"We’re created by God for some special purpose," Mr. Akin told Mr. Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas.If God is for us, who can be against us?
The first link goes to the NYT, which has that as its top story on the front page. And right under it is: "G.O.P. Approves Strict Anti-Abortion Language in Party Platform."
While Republican officials stressed that the plank did not go into granular details, saying that they were better left to the states, the language of the plank seems to leave little room for exceptions to the abortion ban. It states that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”
“Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” said the draft platform language approved Tuesday.... "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”
The timing of the approval of the Republican anti-abortion plank was awkward for Mitt Romney, who has denounced Mr. Akin’s comments about rape and abortion and who has said that he supports exceptions to allow abortions in cases of rape. And it comes as his selection of his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, was already drawing scrutiny for his support for a more absolute ban on abortions, even in cases of rape or incest.
पोस्ट्स
५१६ टिप्पण्या:
516 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»His policy views are in the mainstream of the Republican Party. I look forward to educating Americans about the views of the Christianist American Taliban.
So what happens when the fetus implants itself somewhere not in the uterus?
Can the women get an abortion then?
That page is embarrassing and unethical, and an intellectual heavyweight like myself should be taken serious.
As predictable as the sunrise, there's Andy.
Also, the Republican Party has spent years trying to win elections by stoking the most crazy, insane, stupid parts of their base. And now they are facing the consequences.
When you treat Rush and Palin and Coulter and Hannity as serious party leaders, eventually you will end up with elected officials who are as dumb as this guy, and it will drag the whole party down.
It's amazing to me that neither side of our political discourse can seem to capitalize on what appears to be the clear preferences of the majority of the American people for a slightly right of center government that provides reasonably strong (as hsiortically defined) social services. Both parties, when they are dealt a strong hand, as the Republicans were this round, go completely into overreach and give in to the worst tendencies of their base.
Democrats hold the Senate and Obama gets 300+ electoral votes. Akin and the "social issues" debate will feature prominently in the analysis after the election.
You'd think Andy would hide his face at least until the person shot as part of his hate campaign could return to work. But oh well, being an asshole and a lefty means never applying standards to yourself.
Also, the Republican Party has spent years trying to win elections by stoking the most crazy, insane, stupid parts of their base. And now they are facing the consequences.
The consequences have usually been... succeeeding in winning elections.
Andy,
Are you referring to the Taliban that kills women for trying to get an education or adultery, and who executes gays for falling in love. You mean the "Christianist American" form of that? I'm not seeing such people in my America. Do you have a GPS? Maybe you're lost.
To accuse peaceful people of that by mistake is pretty bad, so please be careful. I know a good person like you would not do that on purpose.
As always cons, I feel your pain. Surely god's divine intervention will help Akin in his difficult journey ahead!
Idiot. This year is about the economy. Period.
Why are politicians so incredibly dumb?
"Andy R. said...
Also, the Republican Party has spent years trying to win elections by stoking the most crazy, insane, stupid parts of their base. And now they are facing the consequences."
Yep, a historic national win at the fedral, state, and local level in 2010. That's what you are talking about right? And predictions on 2012 hatboy?
"Idiot. This year is about the economy. Period."
Not at the NYT. Not this time. They have priorities.
I'm sure I'm not the only voter who wishes the GOP would lighten up on the cultural war, to help win the fiscal war. It seems to me that Romney and most GOP leaders would like to, but give the mike (anti-abortion plank, etc) to the religious right who might otherwise abstain from voting. Getting Akin to withdraw would have been a great way to draw a line against extremes. Going to be much harder now, and opponents will try to tar the whole party as Akin the way Andy R does. Ouch.
Idiot. This year is about the economy. Period.
People care about things other than the economy. Such as the right to abortion. Or how many people are going to be deported over the next 4 years. Or whether America and Iran go to war. Or if gay people should be granted equality or if we should continue to oppress them. Or a million other issues.
The Republicans seem to think they can be wrong on every single issue that isn't the economy, and then tell people to vote on the economy only. That's a kind of weird strategy, and I don't think it's going to work.
Exactly as I have been saying, Akin merely told the truth as seen by the new Republican Party. Social issues über alles.
Oh look! It's Andy R spouting Sullivanist talking points verbatim.
Coincidence?
And that's the way Democrats will win.
And his handmädchen, AllieOOp.
BTW, I love how "handmädchen" google translates--perfect!
Cut. Losses.
Now there is that much more money to pour into securing wins in the Wisconsin and Massachusetts races for the U.S. Senate. And perhaps a money-bomb to be dropped into the Pete Hoekstra (Michigan) campaign to defeat Debbie Stabenow.
Different ways to get to 51.
Exactly as I have been saying, Akin merely told the truth as seen by the new Republican Party. Social issues über alles.
How can you live yourself spouting such nonsense? EVERY Republican anywhere near a microphone has condemned the guy, and asked that he step down. Yet Allie completely ignores that.
You really are a phony.
If we were the "Christianist American Taliban," Hat, you'd have been strung up by your balls by now. Why don't you go overseas and educate Afghanis about the real Taliban?
Because, unlike the evil Christianists, the real Taliban will put a bullet through your head. Coward.
Social issues uber alles.
Considering your filthy party has played a large part in bringing us to the moral swamp we inhabit today, Allie, a little concern about moral issues might be welcome. But hey - abortion uber alles, right?
Gabriel Hanna made a comment in another thread about how Akin was expressing a belief RE: rape and women's bodies that has has often heard, and that that told him all he needed to know.
That seems insightful now. Akin still believes he is the right candidate, and that God is directing the election.
There's a Christian dating service running TV ads that says something like "you've been waiting for God to tell you whom to choose, but sometimes God says it's your time to decide". Akin, it's your time to decide.
Chickelit, the new Republican Party's future, The Handmaid's Tale.
Now is the time for social liberal/ fiscal conservative Republicans to pitch a fit.
Considering your filthy party has played a large part in bringing us to the moral swamp we inhabit today, Allie, a little concern about moral issues might be welcome
Yup. Look at the havoc wrought by the Great Society. Poverty up, replacement of the family by the government, over 80% of all convicted felons from one-parent households.
This must all be because the Democrats are the party of the economy.
Hack.
"We’re created by God for some special purpose"
That's a great line to deliver after you're busted saying something stupid,...
Inspector, you'd have more luck trying to get an answer from a box of Chinese hammers. To the Party hacks like Hat and Allie, Akin is the face of the GOP, the confirmation of what they believe the party to be.
Whereas faithful apparatchiks like "Chains" Biden and Jeremiah "God DAMN Amerikka!" Wright are just cuddly uncles who occasionally say strange things, but hey, you can't hold them against such good people as Democrats, can you?
By the way, as one of those radical atheists that wants to see people stop being dumb enough to believe in Christian fairy tales, sometimes I get a little pessimistic. This whole Jesus myth has been going strong for 2,000 years, is there really any way to convince people to get over this silliness? Am I wasting my time?
And then I see what American Christians are up to. This Akin guy fits in perfectly with the other Christians in this country, and illustrates why more and more young people are associating Christianity with intolerance and abandoning organized religion.
Keep up the good work, Akin and friends!
You know, Allie, I would love for you to live a week in a real-life Handmaid's Tale country, with Hat in deepest Taliban territory. I'd wager the two of you would be praying for the kind of "persecution" the GOP is waging in your fevered little minds.
It's useful to Republicans and conservatives, politically, that Andy R. and AllieOop see things so simplistically. I'm not worried about November 6. I'm worried about the riots on November 7, when the lefties who have bought into this stuff have to face reality.
