Anti-choicers: this is the fruit of your labour

[Alien826]

"Make" her have an abortion?
I'll wager that she's eager to have one.

Just to consider all possibilities, what would be your answer if the child wanted to continue with the pregnancy? On the one hand we have the "choice" aspect that we defend so strongly with adult women, and on the other hand the child is too young for her wishes to be followed in other examples, say if she needed surgery for some dangerous condition.

I must admit I don't have a ready answer.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just to consider all possibilities, what would be your answer if the child wanted to continue with the pregnancy?

Given her age; her parents, doctor, & possibly
even the court would also have a say.

On the one hand we have the "choice" aspect that we defend so strongly with adult women, and on the other hand the child is too young for her wishes to be followed in other examples, say if she needed surgery for some dangerous condition.

I must admit I don't have a ready answer.

My above answer preceded reading the rest.
I discovered that we agree.

 

[Alien826]

Well in fairness it's not a guarantee the child will actually become a rapist, but there's definitely a correlation that the odds are higher if there are rapists in one's genealogy.

Criminal Genes and Criminal Brains

There is some merit to it.

Did you note that the article is generally dismissive of the idea? Here's one extract. It's an interesting read, certainly.

The crucial point is that the relationship between genes and brain structures does not remotely reflect a simple “gene-for” model. Genes are part of networks, and there are interactions between elements of the network and with the environment. This is a huge challenge for a psychologist such as Jonathan Haidt who claims there are genes for liberal and conservatives (I am not making this up) let alone for neuroscientist Adrian Raine who frames his point, perhaps with reluctant simplicity, in terms of genes that promote criminal behavior.

 

[Heyo]

Apologies but I’m a little unclear on your meaning?

You said you are in favour of allowing late term abortions because most cases are for medical reasons. I.e. you don't care about the "only a few" late term abortions that are not for medical reasons. That is the same bad reasoning the anti-choicers use when they say that "only a few" cases are 10 year olds so they don't need extra treatment.
Sometimes you can't think of all possible cases and treat them in the law for practical reasons. But here the solution is so easy that "only a few" really is negligent.
Elective abortions only up to week 20. Abortions for medical reasons, any time. Two sentences, every case dealt with.

 

[SomeRandom]

You said you are in favour of allowing late term abortions because most cases are for medical reasons. I.e. you don't care about the "only a few" late term abortions that are not for medical reasons. That is the same bad reasoning the anti-choicers use when they say that "only a few" cases are 10 year olds so they don't need extra treatment.
Sometimes you can't think of all possible cases and treat them in the law for practical reasons. But here the solution is so easy that "only a few" really is negligent.
Elective abortions only up to week 20. Abortions for medical reasons, any time. Two sentences, every case dealt with.

Well that’s assuming that one has good access to reproductive services. But we’re talking about the US. So I don’t know if I’d like to add any qualifiers in that specific context.

I live in a country that actually has universal healthcare and even here abortion is usually outsourced through private health companies. In my state, elective abortions are legal up to 22 weeks and any abortions afterwards needs two doctors to sign off on it. I find this reasonable since, like I said, I live in a country with universal healthcare. It literally never occurs to anyone here to worry about going to the doctor for any reason due to money or lack thereof.

But the US just isn’t as fortunate. Putting up any barriers would probably do far more harm than good and might even be used to deny actual medical emergencies. Hell it already has, apparently said 10 year old was literally denied a medically necessary abortion in the states just recently. As the OP pointed out
Hence my hesitation to add any qualifiers to my statement about late term abortions.

 

[Heyo]

Well that’s assuming that one has good access to reproductive services.

Yes, but it can be used to allow later abortions. It just says that the decision has to be made before week 20. If the system can't react to that decision in time, the failure is on the system and the woman can't be made responsible for that.

But the US just isn’t as fortunate. Putting up any barriers would probably do far more harm than good and might even be used to deny actual medical emergencies. Hell it already has, apparently said 10 year old was literally denied a medically necessary abortion in the states just recently.

On an "only a few" reasoning.

As the OP pointed out
Hence my hesitation to add any qualifiers to my statement about late term abortions.

So you change your argument from "only a few" to "Americans are too stupid to handle a rule with one exception"?

 

[74x12]

A ten-year-old pregnant girl - so by definition, a victim of rape and someone whose pregnancy is a threat to her life - has been denied an abortion under Ohio's abortion rules, newly-enabled by the overturning of Roe v. Wade:


https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/

Anti-choicers: this is the completely foreseeable result of what you've fought for for decades, so if you tell me again that you support abortion in the case of rape or to save the life of the pregnant person, I hope you'll understand when I call you liars and hypocrites.

In your rhetoric, you acknowledge that this sort of action on the part of the state shouldn't happen, so you know that it's wrong... but you enable it anyway. The anti-choice movenent is wilfully evil, even by its own warped standards. Reflect on that, then do something to fix the mess you've created.

Abortions never save the life of a pregnant person. If it comes to that then it's called a miscarriage not an abortion. It's just that abortionists are relabeling it in order to garner support for their own movement.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, but it can be used to allow later abortions. It just says that the decision has to be made before week 20. If the system can't react to that decision in time, the failure is on the system and the woman can't be made responsible for that

I agree

On an "only a few" reasoning.

