Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Three Takes on Morality · Pro-Death: Misreporting the Kate Cox Case and Misjudging the Ohio Girl of Ten Case · Harris Spoke a Lie, Trump Spoke the Truth · New blog on the kid: Best wishes for your recovery, Mr. Trump! · Yearick or Crooks?
- Judy Rofe
- An Australian who never lost sight of the bigger picture.
- July 1st
- SERIOUSLY, THINK ABOUT THIS …
[When your wife is dying painfully from sepsis because doctors will get arrested if they treat her partial miscarriage, the last thing on your mind will be Biden's age.]
- Spoiler alert
- The dishonest meme above did not happen. Alternatively, the hysteric meme is not likely to happen from the things that did happen.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 2nd, 2024
- I don’t think there is a single legislation that requires that of doctors, but there may be doctors in anti-abortion legislatures who pretend to be dumb, just to make a dumb point against the law.
No legislation requires partial miscarriages already dead to stay in the womb. Extraction in that case isn’t killing.
- Answered three times
- I, II, III
- I
- TonyN
- July 2nd, 2024
- TonyN
- You need to do some reading. This is becoming COMMON across a number of red states, right now.
- Answered twice
- IV, V
- IV
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 3rd, 2024
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- If so, I think it’s doctors bluffing, because they don’t like the legislation, they parody it.
- Answered three times
- VI, VII, VIII
- VI
- Brian Kirchner
- July 6th, 2024
- Brian Kirchner
- It’s not “doctors bluffing”. That’s absurd. It’s real. It’s really happening.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 6th, 2024
- It’s unfortunatly not absurd, that’s what happened in Eire, before the legalisation of abortion.
And the only news source I have from Texas says the baby was still alive, when the court decision was taken. No sepsis as yet.
- VII
- TonyN
- 4th of July, 2024
- TonyN
- Sorry Hans, but what you THINK has no bearing on the actual reality of what is happening across Red state America right now.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 4th of July, 2024
- Apart from one report about Texas supreme court, I have so far no reason to believe it’s anything other than doctors playing smart to make people detest a law they detest for less honest reasons.
For that report, I asked for a link. Have at this moment no confirmation.
- VIII
- Renee Shelley
- July 3rd, 2024
- Renee Shelley
- Interesting, seeing as how a woman performed a LEGAL abortion on a ten year old because the kid was raped and the state of Indiana tried to take away her license, and Texas’s Supreme Court blocked an abortion for a woman with a dead baby-she had to leave the state. Under Texas law, her husband can be sued for helping. But go on?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 4th of July, 2024
- Would abortion after rape be legal in Indiana? I’d have hoped not. If it’s a question of health for the ten year old, caesarians are a thing, presumably legal there.
As to Texas Supreme court, if it’s not misreporting, I’d like a link to the ruling, and the law it referred to.
- Answered twice
- IX, X
- IX
- Malin Senkoe
- July 7th, 2024
- Malin Senkoe
- Only a man would hope that a raped 10 year old should legally be made to go through a pregnancy. Hopefully a man without daughters. I assume your c-section comment is because you DO understand that her little 10 year old pelvis is unlikely to handle birth. What is wrong with you people?
In this case, Indiana did not yet have any abortion bans and were still practicing according to Roe. I’m not sure what their law says now, but it should be easy enough to find.
- Roux
- July 8th, 2024
- A C section is major abdominal surgery. With the attendant risks and recovery. The 10 year old was a little more than 6 weeks pregnant when her pregnancy was discovered. 4 days too late for her to get an abortion in Ohio, which is why she had to go to Indiana.
I don’t know how abortions are done at that stage of pregnancy. It might have been too late for a medication abortion. If it was, they would have done a vacuum abortion. Or maybe a D & C. Any of those would be far less risky and traumatizing for the girl. But that’s Hans-Georg Lundahl seemed to be suggesting. And it’s becoming a thing in the ‘pro-life’ movement. That in cases where a woman is permitted to have an abortion, to save her life, because the fetus has died, or because it’s non-viable (the only reasons some of them find at all acceptable,some of them wouldn’t allow it even in those situations and are fine with having the woman die) they want the doctor to be required to perform a C Section.
