And she could very well have died in labor, along with the baby. Of course, to Republicans, that'd be two people they'd get to feel superior to.
AT TEN FUCKING YEARS OLD.
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion
- Thread starter Piscian
- Start date
They really didn't. WaPo literally stated that it was basically impossible to fact check but the provenance of the story didn't matter, it was a "fact" regardless of whether or not it actually happened.
A rapist was charged, and where exactly this had allegedly happened was made public yesterday. WaPo updated their fact check at July 13, 2022 at 1:27 p.m. EDT to add that someone was arrested. Prior to that point there was literally nothing to go on other than what Bernard said.Washington Post Fact Check said:
Right, marriage is a contract between two people and the state (or at some places and points in history whatever the prevailing social structure was)/society, and potentially a religious institution as well. At least in the US. In some places it can between more than two people, for example.
From Lumen Learning's Intro to Sociology text, created in conjunction with SUNY: "What is marriage? Different people define it in different ways. Not even sociologists are able to agree on a single meaning. For our purposes, we’ll define marriage as a legally recognized social contract between two people, traditionally based on a sexual relationship and implying a permanence of the union."
Another intro-level text: "In most societies, a marriage is considered a permanent social and legal contract and relationship between two people that is based on mutual rights and obligations among the spouses. A marriage is often based on a romantic relationship, though this is not always the case. But regardless, it typically signals a sexual relationship between two people. A marriage, however, does not simply exist between the married partners, but rather, is codified as a social institution in legal, economic, social, and spiritual/religious ways."
It's not hard to find sources all over the place describing marriage as a "social contract", because that's what it is - a contract codifying the relationship between two people in the eyes of the state and society.
The history of marriage and how that social contract functions differently in different places and times is irrelevant, since in context we're talking about marriage as it stood in the early 1970s in the US (the topic literally came up in reference to spousal rape being legal at the same time Roe v Wade was decided). In that context, spousal rape was legal specifically because presumed sexual consent was considered to be part of the institution of marriage, and thus no sex between spouses could be non-consensual. Again, it's a stupid view of things and I'm glad it's no longer the way things work.
...and yet we maintain the mechanism in place to do it. And legally mandate it be done, and since actually charging people under that law and assessing the quarter million dollar fine and 6 years in prison is so painfully unpopular instead of directly enforcing it we have a cavalcade of other laws making proof of registration a prerequisite for other things, if male. Basically cutting benefits, opportunities and rights for failing to register if male via a web of federal and state laws.
EDIT: WEIRD, something about the sentence about the 2021 appropriations bill is blocking the post.
Irrelevant, if we're talking about the concern being bodily autonomy rather than medical efficacy (unless you believe bodily autonomy descends from medical efficacy somehow?). You are still being prevented from having control over what goes on with your own body, having your self-ownership restricted. Also, virtually all surgery is dangerous or potentially harmful, as are all drugs (many have dangerous if rare side effects, and then there are potentially deadly allergic reactions as well as interactions).
Likewise, earlier in this thread having medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery done on infants was apparently not a violation of their bodily autonomy (only rarely done as an actual treatment for anything, not usually the best option even then, kills a hundred or so babies a year and maims a few more beyond the intended alterations), so I dunno exactly where you draw the lines.
Hypothetical scenario: Imagine artificial wombs exist and are approved for humans (they do exist but are in the earliest sorts of animal testing with fetal lambs ATM, one of the end goals is saving very premature births) and that transplant to such an artificial womb held a similar degree of risk to the mother as an abortion. Would you support banning abortion in that case, as the woman can control her own body (whether or not she is pregnant) to the same degree, so the only real difference is whether or not ending the pregnancy terminates the fetus?
Does this matter? (Other than to WaPo credibility, which I dont care about)
Like, this was going to happen. I just thought it might be August before it happened to some kid
I'd also note that I dont know how much documentation there should be on an abortion that could send child to jail
Members of the press tend to have networks of sources or insiders that aren't identified in the stories or to the public (for obvious reasons).
This can sometimes lead to abuse, fabrication, etc-- but in this case it didn't: we now confirmation that court documents, police statements etc have corroborated the story.
But the doubt isn't really about actual scepticism. Because this is how countless stories are reported (including the true ones, day-to-day) and they go by without uproar, because it's accepted as a borderline necessity for a functioning press. This specific story got the huge "doubt" treatment because of the subject matter. And it turns out the story was true.
I thought this story broke in the Indianapolis Star, if I'm correct.
So, taking what you said here: Why would the family etc talk or give confirmation to WaPo? Fox? Anyone else other than the Star? (Sub in the correct newspaper if it wasn't the Star.)
Just because the big news outlets couldn't immediately verify something, doesn't mean it was unverifiable.
I could imagine there was at least one person in a newsroom shouting, 'They talked to the Star and not to us? We're big X named brand who is way more important! We have more journalistic integrity so they must be lying' I.e. Ego drove some of this nonsense
Fucking incompetent bullies.
What absolute qunts.
"We're gathering the evidence as we speak, and we're going to fight this to the end, including looking at her licensure," Rokita told Fox News.
