They are hoping that, but these will be disproportionately non-white babies that they don’t want.
1 Like
Yeah, I find it astounding that people keep shooting up Walmarts and Schools but not the homes of judges and congressmen. Admittedly they probably have better security? But that good? I don’t know.
Trump is a double exception. He’s rich enough for a lot of security, and liked by most gun-nuts.
1 Like
Lol Fox news dares ask a conservative about supporting women forced to give birth
https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1540413701693612032?t=ge7ZqVQgqYc93HgvT1Cyfg&s=19
2 Likes
It’s not republican’s that are the defining problem. The words you’re looking for are evangelical christians. Guns, racism,all the anti-lgbtq stuff, today’s problems. The correlation and causation are bible thumpers.
That man had so many favourite quotes, hard to choose just one. I’m a fan of fuddle duddle.
Anyone not familiar with Pierre Elliot Trudeauand (our current prime minister’s father) the fuddle duddle controversy, worth a look.
But yeah, that bedroom statement coming from a hard left liberal is about as conservative statement as you can make.
That guy was a 100 percent grade-a ass-kicker, DNGAF. I don’t think there’s a politician like him since.
Simply put there are really only two important considerations present with this issue that need to be addressed.
- Are unborn fetuses human beings and entitled to the same rights born human beings or not?
- From the role of the courts, is there a constitutional right to abortion?
Regarding the second, regardless of whether abortion should be allowed or not, the constitution is mum on the subject, tradition generally points the other way, and searching for creative ways to establish new rights as Roe V Wade did may have the “correct outcome” but ultimately results in the judicial branch doing the job of the legislative branch.
Regarding the first point, the abortion debate should focus philosophically on the characteristics of adult human life vs unborn fetuses. If it is not a human life, then legislation should favor women being able to seek the best outcome for them (sometimes abortion), but if there are two human lives then it’s a very severe exercise of ends vs means and favoring one life vs another.
No, it’s Republicans. They own all of it. They just stand by and let the evangelicals shit all over this country, because they need their vote.
4 Likes
You speak as if there are absolutes here that everyone can agree on for all cases. That is incorrect at best. I think most people would agree that a fertilized egg in a freezer is not a human, but even that isn’t straight forward to some.
2 Likes
Yep. Evangelicals and the q continuum control the Republican party right now. The rest are enjoying the ride I suppose.
2 Likes
Yeah, you’d think at a minimum that equal protection would be sufficient keep same sex marriage legal, but did they maybe also cite the right to privacy in the decision? I didn’t read the whole decision to know.
I might be misunderstanding what you are trying to get across with your comment on absolutes, but it seems to point at whether there is an objective truth at play here or a subjective truth. Is that right?
IANAL, but this seems like a bad idea. YMMV.
Fairly close. You mention needing a philosophical debate on this topic, but this has been debated ad nauseum. What new insight do you believe will happen this time to convince people to get on board with your viewpoint?
2 Likes
My viewpoint and whether anyone is convinced by it isn’t relevant. It is a question of what is a philosophically sound way to get to one position or the other. Human beings either objectively have certain value and rights, in which case we need to decide who are human beings (which we aren’t addressing and unborn fetuses could be argued either way), or they only subjectively have value, which logically means that value can change person to person and there is no point in arguing right and wrong at all.
Maybe, I dunno, bit it’s the religious driving it.
In Canada everyone conservative gets branded like this as well, but theres a.lot of conservatives (as in, the conservative political party) who aren’t socons.
I think there are likely reasonable arguments both ways for whether unborn fetuses are humans or not, but really this is the point the topic should focus on.
Again, you are talking in absolutes that there is one philosphically sound answer here.
Let’s start with a relatively easy one I mentioned earlier:a frozen fertilized egg in a freezer. Make it even more extreme if you want and say it’s been in there many years and has virtually zero chance of becoming viable if implanted. Is that a human with the full rights of any other human?
3 Likes
Even if the fetus is a human life, it’s essentially a parasite on the mother.
If a fully born person was going to die without one of my kidneys I am under no obligation to give up the kidney.
I do think that morally abortion is different, especially if the pregnancy occurred legally & consensually. But my own morals should not be the deciding factor.
So yes, abortion should be legal.
Was Roe correctly decided? No, I don’t think it was.
What would be nice to see would be Congress passing a law legalizing abortion. That’s how abortion should be legal. But I know that’s fantasy.
3 Likes
It seems like your example is setting the stage for a “the method must be wrong because the result seems shocking to me” type argument, which is not a particularly useful method. The door is still open to reasoning indicating fetuses are not human beings and not entitled to rights by the way.
Regarding the absolutes again, unless we are willing to discard objective truth entirely (in which case there are some serious consequences for our beloved mathematics), human beings either objectively have value or they don’t. If they don’t, moral questions really don’t have any real substance behind them. If they do, we need a method of determine what is a human and what rights they have. We haven’t said how we will do that, but there needs to be a way if humans objectively have value.
No.
The Republican party as a whole allowed this to happen.
No one gets cover to say it was just the “religious nuts”
Religious nuts didn’t exclusively elect Trump.
Religious nuts didnt exclusively confirm his THREE SCOTUS nominations with the intention of exactly this to happen.
This is on all Republicans.
5 Likes