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.

I know it’s confusing, because medically the electric activity that occurs in a six week fetus before its heart develops is not actually a “heartbeat,” but in Ohio the “heartbeat law” means there’s a six week ban on abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad all the outrage here is directed at the Supreme Court, rather than the rapist who raped a 10 year old.

Bravo!

Ever think of what will happen if your daughter gets pregnant when in high school or college and she is forced to have a child she does not want and how she became pregnant is immaterial. Maybe your son will impregnate his girlfriend and you force them to get married and ruin their lives

I also blame you and all those who force your religious crap down the throats of the rest of us.

May you receive all the things that you so richly deserve and may they come soon and in spades.

Our oldest daughter (and our marriage) is the product of a scenario just as you describe. And in hindsight we wouldn’t trade that for anything. It gave us the children and marriage we have today, 21 years later.

Cool. I was the product of such a scenario. And not only was it not a successful or happy marriage, I often the fact that I was the reason for their marriage rubbed in my face. So I guess that evens out your anecdote, hon.

[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.

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

We get it- you are pro-maternal death. You get off on at incel-esque levels. You have no proof that the doctor a mandatory reporter lied. You just want identifying details about the victim so you can harass her into suicide. So gross.

[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.

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.

So you think minors should be allowed to access abortion, no questions asked, under the presumption that they are victims of non-consensual sex? If not, what process do you think she be used to detriment whether they are allowed to have an abortion?

These are reasonable questions to ask.

[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

Explain how this would work. Should the raped pregnant 10-year-old schedule an interview with Anderson Cooper?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you oppose the Ohio ban but are arguing in support of it? That’s an interesting approach.

[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?

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.

You're making it sound as if disclosure has to be 100% of the case or nothing.

For instance, can the doctor confirm she made a mandated report with agency X? Yes, she can. This does not require names.

Agency X can confirm, yes, doctor name XX has indeed file a mandated report on Jane Doe. The case is currently with the prosecutor's office and they will not disclose any more details as the investigation is ongoing. There doesn't have to be an identity disclosed.

[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.

And as has been explained to you already: doctors, at the direction of the lawyers who advise their clinic/hospital, have to act in the most conservative fashion. There is functionally no legal abortion in Ohio anymore.

But there will be a lot of miserably disfigured and dead women, so a win for the women haters!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Im arguing that people shouldnt make up BS scenarios, and also shouldnt misdirect the public about what Ohio's laws are in an effort to create confusion and panic.

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.

So you oppose the Ohio ban but are arguing in support of it? That’s an interesting approach.

[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.

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.

So you think minors should be allowed to access abortion, no questions asked, under the presumption that they are victims of non-consensual sex? If not, what process do you think she be used to detriment whether they are allowed to have an abortion?

These are reasonable questions to ask.

DP. I'm sorry, but what is the age you are using at which a child can consent to sexual intercourse? ("Minors" covers a big range.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you oppose the Ohio ban but are arguing in support of it? That’s an interesting approach.

Im arguing that people shouldnt lie.

[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.

At what point does that exception kick in? In other words, is the woman/child forced to carry the pregnancy until she is under imminent risk of death (i.e., sepsis, pre-eclampsia, other infection, etc)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So you think minors should be allowed to access abortion, no questions asked, under the presumption that they are victims of non-consensual sex? If not, what process do you think she be used to detriment whether they are allowed to have an abortion?

These are reasonable questions to ask.

DP. I'm sorry, but what is the age you are using at which a child can consent to sexual intercourse? ("Minors" covers a big range.)

Why don’t you tell us up to what age you believe lack of consent should be presumed such that the minor can get an abortion with no questions asked. I support abortion rights so my position doesn’t need any such cut-off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So you think minors should be allowed to access abortion, no questions asked, under the presumption that they are victims of non-consensual sex? If not, what process do you think she be used to detriment whether they are allowed to have an abortion?

These are reasonable questions to ask.

DP. I'm sorry, but what is the age you are using at which a child can consent to sexual intercourse? ("Minors" covers a big range.)

Why don’t you tell us up to what age you believe lack of consent should be presumed such that the minor can get an abortion with no questions asked. I support abortion rights so my position doesn’t need any such cut-off.

Hey, I'm just asking what you meant by what you posted. That's not something to be defensive about. You were just not very specific.

As for me, I would go by the legal age and requirements for consent in the jurisdiction in question. I would assume that if a child cannot legally consent, then you can assume that they did not legally consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you oppose the Ohio ban but are arguing in support of it? That’s an interesting approach.

Im arguing that people shouldnt lie.

There’s no proof anyone lied about this girl and her pregnancy. There is a fervent hope among forced birthers because again, most of these stories won’t bubble up into the public consciousness. You’re blissfully free to pretend life is all cupcakes and sunshine and that your heinous politics aren’t the politics of death.