Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

[shemp]

Abortion is Immoral, Except When It Comes to My Mistresses

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

They aren’t writing law, but they aren’t protecting the rights of the people, either.

Is the "not writing law" also going to apply if the federal government passes a law making abortion legal (with relevant details) in all states and SCOTUS strikes it down?

Or if the right-wing idiots try to make it illegal in all states?

IOW would they write new law the federal gov couldn't tell the states what to do about abortion? On what legal basis do you imagine they would base said decision on?

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by bruto

Nonsense. It may well be that economic considerations are important, but very poor people in very poor places often have lots of kids, and not just because they don't know better, and birth rates go down as economies improve. If money is the only thing that makes a difference, I hope for their sake that you have no kids, and pity them if you do.

Edited by zooterkin:

<SNIP> for civility.

statistics don't say that women who don't abort to save money, it says that women who abort it is to save money.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

That has to be one of the most historically ignorant posts I've ever read. "... a medieval peasant could afford to keep pushing out children"? No, they couldn't. They had no choice and many children starved to death or had serious health problems due to severe malnutrition like scurvy, rickets, dental problems, vision problems, goiters, and mental impairment . Most medieval women gave birth many times but they did not have large families because so many children never made it to their first birthday.

Did you notice the bit in my post where I said lots of those children died? 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?

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 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.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Women had many children because
1) there was no reliable birth control
2) using any form of birth control was against religious teachings and
you'd 'go to hell' if you used it.
3) doctors could not even discuss birth control with their patients
4) getting an abortion was illegal and extremely dangerous
5) husbands had a 'right' to have sex with their wives whether the wives wanted to or not. There was no such thing as 'marital rape'.

Take a few history classes before spreading such nonsense.

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. Your version of it is simplistic, but attitudes to sex, and children, and the "good life" were different. 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.

Can we knock off the throwing sass at one another, and just talk about the issues in the thread?

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.

[Dumb All Over]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...rtion-in-ohio/



More details here.

Something smells fishy. I don't believe the story.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

Something smells fishy. I don't believe the story.

Can you articulate why?

[Dumb All Over]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Can you articulate why?

Because the story lacks any credible supporting evidence and is devoid of critical detail. Without further clarity and given the lack of verifiable information, the doctor's story of a 10-year-old's abortion is indistinguishable from a story of utter fantasy.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

Because the story lacks any credible supporting evidence and is devoid of critical detail. Without further clarity and given the lack of verifiable information, the doctor's story of a 10-year-old's abortion is indistinguishable from a story of utter fantasy.

What kind of supporting detail would it take to convince you that the story is true?

Such situations *will* come up in states that have outlawed abortion. Why wouldn't they? That's not a rhetorical question. What is the mechanism that would prevent them from happening?

[Dumb All Over]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

What kind of supporting detail would it take to convince you that the story is true?

Such situations *will* come up in states that have outlawed abortion. Why wouldn't they? That's not a rhetorical question. What is the mechanism that would prevent them from happening?

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.

[kookbreaker]

That’s a lot of violation of privacy of a child to convince

Edited by xjx388:

<SNIP> Edited for Rule 12

.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

.... Not even the Bible equates a fetus with a human being. A person who causes a miscarriage is guilty of the Bronze Age equivalent of a CIVIL offense.

None of this crap is in the Bible. Even Jerry Falwell wasn't on board until he saw a political benefit from going all Pro-Life on the country.

Know what is in the Bible? It's a sin for men to spill their seed on the ground.

Skeptics Annotated Bible: Abortion.

Quote:

Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names. -- Numbers 3:40

God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17

(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)
Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16

God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14

God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24

The Psalmist prays that his enemies are aborted.

Let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun. -- Psalm 58:8

[Dumb All Over]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

That’s a lot of violation of privacy of a child to convince

Edited by xjx388:

<SNIP>Removed moderated content

.

The story is pure BS.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

Something smells fishy. I don't believe the story.

The best part about the story is that it is a clickbait headline...with barely anything of detail about that claim. Mostly just a lead in for general complaining about abortion law.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

The story is pure BS.

You decided that because you wanted all her personal details and didn’t get them?

[Dumb All Over]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

You decided that because you wanted all her personal details and didn’t get them?

The story is lacking in so many more ways.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

The story is lacking in so many more ways.

These are the details you demanded:

Quote:

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?

Most, if not all of these are gross violations of privacy because you want the child's name so you

Edited by xjx388:

<SNIP> Edited for Rule 12

can harass her.

The Indy star has greater integrity than you.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

The story is pure BS.

Who cares if that one particular story is true? There is absolutely nothing in the story that is impossible, or even implausible. Statistically speaking, **** like this will be happening on a regular basis with millions of people living in states where abortion is illegal or will be made illegal shortly.

