• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dumb All Over said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
kookbreaker said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dumb All Over said:
Mischaracterize my position on abortion all you like. All I am saying is the story is bogus.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Minoosh said:
Can you articulate why?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Warp12 said:
That is probably exactly what the author was thinking when they wrote it.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Ziggurat said:
I will also note that, if the story is true, this girl is still getting an abortion despite the ban.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Minoosh said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dumb All Over said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why the almighty **** should you get to know ANY of that?!
 
Ziggurat said:
If a case like this changes your mind, then you never thought deeply about the problem to begin with.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
....
Click to expand...

Well, something similar happened in Brazil, and that wouldn't have anything to do with Roe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/02/brazil-child-rape-abortion/
https://theintercept.com/2022/06/20/video-juiza-sc-menina-11-anos-estupro-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.
 
Dumb All Over said:
Don't worry about it. I won't get answers to those questions because the story is fake.
Click to expand...
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. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom