In a CNN interview, he claims he wanted an exception for rape and incest, which didn’t get a vote-- but he signed it anyway because he knows it’s unconstitutional and he wanted to goad the Supreme Court into taking a second look at Roe v. Wade.
I don’t think pro-lifers understand this is way premature for a Roe challenge. Roberts is all but certain to vote with the liberals, and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have already crossed the aisle before.
What’s with state governors lately and just being assholes for no rational reason? First, we saw it with forbidding healthcare for trans minors in Arkansas (and several other states IIRC), and now this? Fuckin’ hell.
Republicans decided that the culture war would now be their agenda. (I had thought it was before, but it seems they kicked it into overdrive because Donnie said to.)
I will note that the governor of Arkansas vetoed the anti-trans law. So I actually had a bit of hope before I realized the legislature overrode the appeal.
He did sign the abortion ban and the bill giving doctors the right to not treat LGBT people, though. So don’t read me as supporting him in any way.
I am pro choice but have never understood a rape\incest exception to abortion bills. We know that rape and incest are horrible and perpetrators should hung from flagpoles by their genitalia, but that doesn’t stain the child and make it unworthy of protection. Sins are not passed onto children. Not having such an exception is at least logically consistent with their stated position that the fetus is a human being.
I don’t think a 12-year-old girl who’s been raped by her father should be forced to become a parent if she doesn’t want to. In some states, the father would even get visitation rights!
The life of a 12-year-old has more inherent value than the life of an unborn child, and if you disagree, I propose an experiment: I’ll hold a baby in one hand and a petri dish with a human embryo in the other hand, and I’ll drop both. You can only save one.
If you truly believe that babies and fetuses are the same, you would be paralyzed with indecision over which one to save. But you know better, so you save the baby.
Allowing abortions in cases of incest is consistent with laws against incest or marriage among close relatives. These laws are common. When related people, especially closely related people, make babies, there is a higher-than-usual incidence of genetic disorders that may arise.
No sane person would want that. We’re talking about pro-birth folks who ostensibly believe all abortion is murder but are willing to allow murder in some narrow circumstances. By acknowledging that some murder is worse than other murder they reveal that the whole thing is really about controlling women and has nothing to do with actual murder.
I think they do consider it murder, they just understand that the political consequences of saying “a rape victim won’t be allowed to abort” would torpedo them at the ballot box at election time. But that doesn’t stop some hardliners, such as John Ashcroft or those Oklahoma legislators, from calling for there to be no exception for rape.
You seem to not be aware of an entire political party, big one too, that’s all in on “passing the sin onto the children”. Perceived sin and other people’s children, mind you.
More of devils advocate here, though closer to what I used to believe:
One way of looking at rape exception: Willingly having sex, as an adult, is also acceptance of the consequences of sex, it’s a free will decision by the woman. Rape thus since no consent for sex was given it includes no consent was given to the child to be there and can be removed at the will of the mother.
Also it is politically easier which is most likely more to the reason.
Biblically a case can be made that they are. And also a case that Jesus broke that. But people will make a case that sins can be carried over that way, and even in our society we recognize things like generational cycles of abuse etc.
We’re talking about Republicans here. They don’t give a fuck what happens to you after you’re born - you’re on your own! Otherwise they’d be all in on social programs to help underprivileged children, education, school lunches, etc. They don’t want to help, they want to punish.
Right. Which means anti-abortion laws are punishing women for consenting to have sex. If you consented, no abortion for you. If it was rape, we’ll let you off the hook.
If they really considered abortion murder, they wouldn’t care how the fetus was created.
And if they include rape and incest exceptions out of political expediency, that means they rate political expediency more important than preventing murder.
I agree that rape and incest exceptions make no sense. And, let’s call it what it is – rape and rape exceptions. No one is talking about sex between consenting cousins or consenting brothers and sisters. Out of morbid curiosity, does the incest exception include stepfather and stepdaughter?
If you think that a fetus is a full human with all the rights that come with that, why would it make sense to allow the murder of that human just because it’s the product of a rape? Can that human be murdered at any time, even after they are born? Can I track down a 25 year old person and murder him, just because he was the product of rape?
Anyway, I’m not nearly as optimistic as some here that the Supreme Court won’t use these to overturn Roe. I’m even worried that they’ll find some kind of 14th amendment personhood protection for fetuses and ban abortions everywhere.
That is the way things are swinging in “abortion is the only issue” cohort. My Facebook friend who is deep into that territory is starting to post about people born of rape and how it is a blessing that their mothers didn’t abort them.
Republicans do not give a fuck what you or anyone else thinks on this issue. It’s “muh freedumz” when it comes to guns, but when it comes to controlling your own body, it’s “muh theocracy”.
If you want to get a sense where Republican authoritarianism could ultimately lead, the abortion restrictions offer a pretty clear picture that ain’t very pretty. Once they have power, they will need to find ways to keep it, and the way to keep it is to be oppressive.
Speaking as a person born of rape, they can go fuck themselves. I didn’t ask to be born and I’m not obligated to consider it “a blessing.”
I have a cousin who is obsessed with pro-birth stuff, and I swear to god every time she opens her mouth about this subject it pushes me deeper and deeper into pro-choice territory. The last time she was talking about it she was squawking about how women should choose life over “inconvenience” which handily communicated that she had no idea what the fuck she was talking about. Pregnancy, labor and delivery are not an inconvenience. They can ruin your life and destroy your body forever. Not to mention kill you. And look how quickly they rationalize away women’s suffering.
This is a logical disconnect that pro-choicers often make. How is being pregnant punishment?; especially when it came about from one’s own actions that they agreed to.
That would be akin to me saying that is it punishment for me getting a torn ACL from skiing (a common skiing injury). I engaged in that activity knowing the risk. If it is punishment at all it is from God (but an injury is not the same as pregnancy), though I disagree pregnancy is punishment but just a result of a calculated risk of the activity one choses.
You will have to justify why pregnancy is punishment.
In this case of a torn ACL the solution is usually sit the season out and let it heal, 9 months will usually do it.
Lets say there is a medical procedure that can cure it instantly, great let’s do it. Well that would require someone to die - see the moral dilemma, no it not a moral dilemma at all but it is actually an absolute stop, it is not a valid action for someone to die for you to have a good ski season. This is not punishment at all but just a result of your choices.
And that’s how pro life takes it as I know. Your right to medical procedures stop at taking a life (especially of a person you created).
Now what is punishment, and many (including I) would say justified, is a woman’s right to terminate the child of her rapist en utero.