And that is why horrific practices still stand like saline abortion (practiced at the 30th week) and we are speaking of perfectly healthy children.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Anti-choicers: this is the fruit of your labour
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
74x12
Well-Known Member
My point is that this was already legal. Never in any danger of being illegalized as far as I know. At lesat not in the opinions of 99% of prolifers.
Abortionists want to lump it in with other abortion issues that are not really related.
That's the point.
It seems that people are more interested in this little girl having an abortion and not interested at all in finding the perpetrator that got her pregnant.
As of the recent R v W decision that is not a legal option. As far as I’m aware.
Already there are medical professionals who are worried about said overturning of legislature impacting their practice and opening them up to potential lawsuits.
So…. What am I to take from this?
You continue to see it as either/or.
It's not. And in a thread about abortion,
catching the culprit isn't the issue.
Why not both?
Of course we need to find the perpetrator of this awful crime. That is evident.
But the pregnancy of this child has direct health outcomes that necessitate an abortion. That she was denied such a medical procedure in a country that is supposedly a world leader is disconcerting for many folks. So obviously that is a main talking point.
No one has suggested that the perp should go off scot free.
All right. Since the articles are very vague, I would like to know what "a child abuse doctor" is, in the United States.
Because in my country it is the minors judge that takes care of these issues. So, law enforcement, and so on.
Last edited:
I have no info other than what's in the article.
If the journalists avoid revealing important details (maybe to protect someone's privacy) we cannot judge this issue in its entirety.
Because, honestly I haven't understood what the issue is, here.
1) Who decides that a minor has to have an abortion in the US?
2) Is it the girl who wants to have an abortion?
3) If she does, why didnt she go to PA or NY, where abortion is doable?
Wow, you think ruining a young girls life for being unfortunate enough to be raped to be more importan?
I really cannot believe the attitude of some religionist who insiste on imposing their religious beliefs on everyone.
1,2 and 3 she’s a minor. A minor. A child without the legal rights afforded to the rest of us. If she had cancer, it wouldn’t matter what her opinion on the matter was. Her legal guardians would likely order her to undergo medical treatment, even against her will. That is how the legal system works. At least in the US (or rather many of their states) and to a large extent in my country of Australia.
Her medical decisions are defaulted to her parents or legal guardians. That’s just reality.
Medical experts have given their expert opinion that abortion is favourable in such a scenario. That is not surprising given her age and the large amount of medical complications that accompany underage pregnancies. A doctors job is to keep her alive and healthy. The fetus comes second. That sounds harsh but is a medical reality.
It is what it is. Would you rather she undergo a potentially dangerous pregnancy? Risking her own life and her inner organs? Risk life long medical complications just to undergo an equally medically inadvisable birth? Going against strict expert medical advise?
Is that the preferable option?
That's a very good point, but I was not talking about the abortion (which is surely the best solution to preserve the child's psychological and physiological welfare).
I was talking about the people having the parental authority over the child.
Because there have been cases of fathers who raped their own young daughters since they were prepubescents. And as soon as they got pregnant, the same fathers made them have an abortion, to eliminate any evidence of that horrendous crime.
So the American people have the right to know what really happened behind the scenes.
I have never cast doubts on the child's right to have an abortion.
I just want to know who got her pregnant.
Because having your first period at 9-10 is extremely rare, so it necessarily means that that girl used to be raped frequently, probably even before she hit puberty.
Last edited:
Agreed
A valid point, to be sure
We do need to be vigilant in such cases.
Okay that is a fair enquiry, to be sure.
In either case though an abortion would likely be medically recommended either way
Unfortunate as that is. That’s the medical reality though.
I do hope whoever assaulted this poor child is put into jail and sees justice. The crime is very abhorrent to be sure
A bit sad when a scientific publication feels the need to voice their views as to the state of the USA. 
Evidence Shouldn’t Be Optional
In a tumultuous few weeks, the Supreme Court has ignored the scientific evidence underlying safe abortion, the need to slow climate change, and the value of gun safety laws. It is alarming that the justices have now indicated a willingness to consider a voting rights case next term, given Chief Justice John Roberts’ feelings on what he calls the “sociological gobbledygook” of research into the effects of gerrymandering. The promise of democracy is being sorely tested by the recent injustices leveled by the Supreme Court’s conservative justices in cases involving health, welfare and the future of the planet. Over and over this term, their decisions have put industry, religion (specifically, a conservative strain of Christianity) and special interests above facts. They have devalued the role of expertise.
And such witnessed by so many other countries no doubt. So, is the USA going down the plughole unless stopped by the sensible?
