This is CHILLING

Uncategorized 1 Minute

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/14/anti-abotion-10-year-old-ohio-00045843

The National Right to Life (or more accurately Anti-Choice Coalition) says that the 10 year old CHILD, a victim of rape, should have been FORCED to carry the pregnancy to term.

““She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp said in a phone interview on Thursday.”

A 10 year old CHILD is NOT a woman. What benefit would there be to her? She’s he age where children should be playing with baby DOLLS, not responsible for the life of a child.

The morality of this MAN’S opinion and the law he has authored for other states to enact, is not moral at all.

Published by Adam Green

A 24 year Navy vet, cancer survivor, father, grandfather, assistant caregiver for my live-in mother-in-law. Enjoys golf, football (real and fantasy), being the best grandfather I can, supporting the endeavors of my children (both involved in the education of our younger generations) and tormenting my wife of 34 years. Also prefer bourbon over scotch, but will drink both, just not at the same time. Discovering craft beers and trying trying hard to get to a consistent golf swing.

Published

108 thoughts on “This is CHILLING”

  1. I don’t agree that there is a grave moral error here. Under the proposed law, the child mother could obtain an abortion if her life were in danger. Some doctors might say that to be pregnant at such a young age would qualify.

    In any case, I don’t believe that preventing access to abortion forces a woman to do anything in any way. Since pregnancy is a natural biological process, it doesn’t make sense to talk about forcing a woman to carry to term.

    Like

    Reply

    1. There are religions that believe cancer is a “natural biological process.” If you are meant to live, it will go away on its own. If not, you’ll die. All perfectly natural.

      Anyone who suggests a 10 year old rape victim should follow the “natural biological process,” is beyond contempt.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. RE: “There are religions…”

        I don’t belong to any such religion. I would say, though, that anyone who makes a habit of judging others to beyond contempt really needn’t be taken seriously.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Currently, in this country, you do not have to belong to a religion to have their religious beliefs legislated upon you. And be careful what you do not take seriously. Karma has a wicked sense of humor.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

        2. “I would say, though, that anyone who makes a habit of judging others to beyond contempt really needn’t be taken seriously.”

          Add this to the book entitled . . .

          Things contemptible people say after they express contemptible ideas.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    2. “I don’t agree that there is a grave moral error here”

      Of course you don’t. You believe a woman is good for bearing children and nothing else.

      …” about forcing a woman to carry to term.”

      A 10 year old GIRL is NOT a woman. By your accounting, if a child becomes pregnant, especially through no fault of her own, she should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

      Ask yourself this very simple question: If YOUR daughter were raped and became pregnant because of it, would you force the child to bear the child? Or would you force her to MARRY her rapist?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  2. I don’t have many details about this case, especially how far along the pregnancy was, but do you seriously think that any state will pass such a law?

    Pregnancy at 10 is inherently life threatening.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Yes, I do believe a state would pass such a law! Why do you think the child had to leave the state to get an abortion? And why do you think her state’s AG launched an investigation into the doctor who treated her because the doctor might have “illegally helped the child” find a clinic in another state. It’s only by luck the kid got out of the state while pregnant. Republicans are currently working to deny women the right to cross state lines if they might be pregnant. In the year 2022, there are underground railroads being set up to smuggle women across state lines. Let that sink in!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. “Republicans are currently working to deny women the right to cross state lines”…

        I wonder if they realize that a law of that nature is unconstitutional based on the Commerce Clause?

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

          1. Even they should see that any law that prevents anyone from traveling across state lines violates the Commerce Clause. And if they don’t, then they can take their “originalism” doctrine and throw it out the window.

            Like

      2. Won’t need those underground railroads, free passage between states is within the Federal scope of authority.

        Does any state have a law in place that would prevent seeking care in another state? Do you have a cite for efforts to stop her?

        Again, I don’t have much in the way of information on this case, other than that the child’s mother is protecting the rapist.

        But the essential piece of information is the stage of the pregnancy.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “Does any state have a law in place that would prevent seeking care in another state? ”

          You certainly have been playing “blind” on certain things lately. First a whole lot of commentary about the 1/6 hearings that you aren’t even paying attention to. And now the fact that there are SEVERAL states where bills are being prepared by veto proof, GOP-led legislatures that include prosecuting women for travelling across state lines to receive reproductive care and to prosecute providers IN OTHER STATES.

          And then this little nugget from you: ” I don’t have much in the way of information on this case, other than that the child’s mother is protecting the rapist.”

          You got a a cite for that? And it is going to be hard for her to protect him seeing as he has already confessed, TWICE, after having his rights read to him.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          2. Mom protecting the rapists is almost as chilling. But according to Columbus Police, there is nothing indicating that the suspect is in the country illegally, at last report I saw earlier today. But then again, do we know for sure if that was actually the mother Telemundo spoke with? Remember the same kinds of questions were asked when the story was first reported.

            The travel restrictions are being teed up across the country in anti-choice legislatures. They want complete and total bans on the procedures in their states and they want to prevent their citizens from travelling freely. Who are the fascists now?

            And if you think GOP legislatures won’t pass travel restrictions, you are fooling yourself. Yes there are federal remedies. But the GOP members of the Senate will block anything that is proposed on the national level. If you don’t believe that, you really are flying blind.

            Like

          7. “I’m sure travel restrictions have been considered by some zealots”,…

            The same can be said about those who have proposed no restrictions on late term abortions.

            You sure do have a funny way of picking which zealots are dangerous or not.

            Like

          9. Ity has to do with zealotry. You seem to think only people who disagree with you are zealots. I got news for you: THere are a lot more zealots on the wrong (IMO) side of this.

            Like

          10. If you think zealotry on the abortion issue is confined to the pro-life side, I suggest you take a look at Libs of Tiktok on Twitter.

            Like

          11. Never said it was. What I did say was you only have an issue with zealots on the opposite side of ANY discussion. WHen they are YOUR zealots, there is nothing wrong.

            Like

          12. “ The mom spoke to Telemundo while hiding behind the door of the Columbus apartment that was also listed as the home of rapist Gerson Fuentes, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala.

            “She’s my daughter,” the mom, who refused to give a name, confirmed to Telemundo of the girl who would have been just 9 when she was abused and impregnated.

            “She’s fine. Everything that they’re saying against him is a lie,” she insisted of Fuentes, who confessed during police interviews to raping the youngster at least twice, according to court records and officials.”

            Pretty dubious reporting. Woman hiding, not giving name, at address of admitted rapist.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. If you did not see a face, and no confirmation of name and at someone else’s address, might not that be a bit thin? The right calls everything fake news…except this? Are you serious?

            Here is another tidbit on Republican extremism:

            https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/15/indiana-doc-abortion-10-year-old-ag-cease-and-desist-00046156?cid=apn

            The Indiana doctor did all that the law required in Indiana and yet the Ohio AG is trying to save his own extremist ass from looking like a jerk.

            My take is that the GOP is so beholden to lies that the members have no idea what truth looks like anymore.

            IMO

            Liked by 2 people

          17. So, you’re saying that someone planted a fake Mom at the child’s home for…

            The Politico article is about the NB AG, not OH. The OH AG said the girl did not have to leave the state.

            I don’t know what weight a “Cease and Desist” letter carries when sent from a Dr who is a political opponent of the AG.

            Like

          18. The law was vague, time was critical and the possibility of forcing a ten year old to carry a rapist’s fetus to term was daunting.

            Let the AG go to the max. The doctor followed all the laws, including paperwork. The AG was doing a political dance to cover up the Republican back pedaling on the story denials.

            When doctors have to worry about losing their livelihoods and freedom, vague laws not adjudicated are risky and many may play it so safe that women die. SCOTUS should have at the very least given a time frame for compliance other than immediate in the trigger law states.

            (You are correct, it was the idiot from Indiana, not Ohio. Mea Culpa)

            The woman, who never showed her face or gave her name could have been a girlfriend of the rapist. It was his address.

            I’ll wait for some verification.

            Liked by 2 people

          19. Odd, you had no problem with doctors losing their license for prescribing a known safe drug to willing patients that the FDA did not approve for that use.