The cruelty is the point. Along with punishment for the woman.
- Answered twice
- reverse order, XII, XI
- XII
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 13th, 2024
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I actually do not hold non-viable as a valid cause.
When the baby has died it is not an abortion, it’s the extraction of a miscarriage that already took place. Abortion is the provocation of a miscarriage.
- XI
- Malin Senkoe
- July 8th, 2024
- Malin Senkoe
- The girl in the Ohio-Indiana case had a medical abortion, and fetal tissue was collected for DNA.
I understood it as HG Lundahl wants a ban with no exception for rape, and that the girl should be forced to carry to term (or as close to as possible), and then have a c-section. This makes me angry to even write about. I don’t know if he lacks all the medical knowledge, just don’t care, or both.
I wrote an answer on the topic of this 10 yo a while ago
- Malin Senkoe (link)
- 1 year ago
- A 10- year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. Why is a ten-year-old having an abortion? (not linking)
Funny. Only reason ever for needing an abortion is pregnancy. If pregnancy occurs in a 10 year girl, it is ALWAYS a result of rape (forced or statutory doesn’t even really matter). At 10, her body is not even close to being ready to bear a child, never mind her mind not ready to be a parent. Nothing about “why is a ten-year-old having an abortion?” makes sense. The only sincere question is “Why is a 10-year-old denied proper healthcare in her home state?”
and there was someone who suggested:
“the baby is still human and could be removed asap during the pregnancy to minimize fame to the child.”
To which i answered:
“You really do value this product of a rape higher than the victimized girl, don’t you? I assume you think a cesarean is a “minor intervention”? And on top of that, you are ready to give that “baby” an extremely tough start too (as a premie). Do you care about any person involved, or just your principles?”
I’m not sure what makes these men think that “need to save the fetus” at all costs is the right thing. I agree it must be cruelty.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 8th, 2024
- “(or as close to as possible),”
As close as necessary to save the child.
C-section could in such a case take place after 8 or 7 months instead of 9, to save the mother as well.
I do not think a Caesarian is a minor intervention, but it need not even be necessary.
Sometimes girls of 10 can give birth naturally:
10-year-old gives birth in Spain
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/02/10-year-old-gives-birth-spain
- Darlene Kool Iwaki
- July 9th, 2024
- So you want to traumatize a child with both mental and physical harm for doing absolutely nothing wrong. So the possible life of a rapist child means more than the life of a living breathing person. Wow what is wrong with you people!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 9th, 2024
- Abortion is the traumatising thing.
And even trauma is preferrable to the death of an innocent person.
That babies in the womb haven’t started to breath with their own lungs doesn’t mean they don’t use any oxygen or emit any carbon dioxide, they just do it by the placenta instead.
- Darlene Kool Iwaki
- July 13th, 2024
- So a possible person in the future is worth more than the life of a living breathing human being. No the possibility is not worth more than a person who is already here.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 13th, 2024
- It’s not “a possible person in the future” it is a person.
Not doing autonomous breathing doesn’t show otherwise, there are people on life support when the lungs are paralysed, they are still persons. Babies in the womb are already persons.
- X
- Renee Shelley
- July 5th, 2024
- Renee Shelley
- It was at the time.
Oh, so child gets raped who probably didn’t understand what sex was. Her body is barely developed. So not only would you TORTURE a CHILD physically, but mentally as well and probably destroy any chance of having children again EVER…..That’s your plan?
You people get so wrapped up in a clump of cells you forget the thinking, living, breathing child. What a horiffic human you are.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 5th, 2024
- Thanks, but having her live with “I had my baby killed when I was ten” for the rest of her life is certainly not a better plan.
- Renee Shelley
- July 5th, 2024
- See, again, you are projecting. Torturing and possibly murdering/rendering sterile a ten year old because YOU mistakenly think of a fetus as a baby makes you an awful human.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 5th, 2024
- The mistake is all on your side.
- Renee Shelley
- July 5th, 2024
- No dear, the mistake was on the side of the rapist who is now freely allowed to rape whoever he pleases so he can have a baby. Hell, in most southern states he can even sue her as an unfit mother after the child is older, and claim custody.
Again, you are a horrible human for believing a CHILD should be tortured for the violence of a man.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 5th, 2024
- Punish the rapist if you want, but not by killing his innocent child.
A pregnant ten year old both is and isn’t a child. Is, since most often too young to have children, isn’t totally, since with child.
- Renee Shelley
- July 6th, 2024
- ….Dude, I had my first period on my eighth birthday. My oldest got hers at ten. That is a CHILD.
I would not punish a rapist by “killing his innocent child”. I would, however, protect both the mental and PHYSICAL health of an ACTUAL child. The one this RAPIST has gotten pregnant.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 6th, 2024
- Her mental health is not served by making her participate at least passively in murdering her child.
Her physical health, well, US has good hospitals, that’s one lowering of risk factors.
Having a rapist as father is irrelevant for one’s human value.
- Renee Shelley
- July 7th, 2024
- Ah, so you think her mental health would be better served by forcing her to possibly die and most likely be sterilized to bring the spawn of the man that was evil enough to rape a ten year old to life?
Having a rapist as a father may be “irrelevant” to you, but I assure you the little girl contemplating cutting it out of her own belly with a kitchen knife feels differently.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 8th, 2024
- Neither die nor being sterilised is most probable.
If the girl contemplated that, sorry, she directed her anger at the wrong person. Even if you are very hurt, directing your anger at the wrong person is unjust anger.
- Renee Shelley
- July 8th, 2024
- lmao-why don’t you ask them, and let them decide?
And yes, sterilization is highly probable when a CHILD is forced to go through a pregnancy. Just because you want to justify torturing a child, does not make it less true.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 13th, 2024
- Avoiding to murder a person, which the partially still child could possibly deliver even without a C-section, is first of all not likely to naturally conduce to sterilisation, and second natural disasters are preferrable over deliberate murder.
Here to show that C-section might not even be necessary:
10-year-old gives birth in Spain
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/02/10-year-old-gives-birth-spain
- V
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 4th of July, 2024
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
A Texas woman whose fetus has a fatal diagnosis and who was awaiting a decision from the Texas Supreme Court about whether she would be allowed to get an abortion said Monday that she has decided to leave Texas to get the procedure.
A fatal diagnosis and already partial miscarriage are two different things.
Texas Supreme Court rules against woman who sought abortion hours after she says she’ll travel out of state
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-woman-sought-abortion-court-order-leave-state-rcna129087
- Malin Senkoe
- July 7th, 2024
- Same result if left untreated though.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 8th, 2024
- No, first a child with trisomy 18 could die soon after birth, and second, even if the child died in the womb, it would not be too late to extract it after it had died.
The case in Ireland was about doctors not applying the law, probably in order to make it appear odious.
- II
- Jinx
- July 3rd, 2024
- Jinx
- Texas
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 4th of July, 2024
- Do you have a link to the ruling or just to a news story?
- M S Echols
- July 6th, 2024
- Too lazy to look, Hans? Or already know you're repeatedly wrong
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 7th, 2024
- First of all, I did find even in the news story that the baby was still alive at the time when abortion was being forbidden.
Second, no, I was not too lazy to look.
- III
- M S Echols
- July 6th, 2024
- M S Echols
- You are 100% wrong, sadly. Google Kate Cox
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- July 7th, 2024
- The thing is, Kate Cox’ baby wasn’t dead and rotting inside.
It was alive but with trisomy 18.
No comments:
Post a Comment