• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court effectively denies 10 year old rape victim an abortion

Luckyone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
19,310
Reaction score
7,580
Location
Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1. Article is garbage. Barely talks about the 10 year old,and gives no context of her circumstances. Also, funny how there is no mention of the rapist. It's almost like it's a made up story!

2. She can carry the child to term, and put it up for adoption. Problem solved.
Wow, what a rotten solution. Forcing a 10-year old to go through the pregnancy and all the mental anguish that brings, then put her through the mental anguish of putting the child for adoption, and then putting the child in the hands of others that are not his real parents, and then last but not lease how does this insure the mental health of all involved?

For what? to not hurt a fetus?

As a side issue. It has been estimated that about 63 million abortions have occurred since Roe vs Wade was passed. How has that affected the U.S. in any way? Why would preventing one more abortion from occurring help anyone?
 
Last edited:

j brown's body

Cheese eating surrender monkey
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
31,398
Reaction score
23,377
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Wow, what a rotten solution. Forcing a 10-year old to go through the pregnancy and all the mental anguish that brings, then put her through the mental anguish of putting the child for adoption, and then putting the child in the hands of others that are not his real parents, and then last but not lease how does this insure the mental health of all involved?

For what? to not hurt a fetus?

As a side issue. It has been estimated that about 63 million abortions have occurred since Roe vs Wade was passed. How has that affected the U.S. in any way. Why would preventing one more abortion from occurring held anyone?

It's a piece of cake, for him.
 

Xanderman

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2022
Messages
193
Reaction score
168
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
You could have had a law passed years ago and you continue denying this fact.
Not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp, but Roe was SETTLED LAW, and this was challenged over and over and withstood all challenges which is why Trump's religious nutjobs lied under oath and said they accepted it. Why pass a law for something that's already law? And you're wrong about how the democrats could have done it. They've never had complete control, and Manchin and others are against abortion.
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
67,677
Reaction score
47,538
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah.....blame the court for not making up a non Constitutional law out of thin air.

Why didn't Democrats codify Roe when they had the chance with FOCA?
this is how Fox is spinning it.
 

Xanderman

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2022
Messages
193
Reaction score
168
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Then again............... your party could have codified Roe and this wouldn't be a issue.

Only yourselves to blame.
This is pathetically trying to give your anti-American, Theocratic party a pass for effectively murdering grown women and forcing children through hell. "Pro-life" my ass. Now that your works are already bearing fruit, you're trying to blame anyone but the people responsible for it. Par for the course for any idiot who has an "I did that" graphic for his moniker.
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
67,677
Reaction score
47,538
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
here's the deal.

a republican's mom, wife, sister, daughter, granddaughter, great granddaughter or friend is gonna need an abortion for whatever reason and won't be able to get it in their state.

the republican, who voted in all this nonsense, becomes the bad guy REALLY fast (as their family/extended family/in-laws either quickly or slowly stops associating with them).
 

Xanderman

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2022
Messages
193
Reaction score
168
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
OH...... you never met one..........................big whoooop!

Are you denying abortion extremists now?

You should really consider educating yourself on the issues. You come across as a complete moron the way you regurgitate the talking points from FOX and Brietbart.

The fact is late term abortion was already illegal in many states, and the type of abortions you folks love to shed alligator tears over rarely or never happen. And if and when they do happen it is only because of an emergency medical issue. The fact is you have no idea why abortions actually happen after the first trimester. They're almost always the result of medical problems with the fetus of some sort. This scenario you envision of millions of immoral women getting pregnant willingly and then waiting until the third trimester to have an abortion for the sake of "convenience" is a complete lie you folks invent just to justify your idiotic tyrannical views.
 

Luckyone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
19,310
Reaction score
7,580
Location
Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
BS

You had Democrats deciding against the bill because the radicals in your own party ruined it for you.

Your party could have had the vote.

“I’m firmly pro-choice for the first three months of pregnancy,” Democratic congressman Paul McHale of Pennsylvania told CQ. “But I have a great deal of difficulty as a matter of conscience accepting elective termination [of pregnancy] at that last stage in the gestational process.”