            But what you are skipping is that the girl did not have to go to Indiana to get the abortion. That was an assumption made by activist doctors.

            Like

          20. I had no problem with what? Really? Cite?

            As it turned out, that may have been the case. But not assured. And it would need a ruling by the AG, with guarantees for the doctor. In writing and witnesses.

            James Bopp, the National Right to Life attorney said he would prefer the 10 year old carry to term. And he was instrumental in writing the new state laws.

            Liked by 2 people

          21. It’s past time for the abortion debate to stop being a battle of extremists, There is consensus to be found, but that won’t happen if you keep lumping the moderates with the extremists.

            James Bopp does not speak for me or more than 10% of the pro life side. So talk to the other 90%

            Like

          22. Bopp wrote the laws for legislatures to copy
            or emulate. The National Right to Life is one of the big, influential lobbying organizations.

            My compromise has been viability, and I picked 23 weeks since that is about the earliest, and even that is about 50% survivable with extraordinary measures, some throughout life.

            After that, I would agree with good medical reasons regarding the health and life of the mother or severe fetal abnormalities. And that decision should be made by patients and doctors. Rape and incest should aborted if the woman requests. Forcing women to bear someone else’s child against her will is barbarous.

            Liked by 2 people

          23. That is not an unreasonable starting point.

            I would prefer 18 weeks, as that is the beginning of demonstrable self awareness. And 18 weeks is long enough for a woman to know she has been raped, so I would not accept that as a reason for an exception. After 18 weeks, only emergent causes such as an undiagnosed threat to her life or gross abnormality detected in the fetus should be an exception.

            See? Two short paragraphs and we are down to 5 weeks difference in threshold and one cause for late abortion to decide upon.

            The legislature could do the same.

            Like

          24. Basically I agreed with Roe. So we are a few
            weeks apart on that.

            I assume you object to the health of the mother. Too many fakers? Yeah, women fake symptoms for a late term abortion regularly.

            Have you no more respect for women than that?

            So cripple Mom so long as she doesn’t die.

            Liked by 2 people

          25. In too many cases, the health of the mother becomes subjective. Especially now that vaguely defined psychological health is given equal standing with real, measurable physical problems like pre-eclampsia.

            “I’m going to be depressed if I have this baby.” should not be acceptable once there is a person present.

            I have no problem with serious physical harm as a reason, but it should be on a par with what would qualify for self defense against a born person.

            Like

          26. “In too many cases, the health of the mother becomes subjective”

            How many viable babies are aborted for subjective reasons like mental health?

            A lot of things that don’t actually happen are really, really bad.

            Liked by 1 person

          27. About 9% of abortions are after the 14th week.

            The most common reason for these later term abortions is simple procrastination, not emergent threats. The legal justification for these is nearly always mental health.

            Like

          28. “About 9% of abortions are after the 14th week.”

            Well, I assume that you have found that 9% figure from a reliable source. The rest of the “facts” you offer appear to me to be pure speculation on your part.

            But, in any case, you have dodged the question – “How many VIABLE babies are aborted for subjective reasons like mental health?”

            With a very generous assumption of viability at 21 weeks, the abortions occurring after that are about 1% of all abortions per the KFF. And according to KFF these arise because of fetal abnormalities and threats to the life of the mother. If mental health is a common reason, KFF does not mention it.

            After looking at the evidence my take is that abortions of VIABLE fetuses for mushy subjective reasons are extremely rare if they occur at all and already can be and are – under Roe – excluded by law. In that connection, a proposed Virginia bill in 2019 that would have allowed mental health as a reason for later abortions did not pass.

            You want to take this out of the hands of extremists but spread extremist talking points and exaggerations as though they were gospel. The whole mantra of babies being murdered for trivial reasons is dishonest extremist propaganda. IMO. Just look at the ravings of Mr. Smith to see the deleterious effect.

            Liked by 1 person

          29. Viability is no longer a limit.

            States will determine their threshold, and in Virginia, 15 weeks is currently under consideration.

            Again, my preference is 18 weeks, but I’m not king.

