The SC Abortion Fight: GOP Women Join Filibuster

[Jayhawker Soule]

See:

• The Hill - Abortion ban rejected in South Carolina after GOP women join filibuster

Clearly, there is an ongoing disturbance in the Force.

 

[pearl]

Clearly, there is an ongoing disturbance in the Force.

This is the first I have read that provides for ' fatal fetal anomalies'.

 

[Revoltingest]

I always find it fascinating when their premise is that
a fetus is a person (same as a baby) with a right to life.
But then if there's incest, the fetus (a baby) loses their
right to life. If the fetus is equivalent to a baby, does
it mean it's OK to kill a baby (even after birth) resulting
from incest?
This is disjointed rationalization.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I always find it fascinating when their premise is that
a fetus is a person (same as a baby) with a right to life.
But then if there's incest, the fetus (a baby) loses their
right to life. If the fetus is equivalent to a baby, does
it mean it's OK to kill a baby (even after birth) resulting
from incest?

Dang! Good post. That (logical inconsistency) never occurred to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dang! Good post. That (logical inconsistency) never occurred to me.

And that is only the sharpest tip of an illogical iceberg.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I always find it fascinating when their premise is that
a fetus is a person (same as a baby) with a right to life.
But then if there's incest, the fetus (a baby) loses their
right to life. If the fetus is equivalent to a baby, does
it mean it's OK to kill a baby (even after birth) resulting
from incest?
This is disjointed rationalization.

I have encountered another argument that I found thought-provoking as well: if a fetus is equivalent to a baby, does that mean an undocumented immigrant who conceives in the US shouldn't be deported because she's carrying an American citizen?

 

[fantome profane]

I always find it fascinating when their premise is that
a fetus is a person (same as a baby) with a right to life.
But then if there's incest, the fetus (a baby) loses their
right to life. If the fetus is equivalent to a baby, does
it mean it's OK to kill a baby (even after birth) resulting
from incest?
This is disjointed rationalization.

I think that for some the end goal is a total ban with no exceptions. They will accept a ban with exceptions for rape or incest, but only as an interim step. They know it is logically inconsistent.

Others have just not thought it through.

 

[pearl]

This is disjointed rationalization.

The 'sins of the father are visited on the son'.

 

[Revoltingest]

The 'sins of the father are visited on the son'.

A biblical view?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I always find it fascinating when their premise is that
a fetus is a person (same as a baby) with a right to life.
But then if there's incest, the fetus (a baby) loses their
right to life. If the fetus is equivalent to a baby, does
it mean it's OK to kill a baby (even after birth) resulting
from incest?
This is disjointed rationalization.

Even worse they give a fetus rights that people do not have. If you had a long lost brother or sister and if they suddenly showed up could they demand to be surgically attached to you so that they could share your kidney while they waited for one of their own? If you say "No" then you should not try to ban abortions.

 

[Callisto]

I always find it fascinating when their premise is that
a fetus is a person (same as a baby) with a right to life.
But then if there's incest, the fetus (a baby) loses their
right to life. If the fetus is equivalent to a baby, does
it mean it's OK to kill a baby (even after birth) resulting
from incest?
This is disjointed rationalization.

"Killing is wrong ... except when we're ok with it." As I noted in another discussion, ever notice a lot of pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty?

I think it's fair to surmise these laws hint at a wider plan. Like, a way to bake in an opening to later advance euthanization of those born with birth defects (incest often presents birth defects, so it's an ideal first argument); or of others deemed "inferior". Rarely are political agendas solely about what they appear to be on the surface. Whether someone thinks this is another way to control women or something else like eugenics 2.0, no doubt there's a grander scheme.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even worse they give a fetus rights that people do not have. If you had a long lost brother or sister and if they suddenly showed up could they demand to be surgically attached to you so that they could share your kidney while they waited for one of their own? If you say "No" then you should not try to ban abortions.

I don't recall if I've addressed it on RF yet, but one way
to view forcing a mother to carry a baby to term is
that it's saving the life of a person (the fetus) by forcing
another to undergo surgery (delivery). It's comparable
to requiring someone to donate bone marrow to save
a life. This scenario was offered to me by a Christian
who was conflicted by his half-libertarian half-Christian
brain. He had no answer yet.
Someone who wrestled with issues by considering both
sides made him an interesting person. (He was an engineer
I once worked with. He & others had Bible study meetings
at lunch. I wasn't invited, BTW.)

 

[Revoltingest]

"Killing is wrong ... except when we're ok with it." As I noted in another discussion, ever notice a lot of pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty?

I think it's fair to surmise these laws hint at a wider plan. Like, a way to bake in an opening to later advance euthanization of those born with birth defects (incest often presents birth defects, so it's an ideal first argument); or of others deemed "inferior". Rarely are political agendas solely about what they appear to be on the surface. Whether someone thinks this is another way to control women or something else like eugenics 2.0, no doubt there's a grander scheme.

I'm not seeing any deeply hidden agendas. Everyone
seems so emotional & vocal, that they're prone to
say whatever pops in their head. There's also not
unity on the anti-abortion side, given their differences
over details, eg, exceptions, threshold for legality.

 

[Callisto]

I'm not seeing any deeply hidden agendas. Everyone
seems so emotional & vocal, that they're prone to
say whatever pops in their head. There's also not
unity on the anti-abortion side, given their differences
over details, eg, exceptions, threshold for legality.

IMO, there are definitely hidden agendas. Those who are in power have a concerted effort to amass power and wealth while controlling the masses. That includes their base who don't have to be aware of the full underpinnings for the bills and laws they pass, much less need to be in total agreement with them if they did.

I guess time will tell.

 

[Revoltingest]

IMO, there are definitely hidden agendas. Those who are in power have a concerted effort to amass power and wealth while controlling the masses. That includes their base who don't have to be aware of the full underpinnings for the bills and laws they pass, much less need to be in total agreement with them if they did.

I guess time will tell.

Dems & Pubs....they do like to exercise control.
And while their efforts are concerted (usually
separately), they're not all that hidden.
I'll grant one conspiracy theory I find plausible...
Trump chose SCOTUS nominees with whom he
either planned or expected to lie about accepting
Roe v Wade a settled law, but ruling otherwise
once on the bench.

Did Supreme Court Justices Lie By Claiming They Wouldn’t Overturn Roe V. Wade? Here’s What They Actually Said.

Some prominent Democrats, including Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, have said they want conservative justices to be punished for allegedly going against their testimony.

www.forbes.com

I think it would be reasonable to impeach Gorsuch &
Kavanaugh for lying to Congress during confirmation.
Barret was too cagey to be caught in a lie.