The "legislating morality" chorus has gone quiet too: "Uhm, it's complicated."

 kurtster wrote:

Amazing how so many Republican/Trump followers knee jerk response of "but I'm in favor of exceptions in the case of Rape or Incest," to absolve themselves of a cruel reality in most anti abortion states:

11 States now have trigger laws that ban abortion without exceptions for Rape or Incest.

Others insist a victim file a Police Report before receiving any abortion care.

Ectopic Pregnancies require an abortion for the woman to live.

Septic Uterus requires an abortion for the woman to live.

An incomplete miscarriage requires a D&C for the woman to live.

Recently in Ireland, a young woman of 26 was hemorrhaging in her first trimester. Hospitals and the Law prevented her from getting an "abortion."
She literally died. Ireland soon passed rights to abortion.

But here in the States, with 400,000 Foster care kids in Texas alone, 11 States have decided women will die. Literally die in hospital corridors from doctors too scared to administer a needed procedure to save her life.

Split micro-hairs on Selective Morality and Value of Life anyone?

Oooo, let's see what Squirrels you will point out to divert from my point...

 rgio wrote: 
No, no, and no.

I have said nothing of the kind, anywhere, ever.  What I have said over and over again, is that it is a personal choice of the mother (can I still say mother ?) and safe medical care should be available should the mother opt for that choice.  I am pro choice in that regard, but that does not mean I am pro abortion.  I have no problem with abortion in the cases of rape and incest as I have also stated over and over again.

Quit putting words in my mouth that I have never, ever said.

I am just asking a question. A valid question that sooner or later will have to be decided on a national level.  How do you rectify the situation / dilemma I have described, which you just keep dancing around ?
.
 black321 wrote: 
I put you in that camp.  You just want to posture and virtue signal is all.

I just tried to ask the real question no one wants to discuss and until we do, we will stay where we are and more than likely we will soon end up with a dead SCOTUS justice or two.  And that will give Biden some more vacancies to fill.

Yeah, anybody have any good recipes for banana bread ?

Later, much ...

anybody got any good bread recipes?
like a simple bake and brake?
you may butter either side of said bread to your heart's desire
because doctor my eyes

 kurtster wrote:
So your answer is "I know life begins at conception, but someone else should figure out what that means for the rights and support of the child"? 


It's a very "conservative" posture now to isolate the "wrong", call out the evil, but ignore the impact of the "solution".  It's like Obamacare...terrible, yet no reasonable alternative provided in the decade since by the Republicans.  Not only do you want to force the mother to have a child, but you want her to raise it on her own, without government assistance or even a maternity leave that rivals other countries.   Why do you fight so hard for an unborn child that will be ignored, unwanted, and is statistically likely to participate in crime by the time they are a teenager?

I have come to accept that the person making such a difficult choice is doing so for their own good, and ultimately that benefits everyone.  It's an isolated example, but who am I to tell someone that was raped that they have to deal with the consequences forever because I want to defend an organism with no viability on its own.

 kurtster wrote:
Pretty simple in my mind, killing a fetus isn't murder. Those laws are part of the anti-abortion long game. However, depriving a pregnant woman of the choice of carrying her pregnancy to term is a very serious crime, no matter what you call it.

 rgio wrote: 
Below is the question that I asked.  I do not see an answer to that question.
 kurtster wrote:

How come one situation is murder and the other is not when the end result is the same ?  
Or by what you say is the answer to my question ...
 
That implies that both are acts of murder.  Is that what you meant to say ?

This is a real question and not a hypothetical as this conundrum does exist.  Sooner or later this has to be resolved.

FWIW, I do believe that life begins at conception.  At what point do we give that life rights ?  Another real question that I will admit is above my pay grade to answer.

The pro choice side says that this new life has no rights until after birth yet assigns rights to it if terminated by someone other than the pregnant woman.  And then what about terminating that life by a surrogate host ?  Do the embryo makers have any rights in the decision given no medical or health reasons for termination ?  I don't know this answer either.

Whatever, this is what happens when we keep kicking the can down the road.  Sooner or later you run out of road.

Back to you ...

 kurtster wrote:
You made a lot of statements (and my questions to you presume the following) ....but if it makes you feel better, Yes,  the fetus is a person from conception.  Are you providing benefits?

FWIW...you do agree with the person status of a fetus?

 rgio wrote: 

You only answered my question with another question.
.
So how about you answer my question first.  Then I'll answer yours.

 rgio wrote:
Amazing the lasting influence of Reagan's infamous Welfare Queen rhetoric isn't it?

 kurtster wrote:
It's not rhetorical.  If you are going to assign the protections of a living child, don't you have to provide benefits to the child and their family?  

 rgio wrote: 
I asked the question.  Mine was not rhetorical while yours is.

 kurtster wrote:
Are you giving personal exemptions to the parents of the unborn, and child tax credits upon conception?  Increases in food stamps?  Free access to childhood healthcare programs?

 black321 wrote:
Good point, a lot of people do resent their neighbors - for all sorts of reasons.

 black321 wrote: 
Exactly !!

I have no dog in this hunt either.  Just putting it to those who do.

 kurtster wrote:

There is the real biological argument of, "When does human life start, and deserve legal rights/consideration?"
But I don't think either side is interested, 
and I'm not smart enough to comment (or I'm smart enough not to comment)...so I will waddle away from this discussion. 

 islander wrote: 
Well since you put it that way ...

Riddle me this ...

How come if you would say, shoot a pregnant woman and kill the fetus, regardless of whether or not the woman survives, you get charged with murder of the fetus.

But a woman can kill or abort the fetus herself and it's no big deal.

How is that since a fetus is not considered a person yet ?

 Proclivities wrote:

Maybe they just resent their own neighbors. 

 rgio wrote:
Yeah, I knew that was your point essentially; I got to it in my last sentence.  Some of those states also have the highest per capita numbers of welfare (SNAP) recipients, though those numbers jump around for different factors and times.  But there is an irony to the disdain for the Federal govt coming from some people who depend on it so largely.

 Proclivities wrote:
A lot of this isn't about politics.  Education (until recently) wasn't really about politics, so much as priorities.   The FEMA needs are due to natural disasters...hurricanes, tornados, and fires (which is why CA makes the list).  The point is...they hate government, especially the federal one, but then rely on it more than most. They are net takers, and still complain that the government gives away too much money.  They don't appreciate that they are a drag on earnings, and instead see poor, black, urban unwed mothers as the recipients of aid payments... which explains their disdain for the programs they underfund and overuse.