the first plague epidemic, testators had on average 2.8 live children. Between 1350 and 1375, the average dropped to 1.9 and continued to decrease, reaching a low of 1.4 children per testator between 1400 and 1424. Fortunately, families soon began to expand, as Western European sources suggest that there was a ďbaby boomĒ in the fifteenth century. The threshold for population renewal (two children per couple) was thus reached by the mid-fifteenth century.
So, not the large families you claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13846938)
Look, we don't all have access to the rememberings of undergraduates from 46 years ago. Somehow I had missed that guys wordpress blog. Through the midwit haze that your post fogs up the facts with, there is certainly truth that the social environment was different in the middle ages.

Again, your attempt to dismiss my source fails. As does your ad hominem. I'd say my facts are backed up with....facts. Yours are not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13846938)
Your version of it is simplistic, but attitudes to sex, and children, and the "good life" were different.

LOL! Speaking of a 'midwit haze' what the hell does that have to do with your claim that people 'pushed out children' like crazy and didn't find it an economic burden?

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13846938)
The root difference between then and now in terms of how many children people are having is the society, and it's beliefs and incentives. You list some of the steps that society took that clearly encouraged children in the middle ages, today we incentivise very different behaviours that encourage people to delay having children, or not have them at all. Today we live in a society that prioritises the individual, so even though people aren't going to starve they feel they don't have enough money to have children. In the middle ages peoples lives were much more marginal, but they had lots of children.

OMG. The list I provided weren't 'encouragements' to have children! They are what prevented women from having control over their own bodies!
Women never wanted to be breeding machines but that was the major role society...controlled by MEN...gave them because it wasn't MEN who were dying from pregnancy, in childbirth or from post partum infections. Childbirth was the leading cause of death in women in the middle ages.

Today we give women choices...or at least we did until this latest SC debacle. Historically, women had very little control over anything in their lives because they were legally the property of men in their lives. Hell, rape was seen as a property crime against a woman's husband or father.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13846938)
Can we knock off the throwing sass at one another, and just talk about the issues in the thread?

I said your post was historically ignorant...as in uninformed. I didn't say stupid. It was you who chose to use the term "midwit" toward me.


Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13846938)
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.

AS the saying goes: you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Your post was, and is, historically incorrect.

catsmate 3rd July 2022 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Animus (Post 13847415)
This is pretty common. Just yesterday I was discussing covid with someone and first they claimed the vaccines made your immune system worse and so you're more likely to die or have severe symptoms from covid if you get the shot.

I told them the data shows the exact opposite and anyone could find this info with relative ease.

They said prove it, cite a source. So I did and also gave them the summary of the findings because it's not like they're going to actually read it.

Suddenly their argument changed to "imagine caring if 2 people die of covid instead of 1.

It's just sad.

Some Republicans/anti-abortion believers have noticed the effects of their insanity and are uncomfortable with the new reality of dead women. Hence the need to deny it's truth and the desperate lengths they go to.

catsmate 3rd July 2022 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847420)
<snip>

Well said.
A little OT but that mentality is the same sort that denies the reality of the dangers of carrying a pregnancy to term.

Warp12 3rd July 2022 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13847422)
Well said.
A little OT but that mentality is the same sort that denies the reality of the dangers of carrying a pregnancy to term.


For the US:

Quote:

The maternal mortality rate for 2020 was 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births compared with a rate of 20.1 in 2019
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat...02019%20(Table).


What is the fetal mortality rate for abortion?

johnny karate 3rd July 2022 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847337)
This assertion sounds more idiotic every time I hear it.

Conservatives certainly donít care about children or value life. This is easily observable in pretty much every other policy position that they have.

Furthermore, they also have policy positions that clearly indicate they want to punish any form of sex or sexuality of which they disapprove.

These dots barely need connecting.

Dumb All Over 3rd July 2022 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arayder (Post 13847404)

You ask for sources. But when two doctors get cited as sources you pretend the response is an appeal to authority debate trick.

Most certainly Dr. Caitlin Bernard was cited as a source for the story. Who is the second doctor you mention as being a cited source for the story?

Quote:

But there's a chance you are a Russian Paid troll sent here to destroy faith in America's free press.

Prove you are not. . .see how easy that was.

Вы меня разгадали! Я русский платный тролль, присланный сюда, чтобы разрушить веру в свободную прессу Америки.

arayder 3rd July 2022 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arayder (Post 13847410)
When you find solid evidence that the story is faked let us know, Dumb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847417)
A very reasonable request. I shall do so.

Off topic: Would you please address me by my forum name, Dumb All Over? You may even call me by the initials DAO.

