You've heard the phrase "Women and children first" haven't you?
You've clearly ran out of ideas in this exchange, move on.
Don't pay income tax, end up in prison, appeal to SCOTUS, they refuse to hear.
Many such cases.
It's not a problem, you save the 5 and the one dies, your actions are to save life, the death is an unintended side effect. People who can't think believe you're choosing to kill someone, that was not the choice you made except where you had some personal vendetta against the guy and pulled the lever on the basis that you wanted to kill him. Pseuds love bringing up the trolley "problem" like it's some magical ethically grey example of moral philosophy and it's really not - sorry.
The singular death is the responsibility of who tied them there, the excess death is your responsibility because you could have saved them and elected not to, dressing cowardice as morality, as seen in abundance with the covid cult.
If the carrier considers it a punishment that murder is a crime, that's a price a civil society has to collectively pay, see earlier position on funding and counselling. You have one victim of rape, you're talking about making it a victim of rape and a victim of murder. It's illogical and legally confounded.
in this case not being able to abort a product of rape
You keep writing "Murder an innocent person" incorrectly, if you're down for the murder of innocent parties you're unwittingly advocating for the honour killing of rape victims they're innocent too as you lot keep harping on about, "Don't victimise the innocent don't victimise the innocent" before saying how you needs must have the "right" to murder a human life, it's frankly psychotic.
Who cares if the carrier is miserable when held against the context of murdering a child? If the mother doesn't grow to want it, put it up for adoption.
you're forcing her to have that trauma at the forefront of her mind, every day for the rest of her life
You're clearly not that well acquainted with the concept of abortion-regret. Why does the trauma of carrying it outweigh the trauma of having killed someone? You need to look up what "motivated reasoning" is.
Yeah we went through this already, there's "bad" and then there's "far worse", you're on the wrong side of it.
As it stands there is no lawful execution for rapists.
I would donate to a PAC advocating for blanket execution for rapists with DNA evidence etc or evidence to that effect. My position would absolutely not change if it were my sister carrying the child, the child is innocent, it did nothing wrong, just like it's mother.
You too.
Pregnancy isn't something that has no side effects to a woman's body. There can often be complications that arise from it. To put a victim through that on top of being raped is some wild bullshit.
I agree wholeheartedly, this is why being a rapist is general is such an aggravating factor, because of what you've laid out. If there are complications in the pregnancy you simply do your best to save both the mother and child, if the child dies as an unintended consequence of the intervention then so be it.
I don't think the state should pay for additional things that can be easily prevented.
In the context of what we're discussing that's a very, very dangerous thing to say when you take it to it's logical conclusions. The commons surplus exists to serve human life, else what is it there for exactly?
You need rape related pregnancy divorced from common-law or married couples as a generalised rate over the population per annum, it's going to be a tiny figure, just buy one less F35 that year, or give one less billion to Ukraine, it's not a money issue, and even if it were, a society that does not defend the utterly helpless against arbitrary murder is not one worth saving anyway.
Lastly...
I mean, yeah it would be forced to "do" something which is carrying a child
No, the rapist forced that circumstance upon the woman, and he is lawfully executed for it, the status quo now is carrying the child, the "DO"ing part is over. The state merely says "Do not kill children". It is not an active "DO" on the state's part, it is a DO NOT.
The mother being forced by the rapist into being an unwilling landlord to an unwanted tenant is of course, horrific, execute the rapist, carrying the child can be whatever adjective you desire it to be, the noun "murder" beats it.
She is not being "forced" to DO anything, she is forbidden from murdering a child because she was a victim of a crime. You're conflating two different things in your head, which is understandable because all the messaging about this stuff is purposefully put into the muddy puddles.
taxpayers not only have to pay for the child’s care, but the woman’s trauma as well having to carry her rapists baby
Yes, lol, if the state forbids you from killing the child and you cannot work while carrying it then of course the state should foot the bill, as well as counselling, the state is de facto guardian of women's vaginas when out walking the streets so they and or the rapist are financially liable. There's nothing bizzare or surprising about this. You're aware that the state pays for prisoners in prisons and all manner of dumb shit like infinite aid to foreign countries right? Do you not see that you're now scrabbling at an economic argument over the principle argument which is - do not kill innocent children - ?
