Republicans seeking to criminally charge doctor who provided abortion to 10-year old rape victim.

[RamsayBolton]

Doctor who treated 10-year-old rape victim to be investigated by Indiana AG

‘We’re gathering the evidence as we speak’ Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita told Fox News’ Jesse Watters this week

www.independent.co.uk

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita says his office plans to investigate a doctor who provided care for a 10-year-old rape victim who crossed state lines to have an abortion.

An obstetrician-gynecologist in Indiana, told news outlets earlier this month that she was contacted by a colleague in Ohio seeking help for their 10-year-old patient three days after the state banned abortion in the wake of the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision.

The girl was six weeks and three days pregnant, according to Dr Bernard. Ohio’s “fetal heartbeat” law – enacted in the hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling to end the constitutional right to abortion care on 24 June – outlaws abortions at roughly six weeks of pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Police were alerted to a referral from Franklin County Children Services made by the girl’s mother on 22 June, according to testimony during Fuentes’ arraignment on 13 July as reported by the Columbus Dispatch.

On 30 June, the girl received an abortion in Indianapolis, Indiana. Abortion is banned in Indiana after 22 weeks of pregnancy, with some exceptions for medical emergencies.

The 10 year old was raped in a republican state where abortion is now banned (Ohio). She went out of state to where her abortion wouldn't be banned (Indiana) and now the Indiana AG, being a republican, wants to go after the doctor.

Do I really even need to say it? Republicans and Fox News are pure evil, and they are dragging this country to hell.

 

[Tair]

The republican party is the party of demons.

 

[RadaMillz]

I'm pro life but there are certain times when abortion is common sense

rape
when mothers health at risk
deformed fetus

 

[StretfordRed]

I believe she was raped (statutory?) by an illegal immigrant too.

Republicans straight up care more for abortion rights than rape/ illegal immigration. Must have been hard for them lol

Edit* for clarification, the “statutory?” Addition is due to my lack of understanding of the criminal charge and not a morality issue.

 

[Luke Cage]

Not gonna win many swing votes with this, even a lot pro lifers i know are like yeah, this aint it.

 

[bnew]

I'm pro life but there are certain times when abortion is common sense

rape
when mothers health at risk
deformed fetus

wouldn't it be common sense to not have kids you can't afford or intend to neglect since you were made to have them against your will?

 

[bnew]

Not gonna win many swing votes with this, even a lot pro lifers i know are like yeah, this aint it.

zealots don't understand nuance.

 

[Luke Cage]

Dude impregnates her against her will. Is called a rapist.
Republican's try to force her to have a baby against her will, nobody calls them rapists though.
Same thing imo

 

[bnew]

Dude impregnates her against her will. Is called a rapist.
Republican's try to force her to have a baby against her will, nobody calls them rapists though.
Same thing imo

aiding and abetting.

accessory/accomplice after the fact

 

[Rekkapryde]

I'm pro life but there are certain times when abortion is common sense

rape
when mothers health at risk
deformed fetus

negged for common sense.

 

[Reflected]

I'm pro life but there are certain times when abortion is common sense

rape
when mothers health at risk
deformed fetus

How do you square killing the fetus under those conditions but not in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy?

Really think this thing through, why does the mother's health matter? Why does rape matter? Why does it being deformed matter? At the end of all of these events you are still killing the fetus.

Let's take the rape condition. Why does it matter there? Do you care about the mental state of the mother who has been raped and are prioritizing it over the life of the fetus? If so, how do you quantify the justified mental state to make this abortion moral? And what if the hypothetical quantified mental state of the mother is equivalent to that of a mother that fears bringing a child into a dangerous situation? Why isn't the mother in the latter example justified in getting an abortion?


On the health risk, are you implying that the mother's health should take priority over the life of the fetus? And why is that? What traits of the mother justify killing the fetus to preserve her life? And where do you draw the line on health risks, do they have to be potentially fatal? What if a health risk will lead to chronic issues for the mother, is she not justified in aborting in that instance?

On deformity, on what grounds does a deformity constitute an abortion as morally right? If the deformity doesn't impair basic living, why would it be moral to abort the fetus in that situation? Or in any situation involving a deformity? Are you taking into consideration the potential wellbeing of the fetus and making the conclusion that an abortion would spare the future child of any major suffering? What if a child is guaranteed to grow up in an unsafe environment and will be likely to suffer at an equivalent to that of what it would have suffered with a deformity, is abortion justified there?


Keeping this as short as possible, but I have three categories there and questions within them, I see logic similar to yours often, I'm wondering what your response is to these questions.

 

[Rozay Oro]

fukk cacs playing self righteous all the time with a closet of skeletons

 

[Luke Cage]

How do you square killing the fetus under those conditions but not in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy?

Really think this thing through, why does the mother's health matter? Why does rape matter? Why does it being deformed matter? At the end of all of these events you are still killing the fetus.

Let's take the rape condition. Why does it matter there? Do you care about the mental state of the mother who has been raped and are prioritizing it over the life of the fetus? If so, how do you quantify the justified mental state to make this abortion moral? And what if the hypothetical quantified mental state of the mother is equivalent to that of a mother that fears bringing a child into a dangerous situation? Why isn't the mother in the latter example justified in getting an abortion?


On the health risk, are you implying that the mother's health should take priority over the life of the fetus? And why is that? What traits of the mother justify killing the fetus to preserve her life? And where do you draw the line on health risks, do they have to be potentially fatal? What if a health risk will lead to chronic issues for the mother, is she not justified in aborting in that instance?

On deformity, on what grounds does a deformity constitute an abortion as morally right? If the deformity doesn't impair basic living, why would it be moral to abort the fetus in that situation? Or in any situation involving a deformity? Are you taking into consideration the potential wellbeing of the fetus and making the conclusion that an abortion would spare the future child of any major suffering? What if a child is guaranteed to grow up in an unsafe environment and will be likely to suffer at an equivalent to that of what it would have suffered with a deformity, is abortion justified there?


Keeping this as short as possible, but I have three categories there and questions within them, I see logic similar to yours often, I'm wondering what your response is to these questions.

I think the main thing these all have in common is that they are all out of the mothers control.
Most other cases are preventable if you are just responsible with your body.

You seem to think there can't be nuance when it comes to death, but there is. Most people think it's ok to kill an animal for food for example. But it's frowned upon (by most) to just kill them for fun for example.

 

[3rdWorld]

Republicans are going to reverse the trend of more people moving to the South..those States will chase away the youth and discourage people from moving their.

 

[Reflected]

I think the main thing these all have in common is that they are all out of the mothers control.
Most other cases are preventable if you are just responsible with your body.

You seem to think there can't be nuance when it comes to death, but there is. Most people think it's ok to kill an animal for food for example. But it's frowned upon (by most) to just kill them for fun for example.

I would like an answer to those questions because they get down to the priors, it is only from there that we can attempt to establish any form of consistency. All of those question should be answered by anyone taking the hardstand of pro-life or pro-choice, else they have not thought this through properly, and you can see how ridiculous it would be to take a hard stance on that topic and even promote legislation when something as simple as a hypothetical questioning their consistency is enough to break their position.



And on my "inability" to decipher nuance in death, that's entirely up to the philosophical approach of an individual. But there is an irony in that you question my inability to recognize nuance in death but fail to consider the nuance of "control". I'm a determinist, my opinion on what is controllable by an agent is likely the polar opposite of you. What is your view on free will, libertarian, compatibilist, or determinist?