Suspended
- Joined
- 9 May 2022
- Posts
- 1,898
- Location
- London
Religious beliefs often overrule basic common sense
Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Religious beliefs often overrule basic common sense
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,591
She was raped at 9 is what I meant (according to the story)
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,870
I am no expert on this but..... surely a 10 year old giving birth WOULD be putting the mother at serious risk of medical complications anyway?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
Generally yes, it vey much would.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
Representative called the whole story a hoax and lie.
Then deleted his tweet later without mention.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,591
That is reported on the BBC story.
It's a common enough fallacy people make to be fair - conflating absence of evidence with evidence of absence. See for example the supposed credentialed "experts" at the beginning of the pandemic declaring that "masks don't work" then later having to do a u-turn on that, it's the same logical fallacy there.
In this case, he's referring to a story examining the evidence or rather lack of for this case - obviously, it made some headlines initially so reporters followed up on it however the story was only based on one source and reporters couldn't really confirm it... this was a reportable offense for any doctor handling such a patient but when they followed up with the state's AG he seemingly wasn't aware of it:
Ohio AG hasn’t heard ‘whisper’ of evidence for child rape victim seeking abortion - Washington Examiner
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said his office has not found any evidence of a 10-year-old rape victim in the state who, according to a report cited by President Joe Biden, was six weeks pregnant and traveled to Indiana to receive an abortion. "Not a whisper" has been heard of a report filed...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
So that lead to some obvious questions of whether this actually happened or not... however the politician has fallen into the fallacy of not just pointing out the lack of evidence (at the time) but making a positive claim he can't back up that this was a hoax.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
Yes, quite.
They pushed their own agenda, at the cost of a 9/10 year old child.
Fallacy or not, they lied, they pushed lies, they told Fox news lies, people will hear those lies and hold on to them.
They never correct or refute later, so the lie persists, and people tend to think if it as fact. 'I heard it on the news', in this case they heard it on a national broadcaster from multiple sources, all lying, and then never removing or correcting the lie.
Their nation is utterly ****** and utterly awful, both sides. Like I said previously, it's time we move away, time to have nothing to do with them.
They pushed their own agenda, at the cost of a 9/10 year old child.
Fallacy or not, they lied, they pushed lies, they told Fox news lies, people will hear those lies and hold on to them.
They never correct or refute later, so the lie persists, and people tend to think if it as fact. 'I heard it on the news', in this case they heard it on a national broadcaster from multiple sources, all lying, and then never removing or correcting the lie.
Their nation is utterly ****** and utterly awful, both sides. Like I said previously, it's time we move away, time to have nothing to do with them.
A number of the key forced birth group members are including IIRC the head guy of one of the main ones, his comment on the 10 year old was that she should be forced to have it because when she gets older she'll be thankful for it.
Others in the anti abortion camp simply don't understand the laws they've pushed for, or that so many medical proceedures they know under a different name are legally classed as abortions, or that the wording in law is extremely important.
I saw someone comment on it as they think there is a "Shirley exception" for all sorts of thins, as in "surely there is an exception for that circumstance", and even more don't grasp that when the law states the something can only be done if the mothers life is in "immediate danger" it means exactly that and that Doctors aren't going to risk getting prosecuted by yet another DA who doesn't understand basic bioligy by doing a proceedure until the threat meets the criteria laid down in the law, as the law doesn't care that something is inevitable and there is no other possible outcome, so when it states "immediate danger" it means "in the next few minutes" not "several weeks down the line it's inevitably going to happen".
The law was actually very clear according to various lawyers, but the republicans and anti abortion types in the state have been doing everything they can to make out this was a case where there would have been an exception and no one would have been prosecuted. Unfortunately for everyone involved the law had no such exception and several high profile prosecutors were talking about investigating (read prosecuting) the doctor who referred the child to an abortion when it first came out. As at least one lawyer put it "you never rely on the goodwill of an elected prosecutor to interpret the law in your favour". it's worth noting many hospitals and pharmacies are also basically refusing to give women of potentially childbearing age certain medications that are routine for their conditions because they can potentially cause miscarriages*, and the hospitals lawyers (usually very well paid, very good on the law) have said the risk of prosecution is too high.
The doctor didn't use it for "clout", the doctor was making people aware of what was happening, oddly enough it's usually considered a good thing for a doctor to raise awareness of health issues and especially when it's something that is so utterly unacceptable.
It was 6+ weeks since her last period by the time it had been confirmed, at that point under the exact wording of the law it was illegal because in law you work out the length of the pregnancy from the date of the last known period once you've got a positive test, and this was what pretty much everyone who understood and disagreed with the stupidly short 6 week type limits were saying as whilst the menstrual cycle e usually 28-32 days, but it's not at all uncommon for them to be anything up to 6 weeks apart (especially in people under a certain body mass, young, on certain medications, or with certain medical issues). So at best with a six week rule you may have around two weeks to get the meds for the abortion, more normally it's going to be around a week, and for many it'll be too late by the time they even know they're pregnant.
Apparently now the politicians are realising the the bulk of the public, including their voters are not in fact happy about the idea of a preteen being forced to carry a pregnancy to term and there are leaded memos for various republican groups that are telling them to "avoid giving a definite answer, and change the subject if asked".
*And thus causing even more misery and pain for people who are often already struggling and in many cases those meds make the difference between being able to work and not.
Medical complications are nothing in the wording of that law, it's "immediate threat to the mothers life", if taken as written (which a prosecutor looking to get some votes from the more rabid prolifers will do) they don't care if the pregnancy leave the woman crippled and unable to ever get pregnant again.
The law was written that they could only do anything after the first 6 weeks when the mother's life was in immediate danger. The legal definition of immediate is basically "at this instant". It's a law that was written by people who didn't care about biology (and in many instances have shown they would have failed GCSE biology), with the intent of it locking out any potential loophole regardless of how badly it affected the women and girls.
Another group of people it's going to affect are those with say cancer or various types of organ damage/near failure, as pretty much all the cancer treatments with the best success rates will result in a miscarriage if used*, and the cancer may not cause an "immediate threat to life" at the point you find out you're pregnant which can be when you go in for treatment and they require a pregnancy test first. Whilst if you've got problems with various organs you being pregnant may not be an immediate threat to your life straight away but a few months down the line your liver/kidney/heart may start to go from "problematic" to "failing due to the extra load" at which point the doctor has to argue for the abortion to be needed when it may be 16+ weeks along as opposed to knowing it was likely to happen and doing it at 8 weeks via a tablet.
Same with accident victims, various standard tests* and medications can cause a miscarriage so cautious hospitals are likely to put off doing some that are routine to avoid falling foul of the law.
It's basically what you get when you have blinkered, uneducated idiots who just care for getting votes from a vocal minority writing laws.
*The humble, routine chest x-ray is used with caution on woman of child bearing age as it is, because it can cause damage to a foetus leading to a miscarriage, let alone the actual drugs they use.
Last edited:
Wow, the number of people that have voted to kill a baby up until birth. Abortions should only be carried out for rape or threat to life to the woman bearing the baby. 2022 there are many options available to prevent pregnancy. Use them, ladies and gents.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
Wow, the gentleman who has a different viewpoint. Abortions should only be what he wants them to be. 2022 there are many different opinions, and where prevention is best as in many things, none of the solutions are 100% effective.
What are your views on ripped condoms?
Just saw the Idaho republicans have voted against any sort of exemption from their abortion ban if the mothers life will be/is in danger, and are looking at classing any contraception after sex as first degree murder.
Also no exemptions for rape, or incest.
So someone who is going to die due to a pregnancy will be tried for murder if they take steps to protect their own life, and presumably anyuone that helps them will be tried as well, and as it's first degree muirder the "prolife" party not only wants women to die, but will have the death penalty on hand if the woman is uppity enough to want to live and take measures to try and live.
On the plus side they've apparently decided not to prosecute miscarriages, but I'm going to guess by the rest of their platform that the definition of miscarriage will be highly variable depending on if you're the "right" sort of host organism.
As one of my friends just put it "death cultists"
Also no exemptions for rape, or incest.
So someone who is going to die due to a pregnancy will be tried for murder if they take steps to protect their own life, and presumably anyuone that helps them will be tried as well, and as it's first degree muirder the "prolife" party not only wants women to die, but will have the death penalty on hand if the woman is uppity enough to want to live and take measures to try and live.
On the plus side they've apparently decided not to prosecute miscarriages, but I'm going to guess by the rest of their platform that the definition of miscarriage will be highly variable depending on if you're the "right" sort of host organism.
As one of my friends just put it "death cultists"
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
Utterly insane, do they really understand the laws they are passing?
No morning after pill.
No nothing.
Rip a condom and **** you.
Madness.
No morning after pill.
No nothing.
Rip a condom and **** you.
Madness.
I'm dead against abortions as a form of casual birth control, but no morning after pill? That is taking it too far.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,591
The Handmaid's Tale is starting to look more like a docudrama than sci-fi.
That's one of the things, IIRC they use sales of the morning after pill in their version of the abortion stats, then try and make out that every abortion is at the third trimester stage.
I think this is going to be a big L for the GOP, they're probably going to take a significant hit for this relative to what they could have got in the mid-terms. The silly thing is that the Mississippi law that resulted in the overthrow of Roe was kinda more in line with the views of most Americans, if they'd stuck with that in various Republican states then they'd be onto a big winner here. Instead, they're just bodging it up completely with things like these 6 week bans or even bans that don't allow for medical/rape exemptions etc..
Eh? Where have you seen that happen? That sounds pretty sus/made up even for the hardcore anti-abortion types.
Eh? Where have you seen that happen? That sounds pretty sus/made up even for the hardcore anti-abortion types.
Suspended
- Joined
- 9 May 2022
- Posts
- 1,898
- Location
- London
Mad