10 Year-Old Rape Victim Denied Abortion In Ohio

FlickShagwell

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 16, 2003
39,754
64,757
113
Omaha, NE
FWsM_FkWIAYZHPR
 

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
93,518
118,694
113
I hope some of you on the right understand that the next thing will be criminalizing having an abortion. Just like I was told Roe would never be overturned, I’m now being reassured that no DA would ever charge a woman with a crime even though it’s being written into law around the country. It’s going to happen. 1. So some DA can make a name for themselves and become a senator. 2. Zealots.
In some future GOP Hellscape of the US, this 10 year old girl will be charged with murder. Reassure me that this won’t happen.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
120,879
112,979
113
If you don't charge the boy with rape, the 10 year old can't have a abortion. That's going to explicitly be a law I bet.

Yep

That or "convict", so they cannot get an abortion unless there is a conviction.

By that time, we all know the outcome...
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
120,879
112,979
113
Perhaps this is the civil disobedience we need.

Figure out the things random people "won't sell" due to their faith.

Have people at a store constantly adding in "that one thing" the regular employee won't sell. MAKE the managers keep walking back to the checkout EVERY TIME. Tie up the store line for everyone else with them waiting for "the manger" to keep coming back. Time is so as soon as the manager goes back to the office, he has to keep coming back out. And LOUDLY proclaim that this wouldn't be happening if people didn't impose THEIR religious beliefs on OUR decisions....

And just maybe, stores will start paying people less if they refuse to dispense certain items; they cannot fire you, but JUST LIKE any other job, where "capabilities" are related to compensation: you get $15/hr if you can dispense anything, you get $7.50/hr if you refuse to dispense ANYTHING on the premise of your religious beliefs.

Let the Free Markets sort that one out.
 

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,356
1,542
113
Called out for being wrong. Changes claim. BAU

You do know some women don’t know they are pregnant at 6 weeks and …. she’s a ****ing 10 year old girl.
You DO know no one can ACTUALLY verify this story right? And if the girl WAS raped, she would have had pregnancy test done. The story doesn't add up, sorry dude keep making up excuses that don't work.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,356
1,542
113
A 10-yr old is, by definition, raped.
Because a 10 yr old cannot give "consent".

Good Lord.
Hey idiot bag, because she is 10 years old the freaking newspaper can't release her name or the family. It can't be verified. I didn't say the rape can't be verified dumbass.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,811
15,551
113
You DO know no one can ACTUALLY verify this story right? And if the girl WAS raped, she would have had pregnancy test done. The story doesn't add up, sorry dude keep making up excuses that don't work.

Hey idiot bag, because she is 10 years old the freaking newspaper can't release her name or the family. It can't be verified. I didn't say the rape can't be verified dumbass.

This is a really weird hill to die on. You’re now saying the newspaper, who interviewed and quoted several people in the article on this - who have since given interviews elsewhere, made up the entire story solely because the newspaper rightfully won’t ID the 10 year old girl.
 

St. Louis Hawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
27,254
49,042
113
This is a really weird hill to die on. You’re now saying the newspaper, who interviewed and quoted several people in the article on this - who have since given interviews elsewhere, made up the entire story solely because the newspaper rightfully won’t ID the 10 year old girl.

And he's confused about whether a pregnant 10 year old has been raped ...
 

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,356
1,542
113
This is a really weird hill to die on. You’re now saying the newspaper, who interviewed and quoted several people in the article on this - who have since given interviews elsewhere, made up the entire story solely because the newspaper rightfully won’t ID the 10 year old girl.
Let's break this down because there's a lot of people who just simply are taking this story at face value and not doing any critical thinking. You said the newspaper interviewed and quoted several (and then they have done so elsewhere, where?). The information about the 10 year old in the article was the following:

"Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.

Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant."

That's it, dude. Nothing more in the article. No detail whatsoever about this rape. When was it reported? Did the girl know that she was pregnant since it happened? Was the girl thinking about keeping the baby? NOTHING. Just suddenly she was 3 days over the deadline for rape in Ohio. And you people don't think there was a narrative here? Total suckers.

SC Leak happened May 2, 2022
SC Decision happened June 24, 2022
This article published July 1, 2022

Based on this timeline, this girl was raped AFTER the SC leak, with her parents knowing full well that RvW was going to be overturned, yet somehow waited until after June 24 to make up their minds? It's not a hill to die on, it's called being very skeptical of what media publishes.

And he's confused about whether a pregnant 10 year old has been raped ...
And this is just plan dumb.
I never was confused if she was raped or not. I said the story can't be verified which is 100% accurate. Get it right dude.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

ConvenientParking

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2016
25,232
31,292
113
Let's break this down because there's a lot of people who just simply are taking this story at face value and not doing any critical thinking. You said the newspaper interviewed and quoted several (and then they have done so elsewhere, where?). The information about the 10 year old in the article was the following:

"Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.

Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant."

That's it, dude. Nothing more in the article. No detail whatsoever about this rape. When was it reported? Did the girl know that she was pregnant since it happened? Was the girl thinking about keeping the baby? NOTHING. Just suddenly she was 3 days over the deadline for rape in Ohio. And you people don't think there was a narrative here? Total suckers.

SC Leak happened May 2, 2022
SC Decision happened June 24, 2022
This article published July 1, 2022

Based on this timeline, this girl was raped AFTER the SC leak, with her parents knowing full well that RvW was going to be overturned, yet somehow waited until after June 24 to make up their minds? It's not a hill to die on, it's called being very skeptical of what media publishes.


And this is just plan dumb.
I never was confused if she was raped or not. I said the story can't be verified which is 100% accurate. Get it right dude.

So this very predictable outcome is evidence of media or political effery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sober_teacher

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,811
15,551
113
Let's break this down because there's a lot of people who just simply are taking this story at face value and not doing any critical thinking. You said the newspaper interviewed and quoted several (and then they have done so elsewhere, where?). The information about the 10 year old in the article was the following:

"Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.

Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant."

That's it, dude. Nothing more in the article. No detail whatsoever about this rape. When was it reported? Did the girl know that she was pregnant since it happened? Was the girl thinking about keeping the baby? NOTHING. Just suddenly she was 3 days over the deadline for rape in Ohio. And you people don't think there was a narrative here? Total suckers.

SC Leak happened May 2, 2022
SC Decision happened June 24, 2022
This article published July 1, 2022

Based on this timeline, this girl was raped AFTER the SC leak, with her parents knowing full well that RvW was going to be overturned, yet somehow waited until after June 24 to make up their minds? It's not a hill to die on, it's called being very skeptical of what media publishes.


And this is just plan dumb.
I never was confused if she was raped or not. I said the story can't be verified which is 100% accurate. Get it right dude.

For your timeline, you don’t think there’s the possibility that just maybe, there’s a delay between the rape itself and when either a) the kid told the parent what happened b) the parents and kid realized she was pregnant? We know from the church pedo scandal that kids don’t automatically run to mom and dad and tell them what happened, tragically.

You’re otherwise questioning the story because it doesn’t fit your narrative. Tragically, we know stuff like this has happened before so you questioning the story doesn’t even disprove the larger point like you think it does.
 

BanjoSaysWoof

HR MVP
Dec 2, 2017
1,393
2,899
113
Let's break this down because there's a lot of people who just simply are taking this story at face value and not doing any critical thinking. You said the newspaper interviewed and quoted several (and then they have done so elsewhere, where?). The information about the 10 year old in the article was the following:

"Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.

Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant."

That's it, dude. Nothing more in the article. No detail whatsoever about this rape. When was it reported? Did the girl know that she was pregnant since it happened? Was the girl thinking about keeping the baby? NOTHING. Just suddenly she was 3 days over the deadline for rape in Ohio. And you people don't think there was a narrative here? Total suckers.

