Fuck Ohio, where it's illegal to help a free-living non-human, but they want to force retards onto society. Hope the state collapses under the weight of a retard zombie apocalypse.
The rapist, afaik. Either way, I don’t see what forcing 10 year olds to have children does, as we actively shame a religion for worshiping a prophet that did the same thing.
Pay no heed to the extremists, nearly every pro-lifer (of whom I am not one) supports rape exceptions.
I'm guessing that at least some of these stories are lies. But give it time and some real cases will occur. And that will be a threat for the pro-life cause if they resist any sort of exception.
The interesting thing is, that I came at it from the other side. Since quite a number of rapes go unreported, I thought that having a rape exception would perhaps enable the authorities to catch more rapists.
As for 6 weeks, that is a bit shabby, because apparently many do not even know that they are pregnant until 6 weeks.
You already lost the argument, they will always work a way to game the system, the Democratic Party is factually the party of criminals for a reason and the party of lawyers for a reason. The only rational reason for abortion is medical need. We do not hang children for the crimes of their parents and as long as we continue there will not be rule of law.
FWIW I entirely and whole-heartedly agree with you.
The problem, as someone else pointed out, is that the Left is not interested in compromise. They know (okay -- some of them know) that these articles are misleading or fabricated, but they don't care.
You and I are sitting here ready to compromise at the rape/incest line, but they'll never agree there. Ever. Look at this clip of Catherine Foster throwing this at Jamie Raskin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCh6hwJdAg4 -- he completely ignores and moves on.
Our enemy wants to crush us. They want elective abortions for any reason up to and beyond viability and they will use rape and incest victims to achieve it.
So what are we to do, then? Step in between the absolutist pro-lifers and the pro-abortionists? To what gain?
Then nearly every 'pro-lifer' has failed to intellectually engage with the dilemma.
I doubt it.
Permitting an exception for rape retains the leftist framework that the desires of the woman are more important than the right of the child to live.
The woman did not ask for it. It's pretty monstrous to force a woman to give birth to a child that is 50% related to her rapist.
You have no right to live if it infringes on someone else's liberty. If there is someone dying because he doesn't have enough blood, does the government have the right to restrain me and take my blood? No.
It's pretty monstrous to force a woman to give birth to a child that is 50% related to her rapist.
The child is 50% hers, as are all of her children. More importantly, though, is the fact that the child remains 0% culpable for his or her own existence.
You have no right to live if it infringes on someone else's liberty.
Life, Liberty, Property (sugar-dusted to 'Pursuit of Happiness' in later drafts) in that order. I absolutely have a right to life at the expense of someone else's liberty - otherwise, we could not lock people up for attempted murder, only successful murders.
If there is someone dying because he doesn't have enough blood, does the government have the right to restrain me and take my blood? No.
Shit argument. Try harder.
Here's a better one: If conjoined twins share a vascular system and several organs, but have distinct brains and personalities, is it moral for one of them to declare he's tired of this shit and shoot the other in the head, to solidify his claim on the organs held in common?
The child is 50% hers, as are all of her children. More importantly, though, is the fact that the child remains 0% culpable for his or her own existence.
And so what? It's 50% that of her rapist, which is why it is inexcuable and monstrous to force her to have that child.
Moreover, I don't want a rapist's genes around. That only encourages rape as a reproductive strategy for men who cannot get mates.
Life, Liberty, Property (sugar-dusted to 'Pursuit of Happiness' in later drafts) in that order. I absolutely have a right to life at the expense of someone else's liberty - otherwise, we could not lock people up for attempted murder, only successful murders.
Not sure what legal theory you have for this, but it makes no sense.
Shit argument. Try harder.
Actually, great argument, because you're demanding the right to commandeer someone's body in order to 'save' the life of, let's be honest, a clump of cells.
So why may the government not tie me down and forcibly take my blood to save someone's life? RIGHT TO LIFE and all that!
Here's a better one: If conjoined twins share a vascular system and several organs, but have distinct brains and personalities, is it moral for one of them to declare he's tired of this shit and shoot the other in the head, to solidify his claim on the organs held in common?
It's nice that you mentioned 'personalities'. Because obviously, a fetus has none.
I don't want a rapist's genes around. That only encourages rape as a reproductive strategy for men who cannot get mates.
I don't want rapist's memes around. I've seen no definitive proof that there is a genetic link between any particular chromosomal expression and propensity to rape.
let's be honest, a clump of cells.
That's a funny way to spell a completely unique lifeform with its own heartbeat, fingerprints, and all the bits and bobs the rest of us have, just under-developed.
