GOP Senate Candidate Declares Pregnancy From Rape Is "Something God Intended"

[soulcougher73]

Women are women. Did you really need to be told that? Don't answer...you might make yourself look worse than you already do.

Do you support the killing of a human for the crimes committed by that human's father? If no, they you cannot support aborting a human due to rape. It really is that simple.

Hey retard. You really need to phrase your arguments better. You may want to lose the "human" bit and say embryo instead as so we can differentiate from an actaul born living human. You are trying to mix the 2 together to make it sound worse than it is.

I doubt any person here would support killing a 8 year old kid because his father killed someone.

 

[soulcougher73]

It is not a straw man at all. If you believe that women have the right to kill their unborn child because it is their body, then you must also believe they can do it mere seconds before delivery. It is still their body and the human is still unborn. Nothing has changed at all.

Holding any other view means you do not really think women should have the right to control their body - you actually mean they have the right to control their body when you say they can.

Actually quite a lot has changed from 6 weeks to 9 months. For one it is now a fully formed human and not a clump of cells any longer. One is life and the other is just the "potential" for life, but has not achieved life yet.

 

[nehalem256]

You keep referring to abortion as execution. If a fetus is not viable, and failing to provide it with your organs to survive is execution, then where does that end?

So your argument is that it is ok to force a woman to give up her body once the fetus becomes viable?

If a 1 day old infant needs a transplant that a mother can provide, is it execution if she does not provide it? How about a 1 week old, 1 year old, 10 year old, 30 year old?

Well according to your argument that it is fine to force a woman to give up her body to a viable fetus... why shouldn't she be required to provide the transplant? What is the difference?

 

[actuarial]

So your argument is that it is ok to force a woman to give up her body once the fetus becomes viable?

No, but I do believe that after viability a woman should be allowed to birth the baby at any point in time.

Well according to your argument that it is fine to force a woman to give up her body to a viable fetus... why shouldn't she be required to provide the transplant? What is the difference?

That is not according to [my] argument, it is simply a straw man.

[Edit]

 

[ichy]

This message is hidden because cybrsage is on your ignore list.

Any chance of ignoring the troll and getting back to the original topic?

 

[nehalem256]

No, but I do believe that after viability a woman should be allowed to birth the baby at any point in time.

As long as she is responsible for the medical care fine.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Most people are reasonable and fair, and understand that abortion is one of the important but unusual cases where two fundamental rights are in conflict: the right to life and the right to choose what is done with one's own body. The problem is that discussions of the topic are always hijacked by extremists and propagandists, who try to oversimplify the situation to put forth their agenda, and derail debate by focusing on rare events. They don't want to discuss the issue holistically, so we get the usual bullshit about "human beings" consisting of 4 cells and abortion at 364 days.

I believe that life begins at conception. I also believe that women have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. It is alright to believe in things that contradict. It is better to accept that honestly than to lie to oneself about reality or whitewash over the difficulty.

The fact that I believe life begins at conception doesn't mean I think a fetus has the right to impose on a woman to carry it to term. And the fact that I believe women have the right to their bodies doesn't mean I think they have the right to behave capriciously towards a fetus that is in their bodies when there are other options available.

When rights are in conflict, reasonable people prefer reasonable solutions. Thus, I support early-term abortion in most cases. When the fetus really is little more than a ball of cells, I believe the woman's right to choose is more important. This also takes care of nearly all cases of rape and incest.

In the third trimester, I oppose abortion unless the life of the mother is at risk. Why? Again -- because it's the most reasonable answer. At this point the fetus is viable, and since the woman has already carried the baby this far, the best solution is for it to be delivered.

There are no simple answers when it comes to abortion. The people who try to claim they exist are usually the ones not interested in discussing the issue seriously at all.

 

[Thump553]

I disagree with this candidate's position and viewpoint 100%, but I find Romney's reaction more replusive. The candidate made it very, very cear that rape is a terrible crime but philisophically he believes that life begins at fertilization regards of the circumstances of that fertilization. Most importantly this is 100% in accord with the official Republican platform, a provision specifically adopted in light of the Akin controversy.

So why am I madder at Romney? He's throwing this guy under the bus-a person who believes the party line-solely because he committed the sin of believing and uttering an unpopular party platform. Once again Romney shows beyond a doubt that he has absolutely no moral center, no guiding principals and will do or say anything in order to seize the power of the presidency. That is a prescription for disappointment for his duped supporters and diasterous "leadership" for the country. God save the USA from a permanent decline if Romney is elected.

