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.
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.