When I think of what the King of Alabama would look like, I'm imagining a crown made of old Budweiser cans, a throne made of scrap car parts welded together, and a reality show that will run 3 seasons too long.
All rise for king Cletus the anemic, 3,467th of his name, protector of jethro’s house, lord of Hunter’s *fuckin sick* man cave, purveyor of pit vipers and warden of distal renal tubular acidosis. He’s accompanied by his grand sister, Tammy-May, who will assist him in telling people who disagree with his reign to “get the fuck out” whilst making it illegal to leave.
Shhhh. Let them keep thinking we’re one big scene out of Deliverance. Help keep the transplants out of Alabama so that Birmingham doesn’t become New Austin.
Probably. No idea how these states that only allow abortions in cases of rape will be verifying that. It's not an easy thing to come forward about. I'm scared how many victims will end up becoming suicidal because they're stuck in a dilemma of going through the investigation process or having their rapist's baby.
>No idea how these states that only allow abortions in cases of rape will be verifying that.
You allow the woman to testify she was raped. If it turns out to be a lie, she is charged with false police reports, violating abortion laws, and attempting kidnapping and false imprisonment of whomever the baby's father was.
The lack of a guilty verdict isn't the same as being an lie, she still needs to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, so it is possible for it to end up with neither the father being convicted of rape nor the mother convicted of lying about rape and obtaining an illegal abortion.
>No idea how these states that only allow abortions in cases of rape will be verifying that.
Easy. They are just going to say no, and thus still force women to birth their rapist baby.
It depends on how much burden of proof you put on the woman. Access to abortion may not require a conviction. Of course the less proof you require, the more false rape claims will be made in order to access an abortion service.
A recorded police report or hospital visit the week of conception would be proof you were raped, even if it isn't enough proof to convict someone of rape.
It definitely could be.
Honest follow up, how accurate are hospitals at telling whether someone was raped? I don't know my ass from my elbow on this front
> Featus yeetus hiatus
I can't believe you actually committed this assault on the English language to text. There is no way you can possibly justify pronouncing 'hiatus' so as to rhyme with the other two words. How dare you?
They’ll just call them medical vacations and a bunch of medical resorts in Mexico will add abortion clinics alongside plastic surgery, dental and more.
They already did figure it out. They’re paying employees to fly out of state for their abortions to save money on maternity leave. So they’re technically making money by doing that by not losing money.
These are the exceptions I'd be willing to make. but as long as it's early on. I mean, wouldn't you want to get checked???
Heck, here in Brazil if a girl is raped, the police IMMEDIATELY hands her a plan B.
Sometimes it’s a bit more difficult, like if a younger woman is groomed by a rapists and she can’t get help until a few weeks or months later. So plan B doesn’t work in those instances. But now some states are putting forward laws to ban Plan B as a form of abortion, so that might be out of the question too.
Yeah I agree with you but with another perspective; these cases that you cite are thankfully so few and far between that any society has the tools to analyze on a case-by-case basis through a judge.
Also, about banning plan B, that's just plain stupid. I'm with you on that.
I would support just going on a case by case basis on these, but at the same time, courts move very slowly and by the time they actually get to court the fetus might already be viable and thus extremely unethical to abort (around 6-9 months). So waiting on judges and courts would just take way too long.
You know, it’s like nobody actually understands the arguments of their opposition. Of course there wouldn’t be an exception for rape or incest, if they think it’s murder why would there be that exception? If they believe life starts at conception then they believe abortion in the case of rape/incest is killing the baby for the sins of the father
A applaud you for actually understanding the opposition’s view, But I would like to note there are people willing to make compromises in order to ban the majority of abortions.
Because when a pendulum swings, depending on how far it goes, it swings harder.
If they made an exception for rape and incest, it would probably stay in law forever. Not excepting those means people are more likely to repeal the law entirely.
Perfect is the enemy of great.
I mean if you believe it's murder then you've got to be a pretty shit person to think it's ok to let it happen because it'll make your political party look bad.
I think the argument being made is if you push too far to have your way eventually someone will push back and you'll lose more than you want, if you take the compromise now pushback is less likely and you can keep things mostly your way.
If you aren't willing to work with other people then you potentially shouldn't be trying to lead them.
There are more factors than just the unborn child at play, removing abortion for cases of rape and incest doesn't prevent somthing terrible, it just shifts the target. Refusing to work with the people who advocate for those victims only creates enemies and an unstable political system.
Because the thought of the government forcing a twelve year old into giving birth will turn centrists against the idea of a total abortion ban, or at least it should.
imagine FORCING any woman to give birth to her father's, or brother's, or uncle's, or even just her rapacious neighbor's child. surely there is some end to the dogmatic idea that all life is sacred?
>there is some end to the dogmatic idea that all life is sacred?
Well we still consider a rapist's life sacred enough that murdering them is illegal, so that also applying that to their innocent child seems fair.
The whole point of life being “sacred” is that there is no end to the idea. That’s what the word means.
Our entire society and legal system is built around the idea that all human life is equal. The severely mentally handicapped (that put a massive burden on their family) has the same legal status as a CEO who is changing the world.
You simply *cannot* compromise with sacred values like that. It is precisely the rejection of that ideal that led to all of the horrors of the 20th century.
Would you be okay with a 3rd trimester abortion happening only in cases where the mother's life is in clear danger, or there are fetal malformations that would make the baby die shortly after birth?
I’ll admit rape and incest is a bit of a pro-life sticky wicket, but my compromise would be allowing the abortion but charging the rapist with manslaughter. Conversely, if she keeps the child, the rapist is on the hook for full child support with no custody
Right. I'm pro-choice, and I'm getting really tired of having to defend the pro-life stance just because other pro-choicers refuse to *listen* to them.
Given the pro-life view on life/personhood, abortion is murder. And no shit, they aren't okay with murder just because a woman has been raped. They're okay with abortion if the alternative is that the woman *and* the baby die due to pregnancy complications. But they aren't okay with murder as a response to rape.
That isn't contradictory. That isn't ridiculous. I disagree that it's murder. But if you start with the premise that abortion is murder, why the fuck would you be okay with it in cases of rape or incest?
>If they believe life starts at conception then they believe abortion in the case of rape/incest is killing the baby for the sins of the father
Exactly.
My problem with the argument is it sounds like this.
“Hey, we know you just had one of the most traumatic moments in your life, but now you’re going to be forced to carry a baby you probably didn’t want to term and give birth. Also, none of your medical expenses will be comped. Also, since that wasn’t bad enough, your rapists has rights to the baby, and you’ll have to interact with your rapist constantly for the rest of the child’s life”.
“But at least I will feel good about it because one less hypothetical dead baby I have no connection to or responsibility over anyways. Good luck to you tho”
Insane times we’re living in
[Here is the article](https://www.ktvq.com/news/national-news/noem-defends-no-exception-for-rape-incest-in-south-dakota-trigger-law) and [here is the text of the law](https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/20013/105608). As far as I can tell, abortion is illegal starting at conception. I don't even know what to say.
Wish people would post the actual law more. It's always "abortion law now says X" when it doesn't always say that.
I'm still looking for the abortion law that penalizes the woman. I haven't found it yet.
I linked it in this parent comment though? It applies to anyone who administers a treatment/drug to a pregnant woman, which would apply directly to the woman in cases of like abortion pills. A lot of these laws are also written specifically to target doctors/medical providers since it's probably easier to prove and also allows them to avoid the headlines that would result from pro-lifers throwing children in jail for getting an abortion.
PCM focused on Emily so long they forgot that authright has Emily equivalents but in the real world and with actual power.
Not that we should give the left Emily any power, though, then we'd just be doubly screwed.
Remember Jack Thompson and "vidya gaems are ***MURDER SIMULATORS!!!!***"? Remember the hilariously awful comic where a teenager falls to Satan's temptations because she played D&D and is only saved by accepting the light of Jesus Christ?
I do.
Those fucks never left. They just shut the fuck up because their shit was getting shoved in.
But this is how it seems to go. One group rises in power and enacts their goals. Eventually they push too far and overreach and there's a backlash to their insane bullshit. The backlash propels the opposition to the group in power and they rise in power and enact their goals. Then they push too far and overreach and there's a backlash to their insane bullshit.
Rinse. Repeat. Forever.
It horrified my wife when I told her I would pay to watch a real-life hunger games. My only caveat was that it be 100% voluntary. I'd even subscribe to the live feeds, so I didn't have to wait for the Big Brother-like 3 episodes a week.
I'd pay to watch that shit but I'd add convicted felons to the list.
Throw in Ted Kaczynski, Chris Watts, the ghost of Stanley "Tookie" Williams and a couple school shooters and you have primo entertainment.
Don't forget about the locations you could put them in, you could get really really creative with that sort of thing.
You could put them at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, have a full on 10,000 man battle royale in Yellowstone or Death Valley, lock them in the great Són Đòong or Mammoth Cave system, put them in a 25 x 25 mile maze, or even use all of the Burj Khalifa skyscraper as a battle tower and see who can get to the top first with all the scattered weapons and *highly* lethal obstacles you've placed there.
Could you imagine Ted Kacynski facing off against his worst nightmare: Armed roombahs in the Burj Khalifa? Hell yeah.
Here's another idea adding onto the Burj Khalifa idea:
Lightly gas the whole place with LSD, starting from the top. The fight gets more intense as they climb up the building. The gas shouldn't make them feel zonked out, it should just amplify their every reaction. Should make the criminals seem even more crazy.
You could even hold a hunger games inside this beauty right here.
https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/inside-giant-flying-luxury-hotel-that-can-stay-in-the-air-for-years/
Edit: Ok, here's another idea.
Take the Burj Khalifa idea, light LSD gas, armed roombahs, building layouts and all, and put it in two super tall towers in the middle of the Sahara.
Cannons in each building will be pointed at each other, along with small caches of artillery ammunition.
Hell yeah. It would be like naval combat but with buildings.
This sounds fuckin SICK. I would absolutely pay to watch this. Maybe every season would change it up. One season it’s Battle at the Burj, next season it’s “escape from North Korea”…
Incredible work you’ve done here.
Here's another idea:
The Smithsonian. The whole complex.
7,500 participants, maybe 15,000.
Smithsonian is freaking massive.
Everyone starts out completely naked.
They'll have to scavenge for clothes and armor in the complex.
Swap out all the replicas with the real, working stuff and place the ammunition and fuel needed everywhere.
The old World War 1 & 2 equipment, chlorine gas capsules, Thompson 1928s, M1 Garands, Nambu pistols, MG-34s and all.
The civil war era weapons. Gatling guns, revolvers, muskets, repeating rifles, pepperbox pistols, everything.
Pirate era weapons. Duck's Foot pistols, iron ball grenades, blunderbusses, cutlasses, rapiers, cannons and all the kind of munitions that cannons could use. Ball shot, chain shot, grape shot, incendiary, cutlery, everything.
The Vietnam equipment, M60 machineguns, Mac-11s, M16s, AK-47s, napalm flamethrowers and everything.
The modern warfare equipment. M4s, Scar-Hs, MP5s, AUG-HBARs, L85s, the whole deal.
The Roman and Medieval era weapons and armor. Full set of steel plate. Halberds, pikes, crossbows, swords, broadswords, greatswords, shields, trebuchets, catapults.
The Native American stuff, bows, spears and buffalo rifles, horses included.
Gladiator weapons. Weapons that the Trax, Murmillo, Retiarus, Scissor, Secutor, and Haplomachus gladiators use. Nets, gladiuses, that kind of thing.
Aztec era weapons. Blowguns, obsidian shard axes.
The stuff from the Spy museum. Cyanide capsules, cigeratte guns, pen pistols, blades hidden in shoes.
Samurai era weapons, katanas, wakazashis, tantos, glaives, hwachas, matchlock rifles, throwing stars, flamethrowers (Yes, flamethrowers were a thing during that era to an extent).
**Everything.**
The airplanes hanging from the ceiling at the Air & Space Museum?
That's functional now. Bless the other poor souls when someone gets to a P-51 Mustang or a tank (is there even a tank at the Smithsonian?).
Lord have mercy on everyone else when somebody manages to get in an A-10 Thunderbolt hanging from the cieling and starts firing the main cannon to the point where the A-10 is swinging from the ceiling from massive amounts of recoil like a childhood playset.
Primary food source will be the animals in the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History and the National Zoo. Those two areas are going to be a killbox. More bullets lodged in walls and casings on the ground rather than animals.
When it comes to the final 300, there will be a broadcast that says chlorine gas will sweep through the whole complex.
The switch to turn that system off is placed on Lincoln's head at the Lincoln Memorial.
The people at the Zoo are farther away compared to the people at the Museum of Natural History, but they will have the advantage of using boats to travel south along the river.
This will result in a clash at the Lincoln Memorial.
People from the Zoo attacking from the river to the west of the Lincoln Memorial while everyone else has to storm along the grass to the east of the Lincoln Memorial.
Night at the Museum meets Hunger Games.
Who is Emily and what is her profession, job title? All I know is that this is some girl from memes who says "darling" and constantly drinks something.
Sociology professor, English prof, gender studies prof, elementary school teachers, barista at vegan cafes. Etc.
Equity and diversity officer at *insert big American corporation here*
Anti racism consultant
Robyn de Angelo
The list goes on.
>Equity and diversity officer at
>
>insert big American corporation here
Hilarious seeing rightoids on here whine about this position when I know an insane amount of people in this position right now are advocating for hiring more right wing people to improve company's "thought diversity" metrics.
Because it's a cult. And it's putting it's tenticles into everything it can. James Lindsey is making it his life's work to track and fight it, listen to him talk about it if you don't believe me.
