***SCOTUS has ruled on Roe V Wade*** (newspaper, ethical, legal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
24,932 posts, read 13,279,166 times
Reputation: 10957
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Member1
I don't know if there was a heartbeat or not. I was just trying to reply to the heartbeat law reference you made in your previous post. Sorry for the confusion or if that wasn't clear.
Meh, you posted it as if it were a fact.
Quote:
In any event, Yost never specifically said that the heartbeat law would apply to the 10 year old girl. He first gave a general statement about Ohio's heartbeat law ("Ohio’s heartbeat law has a medical emergency exception broader than just the life of the mother."), then he said the girl could have sought treatment in Ohio ("This young girl, if she exists, and if this horrible thing actually happened to her — breaks my heart to think about it — she did not have to leave Ohio to find treatment.") Yost never specifically said, either in the Fox News interview or in the explainer he issued 2 days later, that the heartbeat law applied to the 10 year old girl specifically. Moreover, in the same Fox News interview, Yost denied that the 10 year old girl's rape case even existed at all. If that's the case, then how would he have known at the time whether this girl would have qualified under Ohio law for an abortion anyway? Therefore, I don't have to give a list of medical treatments that qualify under Ohio's heartbeat law, because Yost himself hasn't explicitly stated that the 10 year old girl would have qualified for an abortion under Ohio's heartbeat law, either. It's a moot point.
He was talking about the heartbeat law when he'd said she didn't have to go to another state.
As far as I know there are no medical treatments other than abortion that are governed by a heartbeat law.
Even though he'd been talking about the heartbeat law, you were the one to make it appear that he was speaking of some other type of medical "treatment". So no, my request is not moot, and it still stands...nice attempt to deflect on your part though.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
24,932 posts, read 13,279,166 times
Reputation: 10957
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge
To you, apparently not. But to me, it was. Heart activity and brain activity are both signs of life. I'm interested in knowing, as I thought you were, if there are any other laws regarding heart activity. I'm also interested in knowing, as I thought you might be, what the laws are regarding brain activity. Jo48 posted about the experience where her husband had no heartbeat, but had brain activity, and his life was saved. In a case where there is heart activity, but no brain activity, decisions be be made. I just wanted to know what the law is.
I certainly didn't mean to offend. It seems important to clarify if there is any consistency or inconsistency in the way the laws are written, interpreted, and executed.
1. Harvesting organs is not a "medical treatment".
2. After doing a quick online search for heartbeat laws, even "organ donation heartbeat laws", the only hits that come back were for abortion.
He was talking about the heartbeat law when he'd said she didn't have to go to another state.
As far as I know there are no medical treatments other than abortion that are governed by a heartbeat law.
Even though he'd been talking about the heartbeat law, you were the one to make it appear that he was speaking of some other type of medical "treatment". So no, my request is not moot, and it still stands...nice attempt to deflect on your part though.
In the Fox News interview, Yost had no details about the girl's case, even denied her case's existence. So, how would he have known whether the girl's case would have applied to the heartbeat law? And no, Yost has never explicitly said, either in the Fox News interview, or after the rape suspect was arrested, that the exceptions in Ohio's heartbeat law would have applied to the 10 year old girl. In fact, he has never said that the girl was entitled to an abortion in Ohio, just treatment.
Prove that he knew about it before she'd gone out of state?
Not what I'm saying - what I'm saying is that he made his announcement AFTER she had already gone out of state.
So he was saying she "could" have gotten an abortion (if she exists) but there was no need to put that theory to the test, as she had already gotten one out of state.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
24,932 posts, read 13,279,166 times
Reputation: 10957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Member1
In the Fox News interview, Yost had no details about the girl's case, even denied her case's existence. So, how would he have known whether the girl's case would have applied to the heartbeat law? And no, Yost has never explicitly said, either in the Fox News interview, or after the rape suspect was arrested, that the exceptions in Ohio's heartbeat law would have applied to the 10 year old girl.
No he did not say her case didn't exist. You've certainly been free and easy with twisting things that he'd said.
Quote:
"Every day that goes by the more likely that this is a fabrication. I know the cops and prosecutors in this state. There's not one of them that wouldn't be turning over every rock, looking for this guy and they would have charged him," he said. "I'm not saying it could not have happened. What I'm saying to you is there is not a damn scintilla of evidence. And shame on the Indianapolis paper that ran this thing on a single source who has an obvious axe to grind.""
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
24,932 posts, read 13,279,166 times
Reputation: 10957
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
Not what I'm saying - what I'm saying is that he made his announcement AFTER she had already gone out of state.
So he was saying she "could" have gotten an abortion (if she exists) but there was no need to put that theory to the test, as she had already gotten one out of state.
Would have been hard for him to say it before she'd gone out of state, since no one knew about it at that time.