 

[soulcougher73]

Most people are reasonable and fair, and understand that abortion is one of the important but unusual cases where two fundamental rights are in conflict: the right to life and the right to choose what is done with one's own body. The problem is that discussions of the topic are always hijacked by extremists and propagandists, who try to oversimplify the situation to put forth their agenda, and derail debate by focusing on rare events. They don't want to discuss the issue holistically, so we get the usual bullshit about "human beings" consisting of 4 cells and abortion at 364 days.

I believe that life begins at conception. I also believe that women have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. It is alright to believe in things that contradict. It is better to accept that honestly than to lie to oneself about reality or whitewash over the difficulty.

The fact that I believe life begins at conception doesn't mean I think a fetus has the right to impose on a woman to carry it to term. And the fact that I believe women have the right to their bodies doesn't mean I think they have the right to behave capriciously towards a fetus that is in their bodies when there are other options available.

When rights are in conflict, reasonable people prefer reasonable solutions. Thus, I support early-term abortion in most cases. When the fetus really is little more than a ball of cells, I believe the woman's right to choose is more important. This also takes care of nearly all cases of rape and incest.

In the third trimester, I oppose abortion unless the life of the mother is at risk. Why? Again -- because it's the most reasonable answer. At this point the fetus is viable, and since the woman has already carried the baby this far, the best solution is for it to be delivered.

There are no simple answers when it comes to abortion. The people who try to claim they exist are usually the ones not interested in discussing the issue seriously at all.

Get out of here with your reasoning and logic skills.

Good post though lol

 

[emperus]

So it seems you support allowing a woman to get a 9 month abortion for any reason. Thank you for you consistency.



So then considering that abortion is legal. Every woman who brings a child into the world she cannot support is committing an immoral act. I would agree with that.



We have no problem with telling men to man up; see below



If the woman does not get an abortion the man will be forced to pay child support. Unless you are Mitt Romney this will entail working WITH YOUR BODY. As was previously established telling people what to do with their body is slavery.

Sorry, your arguments are stupid. I don't debate stupid. When you've thought out a more logical position, let me know.

 

[HomerJS]

Most people are reasonable and fair, and understand that abortion is one of the important but unusual cases where two fundamental rights are in conflict: the right to life and the right to choose what is done with one's own body. The problem is that discussions of the topic are always hijacked by extremists and propagandists, who try to oversimplify the situation to put forth their agenda, and derail debate by focusing on rare events. They don't want to discuss the issue holistically, so we get the usual bullshit about "human beings" consisting of 4 cells and abortion at 364 days.

I believe that life begins at conception. I also believe that women have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. It is alright to believe in things that contradict. It is better to accept that honestly than to lie to oneself about reality or whitewash over the difficulty.

The fact that I believe life begins at conception doesn't mean I think a fetus has the right to impose on a woman to carry it to term. And the fact that I believe women have the right to their bodies doesn't mean I think they have the right to behave capriciously towards a fetus that is in their bodies when there are other options available.

When rights are in conflict, reasonable people prefer reasonable solutions. Thus, I support early-term abortion in most cases. When the fetus really is little more than a ball of cells, I believe the woman's right to choose is more important. This also takes care of nearly all cases of rape and incest.

In the third trimester, I oppose abortion unless the life of the mother is at risk. Why? Again -- because it's the most reasonable answer. At this point the fetus is viable, and since the woman has already carried the baby this far, the best solution is for it to be delivered.

There are no simple answers when it comes to abortion. The people who try to claim they exist are usually the ones not interested in discussing the issue seriously at all.

Good compromise. If a fetus can live outside the womb is a border most people can work with.

 

[nehalem256]

Most people are reasonable and fair, and understand that abortion is one of the important but unusual cases where two fundamental rights are in conflict: the right to life and the right to choose what is done with one's own body. The problem is that discussions of the topic are always hijacked by extremists and propagandists, who try to oversimplify the situation to put forth their agenda, and derail debate by focusing on rare events. They don't want to discuss the issue holistically, so we get the usual bullshit about "human beings" consisting of 4 cells and abortion at 364 days.

I believe that life begins at conception. I also believe that women have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. It is alright to believe in things that contradict. It is better to accept that honestly than to lie to oneself about reality or whitewash over the difficulty.

The fact that I believe life begins at conception doesn't mean I think a fetus has the right to impose on a woman to carry it to term. And the fact that I believe women have the right to their bodies doesn't mean I think they have the right to behave capriciously towards a fetus that is in their bodies when there are other options available.

When rights are in conflict, reasonable people prefer reasonable solutions. Thus, I support early-term abortion in most cases. When the fetus really is little more than a ball of cells, I believe the woman's right to choose is more important. This also takes care of nearly all cases of rape and incest.

In the third trimester, I oppose abortion unless the life of the mother is at risk. Why? Again -- because it's the most reasonable answer. At this point the fetus is viable, and since the woman has already carried the baby this far, the best solution is for it to be delivered.

There are no simple answers when it comes to abortion. The people who try to claim they exist are usually the ones not interested in discussing the issue seriously at all.

The problem is that the right to do what you want with your body does not extend to murder. If you believe a zygote is a Person and not a ball of cells you are saying that women have a right to commit murder.

 

[Atreus21]

I couldn't make this up if I tried: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/richard-mourdock-abortion_n_2007482.html

Todd Akin was up in the polls before he made his infamous "legitimate rape" comments, and now McCaskill is ahead in all polls. Mourdock is also currently up, but that might change in short order.

This is nowhere near the level of stupidity of Akin's comment.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The problem is that the right to do what you want with your body does not extend to murder. If you believe a zygote is a Person and not a ball of cells you are saying that women have a right to commit murder.

Normally I ignore your posts because I'm fed up with you introducing your obsession with women into every thread. But since it's relevant here I'll respond.

As I already said, there are two rights in conflict. You choose to label abortion "murder" but in so doing are using a very liberal definition of the term.

First problem: murder implies deliberately killing a person -- and the law does not recognize a first-term fetus as a person.

Second problem: a woman who wants an abortion doesn't want to kill the fetus, she simply doesn't want to be forced to carry it. She does have the right to have the fetus removed from her body -- and if it dies, it dies. This is another key to the viability argument.

As actuarial said, if the government can force a woman to carry a fetus because if she doesn't it will die, then the government can also force you to give me a kidney if without it I will die.

(Eventually science will solve this problem by allowing those who want unwanted fetuses to incubate them outside the womb.)

 

[emperus]

Most people are reasonable and fair, and understand that abortion is one of the important but unusual cases where two fundamental rights are in conflict: the right to life and the right to choose what is done with one's own body. The problem is that discussions of the topic are always hijacked by extremists and propagandists, who try to oversimplify the situation to put forth their agenda, and derail debate by focusing on rare events. They don't want to discuss the issue holistically, so we get the usual bullshit about "human beings" consisting of 4 cells and abortion at 364 days.

I believe that life begins at conception. I also believe that women have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. It is alright to believe in things that contradict. It is better to accept that honestly than to lie to oneself about reality or whitewash over the difficulty.

The fact that I believe life begins at conception doesn't mean I think a fetus has the right to impose on a woman to carry it to term. And the fact that I believe women have the right to their bodies doesn't mean I think they have the right to behave capriciously towards a fetus that is in their bodies when there are other options available.

When rights are in conflict, reasonable people prefer reasonable solutions. Thus, I support early-term abortion in most cases. When the fetus really is little more than a ball of cells, I believe the woman's right to choose is more important. This also takes care of nearly all cases of rape and incest.

In the third trimester, I oppose abortion unless the life of the mother is at risk. Why? Again -- because it's the most reasonable answer. At this point the fetus is viable, and since the woman has already carried the baby this far, the best solution is for it to be delivered.

There are no simple answers when it comes to abortion. The people who try to claim they exist are usually the ones not interested in discussing the issue seriously at all.

I agree. I think we have to accept a women's right to choose what to do with her body but also balance that with the life of the fetus. But even saying that, I think as a male, it's even harder for me to argue that.

But yes, it seems to be complicated.

 

[Paratus]

Well it does logically follow from the belief that God is omnipotent and micromanages everything.

Who called it murder, other than you? It is a lawful killing of another human, so it is not murder.

You are also wrong, once the sperm and egg combine, the resulting cell is a human cell - and a unique one (ie, not the mother). Genetic testing would reveal this to be true. I believe you are confusing human with human being. The human does not become a being (and therefor gain rights) until birth.

I believe that killing a human for the crimes committed by that human's father is barbaric and should not be allowed. You disagree with me and have no problem with doing this.

Let me ask you this:

When a person is killed how many people have died?

Now when a fertilized egg is aborted naturally or with plan B how many "children" have died?

 

[utahraptor]

I disagree. A forced pregnancy is bad for the mother and child.

 

[soulcougher73]

This is nowhere near the level of stupidity of Akin's comment.

Yeah he went way way beyond Akin's stupid remark

 

[Atreus21]

Most people are reasonable and fair, and understand that abortion is one of the important but unusual cases where two fundamental rights are in conflict: the right to life and the right to choose what is done with one's own body. The problem is that discussions of the topic are always hijacked by extremists and propagandists, who try to oversimplify the situation to put forth their agenda, and derail debate by focusing on rare events. They don't want to discuss the issue holistically, so we get the usual bullshit about "human beings" consisting of 4 cells and abortion at 364 days.

The argument does tend to gravitate towards the extremes of both sides, but I think that makes sense. It's reasonable for people to feel out the endpoints of the opposing argument. Asking to what extent abortion is permissable, and why, is a fair question.

However, if could agree on some limits to abortion, while leaving some abortion procedures in place, I don't think many pro-lifers would disagree.

I believe that life begins at conception. I also believe that women have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. It is alright to believe in things that contradict. It is better to accept that honestly than to lie to oneself about reality or whitewash over the difficulty.

I think that sometimes it's necessary to accept two truths that nonetheless contradict, but I don't think this problem is irreconcilable. If a woman has a right to decide what to do with their own body, is the child inside her "her own body"? Strong arguments could be made that the child is physically connected to and dependent on her, but apart from that is an entirely distinct human being; it's own DNA, blood type, organs, etc. Furthermore, (and this gets back to the extremes you mentioned), if the mere physical connection is enough to justify abortion, then there is no argument against partial-birth abortion or even killing the child right up until the umbilical cord gets cut.

We place too much emphasis on the value of the child merely because of its location, rather than what it is.

The fact that I believe life begins at conception doesn't mean I think a fetus has the right to impose on a woman to carry it to term. And the fact that I believe women have the right to their bodies doesn't mean I think they have the right to behave capriciously towards a fetus that is in their bodies when there are other options available.

Reasonably stated, but except in cases of rape, the fetus imposed exactly nothing on the mother.

When rights are in conflict, reasonable people prefer reasonable solutions. Thus, I support early-term abortion in most cases. When the fetus really is little more than a ball of cells, I believe the woman's right to choose is more important. This also takes care of nearly all cases of rape and incest.

That's perfectly reasonable. If we could outlaw all abortions after about 20 weeks, we'd be a far more humane country. Would you agree to that?

In the third trimester, I oppose abortion unless the life of the mother is at risk. Why? Again -- because it's the most reasonable answer. At this point the fetus is viable, and since the woman has already carried the baby this far, the best solution is for it to be delivered.

There are no simple answers when it comes to abortion. The people who try to claim they exist are usually the ones not interested in discussing the issue seriously at all.

I think there are some simple answers. Partial-birth abortion is simply wrong. Forcing a woman to give birth at risk to her life is simply wrong. Forcing a woman to give birth to a child conceived in rape...my conscience reels at that. Lives can be taken if they are taken in self-defense; when something is forced on you. Abortion in cases of rape falls partially into that category.

The Catholic church may vehemently disagree with me on that. So be it.

 

[Atreus21]

Yeah he went way way beyond Akin's stupid remark

Negative. Akin said that rape can't result in pregnancy unless the woman secretly wants it to. He deserved an ass-kicking for that.

This guy just said that pregnancies are God's intention, regardless of the circumstances.

 

[utahraptor]

If it becomes illegal to terminate a rape pregnancy we need to add a separate law to the books for impregnating a female against her will. It would carry penalties separate and addition to rape. Basically the rapist would be on the book for 100% of the expense of raising the child including college tuition. The wages would be garnished up to 100% until that is accomplished. If the rapist refused or was unable to work or the job did not cover all of the expense then the tax payers would be responsible for the remaining expense. You can't force a female to raise a rape baby and have to pay for it.

 

[emperus]

Another issue noone rarely talks about is the mental health of both mother and child. I can't imagine having to look at the son of your rapist everyday. It's like carrying the seed of Satan. Or for that matter what happens to that child if the mother takes her resentment out on him/her.

 

[Thump553]

This is nowhere near the level of stupidity of Akin's comment.

I agree-with the caveat that Akins' comment also was pretty much in line with current "mainstream" GOP dogma.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Strong arguments could be made that the child is physically connected to and dependent on her, but apart from that is an entirely distinct human being; it's own DNA, blood type, organs, etc.

I think it's pretty obvious that it is inside her body. I'm not claiming that it isn't distinct.

We place too much emphasis on the value of the child merely because of its location, rather than what it is.

Some people do. I'm not using that argument.

Reasonably stated, but except in cases of rape, the fetus imposed exactly nothing on the mother.

Eh. That's very murky territory. A woman can intend to have sex but not intend to get pregnant. In fact, that's what is going on most of the time.

That's perfectly reasonable. If we could outlaw all abortions after about 20 weeks, we'd be a far more humane country. Would you agree to that?

Yes, except for special cases. I'd be okay with a judge making those determinations. I don't support "free and unquestioned" abortion in the third term. And I don't think that's the law now anyway.

 

[jackstar7]

For those who would say that a woman must carry the fetus to term:

If the woman follows all instructions on providing for the development of the fetus, who is responsible if she miscarries?

Do we need to start regulating the behaviors of pregnant women? What if they drink or smoke in excess? What if they require medications that would harm a fetus?

Should we test women each day to see if they are pregnant? Otherwise they might be harming an embryo or fetus they are unaware of...