Man charged with raping Ohio girl, 10, who was denied abortion

[johnnybangkok]

21 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Cards on the table time.  I think abortions should be legal until the 15th week of pregnancy. Or when the mother's health is in danger. Or in cases of rape. Or in cases of severe birth defect.  After 15 weeks? No, unless one of those conditions is present.  

 

Your turn. 

It's telling that you think this and coming from the UK I'll tell you why.

 

Medically it is much better to have the time period at 24 weeks. Those who know what they are talking about (you know, the medical professionals) guage this as the optimum time as in the rare times it is required (and it is very rare) it's usually due to 'medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.' https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

 

The ONLY reason you would lower this time is because you want to start a trend in lowering the age until you get to a time that is basically zero i.e. a complete ban on abortion. To the outside world America looks like it's becioming a religous state as so much of the political agenda is now being driven by the very powerful right-wing religous groups (backed by an increasingly right-wing GOP) who believe their religion should take precident over man-made laws. The Dems got badly flanked on the abortion law and are now madly scrambling to enshrine LGBTQ laws because they can see where this is all going. But it's a slippery slope downwards and the facts of this case completely lends to the importance of how religion can't be a leader in law making. A 10 year girl was raped and for some bizarre reason there's a question on where, how and 'who signs off' on her being able to get a legal abortion. There should be no ambiguity with this; only the welfare of a 10 year old should be of concern and what's evident in what has happened so far is medical professionals are confused and scared about their own well-being and whether they will have a job after doing the right thing for their patients. That can't be a good thing and something ALL Americans should be concerned about.

 

       

[Atlantis]

4 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

The ONLY reason you would lower this time is because you want to start a trend in lowering the age until you get to a time that is basically zero i.e. a complete ban on abortion.

Say what? I’ve got to assume the 6 other likes you got must have been for the other content.

 

How on earth do you rationalize the time limit in France, or Germany, or many other developed countries? They’re secretly on their way to zero weeks for permitting abortion right. Gotta be the “ONLY reason” anyone anywhere would support a limit lower than 24 weeks.

 

@johnnybangkok would you like to explain / modify / retract that statement?

[Atlantis]

Generally, I can’t begin to understand why people casually throw around “the ONLY reason for X” is + [the most extreme possible explanation]. It’s hardly ever appropriate.

 

Specific to this awful subject (abortion for an underaged rape victims), it seems a little insane - at least at face value.

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

...

The idea that the US is becoming some dystopian Atwood novel is folly.

About half the US is indeed thanks to the radical right wing Forced Birth party.

Their goal is clear. Total or near total ban on all abortions in all 50 states.

[Hanaguma]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

About half the US is indeed thanks to the radical right wing Forced Birth party.

Their goal is clear. Total or near total ban on all abortions in all 50 states.

Even if you are right (which you are not), that should lead you to agree with abortion being decided by the states individually.  Leftie strongholds like California and New York can set laws to allow abortion up to 6 months after the birth of the baby, right wing bastions like Utah can force everyone to wear magic underpants. That is the beauty of the federal system. 

 

So, where do YOU stand on the issue yourself? Any limits that would be acceptable>

[KanchanaburiGuy]

12 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Medically it is much better to have the time period at 24 weeks. Those who know what they are talking about (you know, the medical professionals) guage this as the optimum time as in the rare times it is required (and it is very rare) it's usually due to 'medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion

The first sentence is woefully untrue.

 

At 24 weeks, the survival rate of a delivered fetus is just under 70%. At 24 weeks, we're well beyond the moral line that separates "aborting a fetus" and "killing a baby."

 

Here is a link to a good site that shows survival rates at different levels of gestation.........

 

https://healthcare.utah.edu/womenshealth/pregnancy-birth/preterm-birth/when-is-it-safe-to-deliver.php#:~:text=About 40 percent of these,between 60 and 70 percent.