Edited by jimbob:  it is uncivil and a Rule 0/12 violation to not address members by their full names when asked

It would be interesting to see how journalists who have written phony stories in the past got caught.

This case, if it's a phony story, would be interesting because there are two authors, a named doctor and the unnamed doctor in Ohio ("insiders" probably know who this doctor is) who have to have gone along with the ruse.

In addition the newspaper and the newspaper editor have their reputations riding on truthful stories. My guess is they'd fess up to doing poor supervision (as opposed to outright lying) if the story gets revealed as a fake.

So there are plenty of people to roll over on Rudavsky and Fradette.

johnny karate 3rd July 2022 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847358)
I'll add you to the list of those comfortable using such language to describe the unborn.

Someone on record calling murder victims scumbags who earned their fate and not caring if poor people die due to lack of access to healthcare should probably spare the rest of us their hollow moralizing.

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847003)
The story is pure BS.

You have no evidence of that. What you want is for it to false. Or do you think 10 year old girls can't get pregnant? Hint: a girl can get pregnant once she has her first period.

Quote:

Girls may start ovulating and menstruating as early as age 9, though the average is around 12 to 13. (Some studies suggest that the average age of first menstruation is dropping, but the data is not conclusive.) Just because a girl can get pregnant, though, doesn't mean she can safely deliver a baby. The pelvis does not fully widen until the late teens, meaning that young girls may not be able to push the baby through the birth canal.
Quote:

A 10-year-old girl in Colombia recently gave birth via caesarian section, placing her among the youngest mothers in the world. Though the girl is now recovering, her case highlights the dangers of pregnancy before maturity, doctors say.
https://www.livescience.com/19584-10-year-birth.html

Here's a list of very young girls giving birth. And most of them were due to incest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...%2C%20Virginia.

kookbreaker 3rd July 2022 01:30 PM

Asking the name of the referring doctor is basically asking to doom the girl.

arayder 3rd July 2022 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847429)
Most certainly Dr. Caitlin Bernard was cited as a source for the story. Who is the second doctor you mention as being a cited source for the story?

"Source" may not be he right word on my part.

The whole thing seems to have started when an unnamed doctor from Ohio called Bernard about the case.

As I said my guess is that Rudavsky and Fradette know who that doctor is and just aren't revealing the name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kookbreaker (Post 13847437)
Asking the name of the referring doctor is basically asking to doom the girl.

Good point.

johnny karate 3rd July 2022 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847378)
That remains to be seen. I wouldn't consider it anything to be proud of, however.

You can call it whatever you like, but it is ultimately a developing human.

The phony attempt at conveying empathy from someone who has demonstrated over and over again how little they value human life isnít remotely believable.

And of course this is the entire conservative approach to the abortion issue in a nutshell: Disingenuous moral posturing and expecting everyone else to not notice everything they do and say that demonstrates how amoral they are.

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847180)
Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.

.

Why not? Is the child any less a child in your eyes? Is it less deserving of life in your eyes? When you say a child that is the result of incest is not equally a person, then you are discrediting your own position.

Dumb All Over 3rd July 2022 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arayder (Post 13847431)
Okay no first names, Mr. Over.

I politely asked that you address me by my forum name, Dumb All Over. Would you please?

Warp12 3rd July 2022 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847444)
Why not? Is the child any less a child in your eyes? Is it less deserving of life in your eyes? When you say a child that is the result of incest is not equally a person, then you are discrediting your own position.


I never said that.

And did you forget that I was not against Roe in the first place, nor did I expect it to be overturned?

But, I can see why some conservatives say no exceptions for rape or incest...because liberals practically demand it. There is practically no downside, as you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Dumb All Over 3rd July 2022 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847434)
Or do you think 10 year old girls can't get pregnant?

I haven't said that and I don't think that.

arayder 3rd July 2022 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847448)
But, I can see why some conservatives say no exceptions for rape or incest...because liberals practically demand it. There is practically no downside, as you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It's not a game.

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847184)
So, now we have people here on the forum who consider the unborn on par with both parasites and viruses. Lovely.

Yea! You finally got to bring that up again! Bet that made your day!
Even if you're completely misrepresenting how both terms were being used. Neither Kookbreaker nor I put 'the unborn' on a par with parasites or viruses. The fact that we pointed out two scientific facts matters not to you as long as you can twist it to your agenda. You continue to be dishonest. :shocked:

Warp12 3rd July 2022 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arayder (Post 13847456)
It's not a game.


Liberals are surely aware of that now. :)


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:00 PM.

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