Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13847061)

It is all well and good to be skeptical about a story but once you assert declaratively that it is fake you shift the burden of proof onto yourself.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13847071)

Oh yay! I agree with you for once. :)

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847054)

Don't worry about it. I won't get answers to those questions because the story is fake.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13847070)

Based on what evidence?

Originally Posted by kookbreaker (Post 13847140)

Better get to proving that already.

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13846822)

Really? I quote jackass arguments I intend to rebut or dismiss all the time. In fact I'm doing it right now. Only an idiot or a scumbag would read this post as agreement with you.

So tell me more about your take on a Supreme Court Justice's citations in their dissent.

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13847167)

So the argument "my body, my choice" is scientifically baseless. A more accurate slogan would be "my baby, my choice," but that would be problematic because it would highlight that the "choice" is whether or not to allow the baby to live. It would be a much more honest argument, but it would be tantamount to saying, "I should be allowed to kill my baby if I decide I don't want the baby."

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847163)

That's what skeptics do, of course. Assume everything written or said to be truth, unless proven otherwise.

Evidence is only required in order to refute claims. Right?

It is amazing that only a few people are suggesting that this story should be supported by additional facts. Some are even making statements to the effect that it doesn't matter if the story is true or not. I guess unsupported claims are sometimes acceptable, if it fits the desired narrative.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847168)

As I often say, "My body, my choice" is fine...the problem is, there is a second body involved. If it wasn't so, there would be no reason for all of this debate.

Originally Posted by Random (Post 13847172)

The right wing is actively trying to create a world where 10 year old girls who have been raped and impregnated by their father will have to give birth to their own half-sibling. I think getting bogged down in a zillion post argument over whether or not this one particular story is true or not is a distraction, that's all.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847168)

As I often say, "My body, my choice" is fine...the problem is, there is a second body involved. If it wasn't so, there would be no reason for all of this debate.

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13847167)

If you want to talk science, then the first thing that must be observed is that the baby is not part of the mother's body. He is *in* the mother's body, but he is not a part of her body.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker (Post 13847182)

So is a virus.

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.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847180)

Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847180)

Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.

.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847168)

As I often say, "My body, my choice" is fine...the problem is, there is a second body involved. If it wasn't so, there would be no reason for all of this debate.

Originally Posted by junkshop (Post 13846829)

"Would you kindly..."

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847180)

Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13847067)

WTF?

No 10 yr olds have ever gotten abortions? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13847167)

If you want to talk science, then the first thing that must be observed is that the baby is not part of the mother's body. He is *in* the mother's body, but he is not a part of her body. The baby is a separate living being with a unique DNA set, his own blood supply (often with a different blood type than the mother's), his own brain, his own heart, his own eyes, his own limbs, etc., etc.

So the argument "my body, my choice" is scientifically baseless. A more accurate slogan would be "my baby, my choice," but that would be problematic because it would highlight that the "choice" is whether or not to allow the baby to live. It would be a much more honest argument, but it would be tantamount to saying, "I should be allowed to kill my baby if I decide I don't want the baby."

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847168)

As I often say, "My body, my choice" is fine...the problem is, there is a second body involved. If it wasn't so, there would be no reason for all of this debate.

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13847218)

So what? Assume for the sake of argument that a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. Why should one person be required to risk her life and health

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847168)

As I often say, "My body, my choice" is fine...the problem is, there is a second body involved. If it wasn't so, there would be no reason for all of this debate.

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.