"Pro-lifers" have been able to hide behind Roe v. Wade for decades to avoid the real-world implications of banning abortion, but the Ridiculous Six have stripped away their cover. "Pro-lifers" now have to deal with stuff like this, either by saying its fine, or by making abortion exceptions.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Random

Who cares if that one particular story is true?

That is probably exactly what the author was thinking when they wrote it.

[Dumb All Over]

Originally Posted by Random

Who cares if that one particular story is true? There is absolutely nothing in the story that is impossible, or even implausible. Statistically speaking, **** like this will be happening on a regular basis with millions of people living in states where abortion is illegal or will be made illegal shortly.

HEADLINE - Millions of Knocked-Up Nine-Year-Olds Require Abortions!

[Random]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

HEADLINE - Millions of Knocked-Up Nine-Year-Olds Require Abortions!

Probably only a few dozen a year but yeah. Heck, what would you say if this happened once, because, and I repeat, this stuff will be happening.

[Dumb All Over]

Originally Posted by Random

Probably only a few dozen a year but yeah. Heck, what would you say if this happened once, because, and I repeat, this stuff will be happening.

So far, it hasn't happened even once.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

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?

In other words, you want the child's name to be publicized. Why on earth does her birthday matter?

Per Duke University, puberty in girls is NORMAL between the ages of 8 and 13. Girls are raped, girls get pregnant every day. It is the intention of Ohio to deny abortions to pregnant 10-year-olds. Why even try to deny that fact? Good, bad or indifferent, it's just an inevitable result of an abortion ban.

It's a case of statutory rape by definition. Do you honestly need an answer to that question? Do you think the rapist should have a say in the girl's abortion? If she was impregnated by a 12-year-old, should it matter that the 12-year-old, or his mom, or whoever, thinks it would be nifty to make her carry the pregnancy to term? If you think so, own it. I suspect you think it does matter. Otherwise, why ask the question?

This is the inevitable outcome of abortion bans. If that's not what you want, own the fact. It seems to me you're doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "La-la-la, I can't hear you," because you don't want to believe it can happen. Well, it can. It does. If pro-lifers want to step up and say, "That's not what we want, that wasn't our intent," well, good then. But none of them appear to be doing so.

Why wasn't the child being properly supervised ... oh come on. Children do get impregnated by family members. Sometimes the people who are supposed to be supervising. Are you going to deny that happens? What are you going to ask next? "What was she was wearing?"

You think the Indiana doctor is lying. I don't. And one reason I don't think so is that there is no need to lie about it. It will happen. If a ban is on the books in one state, those pregnancies will be terminated in another state. A sympathetic doctor isn't going to go, "Oh well, these are unusual circumstances so I'm sure it will be fine this one time." In my state, abortions have stopped. If a girl or woman's life is in *imminent* danger I would hope a courageous doctor would go ahead and perform the abortion. But the female person in question certainly has no automatic right to end a pregnancy.

There was a legislator, in Texas I think, who thought women's bodies in cases of "legitimate rape" just shut down and would not get pregnant. There is no such mechanism. If you are fine with 10-year-olds being denied abortions, that's OK. I disagree, but we can discuss the merits of that. But what I'm seeing is knee-jerk denial that it can even happen.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

So far, it hasn't happened even once.

How on earth can you know that?

[Dumb All Over]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

[snip]

Mischaracterize my position on abortion all you like. All I am saying is the story is bogus.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Most, if not all of these are gross violations of privacy because you want the child's name so you and the rest of the forced-birth goons can harass her.

That does seem to be the likely explanation, doesn't it. And if they can't get her publicly ID'd, they'll simply deny that such things happen.

If they could own such outcomes and still stick to their guns I would at least give them props for consistency. After all, the circumstances of conception are not the fetus's fault. But to deny that such circumstances happen - honestly I don't get it.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

Mischaracterize my position on abortion all you like.

No one is actually doing that.

Quote:

All I am saying is the story is bogus.

Yet you fail to give any reason why, instead demanding a series of privacy-violating details before you will accept it.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

Mischaracterize my position on abortion all you like. All I am saying is the story is bogus.

I don't know your position on abortion. If you would like to spell it out, *I will listen.* But I don't understand why you think the Indiana doctor is lying. What does she gain?

If a law bans abortion except to save the life of the mother these things will happen. If that's what society wants, so be it. But to write off this reality as a bogus attempt to foment outrage is, IMO, naive at best.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Can you articulate why?

For me, it's because the details are too convenient. The age, while not impossible, is still sensationalistic. And the timeline is a little too perfect. It's coming right on the heels of the Dobbs decision, PLUS the girl is supposedly 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant, just after the Ohio cutoff of 6 weeks. And medical privacy laws mean there's absolutely no way to verify the claim.

