Looks like Trump will be running as a "moderate" on the issue of abortion in 2024.
I am actually shocked that he is doing this since he is the man who can rightfully brag that he appointed the judges that finally overturned Roe v. Wade.
I don't know how well this works for him overall. Might even hurt him with real social conservative voters a bit while slightly helping him with swing voters.
My guess is that this move helps him slightly in the general election for 2024 and slightly hurts him in the Republican primary.
Abortion actually isn't that big of an issue until you do shit that most people really disagree with. Full bans aren't tolerated (even Oklahoma showed this), and full acceptance showed this (in that 9 month abortions are opposed by over 80% of the population).
He's basically trying to win over women (via mothers), since it's a demographic that's kind of alluded him right up until CRT and Transgendrism in schools.
Most mothers don't get abortions, but they're also not prepared to criminalize it.
"Leave it to the states" is the best choice because he always gets to defer to whatever the Republicans in those states can actually pass without taking a hard stance.
There's a reason why people are saying that McConnel was trying to throw the Senate to Democrats by pushing a federal abortion ban: everyone knows that full bans are unpopular except to very strong religious conservatives.
Strong religious conservatives are a key part of the Republican base hence why certain states like Texas and Oklahoma ended up passing some restrictive abortion laws since they were afraid of being primaried out.
Since this is a midterm year with a despised Dem in the WH and with gun grabber Beto running, I am not worried about my state Texas staying red.
You are right that full bans/extremely restrictive abortions laws and no abortion restrictions at all are both very unpopular.
I personally believe abortion is murder so I support the full bans.
I however understand that my personal abortion stance is sadly electoral suicide.
Andrew Breitbart did say that politics is downstream of culture.
It has been hard for the right to win the culture war ever since the left took control of all the major institutions.
Good news is that as the major institutions continue to destroy their credibility and hopefully completely implode, any parallel institutions newly built by the right can help turn the tide.
Also the fact that there is no competing ideology.
I mean, there is, but true, hard-line nationalist conservatism is so far outside the Overton Window that if any of us speak out in any true public forum, people start gasping, fainting, and going rabidly bonkers.
Also the fact that there is no competing ideology. Conservatism is just progressivism 20 years ago.
In theory, it is a competing belief system, namely "stick with what works" and the wisdom of the ages. Unfortunately, the right has a tendency to accept the status quo even if it does not work.
If you want a vacuous ideology, it's progressivism. They're the mirror image of conservatism: where conservatives want things to stay the same, they want "change" - even change for the worse. The only thing that has been constant since the beginning of progressivism is that it accepts ideas that have novelty. That's it.
Bragging about nominations that overturned Roe vs Wade sounds perfecly in line with saying ''leave it up to the states, and here is what my own moral limits on this difficult question''.
I am actually shocked that he is doing this since he is the man who can rightfully brag that he appointed the judges that finally overturned Roe v. Wade.
Why? That means his name is golden for social conservatives. You expected him to go all-in with "yeah, love the rape baby, girl"?
I don't know how well this works for him overall. Might even hurt him with real social conservative voters a bit while slightly helping him with swing voters.
I think nothing he does will either help or hurt him. It's all baked into the cake. That said, some polsci types have claimed that Trump won in 2016 because he dumped some very unpopular GOP economic policies.
Rape should be covered under 'life of the mother'.
If she's psychologically capable of carrying to term, then that infant hasn't done anything wrong and deserves a chance. If she's not capable of that (e.g. she's going to engage in some form of self-harm), the infant is doomed anyways.
A blanket exception for rape is no different than killing a woman's ex-husband because she feels sad when she sees him happy with someone else after she cheated on him and he left. The child didn't do anything wrong, and doesn't deserve to be killed for the sins of another.
If she's psychologically capable of carrying to term, then that infant hasn't done anything wrong and deserves a chance.
I see. Right-wingers think that paying even reasonable taxes is 'slavery', but somehow, a complete stranger forcing his DNA into you is perfectly fine, and the government should force you to carry it to term.
Do you and the rest of your ilk have a political death wish?