"If she failed to report it in Indiana, it's a crime for — to not report, to intentionally not report."
In a statement, Rokita said the Indiana Department of Child Services had produced no records of a report.
But hours later, local television station FOX59 obtained the report, which had been filed on time by Bernard.
Bernard reported the abortion two days after it took place, within the timeframe required under Indiana law.
Bernard also reported the child suffered abuse.
Because of the subject matter, or perhaps more specifically, because the right wing wants a target to harass (or worse).
Goddamn, all these fuckers trying to smear everybody involved in the case of a 10 year old rape victim.
What *won't* they lie about?
EDIT: anyway, more WTF news
And Texas suing for the state's right to deny abortions in medical emergencies
Last edited:
This isn't incompetence; this is a direct attack. She made them look bad and they want to make an example of her, so that the next time some pre-teen girl gets raped and ends up pregnant, she dies in childbirth like God intended.
And Republicans are doing their damnedest to squelch all of this and tell us that all the worst-case scenarios we've been afraid of "would never happen" as they're happening.
I mean, if you're claiming to be honest you've just kind of told on yourself.
Because you can't go around claiming to be reasonable, claiming that the things you believe are reasonable, if you also believe that thinking deeply about those things is stupid.
Admitting to being anti-intellectual is, in the eyes of anyone who values reason or seeks good faith discussion, one of the biggest self-owns possible. It is an admission of intellectual incuriosity. I don't like to call people stupid because I don't think most people are, and as someone with too much education it bothers me to see people described as stupid because they're undereducated. However, being uninterested in knowing or understanding anything, being ideologically committed to oversimplified and wrong explanations of the world, is pretty goddamn stupid.
Well, that's nice. We agree that the personhood discussion doesn't matter. Now we're getting somewhere.
So why do you think it should be illegal to kill a human?
If you don't believe it matters whether a human is a person, what is it about a human that entitles them not to be killed? What quality do all humans possess that makes their lives valuable? In what circumstances does it becomes acceptable to kill a human, and what qualitatively is different about a human whom it is not wrong to kill?
I don't expect a serious answer, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated.
What is it about your Christian moral system that makes it opposed to hedonism?
What is it about your Christian moral system that makes it better than hedonism.
As amused as I am by the insinuation, I'm not actually an ethical hedonist, at least not in any kind of restrictive sense. However, I do know why I'm not an ethical hedonist. Do you?
See, this is funny because it indicates a failure to understand the basic premise of ethics.
When you say that it should be illegal to kill a human irrespective of its mental development, there are two possible conclusions. The first is that you believe this for absolutely no reason, like you wrote some possible statements on a card and drew some randomly out of a hat and decided you would believe the ones you drew. The second and more likely one is that you believe that killing a human is wrong, and that there is a fundamental similarity in ethical value between killing a fetus and killing an adult and a fundamental difference between killing an adult cow and killing an adult human.
And there is no way you can ground that argument in any kind of "objective standards". It is, whether you like it or not, a statement of your personal beliefs. What you seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp is that your personal beliefs do not have to be meaningless. Subjective observartions can be imbued with a kind of universal meaning through the exercise of reason. All you have to do is to actually use that reason.
I dont think that's the important question related to that quote
The important question is why is trsorm lying
Why do you kick puppies?
The sweet irony here is that your understanding of this is an oversimplified and wrong explanation of the world. The virtue of understanding and education depends on the source of information, and intellectualism refers to the practice of seeking truth through thought, potentially at the expense of personal or empirical experience. It is not a mark of curiosity for the intellectualist to spend their time trying to think through problems in an ivory tower.
A recent (admittedly super biased) analysis of the Biden administrations top officials found the median time spent in the business sector was 0 years. More than half of the people at the top of the current administration have spent their entire adult lives working in education or government. Their experience over the things they are regulating is entirely theory, with no personal connection at all. There is a word for things that are solely the product of the human mind, that word is fiction.
This is not to dismiss the value in thinking through and theorizing concepts, but those theories need to be tied back to reality by something, and I have not hesitance throwing scorn at those with the hubris to think that their ideas have value in and of themselves without empirical basis.
Simply because I am one. Nothing more, nothing less.
Say you and the rest of your community found itself on or orbiting another planet for some reason, and that planet had a wealth of different lifeforms; presumably there are some things that could be on that planet that you would consider morally to be like trees or lichen or grass on Earth; relatively disposable, worthy of consideration as instruments or resources or something of that nature-- but crucially, not as things or persons that have rights. And there is the possibility that there would also be lifeforms that you would think of, morally, like human beings-- more or less or maybe even perfectly. What would distinguish the two? Or am I mistaken in that second assumption and Marvin the Martian is something you would regard as a disposable thing?
https://www.newsweek.com/gop-push-n...er-calling-it-state-issue-republicans-1724909
They didn't even manage to keep up the facade for a month, what a bunch of clowns.
They didn't even manage to keep up the facade for a month, what a bunch of clowns.
There is no quality on which I would be trying to extend human rights to another species. Marvin the Martian would have to assert his own rights.