He's on record of saying it as an AG. It may have an impact.
He was talking about the heartbeat law.
Abortion IS considered a treatment, a treatment which IS governed by the heartbeat law.
Quote:
"Every day that goes by the more likely that this is a fabrication. I know the cops and prosecutors in this state. There's not one of them that wouldn't be turning over every rock, looking for this guy and they would have charged him," he said. "I'm not saying it could not have happened. What I'm saying to you is there is not a damn scintilla of evidence. And shame on the Indianapolis paper that ran this thing on a single source who has an obvious axe to grind.""
This doesn't really contradict my point. He says it's likely a fabrication, he implies cops would have been looking all over for the rapist, he says there would have been charges, says there is no evidence, and then blasts the "fake news" Indianapolis paper, which he said had an "obvious" ax to grind and casting doubt on the paper's report because it was based on a single source. In the middle of all of that, he happens to throw in "I'm not saying it could not have happened." But everything else he says seems to suggest that he really didn't believe it did happen.
Moreover, when he was talking about the heartbeat law, he wasn't doing it in reference to the girl ("Ohio’s heartbeat law has a medical emergency exception broader than just the life of the mother."); but when he was talking about the treatment, he definitely was ("This young girl, if she exists, and if this horrible thing actually happened to her — breaks my heart to think about it — she did not have to leave Ohio to find treatment.") Abortion is definitely a treatment, but it is one of many potential treatments available to patients, not restricted to whatever the heartbeat law prescribes. Even after this Fox News interview, and after the rape suspect was arrested, none of the statements Yost has put out specifically states that he believes the heartbeat law exceptions would have applied (or not applied) to the 10 year old girl.
So, by Yost's own admission during the interview, he had no evidence about the rape case. If he had no details and no evidence about the case, how could he have definitively known that the heartbeat law would have applied to the girl on the basis of no evidence whatsoever? I don't know one way or the other whether the heartbeat law applies here, I'm not qualified to say - all I'm saying is that so far, Yost has not definitively done so, either. I would be interested to know, as the state AG, what he thinks - if he could come out and publicly state, in unambiguous language, whether or not the exceptions in the heartbeat law would have applied to the case of the 10 year old girl, I would definitely respect that.
Would have been hard for him to say it before she'd gone out of state, since no one knew about it at that time.
He's on record of saying it as an AG. It may have an impact.
Yes it may.
As to your first sentence, my point is that he didn't actually have to put the law to the test, as it had already been solved. Which was rather convenient, as it was easy to say she would have qualified after the fact.
And before you argue semantics with me, that is my opinion on his statement and I'm entitled to it.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
24,932 posts, read 13,279,166 times
Reputation: 10957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Member1
This doesn't really contradict my point. He says it's likely a fabrication, he implies cops would have been looking all over for the rapist, he says there would have been charges, says there is no evidence, and then blasts the "fake news" Indianapolis paper, which he said had an "obvious" ax to grind and casting doubt on the paper's report because it was based on a single source. In the middle of all of that, he happens to throw in "I'm not saying it could not have happened." But everything else he says seems to suggest that he really didn't believe it did happen.
Yes it does, nowhere did he say that the 'case didn't exist'.
So much time had passed with no proof other than one person says. Most people wait for proof to come out, but after so much time with no proof then it does begin to look fabricated.
Quote:
Moreover, when he was talking about the heartbeat law, he wasn't doing it in reference to the girl ("Ohio’s heartbeat law has a medical emergency exception broader than just the life of the mother."); but when he was talking about the treatment, he definitely was ("This young girl, if she exists, and if this horrible thing actually happened to her — breaks my heart to think about it — she did not have to leave Ohio to find treatment.") Abortion is definitely a treatment, but it is one of many potential treatments available to patients, not restricted to whatever the heartbeat law prescribes. Even after this Fox News interview, and after the rape suspect was arrested, none of the statements Yost has put out specifically states that he believes the heartbeat law exceptions would have applied (or not applied) to the 10 year old girl.
So, by Yost's own admission during the interview, he had no evidence about the rape case. If he had no details and no evidence about the case, how could he have definitively known that the heartbeat law would have applied to the girl on the basis of no evidence whatsoever? I don't know one way or the other whether the heartbeat law applies here, I'm not qualified to say - all I'm saying is that so far, Yost has not definitively done so, either. I would be interested to know, as the state AG, what he thinks - if he could come out and publicly state, in unambiguous language, whether or not the exceptions in the heartbeat law would have applied to the case of the 10 year old girl, I would definitely respect that.
He was talking about the heartbeat law 'because' of this case.
She just recently turned 10, allegedly impregnated when she was 9. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that pregnancy at her age is an extreme risk.
Quote:
Complications during pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death for 15–19-year-old girls globally. (3)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