It's nice that you mentioned 'personalities'. Because obviously, a fetus has none.
And here's where you demonstrate that you're neither a parent, nor particularly close with anyone who is. Any woman who's had multiple children will tell you they all have their own personalities as infants, and even in utero. They're awake at different hours, they're more or less active, they respond to different stimuli (music, voices, etc.).
You know, I've lost a fair bit of respect for you during this argument. I think it's best if we leave it here.
Remember that baby has to be raised by a ten year old, and whoever’s raising the ten year old (or goes for adoption), that baby who’s very likely to be raised in an environment that resents it because it was forced upon the mother, and in 18 years, result in a maladjusted member of society, something you see all the time these days.
Even if you've persuaded yourself that first-trimester abortion is 'killing a baby'.
Do you not see that this is the pro-life equivalent of my side's "abortion right before birth should be 100% legal"?
If I cared about nothing other than preventing abortions, I'd support rape and incest exceptions, because to do otherwise is to give the other side a valuable propaganda tool.
If I cared about nothing other than preventing abortions, I'd support rape and incest exceptions, because to do otherwise is to give the other side a valuable propaganda tool.
No, rape and incest exceptions give psychotic communists a valuable propaganda tool. If they're allowed, false rape accusations will skyrocket even higher than they are today, and then we'll all be treated to an absolute explosion of articles written by fellow whites about how "rape cases in red states skyrocket". Fuck that.
There is no place where "this", meaning what's currently happening in the USA, has ever been the case. There have been no countries that have allowed women to abort fetuses at any age up to birth for several generations, normalizing it to a large portion of the population, and then realized that oh wow, this whole thing was built on extremely shaky reasoning.
I'm arguing from that position though. Suppose you think that life begins at conception and you want to minimize the number of abortions. If you then decide to make the, what is it, 0.1% of abortions that result from rape the hill on which you will die, and perhaps lose power to pro-choicers, that will likely mean more abortions than if you're a bit flexible.
as we actively shame a religion for worshiping a prophet that did the same thing.
If by "we" you mean us here and in places like this, sure. The ones in charge are actively trying to mass import muslims and are trying to silence dissent by branding it "islamaphobia".
This should be an age thing, not rape. No child should be having children.
The exclusion for rape should not exist. If they are raped, the woman should be given Plan B when she comes forward. In fact, there should not be a test for rape to prove it, a woman should just have to ask for it, and be given Plan B. If they do not take Plan B, it should be assumed the woman wants to take the chance of a child being conceived. The only exception is if she was held against her will during the time of the rape and days following.
We have the technology, there should no longer be a reason for abortions in most cases.
I have to agree with Imp here. Over the last 5 or so years, the definition of rape has changed so much that basically any woman who wants an abortion will just say "but he raped me", and then she gets the abortion and the guy's life is ruined. Until the legal and social definitions of rape clearly define that sex you regret is not rape and that 2 drunk/high people having sex is not rape, until people stop just taking one woman's accusation as proof of rape and trying to ruin a guy's life over it (heck, just look at the comments on the linked article where one guy says Trump, Thomas and Kavanaugh are rapists), and until provably false rape accusations are actually punished, having a rape exception in abortion laws is just going to get more men falsely accused.
Which part? The Roe legal documents mention rape, and she confesses to lying about it in almost every interview she did. The deathbed confession doesn't invalidate it either because she never says anything she was paid to say was a lie in that, although the clever editing heavily implies it.
Considering there’s an entire religion that condones the act, it’s not like it never happens, I’m just like “I really want this to not be true, because this is fucked up”.
My birth country went from "Protect women from being randomly murdered" in 2016, to "Women can murder their partners legally" in 2018.
So your solution is to allow women to be randomly murdered.
You're the one who doesn't understand politics. Give them nothing, because one inch will become a full mile in mere months.
Quite the contrary. If pro-lifers make rape exceptions their hill to die on, I'll guarantee you 100% that they will lose. A 10% extreme position simply is not tenable.
Quite apart from the fact that it's immoral as hell. I guess you're getting some perverse pleasure out of a 10-year-old's misery because she's female. Your monomania and obsession is fine, but keep kids out of it.
It's not feminists who demand this. It's everyone.
I'm offended you think I'm so far gone that I'd target small children like they do.
I do recall you saying that you were fine with them killing and harming little girls.
If you give them exceptions for rape, they will make MeToo look like nothing. They do not show remorse for ruining lives, they will gladly throw men under the bus and claim they deserved it for taking abortion away.
