It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

CFR he was lying.

The chief law enforcement officer in the state said the following:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/88qn3p/ohio-child-rape-abortion-dave-yost-arrest
 

Quote

We have regular contact with prosecutors and local police and sheriffs — not a whisper anywhere

Either they have regular contact or they don’t.   Local proscecuters obviously knew. So he’s lying about how thorough his knowledge is  for political gain.

And

Quote

it could not have happened... there is not a damn scintilla of evidence. And shame on the Indianapolis paper that ran this thing on a single source.

This is false on its face. It happened. And there was evidence. If he didn’t have the position of authority and responsibility he does, maybe one could give him a pass. But it’s his job to know. He leveraged his position to spread falsehoods. 

[bsjkki]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The chief law enforcement officer in the state said the following:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/88qn3p/ohio-child-rape-abortion-dave-yost-arrest
 

Either they have regular contact or they don’t.   Local proscecuters obviously knew. So he’s lying about how thorough his knowledge is  for political gain.

And

This is false on its face. It happened. And there was evidence. If he didn’t have the position of authority and responsibility he does, maybe one could give him a pass. But it’s his job to know. He leveraged his position to spread falsehoods. 

You're assuming he knew the information he was relaying was false. There is no evidence of that. He may have thought he did have proper sources and would be informed but did not know what he didn't know. No proof he was lying about anything.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You're assuming he knew the information he was relaying was false. There is no evidence of that. He may have thought he did have proper sources and would be informed but did not know what he didn't know. No proof he was lying about anything.  

He could have said “I am not aware of any evidence that would corroborate that story”. Instead he went out of his way to state that the story was false, and if it happened he would be aware of it. Well if he apologizes for the statement and launches a public investigation into the lapse in his chain of command, I’d be convinced that he wasn’t lying. Otherwise I think this sums it nicely:

 

”There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”

 

His entire intent was to imply he would know if said rape happened and it didn’t.  
 

He is lying to state that he was in an absolute position to know and he could comment on the matter. Obviously that is not true because he didn’t know. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

He could have said “I am not aware of any evidence that would corroborate that story”. Instead he went out of his way to state that the story was false, and if it happened he would be aware of it. Well if he apologizes for the statement and launches a public investigation into the lapse in his chain of command, I’d be convinced that he wasn’t lying. Otherwise I think this sums it nicely:

 

”There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”

 

His entire intent was to imply he would know and he didn’t.  Therefore the story was false. Because he would know. 

I think he is not very happy right now that he didn't know. IMO, you are quick with the 'lying' charge here. Maybe he was irresponsible to think he would know about this but it doesn't mean he lied about it. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

And more. An arrest was made. 
 

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/13/columbus-man-charged-rape-10-year-old-led-abortion-in-indiana/10046625002/

My question is why did they go to Indiana when the procedure was legal in Ohio?

Was it legal during the time the abortion took place?  The law has changed, correct?

Never mind, I see you interpret the risk to a ten year old as a medical emergency which qualifies. 
 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Was it legal? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ohio#Current_Ohio_Law
 

The only exceptions listed are “ in cases in which there is a medical emergency, defined in 2919.16(F) & (K): "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."[8] This does not include potential bodily damage that stems from the woman's mental health.”

Maybe no one wanted to risk jail time in a state with such an insane law.

I would say it is legal.  Here's the actual legal definition in Ohio - https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.16

Quote

(F) "Medical emergency" means a condition that in the physician's good faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at that time, so complicates the woman's pregnancy as to necessitate the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion in order to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to avoid a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman that delay in the performance or inducement of the abortion would create.

(K) "Serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" means any medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. A medically diagnosed condition that constitutes a "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" includes pre-eclampsia, inevitable abortion, and premature rupture of the membranes, may include, but is not limited to, diabetes and multiple sclerosis, and does not include a condition related to the woman's mental health.

And https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.17

Quote

(B)(1) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under division (A) of this section that the abortion was performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced by a physician and that the physician determined, in the physician's good faith medical judgment, based on the facts known to the physician at that time, that either of the following applied:

(a) The unborn child was not viable.

(b) The abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

Considering that basically everyone who has responded to this story find it abhorrent, I would think that a doctor who performed the abortion can easily pass the "good faith medical judgement" affirmative defense.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

I would say

And this is exactly why going to another state was prudent. Heaven knows I wouldn’t risk my future based on AG Yosts good judgement. Change the law. 

[Calm]

If the drive was not that big of a deal, I think I would have preferred going to a state where the law was clear cut to get a medical procedure done just because it would be less energy than worrying about what ifs. 

I take a drug that requires jumping through legal hoops, and it is excessively wearing wondering what will be the next obstacle suddenly placed in my path risking a chance I will be denied the drug out of the blue, not even enough to safely withdraw  as has been reported in other states. I don’t trust the government to get regulation right in medical areas, to be blunt. 
 

But there is a difference between being forced to go to another state and being cautious by doing so. Neither side reporting this incident has been accurate in my view. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think he is not very happy right now that he didn't know.

That is not at all apparent based on any public statements. Has he apologized? Started an investigation? Given a plausible reason for why he was so woefully wrong?

12 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Maybe he was irresponsible to think he would know 

Maybe? Really? Imagine you are the girls family having to listen to this. He’s a lawyer. He knew exactly what he was doing and he knows that words matter. 

[webbles]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And this is exactly why going to another state was prudent. Heaven knows I wouldn’t risk my future based on AG Yosts good judgement. Change the law. 

Curious how you'd change the law?  A blanket exemption for under 18 abortions?  Or increasing the weeks?  It appears that Indiana prohibits abortion after 20-22 weeks so if you like Indiana's law, maybe 20 weeks?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

Curious how you'd change the law?  A blanket exemption for under 18 abortions?  Or increasing the weeks?  It appears that Indiana prohibits abortion after 20-22 weeks so if you like Indiana's law, maybe 20 weeks?

I think any ban on first trimester abortions is immoral. I think a law that doesn’t specifically exempt rape victims is unconscionably heinous. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bsjkki]

So, as I look into this story, I am wondering why the delay between the mom reporting to child services June 22 and the arrest July 12th. Did child services delay notifying law enforcement? This also explains the comments by the AG. From the unfortunate incidence with my daughters-in-law's father, arrests usually happen quite quickly after notifying law enforcement. He was arrested the same day his wife reported and called the cops. Three weeks seems like a very long delay. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by bsjkki

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think any ban on first trimester abortions is immoral.

I am curious as to how morality is determined by trimesters.

47 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think a law that doesn’t specifically exempt rape victims is unconscionably heinous. 

I think an exception for rape is reasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am curious as to how morality is determined by trimesters.

Easy. It’s immoral not to allow a woman to choose to end her pregnancy. 12 weeks is adequate in almost all cases. At 12 weeks a fetus is nowhere near personhood. Hence any ban is immoral. 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think an exception for rape is reasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

How infinitely generous of you to offer this sentiment against enslaving 10 year olds to carry babies to term. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Tacenda]

Some on here were saying this could be fake, and I even wondered. But it wasn't:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/man-charged-rape-girl-ohio-abortion

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I am curious as to how morality is determined by trimesters.

Easy. It’s immoral not to allow a woman to choose to end her pregnancy.

That is not an explanation.  It is a conclusory assertion.

It is immoral to electively kill a child in utero.

There.  We now have dueling assertions.  The difference is that I can provide a reasoned rationale and explanation for my assertion.  I question whether you can do the same for yours.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

12 weeks is adequate in almost all cases. At 12 weeks a fetus is nowhere near personhood. Hence any ban is immoral. 

Again, this is conclusory. 

When, in your view, does "personhood" kick in?  

What event or benchmark occurs such as to trigger "personhood?"

On what factual and evidentiary basis do you assert such a nonperson-to-person benchmark?

Why are your conclusory statements about "personhood," being nakedly without reasoning or evidence, persuasive or binding?

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I think an exception for rape is reasonable.

How infinitely generous of you to offer this sentiment against enslaving 10 year olds to carry babies to term. 

Far more generous than you are to unborn children, which you summarily assert to be non-persons.

We've seen what happens when society starts treating their fellows in this way.  Blacks in the ante-bellum South were also denied "personhood."  And then there was the whole Lebensunwertes Leben thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 14, 2022 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The difference is that I can provide a reasoned rationale and explanation for my assertion. 

I’ve yet to see a rational basis that allows for the murder of a baby just because it’s conception was a crime. If it’s really a person with all the rights that come with it, the only acceptable conclusion is that it doesn’t matter how it was conceived. We don’t allow mothers to kill toddlers if they were conceived due to rape. So is the fetus a person or not? Why is it okay to kill a person based on whether or not she was conceived via rape. The fact that you allow this exception clearly demonstrates that, despite protestations to the contrary, you don’t view the fetus in the same category as a toddler. 
 

The same goes with the whole “life begins at conception” mantra hogwash. Show me a person that save a fridge full  of thousands of embryos over a single toddler and I’ll show you a sociopath.
 

Killing a fetus is not the same as killing a baby. And enslaving a mother to put her life at risk for the sake of your moral feelings is wrong.

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

The difference is that I can provide a reasoned rationale and explanation for my assertion. 

I’ve yet to see a rational basis that allows for the murder of a baby just because it’s conception was a crime.

I have.

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If it’s really a person with all the rights that come with it, the only acceptable conclusion is that it doesn’t matter how it was conceived.

I'm not sure that's correct.

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

We don’t allow mothers to kill toddlers if they were conceived due to rape.

True.  But I think a distinction can be made between these two circumstances.

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So is the fetus a person or not?

It is.

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why is it okay to kill a person based on whether or not she was conceived via rape.

I'm quite willing to answer that question.

But first I'd like to see you answer my questions:

1. How is the "morality" of abortion determined by trimesters?
2. When, in your view, does "personhood" kick in?  
3. What event or benchmark occurs such as to trigger "personhood?"
4. On what factual and evidentiary basis does such a nonperson-to-person benchmark rest?
5. Why are your conclusory statements about "personhood," being nakedly without reasoning or evidence, persuasive or binding?

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The fact that you allow this exception clearly demonstrates that, despite protestations to the contrary, you don’t view the fetus in the same category as a toddler. 

That is not so.

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The same goes with the whole “life begins at conception” mantra hogwash.

Again, not so.

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Show me a person that save a fridge full  of thousands of embryos over a single toddler and I’ll show you a sociopath.

A fair, but ultimately unpersuasive, argument from the margins.

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Killing a fetus is not the same as killing a baby.

Electively killing a fetus is functionally and morally indistinguishable from killing a baby.

Again, we have dueling assertions.

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And enslaving a mother to put her life at risk for the sake of your moral feelings is wrong.

Preventing Person A from electively killing Person B is a moral good, even an obligation.

Characterizing a woman who voluntarily engages in behavior which carries a reasonably foreseeable risk of pregnancy as being "enslaved" by that actualized risk is wrong.  Specious, even.

Again, dueling assertions.

Again, I am willing to lay out my reasoning and argument.  Are you?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 14, 2022 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

How is the "morality" of abortion determined by trimesters?

I think first to second trimesters is an easy way to categorize when the fetus begins to feel at least, perhaps even think in ways we see as close to sentience. 

It has also become the division between prone to be a miscarriage and prone to survival line.  It is hardly surprising that people think of the second semester as something more independent of more separate from the mother

If the fetus does not experience pain and it is more simple reaction to a stimulus (would respond the same way to what we would interpret as pleasurable or painful), then is it immoral to destroy it when it doesn’t feel pain?  Can something that is not and never has at that point ever felt or thought even close to how breathing humans feel and think be truly said to be a person?

