Comments by "Daily Wire Third Stringer" (@DailyWireThirdStringer) on "Abortion rights takes center stage as Supreme Court faces consequential new term" video.

  1. Actually, 15 weeks is pretty reasonable. If the Court upholds the Mississippi law and states are allowed to enact similar laws, I wouldn't mind it. I would even go so far as to support restrictions after 12 weeks, but not all-out bans (with medical exceptions for health of the mother and her baby, but those are extremely rare) until at least 15. 6 weeks is just absurd. Fetal viability is not what makes a moral difference here; it's whether the fetus can suffer. And that isn't possible until about 18 weeks of development. If the Court overturns Roe, though, all I can say is that I'm glad I live in a state that isn't governed like a theocracy.
    3
  2.  Jack L.  Well I didn't support Bernie in 2016 but I do support him now, but I can't blame my fellow "Bernie Bros" for refusing to vote for a war criminal. Oh, and someone who in 2012 (2012!!) was against gay marriage. Calling Hillary a "liberal" is like saying Putin is a progressive. It just doesn't fit the facts.
    1
  3. I applaud you, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart. I would consider myself pro-choice, and I arrived at that position through careful reasoning and lots of contemplation (as well as by consulting the work of outside sources on both sides, like Ben Shapiro and Brandon Tatum [on the right], and Kyle Kulinski and Peter Singer [on the left]). It is my assessment that the latter group presents the superior arguments, but at times it is a hard truth to accept. I actually fashion myself more of a moderate on this issue (as does Kyle Kulinski, Singer I'm not so sure about), as I am broadly in favor of a woman's right to choose (choice is a key factor here, as it implies that she either does not want the child for various reasons, or does not have the means to care for it without sacrificing much of her material possessions or future prospects [career, college education, etc.], which would almost certainly negatively impact the child as it grows up) until the point at which the fetus can feel pain, which is at about 18 weeks. As a utilitarian, I strive to minimize as much unnecessary suffering as possible, and I would consider it highly unethical to abort a fetus after 18 weeks when it could have been done sooner (thus avoiding suffering), but was postponed due to laziness. Now that, I can fully admit, is so concerning that the law should incentivize people to make their decisions at an earlier stage, and I would sign on to a provision that the only exception to a late-term abortion ban (i.e. at roughly 18 weeks) is a medical one, and even then it should be done only if it causes the least amount of pain. If the best route (the one that avoids the most suffering) is carrying the baby to term and delivering it via C-section and euthanizing it (as would happen when its quality of life would be so poor as to not be worth living at all, like extreme spinal bifida), then that is what should be done instead. Ultimately, though, it's up to doctors to make these decisions, and not the legislatures. Prior to 18 weeks, I would even favor restrictions beginning at 13 simply because of the complexity and wastefulness involved in 2nd-trimester abortions. Perhaps a disincentive such as a financial penalty (e.g. $2,000 bill that cannot be waived) will be appropriate and (hopefully) encourage women to make their decisions as soon as possible. And 12 weeks and before, I would impose a "life tax" that brings the bill to $500 (not to exceed) that can waived for those meeting certain socioeconomic criteria (e.g. living below the poverty line), to incentivize the widespread use of birth control. I also think that every woman, when she comes of age, should be provided with the option of implanting one IUD at no cost to herself. If this program were widely implemented, I am almost certain that it would drastically reduce the number of abortions each year, and hence meeting my goal of minimizing as much unnecessary suffering as possible. (Our treatment of other conscious creatures a whole subject unto itself, and I will not go into it here, but I believe that too needs to be gradually reformed.) So really, I guess you and I are not so dissimilar as we might seem (that is, if you're in favor of contraceptives over abortion, as I presume you are). And by the way, I would not ask my S.O. to get an abortion unless the situation was so dire (e.g. we're homeless) that there was no other option, and even then if we missed the deadline I would not blame the people who wrote the law --- because I know it is based on facts and the ethics were carefully reasoned so as to maximize human welfare.
    1