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.
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?
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.
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".
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.
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?
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...
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".