You do realise culture is the aggregated manifestation of genetic behaviours - don't you?
It does but not for the reason you think, higher IQ people make more and more abstract laws that have a good reason to exist, but low IQ people genuinely cannot perceive the law's purpose in the abstract, if that's the case then to what extent is it a lawful law for the person?
Here's a half related example.
How it is:
Be Black - Act differently - Be treated differently
How many blacks see it:
Be Black - Be treated differently
These two things are not the same, but insofar as the black person is concerned in handling it, they will in fact be the same. Imagine being white and being told you were "acting" white and that's why you're being arrested. The left have a point with all this "systemic" stuff, it is in fact systemically "white" by design, it is in fact geared towards an ethnocentric culture, same as any other country on Earth. You do not expect to see governmental forms in Madagascar to be available in Italian - why? Because they have an ethnocentric culture, what we used to call "our way of life".
Third world countries have laws that basically go like this:
If you want to claim your goat you have to defend your goat, if you do not defend your goat then you do not want it and so it is now someone elses'
This is where male chaperoning etc comes into it, if that woman didn't want to be raped and stolen for a wife then whatever man in charge of her should have been guarding her. If your store items were important to you you should have put them all behind plexiglass.
Low IQ people really only deal with an external locus of morality, like, if I steal this thing then I will be whipped or beaten and I do not want that.
High IQ people deal in internal locus of morality. I would not like to be raped or stolen from, therefore I would not do that to someone else.
You won't fix fatherlessness in the black community, the bulk of the slaves exported from the cape came from matriarchal peoples, an ongoing defining habit of which is fatherlessness or perhaps "communal fathering".
White people need to go self employed / contractor however they can wherever they can.
No, people are unique, the political outlooks are not, so when you ask what is "Diversity"? The real answer is this:
A political device to render you ineffectual and ultimately extinct.
Bodily autonomy.
They keep saying that like we're meant to forget the murder of the unborn girl is not a lethal violation of their ostensible principle.
That's because you're a retard, you think "muh trauma" is worse than being murdered. The mother is not required to keep the child, she can put it up for adoption. Look, anyone sane can accept that carrying an unwanted child is going to be a rough time for the mother, however the pregnancy came about, however:
Murdering a child - is worse than being pregnant for 9 months in a manner you'd have rather not. This point is not disputable. Give the mother state funded counselling and monetary aid however it needs to be done. Just don't kill children. It's a simple premise.
A woman should have the right to carry/raise a child that she is ready and willing to.
She does have that right already lol, what you're really asking for and unable to type out is that women should have the right to arbitrarily murder their child because having it would be inconvenient. If it's some solace for you I believe rapists should be burned alive in the public square.
Yup, no one gives a fuck about "your" uterus ladies, sane people believe that you cannot execute a child using a rifle to fire through a wall into the next room where it sits. That wall is your uterus, we don't care about the wall, we care about the frankly insane and abhorrent perspective that because there is a wall, it's OK to kill the child.
The child is not "part of your body", it has a unique genomic sequence distinct from either parent. You just happen to be feeding it.
They need to feel like they're in the handmaid's tale or something to make up for the fact they have no social life irl.
It is related but not all of it, the fixation with late term abortion is the onward sale and trafficking of neonatal tissues and organs.
It's a worse thing to say "Kill an innocent child" because the father was a piece of shit.
There's no reason to be stubbornly obtuse and yet here we are;
Your flag being that of the East India Company
it's very self explanatory, for you to query it like a 3 year old would being asked to pass a cup is not becoming, Sir.
What is it about my statement that makes you struggle so? You did finish high school right? The US flag is basically a 1:1 copy of the East India Company flag.
Your flag being that of the East India Company through and through was a subtle hint.
Look at pictures of Elon's mum, then look at him and Grimes, then look at him wearing inverted vicar outfits with "New World Order" in latin embroidered on the back. Elon is Bill Gates 2.0. He's the autistic kinda relatable ironman for the retards looking for a hero. There are no heroes.
Global network grid.
Automated electric transport.
Climate change / carbon credits.
AI promoter.
Wants to chip your brain.
Dated a Witch, mother was a witch.