Uh huh. Just like how abortion was argued on the back of "rape and incest". They get their foot in the door with a somewhat reasonable lie, and then push what they really wanted. Evil progresses through incrementalism, one small step at a time. They know good people will naturally reject what they truly want (hell on earth), so they convince us to walk the path, one step at a time.
From a moral point of view, the baby is entirely innocent. Kill the rapist, not the baby if you so desperately want to kill.
From an evolutionary perspective, you don't want to perpetuate the genes of rapists. which is a moral problem you end up burdening the future of your kind with.
All these complex moral questions are handwaved-away by at-will abortion advocates who argue a woman should never be incovinienced by a baby for a few months before dumping it to adoption.
Even though discrediting an argument by who is making it is a logical fallacy, it is incredibly foolish to take an argument at face value from a known liar and subversive. Source matters. It is monumentally naive to continue to trust known liars, to compromise with known evil people who advocate small, somewhat reasonable initial positions, who then use the new gained ground to push their evil and lies further, ad infinitum.
Furthermore, if someone continually makes the mistake of enabling and approving of the initial first steps of known liars and evil people, who capitulate to their initial "reasoning", then there's something fundamentally flawed with that person, in belief, practice, and/or virtue, who is incapable of spotting lies and evil at first subtle glance, and stopping/resisting it before it gains its first foot hold.
Uh huh. Just like how abortion was argued on the back of "rape and incest". They get their foot in the door with a somewhat reasonable lie, and then push what they really wanted. Evil progresses through incrementalism, one small step at a time. They know good people will naturally reject what they truly want (hell on earth), so they convince us to walk the path, one step at a time.
From a moral point of view, the baby is entirely innocent. Kill the rapist, not the baby if you so desperately want to kill.
From an evolutionary perspective, you don't want to perpetuate the genes of rapists. which is a moral problem you end up burdening the future of your kind with.
All these complex moral questions are handwaved-away by at-will abortion advocates who argue a woman should never be incovinienced by a baby for a few months before dumping it to adoption.
Even though discrediting an argument by who is making it is a logical fallacy, it is incredibly foolish to take an argument at face value from a known liar and subversive. Source matters. It is monumentally naive to continue to trust known liars, to compromise with known evil people who advocate small, somewhat reasonable initial positions, who then use the new gained ground to push their evil and lies further, ad infinitum.
Furthermore, if someone continually makes the mistake of enabling and approving of the initial first steps of known liars and evil people, who capitulate to their initial "reasoning", then there's something fundamentally flawed with that person, in belief, practice, and/or virtue, who is incapable of spotting lies and evil at first subtle glance, and stopping/resisting it before it gains its first foot hold.