The child didn't do anything wrong
Completely irrelevant. If I surgically attached someone to you, who would die if you removed him, does that mean that you cannot remove him? No, this is crazy talk.
I agree that abortion bans are in principle legitimate, since people voluntarily choose the risk of pregnancy when they engage in sex. That is in no way applicable to people who were the victims of such a crime, and they certainly shouldn't be made to suffer more based on some douchebag's cockamamie belief that a fertilized egg is a 'baby'.
(Don't take this personally, you phrased your belief in the least obnoxious way possible, but it's quite infuriating that the right insists on losing and not even because of something that's moral, for something that's immoral.)
Being willing to make an exception for rape undermines the "abortion is murder" position.
I don't think so. Many who believe that abortion is murder also believe that rape exceptions should be allowed. Maybe they cannot provide support for their moral intuitions, but I think it's perfectly defensible, as my example showed.
If someone attached you to me without my permission, and told me that you'd die if you weren't, with due respect, but I'll be grabbing the scissors.
After that concession, it becomes a matter of degrees and it will just creep towards more expansive.
It's the other way around. You will not be able to get any abortion ban if you do not allow for this exception.
It's a question that has to be faced head-on instead of deferring to other examples. For every analogy one way, there's an analogy the other. If someone breaks into your home and leaves an infant in your living room, you're not allowed to stomp it. "BUT IT WAS TRESSPASSING!"
I think it's a very bad example, and mine was much more apt. That infant has not attached itself to me, nor do I have to suffer through it for months on end. I can just call the police and have it be removed, and much quicker than a woman can have an abortion too.
I'd go a doctor and go "hey, remove this guy without killing him."
It's not possible.
If someone is going to plant their flag on "fetuses are defenseless, innocent human life and it's immoral to kill them" you can't turn around and go "unless it makes someone upset" and expect anyone to take your moral stance seriously.
Sure you can. It's a conflict of rights. You have no right to conscript someone else's body for your embryo or fertilized egg, same as with the surgery example - which also does not suggest that 'murder' in some cases is OK.
Banning abortion, even in the case of rape, is equivalent to a "duty to retreat." In those jurisdictions, you must are required inconvenience yourself for the benefit of an attacker. And that's the person actively violating you. Not a third party who is there through no fault of their own.
You have no duty to retreat for 9 months though, nor is it nearly as invasive.
What's fascinating is the "castle doctrine" property jurisdictions are the ones that tend towards "duty to retreat" abortion and vice-versa.
I never thought the respective ideologies made much sense. You could base it on tradition: abortion has been traditionally disallowed, and traditionally your home is your castle.
If someone knocked you and another guy unconscious, surgically attached you to one another, and said "if you cut this, he dies. But if you live with this for 9 months you'll both be fine," you would kill the other victim?
You ask that as if you think the answer is obvious - you probably are a better man than I. Would I have the right to? But if that scenario is too horrory for you, imagine a Great Scientific Advance(tm) that allows a terminally ill man (in his 30s) to live if he is attached to your body for 9 months, and only your body (cause else the thought experiment does not work).
Would you have the right to say no, or can the state conscript you involuntarily for the noble purpose of keeping this man alive?
Even if you are Mother Teresa and would be willing to sacrifice yourself for 9 months to save another, surely you would not want to be forced.
That would be a convincing argument if we were weighing the rights of the rapist against the mother. But we're not. We're considering about what, if any, rights the child has. They did not conscript anything. They had no agency in the situation and are, arguably, as much a victim as the mother.
Nor was I calling you a rapist. But you are advocating for inflicting further suffering on the woman because of the rape. Your right over your own body is absolute, which people on both sides forget whenever it is convenient. It means that when you did not ask to be raped, it is your absolute right to get rid of the result, same as me with that other victim in the horror scenario.
The one being terminated in the home is an aggressor. The one being terminated in an abortion in as innocent. That goes a long way in judging if it's moral to kill them.
Another pro-abortion argument that annoys me: WHY ARE YOU FOR THE DEATH PENALTY?
Cause they murdered someone, and the fetus didn't.
B) Ban after a specific point in the gestational timeline. This position relies on not considering anything before that point a human life.
This is my position. It is human life, similar to how a brain-dead person is a human life. Many people recognize that life does not mean much when everything else is gone.
The first two are empirically analyzable. The third isn't. Which is creates a incentive for anyone desiring an abortion to claim rape. It would be a disaster.
As far as I know, there are precedents where this does not occur. Our delusional friend just believes that every woman is out there to accuse him of rape to get an abortion.
Personally, I'd go with B. Abortion is too useful preventing unwanted people to outright ban but C allows for out and out murder.
If I surgically attached someone to you, who would die if you removed him
If it would take only a few months of inconvenience before they can live on their own, no. The "surgeon" is just more guilty beyond the initial crime of "surgery" for having forced the situation on her. If there's a reasonable way to save both, you take it.
Let me put it this way. There's 2 kids stuck in a well: you can kill one now and safely remove the other or wait a few months, keep them alive and then rescue both. If you pick the 1st option, you're a monster, but if it's an abortion- suddenly okay to murder.
If it would take only a few months of inconvenience before they can live on their own, no.
What exactly is the standard here? Why is 'a few months' OK, but permanently is not? What about a few years? Where do you draw the line?
The "surgeon" is just more guilty beyond the initial crime of "surgery" for having forced the situation on her. If there's a reasonable way to save both, you take it.
You can make the request of the victim of the situation, and if he is of good will he may even oblige, but you cannot force him morally - because you have no right to deprive him of his liberty.
Now, if you had been at fault in some way for the situation, it's a different matter.
Let me put it this way. There's 2 kids stuck in a well: you can kill one now and safely remove the other or wait a few months, keep them alive and then rescue both. If you pick the 1st option, you're a monster, but if it's an abortion- suddenly okay to murder.
That's an excellent comparison. But let's make it more apt to the situation. There is one kid stuck in a well, and a fertilized egg or embryo. The only way you can save the 'fertilized' egg is by inflicting months of misery on the other kid, misery that he didn't ask for.
Because unborn babies tend to eventually exit the mother one way or another.
But let's make it more apt to the situation
That's the problem: you don't see the embryo as "another life". You could easily say an adult and a child if age is your problem. If you want it to be more apt, you would have to leave both as kids, but one of the kids has claustrophobia or something. Give the kid counselling or something, but you haven't made an argument for morally righteous murder.
Because unborn babies tend to eventually exit the mother one way or another.
You didn't get my question. What is the line for how long it's OK for me to be forced to allow someone to be attached to me, when I didn't ask for it?
You said that "several months" is OK but nothing further. Is 10 years OK?
That's the problem: you don't see the embryo as "another life".
It's clearly a 'life'. I'm annoyed with other pro-choicers who make dishonest arguments like claiming that the embryo or fetus is "part of the woman's body". But it is not in such a stage of human development that it is entitled to the same protection as proper human persons, let alone such horrendous acts as imposing further misery and trauma on a victim of rape.
Give the kid counselling or something, but you haven't made an argument for morally righteous murder.
Nor did I intend to. By calling it 'murder' you prejudge the issue. I think that you are not entitled to the sustenance of someone else's body, so detaching you is not 'murder'. Of course, if I ask for it, it's a different situation.
You didn't get my question. What is the line for how long it's OK for me to be forced to allow someone to be attached to me
9 MONTHS. I'M TALKING ABOUT PREGNANCY- I DIDN'T THINK IT NEEDED SPELLING OUT.
But it is not in such a stage of human development that it is entitled to the same protection as proper human persons
Then you don't consider it a human life, and that's the point.
I think that you are not entitled to the sustenance of someone else's body, so detaching you is not 'murder'
ALL unborn babies are entitled to the sustenance of the mother. If you wouldn't make the exact same argument for a non-rape baby, don't make it for this case either. "detaching" a baby is murder in the same way pulling someones' life support is murder.
Would support post birth abortion for a rape baby? They can't survive on their own. You could just leave it to starve to death since it's not "entitled" to food. Why is there a duty to care for it just because it's outside the womb? Where do you draw the line on when it's no longer okay to abort rape babies? Do you even draw one?