Is it possible? Yes. But it still seems too good to be true.

I will also note that, if the story is true, this girl is still getting an abortion despite the ban.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Warp12

That is probably exactly what the author was thinking when they wrote it.

For the most part, newspaper reporters actually hate being wrong. At the least, I believe they are accurately reporting what Caitlyn Bernard told them.

Do you think Bernard is lying? Are you willing to spell out why you think so, or would you rather stick to snarky one-liners that do not commit you to a position?

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I will also note that, if the story is true, this girl is still getting an abortion despite the ban.

Why am I not surprised that your attitude of "the landmines I put on your driveway didn't destroy your car, so they must not have been a problem" you display with regards to voting rights is also applied to abortion?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I don't know your position on abortion. If you would like to spell it out, *I will listen.* But I don't understand why you think the Indiana doctor is lying. What does she gain?

People lie for their ideologies all the time. It's pretty common. Personal gain isn't required when you're committed to a cause. And there are a lot of people who are ideologically committed to both sides of the abortion debate.

At the end of the day, though, it doesn't really matter whether she's telling the truth. Such cases are possible. They will be rare. Assuming the story is true, she is getting an abortion anyways, and so will many (most?) others in similar situations. If a case like this changes your mind, then you never thought deeply about the problem to begin with.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

For me, it's because the details are too convenient. The age, while not impossible, is still sensationalistic. And the timeline is a little too perfect. It's coming right on the heels of the Dobbs decision, PLUS the girl is supposedly 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant, just after the Ohio cutoff of 6 weeks. And medical privacy laws mean there's absolutely no way to verify the claim.

Is it possible? Yes. But it still seems too good to be true.

I will also note that, if the story is true, this girl is still getting an abortion despite the ban.

Right, but that means Caitlyn Bernard is lying, and I'm not sure why she'd do that. She is an advocate for women's reproductive health but then so are most doctors. Of course, you could say they're trying to cover their ***** and that would have some element of truth.

Yes, the girl in question is still going to have access to abortion. But that's an accident of geography. Look an abortion-ban map and it's pretty clear this circumstance will occur and in the deep South, for example, it will be much harder for the girl to obtain the procedure, especially if she is poor. And that is what legislators in such states want. Or at least, they claim that's what they want.

You say she'll still have access, and that is so. It could be seen as a mitigating factor. Even if this story is true, people can say, she still got the abortion. As if that is a good thing. And IMO, by and large it IS a good thing. She might have to jump through some hoops, but it's still an outcome that did not force her to give birth.

A lot of these laws IMO are aimed at just that. Making female people jump through hoops so politicians can point to their pro-life records. I think it's dishonest. I hope that as a result of the Supreme Court's decision people will get more honest about this subject.

As soon as you identify access to abortion as a public good in some circumstances you open the door to questions about the details of those circumstances. This case might seem like an outlier or "too good to be true" but it's a circumstance that absolutely happens. If people really want to make that 10-year-old girl give birth, I would rather see them defend their positions than deny such circumstances happen. It would make for a more honest and meaningful discussion IMO.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

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.

Why the almighty **** should you get to know ANY of that?!

[Dumb All Over]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Why the almighty **** should you get to know ANY of that?!

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

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

If a case like this changes your mind, then you never thought deeply about the problem to begin with.

That could absolutely be true. And honestly I don't think a lot of pro-life people have thought deeply about the issue. Of course that may be true on the pro-choice side as well.

I do want people to think about it. IMO, the position that a zygote = a fully formed human does not really hold up to any kind of scrutiny under a common law framework or even a Biblical framework, and certainly not in everyday practice.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

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

You're working with nothing but an argument from incredulity. I guess that's good enough for you.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

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

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.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

For me, it's because the details are too convenient. The age, while not impossible, is still sensationalistic. And the timeline is a little too perfect. It's coming right on the heels of the Dobbs decision, PLUS the girl is supposedly 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant, just after the Ohio cutoff of 6 weeks. And medical privacy laws mean there's absolutely no way to verify the claim.

Is it possible? Yes. But it still seems too good to be true.
....

Well, something similar happened in Brazil, and that wouldn't have anything to do with Roe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...rape-abortion/
https://theintercept.com/2022/06/20/...stupro-aborto/

Considering how many kids are molested every year, it shouldn't be a surprise that some pre-teen girls are made pregnant. But we haven't heard about them because for the last 50 years doctors have been able to resolve those cases quickly and quietly. We are soon going to be hearing horror stories from doctors and social workers across the country in states where abortion has been prohibited.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

So far, it hasn't happened even once.

WTF?

No 10 yr olds have ever gotten abortions?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

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

Based on what evidence?

Truthiness, whatever is convenient. A 10 yr old did not need to go to another state to get an abortion and the election was stolen.