TirithRR wrote:
Incest in that context was used to stir up the thoughts of a child being raped by a family member.
So it's rape then. I mean, it's also incest, but if we already have an exemption for rape, there's no point in including this as a separate category.
Quote:
Because the whole "rape and incest" exceptions for abortions is meant to put up a public facade of rarity and extreme cases which would require an abortion.
Correct. Which is why I think most people assume that the "... and incest" part of that phrase specifically refers to cases of consensual incest. So brother and sister or 1st cousins "play around", girl gets pregnant, parents freak out about the ramifications and problems this may create, and we as society say "yeah, probably best to allow an abortion in that case".
Super rare, I'm assuming, but still a case we should consider. And yes, it also double covers cases of incest where it should be rape, but no one's coming forward and pressing charges (for a host of reasons, some of which have been mentioned already).
Quote:
But if in the end they really mean just an unwanted pregnancy, one that may have been resulted from a consensual sexual action, it's a bit dishonest to bundle "incest and rape" together. And would be done so just to lie to those who may otherwise be against abortion.
Yeah. I agree. And there's an aspect to this that may not play well with modern sensibilities going back to a time when societies did abort (or just kill after birth) children who were deformed or the result of such unions as a matter of course. Pretty much entirely for the "strengthen the gene pool" reason.
Oh. As to the debate itself? No clue what the polls are saying, but I don't think Trump did himself many favors there. Every answer he gave was negative (including his final "why do you think you should be president" answer). All he did was show up with a list of "bad things" to rail about, while not actually presenting any solutions at all (aside from some very broad "they broke it and I'll fix it!" sort of language). Maybe plays well for awhile but at some point even the most rhetoric driven primary voters will realize that he doesn't actually have anything resembling a platform.
Also agree that Rubio did very well. I kinda have to take back my earlier critique. He looks much more mature and serious this time around (amazing what just a few years can do). Also had by far the best answers, and actually looked like he knew what he was talking about and was comfortable doing so on every issue that came his way. So well informed and well prepared. Which is a good thing.
I think both Bush and Walker both went into this basically with a "don't do anything stupid to hurt yourself" approach. Probably smart (let Trump sink himself and they become the front runners by default), since they could really only lose. Neither of them stood out (again, certainly intentional). So no gain (but probably no significant loss) for either of them.
Cruz just looks like he's got something rammed up his rear all the way to his head. I just cringe whenever I see him talking. One of my friends suggested that maybe he was really a left over 50s era Disney Anamatronic that got out somehow. He just looks wrong. Bugs me. Maybe it's the lack of neck? Not sure.