Posted on 10/23/2012 7:22:09 PM PDT by Bratch
Chris Matthews (CM): I understand you are prolife. What is your position on a women who is pregnant due to a rape. Does she have the right to choose?
SOL : I believe that the states should have power to pass their own abortion laws free from federal interference, just like with marriage. So I don't support any NEW abortion laws at the Federal level nor the SCOTUS interference.
CM (not giving up) : But I want to understand your state of mind on this. Do you think rape victims should be allowed to get an abortion?
SOL : State of mind? What is this a group therapy session? I believe that that is a question to ask your state candidate. I am running for the US Senate.
CM: OK, Do you want your own state governments representative to outlaw abortion for rape victims at the state level? You vote for him/her and must have a view on it.
SOL : Are you deaf? I am running for the US Senate. Stick to that subject. Don't you care what they do? Interview my state government's candidates if you are so worried what they will do.
BOOM
Know your enemy! Bring it on Chrissy!
Nice job.
Thanks, I have seen too many clueless Republicans walk into that Matthews trap unprepared and so I know exactly how he operates.
I wonder how Mourdock got into this trap to begin with. Was it a position that he took to win the R primary where he wouldnt be asked these type of questions? And now he finds it not that popular state-wide let alone country wide?
It is a bad idea to speculate about events being ‘God's Plan’ or ‘God's Will’ when running for office, as your rationale for positions. Is Obama part of ‘God's Plan’? ‘Obama-care’ ?
Sharon Angle called handling pregnancy due to rape 'Turning lemons into lemon-aid' and look where it got her, and us.
Look... I wish Repubs would not keep stories like this going... it was a clumsy statement, I and any reasonable person understood what he was saying. You are either pro-life or you aren’t. What has been keeping this story going are all the high profile repub candidates distancing themselves or publically condemning this principled, pro-life senatorial candidate. WHAT DO THEY HOPE TO GAIN BY DOING THIS?? The only outcome I can see is a Senator Donnelly.
” Thanks, I have seen too many clueless Republicans walk into that Matthews trap unprepared “
Clueless republicans ?
We have those ?
“Let me play out an example. Say I was to walk into the lair of the devil Chris Matthews Hardball MSNBC for an interview while running for the Senate. It might go like this:
Chris Matthews (CM): I understand you are prolife. What is your position on a women who is pregnant due to a rape. Does she have the right to choose?
SOL : I believe that the states should have power to pass their own abortion laws free from federal interference, just like with marriage. So I don’t support any NEW abortion laws at the Federal level nor the SCOTUS interference.
CM (not giving up) : But I want to understand your state of mind on this. Do you think rape victims should be allowed to get an abortion?
SOL : State of mind? What is this a group therapy session? I believe that that is a question to ask your state candidate. I am running for the US Senate.
CM: OK, Do you want your own state governments representative to outlaw abortion for rape victims at the state level? You vote for him/her and must have a view on it.
SOL : Are you deaf? I am running for the US Senate. Stick to that subject. Don’t you care what they do? Interview my state government’s candidates if you are so worried what they will do.
BOOM
Know your enemy!”
Well done. It would have sent Chrissy straight for the scotch.
No apology necessary. You can’t be responsible for what a candidate says.
“And that would only be the latest in a long line of proof that letting women vote was a terrible idea.”
Were you joking there? Are you seriously for the nullification of the 19th Amendment?
“We could go so far as to award them with a large monetary stipend it is so rare.”
Not as rare as you think. 6.3% of rapes result in pregnancy according to a survey study done in 2003. There lot’s of other studies done that all range between 5.5 and 10 percent:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wp5cnp43k6byxj4d/?MUD=MP
According to the CDC, there were 1.3 million rapes in 2010:
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/
That’s roughly 83,000 pregnancies that result from rape a year. Not all that rare.
THIMK ABOUT THOSE NUMBERS, they are absurd on their face!
http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/rape-pregnancies-are-rare-461
The odds of pregnancy from consensual sexual intercourse are no higher than 3% at best!
(Pregnancy Odds has a good overview of the problem. Short answer: roughly 2.5%.)
http://ask.metafilter.com/14956/What-percentage-of-unprotected-intercourse-results-in-pregnancy
It is this type of blind acceptance of Leftist twaddle that Conservatives are so susceptible to.
His statement was fine. Some of my liberal friends and family attempted to make deal out of this it became a wonderful “teachable moment” which had them back-pedaling on the issue from the get-go. Conservatives need to STOP being afraid to make this case. It’s a winning argument every time if you know how to present our side.
The study you post to is ludicrous. Read the abstract. They ESTIMATE and EXTRAPOLATE. They use almost NO relevant data beyond a specious number from the CDC concerning rape numbers.
“Abstract
Is a given instance of rape more likely to result in pregnancy than a given instance of consensual sex? This paper undertakes a review and critique of the literature on rape-pregnancy. Next, it presents our own estimation, from U.S. government data, of pregnancy rates for reproductive age victims of penile-vaginal rape. Using data on birth control usage from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, we then form an estimate of rape pregnancy rates adjusted for the substantial number of women in our sample who would likely have been protected by oral contraception or an IUD. Our analysis suggests that per-incident rape-pregnancy rates exceed per-incident consensual pregnancy rates by a sizable margin, even before adjusting for the use of relevant forms of birth control. Possible explanations for this phenomenon are discussed, as are its implications to ongoing debates over the ultimate causes of rape”
This is exactly what I mean by TWADDLE. Silly, feeble, false, MADE UP, and irrelevant!
The study you post to is ludicrous. Read the abstract. They ESTIMATE and EXTRAPOLATE. They use almost NO relevant data beyond a specious number from the CDC concerning rape numbers.
“Abstract
Is a given instance of rape more likely to result in pregnancy than a given instance of consensual sex? This paper undertakes a review and critique of the literature on rape-pregnancy. Next, it presents our own estimation, from U.S. government data, of pregnancy rates for reproductive age victims of penile-vaginal rape. Using data on birth control usage from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, we then form an estimate of rape pregnancy rates adjusted for the substantial number of women in our sample who would likely have been protected by oral contraception or an IUD. Our analysis suggests that per-incident rape-pregnancy rates exceed per-incident consensual pregnancy rates by a sizable margin, even before adjusting for the use of relevant forms of birth control. Possible explanations for this phenomenon are discussed, as are its implications to ongoing debates over the ultimate causes of rape”
This is exactly what I mean by TWADDLE. Silly, feeble, false, MADE UP, and irrelevant!
I didn’t realize you were joking. I recently injured my back and my sarcasm anteana wasn’t working. Oh, well.
By their definition of rape my wife has raped me almost as often as I have raped her! But let's assume that it is correct. AND forcible rape leads to pregnancy as often as consensual sex 2.5% of the time, because NOBODY ever reports rape or goes to the hospital and receives treatment including emergency contraception, EVER!
That would make 1.3 million rapes and 32,000 pregnancies in a continental country of 310 millions with over 1.2 MILLION abortions and more than 4 Million live births every year!
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/main/statistics.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm
If we simply eliminated the funding to PP and sent the money DIRCTLY to women who experienced a rape related pregnancy, we could send $14, 062.50 to EVERY one of those 32,000 women. I would call a stipend of free healthcafre, both physical, mental and spiritual and a stipend of over $14K rather substantial, perhaps even LARGE!
I believe that even with these inflated numbers that would be money much better spent!
Yes. Hope your back gets better.
Little loss.
Abortion and marriage belong legislated at the states level as with murder etc. I am not looking for a Republican King to replace our Dem King. I want a very limited interpretation of the commerce clause much as it was before FDR, and unlike many others I dont just say that when a Dem is POTUS.
Back in 2010 Sharon Angle as asked why she didnt support a rape exclusion for abortion and she responded "I want to turn lemons into lemonade" and she got us Harry Reid for another 6 years. To be fair that is not the only dumb thing she said. She had a nack for it.
” Back in 2010 Sharon Angle as asked why she didnt support a rape exclusion for abortion and she responded “I want to turn lemons into lemonade” and she got us Harry Reid for another 6 years. “
Just no excuse for this.
No, for one because it’ll never happen. I sure wouldn’t cry if it did happen, though, because it would completely destroy the Democrat party as it exists. For whatever it’s worth, I’d also be for raising the voting age to about 35, which would currently disqualify me.
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.