            Like

          30. And when a state’s threshold is exceeded, and the woman decides, for legitimate reasons to her, that having another child is not tenable for her family, will travelling to another state be an issue?

            Like

          34. …”long enough for a woman to know she has been raped”…

            Please tell us that what you meant to say was that it would be long enough to know she was pregnant? Most raped women are pretty sure when it happens and they don’t 18 weeks to figure it out.

            Liked by 1 person

          35. Then why would she need more than 15 or 18 weeks to decide to end the pregnancy before there is a person there?

            That is all I am getting at, Prior to 18 weeks I don’t care what her reason is, but once there is a person there. it makes a difference. So, why should rape be a reason for ending the pregnancy after 18 weeks if she most certainly knows before then?

            Like

          36. There is a BIG difference between knowing if you are raped and knowing you are pregnant because of the crime.

            Knowing one is raped and ACCEPTING and REPORTING it are two different things. Also, if it is a child (let’s say under the age of 15), she may not even understand that she is pregnant before that 18 weeks.

            There are just too many variables when it comes to criminal activity causing pregnancy. Neither you nor I are in a position to understand a rape victim.

            Like

          37. “James Bopp does not speak for me or more than 10% of the pro life side. ”

            Bopp is writing the laws that are being considered in the several states. He even stated that some may have to be adjusted to PASS in certain states. BUt his bottom line is to ban all abortions. Period.

            Liked by 1 person

          39. Some legal beagle is writing laws for REPUBLICANS to propose to pass laws in line with HIS determination. Legislators tend to be lazy and when they are handed something to propose, they do it. If they didn’t his proposals would never make iot to the floor of any legislature. But they do and the gerrymandered GOP state legislatures WILL pass them.

            Liked by 1 person

          40. “ I don’t know what weight a “Cease and Desist” letter carries when sent from a Dr who is a political opponent of the AG.”

            The doctor has been threatened with the kidnapping of her child because she was posted on a site by extremists. The same site that Barrett signed an anti-abortion ad while at Norte Dame.

            I suggest the AG is acting in his own petty political interest and the doctor is the victim.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/16/abortion-girl-rape-doctor-bernard-kidnapping-barrett/

            “The Indianapolis doctor who helped a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim obtain an abortion was forced to stop offering services at a clinic in 2020 after she was alerted of a kidnapping threat against her daughter.
            And she is currently listed as a “threat” on an antiabortion website that was linked to Amy Coney Barrett before she was nominated to the Supreme Court and helped overturn Roe v. Wade.”

            “ Since 1977, there have been 11 murders, nearly 500 assaults, 42 bombings, 196 arsons, and thousands of criminal incidents directed at patients, providers and volunteers, according to the National Abortion Federation, which advocates for abortion access. According to its most recent threat assessment report released in May, last year saw a 600 percent increase in incidents of stalking abortion providers and a 163 percent increase in the delivery of hoax devices or suspicious packages compared with 2020.”

            I guess that is another reason for gun control.

            Pro-Life my patootie. 😎

            Liked by 1 person

          41. Again, what you are seeing is a battle between extremists. An extremist Dr and extremists on the other side.

            The cure for that is for people of good will to find consensus and leave the extremists on the fringe.

            AS it is now, Jane’s Revenge gets to speak for the reasonable people on the pro-choice side and Bopp gets to speak for those who simply want to restrain late term abortions.

            If those of us in the middle can come to consensus, they lose their voice.

            Like

          42. “Bopp gets to speak for those who simply want to restrain late term abortions.”

            No, he is speaking, and writing legislation for several states, to BAN ABORTION. Not just LTA, but ALL. Regardless of circumstance, health, AGE, or any other REASONABLE consideration.

            Like

          45. Nope, until those laws are passed, he is just an extremist voice.

            The only way he can be a problem would eb if reasonable people refuse to seek consensus.

            Like

          46. …”a Dr who is a political opponent of the AG.”

            YOU personally were a political opponent of EVERY Democrat. What difference did it make when your providing care to your patients?

            That statement appears to be just another deflection from reality.