So if the Dems don't win, are they wrong on all those issues? And who gives a shit when they get laid off if some guy in Missouri said something stupid?
Anybody who votes based on gay rights, abortion, or a myriad of other social issues is being played for a fool, and like a violin. Look how easy you can be convinced to vote against important reforms by simply calling someone names. Like clique underlings following the mean girl. Suckers.
Allie implored: Now is the time for social liberal/ fiscal conservative Republicans to pitch a fit.
I'm perfectly willing to watch you pitch a fit, and still even like you afterwards. But I won't countenance a Sullification of Republican ideals, and I'll mock your every effort.
Remember, you embrace all that Palin-hatred when you cheer that side. Unless of course your logic of guilt by association is faulty.
Akin is the face of the GOP, the confirmation of what they believe the party to be.
Did you read the article about the Republican Party platform? It will be fun watching all the Republican candidates trying to run and hide from their own party's stated position.
At least I give them credit for being internally consistent, because an abortion exception for rape and incest never made any intellectual sense to me.
And now the Republican Party has come out in support of making women who are the victims of rape and incest carry the baby to term. Wow!
"Jesus myth," Hat?
Which is the myth - that He existed or that He was the Son of God?
Never mind. No matter your answer, you've strapped on the blinders of certitude. How horrible it must be for you to suffer the slings and arrows of we inferior, credulous, sky-monster-worshipping proles.
I'm out of here. I'll let the rest of you deal with Hat and Allie.
Did you read the article about the Republican Party platform? It will be fun watching all the Republican candidates trying to run and hide from their own party's stated position.
How did this "position" change from the last 40 years? It hasn't, despite the fact that the NYT acts as though it's more restrictive.
I'll let you in on a little secret: the right is winning this argument. Polls show this. So continue to fool yourself into believing that this is some big scoop.
AllieOop said...
Exactly as I have been saying, Akin merely told the truth as seen by the new Republican Party. Social issues über alles.
It's pretty funny the nutty leftists can watch a thousand Republicans and conservatives condemn Akin and still conclude he is the Republican Party. No amount of evidence can penetrate their cocoon.
On some level I'm curous to know if they are utter fools or merely engaging in useless political hackery. But then I conclude it really doesn't matter. The only response is to laugh. They may think they're changing the minds of some small number of readers. But it's likely the only changers they drive are from moderate left to moderate right as they reveal the idiocy or venality and of the left.
Getting lost in all the gotcha games about who said what and who supports what is this: that Akin, besides being an idiot, is a power-hungry crapweasel without any loyalty to party or consideration for constituents.
Does he want his agenda to succeed? If so, he needs someone else to to do it, because he already blew it. Staying in hurts the causes he claims to support.
Politicians are always saying stupid things. They're human (approximately, maybe a little less), that's not so bad. But doubling down on stupidity and refusing to correct a mistake are what makes them unfit for office.
Allie,
The Handmaid's Tale should have embarassed feminists into withdrawing from the public sphere. Atwood is a fucking idiot.
The novel written by a Canadian woman, who prophesied that Christian fundamentalists would enslave Canadian women. Atwood missed out entirely on the reality that Canada faced that threat not from Christians, but from Muslims.
Andy, that Taliban stuff is just plain stupid. You are a spoiled brat white American kid.
That attitude of yours accounts for the "discrimination" you've suffered. An awful spoiled brat like you complaining about discrimination is an affront to human dignity. People don't hate you because you're gay, Andy. They hate you because you're an awful spoiled brat.
Party platforms are forgotten the moment the convention is over.
People care about things other than the economy. Such as the right to abortion. Or how many people are going to be deported over the next 4 years. Or whether America and Iran go to war. Or if gay people should be granted equality or if we should continue to oppress them. Or a million other issues.
You're voting Republican then, right? Because Democrats haven't improved one single solitary issue on your list. And, as you know, major Democratic constituencies are actively working against your equal rights. And everyone suffers when the economy is this bad, whether they're gay or straight, male or female.
Honestly, you seem like a smart guy. I don't understand why you'd happily surrender more and more of your freedom in exchange for empty promises of friendship from incompetent and corrupt politicians.
The Handmaid's Tale is a story about government becoming so powerful that it begins to dictate everyone's lives. If anything, it is a dystopia that fears government control. Particularly look at the reference to "unwomen;" this is not a "conservative" goal. It is not the right that refers to their political opponents by de-sexing them.
Unbabies are another clue that the fear is clearly not from the right; it is not the right that thinks we should abort babies born imperfectly. It is the right that celebrated Palin's choice to keep her baby that was not perfect.
While the underlying conceit, sex for pleasure is wrong, -sounds- like a slam against conservatism, which it is. Yet, again, the way the totalitarianism comes about is by centralizing government power.
So, again, this is an odd balance problem. The ideology that Atwood says will oppress is only enabled by empowering them via the mechanisms of the opposite ideology.
Andy R., you make a good point there. If the zygote is a human, how can abortion of it be morally sustained merely by the argument of how it became a zygote?
The answer is this: pro- and anti-abortion people are a little fuzzy. Scratch a pro-lifer, and you'll usually find someone with some exception provisions. Scratch a pro-abortionist, and you'll usually find someone who doesn't want new babies killed.
This is an intrinsically difficult question.
So, yes, ideologically, Atwood paints a right-leaning dystopia, but it is only possible by being enabled through government power centralization. It is hard to solely blame a single ideology for what happened in the world she paints.
@bryanC: I don't understand why you'd happily surrender more and more of your freedom in exchange for empty promises of friendship from incompetent and corrupt politicians.
Tribalism. The same reason some people (very few people) don't want Akin to drop out. It would involve letting the other team score a point.
No matter how many pot smokers and illegal aliens Obama has rounded up, no matter how many prisoners he keeps at Gitmo or drone assassinations he orders, Andy cannot let the other team have a point.
I hope he does the right thing and steps aside and I won't go very far in defending his idiotic terminology, but when I heard his initial remarks I read it as him pushing back against the idea that abortions due to rape are statistically more significant than they really are and that the whole abortion debate should hinge on these special cases. I've heard for years that stress, and especially traumatic stress, decreases the likelihood of conception and any I've seen lots of perfectly ordinary science programs that describe any number of bodily functions as "the body's miraculous ability" to do this or that. I assumed that's what he was talking about (however stupidly).
There's no end to Democrats who have been given a pass on what should have been career-ending incidents. Good grief, Obama's campaign blamed Romney for a woman's cancer and no one on the left was rending their garments and saying "He's got to go!"
While what Akin said is preposterous, I thought Rush had a pretty good way of presenting it this morning.
From his view, the guy wants to protect innocent children. He hangs out with a bunch of people who are like minded, and invent ridiculous ideas to support it.
Meanwhile, people really ought to consider the double standard with Biden gaffes, and Bill Clinton. Alleged molester of Women, and alleged Raper of Juanita Broderick.
Two very different standards at work here. At least Akin doesn't want to kill anyone: from his cloistered POV he is trying to save babies.
@Bob Ellison:This is an intrinsically difficult question.
Can't be said enough. At one end we have a single cell, not a baby. At the other end we have a baby.
The fuzziness wouldn't matter, like it doesn't matter for baldness (what exact percentage of skull must be showing to be considered "bald"), except that law does not tolerate fuzziness.
Less controversial example: voting age. Voters should be mature, and we use age as a proxy for that (we used to add gender and property as well). Yet we all know that a person aged 17 years and 364 days is not significantly less mature than one aged 18 years and one day. But the law only allows to possibilities: legal to cast a vote, and not legal to cast a vote. Likewise with a pregnancy.
Exactly as I have been saying, Akin merely told the truth as seen by the new Republican Party. Social issues über alles.
What utter bullshit.
Also? The handmaiden's tale was paranoid dreck.
The majority of pro-life people's position is that they don't like abortion because they believe it be the killing of an innocent. They are willing to allow it in the cases of rape or incest, which is a very small % of abortions performed regardless of why.
Also, the Republican Party has spent years trying to win elections by stoking the most crazy, insane, stupid parts of their base. And now they are facing the consequences.
Like how people like you directly led to the FRC shooting?
All of your hatred led to a shooting. Congrats.
Such as the right to abortion
Support is a shade under 50% now for that.
Or how many people are going to be deported over the next 4 years.
"Not enough" seems to poll quite well.
Or if gay people should be granted equality or if we should continue to oppress them.
How many initiatives have you and your fascist murder encouraging psychopaths lost to date?
Exactly as I have been saying, Akin merely told the truth as seen by the new Republican Party. Social issues über alles.
...provided one ignores that basically every conservative in the country has called on him to withdraw.
Allie, can you name a single conservative SUPPORTING Akin at this point?
By the way, as one of those radical atheists that wants to see people stop being dumb enough to believe in Christian fairy tales, sometimes I get a little pessimistic. This whole Jesus myth has been going strong for 2,000 years, is there really any way to convince people to get over this silliness? Am I wasting my time?
Nah. I'm sure you and your allies will shoot up some more groups you don't support. That might sway some opinions. Hard to tell.
Keep the hate alive.
And then I see what American Christians are up to. This Akin guy fits in perfectly with the other Christians in this country
He has absurd notions about rape.
People like YOU shoot people you don't agree with.
Haven't heard a word out of you about that shooting, ergo, you clearly support it.
I, for one, would be glad to see Akin call Karl Rove's bluff. Who really thinks the national GOP and the big SuperPACs will stay out of the Show-me state, and cede the Senate to the Dems, if Akin stays in?
It will be fun to see Rove and the other GOP big-shots do a 180, and explain that what they actually meant to say is that Akin is a really great guy.
Allie, list something social conservatives have actually done to you.
Akin is selfish asshole for staying in. And he's stupid to boot. I don't care what else he's had to say on anything. You've got to be a moron to make the statements he has as a candidate in the last few days. I don't need anymore proof of it.
Yes, he's forgiven for his stupid statements. No, he is not forgiven for staying in the race.
Shanna writes:
"Idiot. This year is about the economy. Period."
Bagoh20 seconds the motion, chirping:
"Not at the NYT. Not this time. They have priorities."
Both of course blithely ignore the fact that it is the GOP that shows "priorities" by drafting the platform plank in question. In the twisted logic of these two comments, there is no issue with the GOP promoting the agenda, but there are all sorts of problems with the press talking about that agenda.
Yeah. Makes perfect sense.
Oh Chickie, relax, I don't ever read Sullivan.
My ideas are based on my observations and what my Republican friends and family tell me. So all you conservatives don't buy into this extreme social agenda, pushed by the Religious Right, why the hell don't you fliipin' speak up and take control of your own party back from them?
Of course, if you're on board that train, then you deserve to lose the election and you will, IMO of course.
his support for a more absolute ban
"More absolute." Like, "a little pregnant." Strange times.
Allie,
Romney will not mention the party platform once in his presidential campaign.
You are getting all excited over nothing.
The decision making power on abortion resides with the courts, anyway.
Good points, Gabriel.
I've been thinking lately that the most idiotic part of the Roe decision was not the invention of rights or the fantastic reading of the Constitution, but the stupidity of coming to what must, even in 1973, have seemed like an extremely temporal conclusion: three months is the key. That was pretty clever at the time, but it's not now. Soon we might be making zygotes in test tubes and raising them to term in incubators for their grateful parents. Roe said "well, right now, this is the way it is [though it wasn't]". Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!
Sticker campaign in the works for someone else?
People tried to speak up against it and form the Tea Party movement. The left called them a bunch of racist hicks who don't know anything.
So, forgive the right for not involving the left in figuring out how to resolve our big tent issues.
My ideas are based on my observations and what my Republican friends and family tell me. So all you conservatives don't buy into this extreme social agenda, pushed by the Religious Right, why the hell don't you fliipin' speak up and take control of your own party back from them?
Same reason feminists stood by Clinton after multiple examples of sexual harassment and a rape accusations.
Or human rights supporters stood by Obama after he decided he can just kill Americans by his choice and kills God knows how many civilians via drones.
Maybe you can explain that to me.
What exactly are you calling so extreme in the Republican party's platform, Allie? Would you state it and what you disagree with?
the Republican Party has spent years trying to win elections by stoking the most crazy, insane, stupid parts of their base.
Not like Democrats. "Put y'all back in chains" is not at all stoking base paranoia.
People tried to speak up against it and form the Tea Party movement. The left called them a bunch of racist hicks who don't know anything.
So, forgive the right for not involving the left in figuring out how to resolve our big tent issues.
We also don't have the media who decide that shooting of a political group you don't support is not really a story.
FRC's shooting sure got ignored quickly, didn't it?
Defining an issue by exceptional circumstances is exceptionally stupid. The issue is first, elective termination of an innocent, developing human life. The issue is second, the termination of an innocent, developing human life. Supporting abortion in the first is a clear violation of human rights and will devalue the intrinsic value of human life. However, in the second, all efforts should be made to preserve the innocent, developing human life. Unfortunately, in cases of involuntary or superior exploitation, the judgment is not straightforward; but, that does not mean a summary execution is the right answer.
As for focusing on the economy exclusively, perhaps people are not aware of the direct link between societal viability and evolutionary fitness. There is a reason why immigration, both legal and illegal, is progressive. Why Americans are being displaced in the millions at their jobs, schools, etc. Why a large minority of Americans vote for involuntary exploitation of their family, friends, and neighbors. Immigration, both legal and illegal, serves, ostensibly, to compensate for the evolutionary dysfunction embraced by a large minority of our society. Unfortunately, this stop-gap measure will do nothing to stem the corruption sponsored by dreams of instant gratification.
America will be inherited by people who recognize evolutionary principles and a reasonable compromise of the natural order.
Matthew, you wrote:
"People tried to speak up against it and form the Tea Party movement."
To what does the "it" refer, in this sentence?
Sorun, I'm a liberal, it isn't JUST about ME. How about my granddaughter, or yours? Do you agree that the option of abortion should be denied , no matter what? Seriously?
So all you conservatives don't buy into this extreme social agenda, pushed by the Religious Right, why the hell don't you fliipin' speak up and take control of your own party back from them?
Because they don't have control of it now, and never have. (For those who still think they do, here's two words: Mitt Romney.)
Conservatives wanting to focus on fiscal, not social issues. In fact, whenever Republicans -try- to focus on fiscal issues (like Ryan/Romney are), they get called all sorts of names, are lied about and peppered with questions about things that are not important.
The right, as a whole, would love nothing more than to focus on finding the right place for government and draft some budgets. The left seems to be unable to be serious about it, as the President refused to even entertain the plan presented by his own hand-picked people. The right has been trying to be serious, the left refuses.
From the 2008 GOP platform:
"We support a human life
amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth
Amendmentís protections apply to unborn children.
We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which
advocate it. We support the appointment of judges
who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life."
Extreme? "Supporting" a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn? If this "support" caused a constitutional amendment to be ratified, Allie, do you realize what that would entail?
