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 ...
IMHO, if the real issue is whether those who were raped should have to carry any infant to term, the above approach seems like plenty of protection against someone being forced to bear a child that was forced on them against their will.
It also provides an opportunity for those who believe that even in the case of rape the child's life is paramount to step up, put their money where their mouth is, and make a legally binding commitment to take care of the mother and infant if the woman is pregnant. They should also commit to being responsible for a suitable adoptive family or if the woman wants to keep the child herself, be willing to bear a significant share of the cost of the infant and the resulting child's education.
If people say they cannot abide abortion in any case aren't going to bear a large part consequences of a child coming into the world due to rape they can be satisfied with being kept in the dark right along with the woman who may or may not be pregnant. Otherwise they're just playing into the hands of the whole culture of death machine.
There may be something workable along the line of reasoning I'm using here and there may not, but playing the "pregnant due to rape" game is nothing but a gimmick of the culture of death crowd. Most of them think all sex is either rape or prostitution anyway. The culture of death crowd is always going to have some sort of exception to bandy about with the help of their media pals. There are ways to deal with tragic exceptions to the rule but continuing to slaughter millions to avoid dealing with exceptions as the arise isn't at all reasonable.
The real issue is to stop playing the games the democrat media crowd love to play. All the "discussion" about exceptions doesn't accomplish a thing other than to let another day pass which insures the deaths of another few thousand infants while all everyone is coaxed into being comfortable that their exception is handled in advance. Even when abortion was illegal I knew of several girls who had no problem obtaining one in the heart of the Bible Belt. They weren't from wealthy families, either, so the issue wasn't whether or not you could afford to have an abortion and there was never a time when "thousands" of women a year were dying from "back ally abortions" unless it was before the turn of the twentieth century.
If abortion on demand and the culture of death are going to be halted, those opposed to mass murder need to agree that all abortions should be outlawed but that they may be cases where an exception should be made, then go on to the next point rather than playing games that do nothing but hand the initiative to the enemy.
JMHO
Since you agree that an unborn baby is a person, What does the amendment say about the rights of a person?
“The ABOs doom succeeding generations.”
Agreed. They are passing this fight to our children and grand-children. No courage to face the battle now.
Thank you, Salvation. There is great grace on your flock for their insistence on the truth about the sacredness of human life.
They fight the war with the wrong weapons.
2 Co 10:4 “4 for the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful to God for the bringing down of strongholds,”
The only real question, Jim, is whether or not an unborn child is a person. Is he or she?
I know you weren’t advocating abortion, but just your use of the word “empowerment”, in that context, seemed kind of crazy to me. That’s why I cut off the quote right there, to highlight what I saw as something detracting from your argument.
I guess you've never had your skull stabbed with scissors, crushed, and your brains sucked out and your body ripped apart and tossed in a pail. It's genocide and obie supports it. And the fact that mitt supports the ongoing genocide is disgusting. I've stated what mitt can do to earn my vote, but if Ryan goes wobbly in the knees/sells his soul, then the deal's off.
They don’t truly value life, do they?
“Is an unborn baby a person?”
Absolutely!
Again, agreed. This is about faith. Sadly, the faithful appear to be...fewer than I’d thought.
14th Amendment, Section 1:... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
“sorry, I just dont think I can handle having this baby”
She’s not “handling” the baby. It will be adopted.
http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html
“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?”
Who is going to say that? I’m advocating that it shouldn’t be legal, period. So, in that situation, nobody is going to call the woman a murderer, because there wouldn’t be a murder, unless she went to one of those “back-alley” clinics the Dems love to remind us about.
“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”.”
Fair enough, I should qualify that statement. If she is a human with a functioning conscience, then she will have a guilty conscience for the rest of her life, unless she obtains forgiveness and comfort from God. Sociopaths and psychopaths wouldn’t have to worry about that, so that argument doesn’t apply to them. As for the other people who might seem like their consciences don’t bother them concerning abortion, I simply don’t believe it. They may suppress their emotions so they can go about their daily lives, but there is a lasting impact, I am certain of it.
“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.”
I’m not ignoring it, but that wasn’t your decision. I was talking about how you said you didn’t want to be “forcing” a decision on her, when it was actually the default chain of events that would naturally proceed from doing nothing at all. Sure, she didn’t choose to become pregnant, but that doesn’t mean that she has no responsibility now that she is pregnant. I didn’t choose to be born, does that mean I have no responsibility to obey laws, pay taxes, etc? No, I am here, so I have responsibilities. It doesn’t matter whether or not I got a choice in the matter, because responsibilities do not require a choice in order to be incurred.
“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.”
No, the easy stance is to give in to emotion, and tell the distraught girl what she wants to hear, that all her problems can go away if she just makes that baby disappear. That’s the easy choice. The hard choice is to say, no, ethics and principles do not change based on the situation, so we must make our decisions based on a universal set of principles, even when it forces us to make decisions that we do not like, or that do not make us feel good. That’s why I don’t pay any attention to the practical details of her life, etc, because they are immaterial, and only serve to cloud the issue with emotion. The principles of the matter remain the same regardless of the situation.
“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?”
Yes, I am ready to sit down and do that. If that was all that was stopping us as a nation from banning the murder of these millions of children, then I would take that job, and the rest of you could just send all the sobbing rape victims my way to get the bad news. I won’t even ask for a government salary.
“Force her to have the baby as if she’s someone who’s opinion doesn’t matter at all? Certainly not.”
Not that her opinion doesn’t matter at all, just that her opinion doesn’t give her the right to murder another human being.
I’m sorry, but this is a moral fight, not simply a legal or political fight. You don’t win a moral dispute by compromising your principles and ceding ground to the enemy. You win it by standing firm on the correct principles.
By that standard, the morning after pill is wrong. Abortion is wrong. Abortion in cases of rape and incest is wrong. Ceding that any one of those “options” should be on the table, just for political expediency, may win a political battle, but it will lose the moral war. You may be prepared to accept that outcome, but I am not.
Yay! We agree. No need to bicker!
Fine, enjoy the status quo.
We agree!
In fact, this interpretation is so obvious, that when my younger son first read the Constitution (maybe age 8?), his first comment was that the 14th Amendment barred abortion.
So what?
sitetest
At least I will be able to sleep at night knowing I didn’t sell my soul for a few votes.
And the tens of millions who have been murdered so that folks like you can sleep well thank you very much.
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.