GOP moves to redefine rape...

Status
Not open for further replies.
David

David

As much as I support a woman's right to choose, I don't believe anything that uses the phrase "anti-choice" counts as a valid information source. Same as if it said "pro-death."
 
Krisken

Krisken

You certainly can't call it "pro-life" when they are willing to let the mother die in exchange for the fetus.

I really should add, it was summarizing what Nancy Keegan said, which was then quoted at the end of the story. Pro-choice slanted? Heavily.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
So this may be a dumb question...

If the mother's life is in danger and the hospital refuses her an abortion...wouldn't that kill the zygote, too? How is this really helping anyone?
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Dave said:
So this may be a dumb question...

If the mother's life is in danger and the hospital refuses her an abortion...wouldn't that kill the zygote, too? How is this really helping anyone?
Click to expand...
I think it's more for cases where the mother may die when giving birth, not when simply being pregnant could kill her.
 
I

Iaculus

Dave said:
So this may be a dumb question...

If the mother's life is in danger and the hospital refuses her an abortion...wouldn't that kill the zygote, too? How is this really helping anyone?
Click to expand...
Well, I guess it means that after her inevitable death, the mother doesn't have to go to hell for authorising an abortion...
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
AshburnerX said:
I think it's more for cases where the mother may die when giving birth, not when simply being pregnant could kill her.
Click to expand...
Okay, I dig that. But what do they propose to do to help the motherless baby? Anything? Anything at all?
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

I love how they imply that there's such a thing as non-forcible rape (besides consensual sex i guess
)...

Dave said:
Okay, I dig that. But what do they propose to do to help the motherless baby? Anything? Anything at all?
Click to expand...
If it needs help then it's a dirty socialist....

Krisken said:
You certainly can't call it "pro-life" when they are willing to let the mother die in exchange for the fetus.
Click to expand...
But that's how magic works... a life for a life and all that.
 
C

Chibibar

Dave said:
Okay, I dig that. But what do they propose to do to help the motherless baby? Anything? Anything at all?
Click to expand...
That is one of my main argument about pro-life. It is nice and all that that these people are pro-life BUT what about those babies who their parents don't want them? some pro-life (in this case republican) are also anti socialism. soooooooooo what now?
 
Espy

Espy

Chibibar said:
That is one of my main argument about pro-life. It is nice and all that that these people are pro-life BUT what about those babies who their parents don't want them? some pro-life (in this case republican) are also anti socialism. soooooooooo what now?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a to crazy of a stretch to assume most people think babies born to parents who don't want them should have the opportunity to get adopted. But that brings up a whole nother batch of problems with adoption costs, timelines, etc.
 
C

Chibibar

Espy said:
I don't think it's a to crazy of a stretch to assume most people think babies born to parents who don't want them should have the opportunity to get adopted. But that brings up a whole nother batch of problems with adoption costs, timelines, etc.
Click to expand...
Yea. Of course the social burden lies in the system to take care of the kids who no one wants to adopt them. Top that off, what kind of psychological impact these kids will have knowing that their parents don't want them, the would-be foster parents don't want them, and the system don't want them after 18.
 
Espy

Espy

Chibibar said:
Yea. Of course the social burden lies in the system to take care of the kids who no one wants to adopt them. Top that off, what kind of psychological impact these kids will have knowing that their parents don't want them, the would-be foster parents don't want them, and the system don't want them after 18.
Click to expand...
I believe the standard reply would be, "yes it's not perfect but it's better than being dead". My only point is that it's kind of silly to assume pro-lifers want to let kids die in the street if their parents don't want them.
 
Tress

Tress

Of course it's silly to believe they want them to die in the street. In reality pro-lifers only want to save the babies so they can eat them later.
 
Covar

Covar

Chibibar said:
That is one of my main argument about pro-life. It is nice and all that that these people are pro-life BUT what about those babies who their parents don't want them? some pro-life (in this case republican) are also anti socialism. soooooooooo what now?
Click to expand...
Take them out to a back room and inject them with 3 different drugs so they will slowly drift into an unconscious state before passing away.
 
Tress

Tress

GasBandit said:
The answer is plain - mandatory sterilization for anyone who makes less than $30,000 per year.
Click to expand...
That's going to make competition among teenagers for summer jobs pretty heated. I would have hated being sterilized at 17 because I worked part-time at an auto parts store.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Tress said:
That's going to make competition among teenagers for summer jobs pretty heated. I would have hated being sterilized at 17 because I worked part-time at an auto parts store.
Click to expand...
Hell, Teenagers are definitely top of the list of groups who need to be sterilized.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Tress said:
GasBandit doesn't know what it was like to be a teenager. When his egg hatched he came out as a full-grown angry libertarian.
Click to expand...
Actually, I can think of a great many ways being a teenager would have been more fun if there was absolutely 0% risk of pregnancy.

But that's not the point.

And Norris hasn't sensed a flaw, he's sensed the grand finale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top