Roe v. Wade is history

Post Reply New Topic

But I didn't think that a government deciding on what abortion should be for the entire country counted as democracy though, compared to individual states voting on it, does it?

If we relied on the good will of the states, there would still be Jim Crow laws.

I see what you mean. So basically democracy is not wanting to be more independent from the government but wanting to give the government more power over the people to make the decisions, because the states are not responsible enough for independence in a sense?

That’s exactly what caused us to enact a Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation had considerable state power within it, which caused a total stymie in Congress.

Slavery was a total wrong in all ways. The South insisted on perpetuating it, often citing “states rights.”

Jim Crow, after the Civil War, was a total wrong, too. The South (and elements of the North) insisted on perpetuating it, citing “states rights.”

This proved why the Constitution, however imperfect, was required.

Yes, that tends to happen when things are banned (i.e. black market, black market related crime, more people incarcerated, etc.).

Ok...and how many years in prison is the little girl's abuser having to serve? I don't like the idea of murdering a child even in the case of rape because no human being has any choice or control over how they're conceived. But if that's going to be used as a justification for abortion, then someone has to be punished for it.

I don't know the specifics of Ohio's law other than it's a 6 weeks ban. A rational abortion ban has to allow for saving the life of the mother. I'd say at 10 years old it's a pretty serious risk to the life of the mother. And...I repeat...whoever impregnated her must receive the severest penalty reasonably possible, and I wouldn't rule out the death penalty.

I find it terribly disturbing that there is so much of a push toward abortion as relief from sexual assault. I don't have a problem with removing the consequences for the victim. But it does make it easier to abuse young girls. You can groom a young girl, have "consensual" sex with her, and continue to do so indefinitely as long as you don't get caught. If she falls pregnant, not a big deal. Just get an abortion. I'd say give her the abortion but make it mandatory to report it to law enforcement so the abuser will be brought to justice.

So...The injured children must bear the pain of not allowing abortion in order to retain criminal evidence.

I doubt a pedo cares about the consequences to the victim, just satisfying his depravity.

I have no idea the status of the investigation but I doubt something like this is being ignored.

Any investigation of the rape of a 10-year-old is going to be complicated by the question of do you want the child to go through the trauma of identifying her attacker and having her describe what happened to her.

But isn't the hospital required to report it to law enforcement, if the person getting the abortion falls below the age of consent, and therefore it's a crime that has to legally be reported?

A pregnant 10 year old must give birth says America.

Okay that is just straight up madness right there.
Forget the political views and religious agendas, that child is TOO YOUNG to deal with the pain of childbirth. I don't care if the government says no exceptions. Our government hates children anyway so no one should care what the government thinks.

Are there any states where abortion is illegal under all circumstances and they are no exception states though?

I’ll have to do research…..but I believe some states in the South have these sorts of laws, which were activated by the Supreme Court decision.

Whether one wants the child to relive trauma is irrelevant. That's the worst excuse I've ever heard for allowing abusers to continue abusing children.

Trauma just isn't an excuse. What you're saying, and I truly hope you don't intend to say this, is that it's perfectly acceptable for abusers to keep abusing children because the prosecution would traumatize children. Surely you don't find that acceptable! Abusers have to be locked up, and not allowed to abuse one child after another after another after another. It's like...ok, we have laws to prosecute child abusers. But we're just going to pretend older kids and adults aren't diddling little 10-year old girls because that's just gonna get complicated. If she gets pregnant, no big deal. Just abort the baby, everything will be fine.

That's exactly right. Everything will be fine! That's exactly what child abusers want you to think. Abort the baby, sweep the crime under the rug. There ARE laws, but we don't have to worry about them because nobody wants to traumatize the child. Nobody's gonna enforce the laws. So open season on little kids!

Is this SERIOUSLY how we see it?

No, this is how YOU are choosing to misrepresent AsPartOfMe’s argument.

No one has stated that abortion will make everything better. It could make an awful situation a little bit better for victims, though.

Not necessarily. It depends on local laws. Any time a parent accompanies a minor to get an abortion, it's a moot point. The laws are usually more concerned about parental rights. Children don't have a legally protected freedom to make ANY choices. So if a 10-year-old is pregnant, it's the parent's decision whether to force the girl to have an abortion, to let the girl decide, or to force the girl to have the baby. 30 and 40 years ago people would get in trouble for circumventing parents, so now I don't even think Planned Parenthood would go for a young child having an abortion without taking steps to make sure parents were involved.

If a 10-year old child is pregnant, well...here's a dirty little secret for you: I've gotten a woman pregnant 6 times. It doesn't always happen on the first try. That 10-year-old very likely had sex a number of times before she got pregnant. Whoever did this to her probably didn't think she'd get pregnant. And that tells you she's been abused for a while. That's a matter for DHS to get that poor girl out of that home and somewhere she'll be safe and cared for.

I mean...sure, it's possible someone can be a virgin and become pregnant after being raped ONE time. I'm just not inclined to believe it every time a 10-year-old pregnant girl makes the headlines. The FIRST time abuse happens, it should be immediately reported to the police. If that's the case, then I've got no argument here that she should be removed from the home. But it's frightening when you hear about children that young becoming pregnant. There's usually going to be a pattern of abuse there that's getting ignored. Even worse, it could be a parent that's behind the abuse and trafficking of their own kids. It's a sick world we live in.

I'm misrepresenting nothing. I'm just trying to get some clarity. I don't dispute that having to testify against an abuser can be traumatizing. But what everyone has said so far has done nothing but point out that making an accusation is traumatizing, suuggesting that children cannot be called upon to so much as even identify their abuser in the courtroom. You may not realize it yet, but the idea of sparing children "trauma" under these circumstances is antithetical to bringing abusers to justice. Is your intent really to give abusers blanket permission to keep having sex with kids? If NOT, then the logical conclusion is that any trauma a victim might face is irrelevant in the face of bringing abusers to justice. The reasoning I'm getting from others here, following everything to its conclusion, is abusers can declare open season on children without fear of prosecution because a) they can just abort the baby, and b) prosecutors are too afraid of traumatizing children by having them identify their abusers. Why not just take child abuse and age of consent laws off the books for all the good they do? None of this makes sense to me.