It would almost, by definition, not be extreme.
Allie,
Before you quote that Handmaid's Tale BS again... Do you know that in Canada...
Comedians have been jailed and fined for making jokes about homosexuals?
Christian ministers have been jailed and prohibited from ever publishing another word about Biblical teaching about homosexuality?
Honor killings of women by Muslims are rather common in Canada?
Gays in Canada are facing living in cities in which some neighborhoods are basically living under Sharia law?
That fucking dunce Atwood was so wrong that she never should have been taken seriously again. There is no threat to liberty from Christians, Allie.
The threat is from Muslims.
That's what I never understand. If the right is in the thrall of social conservatives, how have our last series of Presidential nominees been Bush, McCain and Romney? Except for Bush, who was fairly supportive of social issues, they are fairly well-known RINOs. Scott Brown and Chris Christie, for goodness sakes, are rock stars in the Republican Party. Ryan is solely known for his wonkish devotion to fixing Medicare.
Akin is an little, uneducated, and mean man hiding behind the Conservative/liberal mind games as an excuse to hurt people that have done him no harm.
That heart of his was exposed for what was in it by the words that proceeded out of it.
Now he wants to throw his own beer hall putsch against the Establishment GOP and take it down in flames with him.
Beauty is skin deep but stupidity goes down to the bone. Now the Dems can flush out the accepting of women GOP party from the ugly anti- pregnant women attack cult. The SOB Akin has left them nowhere to hide.
I am sick of the pro-life stance being called extreme. I think ripping a living human being piece by piece out of a uterus is pretty damned extreme. How in the world did valuing life turn into an extremist view?
Neat trick, that.
Sorun, I'm a liberal, it isn't JUST about ME. How about my granddaughter, or yours? Do you agree that the option of abortion should be denied , no matter what? Seriously?
Gee, Allie, not even ONE thing? Are social conservatives some new 21st century threat? Your politics are based on fear of monsters in the closet and boogymen under the bed.
Mitt Romney...has said that he supports exceptions to allow abortions in cases of rape. And it comes as his selection of his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, was already drawing scrutiny for his support for a more absolute ban on abortions, even in cases of rape or incest.
Even tho I disagree with their basic stance, I have much more respect for Ryan.
How can anyone who thinks that abortion kills a baby support allowing it in any situation except for self-defense?
Romney is a fraud.
Idiot. This year is about the economy. Period.
Then why does the GOP have a plank in their platform about abortion? Obviously it is a pretty important issue to the Party.
I agree he should not leave the race as he represents what the New Republican party believes about women's reproductive rights. Allie just relax these new laws defining rape won't hurt a bit.
"How can anyone who thinks that abortion kills a baby support allowing it in any situation except for self-defense?"
-- Because Ryan and Romney are willing to compromise with their political opponents to achieve small wins, as opposed to Obama's "I won" theory of governance.
Remember when compromise was a good thing?
The interesting thing about Akin is that he thinks there shouldn't be an exception for abortions because of rape or incest. But he realizes how politically toxic this is. So he tries to find a way to claim that we don't need to worry about rape victims getting pregnant because the body has a way to prevent that from happening. And then a bunch of Republicans all jumped to condemn him. But they were condemning him about the part where he said the body has a defense against getting pregnant from rape, not about his opposition to rape exceptions for abortion.
So they are left with the politically toxic part about no exceptions for rape victims without a way to weasel out of it. At least Akin was smart enough to realize that this was an extremist position that wouldn't fly, even in Missouri.
"I agree he should not leave the race as he represents what the New Republican party believes about women's reproductive rights. Allie just relax these new laws defining rape won't hurt a bit."
-- Akin said nothing about redefining rape. Stop lying.
"So he tries to find a way to claim that we don't need to worry about rape victims getting pregnant because the body has a way to prevent that from happening."
-- Actually, no. He claimed it was rare, but that he still thought that abortions should be banned, but that there should be strict punishment for rapists.
Why is every single person on the left lying about the stupid thing he said? He said a stupid thing; stop lying about it. It's bad as it is, if we constantly have to call you out for lying about it, it starts to lose the sting of his stupidity.
I want to have honest to goodness discussions of politics with people on the opposite political side, but I am finding it harder and harder to do so.
Gabriel Hanna said The fuzziness wouldn't matter, like it doesn't matter for baldness (what exact percentage of skull must be showing to be considered "bald"), except that law does not tolerate fuzziness.
This makes me wonder: what if criminal cases were tried like civil cases? Proportional guilt, burden of proof, etc.
Forgive me, Professor; there must be a whole shelf of books and a few classes on the question. Most of us don't think of it much, though. We just look at the courts and think "that's not working".
purplepenguin wrote: Then why does the GOP have a plank in their platform about abortion? Obviously it is a pretty important issue to the Party.
As Darcy pointed out, there was a similar plank in 2008. Probably earlier. Did Bush have a plank? He certainly didn't have any planks in his eyes.
I can't wait to see some of the hare-brained social and economic planks in the Democrat's gibbet, er, platform.
See, purplepenquin is deploying the binary-argument attack:
How can anyone who thinks that abortion kills a baby support allowing it in any situation except for self-defense?
It's tough. Politicians can't escape this problem without saying what they really think, which is what Akin did.
By the way, as one of those radical atheists that wants to see people stop being dumb enough to believe in Christian fairy tales, sometimes I get a little pessimistic. This whole Jesus myth has been going strong for 2,000 years, is there really any way to convince people to get over this silliness? Am I wasting my time?
I realize past performance is no guarantee of future results but when the last attempts of societies trying that have delivered Mao, Pol Pot, Castro/Guevara, Stalin, Ceausescu, etc. ad nausea-um, I'll pass.
More(-Akin) in co-sponsoring House Resolution 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, when it contained language restricting the exception for federally funded abortions to "an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest."
Forcible rape.
That's not too far from "legitimate rape" If this isn't redefining then what is?
Considering he faces McCaskill, who ran far behind all the Republicans who stood in the primary, the trolls might want to reserve their chortling.
He may well win.
If the Show Me State can send a dead guy to the Senate, anything's possible.
Andy R. said...
His policy views are in the mainstream of the Republican Party.
According to whom, besides Hatman?
I look forward to educating Americans about the views of the Christianist American Taliban.
The only american Taliban is the Left, with its "our way or destruction" attitude.
When you treat Rush and Palin and Coulter and Hannity as serious party leaders, eventually you will end up with elected officials who are as dumb as this guy, and it will drag the whole party down.
Mrs Palin supported Steelman, genius.
People care about things other than the economy. Such as the right to abortion. Or how many people are going to be deported over the next 4 years. Or whether America and Iran go to war. Or if gay people should be granted equality or if we should continue to oppress them. Or a million other issues.
No, food on the table and a roof over their heads trumps them all.
By the way, as one of those radical atheists that wants to see people stop being dumb enough to believe in Christian fairy tales, sometimes I get a little pessimistic.
Considering Hatman favors the fairy tales of Dan Savage and Karl Marx, I don't blame him for being pessimistic.
This whole Jesus myth has been going strong for 2,000 years, is there really any way to convince people to get over this silliness? Am I wasting my time?
No myth, there were witnesses and, after 2000 years, His followers are as strong as ever.
And, yes, Hatman's been wasting his time ever since he got here.
PS Nice to see Oop out of the closet.
Akin said nothing about redefining rape.