Everyone counts, as they say. I don’t like abortion happening in the first place, let alone late term abortion.
But as the latest SCOTUS rulings shows, “only a few” not only can make all the difference. The few can impose their will on the many.
Sorry, but I count each and every one and I allow for “only a few” as an added sense of caution. At least until I find more confidence in the US healthcare system

So you change your argument from "only a few" to "Americans are too stupid to handle a rule with one exception"?

You’re perhaps far more harsh on Americans than I am.
I aired on the side of caution because I know all too well the many loopholes and challenges presented to US citizens. The OP even presents such a case. So I’m sorry if the US system has apparently failed its citizens. But I’m not responsible for that. I can only react.

 

[SomeRandom]

Abortions never save the life of a pregnant person. If it comes to that then it's called a miscarriage not an abortion. It's just that abortionists are relabeling it in order to garner support for their own movement.

A miscarriage happens naturally in the body. And ironically if no medical help is carried out immediately, the woman could die. Often from sepsis or blood poisoning. It’s happened before.
If a pregnancy is deemed a threat to the life of the mother, medical staff will advise abortion as a course of action. If the fetus dies in the womb, it is medically necessary to remove it. Otherwise the pregnant person might end up dying as a result
Not to mention ectopic pregnancies, and other health conditions that force the hand of doctors

Fact Check-Termination of pregnancy can be necessary to save a woman’s life, experts say

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Abortions never save the life of a pregnant person. If it comes to that then it's called a miscarriage not an abortion. It's just that abortionists are relabeling it in order to garner support for their own movement.

Are you high?

 

[Kidron]

Sadly, there are too extremist sides.
There is no middle ground possible.

Once the idea that "unless the ________ is outside the womb, it isn't a baby".....became the mindset of those who like to be told what to think by those who like to sell baby parts, or who want to provide abortion to them as a late term contraceptive, then any fair debate regarding the defining of the world "baby", became impossible to achieve.

 

[Wildswanderer]

A ten-year-old pregnant girl - so by definition, a victim of rape and someone whose pregnancy is a threat to her life - has been denied an abortion under Ohio's abortion rules, newly-enabled by the overturning of Roe v. Wade:


https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/

Anti-choicers: this is the completely foreseeable result of what you've fought for for decades, so if you tell me again that you support abortion in the case of rape or to save the life of the pregnant person, I hope you'll understand when I call you liars and hypocrites.

In your rhetoric, you acknowledge that this sort of action on the part of the state shouldn't happen, so you know that it's wrong... but you enable it anyway. The anti-choice movenent is wilfully evil, even by its own warped standards. Reflect on that, then do something to fix the mess you've created.

As opposed to enabling 60 million abortions?
What a crock. You pick the one in a million case to justify the abortion holocaust. It's like standing on truckloads of corpses and shouting "Look, we can save one person because all these people died!"

 

[Wildswanderer]

Someone, and no doubt they will face the legal consequences in time. But other things are more important.

Wow! Killing the result is more important than punishment of the evil person?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As opposed to enabling 60 million abortions?
What a crock. You pick the one in a million case to justify the abortion holocaust. It's like standing on truckloads of corpses and shouting "Look, we can save one person because all these people died!"

So you're good with how she's being treated?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah. I thought it was a done deal. Don't fix what wasn't broken, but you know how politics work.

This isn't just politics but also Dominionism and conservative Evangelicism that does see the ends as justifying the means.
Church history will give a better understanding of them than a usual politics course. They're True Believers on a Mission from God.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So you're good with how she's being treated?

With their ends in sight, yes the means do justify it. If she's a good Christian girl it probably wouldn't have happened to her anyways, but if she and she dies she'll go to Heaven anyways.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you're good with how she's being treated?

Facepalm! How about actually addressing what I said?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Facepalm! How about actually addressing what I said?

I did, but since you asked, let's try again:

Your hypocritical rant was bull****. This wasn't a choice between "60 million abortions" and forcing pre-teen rape victims to be mothers. The fact that she can still get an abortion in Indiana should have made that much clear to you.

She's the victim of a 2019 Ohio law that left no exception for this 10-year-old. The situation in Ohio has been crafted by modern-day anti-choicers to create exactly this result.

They could have picked a time later than 6 weeks; they didn't. They could have given exceptions for rape or for risk to the life of the pregnant person; they didn't. These are not bugs in the Ohio law; these are deliberate features.

So tell us: do you support these features or not? What you've said so far suggests you do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abortions never save the life of a pregnant person. If it comes to that then it's called a miscarriage not an abortion. It's just that abortionists are relabeling it in order to garner support for their own movement.

Sorry but that is still an abortion. You are trying to redefine the word. Words don't act that way. A state legislature cannot decide what words mean. Usage is what sets the meaning of words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow! Killing the result is more important than punishment of the evil person?

There is a priority. No one said anything about letting the guilty person go free. He will almost certainly still be caught and prosecuted. That may take time. Right now the girls problem needs to be taken care of. And at this point it is simply not a "person".