Yeah, I can't believe this 10-year-old girl is going to accuse the innocent man who impregnated her of rape.
OK, I guess the only way forward is abortion-on-demand.
They openly post their names because they know they have nothing to fear.
Fuck Ohio, where it's illegal to help a free-living non-human, but they want to force retards onto society. Hope the state collapses under the weight of a retard zombie apocalypse.
There is one way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and that's to go Full Hitler on cases like these.
A 10 year old girl is pregnant and the reason why we are supposed to care according to the media is that she couldn’t get an abortion…
Hell country.
Who's the father
The rapist, afaik. Either way, I don’t see what forcing 10 year olds to have children does, as we actively shame a religion for worshiping a prophet that did the same thing.
Pay no heed to the extremists, nearly every pro-lifer (of whom I am not one) supports rape exceptions.
I'm guessing that at least some of these stories are lies. But give it time and some real cases will occur. And that will be a threat for the pro-life cause if they resist any sort of exception.
The interesting thing is, that I came at it from the other side. Since quite a number of rapes go unreported, I thought that having a rape exception would perhaps enable the authorities to catch more rapists.
As for 6 weeks, that is a bit shabby, because apparently many do not even know that they are pregnant until 6 weeks.
You already lost the argument, they will always work a way to game the system, the Democratic Party is factually the party of criminals for a reason and the party of lawyers for a reason. The only rational reason for abortion is medical need. We do not hang children for the crimes of their parents and as long as we continue there will not be rule of law.
FWIW I entirely and whole-heartedly agree with you.
The problem, as someone else pointed out, is that the Left is not interested in compromise. They know (okay -- some of them know) that these articles are misleading or fabricated, but they don't care.
You and I are sitting here ready to compromise at the rape/incest line, but they'll never agree there. Ever. Look at this clip of Catherine Foster throwing this at Jamie Raskin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCh6hwJdAg4 -- he completely ignores and moves on.
Our enemy wants to crush us. They want elective abortions for any reason up to and beyond viability and they will use rape and incest victims to achieve it.
So what are we to do, then? Step in between the absolutist pro-lifers and the pro-abortionists? To what gain?
Then nearly every 'pro-lifer' has failed to intellectually engage with the dilemma.
Permitting an exception for rape retains the leftist framework that the desires of the woman are more important than the right of the child to live.
Permitting an exception for 'defective' children accepts the core of the eugenicist argument.
Neither "exception" is logically consistent.
I doubt it.
The woman did not ask for it. It's pretty monstrous to force a woman to give birth to a child that is 50% related to her rapist.
You have no right to live if it infringes on someone else's liberty. If there is someone dying because he doesn't have enough blood, does the government have the right to restrain me and take my blood? No.
The child is 50% hers, as are all of her children. More importantly, though, is the fact that the child remains 0% culpable for his or her own existence.
Life, Liberty, Property (sugar-dusted to 'Pursuit of Happiness' in later drafts) in that order. I absolutely have a right to life at the expense of someone else's liberty - otherwise, we could not lock people up for attempted murder, only successful murders.
Shit argument. Try harder.
Here's a better one: If conjoined twins share a vascular system and several organs, but have distinct brains and personalities, is it moral for one of them to declare he's tired of this shit and shoot the other in the head, to solidify his claim on the organs held in common?
And so what? It's 50% that of her rapist, which is why it is inexcuable and monstrous to force her to have that child.
Moreover, I don't want a rapist's genes around. That only encourages rape as a reproductive strategy for men who cannot get mates.
Not sure what legal theory you have for this, but it makes no sense.
Actually, great argument, because you're demanding the right to commandeer someone's body in order to 'save' the life of, let's be honest, a clump of cells.
So why may the government not tie me down and forcibly take my blood to save someone's life? RIGHT TO LIFE and all that!
It's nice that you mentioned 'personalities'. Because obviously, a fetus has none.
I don't want rapist's memes around. I've seen no definitive proof that there is a genetic link between any particular chromosomal expression and propensity to rape.
That's a funny way to spell a completely unique lifeform with its own heartbeat, fingerprints, and all the bits and bobs the rest of us have, just under-developed.
And here's where you demonstrate that you're neither a parent, nor particularly close with anyone who is. Any woman who's had multiple children will tell you they all have their own personalities as infants, and even in utero. They're awake at different hours, they're more or less active, they respond to different stimuli (music, voices, etc.).
You know, I've lost a fair bit of respect for you during this argument. I think it's best if we leave it here.
It doesn't kill a baby because feelings
Remember that baby has to be raised by a ten year old, and whoever’s raising the ten year old (or goes for adoption), that baby who’s very likely to be raised in an environment that resents it because it was forced upon the mother, and in 18 years, result in a maladjusted member of society, something you see all the time these days.
So lets kill the baby instead because you imagine he might not grow up under ideal conditions?
The wait-list for adoption of a healthy child was, last I had reason to check, almost two years long.
The parents of that girl can place the baby in the arms of an eager, loving family the day after delivery if they choose.
Even if you've persuaded yourself that first-trimester abortion is 'killing a baby'.
Do you not see that this is the pro-life equivalent of my side's "abortion right before birth should be 100% legal"?
If I cared about nothing other than preventing abortions, I'd support rape and incest exceptions, because to do otherwise is to give the other side a valuable propaganda tool.
No, rape and incest exceptions give psychotic communists a valuable propaganda tool. If they're allowed, false rape accusations will skyrocket even higher than they are today, and then we'll all be treated to an absolute explosion of articles written by fellow whites about how "rape cases in red states skyrocket". Fuck that.
That's not what happens anywhere this is the case though...
There is no place where "this", meaning what's currently happening in the USA, has ever been the case. There have been no countries that have allowed women to abort fetuses at any age up to birth for several generations, normalizing it to a large portion of the population, and then realized that oh wow, this whole thing was built on extremely shaky reasoning.
If there is no place where this happened, how do you know with such precision and certainty what will happen?
I'm arguing from that position though. Suppose you think that life begins at conception and you want to minimize the number of abortions. If you then decide to make the, what is it, 0.1% of abortions that result from rape the hill on which you will die, and perhaps lose power to pro-choicers, that will likely mean more abortions than if you're a bit flexible.
If by "we" you mean us here and in places like this, sure. The ones in charge are actively trying to mass import muslims and are trying to silence dissent by branding it "islamaphobia".
This should be an age thing, not rape. No child should be having children.
The exclusion for rape should not exist. If they are raped, the woman should be given Plan B when she comes forward. In fact, there should not be a test for rape to prove it, a woman should just have to ask for it, and be given Plan B. If they do not take Plan B, it should be assumed the woman wants to take the chance of a child being conceived. The only exception is if she was held against her will during the time of the rape and days following.
We have the technology, there should no longer be a reason for abortions in most cases.
We have spent the last six generations being told we must tolerate evil. Is it really so shocking that there is indeed evil out there?
Should a 10-year-old girl who is raped be able to get an abortion, or not?
Is the baby viable? Is the girl physically mature enough to carry the pregnancy?
What was the rate of preteen rape pregnancy abortion compared to elective abortion prior to the new law?
Circumstances matter, not just a sympathetic victim
I have to agree with Imp here. Over the last 5 or so years, the definition of rape has changed so much that basically any woman who wants an abortion will just say "but he raped me", and then she gets the abortion and the guy's life is ruined. Until the legal and social definitions of rape clearly define that sex you regret is not rape and that 2 drunk/high people having sex is not rape, until people stop just taking one woman's accusation as proof of rape and trying to ruin a guy's life over it (heck, just look at the comments on the linked article where one guy says Trump, Thomas and Kavanaugh are rapists), and until provably false rape accusations are actually punished, having a rape exception in abortion laws is just going to get more men falsely accused.
Reminder that Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe of Roe v Wade fame, made up her rape story to justify her ritual child sacrifice.
Nah, she admitted to it like 5 years after, and she became anti abortion, up until she died in 2017.
Which part? The Roe legal documents mention rape, and she confesses to lying about it in almost every interview she did. The deathbed confession doesn't invalidate it either because she never says anything she was paid to say was a lie in that, although the clever editing heavily implies it.
Considering there’s an entire religion that condones the act, it’s not like it never happens, I’m just like “I really want this to not be true, because this is fucked up”.
As brilliant a political strategist as always.
So your solution is to allow women to be randomly murdered.
Quite the contrary. If pro-lifers make rape exceptions their hill to die on, I'll guarantee you 100% that they will lose. A 10% extreme position simply is not tenable.
Quite apart from the fact that it's immoral as hell. I guess you're getting some perverse pleasure out of a 10-year-old's misery because she's female. Your monomania and obsession is fine, but keep kids out of it.
It's not feminists who demand this. It's everyone.
I do recall you saying that you were fine with them killing and harming little girls.
Yeah, I can't believe this 10-year-old girl is going to accuse the innocent man who impregnated her of rape.
OK, I guess the only way forward is abortion-on-demand.