Hmm
In 2011, Paul Ryan joined Akin — along with 171 others, however — in co-sponsoring The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, or House Resolution 3, which aimed to "prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections." It passed the House but has no chance, at least now, of being brought for a vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
The Hyde Amendment contains exceptions to federal law banning funding for abortions that include cases of rape, incest and life-threatening circumstances for the mother. The original version of H.R. 3 would have narrowed that exception to cases of "forcible rape," though that definition was removed after much dissent
Did Ryan support the change of rape to "forcible rape" in the original version of the bill? Does he still support that redefinition now? Paul Ryan should explain if he thinks there is a difference between rape and forcible rape and why that might matter.
Alright folks, I got to run, have fun without me.
Christianists the shibboleth that couldn't be avoided.
Up your game to disguise who's doing your thinking for you. But you can't even do that.
Here, I'll give the vested monkey a dollar and a little note for Andrew: "Hi"
In the view of progressives , women appear to be too fucking stupid to use birth control or have their partners use it and cannot otherwise decide whether or not to have children and thus require abortions as a form of birth control. Thus abortion is their most sacred belief. More than the economy, more than welfare, almost as sacred as free stuff. I happen be believe abortion should and will stay legal but the lefty worship of this gruesome choice is odd. Sick.
The last time a social conservative harmed me was when my mom spanked me for saying "hell." That was a long time ago.
My ideas are based on my observations and what my Republican friends and family tell me. So all you conservatives don't buy into this extreme social agenda, pushed by the Religious Right, why the hell don't you fliipin' speak up and take control of your own party back from them?
I too am an Atheist. I don't see the big deal of abortion, to a point. Women auto abort commonly, and generally the fetus is flushed down the toilet, perhaps with Mom not even knowing it happened. So I'm there with you, Allie.
But Roe V. Wade is a bad ruling. It's simply not in the constitution. That's what is important to me.
While I see inconsistencies in the "right to life" argument, see auto abort and lack of funerals, I can understand that people may hold very strong feelings about what they view as murder.
Send the issue back to the states, and to the people where it belongs. Allie, if you were honest, you would do this too, because the constitution, in my view, trumps this issue.
The only person I have seen encouraging Akin to stay in the race is Claire McCaskill.
Andy R. said...
Also, the Republican Party has spent years trying to win elections by stoking the most crazy, insane, stupid parts of their base...
And the Democrats don't do this?
Er... you do know that forcible rape, as a definition, has existed since at least 1990, right? Right? You're not just parroting some talking point?
It's so annoying to me how people assume that if we recognize the humanity of a baby in the womb, automatically every abortion is illegal. No. It doesn't work that way.
You apply equal protection, then that means a baby is protected by our death and homicide statutes. Every state has laws in regard to when people die. You apply those laws. Some abortions would be defined as, yes, murder (or murder 2, or manslaughter).
But other abortions would not be. Most obviously, an IUD would continue to be defined as birth control. Emergency contraception in cases of rape would still be legal. And states could decide what they wanted to do in regard to early abortions of embryos.
But the worst abortions, the homicidal ones, would be off the table.
Justice Blackmun started this horseshit in Roe, saying that if we apply the equal protection clause to abortion, all abortions must be illegal.
So Blackmun defines the baby as property all the way up until birth.
Even in Carhart, the partial-birth abortion opinion, the Justices are defining a baby outside the womb as property. It's insanity.
The Republican plank is not "far right." It is sensible and right to define all human beings as people, and to apply our death statutes to the abortion controversy.
What's insane is to issue abortion rules that are clearly homicides under state law.
Equal protection principles would help resolve this stupid fight.
I happen be believe abortion should and will stay legal but the lefty worship of this gruesome choice is odd. Sick.
I agree with all of this.
I happen be believe abortion should and will stay legal but the lefty worship of this gruesome choice is odd.
One time I agreed with Bill Clinton: Safe, Legal and Rare.
Gaaaah.... Let's just double down on stupid.
Again, for the nth time since Akin opened his stupid mouth, forcible rape defines what most people understand rape to be: The man jumping a woman, drugging her, or in some way forcibly overpowering her. Statutory rape -can- include those elements. Or it could be two horny teenagers. Rape, used alone, is generally understood to be somehow forcible. But, if you call it out as such, it only applies in those cases, but not in cases where mutual consent occurs among minors (which is still, potentially, statutory rape.)
And it has, as far as I can tell, existed as a term since at least 1990 (when I can find stats for it.)
We’re created by God for some special purpose," Mr. Akin
Oh good grief this guy needs a muzzle
Andy R. said...
Also, the Republican Party has spent years trying to win elections by stoking the most crazy, insane, stupid parts of their base. And now they are facing the consequences
Hysterical.
There has been 1, that is a single, Democrat to win 2 terms in the WH since WWII.
Idiot.
Matthew Sablan said Er... you do know that forcible rape, as a definition, has existed since at least 1990, right?
We used to call it "rape".
is there really any way to convince people to get over this silliness?
I find it's generally harder to convince people with radically different views to agree with me than it is to work on people who generally agree with me already except on a few points. So I'd suggest you should go up to Charlotte next month, talk up some of the delegates, let them know that you're a Democrat, an Occupy supporter, etc, and then tell them that believing in Christianity is stupid.
You're not getting any traction here, but in friendlier company I bet you'd be pretty persuasive. In fact, I think you'd be able to get a floor vote on a plank for the whole Democratic Party: "Christians are stupid".
I know I'll be praying for your success.
Andy R. said...
Alright folks, I got to run, have fun without me.
funny how many of the trolls use the same exit - especially when their asses are getting kicked.
Ms. Magazine discussing the term "forcible rape." But, yes. Ryan and Akin just made it up recently.
Women auto abort commonly
What you mean is that sometimes a zygote doesn't attach to the uteran wall. People debate how often it happens. You're right, a woman's not going to feel it, it's microscopic.
An IUD does the same thing, keeps a zygote from attaching to the uterus. Most people (including me) consider the IUD to be birth control.
the fetus is flushed down the toilet, perhaps with Mom not even knowing it happened
No. A fetus is anywhere from a couple of inches to a 10-pound baby. You don't abort one of those and not know it. You've missed your periods, you're pregnant, you're having a miscarriage, people know it.
Women who use the RU-486 abortion pill discharge the embryo into a toilet. They know that, too.
Remember when compromise was a good thing?
No, I don't remember when compromising in regards to babies being slaughtered was a good thing.
When exactly was that?
The pregnant women hating cult that calls itself pro-life wants to have a hearing and a judge to decide if the burden of proof was met that the raped woman fought hard enough and screamed loud enough during the sex act. If not than the slut needs punishment for enjoying her rape.
That is so knee jerk stupid that Muslims treat their women better.
"No, I don't remember when compromising in regards to babies being slaughtered was a good thing.
When exactly was that?"
-- It is grossly immoral to allow everyone to die when you could save 90+% of the people involved, solely because you couldn't save them all. Sometimes, you must accept that you can't do everything at once and save the lives you can.
Feministing acknowledging the use of "forcible rape" long before Ryan, or maybe even Akin, were born.
But go ahead, keep lying.
Wow, that is a hateful spin, Tradguy.
I wish the pro-abortion crowd would quit exploiting victims of rape in this way. It's disgusting. You get away with it because of your sick spin.
PS: Purple, here is why you supply links when you make assertions. See how I have done so, proven my point and effectively shut down the unbased assertion that Ryan/Akin tried to redefine rape?
Sources -- they prove things.
St. Croix, once again making the most sense.
Anybody ever used an IUD? How about the morning after pill for rape victims? Even some pushback against contraceptives, by the RR, why is that? Must non religious people be forced to adopt the beliefs of a certain religion? Are we a theocracy?
