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

No, there will be ad nauseum information about clinical details regarding the case. However, when it comes to the PII that you disingenuously claim to be required to even consider that a case might be real there will be zero (as anything else would violate ethical guidelines and would get the doctors writing the article into real trouble).
 
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...
:boggled:

So just this one? Then WTF is your point claiming without a shred of evidence this case didn't happen? What an utterly insignificant thing to bother arguing.
 
But really, what so special about the Bill of Rights, anyway? Shouldn't that be left to the states too? Like if someone distributed information about abortion that someone in a state banning abortion might be able to access shouldn't that be illegal?

It seems some lawmakers in South Carolina think so:
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/30/s-c-bill-would-apparently-outlaw-news-sites-writing-about-legal-abortion-clinics-in-neighboring-states/

The law's ban on "knowingly or intentionally aid[ing or] abet[ting]" an abortion "includes, but is not limited to knowingly and intentionally,"

(1) providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone, internet, or any other mode of communication regarding self-administered abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an abortion; [or]

(2) hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing access to an internet website, or providing an internet service purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this State that provides information on how to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used for an abortion.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Warp12 said:
This assertion sounds more idiotic every time I hear it.
Click to expand...

This is the guy that appointed those 3 religious extremists that made overturning Roe possible.

It takes until 1:10 for him to say "there has to be some kind of punishment"
"For the woman?"
"Yeah."
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is the guy that appointed those 3 religious extremists that made overturning Roe possible.

It takes until 1:10 for him to say "there has to be some kind of punishment"
"For the woman?"
"Yeah."
Click to expand...


"Extremists". LOL.

As for the video, that is not a civil discussion, and the fellow is clearing trying to frustrate Trump. Clearly though, if an abortion law is broken, there must be punishment. Obviously the woman is likely to be part of that equation.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.
Click to expand...
You believe abortion is OK under some circumstances. Can you elaborate on the circumstances under which abortion should be allowed?

Warp12 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why "statistically significant" should be the bar, but if it is, I'd say it's better to work with accurate statistics. Something else is rare - late-term abortions of the type the "right" would lead people to believe are common.

Warp12 said:
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...
This exact sentence construction applies equally to the "right" - if you equate "right" with anti-choice. The pro-lifers will bring up healthy babies being torn from limb to limb and forcibly extracted from a woman's body. (If this happened, would you say that statistics make it an invalid concern?) I might say, "The bottom line is right-to-lifers want the right to control women's reproduction, with as few limitations as possible." And that's *true*, at least in my state. Rape or incest won't cut it.

As I said earlier, if I felt like the arguments were intellectually honest I'd be more comfortable with the decision. We could decide as a society if a zygote is a "body." We could decide if culling after IVF constituted murder. My position was that almost no one believes a zygote is a body, and that equating a fetus with a fully developed baby is problematic under common law, biblical examples and centuries of everyday practice.

If you believe it, then the rape or incest exception makes no sense. I actually think it's more intellectually honest NOT to allow abortions except to save the life of the mother *if even then*. Because if someone accepts the personhood argument, it's murder, or at least homicide. If they don't accept the personhood argument, then their objections to abortion rights are based on something else. What is that something else? Unless we can look at that honestly, entrenched views will remain on both sides.
 
Minoosh said:
You believe abortion is OK under some circumstances. Can you elaborate on the circumstances under which abortion should be allowed?
Click to expand...


Sure. It's easy:

I accepted Roe. I didn't lobby against it. I felt that in most states abortion law was reasonable, although not always ideal. I am not fond of late 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions without cause.

My personal preference would be that more focus was placed on personal responsibility than is currently the case. Most unwanted pregnancies are entirely avoidable without surgery or abstinence.

I can't say that I am shedding a tear over this ruling, however. Some of the liberal rhetoric being put forth makes me think the action was overdue. Now we will just have to let the chips fall where they may.
 
kookbreaker said:
You decided that because you wanted all her personal details and didn’t get them?
Click to expand...

Dumb All Over said:
The story is lacking in so many more ways.
Click to expand...

Oh, please, Dumb. You have used every trick in the book to deny the story.

You ask for sources. But when two doctors get cited as sources you pretend the response is an appeal to authority debate trick.

When you can't get answers to pointless questions you know people here don't have answers to (like whether the rapist dad had a criminal record) you pretend the story is incomplete and thus must be phony.

Okay, sure there's a chance that Rudavsky and Fradette at the Indy Star phonied up the story. It's happened before. Reporters have been known to add inaccurate details into stories so as to make them more interesting and news worthy. Sometimes they just make up the entire story.

But there's a chance you are a Russian Paid troll sent here to destroy faith in America's free press.

Prove you are not. . .see how easy that was.
 
Dumb All Over said:
When you find any new evidence in your cited article to further support the truthfulness beyond what was offered in the original story, be sure to let me know.
Click to expand...

When you find solid evidence that the story is faked let us know, Dumb.
 
catsmate said:
Indeed. Demanding facts and references and then handwaving them if they're inconvenient to his beliefs, very Trumpian.
Click to expand...

This is pretty common. Just yesterday I was discussing covid with someone and first they claimed the vaccines made your immune system worse and so you're more likely to die or have severe symptoms from covid if you get the shot.

I told them the data shows the exact opposite and anyone could find this info with relative ease.

They said prove it, cite a source. So I did and also gave them the summary of the findings because it's not like they're going to actually read it.

Suddenly their argument changed to "imagine caring if 2 people die of covid instead of 1.

It's just sad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom