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

[Fuzzy Bear]

Since we are now playing with far-fetched comparisons, certain side of this argument reminds me of a mentality exhibited by many in the Holy Inquisition. For them torturing and killing scores of people was actually the ultimate act of Christian love, because they were saving their "immortal souls" for eternity.

Now their mental successors want to put an 11-year old rape victim at serious risk of death or permanent disability (with a good chance the baby wouldn't live either I might add) just so their fanatical conception of "life sanctity" remains intact. Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty.

And even if we assume that there was no risk of death or disability in delivering, treating a literal child as nothing more than a breeding cattle tells a lot about their psyche.

But, of course, the Inquisition was the act of an apostate Church, acting against Scripture, for which there was a Reformation to bring Christianity back to the Gospel.  You know this as well.  

Chrsitians view children as a life created by God, with an immortal soul all its own.  This is a bottom line.  You say that "Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty".  An interesting choice of language.

https://youtu.be/QUr0jCbcPNc

Is this not the worst cruelty?  I believe that the unborn child that feels pain would think so.  It is cruelty we would prohibit being done to an animal.  That we have this is the result of the Inflexible Purity of the Feminist Left and their political allies, who have viewed abortion as their "power" issue.  So, please, if we're going to use that concept, my example is far more current than something that happened in Medieval Europe.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Since we are now playing with far-fetched comparisons, certain side of this argument reminds me of a mentality exhibited by many in the Holy Inquisition. For them torturing and killing scores of people was actually the ultimate act of Christian love, because they were saving their "immortal souls" for eternity.

Now their mental successors want to put an 11-year old rape victim at serious risk of death or permanent disability (with a good chance the baby wouldn't live either I might add) just so their fanatical conception of "life sanctity" remains intact. Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty.

And even if we assume that there was no risk of death or disability in delivering, treating a literal child as nothing more than a breeding cattle tells a lot about their psyche.

But, of course, the Inquisition was the act of an apostate Church, acting against Scripture, for which there was a Reformation to bring Christianity back to the Gospel.  You know this as well.  

Chrsitians view children as a life created by God, with an immortal soul all its own.  This is a bottom line.  You say that "Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty".  An interesting choice of language.

https://youtu.be/QUr0jCbcPNc

Is this not the worst cruelty?  I believe that the unborn child that feels pain would think so.  It is cruelty we would prohibit being done to an animal.  That we have this is the result of the Inflexible Purity of the Feminist Left and their political allies, who have viewed abortion as their "power" issue.  So, please, if we're going to use that concept, my example is far more current than something that happened in Medieval Europe.

So now we're talking about later-term and partial-birth abortions too? Of course it's a valid topic to discuss, but still a deflection from what this thread is about.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Since we are now playing with far-fetched comparisons, certain side of this argument reminds me of a mentality exhibited by many in the Holy Inquisition. For them torturing and killing scores of people was actually the ultimate act of Christian love, because they were saving their "immortal souls" for eternity.

Now their mental successors want to put an 11-year old rape victim at serious risk of death or permanent disability (with a good chance the baby wouldn't live either I might add) just so their fanatical conception of "life sanctity" remains intact. Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty.

And even if we assume that there was no risk of death or disability in delivering, treating a literal child as nothing more than a breeding cattle tells a lot about their psyche.

But, of course, the Inquisition was the act of an apostate Church, acting against Scripture, for which there was a Reformation to bring Christianity back to the Gospel.  You know this as well.  

Chrsitians view children as a life created by God, with an immortal soul all its own.  This is a bottom line.  You say that "Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty".  An interesting choice of language.

https://youtu.be/QUr0jCbcPNc

Is this not the worst cruelty?  I believe that the unborn child that feels pain would think so.  It is cruelty we would prohibit being done to an animal.  That we have this is the result of the Inflexible Purity of the Feminist Left and their political allies, who have viewed abortion as their "power" issue.  So, please, if we're going to use that concept, my example is far more current than something that happened in Medieval Europe.

So now we're talking about later-term and partial-birth abortions too? Of course it's a valid topic to discuss, but still a deflection from what this thread is about.

I would contend that bringing up the Inquisition is a far greater deflection.

[Frodo]

It's good to know Fuzzy (and others like him) are absolutely fine forcing children to give birth to children, even if they die in the process.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Since we are now playing with far-fetched comparisons, certain side of this argument reminds me of a mentality exhibited by many in the Holy Inquisition. For them torturing and killing scores of people was actually the ultimate act of Christian love, because they were saving their "immortal souls" for eternity.

Now their mental successors want to put an 11-year old rape victim at serious risk of death or permanent disability (with a good chance the baby wouldn't live either I might add) just so their fanatical conception of "life sanctity" remains intact. Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty.

And even if we assume that there was no risk of death or disability in delivering, treating a literal child as nothing more than a breeding cattle tells a lot about their psyche.

But, of course, the Inquisition was the act of an apostate Church, acting against Scripture, for which there was a Reformation to bring Christianity back to the Gospel.  You know this as well.  

Chrsitians view children as a life created by God, with an immortal soul all its own.  This is a bottom line.  You say that "Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty".  An interesting choice of language.

https://youtu.be/QUr0jCbcPNc

Is this not the worst cruelty?  I believe that the unborn child that feels pain would think so.  It is cruelty we would prohibit being done to an animal.  That we have this is the result of the Inflexible Purity of the Feminist Left and their political allies, who have viewed abortion as their "power" issue.  So, please, if we're going to use that concept, my example is far more current than something that happened in Medieval Europe.

So now we're talking about later-term and partial-birth abortions too? Of course it's a valid topic to discuss, but still a deflection from what this thread is about.

I would contend that bringing up the Inquisition is a far greater deflection.

So was bringing up the slavery.

[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.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

I am very disappointed that the great deal of Atlas conservatives don’t recognize the truth. Life begins at arousal.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Since we are now playing with far-fetched comparisons, certain side of this argument reminds me of a mentality exhibited by many in the Holy Inquisition. For them torturing and killing scores of people was actually the ultimate act of Christian love, because they were saving their "immortal souls" for eternity.

Now their mental successors want to put an 11-year old rape victim at serious risk of death or permanent disability (with a good chance the baby wouldn't live either I might add) just so their fanatical conception of "life sanctity" remains intact. Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty.

And even if we assume that there was no risk of death or disability in delivering, treating a literal child as nothing more than a breeding cattle tells a lot about their psyche.

But, of course, the Inquisition was the act of an apostate Church, acting against Scripture, for which there was a Reformation to bring Christianity back to the Gospel.  You know this as well.  

Chrsitians view children as a life created by God, with an immortal soul all its own.  This is a bottom line.  You say that "Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty".  An interesting choice of language.

https://youtu.be/QUr0jCbcPNc

Is this not the worst cruelty?  I believe that the unborn child that feels pain would think so.  It is cruelty we would prohibit being done to an animal.  That we have this is the result of the Inflexible Purity of the Feminist Left and their political allies, who have viewed abortion as their "power" issue.  So, please, if we're going to use that concept, my example is far more current than something that happened in Medieval Europe.

So now we're talking about later-term and partial-birth abortions too? Of course it's a valid topic to discuss, but still a deflection from what this thread is about.

I would contend that bringing up the Inquisition is a far greater deflection.

So was bringing up the slavery.

It's Whataboutism at it's finest, and I do not apologize for it.

People complain about 'Whataboutism" because they don't like it when their own logic is properly used to buttress an opposite point of view.  I'm fine with that.

[T'Chenka]

Since we are now playing with far-fetched comparisons, certain side of this argument reminds me of a mentality exhibited by many in the Holy Inquisition. For them torturing and killing scores of people was actually the ultimate act of Christian love, because they were saving their "immortal souls" for eternity.

Now their mental successors want to put an 11-year old rape victim at serious risk of death or permanent disability (with a good chance the baby wouldn't live either I might add) just so their fanatical conception of "life sanctity" remains intact. Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty.

And even if we assume that there was no risk of death or disability in delivering, treating a literal child as nothing more than a breeding cattle tells a lot about their psyche.

But, of course, the Inquisition was the act of an apostate Church, acting against Scripture, for which there was a Reformation to bring Christianity back to the Gospel.  You know this as well.  

Chrsitians view children as a life created by God, with an immortal soul all its own.  This is a bottom line.  You say that "Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty".  An interesting choice of language.

https://youtu.be/QUr0jCbcPNc

Is this not the worst cruelty?  I believe that the unborn child that feels pain would think so.  It is cruelty we would prohibit being done to an animal.  That we have this is the result of the Inflexible Purity of the Feminist Left and their political allies, who have viewed abortion as their "power" issue.  So, please, if we're going to use that concept, my example is far more current than something that happened in Medieval Europe.

So now we're talking about later-term and partial-birth abortions too? Of course it's a valid topic to discuss, but still a deflection from what this thread is about.

I would contend that bringing up the Inquisition is a far greater deflection.

So was bringing up the slavery.

It's Whataboutism at it's finest, and I do not apologize for it.

People complain about 'Whataboutism" because they don't like it when their own logic is properly used to buttress an opposite point of view.  I'm fine with that.

LOL

You are the Atlas King of whataboutism.

If I win BIG at the lottery, I will find and hire a retired high school debate class teacher to create an account here for the sole purpose of political neutrality and callimg out bad / invalid / dishonest arguments.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Since we are now playing with far-fetched comparisons, certain side of this argument reminds me of a mentality exhibited by many in the Holy Inquisition. For them torturing and killing scores of people was actually the ultimate act of Christian love, because they were saving their "immortal souls" for eternity.

Now their mental successors want to put an 11-year old rape victim at serious risk of death or permanent disability (with a good chance the baby wouldn't live either I might add) just so their fanatical conception of "life sanctity" remains intact. Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty.

And even if we assume that there was no risk of death or disability in delivering, treating a literal child as nothing more than a breeding cattle tells a lot about their psyche.

But, of course, the Inquisition was the act of an apostate Church, acting against Scripture, for which there was a Reformation to bring Christianity back to the Gospel.  You know this as well.  

Chrsitians view children as a life created by God, with an immortal soul all its own.  This is a bottom line.  You say that "Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty".  An interesting choice of language.

https://youtu.be/QUr0jCbcPNc

Is this not the worst cruelty?  I believe that the unborn child that feels pain would think so.  It is cruelty we would prohibit being done to an animal.  That we have this is the result of the Inflexible Purity of the Feminist Left and their political allies, who have viewed abortion as their "power" issue.  So, please, if we're going to use that concept, my example is far more current than something that happened in Medieval Europe.

So now we're talking about later-term and partial-birth abortions too? Of course it's a valid topic to discuss, but still a deflection from what this thread is about.

I would contend that bringing up the Inquisition is a far greater deflection.

So was bringing up the slavery.

It's Whataboutism at it's finest, and I do not apologize for it.

People complain about 'Whataboutism" because they don't like it when their own logic is properly used to buttress an opposite point of view.  I'm fine with that.

LOL

You are the Atlas King of whataboutism.

If I win BIG at the lottery, I will find and hire a retired high school debate class teacher to create an account here for the sole purpose of political neutrality and callimg out bad / invalid / dishonest arguments.

That would be great if everyone were held to debating rules.  I'm married to a former college debater who has worked as a Debate Coach.  (Neither my wife nor myself recognize the Presidential Candidate head-to-head spectacles every 4 years as real debates, btw.)

"Whataboutism" is the stuff of politics.  Lots of people make arguments on principle not fully realizing that their principles can be applied in many ways, including ways that chip away at their argument.  Crying "Whataboutism" around here is, by and large, people being upset because they have to actually consider that their own arguments can lead in multiple directions.

I don't think I've ever cried "Whataboutism", except maybe in a moment of extreme sarcasm.  I'm well aware that principles can be used in equally valid ways to support both sides of the same argument.  Real Life involves frequently balancing competing principles, determining which principle trumps another principle in a situation where principles are at odds with each other, while adhering to some basic principles that are bedrock.  This results in "Whataboutism".  There's really nothing wrong with this; it keeps people honest and (hopefully) more introspective.

[Joe Republic]

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

[Fuzzy Bear]

The issue of where human life begins won't go away. 

[darklordoftech]

Even W said that he supported a rape exception for restrictions on abortion.

[Progressive Pessimist]

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

Thread won! Can we lock it now?

[Santander]

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

Thread won! Can we lock it now?

Credit where it is due.

[Person Man]

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. 

That may not be necessary, having died during childbirth.

That would be highly unlikely today in America.

If you're an 11-years old the risk is significant, whether it's in America or some sub-Saharan poverty-ridden backwater, maybe to a diffrent degree but still. And if she were to survive, the risk of permanent disability that would in many cases essentially mean a delayed death sentence is probably even higher. Even if the chances were 50-50 or much less, it's still mind-blowingly cruel to subject the girl to that.

It's interesting some people seems to subscribe to the notion of the life beginning at conception and ending at birth, because this is essentially what the whole matter boils down to, whether they realize this or, more likely, just don't want to leave their comfy bubble of dogma. Maybe you guys should sit down and try to see the actual human factor here, not just some abstract ideological stuff.

You could at least cite former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) as the formulator of the highlighted phrase, lol.