Shana, yesterday in another thread argued that abortion should be denied to rape victims, because Christian families would adopt the baby. No mention of the humanity of the rape victim.
"This whole Jesus myth has been going strong for 2,000 years, is there really any way to convince people to get over this silliness? Am I wasting my time?"
Yes. Whether through divine will or natural selection, the religious impulse is built in to our species. The people who think they've escaped it or outsmarted it have simply selected a less conventional object of worship. A political ideology is the next best fit, so that's usually the proxy they choose. This allows the true believers to exercise their unrestrained impulse to zealotry, while still feeling superior to all those stupid god-botherers. It's a win-win, except for everyone else.
AllieOop said "No mention of the humanity of the rape victim."
Well, I'm a human. There are other humans I don't like. I can kill them, right?
This is the way pro-life people see the question. Try to grok it.
purplepenquin:
How can anyone who thinks that abortion kills a baby support allowing it in any situation except for self-defense?
In elective abortions there is only one human life that hangs in the balance. In cases of involuntary or superior exploitation there is the dignity of the mother to consider. However, in all cases of elective termination of innocent human life, there clearly should not be summary execution.
I think the difference between, at least my position, and others, arises from perspective. Similar to the difference between liberal and libertarian (or American conservative) ideology, where the former places the forest (i.e. collective) before the trees (i.e. individuals), and the latter reverses its perspective.
In case the use of forcible rape by the likes of Ms. Magazine isn't enough, here's the FBI saying that they were changing the definition from what it was in 1927. So, I assume no one in this thread will continue to repeat that Ryan/Akin tried to redefine rape to forcible rape, since they now know that is a definition that A) The FBI still uses and B) Has evolved from its 1920s origins.
Can a blastocyst feel itself being aborted? Should we outlaw IUDs?
I'd be happy with determining when a fetus can feel pain and starting a discussion there, Allie. Are you concerned about the pain of the fetus, or is this just throwing out a meaningless swipe?
Dante: I too am an Atheist. I don't see the big deal of abortion, to a point. Women auto abort commonly, and generally the fetus is flushed down the toilet, perhaps with Mom not even knowing it happened. So I'm there with you, Allie.
People die in car wrecks all the time, too, Dante.
That's why every time I come across a wreck, I pull the injured people out of the vehicle. Then I flip a coin. If it comes up heads, I consider them to be "inert," and I pull out a pistol and shoot them dead, right between the eyes.
Hey, what's the problem?
See how much more fun this is than talking about that nasty old economy?
Bob Ellison is on record as forcing rape victims to carry the rape baby to term.
Akin's delivered another Senate seat to the Democrats, looks like.
As for the tempest in a teapot about the Republican platform: yawn. "No abortion, no exceptions" isn't any more unpopular than "abortion on demand, no exceptions". The Republicans won't lose a single vote for this, just as the Democrats won't lose a single vote for their position.
"Even some pushback against contraceptives, by the RR, why is that?"
Can you provide an example? Have Romney and Ryan ever advocated forcing any person or organization to buy, use, or avoid contraception? As you no doubt agree, that would be tyranny of the most offensive sort.
"Shana, yesterday in another thread argued that abortion should be denied to rape victims, because Christian families would adopt the baby. No mention of the humanity of the rape victim."
People argue all sorts of stupid and irrational things. Like that doctor in England who enjoyed aborting black babies because they were ugly. I don't pretend that monster speaks for you, so why would you imagine this Shana person speaks for Republicans?
Akinism is just one more reason that the republican party is not worth a ripe shit as opposition. They're not serious. If they don't get this bastard out in the next couple of hours he's toast. If I'm wrong and he's elected that's just as bad or worse.
Sometimes, you must accept that you can't do everything at once and save the lives you can.
Sounds like you're saying that the ultimate plan is to also make it illegal for rape victims. If not, could you please clarify what you mean?
PS: Purple, here is why you supply links when you make assertions.
I had no idea you needed a link for anything I have said in this thread.
Can you please tell me exactly what "assertions" I have made that you dispute, and I'll try to source 'em for ya....
Allie and Andy R. are one-issue voters. Their entire world-view revolves around that One Issue, as described and shaped by their progressive leaders of course. Let anyone even tangentially or potentially threaten the One Issue and out come the claws, the hysterical accusations and pompous pronouncements, sanctimonious rage and weepy self-justifications for extremely bad behavior.
How sad to be led about so easily.
Akinism is just one more reason that the republican party is not worth a ripe shit as opposition. They're not serious
Oh those Fundies are very serious about Jeebus and Rapture. Economics are for those not concerned with Heaven. Unfortunately the Jeebus-freaks form 40% of the GOP.
"Sounds like you're saying that the ultimate plan is to also make it illegal for rape victims. If not, could you please clarify what you mean?"
-- You said you couldn't understand the logic around being willing to compromise on abortions for rape victims (or any of the other small percentage of carve outs) to allow a compromise on others. I provided you solid, moral reasoning for allowing a compromise.
The source jab was more a general point, as you seemed mystified that Jay and others demanded sources and were annoyed at LMGTFY. Provide the sources; if they prove your case, excellent. It helps that they actually do say what you say they say though.
How can anyone who thinks that abortion kills a baby support allowing it in any situation except for self-defense?
Person X has no right to reside in Person Y's body unless Person Y consented to it.
Consentual sex can be seen as implicit consent to pregnancy, and thus a woman pregnant from consentual sex can be seen as having obligations to her occupant. A woman who was raped gave no such consent and thus has no such obligations.
How's that?
AllieOop said...
St. Croix, once again making the most sense.
Anybody ever used an IUD?
There used to be a UW chemistry professor who wore a necklace made of IUDs--his way of making a statement in support of PP. But that was back in the swingin' 70's before the Pill became ubiquitous.
If GOPers are so caring about the sanctity of life and want to bring every single rape baby to term, are they also willing to fund it having a high quality of life and college tuition too?
are they also willing to fund it having a high quality of life and college tuition too?
Only a fabulous life is a life worth living?
chickelit - on record for forcing rape victims to have the rape baby.
Noted.
Darcy, OF COURSE I'm concerned about any pain a fetus may feel
I'm not going to get into an abortion discussion here, it's been argued ad nauseum. There are people, mself amongst them, who believe abortion should not ever happen, feel it's murder, yet do not agree with the repeal of Roe v. Wade. I'm not going to re argue that either, it's been done many times on this blog, with no consensus, never will be .
Allie - you think abortion is murder? It' s just a clump of undifferentiated cells.
Sounds like you're saying that the ultimate plan is to also make it illegal for rape victims. If not, could you please clarify what you mean?
Approximately a quarter of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all cases, full stop. But if you add in exceptions for rape, incest, and saving the mother's life, that climbs to over 60%.
This has several implications:
1. Anyone who wets their pants over the thought of a Congressman or President supporting no-exceptions abortion is a moron. It is politically impossible for any such law to pass at the federal level. It wouldn't even pass if Republicans controlled every seat in Congress.
2. Rape and incest account for around 1% of abortions; health reasons account for another 6%.
Therefore,
3. Pro-lifers can choose between banning 93% of all abortions... or banning 0% of all abortions.
And that, purplepenguin, is why a pro-lifer would support a rape exception even if he thought aborting a rape-baby was evil -- because it is better for 1 child to die than 100 children.
You said you couldn't understand the logic around being willing to compromise on abortions for rape victims (or any of the other small percentage of carve outs) to allow a compromise on others. I provided you solid, moral reasoning for allowing a compromise.
Such a compromise would only be considered "moral" if it was a stepping stone to outlawing all abortions, even for rape/incest victims.
Do you think that Romney's (and others who agree with him) stance will stay the same once abortion, with that exception for rape/incest, is banned?
Do you think that Romney's (and others who agree with him) stance will stay the same once abortion, with that exception for rape/incest, is banned?
I thought you didn't believe in slippery slopes, PP.
Alex, yes I do, because I believe it has a soul from the moment of conception, but we are not wise enought to know the reason that this child will not have a chance to be born. Maybe we will have such knowledge one day, here on earth, we are not privy to what God/higher power/ fate decides and why.
It's my personal belief system, but I don't think it's right to force it on anyone. Give people the choice to make their own decisions, hence choice.
Alex said...
chickelit - on record for forcing rape victims to have the rape baby.
In Alex's kangaroo court maybe. I just questioned your emphasis on material comfort.
"Such a compromise would only be considered "moral" if it was a stepping stone to outlawing all abortions, even for rape/incest victims."
-- Nope. It is not -perfect-. But you cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
So if Ryan flip-flops on the rape exception can we conclude he has no principles and will say anything to get elected? Be proud of your Fundie-ness Ryan!
chickelit - so you support rape babies growing up in poverty.
The Republican "establishment" has brought this continuing embarrassment on themeselves; they should have kept quiet and let Akin and Missouri sort this out by themselves.
Hagar - the MSM was never going to let this stay local and you know it.
Alex, yes I do, because I believe it has a soul from the moment of conception
So do twins only have 1/2 a soul? :D
When I was a teenager our pastor told us to pray for guidance on this issue. So I turned to the Bible where Genesis 2:7 answered the question of "When does a fetus become a living being?" pretty clearly for me.
You brought up the pain issue, Allie. I was asking why. I was also asking why you feel the Republican party's platform wording with regard to human life is "extreme".
I think Akin should go. I don't believe abortion should be illegal or that the state should be able to compel a woman to give birth. I consider pregnancy resulting from rape an extreme, not to mention sad and painful circumstance. I think constantly using it as an argument to sort of sanction the millions of abortions already performed is warped. I WISH we were just talking about the extremes. I wish.
I DO believe we should be talking about respect for human life. ALL human life. I wish we extended the fetus the kind of concern some extend to the sucker fish or the spotted owl, or the freaking eggs of some birds, for goodness sakes!
But let's talk about extreme circumstances so we can keep on sanctioning millions of aborted babies, I guess?
Althouse should just have a permanent, ongoing abortion thread so people can re-explore the Sorites paradox at their convenience.
Regarding Akin, I'd expect a guy who won less than 40% of the primary vote to be a lot more open to self-doubt. As Darcy said upthread, this isn't about any principles, it's about Akin's pridefulness.
Oh, and just cuz it needs to be said--I Hate Huckabee.
Darcy, really good stuff.
Such a compromise would only be considered "moral" if it was a stepping stone to outlawing all abortions, even for rape/incest victims.
Similarly, support for gay marriage can only be considered moral if it is a stepping stone to legalizing all forms of marriage, such as polygamous marriage and father-daughter marriage.
This just in: virtually nobody on Earth actuall lives their lives according to an internally consistent moral code.
I DO believe we should be talking about respect for human life. ALL human life. I wish we extended the fetus the kind of concern some extend to the sucker fish or the spotted owl, or the freaking eggs of some birds, for goodness sakes!
Or extended the same concern for a fetus that we do for a newborn baby that suddenly becomes such a burden on society the instant it takes its first breath. It's just bizarre how quickly Womb Watchers lose interest so quickly. (not talking about you)
Listening to this selfish piece of crap on Hannity right now is really pissing me off. And now he's saying that by staying in the race he's fighting for America, that he's doing us a favor.
This POS has to go.
The beleaguered Repubs here need a laugh.
This might do it.
(h/t Ace)
garage mahal said...
Or extended the same concern for a fetus that we do for a newborn baby that suddenly becomes such a burden on society the instant it takes its first breath
That's right fatso!
Because wanting to give someone welfare benefits demonstrates a vast concern for them!
And, when you send them to a shitty, let's watch you graduate as an illiterate, public school, its even better!
Remember el tubbo, you care
You really, really do!
PP , I think God generously gives each baby a soul. :)
Then He decides if those souls will be brought home after a short while or live long on the earth, His decision. Again, my own belief system, you are free to choose to believe as you choose. It's called freedom and I belive God granted us this freedom, but yes I also believe there are consequences to a persons choices, here and in the next world.
Or extended the same concern for a fetus that we do for a newborn baby that suddenly becomes such a burden on society the instant it takes its first breath.
How so?
Do you mean every person who believes in the value of human life is responsible financially for all support of that human life?
Or do you mean something else. How are babies who live considered burdens on society?
Via Vodkapundit:
Thanks to an Obamacare regulation that took effect on Aug. 1, health care plans in Oregon will now be required to provide free sterilizations to 15- year-old girls even if the parents of those girls do not consent to the procedure.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized the regulation earlier this year.
It says that all health care plans in the United States–except those provided by actual houses of worship organized under the section of the Internal Revenue Code reserved for churches per se–must provide coverage, without cost-sharing, for sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives to “all women with reproductive capacity.”
In practical terms, “all women with reproductive capacity” means girls as young as about 12. That, according to the National Institutes of Health, is when girls usually start menstruating.
Then there's a views of the death cult. Talk about a war on women.
Garage preached: Or extended the same concern for a fetus that we do for a newborn baby that suddenly becomes such a burden on society the instant it takes its first breath.
There's an Elvis song for that sentiment, garage: link
However, you being you, I suspect you were really put off by Darcy's swipe at the DNR mentality.
"We’re created by God for some special purpose"
...to serve as a warning to others.
(Link that actually works.)
With respect to Mr Akin--seems to me Missourians can decide. I regret personally his remarks, because they permit the Ds to not face up to their abysmal stewardship of the economy. And the economy and the role of government therein is the choice between the two Presidential candidates. Romney or Obama--you decide.
I'm pro-choice. Does that mean I'm morally off the hook for supporting all the rest of society?
After all, I didn't ask them to be born.
You know what, never mind. I am so sick of this whole abortion debate.
What Shanna said.
That's right fatso!
LOL. Where's that pic Jay? For all we know this guy is you!
C'mon, promise we won't laugh.
Roger J. said...
With respect to Mr Akin--seems to me Missourians can decide.
Yes, obviously. 61% of the ones who voted in the Republican primary decided not to vote for him. And he's well underwater in current polls.
The problems with your complacent attitude are (1) winning the Senate is essential to repealing Obamacare and (2) Akin is going to be used nationally exactly as he's being used in this thread--as a way for the Dems to talk about something other than the economy.
garage mahal:
Do you believe there is dignity in involuntary exploitation? Do you believe that individual dignity can be preserved through a progressive dependence? What threshold do you set for the employment of force to realize an outcome?
Shanna- I agree, the abortion debate goes nowhere. Or I should say, it goes in the same circles.
I really wish Akin would step aside, though. Every time I look at Harry Reid I think of Sharron Angle, and think "What if we had a do-over before the election?". And I don't want a repeat of that feeling in MO. I want the do-over right now.
Maybe if Akin just posted a video saying, "I'm not a witch" this would all work itself out.
"How can anyone who thinks that abortion kills a baby support allowing it in any situation except for self-defense?"