9 MONTHS. I'M TALKING ABOUT PREGNANCY- I DIDN'T THINK IT NEEDED SPELLING OUT.
You do. What's the limit. So if it's 10 months, it's suddenly bad? I think you don't want to answer because you're smart enough to realize that it would undermine your own argument.
Then you don't consider it a human life, and that's the point.
Sure it is. A brain-dead person is still a human life.
ALL unborn babies are entitled to the sustenance of the mother. If you wouldn't make the exact same argument for a non-rape baby, don't make it for this case either. "detaching" a baby is murder in the same way pulling someones' life support is murder.
You're not entitled to life support on my body unless I consented to you being so attached to me.
Would support post birth abortion for a rape baby? They can't survive on their own.
They are viable though.
Where do you draw the line on when it's no longer okay to abort rape babies? Do you even draw one?
I think it's justified until viability. If you don't get rid of it until then, you have implicitly consented to taking care of the baby at least until birth.
a complete stranger forcing his DNA into you is perfectly fine
The argument against abortion in case of rape has nothing to do with the moral responsibility of the rapist. He will still be punished or not all the same.
force you to carry it to term
Already covered in another reply but abortion for me is a question of when the fetus goes from an "it" to a "person". It is a gradient, but at some point along that process, we have to decide you cannot kill the person for any reason.
If I surgically attached someone to you, who would die if you removed him, does that mean that you cannot remove him? No, this is crazy talk.
Call me crazy then. I will give you this: If you can gently remove a fetus from a womb and then they simply die from lack of sustenance, that is a different act than cutting them to pieces and vacuuming the body parts from the womb, in terms of morality. Both wrong but of different degrees. Likewise telling your fictionally attached rider "Sorry man, I'm going to go through with the surgery and have you removed. You understand. We can't live this way. Maybe by some miracle you will survive." is entirely different than shooting him in the head so he'll stop annoying you.
I strongly object to equating "letting people die" with "killing people", which is a common line of reasoning used to justify vaccinations in non-risk populations. Agency vs. natural outcomes.
The argument against abortion in case of rape has nothing to do with the moral responsibility of the rapist. He will still be punished or not all the same.
Right, but you'll still use the power of the state to make sure the rapist's DNA is in no way gotten rid of by the victim.
Already covered in another reply but abortion for me is a question of when the fetus goes from an "it" to a "person". It is a gradient, but at some point along that process, we have to decide you cannot kill the person for any reason.
My argument is that even if you consider it a 'person', it's OK to believe that a rape victim - who in no way consented to this - is entitled to remove what she did not ask for.
you can gently remove a fetus from a womb and then they simply die from lack of sustenance, that is a different act than cutting them to pieces and vacuuming the body parts from the womb, in terms of morality.
The same way inflicting a painless death is 'less bad' than torturing someone to death.
a complete stranger forcing his DNA into you is perfectly fine
No, we're all quite in favor of punishing men and women for rape.
the government should force you to carry it to term.
If the government cannot attempt to protect the wholly defenseless, what moral purpose does it serve? The convenience of those who have survived to adulthood?
it's quite infuriating that the right insists on losing and not even because of something that's moral, for something that's immoral
The precept that every human life has value is a principled moral stance.
Defining the value of a human life based on the desires of another is amoral.
Celebrating the taking of human life to engage in further debauchery unhindered is immoral.
No, we're all quite in favor of punishing men and women for rape.
And yet also force the victim to keep the rapist's DNA.
If the government cannot attempt to protect the wholly defenseless, what moral purpose does it serve? The convenience of those who have survived to adulthood?
Don't kid yourself - the government exists to protect the powerful and fortuned, at the expense of the powerless. That's why they are powerless. Nonetheless, what you propose here is to use the government to further oppress the powerless. Who is worse off and more powerless than a rape victim?
Celebrating the taking of human life to engage in further debauchery unhindered is immoral.
How exactly does being rape victim relate to 'debauchery'?
He's in line with the majority of the American public on that issue. Most people support abortion up to 16 weeks, and complete bans have almost no support at all.
It's the tradcons like Pence who've managed to piss people off with this issue by advocating for full-on abortion bans.
I agree with you. Trump already won hardline pro-lifers anyways. I mean both in the sense that they probably vote Republican anyways and that he nominated the judges that overturned Roe v Wade, so he's scored points with them.
I personally believe abortion is murder but Trump is trying to appease the swing state voters who are clowns who think we need to allow abortion for the first four months and allow abortions at any time if they claim rape, incest and health of the mother.
It is sadly likely that more false rape accusations will be made by some women in order to get a desired abortion.
I really despise politicians who really have "moderate" stances on key social issues. They usually end up being neoliberal uni-party types.
However merely pretending to hold moderate stances to win an election is a tactic that works a lot.
The Democrats constantly lie about their stances and pretend to be moderate all the time on various issues then when they get elected they go hard left.
Trump adopting this abortion stance could make it easier for him to win but yes it will have severe negative consequences for men if he actually follows through on this.
Republicans need to pretend to be moderate on certain issues and then after they get elected they need to go hard right in order to counteract the leftist hell we see today.
I'm not turning on Trump. I'm just saying that this is a ridiculous policy that doesn't take into account the reality of how little remorse a woman would feel for ruining a random man's life to get her abortion.
You're a cultist who turns on people for the most retarded reasons. Even the reason you turned on De Pfeffer was not anything intelligent, but the fact that some feminist retard got a knighthood among hundreds of others.
I'm just saying that this is a ridiculous policy that doesn't take into account the reality of how little remorse a woman would feel for ruining a random man's life to get her abortion.
You neglect to mention she was the admitted ringleader of an effort to hide evidence that would exonerate innocent men.
Why does everything have to be framed around women's inability to move past base instincts? Any other people acting like that would be thrown out of society.
You neglect to mention she was the admitted ringleader of an effort to hide evidence that would exonerate innocent men.
I "neglected" to mention nothing that you just made up, just like you made up that "massive settlement" you claimed Kyle Rittenhouse got. It's immaterial. De Pfeffer almost certainly had nothing to do with the list. He's odious, but you took the most retarded reason to turn on him.
Why does everything have to be framed around women's inability to move past base instincts?
Looks like Trump will be running as a "moderate" on the issue of abortion in 2024.
I am actually shocked that he is doing this since he is the man who can rightfully brag that he appointed the judges that finally overturned Roe v. Wade.
I don't know how well this works for him overall. Might even hurt him with real social conservative voters a bit while slightly helping him with swing voters.
My guess is that this move helps him slightly in the general election for 2024 and slightly hurts him in the Republican primary.
Abortion actually isn't that big of an issue until you do shit that most people really disagree with. Full bans aren't tolerated (even Oklahoma showed this), and full acceptance showed this (in that 9 month abortions are opposed by over 80% of the population).
He's basically trying to win over women (via mothers), since it's a demographic that's kind of alluded him right up until CRT and Transgendrism in schools.
Most mothers don't get abortions, but they're also not prepared to criminalize it.
"Leave it to the states" is the best choice because he always gets to defer to whatever the Republicans in those states can actually pass without taking a hard stance.
There's a reason why people are saying that McConnel was trying to throw the Senate to Democrats by pushing a federal abortion ban: everyone knows that full bans are unpopular except to very strong religious conservatives.
Strong religious conservatives are a key part of the Republican base hence why certain states like Texas and Oklahoma ended up passing some restrictive abortion laws since they were afraid of being primaried out.
Since this is a midterm year with a despised Dem in the WH and with gun grabber Beto running, I am not worried about my state Texas staying red.
You are right that full bans/extremely restrictive abortions laws and no abortion restrictions at all are both very unpopular.
I personally believe abortion is murder so I support the full bans.
I however understand that my personal abortion stance is sadly electoral suicide.
Truth is: you always have to win the culture war first, not elections.
Andrew Breitbart did say that politics is downstream of culture.
It has been hard for the right to win the culture war ever since the left took control of all the major institutions.
Good news is that as the major institutions continue to destroy their credibility and hopefully completely implode, any parallel institutions newly built by the right can help turn the tide.
Also the fact that there is no competing ideology. Conservatism is just progressivism 20 years ago.
Back when progressivism moved over the course of hundreds of years it wasn't noticeable.