SC Leak happened May 2, 2022
SC Decision happened June 24, 2022
This article published July 1, 2022

Based on this timeline, this girl was raped AFTER the SC leak, with her parents knowing full well that RvW was going to be overturned, yet somehow waited until after June 24 to make up their minds? It's not a hill to die on, it's called being very skeptical of what media publishes.


And this is just plan dumb.
I never was confused if she was raped or not. I said the story can't be verified which is 100% accurate. Get it right dude.

You lost me at “was the girl thinking of keeping the baby?”…. She’s 10!
 

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,356
1,542
113
For your timeline, you don’t think there’s the possibility that just maybe, there’s a delay between the rape itself and when either a) the kid told the parent what happened b) the parents and kid realized she was pregnant? We know from the church pedo scandal that kids don’t automatically run to mom and dad and tell them what happened, tragically.

You’re otherwise questioning the story because it doesn’t fit your narrative. Tragically, we know stuff like this has happened before so you questioning the story doesn’t even disprove the larger point like you think it does.
Which is more likely to happen, your scenario above, or the media publishing a narrative right after a major court case? Has nothing to do with my narrative and everything to do with thinking through what they are putting out to you.
 

ConvenientParking

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2016
25,232
31,292
113
Given what's happened in recent years? Seems strange that one wouldn't question everything that's published.
A journalist could have had a lot of this story written while anticipating the overturning of Roe v Wade just waiting for a pro choice advocate in medicine to get back to them to fill in the specific details (location, age, etc.) of this story waiting for it to happen. It's that predictable. No need to manufacture that story.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,811
15,551
113
Which is more likely to happen, your scenario above, or the media publishing a narrative right after a major court case? Has nothing to do with my narrative and everything to do with thinking through what they are putting out to you.

Yeah my narrative makes far more sense than yours where a news story was totally false. You have presented zero evidence to suggest the story is false.

You’re just asking “questions”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. Louis Hawk

St. Louis Hawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
27,254
49,042
113
And this is just plan dumb.
I never was confused if she was raped or not. I said the story can't be verified which is 100% accurate. Get it right dude.

You're right. This is just plan dumb. You're Captain Queeg with the strawberries.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the 10 year old wasn't aware she was pregnant and once aware, may have been scared to report it as it's most likely it was a family member.

I'll go further out on the limb by saying that her parents didn't know "full well that RvW was going to be overturned" as I'm guessing they don't read the SCOTUS Blog or subscribe to the Economist and the NYT.

But keep "asking questions" - you're a deep thinker.
 

Rifler

HR Legend
Jan 26, 2011
23,655
18,319
113
Now that this belongs to the states, voters will lobby their state legislatures to provide the laws they want,.. If legislators don't comply, they will be replaced,.. This will take some time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: your_master5

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,356
1,542
113
Yeah my narrative makes far more sense than yours where a news story was totally false. You have presented zero evidence to suggest the story is false.

You’re just asking “questions”.
Then that's your opinion and I would say it isn't a very good one to think your narrative is more likely to happen. I didn't say the story was totally false. I'm sure the girl was raped and is pregnant. Outside of that, you not questioning the 3 days after the six week cutoff is pretty telling considering the information the family had available.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,356
1,542
113
You're right. This is just plan dumb. You're Captain Queeg with the strawberries.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the 10 year old wasn't aware she was pregnant and once aware, may have been scared to report it as it's most likely it was a family member.

I'll go further out on the limb by saying that her parents didn't know "full well that RvW was going to be overturned" as I'm guessing they don't read the SCOTUS Blog or subscribe to the Economist and the NYT.

But keep "asking questions" - you're a deep thinker.
Thanks! I'm glad we agree! Both of your going out on a limb scenarios are possible, but highly unlikely. But you stick to it! Anyone with a brain knew on May 2nd from the headlines that RvW was likely to be overturned. You didn't need anything special to "figure it out".