Matthew Yglesias claimed today on Twitter that without scrapping the Senate filibuster, Democrats would have had no hope of codifying Roe at that time. But a close look shows that there were in fact 60 senators who supported a nationwide right to abortion back then.

From April 2009 to January 2011, Democrats held either 59 or 60 Senate seats. In 2009, every Senate Democrat, with the exceptions of Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, supported a right to abortion. Democrats in other conservative states, including Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, had voted in favor of a resolution expressing support for Roe in 1999.* Harry Reid had voted against that resolution but subsequently made his peace with progressives in order to become majority leader. Democratic senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas said of his position on abortion that he was “somewhere … in the middle of that issue.” Even if Pryor, Nelson, and Casey had defected on an abortion vote, there were three Republican senators who supported Roe: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Their votes would have gotten some federal abortion bill the 60 votes it needed to overcome a Senate filibuster. (Another pro-Roe Republican, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, filled the Senate seat formerly held by Democrat Ted Kennedy in January of 2010.)
The Supreme Court should never change a previously established law without new information. There has been no new information..........just a change of OPINION because more right-wingers got into Supreme power.
 

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
11,782
Reaction score
6,359
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Xanderman

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2022
Messages
193
Reaction score
168
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The Supreme Court should never change a previously established law without new information. There has been no new information..........just a change of OPINION because more right-wingers got into Supreme power.

And their reign of tyranny is only beginning. Next on the chopping block is marriage equality and gay rights.

Because ... "God" or something.
 

FreeStorm84

Individualist
Joined
Jul 3, 2022
Messages
172
Reaction score
178
Gender
Male
I though having sex was a decision too?

What about the sperm donor?

Makes no sense.
What are you having trouble with? In spite of ridiculous claims to the contrary by the woke mob, men don't carry the unborn in their bodies. You don't get to decide what a woman does with hers.
 

j brown's body

Cheese eating surrender monkey
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
31,398
Reaction score
23,377
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The Supreme Court should never change a previously established law without new information. There has been no new information..........just a change of OPINION because more right-wingers got into Supreme power.

Abortion violates their religious beliefs. It's just that simple.
 

The Old Soul

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
878
Location
PHX
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
2. She can carry the child to term, and put it up for adoption. Problem solved.
The dangers are both mental and physical for girls that young; the results are horrific, considering what probably took place to cause the pregnancy - developing girls may be in labor for days; many do die. Their babies often don't survive labor either. Girls who do survive often develop fistulas, from the baby's head pushing down and getting stuck, cutting portions of the mother's soft tissue between its skull and her pelvic bones. As a result, the tissue dies, and a hole forms. Feces and urine then leak through the hole and out of the vagina. The younger the girl, the higher risk.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
52,132
Reaction score
14,277
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1. Article is garbage. Barely talks about the 10 year old,and gives no context of her circumstances. Also, funny how there is no mention of the rapist. It's almost like it's a made up story!

2. She can carry the child to term, and put it up for adoption. Problem solved.

There is absolutely NO reason why a TEN year old RAPE victim should be forced to have a child.

Period.

End of story.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
52,132
Reaction score
14,277
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
While I am pro-choice I tire of using lies (IMHO) and deceit as a form of debate. The Supreme court has not denied an abortion to anyone. It left it to each state to decide how to handle the issue.

Start from there, point to states that would deny the child an abortion and we can have an honest debate.

Literally Ohio.


And yes, the Supreme Court absolutely has, because it made a ruling based entirely on Conservative Christian religious “principles”(if you can even call them that).
 

JMB802

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
8,514
Reaction score
8,055
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
And their reign of tyranny is only beginning. Next on the chopping block is marriage equality and gay rights.

Because ... "God" or something.
I was reminded in another forum how just 50 years ago, women were denied financial equality. And even though they individually qualified for loans or accounts on paper, they often needed a father or spouse to cosign the agreement.

Introduced in House (05/29/1973) Equal Credit Opportunity Act - Prohibits discrimination by any creditor, card issuer or other person against any person on account of sex or marital status in connection with approval or denial of credit.

The court has already given states the right to do away with women's medical privacy, what is stopping them from eroding financial independence as well?