 

---------------

 

I think:

 

Killing a fetus at an early enough stage of development that it cannot survive outside the womb under any circumstances.......... is morally acceptable.

 

With our current state of technology, that point maxxes out at 18 to 19 weeks. (Therefore, allowing an additional moral buffer between the points of alright and all wrong, I'm morally okay with First Trimester.)

 

But, killing a child at 24 weeks when it has roughly a 70% chance of survival if "delivered" instead of being "aborted?"............. This is morally UNacceptable. (Suddenly, words like "unconscionable" and "horrendous" start coming into play!)

 

---------------

 

Medically, we know there is a break point where survival is possible........... and survival is impossible. What we cannot say is exactly when that break point is, for any one individual.

 

What we can say though is......... At 20 weeks, survival is possible but still extremely unlikely. And we can say that at under 24 weeks, survival rate of delivered children is less than 50% (see the link provided.)

 

At 18-weeks, survival rate = zero.

At 20-weeks, survival rate = not zero!

 

Medicine and science cannot tell us what is moral and immoral. That's not their area of expertise; not their focus.

 

But medicine and science CAN put up some fences that help us see; that can help us decide where the boundaries should be. 

 

At 24 weeks, barring developmental issues already noted by others, a baby should be delivered, not "aborted." The nearly 70% survival rate of babies born at that stage of development demands that!

 

(Some may say a 5% survival rate is enough. Some may say 10% or 20% or 30% Obviously, this being a MORAL question, opinions are going to differ. )

 

I say:

 

A woman should have a choice.

 

But if a woman hasn't chosen by the end of the First Trimester.......... then she HAS chosen!

 

A woman should not have the right to kill a child that could very well survive outside the womb............ just because she procrastinated!

 

--------------

 

Yes, she should have a choice. But we should also enforce the idea that not choosing............ IS choosing!

 

Allowing a choice to be made as late as 20 weeks.......... gets into very murky waters! Because at 20 weeks, survival IS possible.

 

24 weeks? Not acceptable! No sorry, not by a long shot!

 

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

The first sentence is woefully untrue.

 

At 24 weeks, the survival rate of a delivered fetus is just under 70%. At 24 weeks, we're well beyond the moral line that separates "aborting a fetus" and "killing a baby."

 

Here is a link to a good site that shows survival rates at different levels of gestation.........

 

https://healthcare.utah.edu/womenshealth/pregnancy-birth/preterm-birth/when-is-it-safe-to-deliver.php#:~:text=About 40 percent of these,between 60 and 70 percent.

 

---------------

 

I think:

 

Killing a fetus at an early enough stage of development that it cannot survive outside the womb under any circumstances.......... is morally acceptable.

 

With our current state of technology, that point maxxes out at 18 to 19 weeks. (Therefore, allowing an additional moral buffer between the points of alright and all wrong, I'm morally okay with First Trimester.)

 

But, killing a child at 24 weeks when it has roughly a 70% chance of survival if "delivered" instead of being "aborted?"............. This is morally UNacceptable. (Suddenly, words like "unconscionable" and "horrendous" start coming into play!)

 

---------------

 

Medically, we know there is a break point where survival is possible........... and survival is impossible. What we cannot say is exactly when that break point is, for any one individual.

 

What we can say though is......... At 20 weeks, survival is possible but still extremely unlikely. And we can say that at under 24 weeks, survival rate of delivered children is less than 50% (see the link provided.)

 

At 18-weeks, survival rate = zero.

At 20-weeks, survival rate = not zero!

 

Medicine and science cannot tell us what is moral and immoral. That's not their area of expertise; not their focus.

 

But medicine and science CAN put up some fences that help us see; that can help us decide where the boundaries should be. 

 

At 24 weeks, barring developmental issues already noted by others, a baby should be delivered, not "aborted." The nearly 70% survival rate of babies born at that stage of development demands that!

 

(Some may say a 5% survival rate is enough. Some may say 10% or 20% or 30% Obviously, this being a MORAL question, opinions are going to differ. )

 

I say:

 

A woman should have a choice.

 

But if a woman hasn't chosen by the end of the First Trimester.......... then she HAS chosen!

 

A woman should not have the right to kill a child that could very well survive outside the womb............ just because she procrastinated!

 

--------------

 

Yes, she should have a choice. But we should also enforce the idea that not choosing............ IS choosing!

 

Allowing a choice to be made as late as 20 weeks.......... gets into very murky waters! Because at 20 weeks, survival IS possible.

 

24 weeks? Not acceptable! No sorry, not by a long shot!

 

However he qualified his first sentence with his second sentence along with a link which explained his position fully:

 

12 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Those who know what they are talking about (you know, the medical professionals) guage this as the optimum time as in the rare times it is required (and it is very rare) it's usually due to 'medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.' https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

    

 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

42 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

No its as I stated a completely false equivalence, if your going to argue your position at least do so with relevant sources. The differences between the EU member states and the US states are vast and a totally different topic.

While Roe v Wade was in force, that was true. Now that Roe v Wade has been overturned, it is not true.

 

Individual sovereign States in the United States making their own abortion laws........... is exactly the same individual European Countries making their own abortion laws.

 

The only difference.......... as we saw with Roe v Wade........... is the Federal Judiciary has the ability to declare a law unconstitutional, thereby negating the laws from the individual States.

 

Now, the Federal Government CAN pass a law making abortion legal nationwide; a law that overrides the individual State laws. But remember, such laws do not occur in vaccuum! Those laws are created by elected State representatives in the House and Senate!

 

Sorry, but with Roe v Wade having been overturned, individual sovereign States.......... operate just like individual Countries........... as far as abortion laws are concerned.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

24 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

However he qualified his first sentence with his second sentence along with a link which explained his position fully:

 

 

And I dismantled it with BETTER "medical professional" information, also with a link.

 

Allowing voluntary abortions out to 24 weeks is unconscionable. 

 

24 weeks is when a fetus is considered realistically, reliably viable........ not a defining point up to which voluntary abortions should be allowed.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

And I dismantled it with BETTER "medical professional" information, also with a link.

 

Allowing voluntary abortions out to 24 weeks is unconscionable. 

 

24 weeks is when a fetus is considered realistically, reliably viable........ not a defining point up to which voluntary abortions should be allowed.

Nobody claimed allowing voluntary abortions further than 24 weeks without a medical reason is moral and his link and explanation fully justified the reasons on why they are sometimes rarely used and why the laws should be in place to allow them on that basis:

 

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

[placeholder]

On 7/14/2022 at 5:57 PM, EVENKEEL said:

This particular thread is about the rapist which included his immigration status which is 100% on topic.

It would be on topic if you could show some positive correlation between rapists and/or pedophiles and illegal immigrants. One case is worthless as evidence.

[Rimmer]

An off topic baiting post and a replies have been removed

[Hanaguma]

14 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Please stop asking off topic questions. Members personal opinions are not the topic.

Not to be rude, but are you serious?  Personal opinions are at the heart of any discussion of serious issues.  People who hide their views do so only because they have something to hide.  

 

Is it also off topic to ask people to present a specific proposal instead of just negative political bumper stickers?  Because that is what I would like to hear- solutions from others.

[Bkk Brian]

16 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Not to be rude, but are you serious?  Personal opinions are at the heart of any discussion of serious issues.  People who hide their views do so only because they have something to hide.  

 

Is it also off topic to ask people to present a specific proposal instead of just negative political bumper stickers?  Because that is what I would like to hear- solutions from others.

The heart of the discussion is the topic, my views have been made clear on this topic, I'm not about to repeat them just for you when they are already posted in this thread.

 

If you want my views on general abortion laws post Roe v. Wade ruling, then you can also find them in the appropriate previous Op's feel free to discuss further there.

 

Just to be clear, Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent just 1% of all abortions in the US and nine out of 10 abortions are done before 12 weeks. 

[johnnybangkok]

10 hours ago, Atlantis said:

Say what? I’ve got to assume the 6 other likes you got must have been for the other content.

 

How on earth do you rationalize the time limit in France, or Germany, or many other developed countries? They’re secretly on their way to zero weeks for permitting abortion right. Gotta be the “ONLY reason” anyone anywhere would support a limit lower than 24 weeks.

 

@johnnybangkok would you like to explain / modify / retract that statement?

Abortion is actually illegal in Germany but is 'tolerated' up to 12 weeks. Many medical professionals have been trying to change this for quite some time. In France its 14 weeks but again I would say this is almost entirely down to the fact that Germany is staunchly christian and France is catholic (and I think we all know the catholics stance on abortion). In either case it s not the established MEDICAL concensus that is being accepted but politicians trying to cater to a religous base.

 

You will see this trend throughout the world where sound medical advice is sidelined in favour of religous bias, with the extreme being countries like Iraq, The Philipines, Palestine, Senegal, Andorra, Haiti, Republic of the Congo, Egypt etc with complete bans. As I've stated already, religion should not govern law but unfortunately in too many countries it already does.

 

 

[billd766]

10 hours ago, Atlantis said:

Say what? I’ve got to assume the 6 other likes you got must have been for the other content.

 

How on earth do you rationalize the time limit in France, or Germany, or many other developed countries? They’re secretly on their way to zero weeks for permitting abortion right. Gotta be the “ONLY reason” anyone anywhere would support a limit lower than 24 weeks.

 

@johnnybangkok would you like to explain / modify / retract that statement?

quote "How on earth do you rationalize the time limit in France, or Germany, or many other developed countries? They’re secretly on their way to zero weeks for permitting abortion right."

 

If it is secret, how do YOU know about it?

[johnnybangkok]

2 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

The first sentence is woefully untrue.

 

At 24 weeks, the survival rate of a delivered fetus is just under 70%. At 24 weeks, we're well beyond the moral line that separates "aborting a fetus" and "killing a baby."

 

Here is a link to a good site that shows survival rates at different levels of gestation.........

 

https://healthcare.utah.edu/womenshealth/pregnancy-birth/preterm-birth/when-is-it-safe-to-deliver.php#:~:text=About 40 percent of these,between 60 and 70 percent.

 

---------------

 

I think:

 

Killing a fetus at an early enough stage of development that it cannot survive outside the womb under any circumstances.......... is morally acceptable.

 

With our current state of technology, that point maxxes out at 18 to 19 weeks. (Therefore, allowing an additional moral buffer between the points of alright and all wrong, I'm morally okay with First Trimester.)

 

But, killing a child at 24 weeks when it has roughly a 70% chance of survival if "delivered" instead of being "aborted?"............. This is morally UNacceptable. (Suddenly, words like "unconscionable" and "horrendous" start coming into play!)

 

---------------

 

Medically, we know there is a break point where survival is possible........... and survival is impossible. What we cannot say is exactly when that break point is, for any one individual.

 

What we can say though is......... At 20 weeks, survival is possible but still extremely unlikely. And we can say that at under 24 weeks, survival rate of delivered children is less than 50% (see the link provided.)

 

At 18-weeks, survival rate = zero.

At 20-weeks, survival rate = not zero!

 

Medicine and science cannot tell us what is moral and immoral. That's not their area of expertise; not their focus.

 

But medicine and science CAN put up some fences that help us see; that can help us decide where the boundaries should be. 

 

At 24 weeks, barring developmental issues already noted by others, a baby should be delivered, not "aborted." The nearly 70% survival rate of babies born at that stage of development demands that!

 

(Some may say a 5% survival rate is enough. Some may say 10% or 20% or 30% Obviously, this being a MORAL question, opinions are going to differ. )

 

I say:

 

A woman should have a choice.

 

But if a woman hasn't chosen by the end of the First Trimester.......... then she HAS chosen!

 

A woman should not have the right to kill a child that could very well survive outside the womb............ just because she procrastinated!

 

--------------

 

Yes, she should have a choice. But we should also enforce the idea that not choosing............ IS choosing!

 

Allowing a choice to be made as late as 20 weeks.......... gets into very murky waters! Because at 20 weeks, survival IS possible.

 

24 weeks? Not acceptable! No sorry, not by a long shot!

 

You have pretty much answered your own question here.

 

No one is denying the survival rates but what we are debating is the reasoning. You are infering that women are choosing to carry a child for 6 months and then all of a sudden thinking 'you know what, I don't think I fancy this after all." It's a ludicrous proposition perpetuated by the religous right and obviously working on you.

 

The VAST majority of women get abortions at less than 12 weeks. Again I will quote UK figures as this is the benchmark I am using but I think you will find it similar for the US and other developed countries. 

 

'The proportion of abortions that are performed at under 10 weeks has continued to increase since 2010. In 2020, 88% of abortions were performed under 10 weeks, increasing from 82% in 2019 and 77% in 2010. In comparison, abortions performed at 10-12 weeks decreased from 9% in 2019 to 6% in 2020. The percentage performed at 20 weeks and over decreased from 2% in 2019 to 1% in 2020. The legal limit for a woman having an abortion is 24 weeks gestation. This is the point at which the fetus is viable outside the mother's body. Abortions may be performed after 24 weeks in certain circumstances, for example, if the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born severely disabled. Abortions where gestation is 24 weeks or over account for a very small number of abortions (0.1% of the total). There were 236 such abortions in 2020.  https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2020/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020

 

Your 15 weeks cut-off is used in 94-97% of abortions, so the only reason to allow it after this time is in what I said in my original post which is serious medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment. Of interest to you might be that the UK used to have a 28 week period but this was cut to 24 weeks in 1990 when advances in detection meant there was no need to have a woman wait as long as 28 weeks to find out if there was a problem with her unborn child. In other words, medical professionals used their expertise to assess the situation and continue to do so. There is no room for religous views in this matter, nor indeed politicians who are skewing the optics to fit their agenda. You are being fed (and falling for) propoganda that is infering that women are going around killing their perfectly viable babies at 23 weeks for no other reason than a lifestyle choice. This is simply not true and again I would suggest the lowering of the time to 15 weeks is a gradual erosion of scientifically sound evidence in favour of an increasingly confident religous right who's sole objective is to have an outright ban on abortions.          

 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

24 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

You have pretty much answered your own question here.

 

No one is denying the survival rates but what we are debating is the reasoning. You are infering that women are choosing to carry a child for 6 months and then all of a sudden thinking 'you know what, I don't think I fancy this after all." It's a ludicrous proposition perpetuated by the religous right and obviously working on you.

 

The VAST majority of women get abortions at less than 12 weeks. Again I will quote UK figures as this is the benchmark I am using but I think you will find it similar for the US and other developed countries. 

 

'The proportion of abortions that are performed at under 10 weeks has continued to increase since 2010. In 2020, 88% of abortions were performed under 10 weeks, increasing from 82% in 2019 and 77% in 2010. In comparison, abortions performed at 10-12 weeks decreased from 9% in 2019 to 6% in 2020. The percentage performed at 20 weeks and over decreased from 2% in 2019 to 1% in 2020. The legal limit for a woman having an abortion is 24 weeks gestation. This is the point at which the fetus is viable outside the mother's body. Abortions may be performed after 24 weeks in certain circumstances, for example, if the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born severely disabled. Abortions where gestation is 24 weeks or over account for a very small number of abortions (0.1% of the total). There were 236 such abortions in 2020.  https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2020/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020

