Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

[Stacyhs]

Someone on record calling murder victims scumbags who earned their fate and not caring if poor people die due to lack of access to healthcare should probably spare the rest of us their hollow moralizing.

 

[Minoosh]

Around 30 weeks seems to be the point when you can even start to consider a fetus sentient, but I don't really count that as a person based on what I've read.

All things being equal I'm fine with telling a woman who's seven months pregnant that it's too late for an abortion. Even in cases of anencephaly I'd be more inclined to induce labor and provide comfort care for the child. That infant will not be aware that it's being taken care of, but we know, and I think that matters.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Is this 2019 story also fake?

The CBS story you cite goes into greater detail than the story we are discussing in this thread. For instance, in the article you cite they name the rapist, one Juan Leon-Gomez, who was indicted for rape and held on a one-million-dollar bond for his "non-forcible" transgression. He was scheduled to be arraigned on May 20th of that year. The article mentions information about the victim, how she "left the residence without her mother's permission," and how she was counseled on "her delinquent behavior," and how she is "rebellious," and how she "refuses to listen to her mother and runs away from home all the time." Most importantly, it cites court documents and police reports.
This was rather interesting -

An incident report filed April 29 by the local police department reflects an interview with an employee of a "pregnancy care center," who appeared to place some of the responsibility on the 11-year old rape victim.

I would not call this a fake story. The story under discussion in this thread, however, offers no such detail.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Why not? Is the child any less a child in your eyes? Is it less deserving of life in your eyes? When you say a child that is the result of incest is not equally a person, then you are discrediting your own position.
I never said that.

And did you forget that I was not against Roe in the first place, nor did I expect it to be overturned?

But, I can see why some conservatives say no exceptions for rape or incest...because liberals practically demand it. There is practically no downside, as you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Did you forget that you did say:

Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.

How do you justify aborting a fetus that is the result of incest unless you don't consider it equally deserving of life as any other fetus? I don't care what your position on overturning R v W was. The rest is just your usual attempt at distraction with nonsense.

 

[Leumas]

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

What is wrong with calling a "the unborn" a parasite... don't many conservatives call people who get the dole (social security) the same thing???

What is special about "the unborn" that you find it objectionable to call them parasites just like most conservatives call the dole recipients... especially when "the unborn" are in fact parasites by all the definitions of the term scientifically and socially???

Do you know what the definition of a parasite is???

 

[TheGoldcountry]

How do you justify aborting a fetus that is the result of incest unless you don't consider it equally deserving of life as any other fetus? I don't care what your position on overturning R v W was. The rest is just your usual attempt at distraction with nonsense.

This. As soon as you say that abortion is OK in certain situations, you're admitting that it's more about the mother's behavior than anything else. You're making your own judgment on whether or not she "deserves" to discontinue the pregnancy.

No one should have that control over another person's bodily autonomy. Not if they ever want to pretend they respect civil rights at all, for anybody. No pregnant woman, or any human being at all, should have to prove to some stranger's satisfaction that they deserve to have control over their own being.

 

[Leumas]

Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.

Why???

Also... do you think the government should make it illegal for you to refuse to give blood or to refuse to be an organ donor???

Consider this... if a man has a daughter and she just had double renal failure and as a result her lungs are irrevocably diseased.

Do you think that the government should pass a law to make it illegal for the father (who is fully compatible blood and genetically) to refuse giving half a lung and one kidney to his daughter???

 

[Minoosh]

"Asked if she would seek to have the law changed if a similar case occurred in her state, Noem replied: “I don’t believe a tragic situation should be perpetuated by another tragedy. There’s more that we have got to do to make sure that we really are living a life that says every life is precious, especially innocent lives that have been shattered, like that 10-year-old girl.”

Yeah, let's compound the horror of that shattered life by making her carry and give birth! On average, a ten year old girl weighs 70 lbs and is 4'7" tall.