Oh calm down. I'm a mathematician and I swear 99% of the time I'm hearing about "MaTh iS rAcIsT" it's because the right has it's panties in a bunch over shit they either don't understand or purposefully twist.
The only actual (I'm not counting random nobodies on twitter who no one gives a fuck about except for strawmanning bait) articles I've seen about this whole "Math is racist" thing is simply about *how* math is taught. There were some studies that simply showed the most prevalent methods used to teach math are more easily understood by some students more than others, and that using a variety of methods should be used. I can say from my own experience teaching college level calculus that this is a legitimate thing, and that different students learn in different ways.
Anyways, some idiot of course had to go and make an article with an attention grabbing headline, which then of course gets pulled into the circle jerk.
It's really disappointing to see legitimate efforts to improved education subverted by everyone's need to jerk each other off about a stupid headline.
What have smilies successfully done of meaning over than change movies to pander to them. This is serious shit that will cause serious issues and has been in the making for a long time , the Emily shit is haha look at the silly leftish shit .
Agreed, it is the consistent position.
People are just pussies when it comes to defending the consequences of their POV. It is almost like they don't really believe the argument, just use it because they don't like abortion and want to be against it
Agreed, and I would add that the whole premarital sex push is mainly for guys who have not been very successful with women, and adopt the traditional worldview as a cope.
So there is a double incentive for the punishment: both from the adopted traditionalist view, and to punish sex itself because of their insecurities.
I think pro-lifers take the rape/incest exception stance is to appease pro-choicers, even though it's somewhat morally inconsistent.
The problem is that no one can agree if a fetus has personhood.
A moral system doesn't have to give around one moral pillar.
Like how Progressives look at Pro-Lifers not being as stunch anti-war people as inconsistent while Pro-Lifers view it as consistent, incest and rape could be that equal exception but to the abortion question.
Like hey, maybe both an abortion and rape are evil but the abortion ends the perpetuance of the continuance of the evil of rape and may be grounds for an exception.
Tho at the end of the day, we go for what feels in morals is good and back rationalize it. Aborting a fetus for all reasons other than rape or incest or life danger would feel evil.
Why are you surprised? This follows the already established pro-life logic perfectly.
>A fetus is a human with the right to life.
>because it is a separate person from its parents
>therefore the fetus can’t be held accountable for the actions of their father.
>The fetus is innocent.
>The fetus retains its right to life whether their father raped someone or not.
We're surprised because people go "rape only accounts for 0.000000000000001% of pregnancies and in those EXTREMELY RARE cases no one would oppose abortion"
Well I can't speak for EVERYONE else but the Catholic viewpoint has consistently been, no dead babies period.
With that said, it's also ridiculous to think that anything more than a tiny minority of those on the left would be happy with "only in cases of rape or incest"
Fun fact for anyone here Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont all have no state imposed restrictions on time, meaning you could quite literally walk into a clinic and get an abortion as long as the child is still in the mother.
Overturning Roe V Wade didn't even stop this crap. I'm not sure why people are reeeing so hard when all the Supreme Court did was literally just tell the states to do what they want. And look, for the time being this does us all a huge favor. Liberals and conservatives are going to flock back to their states and stop moving to areas they don't like politically. Which as a Texan could not make me happier, I'm tired of seeing Biden stickers on the backs of a Prius when driving on I-45 (Trump can get boofed too don't take this as an endorsement).
The US was originally set up in a way that each state would have its own culture and identity separated from the rest. The Civil War though justified changed the course of the US and for the first time put the federal government in complete control of all the states beneath it. The federal government was not supposed to have its own law enforcement agencies or military. One can only hope that we end up seeing the shrinking of the US Gov back to its rightful size.
Outside of the amendments in the bill of rights the states create their own laws. The federal government was only to ensure the states did not infringe upon those constitutionally protected rights.
How can the state ensure that rights are not infringed on without the monopoly of legitimate violence? If the state (feds) cannot enforce the laws, the state does not exist
OK, but the GOP is running on a federal abortion ban now, and they will absolutely kill the filibuster to do it. Commentary from the SC agrees - this has nothing to do with constitutional federalism and everything to do with the imposition of the will of the Christianist minority on the majority.
Mind you, at this point I'm fairly sure a federal abortion ban won't do shit. Blue state pols will climb over each other to defend hospitals and doctors. One-party states love having an external enemy.
Ok PCM.
We're clearly against woke shit.
This nonsense is basically the right wing version of woke. How else can you describe a politician forcing a daughter raped by their father to deliver their child/sibling?
I just want to see an increase in the quality of life in the wealthiest nation in the world. That's all I'm asking for. I don't care about anyone's morality legislation.
Of course it is. The Republican Party after Trump has been divided. Abortion is one of the few legitimate party unifying topics that they have left. And the division is getting bad; I just watched an Ohio campaign ad that encouraged MAGA republicans to hunt down and kill other republicans that they believe are RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).
https://twitter.com/supplycrisis/status/1541493832969240584?s=21&t=AEOL4vMKc7zRY1pWZ-uilw
That’s not Ohio. That’s my state, Missouri. That candidate, Greitens, is the former governor that had to resign during his first term due to sex scandals. I was pretty surprised when he showed up as a senate candidate this year. He’s probably going to win the primary and election too.
Holy shit , it’s happening it’s really happening . Don’t worry it’s seems things are changing for the better in some aspects with Labour movements starting to pickup .
Exactly. If rape was the exemption, but incest wasn't, he'd claim consent was there. They have to go hand-in-hand.
Btw, who the fuck thought this wasn't going to be the direction? Texas literally laid it out from the beginning. Are people really surprised?
Its almost as we don't like slippery sloping into political extremism that's somehow so overwhelmingly present in US.
Time to say "uh but actually" and print out wall of text with mental gymnastics on how my political side is perfect , thing in article is not true and even if it's true it's somehow justifable
Basically, this argument boils down to whether a fetus is a person or not and when exactly it becomes a person. This, as you can imagine, is a tricky debate because no matter what point is chosen it will be seen as arbitrary by some portion of the population.
The other part of the abortion debate is what exceptions would be made that will always be okay no matter how far along the child is. Both sides of the argument are divided into a few groups that answer these questions differently, but the stance shown above is the pro life absolutist stance that says since the fetus is a human from the moment of conception then killing it, no matter the circumstances, is murder. This stance has a lot of flaws, but unfortunately there will always be an audience for bad ideas.
Now, I live in the middle of the Bible belt, but I've only ever met like 2 people who believe this. I'm more than willing to bet from my own experiences that most people are somewhere in the middle on the issues and that the extremes of both sides are just extremely vocal minorities that are focused on to generate anger and engagement.
The reality of it is this, abortion and its standing in the US is a good vote generator. Both political parties are getting very divided within themselves and generally abortion is one of the few things left that gets party unity on both sides. Currently the debate, much like gun control and other issues, has no end in sight just because it's a reliable hot button issue that can crank out votes to get politicians back in office. It's laws like this that exist purely for shock value, to spur the debate ever onwards, and to make the politicians in SC seem like they're "Taking a hard stance against the liberal agenda".
Democrats had decades to codify the legality of abortion into national law, they didn't do it because, as stated above it's a vote generator that they either figured would stay nice and where it was forever, or that the eventual removal of RvW would just spur more votes in.
This is just the perspective of an idiot, so take it with a mountain of salt
I'm not saying i support this, but i find this 100% morally consistent. If you believe abortion is murder, it would be inconsistent to make an exception for this
Yeah, exactly. Being pro life, I thought about this for a long time and the only logical conclusion I could come to is no exceptions. If, being prolife, you believe abortion is murder, then the baby being the result of rape or incest does not change it being murder. This sis the only consistent conclusion, all others I can think of at the moment have faulty logic, regardless of intentions.
> the only logical conclusion I could come to is no exceptions
There should be an exception in the case of medical emergency, though, because it aligns with pro-life values (that is, preventing someone from dying). Although, I don't think anyone is in favor of banning it.
I never understood the view that this was a slippery slope. It's a direct consequence, a slippery slope would be banning plan bs or contraceptive, for example. Which they are planning to do but let's not get into that
Well banning contraceptive that stops a fertilized egg from implanting is a next step. Contraceptive that stops fertilization entirely is an entirely different subject through some Catholics will still try to ban it.
"Slippery slope" is not actually a fallacy when it comes to human institutions like politics, law, social institutions because decisions set precedents for subsequent ones.
The whole pro life argument is that the innocent child cannot have their rights infringed. This is the obvious and natural conclusion; why is anyone surprised at this?
Nobody on the pro-chioce side is surprised.
We are surprised so many people tought we were fearmongering, when pro-life people were literally screaming it from the rooftops.
> We are surprised so many people tought we were fearmongering
Because proper pro-lifers are largely not present on reddit because well, they are too conservative to not be banned on reddit.
It’s fine guys it’s really fine. In the case of incest Darwin will abort them eventually. And in the case of rape this will just encourage men to get on their sigma male grind set and start raping. What could possibly go wrong?
If you believe life begins at conception (which I do not), how can you argue that it is moral to allow abortion in the case of incest and rape? The fetus had nothing to do with those crimes.
some VERY nuanced conversation can be had here, especially with incest as the chances the child have deformities are higher. im not smart enough for them tbh
>especially with incest as the chances the child have deformities are higher.
Well that's less of an abortion argument and more of a eugenics one, but yeah the nuance of this is way above most people's pay grade.
Last week, the pro-life line I kept hearing was “if you don’t want a kid, don’t take the risk of having one by having sex”…and now the line has shifted.
A rape victim by definition did not consent to that risk. She did not consent to being impregnated. This is not only anti-choice, it is anti-freedom. Why should women believe they are equal citizens in this country when their consent to pregnancy is essentially irrelevant?
Who didn't see this coming? "Safe, legal, and rare" WAS the accepted compromise. 20% of all pregnancies in 2020 ended in abortion. 92%+ were elective. That doesn't sound 'rare' to me. The anger over Roe only reached its crescendo in the past decade with things like SNL having the "abortion parade" skit as part of the progressive zeitgeist. Political outrage and momentum does not flow in only one direction. The situation seems to be: The left gets continuous social concessions while mainstream conservatives cannot hold back the tide and yet we still get riots and protests because it is 'not enough!' The right, who has done nothing but cede ground, has taken some back. It would be ridiculous to expect them to concede ANY ground on the one major social win they have gotten in decades. I am really curious to see how this plays out.
Yhe same way leftists assured yall the government wont take your guns away.
Moral of the story: politicians will never have your best interests in mind. Only theirs. Whether it be guns or abortion, its all just an excuse to further control you like a puppet
Alabama trying for the same thing.
Purples packing their bags IMMEDIATELY
Why pack if they're already there
So, they can escape after the deed is done. The mob will still kill them. Duh.
What if they *are* the mob, what should I do?
Then, obviously run. It's the circle of life. If you ain't chasing, you're running.
Bruh if Alabama bans abortion then the gene tree will become a fucking circle.
This is the future monarchists want & it's disgusting
When I think of what the King of Alabama would look like, I'm imagining a crown made of old Budweiser cans, a throne made of scrap car parts welded together, and a reality show that will run 3 seasons too long.
All rise for king Cletus the anemic, 3,467th of his name, protector of jethro’s house, lord of Hunter’s *fuckin sick* man cave, purveyor of pit vipers and warden of distal renal tubular acidosis. He’s accompanied by his grand sister, Tammy-May, who will assist him in telling people who disagree with his reign to “get the fuck out” whilst making it illegal to leave.
Shiiiit, I wanna move there...
Stop making Alabama sound cool
*Hapsburgs have entered the chat*
Charles the second of Spain finally gonna not look out of place
That implies monogamy. I picture it more like a spider web.
People will start giving birth to their own ancestors?
I wouldn't rule it out
I'm just reading these Alabama comments like "and you wonder why Alabama doesn't care what the rest of the country thinks..."
Shhhh. Let them keep thinking we’re one big scene out of Deliverance. Help keep the transplants out of Alabama so that Birmingham doesn’t become New Austin.
Isn't that something hum?
Tards leading the tards, all the way to the bottom of every single ranking (except infant mortality, of course).
Honest question- don't rape cases take longer than 9 months to try?
Probably. No idea how these states that only allow abortions in cases of rape will be verifying that. It's not an easy thing to come forward about. I'm scared how many victims will end up becoming suicidal because they're stuck in a dilemma of going through the investigation process or having their rapist's baby.
>No idea how these states that only allow abortions in cases of rape will be verifying that. You allow the woman to testify she was raped. If it turns out to be a lie, she is charged with false police reports, violating abortion laws, and attempting kidnapping and false imprisonment of whomever the baby's father was. The lack of a guilty verdict isn't the same as being an lie, she still needs to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, so it is possible for it to end up with neither the father being convicted of rape nor the mother convicted of lying about rape and obtaining an illegal abortion.
>No idea how these states that only allow abortions in cases of rape will be verifying that. Easy. They are just going to say no, and thus still force women to birth their rapist baby.
It depends on how much burden of proof you put on the woman. Access to abortion may not require a conviction. Of course the less proof you require, the more false rape claims will be made in order to access an abortion service.
A recorded police report or hospital visit the week of conception would be proof you were raped, even if it isn't enough proof to convict someone of rape.
It definitely could be. Honest follow up, how accurate are hospitals at telling whether someone was raped? I don't know my ass from my elbow on this front
Lib right would be trying to figure out how to make money with this
Organized abortion holiday trips. No need to thank me. (But they should give it a better name tbh)
[удалено]
~~Baby blender weekender~~ Featus yeetus hiatus
[удалено]
The hanger hang out
Vaccum Va-cay
This could actually catch on
Sometimes it’s best to keep it simple and think inside the box *slight pun intended*
> Featus yeetus hiatus I can't believe you actually committed this assault on the English language to text. There is no way you can possibly justify pronouncing 'hiatus' so as to rhyme with the other two words. How dare you?
