Republicans on Rape

[SoonerCoug]

What's your point?

You are my point. I don't even need to post when you're involved in a political thread. I let you do the speaking. You are better than my best satire. I just wish you were a Missourian so that you could actually cast a ballot for Akin.

[il Padrino Ute]

You are my point. I don't even need to post when you're involved in a political thread. I let you do the speaking. You are better than my best satire. I just wish you were a Missourian so that you could actually cast a ballot for Akin.

So, because I don't subscribe to your politics, there is something wrong with me? You're quite the tolerant one, aren't you?

[calicoug]

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



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.

There is no way that language would be supported by a majority of Americans. Can you even tell me what it means to say the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn (note also, as an fyi, that the 14th Amendment is interpreted to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states too meaning the unborn would have all kinds of rights at the state and federal level- whatever that means for them)? Has anyone even attempted to think through the ramifications of that language or is that asking too much for the proponents?

To put this in the platform of a major political party is truly incredible. And note, by the way, that if the 14th Amendment DOES apply to the unborn, then rape is not something that would permit an abortion- at least, at a minimum, if the doctor was employed by the government or worked at a government facility. Obviously not. That would be killing a "person" without due process. It's irrelevant how that "person" was formed. It would also prohibit abortion where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

It's so insanely radical that I can't fathom how you or anyone else (let alone an entire party) could line up in support of such idiocy.

[ewth8tr]

The Onion just put out a great article about this.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-m...-as-dog,29256/

Honestly, that’s all I was trying to get across there. It was a simple misunderstanding, really.It’s funny, because, in my head, I remember thinking very vividly, “I, Rep. Todd Akin, am a bigoted jackass who probably should not be alive, let alone in political office. People need to know what a terrible person I am so they will then remember to punch me in the face anytime they get the chance.” But when I opened my mouth and tried to articulate that thought, somehow I blurted out the thing about rape instead of just saying, in plain English, that I am*awful, just purely and incontrovertibly*awful.

Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

[SoonerCoug]

So, because I don't subscribe to your politics, there is something wrong with me? You're quite the tolerant one, aren't you?

It's not that you don't subscribe to my politics. It is the way you subscribe to your own. I love it. Don't ever change. Vote Akin.

[byu71]

It's not that you don't subscribe to my politics. It is the way you subscribe to your own. I love it. Don't ever change. Vote Akin.

I don't subscribe to your politics either. Any suggestions on who I should vote for? Surely there are options other than Akin when one doesn't subscribe to your politics?

[SoonerCoug]

I don't subscribe to your politics either. Any suggestions on who I should vote for? Surely there are options other than Akin when one doesn't subscribe to your politics?

I'm referring to the exchange I had with Il Pad above when I asked him if he would vote for Akin.

[DU Ute]

There is no way that language would be supported by a majority of Americans. Can you even tell me what it means to say the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn (note also, as an fyi, that the 14th Amendment is interpreted to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states too meaning the unborn would have all kinds of rights at the state and federal level- whatever that means for them)? Has anyone even attempted to think through the ramifications of that language or is that asking too much for the proponents?

To put this in the platform of a major political party is truly incredible. And note, by the way, that if the 14th Amendment DOES apply to the unborn, then rape is not something that would permit an abortion. Obviously not. That would be killing a "person" without due process. It's irrelevant how that "person" was formed. It would also prohibit abortion where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

It's so insanely radical that I can't fathom how you or anyone else (let alone an entire party) could line up in support of such idiocy.

Bingo. When I first heard of the platform, I thought maybe it was just a matter of not mentioning it specifically (still, a pretty major point to gloss over), but the language they want in there has some pretty serious implications.

[byu71]

Bingo. When I first heard of the platform, I thought maybe it was just a matter of not mentioning it specifically (still, a pretty major point to gloss over), but the language they want in there has some pretty serious implications.

Doesn't the democrat platform allow abortion on demand? Seems both parties have allowed their extreme elements to control the platform on this issue.

[DU Ute]

Doesn't the democrat platform allow abortion on demand? Seems both parties have allowed their extreme elements to control the platform on this issue.

Allowing women to chose without the government questioning the sexual situation that got them pregnant seems a lot less extreme than having the government force them to carry a baby conceived from rape to term then either be forced to give it up or raise and provide for it.

[Tim]

Doesn't the democrat platform allow abortion on demand? Seems both parties have allowed their extreme elements to control the platform on this issue.

Incorrect. It allows choice (aka. "freedom") on demand.

[calicoug]

Doesn't the democrat platform allow abortion on demand? Seems both parties have allowed their extreme elements to control the platform on this issue.

From the platform:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose. We believe it is a constitutional liberty. This year’s Supreme Court ruling show us that eliminating a woman’s right to choose is only one justice away. Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing.

I don't think that's extreme.

[Indy Coug]

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

Listen bucko, the whole point is the document in question does not exclude abortions for rape or incest. Come back when you have something that is actually definitive. Thanks in advance.

[CardiacCoug]

First trimester abortion should be safe, legal, but as rare as possible because of plentiful contraception. Seems like one of those issues that everyone should agree [with me] on.

I do think that this is one of those rare circumstances where scientific progress may gradually bring people around to the Republican viewpoint -- with more early pregnancy diagnosis and in utero fetoscopic surgeries being performed at earlier and earlier stages of pregnancy I think it's going to be increasingly offensive to allow the same fetus that could be having therapeutic surgery to just be killed instead.

Clearly though Akin should be disqualified from holding national office, not for anti-abortionism, but for stupidity.

[calicoug]

Listen bucko, the whole point is the document in question does not exclude abortions for rape or incest. Come back when you have something that is actually definitive. Thanks in advance.

That's not true. By extending 14th Amendment protections to the unborn, it would be virtually impossible to have an abortion for any reason at all (I suppose it could happen after "due process" was afforded to the unborn, but I can't even fathom what that would look like or what the appropriate basis would be to decide to "execute" the unborn child). There are no exceptions.