I mean, there is, but true, hard-line nationalist conservatism is so far outside the Overton Window that if any of us speak out in any true public forum, people start gasping, fainting, and going rabidly bonkers.
In theory, it is a competing belief system, namely "stick with what works" and the wisdom of the ages. Unfortunately, the right has a tendency to accept the status quo even if it does not work.
If you want a vacuous ideology, it's progressivism. They're the mirror image of conservatism: where conservatives want things to stay the same, they want "change" - even change for the worse. The only thing that has been constant since the beginning of progressivism is that it accepts ideas that have novelty. That's it.
Bragging about nominations that overturned Roe vs Wade sounds perfecly in line with saying ''leave it up to the states, and here is what my own moral limits on this difficult question''.
Why? That means his name is golden for social conservatives. You expected him to go all-in with "yeah, love the rape baby, girl"?
I think nothing he does will either help or hurt him. It's all baked into the cake. That said, some polsci types have claimed that Trump won in 2016 because he dumped some very unpopular GOP economic policies.
Rape should be covered under 'life of the mother'.
If she's psychologically capable of carrying to term, then that infant hasn't done anything wrong and deserves a chance. If she's not capable of that (e.g. she's going to engage in some form of self-harm), the infant is doomed anyways.
A blanket exception for rape is no different than killing a woman's ex-husband because she feels sad when she sees him happy with someone else after she cheated on him and he left. The child didn't do anything wrong, and doesn't deserve to be killed for the sins of another.
Women actually pushed for that...
I see. Right-wingers think that paying even reasonable taxes is 'slavery', but somehow, a complete stranger forcing his DNA into you is perfectly fine, and the government should force you to carry it to term.
Do you and the rest of your ilk have a political death wish?
Completely irrelevant. If I surgically attached someone to you, who would die if you removed him, does that mean that you cannot remove him? No, this is crazy talk.
I agree that abortion bans are in principle legitimate, since people voluntarily choose the risk of pregnancy when they engage in sex. That is in no way applicable to people who were the victims of such a crime, and they certainly shouldn't be made to suffer more based on some douchebag's cockamamie belief that a fertilized egg is a 'baby'.
(Don't take this personally, you phrased your belief in the least obnoxious way possible, but it's quite infuriating that the right insists on losing and not even because of something that's moral, for something that's immoral.)
I don't think so. Many who believe that abortion is murder also believe that rape exceptions should be allowed. Maybe they cannot provide support for their moral intuitions, but I think it's perfectly defensible, as my example showed.
If someone attached you to me without my permission, and told me that you'd die if you weren't, with due respect, but I'll be grabbing the scissors.
It's the other way around. You will not be able to get any abortion ban if you do not allow for this exception.
I think it's a very bad example, and mine was much more apt. That infant has not attached itself to me, nor do I have to suffer through it for months on end. I can just call the police and have it be removed, and much quicker than a woman can have an abortion too.
It's not possible.
Sure you can. It's a conflict of rights. You have no right to conscript someone else's body for your embryo or fertilized egg, same as with the surgery example - which also does not suggest that 'murder' in some cases is OK.
You have no duty to retreat for 9 months though, nor is it nearly as invasive.
I never thought the respective ideologies made much sense. You could base it on tradition: abortion has been traditionally disallowed, and traditionally your home is your castle.
You ask that as if you think the answer is obvious - you probably are a better man than I. Would I have the right to? But if that scenario is too horrory for you, imagine a Great Scientific Advance(tm) that allows a terminally ill man (in his 30s) to live if he is attached to your body for 9 months, and only your body (cause else the thought experiment does not work).
Would you have the right to say no, or can the state conscript you involuntarily for the noble purpose of keeping this man alive?
Even if you are Mother Teresa and would be willing to sacrifice yourself for 9 months to save another, surely you would not want to be forced.
Nor was I calling you a rapist. But you are advocating for inflicting further suffering on the woman because of the rape. Your right over your own body is absolute, which people on both sides forget whenever it is convenient. It means that when you did not ask to be raped, it is your absolute right to get rid of the result, same as me with that other victim in the horror scenario.
Another pro-abortion argument that annoys me: WHY ARE YOU FOR THE DEATH PENALTY?
Cause they murdered someone, and the fetus didn't.
This is my position. It is human life, similar to how a brain-dead person is a human life. Many people recognize that life does not mean much when everything else is gone.
As far as I know, there are precedents where this does not occur. Our delusional friend just believes that every woman is out there to accuse him of rape to get an abortion.
I agree.
If it would take only a few months of inconvenience before they can live on their own, no. The "surgeon" is just more guilty beyond the initial crime of "surgery" for having forced the situation on her. If there's a reasonable way to save both, you take it.
Let me put it this way. There's 2 kids stuck in a well: you can kill one now and safely remove the other or wait a few months, keep them alive and then rescue both. If you pick the 1st option, you're a monster, but if it's an abortion- suddenly okay to murder.
What exactly is the standard here? Why is 'a few months' OK, but permanently is not? What about a few years? Where do you draw the line?
You can make the request of the victim of the situation, and if he is of good will he may even oblige, but you cannot force him morally - because you have no right to deprive him of his liberty.
Now, if you had been at fault in some way for the situation, it's a different matter.
That's an excellent comparison. But let's make it more apt to the situation. There is one kid stuck in a well, and a fertilized egg or embryo. The only way you can save the 'fertilized' egg is by inflicting months of misery on the other kid, misery that he didn't ask for.
I'll choose to save the kid.
Because unborn babies tend to eventually exit the mother one way or another.
That's the problem: you don't see the embryo as "another life". You could easily say an adult and a child if age is your problem. If you want it to be more apt, you would have to leave both as kids, but one of the kids has claustrophobia or something. Give the kid counselling or something, but you haven't made an argument for morally righteous murder.
You didn't get my question. What is the line for how long it's OK for me to be forced to allow someone to be attached to me, when I didn't ask for it?
You said that "several months" is OK but nothing further. Is 10 years OK?
It's clearly a 'life'. I'm annoyed with other pro-choicers who make dishonest arguments like claiming that the embryo or fetus is "part of the woman's body". But it is not in such a stage of human development that it is entitled to the same protection as proper human persons, let alone such horrendous acts as imposing further misery and trauma on a victim of rape.
Nor did I intend to. By calling it 'murder' you prejudge the issue. I think that you are not entitled to the sustenance of someone else's body, so detaching you is not 'murder'. Of course, if I ask for it, it's a different situation.
9 MONTHS. I'M TALKING ABOUT PREGNANCY- I DIDN'T THINK IT NEEDED SPELLING OUT.
Then you don't consider it a human life, and that's the point.
ALL unborn babies are entitled to the sustenance of the mother. If you wouldn't make the exact same argument for a non-rape baby, don't make it for this case either. "detaching" a baby is murder in the same way pulling someones' life support is murder.
Would support post birth abortion for a rape baby? They can't survive on their own. You could just leave it to starve to death since it's not "entitled" to food. Why is there a duty to care for it just because it's outside the womb? Where do you draw the line on when it's no longer okay to abort rape babies? Do you even draw one?
You do. What's the limit. So if it's 10 months, it's suddenly bad? I think you don't want to answer because you're smart enough to realize that it would undermine your own argument.
Sure it is. A brain-dead person is still a human life.
You're not entitled to life support on my body unless I consented to you being so attached to me.
They are viable though.
I think it's justified until viability. If you don't get rid of it until then, you have implicitly consented to taking care of the baby at least until birth.
The argument against abortion in case of rape has nothing to do with the moral responsibility of the rapist. He will still be punished or not all the same.
Already covered in another reply but abortion for me is a question of when the fetus goes from an "it" to a "person". It is a gradient, but at some point along that process, we have to decide you cannot kill the person for any reason.
Call me crazy then. I will give you this: If you can gently remove a fetus from a womb and then they simply die from lack of sustenance, that is a different act than cutting them to pieces and vacuuming the body parts from the womb, in terms of morality. Both wrong but of different degrees. Likewise telling your fictionally attached rider "Sorry man, I'm going to go through with the surgery and have you removed. You understand. We can't live this way. Maybe by some miracle you will survive." is entirely different than shooting him in the head so he'll stop annoying you.
