Legitimate rape

[CosmicCowboy]

Akin ain't an outlier, he TYPIFIES Repug/"Christian" ideological/"Christian" War on Vaginas that the Repugs didn't want pushed front and center in their LIE-saturated campaign (and the worst of Rove is yet to come).

@ Buotox trying to make Akin the poster boy for the Republican party.

That's pathetic.

[101A]

Ryan Refuses To Say Abortions Should Be Available To Women Who Are Raped

QUESTION: Should abortions to be available to women who are raped?

RYAN: Well, look, I’m proud of my pro-life record. And I stand by my pro-life record in Congress. It’s something I’m proud of. But Mitt Romney is the top of the ticket and Mitt Romney will be president and he will set the policy of the Romney administration.


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...who-are-raped/

what a chicken .

From a logical perspective; exceptions for anything other than to save the life of the mother are inconsistent with the argument that abortion = murder of a human being. The one thing I assume we can all agree on is that the baby/fetus/embryo/collection of cells is NOT responsible for it's own conception; it is an innocent result. Therefore, executing it for something it had no part in is wrong (however horrifying that is for the woman) - nothing in our tradition trumps "murder". The right to use deadly force against another human ALWAYS includes that person doing something themselves to engender the violent response (otherwise, why is G. Zimmerman in any trouble at all)?

Adding "except" to any argument against abortion, IMO, is politically expedient, even necessary, but it is also grossly inconsistent.

[TeyshaBlue]

Akin ain't an outlier, he TYPIFIES Repug/"Christian" ideological/"Christian" War on Vaginas that the Repugs didn't want pushed front and center in their LIE-saturated campaign (and the worst of Rove is yet to come).

Ok. Verb Typify. Subject "Undefined".

Results: Talking point parrot chow.

[boutons_deux]

TB

[TeyshaBlue]

I can't generate cogent, original thoughts.

[ElNono]

From a logical perspective; exceptions for anything other than to save the life of the mother are inconsistent with the argument that abortion = murder of a human being. The one thing I assume we can all agree on is that the baby/fetus/embryo/collection of cells is NOT responsible for it's own conception; it is an innocent result. Therefore, executing it for something it had no part in is wrong (however horrifying that is for the woman) - nothing in our tradition trumps "murder". The right to use deadly force against another human ALWAYS includes that person doing something themselves to engender the violent response (otherwise, why is G. Zimmerman in any trouble at all)?

Adding "except" to any argument against abortion, IMO, is politically expedient, even necessary, but it is also grossly inconsistent.

I disagree, and for a number of reasons.

First of all, in cases like rape, the mother didn't willingly choose to conceive either. Yet she's going to have to deal with, at the very least, the burden of a parasitic relationship she didn't had the option to have.

I also think such analysis ignore there's psychological factors attached to the pregnancy and those can also be damaging to the mother and/or the child, both short and long term.

[clambake]

I disagree, and for a number of reasons.

First of all, in cases like rape, the mother didn't willingly choose to conceive either. Yet she's going to have to deal with, at the very least, the burden of a parasitic relationship she didn't had the option to have.

I also think such analysis ignore there's psychological factors attached to the pregnancy and those can also be damaging to the mother and/or the child, both short and long term.

this. but when you're indoctrinated into religion, you are trained to ignore the importance of that........completely.

[LnGrrrR]

@ Buotox trying to make Akin the poster boy for the Republican party.

That's pathetic.

Well, the party DID just approve the whole "no abortion, no exception" plank, didn't they?

[LnGrrrR]

From a logical perspective; exceptions for anything other than to save the life of the mother are inconsistent with the argument that abortion = murder of a human being. The one thing I assume we can all agree on is that the baby/fetus/embryo/collection of cells is NOT responsible for it's own conception; it is an innocent result. Therefore, executing it for something it had no part in is wrong (however horrifying that is for the woman) - nothing in our tradition trumps "murder". The right to use deadly force against another human ALWAYS includes that person doing something themselves to engender the violent response (otherwise, why is G. Zimmerman in any trouble at all)?

Adding "except" to any argument against abortion, IMO, is politically expedient, even necessary, but it is also grossly inconsistent.

Philosophically speaking, agreed. But in the real world, there's quite a few consequences of not allowing these exceptions. You may have a mother who can't raise the child properly because it's a signifier of a traumatic event. And abortions won't stop; they'll just go underground and be performed by those less qualified.

It's about as hypocritical to allow alcohol while not allowing marijuana. They tried to use that logic to ban alcohol once before, and we saw how well that worked out.

[LnGrrrR]

As has been said before, if men were the ones who conceived the child, this issue of abortion wouldn't even be a question up for debate.

[101A]

I disagree, and for a number of reasons.

First of all, in cases like rape, the mother didn't willingly choose to conceive either. Yet she's going to have to deal with, at the very least, the burden of a parasitic relationship she didn't had the option to have.

I also think such analysis ignore there's psychological factors attached to the pregnancy and those can also be damaging to the mother and/or the child, both short and long term.

Is there an example in society where you can legally kill another person for causing "psychological factors" - especially when that person did so unwittingly? What if a guy wrecks into my car; causing my child to be paralyzed/a vegetable - now a parasite on my life. Can I kill my child? Can I even abandon my child? , can I kill the guy who did it?

BTW, I haven't even told you my position on abortion, all I have done is point out the inconsistency of the "except for" provisions that are so popular.

[boutons_deux]

the problem the Repugs and their suckered "Christian" base refuse to address in their pristine fantasy world of ideology and "Christian" values is that 400K abortions in USA won't disappear.

Maddow show last night reported TX-Repug-screwed TX women or their friends buying hormonal stuff "off label" in MX from unregulated sellers. Coat-hanger up next.

It's extremely simple and naive to be against abortion. That's as far their pea-brains can stretch, but abortions ain't disappearing.

I bet there are plenty of Repug wives, daughters, mistresses, lovers who have had and will continue to have abortions. That's one of the great thing about the 1%, they can afford to fly their pregnant ladies to a nice country where abortion is legal and safe.

[101A]

As has been said before, if men were the ones who conceived the child, this issue of abortion wouldn't even be a question up for debate.

True that.

I live near Amish country. Women have NO technology in the house; you should see the men's workshops, however.

Table saws, planers, drills of every shape and size; routers - truly envious of there stuff. None powered by electricity, mind you, but the most amazing gas/belt powered stuff you've ever experienced.

[Yonivore]

As has been said before, if men were the ones who conceived the child, this issue of abortion wouldn't even be a question up for debate.

How do you explain women that are pro-life?

As has been said before, if unborn children were considered human, this issue of abortion wouldn't even be a question up for debate.

[Yonivore]

I disagree, and for a number of reasons.

First of all, in cases like rape, the mother didn't willingly choose to conceive either. Yet she's going to have to deal with, at the very least, the burden of a parasitic relationship she didn't had the option to have.

I also think such analysis ignore there's psychological factors attached to the pregnancy and those can also be damaging to the mother and/or the child, both short and long term.

So, the answer is to murder the child?

[coyotes_geek]

So, the answer is to murder the child?

The answer is to let the mother answer this question.

[ElNono]

Is there an example in society where you can legally kill another person for causing "psychological factors" - especially when that person did so unwittingly? What if a guy wrecks into my car; causing my child to be paralyzed/a vegetable - now a parasite on my life. Can I kill my child? Can I even abandon my child? , can I kill the guy who did it?

But you're comparing apples to oranges. You *could* turn your back at the kid and he'll still likely live. He's fully autonomous. There's no such things for early fetuses in pregnancies. They're wholly dependent on the host's body, and outside of abortion, the host really doesn't get a say. A mother simply can't choose and say, "hey! don't use my ed up liver!". It's a fully parasitic relationship.

Which is the reason we don't charge mothers for murder when they have a miscarriage. Should we? I mean, her body killed the fetus!

BTW, I haven't even told you my position on abortion, all I have done is point out the inconsistency of the "except for" provisions that are so popular.

Oh, I know. And everyone is en led to their opinion, both on the exceptions and on abortion itself. I just simply disagree that the "except for" provisions are inconsistent. Obviously, some of that has to do with how I consider a fetus. To my, at least in it's early stages, it's a parasite, not just an autonomous being.

[leemajors]

The answer is to let the mother answer this question.

No she is a woman and needs to be told what to do.

[ElNono]

So, the answer is to murder the child?

The answer is to let the mother answer this question.

Exactly.

[LnGrrrR]

How do you explain women that are pro-life?

As has been said before, if unborn children were considered human, this issue of abortion wouldn't even be a question up for debate.

The number of pro-life women is highly outweighed by the number of pro-choice women.

[LnGrrrR]

True that.

I live near Amish country. Women have NO technology in the house; you should see the men's workshops, however.

Table saws, planers, drills of every shape and size; routers - truly envious of there stuff. None powered by electricity, mind you, but the most amazing gas/belt powered stuff you've ever experienced.

The best meal I ever had was in Amish country. A huge table, everyone passing stuff around and getting to know each other... quite nice. And I own an Amish table... great quality work, and I'm supporting American business.

[ElNono]

BTW, this discussion actually made me look up capital punishment that don't involve a murder, and surprisingly enough there's quite the list... things like aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape and even perjury (in California).

Apparently, if states want it badly enough, they can enact legal killing for a lot of factors that don't involve murder.

[coyotes_geek]

Which is the reason we don't charge mothers for murder when they have a miscarriage. Should we? I mean, her body killed the fetus!

Don't be ridiculous. They should be charged with manslaughter, not murder.

[ElNono]

Don't be ridiculous. They should be charged with manslaughter, not murder.

[101A]

The best meal I ever had was in Amish country. A huge table, everyone passing stuff around and getting to know each other... quite nice. And I own an Amish table... great quality work, and I'm supporting American business.

"Working" at my Amish desk right now.