At least she's not flat-out declaring that the story is false. In a weird way I give her credit for that. I disagree with her definitions though. Terminating an unwanted six-week pregnancy is not a "tragedy." She kind of admitted a full-term pregnancy could well endanger the life of a 10-year-old and in fact a full-term pregnancy is definitely a mortality risk for women in general. She started using the language of choice, actually, by saying the people close to the problem should make the decision. But she included the state Legislature as people close to the problem.

Maternal mortality is 10 times as high in the U.S. as it is in New Zealand. Twice as high as France. The U.S. is the only industrialized nation where it has increased since 1990. Of course some will hand-wave this away.

I always wonder why people who champion individual rights, and say it's inappropriate for the federal government to take them away, think it's OK for a *state* government to take them away. Paranoid fantasies almost never seem to focus on, say, being persecuted by South Dakota.

 

[Stacyhs]

Why does it have to be "more important" in order to justify living?

Ask the legislatures that are passing these draconian anti-abortion laws. They're the ones telling women that a clump of cells is more important than control over their own bodies.

Someone could argue that the value of that life is greater than the inconvenience that the woman may endure due to the unwanted pregnancy that she voluntarily contributed to (in the vast majority of cases).

"Inconvenience"? Spoken like someone who will never, ever find himself with an unwanted pregnancy. And an added "it's really her fault, after all" condemnation for good measure. You never fail to deliver. Pardon the pun.

 

[Warp12]

What is wrong with calling a "the unborn" a parasite...

I love this, tbh. The more the merrier, I say. The true nature of "pro-choice" is to start by dehumanizing the fetus. Once you do that, I imagine the rest is very easy.

Anyone else want to jump on the "unborn humans are parasites" bandwagon? I think we are up to 3 or 4, with an honorable mention for one comparing a fetus to a virus.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's just about that child saving money, you see.

Well, how is she going to be able to have any allowance left for buying ice cream from the ice cream truck if she has to spend it on diapers?

 

[Leumas]

...
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.

So if the girl is irresponsible and will never be able to be so and much less take care of the child to grow up to a decent citizen..... do you advocate that the government should start a social security system to provide for these children of irresponsible people to be brought up decently and to mature into decent citizens on the expense of tax payers???

...
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.

Isn't the conservatives' mantric spiel ... smaller government lesser control less legislation .... what do you think all this is doing to the size and expenditure of the government especially if they have to take care of the eventually born "unborns"???

 

[Leumas]

I love this, tbh. The more the merrier, I say. The true nature of "pro-choice" is to start by dehumanizing the fetus. Once you do that, I imagine the rest is very easy.

Nope... a fetus is NOT a human... it is the enemies of liberty and bodily autonomy who falsely claim it is in order to further their agenda of denying people autonomy over the choices for their lives' trajectories.

Anyone else want to jump on the "unborn humans are parasites" bandwagon? I think we are up to 3 or 4, with an honorable mention for one comparing a fetus to a virus.

I think you need to get yourself a biology book and learn about what a fetus is and then what a parasite is... and see if you can comprehend the similarity.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Or do you think 10 year old girls can't get pregnant?

I haven't said that and I don't think that.

Well, yeah....you kinda did:

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

Originally Posted by Random View Post
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.

 

[Stacyhs]

The CBS story you cite goes into greater detail than the story we are discussing in this thread. For instance, in the article you cite they name the rapist, one Juan Leon-Gomez, who was indicted for rape and held on a one-million-dollar bond for his "non-forcible" transgression. He was scheduled to be arraigned on May 20th of that year. The article mentions information about the victim, how she "left the residence without her mother's permission," and how she was counseled on "her delinquent behavior," and how she is "rebellious," and how she "refuses to listen to her mother and runs away from home all the time." Most importantly, it cites court documents and police reports.
This was rather interesting -


I would not call this a fake story. The story under discussion in this thread, however, offers no such detail.

Well, good. But unless the father of the baby in the Ohio case has been identified , they can't give his name, can they? If the girl was sexually abused by more than one man or the girl cannot name him, then it will require a DNA test that they can't do until they can get fetal tissue after the abortion. Therefore, if no criminal charges have been filed as of yet, there are no court records to quote.