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13846996)

For me to consider whether the story is true or not, I would need answers to the following questions: What is the name of the child abuse doctor in Ohio who contacted Dr. Caitlin Bernard? On what date did this communication occur? Is the child now officially under the care of Dr. Bernard? Who transported the child across state lines to Indiana? Did they have permission from the parents of the child to do so? In what other ways are the parents of this child involved? What are the names of the child's parents? If the child's birthday happened within the last six weeks, then the child was nine years old when impregnated. What is the child's date of birth? What are the circumstances surrounding the impregnation of this nine-year-old? Did it happen in the family home? Were the parents home at the time the nine-year-old was impregnated? Why wasn't the child being properly supervised? Did the parents condone and encourage the impregnation? Who is the father? Is the father a minor? Is the father an adult? Does the father have a criminal background? Is this a case of statutory rape? Was an arrest made? Does the father want the baby to be born and not aborted? How did the Indianapolis Star come upon this story? Was an investigation conducted to determine whether Dr. Bernard's story is true or did the Indianapolis Star just "run with it" without proper vetting?

I am sure there are plenty more questions that need answers, but this is enough for now to get the conversation rolling.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847180)

Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847263)

The standard risk of carrying a baby to term is very small compared to the risk for the fetus during an abortion.




Sure they are; and in the vast majority of cases their own actions at least partially led to their status as such. The ability to birth children does carry some responsibility, believe it or not.

And now, with this ruling, this point will likely become even more apparent to many.

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.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847263)

The abilitychoice to birth children does carry some responsibility, believe it or not.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847263)

....
Sure they are; and in the vast majority of cases their own actions at least partially led to their status as such. The ability to birth children does carry some responsibility, believe it or not.
....

Originally Posted by Random (Post 13847265)

That's just what you are talking about. This thread is about the overturning of Roe vs Wade and it's implications. It's not about one single story of a pregnant 10-year-old, which you have not actually disproven by the way.

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.

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13847268)

You won't find even a 10th of that level of detail in any peer reviewed published case history in the literature. I guess we should conclude any such case history smells fishy & should not be believed?

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13847300)

And there we have it: The anti-abortion crowd wants to punish women for having sex.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847163)

That's what skeptics do, of course. Assume everything written or said to be truth, unless proven otherwise.

Evidence is only required in order to refute claims. Right?

It is amazing that only a few people are suggesting that this story should be supported by additional facts. Some are even making statements to the effect that it doesn't matter if the story is true or not. I guess unsupported claims are sometimes acceptable, if it fits the desired narrative.

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13847305)

Why do you insist on this claim? The source is a board-certified ob/gyn and university professor quoted by name. If she's lying the professional consequences would be severe. Why do you think that this didn't happen and couldn't happen?
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/...el/7779936001/
https://medicine.iu.edu/faculty/23008/bernard-caitlin

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13847167)

If you want to talk science, then the first thing that must be observed is that the baby is not part of the mother's body. He is *in* the mother's body, but he is not a part of her body. The baby is a separate living being with a unique DNA set, his own blood supply (often with a different blood type than the mother's), his own brain, his own heart, his own eyes, his own limbs, etc., etc.

So the argument "my body, my choice" is scientifically baseless. A more accurate slogan would be "my baby, my choice," but that would be problematic because it would highlight that the "choice" is whether or not to allow the baby to live. It would be a much more honest argument, but it would be tantamount to saying, "I should be allowed to kill my baby if I decide I don't want the baby."

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13847291)

I don't know how many 10 year olds this happens to. Back of the envelope, probably enough not to make it rare. Certainly not rare enough to make the cited news blurbs about it be about an extraordinary claim (more like a claim that seems extraordinary if you are innumerate & are working backwards).

For 2002 it seems we are talking about 208 live births a year in the USA for 10-12 year olds (see https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_07.pdf —numbers may be lower now?). I don't know how that works out for the states that are in a similar situation to Ohio, but that works but about 7 corresponding to Ohio alone based on population fraction and assuming equal distribution. These, however, are live births. If we assume that a significant number of such pregnant 10-12 year olds might not be completely surrounded by frickwits who think forcing a pre-teen to give birth is a good idea, it is reasonable to suppose that the number of abortions in this age group might be at least in the same order of magnitude (could be greater).

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847346)

Appeal to Authority fallacy duly noted.

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.