Posted on 08/20/2012 5:17:54 AM PDT by xzins
Odious remarks by GOP Missouri Senate candidate Cong. Todd Akin about how few pregnancies result from "legitimate rape" have done more than outrage people across the country and doom Akin's bid to move up from the House.
It motivated the Romney campaign - - already trailing among women voters in recent polls - - to distance itself from Akin by assuring voters that Romney and Paul Ryan - - the "Romney-Ryan administration" - - should they win in November, would not oppose raped women's access to abortion.
"Governor Romney and Congressman (Paul) Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said.
You'd probably say that sounds reasonable and humane - - except it was just three days ago that PolitiFact devoted a lot of space to this issue and found that while Romney backed abortions in cases of incest and rape, Ryan did not.
And had been an abortion opponent throughout his entire political career - - backing an exception only when the life of the mother was at stake - - thus earning a perfect score from a leading anti-abortion organization on this basic tenet of conservative ideology and practice.
News coverage of Ryan’s first congressional race in 1998, as well as statements he made to the National Right to Life Committee, a leading anti-abortion group, show Ryan has taken a stricter anti-abortion view than Romney.
The only anti-abortion exception Ryan favors is situations where an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The National Right to Life Committee concurs, based on information the group says it collected in 1998 and 2000 from Ryan as a candidate.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
“The President’s “view” on abortion have no EFFECT on the number of abortions.”
Okay.
“However, Obama’s views on infanticide and his support of NOW and Planned Parenthood...”
Huh?!? You just said it doesn’t matter what the President believes about abortion, since there is no correlation. So, by your logic, it doesn’t matter what Obama believes about abortion, or what he supports.
Ok so A) they oppose abortion because it is the taking of innocent human life, but B) it’s ok to take innocent human life depending on the manner of conception.
Real consistency there.
Well, first, I’d say that its a pretty callused statement to say that a woman who, when raped and who says I dont want to have a baby that happened as the result of rape “well, fine, but you are a murderer”. Really? A murderer? I also dont know that you can state for certain what will happen to the girl in all cases, such as “she will have a guilty conscience for the rest of her life”. You said letting the baby develop is a default inactive choice. But you are ignoring that what got her in that position was ALSO an inactive choice. So saying sorry, but because of an inactive choice some monster made, you have to live with it because of another inactive choice that we who know better are going to make for you, just doesn’t sit right with me.
Second, its really easy to argue from the standpoint that you seem to want to argue from, the position of black and white, all about the baby. But you dont seem to want to touch the issue of what about her and the practical details of her life and her rights. Thats the part where this stance always falls down to me. What if she’s a senior in high school,and now her prom (if she got to attend at all) pictures now have to show her pregnant for all of her life. What if the baby ends up looking exactly like the rapist, so she has to look at that for the rest of her life? What if she’s on the verge of an athletic scholorship and this will effectively end that option for her. Sorry honey, but thats how its got to be? I dont think so. Not with my child.
Its easy to take the moral position that you are taking, of saying its a baby and that trumps all else, but I ask you, are you really ready to sit down and look in a rape victims face and say, Like it or not, you WILL have this baby, by law, not because you chose to engage in the reproductive act, but because our law is so rigid you have no other option? I’m saying I can’t do that. If someone chose to have sex, then yes, I could. Encourage the rape victim to have the baby and help with everything I possibly can, absolutely. Force her to have the baby as if she’s someone who’s opinion doesn’t matter at all? Certainly not.
“The President’s “view” on abortion have no EFFECT on the number of abortions.”
Okay.
“However, Obama’s views on infanticide and his support of NOW and Planned Parenthood...” (You love those ellipsis points don't you!)
Huh?!? You just said it doesn’t matter what the President believes about abortion, since there is no correlation.
Let's post what you selectively omitted!
The President's "view" on abortion have no EFFECT on the number of abortions.
However, Obama's views on infanticide and his support of NOW and Planned Parenthood pretty much guarantee that public funding will find its way from my pocket into abortions via Obamacare.
Let's review:
1. Romney's verbal opposition to abortion doesn't reduce the number of abortions, in fact, it appears to be a negative correlation.
2. Obama's support of NOW and Planned Parenthood and votes to LEGALIZE infanticide -DO- make it more likely that ALL OF US will have to pay for some portion of abortions under Obamacare.
Dont really know who Kiessling is, but see, you are terming this in how politicians feel and should answer questions. I dont really care about that. I’m not trying to make a political point here....I’m just saying that there is no way, in that case, that I would ever force a girl one way or the other. I’d encourage her to adopt or raise the child, but I can’t say you have to. She didn’t make any choice that I can point to and say “you have an obligation”. And frankly, I’d like to hear how that conversation would go down with a girl that you cared about? You’ve given all the arguments, all the talking points, all the effort you can give but she says “sorry, I just dont think I can handle having this baby”. What do you say to her? Not what did Pat Buchannan say, or what does Kiessling say that candidates say, what do you say when you look her in the face to tell her that like it or not, she’s going to give birth? How do you tell a person something like that? Its beyond me.
“Let’s post what you selectively omitted!”
Yes, what did I “omit”? An apples to orange comparison, which contributes nothing to the discussion. That’s why I omitted it, because it’s nothing more than a distraction.
If Romney’s views have no correlation with the number of abortions, then Obama’s views have no correlation either. That is the apples to apples comparison. Throwing in the junk about Obama supporting PP and funding for abortions is an entirely different argument. If you want to muddy the waters with that, fine, but I don’t have to take the bait.
Oh. You need arguments expressed more simply.
Let’s see.
The President’s opinions on Apples have no effect on the total number of apples in the US.
But also...
Obama likes apples, and he also thinks I should help pay to buy apples for his constituents.
Oh goody. Now it’s all apples and you can comprehend the point.
Babies are being murdered, and anything you do to get Obama reelected won’t affect the number of murders much, but it may set us all up to pay for some of the murder.
“Oh. You need arguments expressed more simply.”
Not simply, just consistently, and without appeal to logical fallacies, please.
Name the fallacy.
(Hint: What’s the one where you ignore the actual argument, quote a completely different one, and then tear that different argument apart.)
Crackpots who throw their races for no reason are just a gift to everything they claim they oppose, liberalism.
The Angle-Reid disaster is a perfect example of helping the liberals for no reason. Maybe this guy will still pull it out but he certainly caused problems.
“I agree. We simply don’t know what we’re going to get with Romney”
What we do know is that he cannot be as bad as Obama. Beyond that we know little. His record is not as encouraging as his rhetoric.
First, thanks for cutting off my comment in mid-sentence, and second, I was not making an argument in favor of abortion. I was merely hypothesizing about a possibility that since abortion is legal at this point, having a choice after being raped (no choice) actually may strengthen a woman’s resolve to do the morally right thing. Granted, that hypothesis doesn’t add much to the debate, never claimed it did.
Shhhh...You’ll be called an Obama voter if you tell the truth about Romney’s stance on abortion. Just say “more gruel, please” and shuffle along.
That he’s consistently rated conservative no matter where he’s been, and his pro-life record is stellar.
So, the issue is being the alternative to Obama or Romney.
It could be the CP or the LP, so far as “conservatism” is concerned. The LPs are pro-choice, so that rules them out for me automatically without looking any further into their principles.
Did you support TARP?
“Name the fallacy.”
Conflation.
Does abortion kill a baby?
Is an unborn baby a person?
Them's the facts, and Romney and his people presumably know it.
The ABOs doom succeeding generations. Both our parties are now big brother since ABOs have acquiesced. They have traded their blessing for a bowl of pottage.
How much better for the victims of rape to go ahead and have the child and put it up for adoption. I have a dear friend whose son was born because she was raped.
She is Catholic, her son is currently a practicing non-denominationalist, but he takes care of her — giving her rides, having her for dinner, etc.
BTW, pray for this son that he may come to the fullness of belief, amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.