Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So? Just go to another state if that happens. Its inconvenient, but hardly an insurmountable challenge.āBy the time the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week, 13 states were ready with so-called trigger laws that would ban abortions within their borders immediately. (Additional states had pre-Roe prohibitions in place that will now be enforced.) One notable thing about these trigger statutes, which have been gradually enacted over the past two decades, is that most of them do not make any exceptions for cases involving rape or incest.
This absolutist approach to abortion prohibition was once considered both morally and politically unthinkable, but came into vogue in red states thanks to the increasingly hard-line views that have come to dominate both the conservative movement and anti-abortion activism in particular. The reasoning behind it is straightforward enough: If life really starts at conception and abortion is murder, then terminating a pregnancy for any reason at all must be banned. The issue is that outside the world of conservative ideologues, it remains a wildly unpopular policy.
Take Yesli Vega, a GOP house candidate in Virginia, who was caught on tape during a campaign stop musing that women might be less likely to get pregnant in cases of rape. This is a long-running myth with deep origins in the anti-abortion movement, which might explain why it was proposed first by someone attending the campaign event. On the audio, first reported by Axios, the audience member asks: āIāve actually heard that itās harder for a woman to get pregnant if sheās been raped. Have you heard that?ā Vega responds: āWell, maybe because thereās so much going on in the body. I donāt know. I havenāt, you know, seen any studies. But if Iām processing what youāre saying, it wouldnāt surprise me. Because itās not something thatās happening organically. Youāre forcing it.ā
No exceptions for cases involving rape or incest is widely unpopular because itās wrong.
Democrats could have passed the right to ABORT in the House this week. Why didn't they? They have the votes. Heck go all the way, government funded free abortions. Claim your annual government funded kill a baby tax credit.
These abortions only account for less than 1%, but they're used 100% of the time in the abortion debate. People require operations for ailments and where there's a risk to life. An ectopic pregnancy would fall under this and some 11,000 per year in the UK have to be aborted.āBy the time the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week, 13 states were ready with so-called trigger laws that would ban abortions within their borders immediately. (Additional states had pre-Roe prohibitions in place that will now be enforced.) One notable thing about these trigger statutes, which have been gradually enacted over the past two decades, is that most of them do not make any exceptions for cases involving rape or incest.
This absolutist approach to abortion prohibition was once considered both morally and politically unthinkable, but came into vogue in red states thanks to the increasingly hard-line views that have come to dominate both the conservative movement and anti-abortion activism in particular. The reasoning behind it is straightforward enough: If life really starts at conception and abortion is murder, then terminating a pregnancy for any reason at all must be banned. The issue is that outside the world of conservative ideologues, it remains a wildly unpopular policy.
Take Yesli Vega, a GOP house candidate in Virginia, who was caught on tape during a campaign stop musing that women might be less likely to get pregnant in cases of rape. This is a long-running myth with deep origins in the anti-abortion movement, which might explain why it was proposed first by someone attending the campaign event. On the audio, first reported by Axios, the audience member asks: āIāve actually heard that itās harder for a woman to get pregnant if sheās been raped. Have you heard that?ā Vega responds: āWell, maybe because thereās so much going on in the body. I donāt know. I havenāt, you know, seen any studies. But if Iām processing what youāre saying, it wouldnāt surprise me. Because itās not something thatās happening organically. Youāre forcing it.ā
No exceptions for cases involving rape or incest is widely unpopular because itās wrong.
That was just my opinion on his state of mind. Truthful too. Besides can't you understand there is no debating leftists? There never is.
I completely agree. They use the extreme example because that's what tugs at people's heart strings, but nonetheless, these instances do exist. There is an instance right now of a 10 year old girl from Ohio who had to be taken to Indiana to get an abortion because Ohio will now not perform it in the wake of the Roe ruling. It seems to me, even in states that want to prohibit abortion entirely there should be at least some leeway in these extreme circumstances.These abortions only account for less than 1%, but they're used 100% of the time in the abortion debate.