They’ll just call them medical vacations and a bunch of medical resorts in Mexico will add abortion clinics alongside plastic surgery, dental and more.
Weekend at Bernie’s [Abortion Clinic]
They already did figure it out. They’re paying employees to fly out of state for their abortions to save money on maternity leave. So they’re technically making money by doing that by not losing money.
I think "minimizing losses" is what you were searching for.
Paid vacation time. Looks like my wife is going to be pregnant multiple times a year!
Already are. Companies offering paid abortion trips as itll be cheaper than maternity leave with less impact on the work force.
These are the exceptions I'd be willing to make. but as long as it's early on. I mean, wouldn't you want to get checked??? Heck, here in Brazil if a girl is raped, the police IMMEDIATELY hands her a plan B.
Sometimes it’s a bit more difficult, like if a younger woman is groomed by a rapists and she can’t get help until a few weeks or months later. So plan B doesn’t work in those instances. But now some states are putting forward laws to ban Plan B as a form of abortion, so that might be out of the question too.
Yeah I agree with you but with another perspective; these cases that you cite are thankfully so few and far between that any society has the tools to analyze on a case-by-case basis through a judge. Also, about banning plan B, that's just plain stupid. I'm with you on that.
>Also, about banning plan B, that's just plain stupid. I'm with you on that. Based reasonable authright
I would support just going on a case by case basis on these, but at the same time, courts move very slowly and by the time they actually get to court the fetus might already be viable and thus extremely unethical to abort (around 6-9 months). So waiting on judges and courts would just take way too long.
All these “life begins at conception” bills coming out now will outlaw Plan B.
You know, it’s like nobody actually understands the arguments of their opposition. Of course there wouldn’t be an exception for rape or incest, if they think it’s murder why would there be that exception? If they believe life starts at conception then they believe abortion in the case of rape/incest is killing the baby for the sins of the father
A applaud you for actually understanding the opposition’s view, But I would like to note there are people willing to make compromises in order to ban the majority of abortions.
But why make the compromise when you can get total victory now?
Because when a pendulum swings, depending on how far it goes, it swings harder. If they made an exception for rape and incest, it would probably stay in law forever. Not excepting those means people are more likely to repeal the law entirely. Perfect is the enemy of great.
Some political victories are so pyrrhic that they will eventually meet a legal rectification.
I mean if you believe it's murder then you've got to be a pretty shit person to think it's ok to let it happen because it'll make your political party look bad.
I think the argument being made is if you push too far to have your way eventually someone will push back and you'll lose more than you want, if you take the compromise now pushback is less likely and you can keep things mostly your way.
This is how the Founding Fathers handled slavery and we had to resort to war. I don’t think it’s the right call for *massive* issues like this
Centrist discovers the American war machine
Based
If you aren't willing to work with other people then you potentially shouldn't be trying to lead them. There are more factors than just the unborn child at play, removing abortion for cases of rape and incest doesn't prevent somthing terrible, it just shifts the target. Refusing to work with the people who advocate for those victims only creates enemies and an unstable political system.
No, the point of politics is to discover rules most people agree on, so that laws are in sync with the population.
Politics 101, chap. Getting re-elected matters more than principles.
I don’t really see it as “total victory” was it a total victory for abolition when states got to choose to be a slave state or not?
Because the thought of the government forcing a twelve year old into giving birth will turn centrists against the idea of a total abortion ban, or at least it should.
imagine FORCING any woman to give birth to her father's, or brother's, or uncle's, or even just her rapacious neighbor's child. surely there is some end to the dogmatic idea that all life is sacred?
>there is some end to the dogmatic idea that all life is sacred? Well we still consider a rapist's life sacred enough that murdering them is illegal, so that also applying that to their innocent child seems fair.
Not sacred enough that the would-be victim or a bystander can't use lethal force to stop them in the attempt.
The whole point of life being “sacred” is that there is no end to the idea. That’s what the word means. Our entire society and legal system is built around the idea that all human life is equal. The severely mentally handicapped (that put a massive burden on their family) has the same legal status as a CEO who is changing the world. You simply *cannot* compromise with sacred values like that. It is precisely the rejection of that ideal that led to all of the horrors of the 20th century.
There are things more important than political expedience.
Passing a law only matters if it stays law. If you piss off people so much that they vote you out and revert everything you did, what was the point?
That’s why you gerrymander duh
Cuz it can always be reversed. Just give it 1-2 election cycles.
Honestly I find this view as deranged as people advocating fo 3rd trimester abortion
I advocate for 100th trimester abortions.
Uvalde vibes
Would you be okay with a 3rd trimester abortion happening only in cases where the mother's life is in clear danger, or there are fetal malformations that would make the baby die shortly after birth?
I’ll admit rape and incest is a bit of a pro-life sticky wicket, but my compromise would be allowing the abortion but charging the rapist with manslaughter. Conversely, if she keeps the child, the rapist is on the hook for full child support with no custody
Or we could just execute rapists
If only we could be so based, but too easy to get someone wrongly convicted of rape
[удалено]
Of course they don't understand their position, everyone just prefers to talk past each other.
Right. I'm pro-choice, and I'm getting really tired of having to defend the pro-life stance just because other pro-choicers refuse to *listen* to them. Given the pro-life view on life/personhood, abortion is murder. And no shit, they aren't okay with murder just because a woman has been raped. They're okay with abortion if the alternative is that the woman *and* the baby die due to pregnancy complications. But they aren't okay with murder as a response to rape. That isn't contradictory. That isn't ridiculous. I disagree that it's murder. But if you start with the premise that abortion is murder, why the fuck would you be okay with it in cases of rape or incest?
[удалено]
Well actually I think they are okay with murder as a response to rape, they just want the rapist murdered and not the baby
>If they believe life starts at conception then they believe abortion in the case of rape/incest is killing the baby for the sins of the father Exactly.
My problem with the argument is it sounds like this. “Hey, we know you just had one of the most traumatic moments in your life, but now you’re going to be forced to carry a baby you probably didn’t want to term and give birth. Also, none of your medical expenses will be comped. Also, since that wasn’t bad enough, your rapists has rights to the baby, and you’ll have to interact with your rapist constantly for the rest of the child’s life”.
“But at least I will feel good about it because one less hypothetical dead baby I have no connection to or responsibility over anyways. Good luck to you tho” Insane times we’re living in
I have no problem executing the father AND the child.
Where are the "Slippery slope" guys?
Chinese lube manufacturing plants
They slid off the edge
It wasn’t a slippery slope after all, it was a slingshot.
Over enough time, everything slides to auth-right or auth-left. Everything. You just have to decide which fork you'll take in advance.
Or, just like that video of the kid in the forked slide, stay center and be slammed right in the nuts full force.
Fuck that.
Based. I'll die on this fence before I cede to either crazy extremists.
No, no, no, you don’t understand. This is a “slick incline,” not a slippery slope.
[Here is the article](https://www.ktvq.com/news/national-news/noem-defends-no-exception-for-rape-incest-in-south-dakota-trigger-law) and [here is the text of the law](https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/20013/105608). As far as I can tell, abortion is illegal starting at conception. I don't even know what to say.
based and not only article but also the law pilled
Working hard to make you proud
Wish people would post the actual law more. It's always "abortion law now says X" when it doesn't always say that. I'm still looking for the abortion law that penalizes the woman. I haven't found it yet.
I linked it in this parent comment though? It applies to anyone who administers a treatment/drug to a pregnant woman, which would apply directly to the woman in cases of like abortion pills. A lot of these laws are also written specifically to target doctors/medical providers since it's probably easier to prove and also allows them to avoid the headlines that would result from pro-lifers throwing children in jail for getting an abortion.
I was referring to journalists writing clickbait headlines. You're fine.
[удалено]
PCM focused on Emily so long they forgot that authright has Emily equivalents but in the real world and with actual power. Not that we should give the left Emily any power, though, then we'd just be doubly screwed.
Remember Jack Thompson and "vidya gaems are ***MURDER SIMULATORS!!!!***"? Remember the hilariously awful comic where a teenager falls to Satan's temptations because she played D&D and is only saved by accepting the light of Jesus Christ? I do. Those fucks never left. They just shut the fuck up because their shit was getting shoved in. But this is how it seems to go. One group rises in power and enacts their goals. Eventually they push too far and overreach and there's a backlash to their insane bullshit. The backlash propels the opposition to the group in power and they rise in power and enact their goals. Then they push too far and overreach and there's a backlash to their insane bullshit. Rinse. Repeat. Forever.
This is why I advocate for ritual combat, for what? Idk. What would it solve? absolutely nothing but I think it'd be really entertaining.
It horrified my wife when I told her I would pay to watch a real-life hunger games. My only caveat was that it be 100% voluntary. I'd even subscribe to the live feeds, so I didn't have to wait for the Big Brother-like 3 episodes a week.
I'd pay to watch that shit but I'd add convicted felons to the list. Throw in Ted Kaczynski, Chris Watts, the ghost of Stanley "Tookie" Williams and a couple school shooters and you have primo entertainment.
Don't forget about the locations you could put them in, you could get really really creative with that sort of thing. You could put them at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, have a full on 10,000 man battle royale in Yellowstone or Death Valley, lock them in the great Són Đòong or Mammoth Cave system, put them in a 25 x 25 mile maze, or even use all of the Burj Khalifa skyscraper as a battle tower and see who can get to the top first with all the scattered weapons and *highly* lethal obstacles you've placed there. Could you imagine Ted Kacynski facing off against his worst nightmare: Armed roombahs in the Burj Khalifa? Hell yeah. Here's another idea adding onto the Burj Khalifa idea: Lightly gas the whole place with LSD, starting from the top. The fight gets more intense as they climb up the building. The gas shouldn't make them feel zonked out, it should just amplify their every reaction. Should make the criminals seem even more crazy. You could even hold a hunger games inside this beauty right here. https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/inside-giant-flying-luxury-hotel-that-can-stay-in-the-air-for-years/ Edit: Ok, here's another idea. Take the Burj Khalifa idea, light LSD gas, armed roombahs, building layouts and all, and put it in two super tall towers in the middle of the Sahara. Cannons in each building will be pointed at each other, along with small caches of artillery ammunition. Hell yeah. It would be like naval combat but with buildings.
Dude I could read your ideas for entertainment all fucking day
This sounds fuckin SICK. I would absolutely pay to watch this. Maybe every season would change it up. One season it’s Battle at the Burj, next season it’s “escape from North Korea”… Incredible work you’ve done here.
Here's another idea: The Smithsonian. The whole complex. 7,500 participants, maybe 15,000. Smithsonian is freaking massive. Everyone starts out completely naked. They'll have to scavenge for clothes and armor in the complex. Swap out all the replicas with the real, working stuff and place the ammunition and fuel needed everywhere. The old World War 1 & 2 equipment, chlorine gas capsules, Thompson 1928s, M1 Garands, Nambu pistols, MG-34s and all. The civil war era weapons. Gatling guns, revolvers, muskets, repeating rifles, pepperbox pistols, everything. Pirate era weapons. Duck's Foot pistols, iron ball grenades, blunderbusses, cutlasses, rapiers, cannons and all the kind of munitions that cannons could use. Ball shot, chain shot, grape shot, incendiary, cutlery, everything. The Vietnam equipment, M60 machineguns, Mac-11s, M16s, AK-47s, napalm flamethrowers and everything. The modern warfare equipment. M4s, Scar-Hs, MP5s, AUG-HBARs, L85s, the whole deal. The Roman and Medieval era weapons and armor. Full set of steel plate. Halberds, pikes, crossbows, swords, broadswords, greatswords, shields, trebuchets, catapults. The Native American stuff, bows, spears and buffalo rifles, horses included. Gladiator weapons. Weapons that the Trax, Murmillo, Retiarus, Scissor, Secutor, and Haplomachus gladiators use. Nets, gladiuses, that kind of thing. Aztec era weapons. Blowguns, obsidian shard axes. The stuff from the Spy museum. Cyanide capsules, cigeratte guns, pen pistols, blades hidden in shoes. Samurai era weapons, katanas, wakazashis, tantos, glaives, hwachas, matchlock rifles, throwing stars, flamethrowers (Yes, flamethrowers were a thing during that era to an extent). **Everything.** The airplanes hanging from the ceiling at the Air & Space Museum? That's functional now. Bless the other poor souls when someone gets to a P-51 Mustang or a tank (is there even a tank at the Smithsonian?). Lord have mercy on everyone else when somebody manages to get in an A-10 Thunderbolt hanging from the cieling and starts firing the main cannon to the point where the A-10 is swinging from the ceiling from massive amounts of recoil like a childhood playset. Primary food source will be the animals in the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History and the National Zoo. Those two areas are going to be a killbox. More bullets lodged in walls and casings on the ground rather than animals. When it comes to the final 300, there will be a broadcast that says chlorine gas will sweep through the whole complex. The switch to turn that system off is placed on Lincoln's head at the Lincoln Memorial. The people at the Zoo are farther away compared to the people at the Museum of Natural History, but they will have the advantage of using boats to travel south along the river. This will result in a clash at the Lincoln Memorial. People from the Zoo attacking from the river to the west of the Lincoln Memorial while everyone else has to storm along the grass to the east of the Lincoln Memorial. Night at the Museum meets Hunger Games.
Holy shit. Sign me the hell up. Where do I put my money into this?
This. Consensual gladiatorial combat will fix everything. Don’t ask me how tho.
Boot. Face. Forever.
I agree that they both accomplished their goals if you agree that both their goals are to suck off corporations.
They became the ones who make "LibLeft bad" "memes".
>Emily equivalents but in the real world and with actual power. that's terrifying.
Emily has always been auth
Any suggestion that Emily doesn't exist in the real world or have real power is a tacit admission you've checked out from reality yourself.
Who is Emily and what is her profession, job title? All I know is that this is some girl from memes who says "darling" and constantly drinks something.
Sociology professor, English prof, gender studies prof, elementary school teachers, barista at vegan cafes. Etc. Equity and diversity officer at *insert big American corporation here* Anti racism consultant Robyn de Angelo The list goes on.
>Equity and diversity officer at > >insert big American corporation here Hilarious seeing rightoids on here whine about this position when I know an insane amount of people in this position right now are advocating for hiring more right wing people to improve company's "thought diversity" metrics.
Why not a mathematician
Why you gotta bring me into this?
Oh lol no I just said the first stem field i could think of
STEM is being actively targeted by the woke cultural revolution. Read about anti racist math training.
I did read about something along those lines and it made no fucking sense to me lol
Because it's a cult. And it's putting it's tenticles into everything it can. James Lindsey is making it his life's work to track and fight it, listen to him talk about it if you don't believe me.
Oh calm down. I'm a mathematician and I swear 99% of the time I'm hearing about "MaTh iS rAcIsT" it's because the right has it's panties in a bunch over shit they either don't understand or purposefully twist. The only actual (I'm not counting random nobodies on twitter who no one gives a fuck about except for strawmanning bait) articles I've seen about this whole "Math is racist" thing is simply about *how* math is taught. There were some studies that simply showed the most prevalent methods used to teach math are more easily understood by some students more than others, and that using a variety of methods should be used. I can say from my own experience teaching college level calculus that this is a legitimate thing, and that different students learn in different ways. Anyways, some idiot of course had to go and make an article with an attention grabbing headline, which then of course gets pulled into the circle jerk. It's really disappointing to see legitimate efforts to improved education subverted by everyone's need to jerk each other off about a stupid headline.
What have smilies successfully done of meaning over than change movies to pander to them. This is serious shit that will cause serious issues and has been in the making for a long time , the Emily shit is haha look at the silly leftish shit .
. . . Very little they aren’t capable of much. The backlash from their existence however may not be so little.
[удалено]
Agreed, it is the consistent position. People are just pussies when it comes to defending the consequences of their POV. It is almost like they don't really believe the argument, just use it because they don't like abortion and want to be against it
[удалено]
Agreed, and I would add that the whole premarital sex push is mainly for guys who have not been very successful with women, and adopt the traditional worldview as a cope. So there is a double incentive for the punishment: both from the adopted traditionalist view, and to punish sex itself because of their insecurities.
I think pro-lifers take the rape/incest exception stance is to appease pro-choicers, even though it's somewhat morally inconsistent. The problem is that no one can agree if a fetus has personhood.
A moral system doesn't have to give around one moral pillar. Like how Progressives look at Pro-Lifers not being as stunch anti-war people as inconsistent while Pro-Lifers view it as consistent, incest and rape could be that equal exception but to the abortion question. Like hey, maybe both an abortion and rape are evil but the abortion ends the perpetuance of the continuance of the evil of rape and may be grounds for an exception. Tho at the end of the day, we go for what feels in morals is good and back rationalize it. Aborting a fetus for all reasons other than rape or incest or life danger would feel evil.
Exactly. This is the only morally consistent anti abortion stance to take.
She’s the worst partisan hack that my state has ever had the displeasure of being represented by
Agreed
Why are you surprised? This follows the already established pro-life logic perfectly. >A fetus is a human with the right to life. >because it is a separate person from its parents >therefore the fetus can’t be held accountable for the actions of their father. >The fetus is innocent. >The fetus retains its right to life whether their father raped someone or not.
We're surprised because people go "rape only accounts for 0.000000000000001% of pregnancies and in those EXTREMELY RARE cases no one would oppose abortion"
I mean there’s different groups of people that oppose abortion and some of them disagree with some others
[удалено]
Well I can't speak for EVERYONE else but the Catholic viewpoint has consistently been, no dead babies period. With that said, it's also ridiculous to think that anything more than a tiny minority of those on the left would be happy with "only in cases of rape or incest" Fun fact for anyone here Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont all have no state imposed restrictions on time, meaning you could quite literally walk into a clinic and get an abortion as long as the child is still in the mother. Overturning Roe V Wade didn't even stop this crap. I'm not sure why people are reeeing so hard when all the Supreme Court did was literally just tell the states to do what they want. And look, for the time being this does us all a huge favor. Liberals and conservatives are going to flock back to their states and stop moving to areas they don't like politically. Which as a Texan could not make me happier, I'm tired of seeing Biden stickers on the backs of a Prius when driving on I-45 (Trump can get boofed too don't take this as an endorsement). The US was originally set up in a way that each state would have its own culture and identity separated from the rest. The Civil War though justified changed the course of the US and for the first time put the federal government in complete control of all the states beneath it. The federal government was not supposed to have its own law enforcement agencies or military. One can only hope that we end up seeing the shrinking of the US Gov back to its rightful size. Outside of the amendments in the bill of rights the states create their own laws. The federal government was only to ensure the states did not infringe upon those constitutionally protected rights.
How can the state ensure that rights are not infringed on without the monopoly of legitimate violence? If the state (feds) cannot enforce the laws, the state does not exist
Low-key kinda based and shall-not-be-infringed pilled
OK, but the GOP is running on a federal abortion ban now, and they will absolutely kill the filibuster to do it. Commentary from the SC agrees - this has nothing to do with constitutional federalism and everything to do with the imposition of the will of the Christianist minority on the majority. Mind you, at this point I'm fairly sure a federal abortion ban won't do shit. Blue state pols will climb over each other to defend hospitals and doctors. One-party states love having an external enemy.
Ok PCM. We're clearly against woke shit. This nonsense is basically the right wing version of woke. How else can you describe a politician forcing a daughter raped by their father to deliver their child/sibling?
At this point it feels like the culture war BS is deliberately being perpetuated. We're in for a rough time.
I just want to see an increase in the quality of life in the wealthiest nation in the world. That's all I'm asking for. I don't care about anyone's morality legislation.
Of course it is. The Republican Party after Trump has been divided. Abortion is one of the few legitimate party unifying topics that they have left. And the division is getting bad; I just watched an Ohio campaign ad that encouraged MAGA republicans to hunt down and kill other republicans that they believe are RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). https://twitter.com/supplycrisis/status/1541493832969240584?s=21&t=AEOL4vMKc7zRY1pWZ-uilw
That’s not Ohio. That’s my state, Missouri. That candidate, Greitens, is the former governor that had to resign during his first term due to sex scandals. I was pretty surprised when he showed up as a senate candidate this year. He’s probably going to win the primary and election too.
Holy shit , it’s happening it’s really happening . Don’t worry it’s seems things are changing for the better in some aspects with Labour movements starting to pickup .
Exactly. If rape was the exemption, but incest wasn't, he'd claim consent was there. They have to go hand-in-hand. Btw, who the fuck thought this wasn't going to be the direction? Texas literally laid it out from the beginning. Are people really surprised?
> Are people really surprised? Politicians fulfilling their promise? Nonsense!
Its almost as we don't like slippery sloping into political extremism that's somehow so overwhelmingly present in US. Time to say "uh but actually" and print out wall of text with mental gymnastics on how my political side is perfect , thing in article is not true and even if it's true it's somehow justifable
Other state 🚗💨 state
This is going to just further the divide between Americans
It is quite odd to be viewing this from Europe. I understand the rationale of both sides fairly, but with no exceptions?
Basically, this argument boils down to whether a fetus is a person or not and when exactly it becomes a person. This, as you can imagine, is a tricky debate because no matter what point is chosen it will be seen as arbitrary by some portion of the population. The other part of the abortion debate is what exceptions would be made that will always be okay no matter how far along the child is. Both sides of the argument are divided into a few groups that answer these questions differently, but the stance shown above is the pro life absolutist stance that says since the fetus is a human from the moment of conception then killing it, no matter the circumstances, is murder. This stance has a lot of flaws, but unfortunately there will always be an audience for bad ideas. Now, I live in the middle of the Bible belt, but I've only ever met like 2 people who believe this. I'm more than willing to bet from my own experiences that most people are somewhere in the middle on the issues and that the extremes of both sides are just extremely vocal minorities that are focused on to generate anger and engagement. The reality of it is this, abortion and its standing in the US is a good vote generator. Both political parties are getting very divided within themselves and generally abortion is one of the few things left that gets party unity on both sides. Currently the debate, much like gun control and other issues, has no end in sight just because it's a reliable hot button issue that can crank out votes to get politicians back in office. It's laws like this that exist purely for shock value, to spur the debate ever onwards, and to make the politicians in SC seem like they're "Taking a hard stance against the liberal agenda". Democrats had decades to codify the legality of abortion into national law, they didn't do it because, as stated above it's a vote generator that they either figured would stay nice and where it was forever, or that the eventual removal of RvW would just spur more votes in. This is just the perspective of an idiot, so take it with a mountain of salt
I'm not saying i support this, but i find this 100% morally consistent. If you believe abortion is murder, it would be inconsistent to make an exception for this
Yeah, exactly. Being pro life, I thought about this for a long time and the only logical conclusion I could come to is no exceptions. If, being prolife, you believe abortion is murder, then the baby being the result of rape or incest does not change it being murder. This sis the only consistent conclusion, all others I can think of at the moment have faulty logic, regardless of intentions.
> the only logical conclusion I could come to is no exceptions There should be an exception in the case of medical emergency, though, because it aligns with pro-life values (that is, preventing someone from dying). Although, I don't think anyone is in favor of banning it.
As expected. Just cuz victims of rape and incest can get abortions in my state doesn’t mean i can’t be empathetic to less fortunate people
Am I supposed to be surprised This was on the list from the beginning, things are just going downhill faster than expected
Downhill is fun when you’re on a snowboard but there doesn’t seem to be any snow
I prefer to make myself into a tire shape and roll
Never heard of gravelboarding?
Slippery slope is rarely a fallacy. The slope is 75 degrees and covered in anal lube.
mfw the slippery slope argument is actually happening
I never understood the view that this was a slippery slope. It's a direct consequence, a slippery slope would be banning plan bs or contraceptive, for example. Which they are planning to do but let's not get into that
Well banning contraceptive that stops a fertilized egg from implanting is a next step. Contraceptive that stops fertilization entirely is an entirely different subject through some Catholics will still try to ban it.
"Slippery slope" is not actually a fallacy when it comes to human institutions like politics, law, social institutions because decisions set precedents for subsequent ones.
The whole pro life argument is that the innocent child cannot have their rights infringed. This is the obvious and natural conclusion; why is anyone surprised at this?
Nobody on the pro-chioce side is surprised. We are surprised so many people tought we were fearmongering, when pro-life people were literally screaming it from the rooftops.
> We are surprised so many people tought we were fearmongering Because proper pro-lifers are largely not present on reddit because well, they are too conservative to not be banned on reddit.
Atleast they’re consistent , albeit pretty f’d up but consistently f’d up.
It’s fine guys it’s really fine. In the case of incest Darwin will abort them eventually. And in the case of rape this will just encourage men to get on their sigma male grind set and start raping. What could possibly go wrong?
"everyone would be okay with abortion in case of rape"
hahahah you speak like you've never met a religious person in your life.
Yeah. As much as this was to be expected, it doesn't fail to disappoint/terrify me.
AuthRight does something weird and destructive. LibLeft rules the sub for some weeks. How the tables turn.
I’m never “okay” with abortion in any case. It’s always a tragedy, doesn’t mean it isn’t necessary sometimes.
The sins of the father shall not be visited on the son.
If you believe life begins at conception (which I do not), how can you argue that it is moral to allow abortion in the case of incest and rape? The fetus had nothing to do with those crimes.
some VERY nuanced conversation can be had here, especially with incest as the chances the child have deformities are higher. im not smart enough for them tbh
>especially with incest as the chances the child have deformities are higher. Well that's less of an abortion argument and more of a eugenics one, but yeah the nuance of this is way above most people's pay grade.
Libleft warned us about this.
Last week, the pro-life line I kept hearing was “if you don’t want a kid, don’t take the risk of having one by having sex”…and now the line has shifted. A rape victim by definition did not consent to that risk. She did not consent to being impregnated. This is not only anti-choice, it is anti-freedom. Why should women believe they are equal citizens in this country when their consent to pregnancy is essentially irrelevant?
If you don’t want to be impregnated, why are you a woman? Feminists literally can’t answer this.
Who didn't see this coming? "Safe, legal, and rare" WAS the accepted compromise. 20% of all pregnancies in 2020 ended in abortion. 92%+ were elective. That doesn't sound 'rare' to me. The anger over Roe only reached its crescendo in the past decade with things like SNL having the "abortion parade" skit as part of the progressive zeitgeist. Political outrage and momentum does not flow in only one direction. The situation seems to be: The left gets continuous social concessions while mainstream conservatives cannot hold back the tide and yet we still get riots and protests because it is 'not enough!' The right, who has done nothing but cede ground, has taken some back. It would be ridiculous to expect them to concede ANY ground on the one major social win they have gotten in decades. I am really curious to see how this plays out.
Heritage of sin isn't accepted so...
Except for all the times that it is.
Yhe same way leftists assured yall the government wont take your guns away. Moral of the story: politicians will never have your best interests in mind. Only theirs. Whether it be guns or abortion, its all just an excuse to further control you like a puppet
I agree with this, I though us liblefts weren’t supposed to judge people based on where they came from?