Morality may be argued from a religious pov, it is a spiritual being no matter how physically undeveloped it is and is therefore a person because of its spirit, but if one doesn’t believe there is a spirit, how is something that doesn’t think or feel be viewed as a person?

Anyone know of a fetal development chart that compared the development of the nervous system (which I understand gets functioning really in the fourth month) to animal development?  Like third month might be comparable to a fish?  Fourth month…?

Edited July 14, 2022 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have.

Dueling assertions

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure that's correct.

It is. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

True.  But I think a distinction can be made between these two circumstances.

Not rationally. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It is.

Is not. 
 

See how this goes? I’ve read every single post in this thread. Amazingly, your rational and derived from first principles approach to abortion somehow just happens to have exactly the same exceptions as the church (of which you have been a member of since birth if I understand correctly). What are the odds of that? Astronomical I’d say. 
 

From the outside your position (that embryos are people) makes no sense. What is clear though is that the church’s stance does not treat in utero life the same as life that is already born. It’s never acceptable to kill a person because they are the product of rape. It’s never acceptable to kill a person to save the life of another (without their consent). Those are things we just don’t do to people. 
 

All this is fine. We have competing assertions, the logic of which doesn’t make sense to the other. But you’ll excuse me if I point out that yours (which amazingly coincidentally lines up with the one you were taught at church) is not based on deep rational principles that are unassailable versus those of us on the other side.

If you want to know if someone is a person, ask yourself if it’s okay to murder them because of a crime someone else committed. 
 

Personhood is not easily defined, has fuzzy boundaries, but is easy to spot clear examples of people and non-people. The fact that something is hard to define doesn’t make it not rationally based. When you start with a grain of sand, and add one grain at a time, there is no discernible point when it becomes a heap of sand. That doesn’t mean that I can’t point to a few grains and say “that’s not a heap”. If I start building a chair one atom at a time, there is no one definable moment when it becomes a chair.  An embryo is not a person. A toddler is. You know this. That’s why you would always save the toddler instead of a freezer that contained a million embryos. That’s why you say it’s okay to kill a fetus that’s the product of rape, but heinous to kill a toddler with similar parentage. 

Further conversation is pointless I’m afraid so feel free to dissect the post 24 ways and write an essay. The last word here is yours.

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Quote

How is the "morality" of abortion determined by trimesters?

I think trimesters are an easy way to categorize when the fetus begins to feel at least, perhaps even think in ways we see as close to sentience. 

So the benchmark for the morality of abortion would not so much be "the first trimester," but rather when the unborn child becomes "sentient?"

If so, why does sentience convey personhood?

1 minute ago, Calm said:

If the fetus does not experience pain and it is more simple reaction to a stimulus (would respond the same way to what we would interpret as pleasurable or painful), then is it immoral to destroy it when it doesn’t feel pain?

Morality may be argued from a religious pov, it is a spiritual being no matter how physically undeveloped it is.  

Religious/moral beliefs can and ought to inform our political/legal views (subject, of course, to the constraints of the Constitution).  In the end, a society in a given jurisdiction has to collectively make moral judgments.  That includes tough decisions where there is tension between the rights of one person (the expectant mother) and another (the unborn child).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Quote

If it’s really a person with all the rights that come with it, the only acceptable conclusion is that it doesn’t matter how it was conceived.

I'm not sure that's correct.

It is. 

I'm not sure it is.

In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

True.  But I think a distinction can be made between these two circumstances.

Not rationally. 

Yes, rationally.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

 

Quote

So is the fetus a person or not?

It is.

 

Is not. 

Hmm.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

See how this goes?

I do.  You make assertions, but don't explain or defend them.

You ignore questions directly relevant to your assertions.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’ve read every single post in this thread. Amazingly, your rational and derived from first principles approach to abortion somehow just happens to exactly line up with the one the church (of which you have been a member of since birth if I understand correctly). What are the odds of that? Astronomical I’d say. 