You're pedaling awfully hard to support your claim that the Ohio case is 'fake' and 'made up' when it's clear that you want to believe this is all just a political stunt by pro-choice advocates. But you're on a stationary bike and going nowhere:

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

The story is pure BS.

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

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.

How many parents would want to advertise that their 9,10, 11, 12 yr. old child is pregnant and needs an abortion? You think they contact the media? Hell, no: they quietly take her to a state without these draconian laws and get it taken care of. And if it's a case of incest, they probably cover that up, too.

 

[shuttlt]

I have a teaching credential in history and passed my 3 hr. final exam in the 97th percentile and I say your post was historically ignorant because it was.

Great for you. You still seem to be confused. You keep citing stats that agree with me.

Yes, I noticed it but that was not the point of your post at all which was "From an economic standpoint, it's interesting how a modern, middle class person can look at having children as an economic catastrophe, where as a medieval peasant could afford to keep pushing out children (all be it with only half of them surviving to adulthood)."
The highlighted is merely an acknowledgment that many children died but it does not change what your main point was: it wasn't an economic hardship on women to keep having children. That is patently false.

It's always easy to refute people when you see their real meaning behind their words, and refute that rather than what they actually said. Is this the way you teach history? Ignore what things say and just make up your own meaning?

Despite your attempt to discredit my source as a 'blog', the writer was referring to his senior thesis. You know, that thing a graduating senior has to write and present to professors as evidence of their mastery of their major. Do you think malnutrition in the MIddle Ages has changed in the last 46 years? As the author included in his 'blog', he "was particularly interested in a recent study of bones from medieval London (National Geographic, Feb 2016, p. 97):

Some guys musings on his blog about what he wrote 46 years ago is a ****** source.

This backs up exactly what I said.

Yes, but you are using it to refute an argument you made up. I never said that medieval peasants weren't poor. My point was that they were. Demonstrating my point doesn't refute me. It only refutes the point you made up and then attributed to me that goes against the things that I actually said.

The size of families was not determined by infant deaths alone but by all child deaths which was about 50%:

Again, I said half a their children died in my original post. You then changed it to infants, and so I gave the stat for that. You going back and saying I should be using the child death stat, that I originally gave, and giving me the exact same stat that I quoted in my original post is neither you educating me, no is it you proving me wrong. When you teach, do you listen to what your students say, or do you go on hour long monologues based on you not having listened to the question?

False:

Read what you are responding to. I said that, given that half their kids died before adulthood, for the population to be increasing, as it was for most of the middle ages, apart from times of plague and famine, they must have been having 4 or 5 kids. You leaping out and telling me that actually after half their kids died they only had two or so kids left, or that during the black death that dropped below two, is you agreeing with what I said.

So, not the large families you claim.

Read the text you are responding to. I said that half their kids died, and since the population was mostly rising the must have been having 4 or 5 kids. I was speaking in very broad terms. 4 or 5 kids with half of them dying leaves 2-2.5 kids. I mentioned that the population dropped at times due to things like plague in my second post that you responded to. I'm perfectly familiar with the graph of the English population in the middle ages. Demonstrating that there were below replacement birth rates in the period I had already mentioned as being such a period is not you bringing anything to the table.

Again, your attempt to dismiss my source fails. As does your ad hominem. I'd say my facts are backed up with....facts. Yours are not.

I'm sorry, but you are quoting things that agree with my posts to refute me. Things that are widely known. My daughter is 12 and could tell you them. What do you want me to tell you if you start lecturing me about the facts in my own posts as if you are educating me?

SLOL! Speaking of a 'midwit haze' what the hell does that have to do with your claim that people 'pushed out children' like crazy and didn't find it an economic burden? ]

Some kind of haze, because you keep seeing claims from me that don't appear in my posts. They were able to, times like the black death aside, maintain above replacement birth rates, even though in absolute terms their were far poorer, and yet we aren't and many people cite the cost of children as the reason.

