Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:Rape exceptions don't make any sense, but risk to the mother does, short of some kind of really extreme fatalist Christian doctrine, which I don't think is taken very seriously.

And obviously state lines wouldn't matter in principle, but practically speaking they wouldn't be able to ban abortion where they have no power, assuming federal power is kept weak enough that it couldn't be used to force everyone under the same way of life.

warehouse wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Rape exceptions don't make any sense, but risk to the mother does, short of some kind of really extreme fatalist Christian doctrine, which I don't think is taken very seriously.

And obviously state lines wouldn't matter in principle, but practically speaking they wouldn't be able to ban abortion where they have no power, assuming federal power is kept weak enough that it couldn't be used to force everyone under the same way of life.

so you want us to try to compromise with someone who thinks this?

BurtReynolds wrote:

warehouse wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Rape exceptions don't make any sense, but risk to the mother does, short of some kind of really extreme fatalist Christian doctrine, which I don't think is taken very seriously.

And obviously state lines wouldn't matter in principle, but practically speaking they wouldn't be able to ban abortion where they have no power, assuming federal power is kept weak enough that it couldn't be used to force everyone under the same way of life.

so you want us to try to compromise with someone who thinks this?

If you think a human life is at stake, why would it matter if they were conceived by rape? There are plenty of people walking around who were conceived by rape. I don't see why they should have less right to life.

BurtReynolds wrote:Or put another way: I don't know where you draw the line where abortion is too late, but I don't see why rape would allow for an exemption for crossing that line.

warehouse wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Or put another way: I don't know where you draw the line where abortion is too late, but I don't see why rape would allow for an exemption for crossing that line.

i'm a dude and will never give birth, so that is not a line i can draw

BurtReynolds wrote:why would it matter if they were conceived by rape?

McParadigm wrote:Absent the ability to compromise, the entire argument boils down to “why can’t you take the time to listen and understand where I’m coming from, so you can see why I can never compromise with you.“

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:why would it matter if they were conceived by rape?

Right. So let’s go back to this

McParadigm wrote:Absent the ability to compromise, the entire argument boils down to “why can’t you take the time to listen and understand where I’m coming from, so you can see why I can never compromise with you.“

What compromise package would a religious right anti-abortion voter be prepared to engage with?

BurtReynolds wrote:None. That's what I was getting at. No compromise is possible. I think I was just under the impression there was some kind of attempt at debate about it (which is interesting to me), but then I realized that hasn't been the case for decades so...

simple schoolboy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:why would it matter if they were conceived by rape?

Right. So let’s go back to this

McParadigm wrote:Absent the ability to compromise, the entire argument boils down to “why can’t you take the time to listen and understand where I’m coming from, so you can see why I can never compromise with you.“

What compromise package would a religious right anti-abortion voter be prepared to engage with?

Either they don't have the numbers to dictate the outcome or they are inconsistent. If people voted in-line with Gallup polling on this issue in particular, we'd have a Europe like compromise of 12 weeks.

McParadigm wrote:Burt is well aware. He has pointed out multiple times in the past that, for a person with a religion-based opposition to abortion, there is zero justification for ever compromising on the issue.

And there isn’t….not for rape, not for risk to the mother, and not for state lines. That’s exactly why they would never support common sense compromise positions like the ones put forward by Bi_3…the legal enforcement of their theocratic values on this issue is the only answer that isn’t horrific mortal sin.

But that is also the perfect demonstration of why it’s a waste of time to even bother. Absent the ability to compromise, the entire argument boils down to “why can’t you take the time to listen and understand where I’m coming from, so you can see why I can never compromise with you.“

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:None. That's what I was getting at. No compromise is possible. I think I was just under the impression there was some kind of attempt at debate about it (which is interesting to me), but then I realized that hasn't been the case for decades so...

There is a debate. And it includes everybody except the people you are describing. Rejection of compromise is also self-ejection from the compromise table.

Rob wrote:I am in 100% agreement that exceptions for anything other than the life of the mother are bullshit. The exception ends up undermining the basic argument.

warehouse wrote: what if the baby has something wrong with it and will only live a short time?

BurtReynolds wrote:

warehouse wrote: what if the baby has something wrong with it and will only live a short time?

I don't know but that reminds me about how Downs Syndrome people have been aborted out of existence in some places and it's hard to not see some eugenics at play here, but the future of all of this is going to get very weird.