We were down in Poplar Bluff a couple of months ago, and somebody asked me that question, ‘So you would force a 13-year-old who’s raped by a family member to keep that baby?’” McCloskey, a personal injury lawyer, said at a forum.

“And I said, ‘Yes, and more than that I’ve got that client.’ I’ve got a client who was raped by an uncle when she was 13 years old, had the child; she finished high school, finished college and got a master’s degree. That child she would have aborted finished high school, finished college and now has a master’s degree," he added.

they need to investigate this dude asap

religion and politics will never work

Politics becomes religion

Fr

muzzle him

If real murk this mf

America moment

why do people think this way

No way…..this is disgusting wtf

Once the child was born he’d let it rot in a dumpster if it was up to him. How dare that mother need public aid.

i'm pro-choice and anti-master's degree so i see this as a total loss

These are the people who make laws! Insanity

they're gonna re-elect him next term too

"'... That child she would have aborted finished high school, finished college and now has a master’s degree,' he added."

What does this have to do with f***ing anything lol what if the child ended up in dregs or ending her life because of a tumultuous childhood. Not much of a success case now is it?

But fr, if you actually represent that abortion is murder, why would you make an exception predicated on how the person was conceived? I always felt that as sickening as a stance like this is, it is at least more philosophically consistent

The problem is that it’s not philosophically consistent if the only mediation is “yeah f*** them kids, I’d force her to raise the child”. I’m sympathetic to the pro-lifers who are genuinely philosophically consistent - paid family leave, adoption reform, birth incentive, medical cost coverage, child credit, etc. Telling someone who was raped “lmao good luck my dude” when the is problem goes far beyond that is comical to the point of parody. If you truly believe in a society based on family values and valuation of life, you have to actually carry that valuation into the parts that matter, you can’t just leave it at the birth part and then act like everything past that is arbitrary, it’s a complete nullification of their own worldview

yeah, you're right, i suppose philosophical was the wrong word (I actually wrote intellectual but swapped them at the last second) bc i just meant that if life begins at conception, and abortion actually is murder, how could murder be justified by the method of conception?

(the fact that most people find such justifications ok show that it is generally understood to be "something less than murder")

i think it can be intellectually coherent to oppose or criminalize affirmative acts of violence but not necessarily mandate affirmative acts to prevent violence or suffering

but as you say, wedding that intellectual determination with the "Pro-Life"/"defending the sanctity of life" moral and philosophical position allegedly undergirding the American anti-abortion movement is incredibly philosophically incoherent in the larger context of the post-WWII American conservative movement

You could have a PhD and still be f***ed up

So a friend told me...

You're right that you can be coherent, but at least in my view, being intellectually coherent is not the same as being intellectually smart. Like the idea that, for example, "murder is always wrong" and "therefore you should outlaw murder in self defense" are coherent views but obviously no one would actually really espouse that (politically). Much of the "pro-life" movement isn't focused on inherent coherency, but rather this strange dissection of issues within a moral vacuum, which is increasingly nonsensical when there is an obvious dissonance between being the party of "strong moral and family values" while also trying to posture as the party of "ayn rand objective individualism". While I think wider coherency is important too, don't get me wrong, practical moral intelligence will always be superior to a coherency which only exists in a vacuum.

spot on as usual mate

I’m sympathetic to the pro-lifers who are genuinely philosophically consistent - paid family leave, adoption reform, birth incentive, medical cost coverage, child credit, etc.

this is the thing though, these people don't really exist

the only category i can think of are like some progressive catholics (at least in terms of the church's ideological spectrum)

the modern "pro-life" movement is not even founded on social welfare, it was founded on anti-sex conservatism and hardline christian nationalism as a reaction to religious private schools being forced to de-segregate in the 70s by the carter administration