            Like

          47. Nothing to do with her practice, which is abortion, it is her political exploitation of the child that is the reason she is in trouble. HIPPA violations.

            Like

          51. I am very familiar with HIPPA law.

            It was a gross violation no matter who let it slide. Only the legal guardian of the child could legally permit ANY information on the case to be made public, and she isn’t cooperating.

            Like

          52. “It’s past time for the abortion debate to stop being a battle of extremists”

            Uh, you are an “extremist.” You think women do not have full dominion over their own bodies. There is NOTHING moderate about that idea.

            And it is not a battle of extremists. It is an attack by extremists on the majority who favor and accept the legal framework created by Roe.

            Liked by 1 person

          53. “Viability is no longer a limit.”

            And you claim to not be an extremist?

            But whatever the legal cut-off is, that is not what we were discussing. You postulated huge numbers of abortions for spurious reasons. I asked you to consider how many VIABLE babies were aborted for those spurious reasons. You came back with an IRRELEVANT statistic about abortions after 14 weeks. I then provided evidence from KFF that the abortions you were referencing are vanishingly small. And are generally already illegal.

            Bottom line: You parrot an extremist talking point and when challenged with evidence try to change the subject.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. She was 6 weeks and 5 days, according to reports. In Ohio, with their draconian 6 week ban, she was forced to go elsewhere for the procedure.

      Even YOU have said 18 weeks. And I am glad to see that you understand how life threatening a pregnancy is at age 10. DO you think you could tell your buddy, Mr. Roberts?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        1. That does not explain why the mother was compelled to take her daughter to Indiana. Could it have to do with the fact that the Ohio doctor told her he couldn’t do it due to the Ohio law that says no abortions after 6 weeks?

          Like

          Reply

          2. When was the last time YOU contacted state legal authorities to perform a medical/dental procedure because the law was unclear when presented in an EMERGENT situation?

            Your excuse making for those who want to completely ban abortions is also, chilling. Even though you, yourself, have been pretty clear about your personal beliefs on the matter.

            That brings up the other issue around this. The confusion for providers and patients as to what is ok or not in their several states. Providers fear for their licenses for performing what should have been a no-briner procedure. Even the Doctor in Indiana is being investigated by the state AG, even though she obeyed the current laws in her state.

            https://www.pilotonline.com/nation-world/vp-nw-ohio-rape-case-20220715-xa73rjl73bgrflme76hrdn7esy-story.html

            “Indiana’s attorney general, Republican Todd Rokita, said Thursday his office was investigating whether Bernard violated medical privacy laws by talking about the victim to the Star, or failed to notify authorities about suspected child abuse. The prosecutor for Indianapolis, Democrat Ryan Mears, said his office had the sole authority to pursue any such charges and that Bernard was being subjected to “intimidation and bullying.”

            Bernard’s lawyer issued a statement Thursday that said the doctor provided proper treatment and did not violate any patient privacy laws or other rules. Bernard is also considering legal action against “those who have smeared my client,” including Rokita.

            Bernard reported a June 30 medication abortion for a 10-year-old patient to the state health department on July 2, within the three-day requirement set in state law for a girl younger than 16, according to the report obtained by The Indianapolis Star and WXIN-TV of Indianapolis.”

            Liked by 1 person

          3. I suspect that this case is being seized upon as a political cudgel by raising unnecessary fears that were never really an issue.

            There are not very many dental issues that require a call to the State authorities. The only time I had to call was a child abuse issue.

            But every state medical board has an 800 number for such issues.

            Like

          4. …”unnecessary fears that were never really an issue.”

            You want to tell the Indiana doctor who is being investigated for doing everything by the Indiana book that there is no issue?

            Also, complete bans on abortions or bans at 6 weeks go against even YOUR proposal of 18 weeks. Yet here you are saying there is no issue.

            And your calls concerning child abuse were not about the legality of your procedure. It is very cut and dry the responsibilities of those in your profession (and others) to report child abuse. But by doing so, you were not questioned about breaking any laws.

            Like

          6. It’s not up to you. You’re right. But not giving a damn about the national implications of laws like this, and there will be, is enough reason to say whether YOU believe i is right or wrong.