Sarcasm, but no substance.

Bombast, but no evidence.

Sneering, but no attempt to provide clarification or explanation or reasoning or evidence.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From the outside your position makes no sense.

I'm not sure you know my position.  I haven't presented it, you see.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What is clear though is that the church’s stance does not treat in utero life the same as life that is already born.

I'm not speaking of the Church's stance.  I am speaking of my own.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s never acceptable to kill a person because they are the product of rape.

Well, we could discuss that.  But your all-take-and-no-give approach doesn't really allow for that.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s never acceptable to kill a person to save the life of another (without their consent).

We could discuss this, too.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Those are things we just don’t do to people. 

Are you sure?

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

All this is fine. We have competing assertions, the logic of which doesn’t make sense to the other.

Except I'm quite willing to go beyond assertions.  I don't think you are, as evidenced by your repeated refusal to answer some pretty basic questions about your position.  Here they are again, for the third time:

1. How is the "morality" of abortion determined by trimesters?
2. When, in your view, does "personhood" kick in?  
3. What event or benchmark occurs such as to trigger "personhood?"
4. On what factual and evidentiary basis does such a nonperson-to-person benchmark rest?
5. Why are your conclusory statements about "personhood," being nakedly without reasoning or evidence, persuasive or binding?

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But you’ll excuse me if I don’t point out that yours (which amazingly coincidentally lines up with the one you were taught at church) is based on deep rational principles that are unassailable versus those of us on the other side.

More sarcasm in lieu of substance.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If you want to know if someone is a person, ask yourself if it’s okay to murder them because of a crime someone else committed. 

"Murder?"

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Personhood is not easily defined, has fuzzy boundaries, but is easy to spot clear examples of people and non-people.

Are you sure?

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The fact that something is hard to define doesn’t make it not rationally based.

So far you have not provided anything like a rational basis.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When you start with a grain of sand, and add one grain at a time, there is no discernible point when it becomes a heap of sand. That doesn’t mean that I can’t point to a few grains and say “that’s not a heap”.

I agree.  Just because something is difficult to define does not mean it cannot be defined at all.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If I start building a chair one atom at a time, there is no one definable moment when it becomes a chair.  An embryo is not a person. A toddler is. You know this.

Actually, I don't know this.

And so far, you have not explained why you think you know this.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That’s why you would always save the toddler instead of a freezer that contained a million embryos.

Nope.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That’s why you say it’s okay to kill a fetus that’s the product of rape, but heinous to kill a toddler with similar parentage. 

Again, nope.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Further conversation is pointless I’m afraid so feel free to dissect the post 24 ways and right an essay. The last word here is yours.

Okay.

Your refusal to answer the above basic questions is, to me, kind of telling.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Smac, I feel like you ignored half of what I said, not interested in a discussion where that occurs.  Too much having to repeat myself. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure you know my position.  I haven't presented it

Not a response inviting a discussion but just so you know:

 

Is this not your position?? Have you not presented it? If that’s not it (as well as previous back and forth that we’ve had on the subject as well) let me know and perhaps I have some retracting to do. 

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’ve yet to see a rational basis that allows for the murder of a baby just because it’s conception was a crime. If it’s really a person with all the rights that come with it, the only acceptable conclusion is that it doesn’t matter how it was conceived. We don’t allow mothers to kill toddlers if they were conceived due to rape. So is the fetus a person or not? Why is it okay to kill a person based on whether or not she was conceived via rape. The fact that you allow this exception clearly demonstrates that, despite protestations to the contrary, you don’t view the fetus in the same category as a toddler. 
 

The same goes with the whole “life begins at conception” mantra hogwash. Show me a person that save a fridge full  of thousands of embryos over a single toddler and I’ll show you a sociopath.
 

Killing a fetus is not the same as killing a baby. And enslaving a mother to put her life at risk for the sake of your moral feelings is wrong.

 

The personhood route is wrong. It's not the personhood that gives the unborn less rights than the baby, it is the situation.