However, it ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life.
i think you missed my point... the rapist is/was 26 years old...
That was in your story AFTER I mentioned mine version, not before.
So your guy was a man, mine could be a boy, both males indeed.
dude, damn...
i posted a newspaper article about a very real and ongoing situation...
it was the same article/situation that had already beein mentioned...
it was not something i made up... seriously...
If the baby is made by a rape, that boy should pay the abortion or the adoption. If that boy is not found, the government should pay the abortion, until the police finds the boy. After that the boy has to
pay back afterwards.
boy???
[quote]
An 11-year-old girl in Ohio was allegedly raped by a 26-year-old
multiple times, leaving her pregnant, according to police reports. A
state law passed in April, but not yet in effect, says that victims
like her won't have a choice to have an abortion -- they would have to carry and deliver their rapist's child.
That was in your story AFTER I mentioned mine version, not before.
So your guy was a man, mine could be a boy, both males indeed.
dude, damn...
i posted a newspaper article about a very real and ongoing situation...
That can be true, but AFTER I posted my first message about that 11 year old.
it was the same article/situation that had already beein mentioned...
No, it was NOT the same already being mentioned.
I started telling about an 11 year old girl hypothetically,
and after that you referred to a newpaper article I never knew of.
It is a pure coincidence we both were talking about a different 11 yr old.
Would you bring a woman to court if she got a natural unforced abortion?
Only if I was a mullah in Iran.
inWould you bring a woman to court if she got a natural unforced
abortion?
Only if I was a mullah in Iran.
What's the real difference between a Mullah in Iran and a Baptist Priest
Alabama?
abortion?Would you bring a woman to court if she got a natural unforced
Priest inOnly if I was a mullah in Iran.
What's the real difference between a Mullah in Iran and a Baptist
Alabama?
On 06-11-19 23:02, Michiel Van Der Vlist <=-
spoke to Jeff Smith about Guns. <=-
Dale Shipp wrote to Michiel Van Der Vlist <=-
It is even worse than that. Although many states make an
exception allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest, a few
do not even allow that exception -- making it essentially
impossible to obtain a legal abortion in that state. The really
bad part is that the state of Alabama does remove parental rights
even from a convicted rapist. The implication of that is that
the woman will be force to continue her pregnancy to full term,
have the baby, and then share joint custody with her rapist. She
would not even be allowed to put the baby up for adoption without
the consent of the rapist.
That is just wrong on so many levels.
It is even worse than that. Although many states make an
exception allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest, a few
do not even allow that exception -- making it essentially
impossible to obtain a legal abortion in that state. The really
bad part is that the state of Alabama does remove parental rights
even from a convicted rapist. The implication of that is that
the woman will be force to continue her pregnancy to full term,
have the baby, and then share joint custody with her rapist. She
would not even be allowed to put the baby up for adoption without
the consent of the rapist.
That is just wrong on so many levels.
It's also not true. Stop spreading fake news.
FYI - "Implication" does not equal reality. Not even close. I
know that's a hard concept for liberals to grasp (ie: Russian probe/collusion), but it's a fact not open to interpretation.
It is even worse than that. Although many states make an exception allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest, a few do not even allow that exception -- making it essentially impossible to obtain a legal abortion in that state.
On 06-12-19 11:29, Dan Clough <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Abortion <=-
Dale Shipp wrote to Michiel Van Der Vlist <=-
It is even worse than that. Although many states make an
exception allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest, a few
do not even allow that exception -- making it essentially
impossible to obtain a legal abortion in that state. The really
bad part is that the state of Alabama does remove parental rights
even from a convicted rapist. The implication of that is that
the woman will be force to continue her pregnancy to full term,
have the baby, and then share joint custody with her rapist. She
would not even be allowed to put the baby up for adoption without
the consent of the rapist.
That is just wrong on so many levels.
It's also not true. Stop spreading fake news.
FYI - "Implication" does not equal reality. Not even close. I
know that's a hard concept for liberals to grasp (ie: Russian probe/collusion), but it's a fact not open to interpretation.
On 06-13-19 00:32, Ward Dossche <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Abortion <=-
It is even worse than that. Although many states make an exception allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest, a few do not even allow that exception -- making it essentially impossible to obtain a legal abortion in that state.
So you go to a next-door state, wazza problem?
Abortion is an issue mainly affecting women but discussed
the most be men. Something's not right here.
There is a slight mistake in what I wrote. Alabama does *NOT* remove parental rights from a convicted rapist.
Dale Shipp wrote to Dan Clough <=-
FYI - "Implication" does not equal reality. Not even close. I
know that's a hard concept for liberals to grasp (ie: Russian probe/collusion), but it's a fact not open to interpretation.
In this case it is a reality. Alabama will not allow abortion
even in the case of rape. Alabama lets the rapist retain his
parental rights, which means that the woman who was forced to
carry her rape baby to term must also then share custody /
visitation with the rapist. Look it up.
intent of this law is to get the question back in front of the US
Supreme Court for an attempt at overturning Roe v Wade.
Gerrit Kuehn wrote to Dan Clough <=-
intent of this law is to get the question back in front of the US
Supreme Court for an attempt at overturning Roe v Wade.
In case this should happen: Do you think the US would tolerate
"abortion tourism" to Canada, Mexico or other countries?
On 06-13-19 10:53, Michiel Van Der Vlist <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Abortion <=-
There is a slight mistake in what I wrote. Alabama does *NOT* remove parental rights from a convicted rapist.
On 06-13-19 08:14, Dan Clough <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Abortion <=-
The Alabama law is not even scheduled to go into effect until
November 2019.
The odds are VERY high that that will not even
happen, due to legal proceedings and "red tape". *IF* it ever
does go into effect, there will have been modifications made to
allow for abortions in cases of rape/incest.
The actual *REAL*
intent of this law is to get the question back in front of the US
Supreme Court for an attempt at overturning Roe v Wade.
So quit screaming that the sky is falling, go find your little
safe space, sing lullabies to your unicorn, and have a good cry.
Maybe you'll eventually understand the world, but until then don't
worry, the adults have things handled.
Dale Shipp wrote to Dan Clough <=-
The Alabama law is not even scheduled to go into effect until
November 2019.
Your point is what? It is the law as passed by Alabama.
The odds are VERY high that that will not even
happen, due to legal proceedings and "red tape". *IF* it ever
does go into effect, there will have been modifications made to
allow for abortions in cases of rape/incest.
Wishful thinking, and/or you admit the absurdity of the law.
The actual *REAL*
intent of this law is to get the question back in front of the US
Supreme Court for an attempt at overturning Roe v Wade.
And thus go back to the era of coat hanger abortions and women
dying. I certainly hope that does not happen.
So quit screaming that the sky is falling, go find your little
safe space, sing lullabies to your unicorn, and have a good cry.
Maybe you'll eventually understand the world, but until then don't
worry, the adults have things handled.
What Adults? I don't see that any responsible adults would do
such a thing. Unfortunately, there seem to be a dirth of such
adults in power these days.
And if people do not speak out against unjust actions by those
in power, those in power just get more brazen.
... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland.
In case this should happen: Do you think the US would tolerate
"abortion tourism" to Canada, Mexico or other countries?
I don't think the US would have any say over such a thing.
Assuming valid passports, we (US citizens) are free to come and go
with Mexico/Canada for any reason we want, and without having to
explain why we want to do so.
Gerrit Kuehn wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Assuming valid passports, we (US citizens) are free to come and go
with Mexico/Canada for any reason we want, and without having to
explain why we want to do so.
So in this case, being able to have an abortion or not will
depend on the money available to travel there.
mark lewis wrote to all <=-
If you think fertilized eggs are people, but refuge kids aren't,
you're going to have to stop pretending your concerns are
religious.
It is even worse than that. Although many states make an exception
allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest, a few do not even allow
that exception -- making it essentially impossible to obtain a legal
abortion in that state.
So you go to a next-door state, wazza problem?
Abortion is an issue mainly affecting women but discussed the most be men. Something's not right here.
FYI - "Implication" does not equal reality. Not even close. I
know that's a hard concept for liberals to grasp (ie: Russian
probe/collusion), but it's a fact not open to interpretation.
In this case it is a reality. Alabama will not allow abortion
even in the case of rape. Alabama lets the rapist retain his
parental rights, which means that the woman who was forced to
carry her rape baby to term must also then share custody /
visitation with the rapist. Look it up.