But here's the rub. Once you've given personhood rights to fetuses, embryoes and zygotes, then that fetus has more rights than the woman it is inside.
Even if it was conceived as a result of rape or incest.
Mormon bob wanting to murder women again because he respects them so much.
āBy the time the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week, 13 states were ready with so-called trigger laws that would ban abortions within their borders immediately. (Additional states had pre-Roe prohibitions in place that will now be enforced.) One notable thing about these trigger statutes, which have been gradually enacted over the past two decades, is that most of them do not make any exceptions for cases involving rape or incest.
This absolutist approach to abortion prohibition was once considered both morally and politically unthinkable, but came into vogue in red states thanks to the increasingly hard-line views that have come to dominate both the conservative movement and anti-abortion activism in particular. The reasoning behind it is straightforward enough: If life really starts at conception and abortion is murder, then terminating a pregnancy for any reason at all must be banned. The issue is that outside the world of conservative ideologues, it remains a wildly unpopular policy.
Take Yesli Vega, a GOP house candidate in Virginia, who was caught on tape during a campaign stop musing that women might be less likely to get pregnant in cases of rape. This is a long-running myth with deep origins in the anti-abortion movement, which might explain why it was proposed first by someone attending the campaign event. On the audio, first reported by Axios, the audience member asks: āIāve actually heard that itās harder for a woman to get pregnant if sheās been raped. Have you heard that?ā Vega responds: āWell, maybe because thereās so much going on in the body. I donāt know. I havenāt, you know, seen any studies. But if Iām processing what youāre saying, it wouldnāt surprise me. Because itās not something thatās happening organically. Youāre forcing it.ā
No exceptions for cases involving rape or incest is widely unpopular because itās wrong.
Clearly USMB Republicans are also having some trouble talking about rape and incest.
The debate is endless because it's either the two extremes, no abortions v all abortions. Middle ground wouldn't work either because people aren't honest. So if they allowed rape victims an abortion, there would be a sudden 'claimed' increase in being a victim of rape.I completely agree. They use the extreme example because that's what tugs at people's heart strings, but nonetheless, these instances do exist. There is an instance right now of a 10 year old girl from Ohio who had to be taken to Indiana to get an abortion because Ohio will now not perform it in the wake of the Roe ruling. It seems to me, even in states that want to prohibit abortion entirely there should be at least some leeway in these extreme circumstances.
I think they know damn well that there is not, and has never been, the general support for murdering innocent children that they want us to think there is, and that going that solidly on record as having voted to support the cold-blooded murder of innocent children will be very bad for their political careers.
They though that the Supreme Court had taken that bullet for them, once and for all, back in 1973, but now it turns out that the bullet is still very much in play.
These abortions only account for less than 1%, but they're used 100% of the time in the abortion debate. People require operations for ailments and where there's a risk to life. An ectopic pregnancy would fall under this and some 11,000 per year in the UK have to be aborted.
A pregnancy is not an ailment and the whole debate hinges on morals.
I completely agree. They use the extreme example because that's what tugs at people's heart strings, but nonetheless, these instances do exist. There is an instance right now of a 10 year old girl from Ohio who had to be taken to Indiana to get an abortion because Ohio will now not perform it in the wake of the Roe ruling. It seems to me, even in states that want to prohibit abortion entirely there should be at least some leeway in these extreme circumstances.
It wasn't only fetuses, embryoes and zygotes the left wants to abort. Also up to or even past the point of birth.
If you offered abortion in all 50 states due to rape and incest the left would tell you to fuck off.
Thats not what they want and everyone knows it.
In a wordRepublicans Are Having Some Trouble Talking About Rape and Incest
Well, could be because those are mostly Dimocrat persuits.
But, it's the exceptions that make the rule. If you decide as a matter of law that a zygote is a human being, then you have given it more rights than the human being it is inside, even if it's a 10 year old rape victim.
We don't execute people for the crimes of their parents.
But you defend exactly thatāputting an innocent child to death because his father was a rapist.
