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)

Skeptic Ginger 2nd July 2022 10:59 PM

Quote:

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.

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

psionl0 2nd July 2022 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13847071)
Oh yay! I agree with you for once. :)

:faint: ( ;) )

kookbreaker 3rd July 2022 03:36 AM

Quote:

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.

Better get to proving that already.

Warp12 3rd July 2022 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13847070)
Based on what evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kookbreaker (Post 13847140)
Better get to proving that already.


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.

slyjoe 3rd July 2022 04:38 AM

Quote:

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.

It's not about just quoting, and I think you know it. It is about making the same argument.

mikegriffith1 3rd July 2022 04:48 AM

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."

Warp12 3rd July 2022 04:50 AM

Quote:

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."


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.

Random 3rd July 2022 05:02 AM

Quote:

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.

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.

The Great Zaganza 3rd July 2022 05:21 AM

Quote:

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.

so what's the line?

is a pregnant person allowed to do anything that makes early termination more likely?

Warp12 3rd July 2022 05:22 AM

Quote:

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.


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.

Lukraak_Sisser 3rd July 2022 05:22 AM

Quote:

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.

Exactly, only other men should be able do decide what happens to a pregnant women.

Right up until giving birth of course, once that happens all the responsibility is on the mother.

kookbreaker 3rd July 2022 05:23 AM

Quote:

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.

Except that said baby cannot live outside of the mother's body until very late in term.

Quote:

The baby is a separate living being with a unique DNA set,
So is a virus.

Warp12 3rd July 2022 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kookbreaker (Post 13847182)
So is a virus.


So, now we have people here on the forum who consider the unborn on par with both parasites and viruses. Lovely.

shuttlt 3rd July 2022 05:41 AM

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.

Ultimately the world view of the forum is materialist. Nothing has intrinsic or transcendent value, except where we choose to be inconsistent with our world view.

Random 3rd July 2022 05:44 AM

Quote:

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.

Yup. Pro-Choicers want to have the pregnant woman be able to make the choice over whether or not they carry their pregnancy to term. Pro-lifers want to be able to force pregnant women to bring their pregnancy to term regardless or their wishes.

But I don't think the pro-lifers have thought through all the real-world implications of their position. Roe v Wade allowed women in the uncomfortable outlier situations to go off and quietly have abortions where pro-lifers didn't have to think about it, so pro-lifers could continue to fight for the unborn without worrying about the pesky nitty-gritty details. But with it gone, a lot of pro-lifers are going to have to think about things like miscarriage police, border pregnancy checkpoints, and pregnant ten-year-olds.

angrysoba 3rd July 2022 06:25 AM

Quote:

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

.

Why not?

Bob001 3rd July 2022 06:31 AM

Quote:

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.

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, not to mention her economic status and social well-being, for the benefit of another? We don't require anyone to donate a kidney or a liver to anyone else, even to save their lives. We don't even require anyone to donate blood. On what basis do we tell a pregnant woman "This mass of cells has rights that are superior to yours." Women are not incubators.

Brainster 3rd July 2022 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by junkshop (Post 13846829)
"Would you kindly..."

:thumbsup::D

bruto 3rd July 2022 07:11 AM

Quote:

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.

And you in turn want to disallow the termination with as few exceptions as possible.

Statistics are useful for many things but not so much for the victims of utilitarian doctrine. Outliers inconveniently insist on existing.

Dumb All Over 3rd July 2022 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13847067)
WTF?

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

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.

ZiprHead 3rd July 2022 08:52 AM

Quote:

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."

Quote:

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.

This is absolutely not true. If the fetus was truly a separate body it could not survive.

Warp12 3rd July 2022 08:57 AM

Quote:

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


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

Quote:

Women are not incubators.

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.

johnny karate 3rd July 2022 09:00 AM

Quote:

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.

A clump of fetal tissue isn’t a human body anymore than an acorn is a tree.

The reason for the “debate” is because anti-science religious zealots don’t understand that concept.

Random 3rd July 2022 09:06 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.

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.

cosmicaug 3rd July 2022 09:15 AM

Quote:

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.

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?

johnny karate 3rd July 2022 09:28 AM

Quote:

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.

Here’s you arguing it’s “crazy” that some states allow abortions at any time for any reason without restriction, despite the fact that late-term abortions are exceedingly rare, and are done out of medical necessity.

Tell us more about your distaste for the disingenuous use of extreme or statistically insignificant examples.

Lukraak_Sisser 3rd July 2022 09:48 AM

Quote:

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.

Responsibility without a right to NOT be responsible is just a form of slavery.
Regardless of the fairy tales the right wing tells itself, most women do not consider abortions lightly.

But if, due to circumstances, a woman decides she is not ready to be a parent in the new US sharia states she no longer has a choice. Whereas a man can walk away at any time.

Now if she lived in a non-theocratic country you might have a point about women being able to prevent getting pregnant, but the US taliban has already ensured that in the non-abortion states there is no real sex-ed, no social security to deal with the costs and no access to contraceptives except for the rich.

cosmicaug 3rd July 2022 09:54 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.

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).

cosmicaug 3rd July 2022 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847263)
The abilitychoice to birth children does carry some responsibility, believe it or not.

Fixed that for you. I should note that said responsibility is understood to extend beyond birth by all except pro-birthers.

Bob001 3rd July 2022 10:15 AM

Quote:

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.
....


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

Dumb All Over 3rd July 2022 10:29 AM

Quote:

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.

That is what I and others are talking about, a fictional story offered up in this thread as support for the negative implications of the Supreme Court decision, so lacking of evidentiary support it doesn't pass the smell test.

Bob001 3rd July 2022 10:34 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.


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

Dumb All Over 3rd July 2022 10:34 AM

Quote:

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?

If the only evidence offered in these case histories is no more than was offered in the dubious story, then yep.

Warp12 3rd July 2022 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13847300)
And there we have it: The anti-abortion crowd wants to punish women for having sex.


This assertion sounds more idiotic every time I hear it.

Skeptic Ginger 3rd July 2022 11:22 AM

Quote:

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.

The story in this case fits exactly with how I, as a health care provider, would expect such a story to be described. No one would make up "Dr X called Dr Y at the out of state clinic to see if they could take his patient unless they were familiar with how the medical system works. In a fake story the author would say something like the child's case worker had to find a place... yada yada.

So I had no reason to doubt the story.

Dumb All Over 3rd July 2022 11:23 AM

Quote:

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

Appeal to Authority fallacy duly noted.

Skeptic Ginger 3rd July 2022 11:25 AM

Quote:

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."

IOW you have no clue about how the placenta and uterus work. Said clump of cells is not a separate person until it is developed enough to survive outside of the body.

Have you found the verse in the Bible yet that supports your assertion the fetus is a person from conception? Hint, it's not in there.

kookbreaker 3rd July 2022 11:26 AM

Quote:

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).

Dumb all over, did you read this? This pretty much torpedoes any “convenient timing” argument.

kookbreaker 3rd July 2022 11:27 AM

Quote:

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

Welp, there’s a fallacy you don’t understand right there.

Skeptic Ginger 3rd July 2022 11:28 AM

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.

Technically/scientifically a fetus is a parasite.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:45 AM.

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