I strongly object to equating "letting people die" with "killing people", which is a common line of reasoning used to justify vaccinations in non-risk populations. Agency vs. natural outcomes.
Right, but you'll still use the power of the state to make sure the rapist's DNA is in no way gotten rid of by the victim.
My argument is that even if you consider it a 'person', it's OK to believe that a rape victim - who in no way consented to this - is entitled to remove what she did not ask for.
The same way inflicting a painless death is 'less bad' than torturing someone to death.
No, we're all quite in favor of punishing men and women for rape.
If the government cannot attempt to protect the wholly defenseless, what moral purpose does it serve? The convenience of those who have survived to adulthood?
The precept that every human life has value is a principled moral stance.
Defining the value of a human life based on the desires of another is amoral.
Celebrating the taking of human life to engage in further debauchery unhindered is immoral.
Hopefully this clears things up for you.
And yet also force the victim to keep the rapist's DNA.
Don't kid yourself - the government exists to protect the powerful and fortuned, at the expense of the powerless. That's why they are powerless. Nonetheless, what you propose here is to use the government to further oppress the powerless. Who is worse off and more powerless than a rape victim?
How exactly does being rape victim relate to 'debauchery'?
The other victim - the one you want to kill.
He's in line with the majority of the American public on that issue. Most people support abortion up to 16 weeks, and complete bans have almost no support at all.
It's the tradcons like Pence who've managed to piss people off with this issue by advocating for full-on abortion bans.
Majority opinion is going to agree with those exceptions, and nobody who doesn't is ever going to vote democrat.
Perfectly reasonable thing for Trump to say.
I agree with you. Trump already won hardline pro-lifers anyways. I mean both in the sense that they probably vote Republican anyways and that he nominated the judges that overturned Roe v Wade, so he's scored points with them.
Will you be paying for the lawyers for the poor young men accused of rape so the pieces of shit can abort, Mr Trump?
No he won't be paying for that.
I personally believe abortion is murder but Trump is trying to appease the swing state voters who are clowns who think we need to allow abortion for the first four months and allow abortions at any time if they claim rape, incest and health of the mother.
It is sadly likely that more false rape accusations will be made by some women in order to get a desired abortion.
Likely? Don't give them that much credit.
It is certain.
Trump's recent turn towards caring about women's issues is very worrying. We don't need someone else who forces the high heel down our throats.
No to "women's spaces", no to abortion exceptions, no to their sick idea for Title IX.
I really despise politicians who really have "moderate" stances on key social issues. They usually end up being neoliberal uni-party types.
However merely pretending to hold moderate stances to win an election is a tactic that works a lot.
The Democrats constantly lie about their stances and pretend to be moderate all the time on various issues then when they get elected they go hard left.
Trump adopting this abortion stance could make it easier for him to win but yes it will have severe negative consequences for men if he actually follows through on this.
Republicans need to pretend to be moderate on certain issues and then after they get elected they need to go hard right in order to counteract the leftist hell we see today.
And just like that, the Crazy Imp turns on Trump.
I'm not turning on Trump. I'm just saying that this is a ridiculous policy that doesn't take into account the reality of how little remorse a woman would feel for ruining a random man's life to get her abortion.
You're a cultist who turns on people for the most retarded reasons. Even the reason you turned on De Pfeffer was not anything intelligent, but the fact that some feminist retard got a knighthood among hundreds of others.
Fine, fine, abortion can remain legal then.
You neglect to mention she was the admitted ringleader of an effort to hide evidence that would exonerate innocent men.
Why does everything have to be framed around women's inability to move past base instincts? Any other people acting like that would be thrown out of society.
I "neglected" to mention nothing that you just made up, just like you made up that "massive settlement" you claimed Kyle Rittenhouse got. It's immaterial. De Pfeffer almost certainly had nothing to do with the list. He's odious, but you took the most retarded reason to turn on him.
Who's committing the rapes?
I don't make things up.
Probably women. They call it "made to penetrate" to hide it from the published data on rape.
It's all you do.
LOL. So now the womens commit most rapes?