Disregarding science and evidence is a terrible shift for the highest court in the land, which once safeguarded the health of the public in rulings that upheld state vaccine mandates and safe food production. This is in contrast to the way our current conservative justices have viewed COVID restrictions, whether exempting religious groups from bans on group gatherings or barring vaccine mandates for large businesses. Even in decisions that uphold basic public health tenets, conservative justices have spouted misleading scientific claims. In his dissent on the Court’s decision to not take on New York’s vaccine mandate law for health care workers, Justice Clarence Thomas laments that the workers demanding a religious exemption objected to available COVID vaccines “because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children,” wording that obscures that the cells were grown in a lab based on elective abortions decades ago, and also are used in the development of routine drugs.
The world should perhaps be giving two fingers to these religiously-minded types - since this is where much of this comes from.
In striking down New York’s gun safety law, the majority justices ignored data that show that unfettered access to guns leads to more murders and suicides, and not fewer crimes. They ignored data showing that guns are now responsible for more child deaths than automobiles. They even ignored data that showed that once you repeal a gun law, gun-related killings go up. It was a coldhearted decision, against the backdrop of Uvalde, Buffalo and every mass shooting our nation has suffered in the past decades. It was another slap in the face of our health care system and the emergency clinicians who must try to save people shredded apart by high-powered weapons that are incredibly easy to get. As we have said before, gun safety laws are part of what makes a compassionate nation, and in this, the majority justices showed their callousness.
Simply right-wing bias affecting their (SCOTUS) reasoning - or being bribed as to such?
Evidence Shouldn’t Be Optional
In a tumultuous few weeks, the Supreme Court has ignored the scientific evidence underlying safe abortion, the need to slow climate change, and the value of gun safety laws. It is alarming that the justices have now indicated a willingness to consider a voting rights case next term, given Chief Justice John Roberts’ feelings on what he calls the “sociological gobbledygook” of research into the effects of gerrymandering. The promise of democracy is being sorely tested by the recent injustices leveled by the Supreme Court’s conservative justices in cases involving health, welfare and the future of the planet. Over and over this term, their decisions have put industry, religion (specifically, a conservative strain of Christianity) and special interests above facts. They have devalued the role of expertise.
And such witnessed by so many other countries no doubt. So, is the USA going down the plughole unless stopped by the sensible?
Disregarding science and evidence is a terrible shift for the highest court in the land, which once safeguarded the health of the public in rulings that upheld state vaccine mandates and safe food production. This is in contrast to the way our current conservative justices have viewed COVID restrictions, whether exempting religious groups from bans on group gatherings or barring vaccine mandates for large businesses. Even in decisions that uphold basic public health tenets, conservative justices have spouted misleading scientific claims. In his dissent on the Court’s decision to not take on New York’s vaccine mandate law for health care workers, Justice Clarence Thomas laments that the workers demanding a religious exemption objected to available COVID vaccines “because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children,” wording that obscures that the cells were grown in a lab based on elective abortions decades ago, and also are used in the development of routine drugs.
The world should perhaps be giving two fingers to these religiously-minded types - since this is where much of this comes from.
In striking down New York’s gun safety law, the majority justices ignored data that show that unfettered access to guns leads to more murders and suicides, and not fewer crimes. They ignored data showing that guns are now responsible for more child deaths than automobiles. They even ignored data that showed that once you repeal a gun law, gun-related killings go up. It was a coldhearted decision, against the backdrop of Uvalde, Buffalo and every mass shooting our nation has suffered in the past decades. It was another slap in the face of our health care system and the emergency clinicians who must try to save people shredded apart by high-powered weapons that are incredibly easy to get. As we have said before, gun safety laws are part of what makes a compassionate nation, and in this, the majority justices showed their callousness.
Simply right-wing bias affecting their (SCOTUS) reasoning - or being bribed as to such?
I've no answers for you.
I don't know if there is any law about privacy...even towards perpetrators, that limits the press...in the US.
But here, when a rapist is caught by the law enforcement, he is splashed all over the news...name, ethnicity, etc...
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
It's not a religious issue. It's a moral issue.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
What is it a frog? It's never going to be anything but a human.
So how does the morality of destroying a 10 year olds life work? That underdeveloped possibly killing her and the fetus in the process.
Nope, definitely a religious issue, maybe you could justify it as a moral issue to yourself, that's the religious view of morality, i would pit my morality against any religious view of morality any day of the week.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Your support of any abortion for any reason isn't justified by the one in a million exception where a mother may need a medical procedure to save her life.
And I'm quite sure that medical procedure would be allowed in Ohio once it was determined to be a medical necessity. No need for abortions to be legalized for that exception to exist.