            ‘THe dodge of “it ain’t my problem” is cowardly.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “A simple call to the AG’s office would have solved that problem.”

            So the AG’s office would likely cover their asses by saying they needed a second opinion, a medical report, a police report…

            The doctor could risk his livelihood without getting an official paper authorization. A “simple call” would not suffice.

            In Ireland the case that broke the ban was a severe complication that the doctors were not sure about qualifying for an abortion. So they dithered until it was too late and she died.

            Expect the same here. Medical decisions by ballots is not good.

            Liked by 2 people

  3. It appears some may not have read the article. I find this QUOTE from the author of the bill, Mr. Bopp to be QUITE telling:

    “While Bopp’s model legislation, which was released in advance of the Supreme Court’s ruling late last month, encourages states to ban all abortions unless necessary to save the life of the pregnant person, it notes “it may be necessary in certain states to have additional exceptions, such as for a women pregnant as a result of rape or incest.””

    “it may be necessary necessary in CERTAIN STATES”? Why would it only be necessary in certain states for there to be exceptions for rape and incest? That is just bat poo crazy.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  4. Don, I can assure you, travel bans are very actively being sought after. Today, Democrats are trying to codify the rights of pregnant women to travel across state lines:

    “The eight-page bill would make it unlawful for a person or a government official to prevent or punish traveling across state lines “to receive or provide reproductive health care that is legal in that State.” It also would bar states from imposing laws that prohibit women from traveling to other states to get abortions.”

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-block-bill-protecting-women-travel-states-abortion-rcna38301

    Republicans are blocking the bill.

    Don’t even try to tell me that the current Supreme Court wouldn’t allow travel bans to happen. We both know they would do it in a heartbeat.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. “Republicans are blocking the bill.”

      They are protecting Biden from himself. 😇

      “We both know they would do it in a heartbeat.”

      was that phrase intended or did it just happen? 😉

      Like

      Reply

      1. Heartbeats do seem to be very important to them. Whole children don’t have much of a priority, but electrical pulses are worth letting women and children die for.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

  5. You want chilling? How about a medical description of the killing and removal of a fetus where medical instruments are forced through an artificially dilated cervix to grab the fetus for extraction which often results in it tearing apart requiring multiple reinsertions to grab each arm/leg, etc before vacuuming out the rest. https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:6b0b9ad7-96f7-3840-b42c-4990a95303b5
    You know, what the selfish “my body” crowd desires under abortion on demand at any stage. The interesting thing is the goal post of “viability” has been moved very close to conception due to medical advances.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Nobody is denying that late term abortions should only be done in the event of SEVERE medical complications. But you are equating that with the idea that a 10 year old child should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

      Your LTA comment is irrelevant to the current discussion.

      Like

      Reply

      1. When I hear “it’s my body, I can do with it as I please” crowd chanting in the street, there is never any mention of the other body or any time line when abortion should be illegal. So your assertions that “nobody is denying that late term abortions should only be done in the event of severe medical complications” is patently false. The women in the brief had no complications.
        The link is as relevant as it gets. You are pointing out an extreme just as I am so why won’t you offer a compromise solution like Don did instead of the libersl babble?

        Like

        Reply

        1. You only BELIEVE it is patently false. Because you don’t listen to anyone but the extremists on both sides. The issue is you side with the anti-choice extremists.

          And I am onboard with Don’s thoughts. I may not fully agree with the 18 weeks, but it is much more reasonable than 6 weeks or complete bans.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. There you go again throw ing false accusations that you know are untrue. That’s called woke. I agreed with Don’s compromise right after he posted it but you say I side with anti-choice extremists. No, I do not side with either extremewhich is why I bring the liberal extremist to light in this thread as well. Stop with the phony insane attack babble you always throw around. (Adam attack babble to follow, 3, 2, 1)

            Like

          2. You don’t even know the definition of woke, but you throw it around like its your middle name.

            The rest of YOUR babble about not siding with extremists is a lie when lined up against your own words.