 
Last edited:

RedFishBlueFish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
1,678
Reaction score
1,881
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is the kind of disgrace this horrific SCOTUS has left us with. I defy even the most fervent right to life advocates to justify this.

Kristi Noem was on CNN this morning. Dana Bash questioned her about this situation.

Noem danced around and deflected. Her first response was to talk about the pervert who raped the 10 year old and how something needed to be done about people like that. Then she said over and over every single life is precious. Since South Dakota's law doesn't have exceptions for rape or incest, Bash asked Noem if she would work for exceptions in cases like that of the 10 year old. Noem didn't answer directly saying only that tragic situations shouldn't be followed by another tragedy Bash pushed forward and said that likely a pregnant 10 year old's life would be threatened by the pregnancy. Here Noem said that would be up to the doctor and then went on to say that every state's laws are different and represent the will of their voters. Noem would not say if she would support a national ban on abortion.

I guess Noem gets some credit for volunteering for a Dana Bash interview, knowing it would be direct and persistent. And she was pretty good at dodging the questions. She gets a "F" however, for not answering the questions asked.
 

LetsGoBrandon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
35,171
Reaction score
9,057
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Some Democrats are cro-magnons too.

Just look at Manchin and Sinema.
You should be kissing their butts. At least so far, they have saved the Democrat party from itself.
 

LetsGoBrandon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
35,171
Reaction score
9,057
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Then again............... your party could have codified Roe and this wouldn't be a issue.

Only yourselves to blame.
It's Karma coming back on the democrats. They had all the time in the world to codify it and didn't. Their intention all along was for Roe V Wade to remain at some level of perceived jeopardy, so they could use it as a litmus test for conservatives nominated to the SCOTUS and they could fund raise off of it. It Roe V Wade was permanently on solid ground, their only other issues would be LBGTQ and tax the rich.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
37,411
Reaction score
26,426
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal

The Old Soul

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
878
Location
PHX
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
It's Karma coming back on the democrats. They had all the time in the world to codify it and didn't. Their intention all along was for Roe V Wade to remain at some level of perceived jeopardy, so they could use it as a litmus test for conservatives nominated to the SCOTUS and they could fund raise off of it. It Roe V Wade was permanently on solid ground, their only other issues would be LBGTQ and tax the rich.
RvW stood for 50 years - why dredge up battles and tack laws (codify) on something that is working fine?
Americans were sucker punched by the politicization of the SC and the 3 recent Justices; they all new how they would vote on RvW, but led (misled) everyone they would let (precedent settled law) stand.

It was a dirty trick.
 

FurriesRock

Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2022
Messages
660
Reaction score
216
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
There is absolutely NO reason why a TEN year old RAPE victim should be forced to have a child.

Period.

End of story.
That's a nice opinion, but it's morally bankrupt and false.
 

FurriesRock

Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2022
Messages
660
Reaction score
216
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
RvW stood for 50 years - why dredge up battles and tack laws (codify) on something that is working fine?
Americans were sucker punched by the politicization of the SC and the 3 recent Justices; they all new how they would vote on RvW, but led (misled) everyone they would let (precedent settled law) stand.

It was a dirty trick.
There is no such thing as settled law.

Get over it, you lost.
 

Jack2aTee

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
1,413
Reaction score
822
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
1. Article is garbage. Barely talks about the 10 year old,and gives no context of her circumstances. Also, funny how there is no mention of the rapist. It's almost like it's a made up story!

2. She can carry the child to term, and put it up for adoption. Problem solved.
How does a 10 YO child carry a g*ddamed baby to term?????? Just giving birth would split her in two.
 

Jack2aTee

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
1,413
Reaction score
822
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RvW stood for 50 years - why dredge up battles and tack laws (codify) on something that is working fine?
Americans were sucker punched by the politicization of the SC and the 3 recent Justices; they all new how they would vote on RvW, but led (misled) everyone they would let (precedent settled law) stand.

It was a dirty trick.
And they really should be impeached and thrown off the bench for that deception. Why the Dems aren't taking steps I have no idea.
 
Top Bottom