 

Your 15 weeks cut-off is used in 94-97% of abortions, so the only reason to allow it after this time is in what I said in my original post which is serious medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment. Of interest to you might be that the UK used to have a 28 week period but this was cut to 24 weeks in 1990 when advances in detection meant there was no need to have a woman wait as long as 28 weeks to find out if there was a problem with her unborn child. In other words, medical professionals used their expertise to assess the situation and continue to do so. There is no room for religous views in this matter, nor indeed politicians who are skewing the optics to fit their agenda. You are being fed (and falling for) propoganda that is infering that women are going around killing their perfectly viable babies at 23 weeks for no other reason than a lifestyle choice. This is simply not true and again I would suggest the lowering of the time to 15 weeks is a gradual erosion of scientifically sound evidence in favour of an increasingly confident religous right who's sole objective is to have an outright ban on abortions.          

 

Ah, since you began your post with a strawman, I simply decided to ignore the rest. Sure hope you eventually got around to saying something worth reading. Too bad you chased me off before I could get to it, huh?

 

Now, if you'd like to respond to the things I ACTUALLY said............ instead of the things you've [wrongly] imagined I meant........... we might be able to have an intelligent conversation.

 

Whaddya think?

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

Abortion is actually illegal in Germany but is 'tolerated' up to 12 weeks. Many medical professionals have been trying to change this for quite some time. In France its 14 weeks but again I would say this is almost entirely down to the fact that Germany is staunchly christian and France is catholic (and I think we all know the catholics stance on abortion). In either case it s not the established MEDICAL concensus that is being accepted but politicians trying to cater to a religous base.

 

You will see this trend throughout the world where sound medical advice is sidelined in favour of religous bias, with the extreme being countries like Iraq, The Philipines, Palestine, Senegal, Andorra, Haiti, Republic of the Congo, Egypt etc with complete bans. As I've stated already, religion should not govern law but unfortunately in too many countries it already does.

 

 

Well now, as is beautifully expressed in the American Declaration of Independence, Governments should be formed to reflect and serve the will and desires of the Governed.

 

So, if the Governed desire a Government that takes direction from the tenets of a particular religion........... it is their absolute Right to have that kind of Government, whether WE think that's a good idea, or not!

 

It's called Sovereignty!

 

Take Islamic countries, for example. In Islam, the word of Allah (and his prophet Muhammad) are the HIGHEST word. Therefore, any form or aspect of government that contradicts the will of Allah......... is automatically heretical! 

 

So the idea that you can talk about Islamic governments as being separate and distinct from the Islamic religion........... is foolhardy. In most Islamic countries, the goverment is subservient to the religion, not separate from it. And.......... nearly all indicators suggest........ this also reflects the will of the people!

 

The government takes its lead from the religion, and that's how the people like it!

 

So your suggestion that government "should not be" taking direction or guidance from religion......... reflects only ONE of the ways things work in the world. There are literally dozens of Countries where the exact opposite is true. And in those countries, that framework remains very much the prefered mode of government for the Governed!

 

Lastly, you may note that the First Amendment of the American Constitution clearly states the Government must remain hands-off concerning religion. But it doesn't say word one about religion having to remain hands-off concerning Governance!

 

Religion is entitled to influence Government just as much as people are willing tolerate............ and just as long as the government doesn't morph into becoming part of the religion!

 

So, what you're saying may be what you consider ideal.......... but, in practical terms.........  it actually holds very  little standing in the real world.

 

[Hanaguma]

7 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

The heart of the discussion is the topic, my views have been made clear on this topic, I'm not about to repeat them just for you when they are already posted in this thread.

 

If you want my views on general abortion laws post Roe v. Wade ruling, then you can also find them in the appropriate previous Op's feel free to discuss further there.

 

Just to be clear, Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent just 1% of all abortions in the US and nine out of 10 abortions are done before 12 weeks. 