The Alabama law is not even scheduled to go into effect until
November 2019.
The odds are VERY high that that will not even
happen, due to legal proceedings and "red tape". *IF* it ever
does go into effect, there will have been modifications made to
allow for abortions in cases of rape/incest.
The actual *REAL* intent of this law is to get the question back in frontof
the US Supreme Court for an attempt at overturning Roe v Wade.
So quit screaming that the sky is falling, go find your little
safe space, sing lullabies to your unicorn, and have a good cry.
Maybe you'll eventually understand the world, but until then don't
worry, the adults have things handled.
intent of this law is to get the question back in front of the US
Supreme Court for an attempt at overturning Roe v Wade.
In case this should happen: Do you think the US would tolerate "abortion tourism" to Canada, Mexico or other countries?
The Alabama law is not even scheduled to go into effect until
November 2019.
Your point is what? It is the law as passed by Alabama.
The odds are VERY high that that will not even
happen, due to legal proceedings and "red tape". *IF* it ever
does go into effect, there will have been modifications made to
allow for abortions in cases of rape/incest.
Wishful thinking, and/or you admit the absurdity of the law.
The actual *REAL*
intent of this law is to get the question back in front of the US
Supreme Court for an attempt at overturning Roe v Wade.
And thus go back to the era of coat hanger abortions and women dying.
I certainly hope that does not happen.
So quit screaming that the sky is falling, go find your little
safe space, sing lullabies to your unicorn, and have a good cry.
Maybe you'll eventually understand the world, but until then don't
worry, the adults have things handled.
What Adults?
I don't see that any responsible adults would do such a thing.
Unfortunately, there seem to be a dirth of such adults in power
these days.
And if people do not speak out against unjust actions by
those in power, those in power just get more brazen.
On 06-14-19 08:57, Dan Clough <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Abortion <=-
The point is right below here, which was that the law (as written)
will likely never come to be. It was also to counter your
implication that the law was in practice right this minute.
The odds are VERY high that that will not even
happen, due to legal proceedings and "red tape". *IF* it ever
does go into effect, there will have been modifications made to
allow for abortions in cases of rape/incest.
Wishful thinking, and/or you admit the absurdity of the law.
Neither, actually. Admittedly it's an "educated guess", but I'm
pretty sure I'm correct. As for the "absurdity" - I completely
agree that there needs to be allowances made for cases of
rape/incest. No question about that. My belief is that the law
was written the way it was knowing how much "outrage" it would
cause, and then.... they'll add the exceptions for rape/incest and
be able to claim that they've made concessions and the law should
be enacted with those changes. In reality that is what was desired/planned the whole time.
The actual *REAL*
intent of this law is to get the question back in front of the US
Supreme Court for an attempt at overturning Roe v Wade.
And thus go back to the era of coat hanger abortions and women
dying. I certainly hope that does not happen.
I hope it does happen.
We've had legalized murder for far too
long. If you're so against "women dying", why does it not bother
you that MILLIONS of babies have died?
... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland.
This may be part of your problems... you're living in a Communist
section of the country!
So in this case, being able to have an abortion or not will
depend on the money available to travel there.
Sure, I guess so.
One could always hitchhike, for free.
Was your point to illustrate how unfair the world is, and how
everybody is not "equal"?
Guess what? That is CORRECT. The world *IS* unfair, and not
everybody is "equal". Yep. Truth.
Dale Shipp wrote to Dan Clough <=-
The point is right below here, which was that the law (as written)
will likely never come to be. It was also to counter your
implication that the law was in practice right this minute.
The law has been passed and signed by the Governer.
Neither, actually. Admittedly it's an "educated guess", but I'm
pretty sure I'm correct. As for the "absurdity" - I completely
agree that there needs to be allowances made for cases of
rape/incest. No question about that. My belief is that the law
was written the way it was knowing how much "outrage" it would
cause, and then.... they'll add the exceptions for rape/incest and
be able to claim that they've made concessions and the law should
be enacted with those changes. In reality that is what was desired/planned the whole time.
That statement is spin. If they had meant for the exceptions to
be part of the law that they passed, they would have included
them. Their intent was to totally ban abortions with no
exceptions (in direct contridiction to federal law by the way).
The actual *REAL*
intent of this law is to get the question back in front of the US
Supreme Court for an attempt at overturning Roe v Wade.
Maybe so.
And thus go back to the era of coat hanger abortions and women
dying. I certainly hope that does not happen.
I hope it does happen.
You hope that many woman will start dying because of this --
sorry that you feed that cruel.
We've had legalized murder for far too
long. If you're so against "women dying", why does it not bother
you that MILLIONS of babies have died?
Because they are not yet babies when the abortion happens.
... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland.
This may be part of your problems... you're living in a Communist
section of the country!
Ah -- one of the rules of debate is that when you run out of
things to say, fall back on insulting your opponent.
And by no means do I live in a communist section of the country
-- there is no such thing in America.
Gerrit Kuehn wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Was your point to illustrate how unfair the world is, and how
everybody is not "equal"?
No, not in the first place. My point would be then, that changing
your laws does not primarily change facts (i.e., lower the number
of abortions),
but rather just increases inequality between
people with and without money... which is not what people usually
will tell you the new laws are made for.
Guess what? That is CORRECT. The world *IS* unfair, and not
everybody is "equal". Yep. Truth.
And these days laws are usually made to overcome this, not to put unfairness and inequality into stone, aren't they?
However, you brought up that topic (glad you did, though), but I
was actually thinking about different things. However, I'll have
to tell a bit about my family to explain:
My grandmother became a children's nurse during WWII, working in
a makeshift children's hospital most of the time. After the war,
she was so fed up with working in a hospital that she went into
schooling again and became a midwife. Believe me, you wouldn't
have wanted to hear her wartime stories, nor about what desperate
people do to their newly born unwanted children, or how they try
to abort pregnancies without proper medical aid available. If you
did, you'd know that making abortions illegal again is nothing
you'd really want.
If you want to lower the number of abortions, you don't need to
change "too liberal" abortion laws. This will just drive people
who can afford out of the country and people who cannot afford
into solutions nobody wants. Can you imagine people doing an
abortion just "for the fun" in it, or just because "they can"?
What you'll need to do is pretty obvious:
- educate people
- make contraceptives easily available
- make baby hatches easily available
No, not in the first place. My point would be then, that changing
your laws does not primarily change facts (i.e., lower the number
of abortions),
I believe that it would (lower the number of abortions).
but rather just increases inequality between
people with and without money... which is not what people usually
will tell you the new laws are made for.
I don't think it would measureably cause that.
And these days laws are usually made to overcome this, not to put
unfairness and inequality into stone, aren't they?
No, I would not agree that laws are usually made to overcome
inequality.
They are made for whatever the perceived need is, not
directly to reduce inequality. For example, a new law regarding
the property tax rate in a county is not directed at reducing
inequality.
I know that atrocities exist and happen. No amount of legislating
is going to stop that.
If you want to lower the number of abortions, you don't need to
change "too liberal" abortion laws. This will just drive people
who can afford out of the country and people who cannot afford
into solutions nobody wants. Can you imagine people doing an
abortion just "for the fun" in it, or just because "they can"?
Could you please help convince other liberals, using that *EXACT*
logic, that changing "too liberal" firearm laws is not going to solve/change the gun-violence problems? The bottom line is this: Criminals don't follow laws, and will do what they're going to do regardless of what the law says.
I think education is already there/available. If we need more,
use the funds currently going to Planned Parenthood that are used
to kill babies. Isn't education one of PP's intended functions?
Same logic applies to contraceptives. Let PP hand them out, using
the money saved by NOT doing abortions. Simple!
I'm not sure what a "baby hatch" is.
No? So who is having abortions these days in the US? All wealthy people
who could also go abroad?
Last year there were officially 3.853.472 babies born there and ultra right-wing anti-abortion groups claiming some 320.000 abortions.
Less than 10%? What the heck are they talking about, then?
Also they're harping about late term abortions as if that is the most common thing, like 4-5 months which is ridiculous. It is very very
very uncommon and under strict medical rules.
What they do have a point in is that certain very-low income classes
of people cannot afford contraception and abortion then becomes a way
of birth control for a specific category.
These people should be helped in a different way, "before" the girls
get pregnant to avoid the pregnancy altogether ...
Ward Dossche wrote to Gerrit Kuehn <=-
No? So who is having abortions these days in the US? All wealthy people who could also go abroad?
Abortion numbers in the USA is a grossly misrepresented subject.
Last year there were officially 3.853.472 babies born there and
ultra right-wing anti-abortion groups claiming some 320.000
abortions.
My daughter who runs the delivery room in a major hospital here
(Belgium) and quite familiar with US situations confirms the
abortion numbers presented there are totally absurd.
Ward Dossche wrote to Gerrit Kuehn <=-
Less than 10%? What the heck are they talking about, then?
It's politically overhyped ... and religeously as well.
Also they're harping about late term abortions as if that is the
most common thing, like 4-5 months which is ridiculous. It is
very very very uncommon and under strict medical rules.
What they do have a point in is that certain very-low income
classes of people cannot afford contraception and abortion then
becomes a way of birth control for a specific category.
These people should be helped in a different way, "before" the
girls get pregnant to avoid the pregnancy altogether ... but that
is like talking to a stone wall.
Yeah.... what's 640,000 murders in a year? No big deal, right?
You're wrong on that. In addition, there are multiple states in
the USA where abortion is legal for the duration of a pregnancy,
in other words, up to the 9-month+ point. You think that is fine
too?
Oh, and did you know that there is a form of contraception which costs......... NOTHING? Yep. It's true.
Gerrit Kuehn wrote to Dan Clough <=-
You're wrong on that. In addition, there are multiple states in
the USA where abortion is legal for the duration of a pregnancy,
in other words, up to the 9-month+ point. You think that is fine
too?
Numbers, please. Names and sources.
A quick google check (of non-"ultra-right-wing" websites) shows
the number to be roughly 640,000. Twice what you said. What a
surprise.
Numbers, please. Names and sources.
Look it up yourself, it's easily verified.
Don't bother responding.
Less than 10%? What the heck are they talking about, then?
It's politically overhyped ... and religeously as well.
Yeah.... what's 640,000 murders in a year? No big deal, right?
Numbers, please. Names and sources.
Look it up yourself, it's easily verified.
Don't bother responding. Your selective quoting/snipping, and
cherry picking sentences so as to better suit your point/agenda
has grown tiresome. You're now in the same "ignore" category as
the whacko Lofaso. Buh-bye.
Numbers, please. Names and sources.
Look it up yourself, it's easily verified.
Don't bother responding.
So your claim has no proof, and you're weaseling out. Thank you, Sir, no further questions necessary.
Numbers, please. Names and sources.
Look it up yourself, it's easily verified.
Don't bother responding. Your selective quoting/snipping, and
cherry picking sentences so as to better suit your point/agenda
has grown tiresome. You're now in the same "ignore" category as
the whacko Lofaso. Buh-bye.
ROFL.
Dan's blinkers strike again. :)
Numbers, please. Names and sources.
Look it up yourself, it's easily verified.
Don't bother responding.
So your claim has no proof, and you're weaseling out. Thank you, Sir,no
further questions necessary.
Dan doesn't like to communicate with those who disagree with him - he can never win a debate, so he sticks his head in the sand.
Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-
A quick google check (of non-"ultra-right-wing" websites) shows
the number to be roughly 640,000. Twice what you said. What a
surprise.
I know those numbers and they simply cannot be correct, even if
reported by the CDC.
First you need to decide what you're talking about. A miscarriage
is also an aborted pregnancy, emergency "behind the fact"
contraception may also be listed as an abortion ... maybe there
wasn't even conception ... start throwing all these things
together and you get impressive false numbers.
David Drummond wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Don't bother responding. Your selective quoting/snipping, and
cherry picking sentences so as to better suit your point/agenda
has grown tiresome. You're now in the same "ignore" category as
the whacko Lofaso. Buh-bye.
ROFL.
Dan's blinkers strike again. :)
has grown tiresome. You're now in the same "ignore" category as
the whacko Lofaso. Buh-bye.
ROFL.
Dan's blinkers strike again. :)
..And then there were three. (In the "ignore" bin).
| Sysop: | Weed Hopper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Clearwater, FL |
| Users: | 12 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:02:49 |
| Calls: | 111 |
| Files: | 50,335 |
| D/L today: |
86 files (12,334K bytes) |
| Messages: | 295,822 |