- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,084
- 2,451
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Except Republicans are also totally ok with killing people to reach their goals.
"No exceptions for the health of the mother" ringing any bells?
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion
- Thread starter Piscian
- Start date
"No exceptions for the health of the mother" ringing any bells?
Sounds like most democratic policy... ba dum tss
More seriously, you can tell if an action is good or bad by asking "What if everyone did that?" so you do have some sorta results to a degree but those results don't require to guess the future either.
And the Democrat position has now become "we must suspend democracy to save democracy!"
The Colorado Secretary of State said (about the SCOTUS ballot decision) "it was now up to voters to save our democracy." God forbid voters get to vote for who they want... It could be the end of democracy!!!
Well, if God decides that the woman should die miserably because her evil, wicked body chose not to produce a healthy baby, who are we to question His will?
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,647
- 3,576
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
We already can't vote for who we want. We aren't allowed to vote for a foreign born person or someone who is under 34.
A small minority of people on the right may take that position., >80% would support that exception, and nearly 100% would allow for that exception if it was just that, an exception.
Your argument is a strawman of the Republican Party.
I don't think you succeed at that by being killing people for convenience and then just being miserable regardless.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,084
- 2,451
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
No it isn't. Republican politicians keep having the option to add that exception and keep actively choosing not to and voting against it.
No exception for life of mother included in Idaho GOP’s abortion platform language • Idaho Capital Sun
Idaho Republican delegates rejected an amendment that would have provided an exception for a mother who has an abortion to safe her life.
idahocapitalsun.com
Tennessee Lobbyists Oppose New Lifesaving Exceptions in Abortion Ban
With an amendment to Tennessee’s abortion ban on the table, a powerful anti-abortion group pushes Republican lawmakers to take the narrowest interpretation on when a doctor can legally intervene in high-risk cases.
www.propublica.org
Last edited:
Your first link is about a choice of rhetoric in the party platform, that writing about the narrow exceptions you'd allow in your campaign rhetoric is losing the argument.No it isn't. Republican politicians keep having the option to add that exception and keep actively choosing not to and voting against it.
No exception for life of mother included in Idaho GOP’s abortion platform language • Idaho Capital Sun
Idaho Republican delegates rejected an amendment that would have provided an exception for a mother who has an abortion to safe her life.
Tennessee Lobbyists Oppose New Lifesaving Exceptions in Abortion Ban
With an amendment to Tennessee’s abortion ban on the table, a powerful anti-abortion group pushes Republican lawmakers to take the narrowest interpretation on when a doctor can legally intervene in high-risk cases.
Your second link is about lobbyists only advocating for narrow exceptions, so yes supporting exceptions.
The third link says " Among many leading antiabortion groups, by contrast, there’s general agreement around banning abortion in the cases of rape and incest, but including exceptions for threats to the life of the mother. "
Thank you for validating my statements. That was very kind.
Not as miserable as going through two or five miscarriages. Same embrio death toll regardless.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,084
- 2,451
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
The first link is about the party platform being firmly against any kind of exceptions period, regardless of what their constituents may want, because they think that if their platform has any exceptions it undermines their message that all abortions are evil, regardless of context. If that's their party platform then that's how they intend to govern. The fact that their party platform is unpopular doesn't mean that platform isn't EXACTLY what they're pushing.
The second link is about how any exceptions for "the life of the mother" are so narrow that people are still dying because doctors aren't sure when the exception even applies. If a politician with no medical training decides that a certain abortion wasn't absolutely necessary to save a woman's life then the doctor who performed it ends up in jail. People end up dying because of an overabundance of caution on the part of the doctors because any narrow exceptions are really only exceptions on paper and don't work in the real world.
The third link does say that the vast majority of the people in this country, even those who are anti-abortion want abortion to be an option in the cases of rape, incest, and in cases where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, and yet there are extremist politicians in states like Idaho, Ohio, Missouri, who don't want any kind of exceptions, or want exceptions that are so narrow that they might as well not exist. These people are being voted into power by Republicans to put their anti-abortion agenda into place regardless of the fact that it's an agenda even their supporters supposedly disagree with.
Anyone else following those links can read them, so I'm not sure why you're wasting your time with this rubbish.
Actually, I cannot follow the last link. I encounter a pay-wall, one which I tried to look at the source code to find your quoted passage and (when that failed) zoom out to get to the further-down-the-page parts, but I did not find it. I also tried searching for the phrase on Bing and got linked to the same article, and at that point I was lost (and feeling like I was wasting my time/robbing a publication).
Specifically, they're bringing back the dish you served because it doesn't say what you claim
But let's bypass all that. What specific abortion would be allowed by Tstorm if they got their way?
If you are using Chrome:
Right Click > Inspect > CTRL+SHIFT+P > type java > click Disable Javascript > refresh the page
The ones that are protecting the mother from imminent danger, though I would not call that an abortion. Abortion is deliberately killing a fetus with that death as the direct purpose of the procedure. If the goal of a procedure is to save the mother rather than just kill the child, calling it an abortion would be like calling self-defense murder.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,084
- 2,451
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Sounds like RINO talk to me you filthy abortion-loving commie.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,084
- 2,451
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
No, it wouldn't.
This is genuinely one of the most laughable things you have ever said on this subject, and it genuinely makes me wonder what you think you are doing here. Do you think you're being convincing? Do you think you're winning the argument and taking the moral high ground? Do you think you are credible opposition or have earned any kind of grudging respect?
This is not "self-defence" and you know it. The baby isn't trying to kill anyone, it has no capacity for malice or conscious control over the mechanism by which it is generated.
What this is is the easiest variation on the trolley problem ever created. There are two people, one has to die, and the choice is whether to intervene and murder one of them so that the other will live. If you actually believe the personhood of that unborn baby is equal in value to that of its mother and that allowing that baby to die by inducing premature birth is murder, there is no argument that would ever justify intervening. Intervening isn't going to minimize deaths, it's exactly the same number of deaths either way. You are simply murdering one innocent to save another. It's the equivalent of harvesting someone's organs and pretending its not murder because doing so provided someone else with a life-saving transplant.
And yet, even you know it's wrong. Even you draw the line at letting a thinking, feeling person die to save meat. What's the matter? Life is life, right? Why are you bending over backwards this hard to maintain this absurd inconsistency? Why are you so afraid of the actual implications of everything you claim to believe?
I didn't say "abortion is self-defense", I'm saying intent is important to the nature of a crime, or whether an action even is a crime to begin with. Self-defense is a relevant comparison in this sense, as the intention is not "I want that person dead", it's "I don't want to die." The vast majority of abortions are done purely to make the fetus dead. That is a very different than someone who would rather the fetus survive, but sees a substantial probability of their own death if they don't intervene.
Also, I don't think you understand why a homicide in self-defense is justifiable. It has nothing to do with the malice or intentions of the person who is killed in self-defense. Nothing at all. I'm not going to say you kill a fetus in self-defense, as there are other distinctions, but the lack of malice isn't it. We don't allowing killing in self-defense because the killer thought the deceased was mean and scary and deserved it, we consider it justified in the preservation of ones own existence, regardless of whether they deserved it.
Not really, most of the time if the mother dies, the child will also. Maternal mortality corresponds to death of the infant in like 75% of cases. So your trolley problem is one of the most solvable you could imagine. It has a split rail with the mother on one side, nothing on the other, and then the lines converge at the child who gets hit either way.
The argument is called the Principle of Double Effect, which argues that even if you know your actions will lead to a bad result, the actions can be morally justified if:
A) The action isn't inherently bad (inducing labor is not inherently bad)
B) The bad result must not be the means to the good result (the death of the fetus is a parallel consequence of inducing birth, not the means of saving the mother, thus not the same as harvesting organs from one person to save another)
C) The intention must be to achieve the good effect, with any feasible attempt to mitigate the bad effect taken (what I'm talking about)
D) The good effect must be proportionately greater than the bad (see trolley problem above)
You probably have no response to that argument other than something like "that's bullcrap", but you don't follow the same moral philosophy, so why would you?
Of all your failures to understand your political opponents, this might be the most striking.
Unless the pregnant person literally performs the abortion themselves (extremely unlikely when there is a potentially fatal complication) the people performing the abortion are not motivated by a desire not to die. They are carrying out a premeditated, calculated action that will result in the death of a fetus on the justification that it will save another life. Again, you are literally asking doctors to commit what you claim to believe is murder.
The legal concept of self-defense is utterly meaningless. If self-defense did apply to this situation, then any unwanted pregnancy is by definition an assault on the mother by the fetus and a violation of her bodily integrity against which she is entitled to defend herself.
Again, however, the people carrying out the abortion are not defending themselves. What you are actually talking about is that expanded definition of self-defence wherein a third party is acting in defense of someone else, and this makes the assignment of perceived culpability extremely relevant. A fetus is not taking any action that would pose a threat to its mother, it is by definition incapable of taking any action at all. It is simply existing.
Again, I want you to face head on what you are saying here. You are asking a doctor to murder one innocent person in order to save another innocent person because, by some cold, utilitarian logic, the two will cancel each other out.
"Most of the time" is not good enough. Face the consequences of your alleged principles.
You don't follow this moral philosophy either.
You can't come out with this shit and then claim that abortion is murder. You can't recognize the distinction between inducing labour and killing when it suits an exception you want to make, and then argue against it in any other case. There is no reason why that process could not be applied to any abortion barring a subjective belief in the relative "greatness" of outcomes.
You've basically just said "whatever I feel is right is right" and then pretended it's actually some deep moral code noone else could possibly understand. That's, actually kind of sad, but really not surprising at this point..