Understood, but how can someone who values innocent human life support a total right to abortion, to kill a child for convenience rather than let it live and be adopted to a family that will love it and raise it? Furthermore, to do that terrible thing after the fetus has developed into a viable person seems unreasonably unfair.
I see the problems with both positions, and find a compromise the only workable solution that does not lead to a government doing the worst of things to individuals, one way or the other. To me that's the conservative position. To protect both individuals as much as possible, but I have to differentiate between an undeveloped cluster of cells and a viable human being.
On this rape thing, you would not be allowed to kill the rapist himself as easily as you can his innocent offspring.
garage mahal said...
Or extended the same concern for a fetus that we do for a newborn baby that suddenly becomes such a burden on society the instant it takes its first breath
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
I bet!
The eight states with residents who gave the highest share of their income to charity supported Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven states with the least generous residents went for President Barack Obama, the Chronicle of Philanthropy found in its new survey of tax data from the IRS for 2008.
Don't worry, everyone reading knows what you said was utter bullshit anyway.
ChipS--google missouri polls--at last reading Akin still has a narrow lead even after his dumbass comments, and Claire McCaskill is still even more unpopular in Missouri.
I am not complacent--but I am a federalist and believe state issues are best left to the states.
YMMV of course.
More of this POS on Hannity --
What an arrogant, narcissistic, selfish ass. He keeps going on that he is going to stay in as a matter of principle, implying that he and only he is uniquely able to promote the conservative and pro-life causes, and that he must remain in the race in order to do so. What a selfish fucking piece of shit this guy is.
Allieoop wrote:
Can a blastocyst feel itself being aborted? Should we outlaw IUDs?
er, weren't you calling abortion murder?(though you still felt it should be legal) so what do YOU think about whether a blastocyte can feel? Is flushing that blastocyte murder to you? No? Then how about addressing the cases where you do think it's murder? Do those fetuses feel themselves being aborted when they are murdered (your characterization remember)? When answering ask yourself truthfully who has the extremist policy again?
Darcy said...But let's talk about extreme circumstances so we can keep on sanctioning millions of aborted babies, I guess?
Interesting tie in with the Krugman thread. Krugman and Democrats more generally support economic policies everyone knows are net losers. Krugman spends his Nobel capital assuring us we're in the 2% of circumstances the general rules don't apply. It's funny though: good economy, bad economy, bubble, recession, in hot wars, in cold wars, in peacetime, tech revolution, tech crash... and somehow every second we're in that 2%.
It's almost like...the hype of the extreme is a distraction.
Jr565, yes that blastocyst has a soul. Again who are WE, humans to force our belief systems on anyone? I never used a IUD because I felt I was aborting a baby, that was MY CHOICE. BUT it's NOT my right to make those choices for OTHER women. Why is this concept of freedom and choice so hard for some to grasp?
Also at that stage of development the nervous system is NOT developed enough to feel pain or have awareness.
I'm going to mail him $25 and encourage my friends to do the same. With this sexist fool running, we will make him the standard for the GOP as he and Ryan appear to joined at the hip.
This is precisely what history has taught us about politicians proclaiming that they have God on their side.
Don't worry, everyone reading knows what you said was utter bullshit anyway
I can't remember one time on this blog where a conservative commenter engaged directly with you in any meaningful way. Not once. So how would you know?
The more I hear this whackjob Akins pontificate on Hannity, the more I despise talk of religion in politics. He is a dopey, selfish asshole with, I suspect, other weird beliefs, and he makes me not want to vote at all which astounds me because I believe Obama is destroying the country.
Re abortion, I rather liked bubba's formulation of safe legal and rare. Ultimately, it seems to me that abortion is between a woman (and the father if present) and their (or her) doctor.
Roger J--There's more than one way to read poll results.
shoutout to Allie...
the BC issue is a dead horse with these folks. Don't waste your time with logic either. They are what they are and they believe what they believe.
They know better than to bring their pathetic game to our soccer field.
Also Jr, I don't advocate forcing anyone to bear a baby, that would be an extreme. It's killing at all stages of development, IN MY OPINION only based on my personal belief system. Again, it is not my RIGHT to force my personal belief system on anyone else. They are free to make their own mistakes, they are free to answer for them one day. I am not the judge, God is.
Allieoop wrote:
Jr565, yes that blastocyst has a soul. Again who are WE, humans to force our belief systems on anyone? I never used a IUD because I felt I was aborting a baby, that was MY CHOICE. BUT it's NOT my right to make those choices for OTHER women. Why is this concept of freedom and choice so hard for some to grasp?
so you think defining rights to a person who is an individual and has soul is merely an opinion, and not something that could be codified by law. Suppose a baby is out if the womb and is one day old and the mother decides to smother it. Would you consider that murder? And would you say it was the mothers choice to determine whether her baby couldn't be killed? Do we have no right to determine infanticide should be a crime? Are you pro choice on infanticide? Would that be a question of freedom and choice or would you say in no certain terms should infanticide be allowed?
This is precisely what history has taught us about politicians proclaiming that they have God on their side.
History taught you that such people provide their opponents with an effective means to smear people who made no such proclamation?
I can believe that. It doesn't give you a moral justification for doing likewise, tho.
Hi Lindsey, yes I keep forgetting that the argument for logic falls on deaf ears. Make BC harder to get, so the logical conclusion would be a higher chance of an unwanted pregnancy, but yes, I guess that is too logical.
Isn't that just a standard GOP plank?
What's the hullabaloo?
Or promote that gonorrhea can't be cured...
Darcy said...
I am sick of the pro-life stance being called extreme. I think ripping a living human being piece by piece out of a uterus is pretty damned extreme. How in the world did valuing life turn into an extremist view?
====================
If you believe in God, he made a very sloppy "new soul" system. God "devalues each precious baby!!" if you factor in that up to half of precious new soul baby zygotes fail to implant.
There is also the discovery that nature or Dad of Sweeet Baby Jesus equipped most large "single birth only is typical" mammals with a means of detecting and self-aborting a good percentage of defective fetuses. The self-abort the unfit mechanism is in whales, humans, most ungulates, horses, apes...among the various species.
By evolution or Jesus's Dad giving female mammals that tie up large chunks of their single birth fertile years the gift of dumping an unviable fetus and having a viable one - does that devalue life??
How many voters do you suppose have ever read either the Ds or Rs platform planks; they are all vacuous bullshit. This race is between Romney and Obama and not party platform planks which are full of sound and fury and signify nothing.
The 41% of Americans who now identify themselves as "pro-choice" is down from 47% last July and is one percentage point below the previous record low in Gallup trends, recorded in May 2009. Fifty percent now call themselves "pro-life," one point shy of the record high, also from May 2009.
Add in that it's ok for a 15 y.o. to get sterilized, have surgery without telling her parents but can't get her ears pierced or drink a big gulp and there could actually be some interesting convos.
No Jr, I'm not going to bite. I've had this argument ad nauseum here on this blog, it NEVER ever ends with any agreement or understanding.
We have laws for a purpose.
Which can be overturned or ignored.
Allieoop wrote:
Jr565, yes that blastocyst has a soul. Again who are WE, humans to force our belief systems on anyone? I never used a IUD because I felt I was aborting a baby, that was MY CHOICE. BUT it's NOT my right to make those choices for OTHER women. Why is this concept of freedom and choice so hard for some to grasp?
is it societies right to prevent late stage abortions after the baby is considered viable? Like, say a baby is 8 months developed or developing babies in the third trimester, absent say any health issues on the mothers side? Can we, you or anyone make the choice to restrict her right to abort an 8 month old fetus, for any reason whatsoever? Please answer
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा