10 year old girl has to travel out of state to get abortio

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I’m taking from this discussion is that forced birthers justify their draconian views on abortion by telling themselves that minors never get pregnant due to rape/incest and therefore there is no need for exceptions to abortion bans to protect them. If that’s incorrect, please explain how you reconcile your views with the repeated efforts in this discussion to deny that the fact pattern could have occurred.

Sad. We are saying that THIS particular case is a lie. And by lying, this doctor has done a ton of damage

And how would you feel if the case were real? After all, these kinds of pregnancies do happen. Do you believe that when it does happen, the victim should have access to abortion without having to splash her name and story all over the media to satisfy your desire for lurid details and confirmation that the 10 year old wasn’t just a little whore whom didn’t bother to use birth control?

We are talking about THIS CASE in particular which, as time goes on, looks more and more like a lie.
There are so many red flags here.... not to mention.... that Ohio does not have a "6 week ban" on abortions. They have a heartbeat law.

The left is losing credibility by trotting out fake stories to garner outrage. I just hope the activist doctor who started this whole thing is held accountable.

You are hellbent on not acknowledging the deep problems with these abortion bans, which means that on some level you know your position is morally reprehensible. That’s why you want to keep abortion discussions constrained to narrow little boxes where you can convince yourself you are morally justified while ignoring the huge swaths of cases falling outside those boxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what I’m taking from this discussion is that forced birthers justify their draconian views on abortion by telling themselves that minors never get pregnant due to rape/incest and therefore there is no need for exceptions to abortion bans to protect them. If that’s incorrect, please explain how you reconcile your views with the repeated efforts in this discussion to deny that the fact pattern could have occurred.

Im puzzled by this. There ARE such exceptions in Ohio. The hypothetical 10 year old victim would have been able to get an abortion in Ohio, even after 6 weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I’m taking from this discussion is that forced birthers justify their draconian views on abortion by telling themselves that minors never get pregnant due to rape/incest and therefore there is no need for exceptions to abortion bans to protect them. If that’s incorrect, please explain how you reconcile your views with the repeated efforts in this discussion to deny that the fact pattern could have occurred.

Sad. We are saying that THIS particular case is a lie. And by lying, this doctor has done a ton of damage

And how would you feel if the case were real? After all, these kinds of pregnancies do happen. Do you believe that when it does happen, the victim should have access to abortion without having to splash her name and story all over the media to satisfy your desire for lurid details and confirmation that the 10 year old wasn’t just a little whore whom didn’t bother to use birth control?

We are talking about THIS CASE in particular which, as time goes on, looks more and more like a lie.
There are so many red flags here.... not to mention.... that Ohio does not have a "6 week ban" on abortions. They have a heartbeat law.

The left is losing credibility by trotting out fake stories to garner outrage. I just hope the activist doctor who started this whole thing is held accountable.

You are hellbent on not acknowledging the deep problems with these abortion bans, which means that on some level you know your position is morally reprehensible. That’s why you want to keep abortion discussions constrained to narrow little boxes where you can convince yourself you are morally justified while ignoring the huge swaths of cases falling outside those boxes.

Maybe find one within that "huge swath" instead of making one up, then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I’m taking from this discussion is that forced birthers justify their draconian views on abortion by telling themselves that minors never get pregnant due to rape/incest and therefore there is no need for exceptions to abortion bans to protect them. If that’s incorrect, please explain how you reconcile your views with the repeated efforts in this discussion to deny that the fact pattern could have occurred.

Im puzzled by this. There ARE such exceptions in Ohio. The hypothetical 10 year old victim would have been able to get an abortion in Ohio, even after 6 weeks.

Ohio has a heartbeat ban. If the heartbeat was detectable at six weeks, she would not have been allowed to get the abortion in Ohio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I’m taking from this discussion is that forced birthers justify their draconian views on abortion by telling themselves that minors never get pregnant due to rape/incest and therefore there is no need for exceptions to abortion bans to protect them. If that’s incorrect, please explain how you reconcile your views with the repeated efforts in this discussion to deny that the fact pattern could have occurred.

Sad. We are saying that THIS particular case is a lie. And by lying, this doctor has done a ton of damage

And how would you feel if the case were real? After all, these kinds of pregnancies do happen. Do you believe that when it does happen, the victim should have access to abortion without having to splash her name and story all over the media to satisfy your desire for lurid details and confirmation that the 10 year old wasn’t just a little whore whom didn’t bother to use birth control?

I am pro-choice as could be. I 100% believe all women should have access to safe and legal abortions.

I don't like the idea of lying to make your case though, and I don't agree with a fake outrage when people ask for proof. It's not wrong to want to fact check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I’m taking from this discussion is that forced birthers justify their draconian views on abortion by telling themselves that minors never get pregnant due to rape/incest and therefore there is no need for exceptions to abortion bans to protect them. If that’s incorrect, please explain how you reconcile your views with the repeated efforts in this discussion to deny that the fact pattern could have occurred.

Sad. We are saying that THIS particular case is a lie. And by lying, this doctor has done a ton of damage

And how would you feel if the case were real? After all, these kinds of pregnancies do happen. Do you believe that when it does happen, the victim should have access to abortion without having to splash her name and story all over the media to satisfy your desire for lurid details and confirmation that the 10 year old wasn’t just a little whore whom didn’t bother to use birth control?

We are talking about THIS CASE in particular which, as time goes on, looks more and more like a lie.
There are so many red flags here.... not to mention.... that Ohio does not have a "6 week ban" on abortions. They have a heartbeat law.

The left is losing credibility by trotting out fake stories to garner outrage. I just hope the activist doctor who started this whole thing is held accountable.

You are hellbent on not acknowledging the deep problems with these abortion bans, which means that on some level you know your position is morally reprehensible. That’s why you want to keep abortion discussions constrained to narrow little boxes where you can convince yourself you are morally justified while ignoring the huge swaths of cases falling outside those boxes.

Maybe find one within that "huge swath" instead of making one up, then.

Okay, so we’re back to denying that minor victims of rape/incest get pregnant, and requiring that victims must broadcast their names and all the lurid details of the assault in order to qualify for an abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I’m taking from this discussion is that forced birthers justify their draconian views on abortion by telling themselves that minors never get pregnant due to rape/incest and therefore there is no need for exceptions to abortion bans to protect them. If that’s incorrect, please explain how you reconcile your views with the repeated efforts in this discussion to deny that the fact pattern could have occurred.

Sad. We are saying that THIS particular case is a lie. And by lying, this doctor has done a ton of damage

And how would you feel if the case were real? After all, these kinds of pregnancies do happen. Do you believe that when it does happen, the victim should have access to abortion without having to splash her name and story all over the media to satisfy your desire for lurid details and confirmation that the 10 year old wasn’t just a little whore whom didn’t bother to use birth control?

We are talking about THIS CASE in particular which, as time goes on, looks more and more like a lie.
There are so many red flags here.... not to mention.... that Ohio does not have a "6 week ban" on abortions. They have a heartbeat law.

The left is losing credibility by trotting out fake stories to garner outrage. I just hope the activist doctor who started this whole thing is held accountable.

You are hellbent on not acknowledging the deep problems with these abortion bans, which means that on some level you know your position is morally reprehensible. That’s why you want to keep abortion discussions constrained to narrow little boxes where you can convince yourself you are morally justified while ignoring the huge swaths of cases falling outside those boxes.

Maybe find one within that "huge swath" instead of making one up, then.

Okay, so we’re back to denying that minor victims of rape/incest get pregnant, and requiring that victims must broadcast their names and all the lurid details of the assault in order to qualify for an abortion.

No, just back to asking for good faith discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I’m taking from this discussion is that forced birthers justify their draconian views on abortion by telling themselves that minors never get pregnant due to rape/incest and therefore there is no need for exceptions to abortion bans to protect them. If that’s incorrect, please explain how you reconcile your views with the repeated efforts in this discussion to deny that the fact pattern could have occurred.

Sad. We are saying that THIS particular case is a lie. And by lying, this doctor has done a ton of damage

And how would you feel if the case were real? After all, these kinds of pregnancies do happen. Do you believe that when it does happen, the victim should have access to abortion without having to splash her name and story all over the media to satisfy your desire for lurid details and confirmation that the 10 year old wasn’t just a little whore whom didn’t bother to use birth control?

I am pro-choice as could be. I 100% believe all women should have access to safe and legal abortions.

I don't like the idea of lying to make your case though, and I don't agree with a fake outrage when people ask for proof. It's not wrong to want to fact check.

.
You understand the doctor could not provide proof without violating HIPAA, right? Medical professionals are allowed to discuss patients generally as long as they do not provide identifying details, so a doctor can only discuss a case like this anonymously unless the patient/ their guardian give consent to disclose their identity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I’m taking from this discussion is that forced birthers justify their draconian views on abortion by telling themselves that minors never get pregnant due to rape/incest and therefore there is no need for exceptions to abortion bans to protect them. If that’s incorrect, please explain how you reconcile your views with the repeated efforts in this discussion to deny that the fact pattern could have occurred.

Sad. We are saying that THIS particular case is a lie. And by lying, this doctor has done a ton of damage

And how would you feel if the case were real? After all, these kinds of pregnancies do happen. Do you believe that when it does happen, the victim should have access to abortion without having to splash her name and story all over the media to satisfy your desire for lurid details and confirmation that the 10 year old wasn’t just a little whore whom didn’t bother to use birth control?

We are talking about THIS CASE in particular which, as time goes on, looks more and more like a lie.
There are so many red flags here.... not to mention.... that Ohio does not have a "6 week ban" on abortions. They have a heartbeat law.

The left is losing credibility by trotting out fake stories to garner outrage. I just hope the activist doctor who started this whole thing is held accountable.

You are hellbent on not acknowledging the deep problems with these abortion bans, which means that on some level you know your position is morally reprehensible. That’s why you want to keep abortion discussions constrained to narrow little boxes where you can convince yourself you are morally justified while ignoring the huge swaths of cases falling outside those boxes.

Maybe find one within that "huge swath" instead of making one up, then.

Okay, so we’re back to denying that minor victims of rape/incest get pregnant, and requiring that victims must broadcast their names and all the lurid details of the assault in order to qualify for an abortion.

No, just back to asking for good faith discussion.

Don’t be disingenuous. I asked you to engage in good faith discussion of the broader issue and refused to discuss anything beyond your belief that this specific instance did not occur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I’m taking from this discussion is that forced birthers justify their draconian views on abortion by telling themselves that minors never get pregnant due to rape/incest and therefore there is no need for exceptions to abortion bans to protect them. If that’s incorrect, please explain how you reconcile your views with the repeated efforts in this discussion to deny that the fact pattern could have occurred.

Sad. We are saying that THIS particular case is a lie. And by lying, this doctor has done a ton of damage

And how would you feel if the case were real? After all, these kinds of pregnancies do happen. Do you believe that when it does happen, the victim should have access to abortion without having to splash her name and story all over the media to satisfy your desire for lurid details and confirmation that the 10 year old wasn’t just a little whore whom didn’t bother to use birth control?

We are talking about THIS CASE in particular which, as time goes on, looks more and more like a lie.
There are so many red flags here.... not to mention.... that Ohio does not have a "6 week ban" on abortions. They have a heartbeat law.

The left is losing credibility by trotting out fake stories to garner outrage. I just hope the activist doctor who started this whole thing is held accountable.

It looks really bad for pro choice. If there are so many cases of this like they want us to believe, why use a fake case. Why not just use a real example?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I’m taking from this discussion is that forced birthers justify their draconian views on abortion by telling themselves that minors never get pregnant due to rape/incest and therefore there is no need for exceptions to abortion bans to protect them. If that’s incorrect, please explain how you reconcile your views with the repeated efforts in this discussion to deny that the fact pattern could have occurred.

Im puzzled by this. There ARE such exceptions in Ohio. The hypothetical 10 year old victim would have been able to get an abortion in Ohio, even after 6 weeks.

Ohio has a heartbeat ban. If the heartbeat was detectable at six weeks, she would not have been allowed to get the abortion in Ohio.

Not true. There are exceptions for the health of the woman, or in this case, child... which is definitely an exception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I’m taking from this discussion is that forced birthers justify their draconian views on abortion by telling themselves that minors never get pregnant due to rape/incest and therefore there is no need for exceptions to abortion bans to protect them. If that’s incorrect, please explain how you reconcile your views with the repeated efforts in this discussion to deny that the fact pattern could have occurred.

Sad. We are saying that THIS particular case is a lie. And by lying, this doctor has done a ton of damage

And how would you feel if the case were real? After all, these kinds of pregnancies do happen. Do you believe that when it does happen, the victim should have access to abortion without having to splash her name and story all over the media to satisfy your desire for lurid details and confirmation that the 10 year old wasn’t just a little whore whom didn’t bother to use birth control?

We are talking about THIS CASE in particular which, as time goes on, looks more and more like a lie.
There are so many red flags here.... not to mention.... that Ohio does not have a "6 week ban" on abortions. They have a heartbeat law.

The left is losing credibility by trotting out fake stories to garner outrage. I just hope the activist doctor who started this whole thing is held accountable.

It looks really bad for pro choice. If there are so many cases of this like they want us to believe, why use a fake case. Why not just use a real example?

Because information about 10 year olds who got pregnant after the uncle raped them generally is not publicly available to protect the victim. How in the world is this a question you are even asking? Do you really have zero clue how there world works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I’m taking from this discussion is that forced birthers justify their draconian views on abortion by telling themselves that minors never get pregnant due to rape/incest and therefore there is no need for exceptions to abortion bans to protect them. If that’s incorrect, please explain how you reconcile your views with the repeated efforts in this discussion to deny that the fact pattern could have occurred.

Sad. We are saying that THIS particular case is a lie. And by lying, this doctor has done a ton of damage

And how would you feel if the case were real? After all, these kinds of pregnancies do happen. Do you believe that when it does happen, the victim should have access to abortion without having to splash her name and story all over the media to satisfy your desire for lurid details and confirmation that the 10 year old wasn’t just a little whore whom didn’t bother to use birth control?

We are talking about THIS CASE in particular which, as time goes on, looks more and more like a lie.
There are so many red flags here.... not to mention.... that Ohio does not have a "6 week ban" on abortions. They have a heartbeat law.

The left is losing credibility by trotting out fake stories to garner outrage. I just hope the activist doctor who started this whole thing is held accountable.

You are hellbent on not acknowledging the deep problems with these abortion bans, which means that on some level you know your position is morally reprehensible. That’s why you want to keep abortion discussions constrained to narrow little boxes where you can convince yourself you are morally justified while ignoring the huge swaths of cases falling outside those boxes.

Maybe find one within that "huge swath" instead of making one up, then.

Okay, so we’re back to denying that minor victims of rape/incest get pregnant, and requiring that victims must broadcast their names and all the lurid details of the assault in order to qualify for an abortion.

DP. Why do you do this? Why do you make sweeping false comments that nobody ever said? It doesn't help your position at all to accuse others of saying things they didn't.
Unfortunately, far too many children are raped and yes, many end up pregnant. And, nobody thinks these children should be identified. That has been repeated here.
So, stop with the false accusations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I’m taking from this discussion is that forced birthers justify their draconian views on abortion by telling themselves that minors never get pregnant due to rape/incest and therefore there is no need for exceptions to abortion bans to protect them. If that’s incorrect, please explain how you reconcile your views with the repeated efforts in this discussion to deny that the fact pattern could have occurred.

Sad. We are saying that THIS particular case is a lie. And by lying, this doctor has done a ton of damage

And how would you feel if the case were real? After all, these kinds of pregnancies do happen. Do you believe that when it does happen, the victim should have access to abortion without having to splash her name and story all over the media to satisfy your desire for lurid details and confirmation that the 10 year old wasn’t just a little whore whom didn’t bother to use birth control?

We are talking about THIS CASE in particular which, as time goes on, looks more and more like a lie.
There are so many red flags here.... not to mention.... that Ohio does not have a "6 week ban" on abortions. They have a heartbeat law.

The left is losing credibility by trotting out fake stories to garner outrage. I just hope the activist doctor who started this whole thing is held accountable.

You are hellbent on not acknowledging the deep problems with these abortion bans, which means that on some level you know your position is morally reprehensible. That’s why you want to keep abortion discussions constrained to narrow little boxes where you can convince yourself you are morally justified while ignoring the huge swaths of cases falling outside those boxes.

Maybe find one within that "huge swath" instead of making one up, then.

Okay, so we’re back to denying that minor victims of rape/incest get pregnant, and requiring that victims must broadcast their names and all the lurid details of the assault in order to qualify for an abortion.

No, just back to asking for good faith discussion.

Don’t be disingenuous. I asked you to engage in good faith discussion of the broader issue and refused to discuss anything beyond your belief that this specific instance did not occur.

That's because I support abortion up to 16 weeks and for medical reasons after that. And for exceptions for rape victims. So there's nothing to argue with you about on those topics. You can respond with your anger that I dont support abortions at 9 months or whatever, but thats not the issue at hand. The issue is about bans in the early weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I’m taking from this discussion is that forced birthers justify their draconian views on abortion by telling themselves that minors never get pregnant due to rape/incest and therefore there is no need for exceptions to abortion bans to protect them. If that’s incorrect, please explain how you reconcile your views with the repeated efforts in this discussion to deny that the fact pattern could have occurred.

Im puzzled by this. There ARE such exceptions in Ohio. The hypothetical 10 year old victim would have been able to get an abortion in Ohio, even after 6 weeks.

Ohio has a heartbeat ban. If the heartbeat was detectable at six weeks, she would not have been allowed to get the abortion in Ohio.

Not true. There are exceptions for the health of the woman, or in this case, child... which is definitely an exception.

.

Only where there is “serious risk,” not potential risk. What provider in Ohio is going to risk going to prison over where a pregnancy that is not currently having any complications presently imposes a “serious risk” to the health of the mother?