I've been face to face with the "human factor", and I'm not alone.  In my personal life, I have had at least one grandchild aborted (that I know of).  My son and his girlfriend had always known that my wife and I would do whatever was needed for grandchildren, even if that involved raising the child ourselves, at our own expense.  No questions asked.  As both he and his girlfriend were rather dysfunctional at that time, we made it clear that we would not be dogging them for money; our only concern would be that we would have, through adoption or permanent guardianship, total authority in raising the child.  I was not going to willingly raise a child at the direction of people who were out to lunch.  (I was prepared to compromise as much as necessary for a child's sake, however.)

I know many Christians who are of the same mind, not just in advocacy, but in fact.  The not wanting to adopt or be bothered with children once they're born is, quite frankly, more typical of the pro-choice crowd, many of whom pontificate as to the needs of children, but find them a pain in the rear end when they have to deal with them.  They're the kind of secular grandparents who like visits from grandkids, but rejoice that they "go home".  Now I get that, but the idea that pro-life folks don't put their money and resources where their mouths are is just ridiculous.

What Christians DO view as important is encouraging childbirth within the context of marriage and family.  This is disrespected and blown off by many here, but it is a concept that is indispensable to the stability of a modern society.  Christians are right to question a welfare system that, however unintentionally, encourages out-of-wedlock births and discourages marriage for economic reasons.  Christians also contribute to the funding of any number of crisis pregnancy centers that provide all sorts of assistance for persons beset with untimely pregnancies.

Of course, the Barney Frank Throwaway Line is mostly horse manure.  How many people here would be OK in turning America into a pro-life Sweden; a Social Democracy where abortion is not legal, but there are the sort of cradle-to-grave benefits for folks that the Swedes have?  I'm for it; how about you?  Would you be OK with a Pro-Life Social Democratic America, where children are "taken care of"?  Where "life doesn't end at birth"?  If abolition of the Death Penalty was thrown in, would you be all in with Fuzzy Bear's Pro-Life Welfare State?  I'll even throw in the elimination of right-to-work laws; who's with me?

I would be OK with it if it included life beginning at implantation, not conception. And no death penalty except for war crimes. In fact, all of this would be essential to have a personhood law based more on responsibility rather than punishing people and trying to take them over.

[Person Man]

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

The issue of where human life begins won't go away. 

What about the sanctity of the life of this thread? Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[Badger]

But Kasich and Dewine are just such moderate FF's!

Dwayne has never been a moderate on the subject of abortion

[Badger]

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

Wow. Just ing wow.

I could go on about how forcing an 11 year old rape victim to carry a child to term against their will is beyond barbaric, that The Unborn children she will never have because she is 2 Shackled and traumatized ever bear another child again, or just the cancer has now completely on its own as far as they're concerned once the birth canal was navigated. But somehow, wow, just ing wow, is the best way to gather the astonishment at such a statement

[Badger]

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).

That is a 19th century definition of abortion and you know it. This involves you cramming your religious views down the throats of others. To say a barely fertilized egg is a baby in order to get rate of birth control is the product either of ignorance or chronic incel status. Frankly, I guess both

[Badger]

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.

I'm against both. Abstinence is 100% effective birth control. Do that.

Abstinence only education has never been an effective method of preventing pregnancy. People will have sex; including young people; whether you want them to or not.

Well some people only learn their lesson when it is too late, if you have been raped, assaulted, invested, or are in physical danger if the child is born, it is one thing, if you actually willingly agree to do this, you should be wary of the consequences

And when you say you should be wary of the consequences, by that of course you mean the woman. How about this? If you grossly underfunded government programs to make it easier to raise a child and care for one as a young single mother, then you ought to be ready for the consequences that women are going to choose abortion instead.

Your move, hypocrite.

[Badger]

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

And if she was fooling around playing doctor with her older brothers 14 year old friend? Is this the point of you ought to be ready for the consequences kicks in?

[Badger]

Now watch DeWine doxx the girl and ask for right wingers to harass her. That’s how this goes, right?

Dwayne is too old-fashioned and, at least at a personal level, respectable to ever do that. There are some troglodytes in the State legislature, not to mention trumpet types in the Ohio right wing media whom I wouldn't rule out doing so, but In fairness not governor dewine.

[Badger]

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

Are you willing to pay more tax to support that child, since an 11 year old mother obviously cannot?

By this logic we shouldn't have any laws at all.

That.. That, does it make even an ounce of sense. That's not even a cogent argument. I'm not even sure that's English. What in God's name are you even trying to communicate??

[Badger]

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.

Please look up the word z y g o t e. Zygote