Great! Then we can agree that abortions up to 12 weeks should be legal, and after that not. Barring the usual exceptions, am I right?

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Great! Then we can agree that abortions up to 12 weeks should be legal, and after that not. Barring the usual exceptions, am I right?

Why put words in my mouth, I agree with the professional medical opinions in the links provided.

[Jingthing]

There are roughly two Americas now. The states with total, near total, or very restrictive access and the states with normal restrictions as before Roe vs. Wade was murdered by the radical right wingers on the scouts 

 

There is no national debate about a compromised system.

 

It's silly to waste time here arguing academic stuff about an ideal balanced policy.

 

The real life action is basically those in favor of abortion access trying to help women in the forced birth states, and those in the forced birth states trying to make things even more restriction including fascist efforts to try to prevent or criminalize traveling to the access states. Similar model to slavery times.

 

There is also a national movement to make fetuses persons federally which would instantly ban all abortions in all states.

 

Which proves the forced birth movement is not about states rights. Their ultimate final solution is a federal one.

Edited July 23, 2022 by Jingthing

[johnnybangkok]

22 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Ah, since you began your post with a strawman, I simply decided to ignore the rest. Sure hope you eventually got around to saying something worth reading. Too bad you chased me off before I could get to it, huh?

 

Now, if you'd like to respond to the things I ACTUALLY said............ instead of the things you've [wrongly] imagined I meant........... we might be able to have an intelligent conversation.

 

Whaddya think?

I think you should have at least the common decency to read my whole post before you 'simply decided to ignore the rest'. Not much point debating someone who can't even do this.

[placeholder]

On 7/23/2022 at 10:56 AM, Hanaguma said:

Not to be rude, but are you serious?  Personal opinions are at the heart of any discussion of serious issues.  People who hide their views do so only because they have something to hide.  

Unless a member is a bot, any expression of views here is personal. The point is whether or not the views are relevant. The length of time a pregnancy lasts before  abortion should be illegal, is not relevant to the question of whether giving an abortion to this 10 year old should have been a crime.

[Hanaguma]

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

There are roughly two Americas now. The states with total, near total, or very restrictive access and the states with normal restrictions as before Roe vs. Wade was murdered by the radical right wingers on the scouts 

 

There is no national debate about a compromised system.

 

It's silly to waste time here arguing academic stuff about an ideal balanced policy.

 

The real life action is basically those in favor of abortion access trying to help women in the forced birth states, and those in the forced birth states trying to make things even more restriction including fascist efforts to try to prevent or criminalize traveling to the access states. Similar model to slavery times.

 

There is also a national movement to make fetuses persons federally which would instantly ban all abortions in all states.

 

Which proves the forced birth movement is not about states rights. Their ultimate final solution is a federal one.

What states have "normal restrictions", and what do those entail exactly? Without knowing it is difficult to continue. For the record, I think the girl in this tragedy was 100% allowed to terminate her pregnancy.  If only we could 100% terminate her attacker as well.

[Hanaguma]

35 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Unless a member is a bot, any expression of views here is personal. The point is whether or not the views are relevant. The length of time a pregnancy lasts before  abortion should be illegal, is not relevant to the question of whether giving an abortion to this 10 year old should have been a crime.

And it wasn't a crime. At least according to the top law officer in the state. 

[placeholder]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

And it wasn't a crime. At least according to the top law officer in the state. 

As has been pointed out, he made that claim after the fact. And has also been pointed out, he refuses to answer what is the age cutoff. Which leaves a doctor faced with giving an 11 year old an abortion the possibility of being imprisoned.

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

And it wasn't a crime. At least according to the top law officer in the state. 

Looking at the backlash he had, after the fact, no other choice but to say that.

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Looking at the backlash he had, after the fact, no other choice but to say that.

And the law is very unclear. It only applies if you can claim that being 10 years old is a medical condition.