            But, hey, Babble away about who the extremists are.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. See? The Adam extremist psycho babble right on time as promised. Watch it come again. 3, 2, 1

            Like

          4. Got it. You get challenged and called out for the posts you type with your own little fingers and then you refer to the challenges as “babble”.

            Your posts are fertilizer and your attitude towards others is telling.

            Your “babble” is extremist in that while you SAY DOn’s 18 week proposal is a good compromise, you turn around and start shooting your mouth off about LTA’s. Which as I stated earlier is irrelevant to the discussion. You brought it up. I told you that wasn’t the point of the discussion, and you still kept babbling about it.

            Like

    2. Being pro-choice is not about demanding “abortion on demand at any stage.” Under the framework of Roe that the Theocrat SCOTUS has destroyed, abortion on demand was limited to the first trimester.

      The horrors you describe are not “abortion on demand.” They are a very rare medical procedure caused by extreme and fatal fetal abnormalities such as anencephaly.

      The test of viability is not based on extraordinary medical procedures. Soon it will be medically possible to grow a baby from start to finish outside the woman. That will not change the stage of viability which will always be around 24 weeks.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Um, that is incorrect. First SCOTUS didn’t destroy anything, they merely ruled that abortion wasn’t protected by the constitution because it isn’t. States make the rules. Secondly, second trimester abortions are a lot more common than you wish to admit. Thirdly, you contradict yourself by claiming that abortion on demand should be legal up to 24 weeks or more (so called viability) which is at the end of the second and beginning of the third trimesters. The baby is far too developed by that point.
        Lastly, viability is survival outside of the womb whether on life support or not. So, no, it is not 24 weeks but much earlier.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “… viability is survival outside of the womb whether on life support or not. So, no, it is not 24 weeks but much earlier.”

          Are you saying viability is much earlier than 24 weeks, 3 months premature?

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

        2. “Um, that is incorrect.”

          Uh, no. SCOTUS DID destroy the framework created by the Roe ruling. Why would you noy know that? Strange.

          “Second trimester abortions are a lot more frequent than you care to admit.”

          No, they are not. From the KFF article that you did not read. . .
          “Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent 1% of all abortions in the US.”
          I have no trouble admitting facts.

          Without splitting hairs about the divide between trimesters, the frequency of abortion drops off very rapidly past the first trimester. And more to the point, under the now destroyed Roe framework, the states were free to severely restrict them at that stage and most did.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Just because you believe that it is ok to crush a living person’s head, murdering it, past the first trimester and into the third doesn’t mean caring people agree with you.

            Like

          3. “Just because you believe that it is ok to crush a living person’s head…”

            The form of abortion you are talking about is only done in extremis and when the baby is already doomed, dying or dead. It then becomes a medical question – extracting it while doing the least harm to the mother. The claim that viable babies are murdered this way is simply a lie peddled to people like you who will believe almost anything. Murdering babies is not allowed. It is a crime.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. “I’m guessing you didn’t read it either. Facts be damned.”

            Either!

            So, you acknowledge ignoring it confirming EXACTLY what I said. You don’t give a tinker’s damn about the facts. You would rather just go with your fake outrage.

            As a matter of fact, I am very familiar with the facts presented by KFF.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. “This might be a better link to view the horrors of late term abortions which the left desires as ops normal.”

      No more ops normal that the idea that legislatures are passing heartbeat bills or 6 week bans when most women don’t even know they are pregnant yet. That includes the 10 year old CHILD.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. Women die in pregnancy and childbirth at a rate of 700/year. Not injured, died.

      The problem is not late term abortions as a matter of convenience. They are almost always wrenching decisions for catastrophic fetal abnormalities or health or life risks to the mother.

      Taking away that option with vague laws that must be adjudicated after the facts, put lives at risk and doctors are put in a terrible position.

      Showing gruesome abortion photos should be paired with a dead woman and sepsis or organ failure.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    3. The issue is NOT about late term abortions, but a women’s right to choose AT A LEGAL time to end an unwanted pregnancy. LTA’s are only reserved for severe medical issues either with the mother or the fetus.

      It appears you just don’t understand what the issue is about. It is NOT about LTA’s. But that is where you keep going.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a comment