OMG. The list I provided weren't 'encouragements' to have children! They are what prevented women from having control over their own bodies!
Women never wanted to be breeding machines but that was the major role society...controlled by MEN...gave them because it wasn't MEN who were dying from pregnancy, in childbirth or from post partum infections. Childbirth was the leading cause of death in women in the middle ages.

Yeah, I don't think there is much point in going in to the women's studies departments view of history.

Today we give women choices...or at least we did until this latest SC debacle. Historically, women had very little control over anything in their lives because they were legally the property of men in their lives. Hell, rape was seen as a property crime against a woman's husband or father.

Are you still giving me a history lecture, or just a social justice lecture?

I said your post was historically ignorant...as in uninformed. I didn't say stupid. It was you who chose to use the term "midwit" toward me.

Except that you don't read the posts you responded to, and you quoted back stats that I had given you as if you were informing me. You said "That has to be one of the most historically ignorant posts I've ever read"... sure you came in very polite. You then went and straw manned me. I have no idea why I took your approach as rude and confrontational.

AS the saying goes: you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Your post was, and is, historically incorrect.

Clearly I am not entitled to my own facts because you steal them from my posts and then cite them back to me as if you were educating me.

For the sake of the mods, I'm done responding.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Anyone else want to jump on the "unborn humans are parasites" bandwagon? I think we are up to 3 or 4, with an honorable mention for one comparing a fetus to a virus.

There are a number of medical terms people might find have a negative connotation. The word itself describes a relationship between the host and the parasite. It isn't always negative.

5 reasons you might actually want to be infected by a parasite


Moving on:

"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.

Inside the Extreme Effort to Punish Women for Abortion

“Even the states that have trigger laws,” which ban abortion at conception without exceptions for rape or incest, did not go far enough, Durbin, a pastor in the greater Phoenix area, said. “They do not believe that the woman should ever be punished.”...

The most extreme, like Durbin, want to pursue what they call “abortion abolition,” a move to criminalize abortion from conception as homicide and hold women who have the procedure responsible — a position that in some states could make those women eligible for the death penalty. That position is at odds with the anti-abortion mainstream, which opposes criminalizing women and focuses on prosecuting providers.

Many people who oppose abortion believe life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. Abolitionists follow that thinking to what they believe is the logical, and uncompromising, conclusion: From the moment of conception, abolitionists want to give the fetus equal protection as a person under the 14th Amendment.

lol

 

[Stacyhs]

I love this, tbh. The more the merrier, I say. The true nature of "pro-choice" is to start by dehumanizing depersonifying the fetus. Once you do that, I imagine the rest is very easy.

No one has said a zygote or fetus isn't 'human'. My liver is 'human'. My kidneys are 'human'. But they are not 'persons'. This has been pointed out to you before but you just continue with the intellectual dishonesty.

Anyone else want to jump on the "unborn humans are parasites" bandwagon? I think we are up to 3 or 4,

Every scientist would jump on that bandwagon because it's a scientific fact.

with an honorable mention for one comparing a fetus to a virus.

Sigh. Can you get any more dishonest? Kookbreaker never compared a fetus to a virus:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
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.

Countering an argument with the fact that having a 'unique DNA' does not mean something isn't scientifically a parasite is not comparing them.

"Viruses are small obligate intracellular parasites"

First rule of holes when you find yourself in one: stop digging.

 

[Stacyhs]

For the sake of the mods, I'm done responding.

Best news I've had all day!

 

[Minoosh]

I love this, tbh. The more the merrier, I say. The true nature of "pro-choice" is to start by dehumanizing the fetus. Once you do that, I imagine the rest is very easy.

Yet you don't think women should have to carry "incest babies" to term. To be OK with that, as far as I can tell, you can't believe abortion is murder - that a fetus is a full-fledged person.

If it's not murder, why should the state be able to ban it?

I'm not playing games. I'm willing to call a viable fetus a person, but at six weeks? No. And I don't think you are saying that either.