• 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.
mikegriffith1 said:
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."
Click to expand...

Warp12 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely not true. If the fetus was truly a separate body it could not survive.
 
Bob001 said:
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
Click to expand...


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

Women are not incubators.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Dumb All Over said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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?
 
Warp12 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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).
 
Warp12 said:
The abilitychoice to birth children does carry some responsibility, believe it or not.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. I should note that said responsibility is understood to extend beyond birth by all except pro-birthers.
 
Warp12 said:
....
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.
....
Click to expand...


And there we have it: The anti-abortion crowd wants to punish women for having sex.
 
Random said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dumb All Over said:
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.
Click to expand...


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...-law-roe-v-wade-overturned-travel/7779936001/
https://medicine.iu.edu/faculty/23008/bernard-caitlin
 
cosmicaug said:
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?
Click to expand...

If the only evidence offered in these case histories is no more than was offered in the dubious story, then yep.
 
Warp12 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
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."
Click to expand...
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.
 
cosmicaug said:
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).
Click to expand...

Dumb all over, did you read this? This pretty much torpedoes any “convenient timing” argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom