11 year old rape victim forced to carry to term thanks to Ohio law.

[7,052,770]

Ohio also wants to ban many forms of birth control, including The Pill.

https://twitter.com/innovationohio/status/1126096661124657152

Do people not realize how illogical it is to be against abortion and against birth control at the same time? how dumb can you be.

The pill can cause abortion.  I am not against forms of birth control that can only work before fertilization, but, since life begins at fertilization, it is unacceptable for a form of "contraception" to stop an already fertilized life from implanting.  I don't know that I would call it murder, since that wasn't the main intent, but perhaps manslaughter (if people really understood that the pill IS sometimes an abortion).

Life doesn't begin at fertilization. I could see an argument for implantation (though I wouldn't agree with that either), but fertilization is a completely nonsensical point to start it, and a lot of staunchly anti-abortion people agree.

Let's continue to remember that less than 50% of fertilized eggs implant. Unless you're telling me that most people in Heaven never made it past the single cell stage, there's no way to argue an earlier time than implantation.

[7,052,770]

Or: innocent child allowed to live their life thanks to Ohio law.

Yeah, the baby did nothing wrong and deserves a full right to life.

You do realize the victim is 11 years old, and giving birth at this age still carries a heavy risk of death or permanent disability? So yes, let's play the Russian roulette with her life in the name of defense of life.

Well she was raped, so she should get an abortion

So it's not about a fetus being a person to you, it's about "actions have consequences" or some BS? Deplorable.

I obviously strongly disagree with disallowing abortions even in the case of rape, but at least it's logically consistent. If fetuses and earlier stages are persons, then abortion can't be illegal in any circumstances. If they are not, abortion should be legal until the point at which they are.

[7,052,770]

Wait a minute, I thought laws didn't affect the abortion rate?  I was told that the pro-choice side wants abortion to decrease as well, but they just have different methods of doing it?  Shouldn't they be celebrating, too?

2 / 10. Lazy and not well-thought out.

[7,052,770]

Are you seriously telling me you would force your 11 year old daughter to carry a baby to term?

Yes. Some of us have morals.

That's what fundamentalist Muslims in Podunk Africa would say to justify female genital mutilation.

You people are no less barbaric than they are.

Murdering babies is barbaric.

How about murdering eleven-year-olds?

No one is advocating that.

There's a really easy solution to this - stop considering fetuses (and/or earlier stages) that aren't far along enough to have any chance of surviving outside the womb to be "babies." That's a personal, conscious choice you've made and think that everyone else should be bound by.

[7,052,770]

Can we please ban anybody who actually believes the Government should force a child to have a child because she was raped by a pedophile. How is this even a credible opinion to hold in the year 2019?

It's a credible opinion because the circumstances of a woman's pregnancy does not affect the humanity of the unborn child.  That unborn child who is the product of this twisted rape is no less human than you or I were at that point in human development.

This 11 year old child either knows that reality right now, or will figure it out as she grows older.  It will hit her one day, and the effect it will have on her on that day is dependent, at least in part, on the decisions she makes regarding life and death for that unborn child.

If people are honest, they can't argue with what I just said. 

I argue with it, and you know that I wouldn't be "dishonest."

I share the opinion of tens (hundreds?) of millions of Americans, that a fetus that isn't squirming around yet and doesn't look anything like a baby is NOT a "baby" or a "person."

[7,052,770]

Can we please ban anybody who actually believes the Government should force a child to have a child because she was raped by a pedophile. How is this even a credible opinion to hold in the year 2019?

It's a credible opinion because the circumstances of a woman's pregnancy does not affect the humanity of the unborn child.  That unborn child who is the product of this twisted rape is no less human than you or I were at that point in human development.

This 11 year old child either knows that reality right now, or will figure it out as she grows older.  It will hit her one day, and the effect it will have on her on that day is dependent, at least in part, on the decisions she makes regarding life and death for that unborn child.

If people are honest, they can't argue with what I just said. 

It's not a legal person. I was not a legal person when I was a fetus in my mother's uterus. You were not a legal person when you were a fetus in my mother's uterus.

Fetuses are not legal persons  Fetuses do not have rights.

Slaves were not legal persons.  Slaves did not have rights.  And, as an added bonus to their slavemasters, slaves were counted in the census as 3/5th of a person.

Your statement is a legal fact, but not a moral fact in the eyes of God.  I'll ride with that all day long.

God says that fetuses aren't "persons" until the quickening, when it starts moving around. Even better, that aligns with a "facts and logic"-based approach to when "personhood" begins.

[7,052,770]

Fuzzy and anyone else is well within their rights to ignore logic and scripture and believe that personhood begins at the single-cell stage or implantation or whenever and manage their own personal lives under that belief. But that willfully chosen belief should not and can not be forced upon everyone else.

[7,052,770]

Enough. This thread is just reinforced to me that old Atlas conservatives, with only a handful of exceptions, are by and large among the most brainless and heartless individuals even the internet can produce. Just pathetic.

Get a red avatar at the least if you think that us asking for a child not to be murdered is heartless.

That's borderline irony ore mine material, since a rape exception is the default position of the party of your and Badger's avatar color.

[7,052,770]

Enough. This thread is just reinforced to me that old Atlas conservatives, with only a handful of exceptions, are by and large among the most brainless and heartless individuals even the internet can produce. Just pathetic.

Get a red avatar at the least if you think that us asking for a child not to be murdered is heartless.

That's borderline irony ore mine material, since a rape exception is the default position of the party of your and Badger's avatar color.

There are no exceptions listed in the GOP platform:

https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5B1%5D-ben_1468872234.pdf

And yet the last presidential nominee to believe in a "no exceptions" policy was ... nobody?

Party platforms mean little. I think you know that "abortion illegal even in the case of rape" is not the majority position of Republican politicians or Republican voters.

[7,052,770]

None of this justifies the killing of an unborn life. 

The only POSSIBLE exception I would make on the abortion question is if continuing the pregnancy would, truly, kill the mother, and that the abortion was an act of immediate self-defense.  I define this extremely narrowly; such an act would have to truly be something that would prevent a mother from dying in the next half-hour or something like this.  Even here, I am reluctant to give an inch, as the pro-infanticide faction will then take a mile. 

As far as ignorance goes, your credentials along those lines are presented every time you log on and post.

     

Anyone paying attention to the news lately knows which side is taking a mile on this issue. We wouldn't even be having this thread right now if one side hadn't decided to take a mile.

[7,052,770]

For an old man, I thought you would know about all this first-hand.    

Don't be surprised. Older members of the Religious Right have no choice to but to delete all memories about abortion from before the 1980s, lest they remember that their denominations explicitly supported Roe v. Wade when it came out, that Ronald Reagan is responsible for elective abortion being legalized in California (and remember, it was illegal because it wasn't considered safe, not because "life begins at fertilization), or that the biggest proponent of abortion rights in Congress back then was a Catholic priest.

[7,052,770]

None of this justifies the killing of an unborn life. 

The only POSSIBLE exception I would make on the abortion question is if continuing the pregnancy would, truly, kill the mother, and that the abortion was an act of immediate self-defense.  I define this extremely narrowly; such an act would have to truly be something that would prevent a mother from dying in the next half-hour or something like this.  Even here, I am reluctant to give an inch, as the pro-infanticide faction will then take a mile. 

As far as ignorance goes, your credentials along those lines are presented every time you log on and post.

That's pretty awful.  You don't even know if the fetus would survive, but don't save the mother!

The folks I am debating here are a combination of intellectually dishonest and unreasonable.

You seem to be a bit better than the Frodos and Harrys of this thread.  I can imagine speaking to you and at least have an understanding of where each of us is coming from.  What I'm advocating is that abortion MIGHT be permissible if there were some medical condition where the fetus was actually killing the mother in the here and now.  What I'm NOT advocating is prescribing an abortion due to the mother's mental health issue, potential for postpartum depression, etc.  Those scenarios are advanced by some in the "life of the mother" argument.  I don't agree with that thinking.

Yeah, I'm going to need a retraction and sincere public apology for that. You know that I have always stuck up for you and insisted that your viewpoints (warped and illogical as I believe they are) be portrayed accurately and fairly. You repay me with venom and cheap shots that aren't even true.

[7,052,770]

None of this justifies the killing of an unborn life. 

The only POSSIBLE exception I would make on the abortion question is if continuing the pregnancy would, truly, kill the mother, and that the abortion was an act of immediate self-defense.  I define this extremely narrowly; such an act would have to truly be something that would prevent a mother from dying in the next half-hour or something like this.  Even here, I am reluctant to give an inch, as the pro-infanticide faction will then take a mile. 

As far as ignorance goes, your credentials along those lines are presented every time you log on and post.

That's pretty awful.  You don't even know if the fetus would survive, but don't save the mother!

The folks I am debating here are a combination of intellectually dishonest and unreasonable.

You seem to be a bit better than the Frodos and Harrys of this thread.  I can imagine speaking to you and at least have an understanding of where each of us is coming from.  What I'm advocating is that abortion MIGHT be permissible if there were some medical condition where the fetus was actually killing the mother in the here and now.  What I'm NOT advocating is prescribing an abortion due to the mother's mental health issue, potential for postpartum depression, etc.  Those scenarios are advanced by some in the "life of the mother" argument.  I don't agree with that thinking.

Yeah, I'm going to need a retraction and sincere public apology for that. You know that I have always stuck up for you and insisted that your viewpoints (warped and illogical as I believe they are) be portrayed accurately and fairly. You repay me with venom and cheap shots that aren't even true.

I'll retract the pro-infanticide comment.  While I believe abortion is infanticide, I believe that most folks (yourself included) are sincerely deceived as to what abortion actually is.  That, I will do.

That's all I'll retract.

I didn't even know you had called me "pro-infanticide," and I don't particularly care. Namecalling is all I expect from people on your side when discussing abortion.

It's the "intellectual dishonesty" attack, which you are 100% certain is false and made anyway, that warrants the sincere apology.

[7,052,770]

None of this justifies the killing of an unborn life. 

The only POSSIBLE exception I would make on the abortion question is if continuing the pregnancy would, truly, kill the mother, and that the abortion was an act of immediate self-defense.  I define this extremely narrowly; such an act would have to truly be something that would prevent a mother from dying in the next half-hour or something like this.  Even here, I am reluctant to give an inch, as the pro-infanticide faction will then take a mile. 

As far as ignorance goes, your credentials along those lines are presented every time you log on and post.

That's pretty awful.  You don't even know if the fetus would survive, but don't save the mother!

The folks I am debating here are a combination of intellectually dishonest and unreasonable.

You seem to be a bit better than the Frodos and Harrys of this thread.  I can imagine speaking to you and at least have an understanding of where each of us is coming from.  What I'm advocating is that abortion MIGHT be permissible if there were some medical condition where the fetus was actually killing the mother in the here and now.  What I'm NOT advocating is prescribing an abortion due to the mother's mental health issue, potential for postpartum depression, etc.  Those scenarios are advanced by some in the "life of the mother" argument.  I don't agree with that thinking.

Yeah, I'm going to need a retraction and sincere public apology for that. You know that I have always stuck up for you and insisted that your viewpoints (warped and illogical as I believe they are) be portrayed accurately and fairly. You repay me with venom and cheap shots that aren't even true.

I'll retract the pro-infanticide comment.  While I believe abortion is infanticide, I believe that most folks (yourself included) are sincerely deceived as to what abortion actually is.  That, I will do.

That's all I'll retract.

I didn't even know you had called me "pro-infanticide," and I don't particularly care. Namecalling is all I expect from people on your side when discussing abortion.

It's the "intellectual dishonesty" attack, which you are 100% certain is false and made anyway, that warrants the sincere apology.

I've edited my "pro-infanticide" to "pro-abortion".  You claim to be a Christian, so I'll be charitable and say that you are honestly deceived on the issue, and "know not what you do" on the subject.

That's all you get.  Your characterization of your interaction with me over time is generous to yourself, but doesn't reflect the record.  Truthfully, I'm not all that sure that even this retraction is correct; doing it the other way seemed to affect some consciences. 

....

....

Change it back to pro-infanticide for all I care. I literally just said I'm not offended your childish namecalling because I don't think your side is capable of any better when the subject of abortion comes up.

You obviously disagree with me on a lot, but you know with absolute certainly that I'm not "intellectually dishonest." If you'd read or even skimmed my post, you'd know that's what I cared about, not the label that I explicitly said I didn't care about.

[7,052,770]

As to over the top, how over the top was this:

It just dawned on me. Fuzzy, you were saying you are happily ready and willing for your daughter to do prison time for having an abortion? Because let's remember dear little Defenders of human life, but that is exactly what these laws entail.

Not over the the top. You regularly discuss your personal experience with abortion here, and "what to do with women who have an abortion if it is illegalized" is a legitimate question.

Or this; was this over the top?

For an old man, I thought you would know about all this first-hand.     

Don't be surprised. Older members of the Religious Right have no choice to but to delete all memories about abortion from before the 1980s, lest they remember that their denominations explicitly supported Roe v. Wade when it came out, that Ronald Reagan is responsible for elective abortion being legalized in California (and remember, it was illegal because it wasn't considered safe, not because "life begins at fertilization), or that the biggest proponent of abortion rights in Congress back then was a Catholic priest.

Not remotely over the top. All 3 of those examples are well-documented.

Or this one; was this over the top?

Thank you for bravely fighting for an 11-year-old girl's right to die on a hospital bed. You are a modern Lincoln, with the eloquence to boot.

Maybe a little over-the-top, but it's a sarcastic comment in response to you.

Here's some love and kindness from Frodo; was this over the top?

Is that what you would tell the grieving mother of this girl if (and when) she dies in childbirth, along with her unborn child?  And all because nut cases like you refuse to include an exception for rape and incest?   
That's cold comfort, indeed. 

Not over the top. It's always very important to consider negative secondary consequences of all positions we hold.

Where's their rebuke?  Where's their suggestion that their responses to me just might be "over the top" and ad hominem attacks on my character.  Where's the suggestion that Badger tried to do me like the 1988 GOP did Michael Dukakis?

Frodo and Harry have no valid complaint with me.  They have been trashing me forever.  Harry's a bit more subtle, but Frodo's flat out over the top and ad hominem attack-fueled.  Or have all their attacks on me, in this thread and others, been fine and in bounds?  Badger is Badger, but he's a veritable Lee Atwater on this thread, is he not?  Because he's sure doing me like Dukakis.

Just don't call me for holding or illegal use of hands when five others from the opposite team can initiate helmet-to-helmet contact and chop blocks designed to cripple knees.  If people want to referee, that's fine as well, but let's call out the players on the other team when it's warranted.

I have literally never EVER attacked your character. Your terrible political positions and bizarro interpretation of Christianity, sure. The fact that you portray your denomination's beliefs as the "default" Christian beliefs and your insinuation even other Christians who don't share your denomination's beliefs will burn in Hell, sure. But I've always kept it civil and above the belt. You haven't, you regularly don't, and admittedly, I don't get it nearly as bad from you as a lot of people here.

Your delusion and arrogance is astounding.

[7,052,770]

This thread is an abortion, and Fuzzy Bear is now administering the procedure.

... The procedure is still ongoing, but FB has now discarded the rusty coat hanger and is reaching for the vacuum cleaner.

Oooh, is this OK, or is this "over the top"?

"Over the top" is not always bad, and being particularly funny or clever makes it good.

[7,052,770]

An 11-year old who is pregnant is likely on the more mature side physiologically and anatomically for her age, but of course a medical determination of the risks must be made in each individual case.   So the medical specifics guide what's permissible, but with the conviction that if it's possible to protect the health of the young mother, it's always better to protect the life growing inside her, for her own sake as well, and support her with everything she needs during her pregnancy and birth. Giving birth can be an affirmation of life and hope in the face of grave injustice; abortion compounds the tragedy.

Nope. The other awful sentences may be outshine this one, but no pro choice person, and many people who are generally anti-abortion as well, are going to take issue with this sentence.

[7,052,770]

An 11-year old who is pregnant is likely on the more mature side physiologically and anatomically for her age, but of course a medical determination of the risks must be made in each individual case.   So the medical specifics guide what's permissible, but with the conviction that if it's possible to protect the health of the young mother, it's always better to protect the life growing inside her, for her own sake as well, and support her with everything she needs during her pregnancy and birth. Giving birth can be an affirmation of life and hope in the face of grave injustice; abortion compounds the tragedy.

Nope. The other awful sentences may be outshine this one, but no pro choice person, and many people who are generally anti-abortion as well, are going to take issue with this sentence.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

That I don't agree with the bolded part, and I don't think most other people would either. Protecting "the life inside her," if that's what you insist on calling it, it orders of magnitude less important than the welfare of the 11-year-old child.

[7,052,770]

An 11-year old who is pregnant is likely on the more mature side physiologically and anatomically for her age, but of course a medical determination of the risks must be made in each individual case.   So the medical specifics guide what's permissible, but with the conviction that if it's possible to protect the health of the young mother, it's always better to protect the life growing inside her, for her own sake as well, and support her with everything she needs during her pregnancy and birth. Giving birth can be an affirmation of life and hope in the face of grave injustice; abortion compounds the tragedy.

One of the single most disgusting things I have read on this site, especially the parts that I emphasized. I’m not even going to dignify it with my usual trolling reply.

Shua has officially jumped the shark, Humanity wise.

As in, I believe that children conceived due to rape have humanity?   
Yeah.  I didn't expect people here would like that position but I never realized how controversial it was before merely to state it.

Quit the theatrics. You knew it would be extremely controversial.

[7,052,770]

An 11-year old who is pregnant is likely on the more mature side physiologically and anatomically for her age, but of course a medical determination of the risks must be made in each individual case.   So the medical specifics guide what's permissible, but with the conviction that if it's possible to protect the health of the young mother, it's always better to protect the life growing inside her, for her own sake as well, and support her with everything she needs during her pregnancy and birth. Giving birth can be an affirmation of life and hope in the face of grave injustice; abortion compounds the tragedy.

One of the single most disgusting things I have read on this site, especially the parts that I emphasized. I’m not even going to dignify it with my usual trolling reply.

Shua has officially jumped the shark, Humanity wise.

As in, I believe that children conceived due to rape have humanity?   
Yeah.  I didn't expect people here would like that position but I never realized how controversial it was before merely to state it.

Quit the theatrics. You knew it would be extremely controversial.

It honestly didn't occur to me and I still don't really understand why it is.

     

You've been posting here for over a decade and it never occurred to you that "abortion should be illegal even for preteen rape victims" would be a controversial statement? Yeah, I'm calling bullsh**t on that. That would be a controversial statement on a Republican-only forum.

[7,052,770]

An 11-year old who is pregnant is likely on the more mature side physiologically and anatomically for her age, but of course a medical determination of the risks must be made in each individual case.   So the medical specifics guide what's permissible, but with the conviction that if it's possible to protect the health of the young mother, it's always better to protect the life growing inside her, for her own sake as well, and support her with everything she needs during her pregnancy and birth. Giving birth can be an affirmation of life and hope in the face of grave injustice; abortion compounds the tragedy.

One of the single most disgusting things I have read on this site, especially the parts that I emphasized. I’m not even going to dignify it with my usual trolling reply.

Shua has officially jumped the shark, Humanity wise.

As in, I believe that children conceived due to rape have humanity?   
Yeah.  I didn't expect people here would like that position but I never realized how controversial it was before merely to state it.

Quit the theatrics. You knew it would be extremely controversial.

It honestly didn't occur to me and I still don't really understand why it is.

You've been posting here for over a decade and it never occurred to you that "abortion should be illegal even for preteen rape victims" would be a controversial statement? Yeah, I'm calling bullsh**t on that. That would be a controversial statement on a Republican-only forum.

The point I was making there wasn't even centrally about legality so it's a weird choice to focus on that post if the legality aspect is what you find shocking.

Why? It's all interconnected. It's not like there are people who believe that fetuses are persons and abortion is murder, but that abortion should be legal anyway. With few exceptions (in a nation of 300,000,000, there are always exceptions), people who think that the preteen victim of violent crime should be legally allowed to have an abortion reject your argument. People who agree with your argument are the ones who think she shouldn't be allowed to have one.

Either way, all opinions related to abortion are inherently controversial. It is unbelievable that someone who's followed politics for so long and participated in discussion of abortion would claim to not grasp that fact.

[7,052,770]

yeah I was claiming not to realize abortion was a controversial issue, that's exactly what I was talking about, not the fact that people said my specific post was the worst thing they ever read on the forum

Are you just incapable of talking in good faith on a thread about abortion? First, you clutch pearls at the idea your post was "controversial" (your word originally, then I used it in a few rounds of back and forth with no immediate objection from you), and then when painted into a corner, suddenly you change it to "my specific post was the worst thing they ever read on the forum" ?

Bad faith, Shua. Take the L. You exaggerated your post at 7:03:37 (central) for effect.

[7,052,770]

yeah I was claiming not to realize abortion was a controversial issue, that's exactly what I was talking about, not the fact that people said my specific post was the worst thing they ever read on the forum

Are you just incapable of talking in good faith on a thread about abortion? First, you clutch pearls at the idea your post was "controversial" (your word originally, then I used it in a few rounds of back and forth with no immediate objection from you), and then when painted into a corner, suddenly you change it to "my specific post was the worst thing they ever read on the forum" ?

Bad faith, Shua. Take the L. You exaggerated your post at 7:03:37 (central) for effect.

Good faith?  Who has shown any good faith in this thread discussing this issue with me?

Now you want us to pretend that people weren't going on and on about how disgusting a post of mine supposedly was?  Something you yourself engaged in?    This is a top-notch gaslighting attempt.  Well done.

More bad faith. I never once "pretended that people weren't going on and on about how disgusting a post of mine supposedly was" or implied that or said anything remotely resembling that. As you previously knew but apparently forgot for this post, my issue was your pearl-clutching and "Well I declairrrr, I just had no idea my post was so controversial!!"

But you always knew it was controversial. Just a few posts up, even Fuzzy Bear agreed with me that it was controversial, even though he agrees with the content of it. Why you are fighting this so hard is beyond me. I've exaggerated here in my posts on this forum before, and I've gotten called out on it deservedly. And now I'm doing it to you.

ETA: Talk about gaslighting! My whole point is "of course your post was controversial, there's you way you thought it wasn't?" How in the world are you coming back with "you're saying people going on and on about how disgusting a post of mine supposedly was!!!!" ?? WTF is that? I'm saying people ARE going on and on about that because it WAS controversial! I mean JFC are you just distracted any not really reading my posts?

[7,052,770]

The unborn children who are no less human than you or I, even though their biological father is a complete scumbag deserve people willing to take on the controversy, in the hopes that they won't be killed.  They are innocent life.

And abortion kills unborn children, inflicting real pain on them in the process.  Real pain.

Well I don't agree with any of that (except for the part about the father being a scumbag). And neither millions and millions of other Americans. I thank God that I live in a country where your belief is not the law.

[7,052,770]

okay maybe misinterpreted as I'm having trouble seeing what post of mine you are talking about at any point, since there were two you had a problem with it seems.  You originally had a problem with the first one, but now it's the second one instead?

No. I don't know which one "the first post" or "the second post" are, but all I've ever been talking about since 7:05:37 is your 7:03:37 "I never realized how controversial it was before merely to state it" post. Not sure what's been unclear.

I knew the post (as in, the first one, that several people responded to) might be kinda controversial just due to the issue, so I tried to make it as measured as I could in that moment while still getting across what I wanted to say. I didn't expect the extent of the controversy!   

This is supposed to be a forum where we discuss politics, including how people approach politics, the psychology of politics, political rhetoric, differences in political values, etc, right?   Pointing out that making a statement gets a response much more negative than one expected falls within that.  It isn't "pearl clutching."

And I'm calling you out on that because I think you DID know full and well the "extent of the controversy" your post would cause.

And I'm fine with controversy - I wouldn't be posting on this thread at all if I weren't. I just get annoyed when people throw bombs into threads and then act all innocent and incredulous about it. Own it like Fuzzy does.