- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Can a 10 year old rape victim get an abortion? Ohio says NO
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:32 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:32 am to FooManChoo
quote:Did you. So you now agree with abortion up until 6wks. Gosh, that quite a switch-e-roo.
I worded my statement the way I did intentionally.
1
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:35 am to mmcgrath
This is a bunch of republican's rushing to pass laws and enforce their beliefs on people.....worthless big government cocksuckers every last one.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:35 am to Pandy Fackler
You just do not understand. A pre-sapient fetus is “innocent,” while a raped 10yo is not.
Once you understand that premise, their position makes perfect sense.
Once you understand that premise, their position makes perfect sense.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:36 am to AggieHank86
quote:Ouch!
A pre-sapient fetus is “innocent,” while a raped 10yo is not.
Once you understand that premise, their position makes perfect sense.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:37 am to oklahogjr
quote:No, no, no. Big Government is CONSERVATIVE.***
This is a bunch of republican's rushing to pass laws and enforce their beliefs on people.....worthless big government cocksuckers every last one.
***(so long as it is enforcing SoCon ideology)
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:38 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I wasn’t speaking of anything other than the lack of an exception for rape. I’ve been addressing that the entire time in this thread.
Did you. So you now agree with abortion up until 6wks. Gosh, that quite a switch-e-roo.
I agree that the 6-week allowance should be abolished entirely, but that’s not what this discussion was about. The “poor reasoning” I was referring to was regarding the reason for wanting an exception for rape.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:40 am to oklahogjr
Are those “Republicans” being elected by the people?
What about “muh democracy”?
You guys had a super majority in 2008. Why didn’t you pass a law?
Instead you allowed judges to legislate.
What about “muh democracy”?
You guys had a super majority in 2008. Why didn’t you pass a law?
Instead you allowed judges to legislate.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:41 am to AggieHank86
quote:Both are innocent. The desire is to not add killing a human life in addition to the horrific tragedy of rape.
You just do not understand. A pre-sapient fetus is “innocent,” while a raped 10yo is not.
Once you understand that premise, their position makes perfect sense.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:47 am to Rebel
quote:
Are those “Republicans” being elected by the people?
yes some of them form parts of the government.
We lost human rights to the government. so now the government is expanding their control over our lives. it's pretty simple to see. As the supreme court explained how their previous interpretation of having rights was wrong and that it was very much in the state interest to begin regulating peoples lives more....while conservatives champion it....it's comical...
quote:
You guys had a super majority in 2008. Why didn’t you pass a law?
because the interpretation at the time was that the right was already protected by current law...
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:48 am to oklahogjr
quote:
protected by current law...
Which law would that be?
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:53 am to NC_Tigah
I’m just telling you where my vote will go based on my value system. That’s how you vote too, based on your personal value system. What else would it be based on? How someone feels?
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:53 am to squid_hunt
quote:
A ten year old rape victim waited six weeks to get an abortion?
This doesn’t seem plausible to you? You can’t imagine a child being ashamed and hiding what happened to her and trying to hide her subsequent pregnancy? And why the frick does it matter?
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:54 am to Rebel
quote:
Which law would that be?
there were several. you can read the original roe verdict if you'd like to see which rights specifically were cited at the time.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:56 am to FooManChoo
quote:So you're saying a poorly reasoned law is not poorly reasoned as long as your own poor reasoning excludes the poorly reasoned part from discussion, and my pointing that out leads you to question my reasoning?
The “poor reasoning” I was referring to was regarding the reason for wanting an exception for rape.
This post was edited on 7/2/22 at 11:57 am
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:58 am to oklahogjr
quote:You’re conflating constitutional interpretation with codified federal law. The point is that when the faulty interpretive gymnastics were shot down, there was no federal law to be triggered to keep abortion legal like there were at the state level that had actual laws and constitutional changes in place already.
there were several. you can read the original roe verdict if you'd like to see which rights specifically were cited at the time.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 11:59 am to FooManChoo
quote:
You’re conflating constitutional interpretation with codified federal law.
ummm
i'm saying when the supreme court was previously asked where abortion could be restricted they said no it was our right to do so based on these currently on the book laws.
now this time they're saying it's not covered by those laws. so now we need new laws to protect those rights. it's really pretty simple what our next steps should be since the interpretation has changed.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 12:00 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
t was very much in the state interest to begin regulating peoples lives more....while conservatives champion it....it's comical...
It's logical. It's weird you don't understand.
quote:
because the interpretation at the time was that the right was already protected by current law...
And nobody understood RvW was a ridiculous decision and tenuous? Why did you think abortion was a major litmus test for Dems on SC nominees?
Posted on 7/2/22 at 12:00 pm to oklahogjr
quote:You falsely assert that as "rights" were ceded, none were in turn granted. That is rarely the case, and CERTAINLY was not the case here.
As the supreme court explained how their previous interpretation of having rights was wrong
Posted on 7/2/22 at 12:01 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Like I said, I was referring to the part about rape, as I have been this entire thread.
So you're saying a poorly reasoned law is not poorly reasoned as long as your own poor reasoning excludes the poorly reasoned part from discussion, and my pointing that out leads you to question my reasoning?
I’ll say that the 6-week limit is poorly reasoned, but that is separate from the part that doesn’t exclude rape after 6 weeks.
I think you are trying to avoid the discussion about the poor reasoning behind banning abortions except for instances of rape.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 12:01 pm to oklahogjr
quote:... and that was a MAJOR mistake.
i'm saying when the supreme court was previously asked where abortion could be restricted they said no
Page 9 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News