Republicans on Rape

[Indy Coug]

If that is the case, then why would the republican party be changing the platform to disallow abortions for rape victims? Or is the platform change a myth?

If that had really been a platform change, don't you think the Dems would be milking this topic for all it's worth -- anything to continue to avoid talking about the economy?

[DU Ute]

If that is the case, then why would the republican party be changing the platform to disallow abortions for rape victims? Or is the platform change a myth?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...arty-platform/

[Jeff Lebowski]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...arty-platform/

Hack!

[Tim]

I'm not aware of any major person in a position to enact such a policy that actually believes in that policy. Romney and Ryan sure don't.

Are you kidding? Ryan has been openly anti-abortion in the case of all rape with the exception of danger to the mother for years. He actually believes in that. Romney's ticket doesn't support it, but Ryan alone does.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...1e9c_blog.html

So, in fact, a person in a position to enact such a policy does believe it. Unless you're just parsing words by suggesting that a VP isn't technically in a position to enact policy, you got this one wrong, Indy.

[Tim]

If that had really been a platform change, don't you think the Dems would be milking this topic for all it's worth -- anything to continue to avoid talking about the economy?

Yay! Let's talk about how a Romney presidency will strip the country of its middle class and drive the poor further into poverty!

[Indy Coug]

The article states the platform does not go into granular detail, so it does not preclude rape/incest exceptions.

[Indy Coug]

...presidency will strip the country of its middle class and drive the poor further into poverty!

Obama got us off to a really good start.

[calicoug]

This is not surprising. They are good at speaking in unison.

They went bold in hope that Akin would back out. I suspect they are quite surprised he stayed in. Now they are in an even worse position than before- multiple prominent Republicans have asked for him to step down and he is still running. Will they quietly support him now? I'd guess we will see calls for his resignation from Republicans subside rather quickly.

[calicoug]

I'm not aware of any major person in a position to enact such a policy that actually believes in that policy. Romney and Ryan sure don't.

Actually, Ryan does. Romney doesn't (at least today).

If that had really been a platform change, don't you think the Dems would be milking this topic for all it's worth -- anything to continue to avoid talking about the economy?

They are. Go to Huffingtonpost right now (article complete with picture of a clothes hanger). I assure you this will be a prominent point raised by Democrats. The platform was just adopted- very poor timing by Republicans.

I just saw an article from a Christian website arguing that rape almost never results in pregnancy:

http://www.christianliferesources.co...s-are-rare-461

Undoubtedly this is the kind of "science" Akin was citing. Even assuming this was true (that only 4 rapes result in pregnancy per year per state), what is the point? That therefore abortion shouldn't have a rape exception? Why should the exception be predicated upon the number of rapes that result in pregnancy? If there are only 200 a year, does that mean it isn't legitimate to have an abortion, but it would be if there were 5,000 a year? If the opposition to abortion is grounded upon a moral conviction, why does that conviction depend upon the number of times rape results in pregnancy? Wouldn't it be worse if there were more rapes resulting in pregnancy under this logic (because then not only would abortion be permissible, but there would be lots more abortions)???

The "logic" behind Akin's argument is truly sick, twisted, naive and just flat out wrong.

[DU Ute]

The article states the platform does not go into granular detail, so it does not preclude rape/incest exceptions.

Some of us think rape and incest are more than just granular details.

[Tim]

Some of us think rape and incest are more than just granular details.

Indy DU Ute

I've never used this emoticon before.

[il Padrino Ute]

Nope.

thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/g-o-p-approves-strict-anti-abortion-language-in-party-platform/

Absolutely horrible timing.

The New York Times? That's a reliable, nonpartisan source.

[SoonerCoug]

The New York Times? That's a reliable, nonpartisan source.

I generally use the Deseret News as my reliable news source.

[Jacob]

If that is the case, then why would the republican party be changing the platform to disallow abortions for rape victims? Or is the platform change a myth?

It is a myth, at least as you have framed it. From your link, the proposed language is as follows:

“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, which was first reported by CNN. “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.”

That is not a a new change fo direction compared to the past position and that type of language would be supported by a majority of Americans.

[il Padrino Ute]

I generally use the Deseret News as my reliable news source.

What's your point?