I don’t think so
Forgot- Air Force One
Ask everyone of these assholes if they had sex while their wives were pregnant.
the GOP doesn’t even believe this
if they did, they would have proposed the before the ruling and they wouldn’t have instantly started backpedalling, they might not go to the mat for it but they would at least push it a bit more before abandoning it
I mean, it DOES move the window, it’s moving it the OTHER way.
The extremists believe it’s the right thing to do, so they’re dragging the whole party with them. And the party has been putting the extremists on the bench for years now.
Strategically, Dems shouldn’t differentiate. They should just say “Republican politicians, Republican judges, Republican policy. Republican politicians nominated Republican judges who made Republican policy from the bench banning IVF. This is what happens when you vote for them. Up next, they’re coming for recreational sex.”
1 Like
Yeah I think the top X% craziest R think all their voters agree with them and suddenly the suburbs are going to be like wtf happened to our birth control pills
1 Like
My mom is staunchly pro life, but also believes in exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother, and medical necessity. So is SHOCKED anytime I explain to her that a decent chunk of Republicans in power are getting rid of those exceptions. “Why would anyone do that? That’s crazy!”
The GOP has benefitted from this weird dynamic where Democrats warning people of what the big bad GOP is going to do sounds hyperbolic. But the “hyperbole” is just the GOP has said it would do. Never the less, it sounds like typical political mudslinging and a lot of normies think, “Nobody would actually do that! That’s crazy!”
So there could be a rude awakening and some blowback. Problem may be that IVF is kind of niche, so like while 80-90% of people think it should be legal, I’m not sure how many votes that changes. But birth control? Yeah, that’s going to change some votes.
Why does she say there should be exceptions for rape and incest?
To me, that’s the biggest tell that it really is about punishing women.
Agree. And all these “pro-life” politicians coming out strongly for IVF. Why? You said embryos are children when you said women can’t have abortions. Why is it OK to destroy embryos as part of the IVF process but not for a woman to do it when she has an unwanted pregnancy?
Here’s where it gets difficult for me: my position is that what’s going inside a woman’s body is her business, end of conversation. Do I hold to that view if she’s 7 months pregnant? 8? 9?
I think some attention has to be made to when the fetus is viable outside the womb if we’re going to make non-medical decisions on limits to abortion. I don’t know when that is and of course it’s fuzzy because of improvements in medical equipment. But the whole thing is fuzzy and reasonable people can come to different conclusions. However, I would put the mother’s life ahead of that of the fetus and any time the mother’s life is at risk the pregnancy should be aborted.
Viability seems like a pretty readily (medically) agreed on standard. With exceptions the other way- health of the mother.
I’m fine with the mother makes the decision to prioritize the fetus. But her decision.
1 Like
100% her decision
1 Like
I know it seems foreign in current political environment but I think not insignificant people genuinely find abortion a confusing topic ethically. So they are kinda like well a fetus kinda seems like a person so abortion isn’t good but not completely certain on the personhood so if you throw some additional weight on the scale like extreme medical/psychological duress to the mom in case of rape/incest/life threatening medical issues/etc it tips the scales. (ETA- even if they would say they are sure of the personhood that doesn’t mean they actually are)
1 Like
Say what you want about Pete, but he gave the GOAT answer to that question:
4 Likes
Pete answer obviously the right one politically but doesn’t really settle things legally/philosophically where you gotta look for the absolute outlier situation of human behavior to have a determination of if it would be legal or not. Like someone killing a infant or child obviously seems so completely foreign that you wouldn’t think needs to be laws addressing it but it happens not infrequently
Denial is powerful. I remember reading some article about a dude who voted pretty much straight GOP and some reporter told him something like “You know, the GOP wants to gut Obamacare such that people with pre-existing conditions can’t get coverage”. He was like “I don’t believe you. No one would do that.”
1 Like
You can’t lump all of these together.
Threat to life of the mother is very easy to resolve ethically with a pro-life stance.
Rape and incest is where it makes no sense. I agree with you that it may be hard for some people to reconcile these issues in their minds. But that’s really their problem.
Not hard at all to defend rape/incest exceptions for pro-life people, imo. Relevant question is when should there be a legal duty to save a life. Easy to see how there would be disagreements on where to draw that line in other contexts.
From a legal standpoint there are very few instances of someone having a legal duty to save a life?