10 year old rape victim can't get abortion in Ohio

Some certainly are. I agree.

 

curious what GOP legislative policies you would consider “pro-life” for the living?

 

This is a sticky one. Thinking the taxation method is the only way to help folks isnt the end all.

Many conservatives I know ACTIVELY help in many areas like adoption, child sponsorships, financial contributions homeless communities, etc.

Voting for bloated bills that get attached to these things isnt always what it looks like.

That isnt the perfect answer but I know in my circle it is an accurate one.

 

I recognize and hear what you are saying, but does it bother you that legislatively there is little there in that regard, especially since what private citizens do doesn’t come anywhere close to filling the need?

it sort of shows where a party’s values are politically doesn’t it? If we were to have one party rule, what would the country look like without the taxation piece?

 

We 100% agree. Remember I left the republican party. This is a big reason. My current career has opened my eyes to the fact that neither side really gives a crap. One side buys votes with broken social programs (and trust me. They are broken and wasteful and miss many marks) while the other side tries to win votes by convincing people that social programs are bad.

The whole process is sad.

As a voter I basically count it as a numbers game. Abortion destroys more children (literally) in my opinion. So I will tend to lean that way.

But trust me 108. I hear you and I agree. The republican party has missed the boat.

 

At first glance these two verses might appear to conflict with each other. However, looking at the context of both passages, I believe there’s no conflict whatsoever.

Micah, which was written a couple hundred years before Jeremiah, is addressing God’s attitude towards people. For anyone who repents, God’s love is waiting for them. As Micah says, God delights in faithful love.

Micah is addressing this to the remnant. In the Old Testament “the remnant” refers to those who remain faithful to God when the majority are falling away and turning their backs on him to worship other gods.

The Jeremiah passage, on the other hand, was written to the nation of Judah and to the rulers of that land at that time. Because of their sin and their leading the people astray to worship false gods, they were going to lose their inheritance. This was a pronouncement of judgment upon those people at that time. If you look at the verse preceding we see the judgment is to lose everything and become the servants of another nation: Your wealth and all your treasures I will give for spoil as the price of your high places for sin throughout all your territory. You shall loosen your hand from your heritage that I gave to you, and I will make you serve your enemies in a land that you do not know …

Shortly after this was pronounced, Judah was taken into captivity in Babylon. The judgment on these rulers at that time was final and forever. They never regained their wealth and they never regained their kingdom.

What we see from these two verses is that there are consequences to sin, and in some cases those consequences are forever. Even if we repent of our sins and are forgiven, we often have to live with the consequences of the sin. However, God’s love can overcome our sin.

 

if you had a say, what would you like to see a party do that aligns with your belief system?

 

If you’re going to call it a logical inconsistency (which it is) for pro-lifers to compromise on sympathetic pregnancy cases like rape or incest because they are extreme cases where the pregnant mother truly is a victim…

Then don’t get mad when Republicans choose not to make exceptions out of those cases. It’s dishonest to point to rape cases (as though they are indicative of the typical abortion case), ask Republicans to allow abortions in those cases, then essentially call Republicans hypocrites for compromising on the most sympathetic cases at the margins.

That said, it does expose the real goal. It’s not about the rape, incest, or life-threatening cases. It’s about the notion that abortion is a woman’s right, and she should be able to have one for any reason, even if she just doesn’t want the baby, even if it’s her tenth abortion and she just treats abortion like normal birth control. Pro-choice advocates just like using these cases as cover for the much more egregious cases.

 

This is a case that notes why 6-weeks is a problematic cut-off point. By the time you realize you’re pregnant, it may be too late, and there are cases where abortion involves an ethical gray area, although these cases are rare.

It’s why I think DeSantis has been smart in not really fighting to shorten that period (I think Florida wants it at 15 weeks + cases where the life of the mother is threatened, which I think is more than reasonable and represents the majority view in this country).

 

And anti-choice advocates just like using these cases as cover .
I think you would be hard pressed to find enough women who've had 10 abortions to justify removing choice from all women

 

What's wrong with ten abortions if it's just a "bundle of cells?"

 

Where are the margins, and who gets to draw the line? Is no abortion absolute and this 10 year old should be forced to give birth? Is that an acceptable outcome? If not, then where do you draw the rape margin?

What if the girl is 16, parents disowned her and boyfriend is abusive? Married, already with two kids, husband is an abusive drunk, and she claims rape, but he claims consensual? Or how about any he said/she said case?

Let's explore the margins even further. Consensual sex, but woman is a mother of 2 older kids, and breadwinner. Her last two pregnancies were problematic and forced her to be bedridden for a few months before and after birth, but times were different then, because husband was working. But today, several months without the mother's income, and the family would suffer. Do you force her to give birth? By the way, this type of scenario is likely more common than the woman getting her 10th abortion, as about half of all women seeking an abortion in America already is a mother.

Point is, once there are margins you allow, the gray area becomes undefinable. It's already that in the case of a woman's health. Is it a high percentage of problems? Or actual imminent problems that if doctors don't act now, the mother's life is in danger? Most doctors read the laws as imminent, as seen in this case. A 10 year old girl has a high probability of pregnancy complications, but her life wasn't in imminent danger at the time she sought an abortion in Ohio. So they refused.

That's why there should be no gray area at all. Allow the decision to be the woman's, along with her doctor(s), and anyone else she wishes to consult. And work on reducing unwanted pregnancies, so less women are ever put in a decision to need to choose.

 

You gals gave us Biden... nuff said. Lol...

 

If you forced me to pick all or nothing, I would say no abortions.

This is why you shouldn't call people out for compromising. Not all abortions are equally wrong. It's part of the job of policy makers to draw the lines.

 

So if you make rape exceptions, what level of proof should be required? Just an admission from the woman? A police report? An arrest? Conviction?

The problem with lines like this is they are never clear. They are always blurred. What happens to the woman who claims rape and later it was found out she was lying? Do you go after the abortion providers for performing an illegal abortion? Should we really put the onus on the doctors to prove whether or not a woman was raped? Their advanced degree is in medicine, not forensics, and crime investigation is not part of their job duty.

So, if you are left with making no exceptions, are you comfortable with this 10-year old being forced to give birth?

 

This story has left me aghast.
It obviously hit the news over here. Can't help but think if this had been reported in the Middle East, people would have been calling for 'Regime Change'.

Absolutely reprehensible - no justification on any level.

 

No, but you removed compromise from the equation and forced me to pick an extreme. I'd rather pick the optimal middle ground solution, but if you take that away from me, this is the lesser evil.

 

To put this in context, it's an under 3 hour drive from Columbus, OH to Indianapolis, IN. I don't like the law as written, and I have no idea if the people will support the law as written going forward in light of considering this particular case. That said, it's not like she didn't have a reasonable option available to her.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS