Legitimate Rape and Abortion- Republicans back-pedal

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, so here's what I've pieced together:

(1) Jackass Republican senatorial candidate says something stupid.
(2) Democrats attack.
(3) Republicans defend.
(4) Democrats attack Republicans defense.

Numbers 3 and 4 are most troubling. I received an email today from the Obama campaign where the title was "legitimate rape." I thought it was one of you guys; it wasn't. It was from the Obama campaign. This is the problem; this will now be an issue in the political race when abortion is not really an issue in the presidential race at all. Neither president can do anything to curtail abortion. Congress cannot do anything to curtail abortion. Ridiculous. The political process in this country annoys the shit out of me sometimes.

And yes, I blame the Republicans for starting this whole thing for defending this jackass.

Accordingly to a WSJ article a few days ago, the GOP asked that Republican to back out of the race, but he refused because he still thinks he can win. The GOP is concerned about increasing their chances of getting more (R)s into the Senate.


As far as the public is concerned (if that's what you mean by Republicans and Democrats), then yeah, it's a whole bunch of stupid which is effectively used to the benefit of the Democratic Party/Obama Admin.

[BigBallinStalin]

And yes, I blame the Republicans for starting this whole thing for defending this jackass.

Actually, Republicans haven't defended him, which has been the major problem in this sequence of events. They don't have to support what he said (which he has already repeatedly apologized for), but they would rather lose the seat over the one comment. It's completely stupid. Also, since the campaign committees and Super PACs don't want to support Akin anymore, he just went and raised $100,000 yesterday.

I know two Republicans who have defended him on this website.

I seriously laughed very loudly at work just now. Now everyone knows I am browsing the internet.

I think the reasons a lot of Rep.s are distancing is because they don't want his statements used against them. After all, these are politicians and they want their seat. Also, it was a nutty thing to say and you can't do that in politics unless you are the VP.

The Repubs/GOP wants to increase their chances of getting more Repubs in the Senate. They most likely don't care about what that guy said. They care about how it affects his chances of winning.

[greenoaks]

when a guy gets raped he tends to shut down and no pregenancy happens so Akin is half right about the human body and rape.

[Phatscotty]

Okay, so here's what I've pieced together:

(1) Jackass Republican senatorial candidate says something stupid.
(2) Democrats attack.
(3) Republicans defend.
(4) Democrats attack Republicans defense.

Numbers 3 and 4 are most troubling. I received an email today from the Obama campaign where the title was "legitimate rape." I thought it was one of you guys; it wasn't. It was from the Obama campaign. This is the problem; this will now be an issue in the political race when abortion is not really an issue in the presidential race at all. Neither president can do anything to curtail abortion. Congress cannot do anything to curtail abortion. Ridiculous. The political process in this country annoys the shit out of me sometimes.

And yes, I blame the Republicans for starting this whole thing for defending this jackass.

Obama running on wedge issues? WHO WOULDA THOUGHT!

bUT tgd, Didn't Romney and Ryan call on the jackass to step down? And for all the other Republicans nobody ever heard of, are you sure they are defending "the jackass" and not simply defending their "pro-life position"?? Since obviously this is not about "legitimate rape"....it's about "abortion".

[thegreekdog]

Okay, so here's what I've pieced together:

(1) Jackass Republican senatorial candidate says something stupid.
(2) Democrats attack.
(3) Republicans defend.
(4) Democrats attack Republicans defense.

Numbers 3 and 4 are most troubling. I received an email today from the Obama campaign where the title was "legitimate rape." I thought it was one of you guys; it wasn't. It was from the Obama campaign. This is the problem; this will now be an issue in the political race when abortion is not really an issue in the presidential race at all. Neither president can do anything to curtail abortion. Congress cannot do anything to curtail abortion. Ridiculous. The political process in this country annoys the shit out of me sometimes.

And yes, I blame the Republicans for starting this whole thing for defending this jackass.

Obama running on wedge issues? WHO WOULDA THOUGHT!

bUT tgd, Didn't Romney and Ryan call on the jackass to step down? And for all the other Republicans nobody ever heard of, are you sure they are defending "the jackass" and not simply defending their "pro-life position"?? Since obviously this is not about "legitimate rape"....it's about "abortion".

It's absurd. It's actually more angering to me that this is an issue than, in order, Romney at Bain Capital (which really annoys me) and Romney not releasing his tax returns (which annoys me more because Romney won't just do it). In any event, none of these things will affect my vote. I'm still voting for Gary Johnson.

You'd have to ask the Republicans who defended him that question.

[tzor]

Congress cannot do anything to curtail abortion.

Well actually they can, but they won't.

(Ignoring the question of "legal" vs "illegal" for a moment; congress can get a bunch of famrers to divert their corn crop to ethanol production through a combination of mandates and subsudies. Encouraging women to keep their unborn children to term could easily be accomplished through the same manner, if the mere question is the reduction of the actual number. If you give someone a real choice, where both options are equally viable, people won't always choose one choice over the other, there will be some who will choose one and some who choose the other.)

[thegreekdog]

Congress cannot do anything to curtail abortion.

Well actually they can, but they won't.

(Ignoring the question of "legal" vs "illegal" for a moment; congress can get a bunch of famrers to divert their corn crop to ethanol production through a combination of mandates and subsudies. Encouraging women to keep their unborn children to term could easily be accomplished through the same manner, if the mere question is the reduction of the actual number. If you give someone a real choice, where both options are equally viable, people won't always choose one choice over the other, there will be some who will choose one and some who choose the other.)

Unless they can reverse the right to privacy in the Constitution, they can't. I suppose they could try for an amendment to the Constitution, but those tend to be hard (hence judicial activism).

[kentington]

And yes, I blame the Republicans for starting this whole thing for defending this jackass.

Actually, Republicans haven't defended him, which has been the major problem in this sequence of events. They don't have to support what he said (which he has already repeatedly apologized for), but they would rather lose the seat over the one comment. It's completely stupid. Also, since the campaign committees and Super PACs don't want to support Akin anymore, he just went and raised $100,000 yesterday.

I know two Republicans who have defended him on this website.

I seriously laughed very loudly at work just now. Now everyone knows I am browsing the internet.

I think the reasons a lot of Rep.s are distancing is because they don't want his statements used against them. After all, these are politicians and they want their seat. Also, it was a nutty thing to say and you can't do that in politics unless you are the VP.

The Repubs/GOP wants to increase their chances of getting more Repubs in the Senate. They most likely don't care about what that guy said. They care about how it affects his chances of winning.

Agreed. If he had gotten good press for it they would have hugged him and accepted him as one of them, even if it was wrong or they didn't agree.

[tzor]

Unless they can reverse the right to privacy in the Constitution, they can't. I suppose they could try for an amendment to the Constitution, but those tend to be hard (hence judicial activism).

Well, first of all, there is no "right of privacy" in the Constitution; only in Supreme Court precident.

But I see my argument went over your head. You can curtail any practice by making the alternative more attractive.

Note definition of curtail, assuming we aren't cutting off anything (mind you that could definitely stop all abortions if we just cut them ... and I'm not talking about abortions hint hint ... all off) the definition is "to diminish : shorten in duration or scope " so it does not mean an absolute ban. Any reduction will do.

[thegreekdog]

Unless they can reverse the right to privacy in the Constitution, they can't. I suppose they could try for an amendment to the Constitution, but those tend to be hard (hence judicial activism).

Well, first of all, there is no "right of privacy" in the Constitution; only in Supreme Court precident.

Yes... and how does that affect what Congress can or cannot do?

But I see my argument went over your head. You can curtail any practice by making the alternative more attractive.

Yes, your argument went over my head. I'm unschooled in the ways of government and law.

How do you propose that the government make carrying a child to full term more attractive (ignoring any assumptions that you may have to make vis-a-vis why women have abortions or choose to carry a child to term when abortion is an option... we can deal with those later).

Note definition of curtail, assuming we aren't cutting off anything (mind you that could definitely stop all abortions if we just cut them ... and I'm not talking about abortions hint hint ... all off) the definition is "to diminish : shorten in duration or scope " so it does not mean an absolute ban. Any reduction will do.

I'm going to need the hint I think. I have no clue what you're getting it. Do you want the government to purchase the children after the birth? D you want the government to provide monetary consideration for having the baby but let the mother keep the baby? Do you want the government to carry the child for the woman?

[tzor]

But I see my argument went over your head. You can curtail any practice by making the alternative more attractive.

Yes, your argument went over my head. I'm unschooled in the ways of government and law.

How do you propose that the government make carrying a child to full term more attractive (ignoring any assumptions that you may have to make vis-a-vis why women have abortions or choose to carry a child to term when abortion is an option... we can deal with those later).

First of all, let's recall that for many women abortion is really not a "choice." Pressure to have an abortion can come from others, it can be financial, or it can be a matter of not wanting to handle the responsibility of bringing a child into the world. There is also the situation where abortion is a nice legal form of euthanasia (if the child will die before he or she becomes an adult many feel killing him/her before they are born is somehow noble). Each situation needs a different solution.

Now assuming the mind of a liberal, most problems can be solved if you throw money at it. How much is nine months of pregnancy worth?

Note definition of curtail, assuming we aren't cutting off anything (mind you that could definitely stop all abortions if we just cut them ... and I'm not talking about abortions hint hint ... all off) the definition is "to diminish : shorten in duration or scope " so it does not mean an absolute ban. Any reduction will do.

I'm going to need the hint I think. I have no clue what you're getting it. Do you want the government to purchase the children after the birth? D you want the government to provide monetary consideration for having the baby but let the mother keep the baby? Do you want the government to carry the child for the woman?

Well once again you can throw money at it. You can encourage adoptions through financial means. Reduce the red tape and paperwork. Increase the "demand" and the alternative becomes more attractive. This won't cover every situation but the more it covers the less abortions will take place.

And throwing money at the mother makes sense from a health care perspective no matter if the subject of abortion is considered. The first few months in the womb are important in many ways, and if the woman is taken care of you have a better chance for a healthy outcome.

Babies are ... ironically enough ... a lot like oil. Why do you need to have people spend massive amounts of money to seek out Russian babies for adoption when you have a vast supply right here in the United States?

[thegreekdog]

I don't presume to know or understand why women choose to have abortions. If I was a woman, I like to think I would never have one. From what I've read and heard, the reasons vary, but can involve financial situation (as you've indicated) and can also involve things other than finances (e.g. rape, incest, school, and any of a host of psychological or physical issues). So I'm not sure your plan would work; although it could work to eliminate some potential abortions which would be a good thing.

But let's assume, for purposes of this discussion, that financial reasons are the only reasons why a woman would have an abortion. I posit the following likely scenario: Woman wants money; woman gets pregnant to get money; woman gets money (or "profit" if you will). So there are opportunities for abuse. Perhaps we don't care because we don't want an abortion, but I'm pointing it out.

Adoption is a potential avenue to avoid abortion and one that I support. I am not familiar with the red tape surrouding abortion or whether that's related to the government or private companies doing something.

[tzor]

Well all options have options for abuse; (and so too is unrestricted abortions as they can encourage more behavior because they can fall back on another abortion) but if we look at each possible problem and see ways to mitigate that problem then the numbers will decline. The original statement was that there was nothing that congress could do to reduce the number of abortions; I've argued that there are ways.

Really, if those so called "pro-choice" politicians were really interested in a real free choice, this would be cake. Hilliary Clinton, on occasion has mentioned that we need a policy of allowing alternatives to reduce the number of abortions by means other than making them illegal. (But then she accepts the contribution from Planned Parenthood and commits herself to keeping that organization funded by the only real money maker they have; performing abortions.)

Such policies might also annoy the fiscally conservative. Such is life.

[thegreekdog]

Well all options have options for abuse; (and so too is unrestricted abortions as they can encourage more behavior because they can fall back on another abortion) but if we look at each possible problem and see ways to mitigate that problem then the numbers will decline. The original statement was that there was nothing that congress could do to reduce the number of abortions; I've argued that there are ways.

Really, if those so called "pro-choice" politicians were really interested in a real free choice, this would be cake. Hilliary Clinton, on occasion has mentioned that we need a policy of allowing alternatives to reduce the number of abortions by means other than making them illegal. (But then she accepts the contribution from Planned Parenthood and commits herself to keeping that organization funded by the only real money maker they have; performing abortions.)

Such policies might also annoy the fiscally conservative. Such is life.

First, and obviously, I was referring to Congress not being able to make abortion illegal (short of getting an amendment to the Constitution passed). My definition of "curtail" is something significant; unfortunately, I don't think fiscal incentives against abortion will have a significant impact.

I would prefer to have private individuals give the money, but most choose not to so that obviously does not work. At the risk of invoking pimpdave, the Catholic Church does assist with this and I give money every Sunday, but that again only goes so far.

Practically (or, more likely, politically) I think you've hit the nail on the head. Someone who has a reasonable want to encourage women to carry full term with financial incentives will likely also be taking money and garnering support from a place like Planned Parenthood or NOW; so the likelihood of a bill getting passed is small.

[PLAYER57832]

Let us not split hairs here. And I wish politicians would stop apologizing when they say what they believe. Now, other than the part about being uncertain if a rape actually occurred or not, which btw is a moot point because abortion IS murder regardless if a rape had occurred or not. He was correct in saying, "the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child".

I see, so what about the idea that a woman can somehow prevent a pregnancy?

Amongst all the rape/not rape that bit of extreme misinformation seems to be lost..

[PLAYER57832]

But, you can't judge this guy. He only said something stupid. He has not DONE anything stupid, as a Senator.

Therefore, we cannot really tell if he is pro-life or pro-choice.

If you have any questions about this, ask Greekdog

His pro-life stance is rather irrelevant in this case.

ANYONE who still thinks that women are somehow able to prevent pregnancies themselves if they really want to do so is just too stupid to be elected!!!!

[comic boy]

I dont think highly of those who use abortion as last resort contraception but one cannot legislate on the basis of stupidity and ultimately women must be allowed the option that best suits them.
In a more perfect world I would like to think that it wouldn't be the hardest thing to encourage more co-operation between those who do not wish to raise a child and those infertile couples that are desperate to do so.

[Symmetry]

Practically (or, more likely, politically) I think you've hit the nail on the head. Someone who has a reasonable want to encourage women to carry full term with financial incentives will likely also be taking money and garnering support from a place like Planned Parenthood or NOW; so the likelihood of a bill getting passed is small.

I'm not sure this is correct. As the Republican party passed a measure supporting a blanket ban on abortion, and the Catholoic church supporting anti-abortion measures even when an abortion saves a woman's life.

[Symmetry]

I dont think highly of those who use abortion as last resort contraception but one cannot legislate on the basis of stupidity and ultimately women must be allowed the option that best suits them.
In a more perfect world I would like to think that it wouldn't be the hardest thing to encourage more co-operation between those who do not wish to raise a child and those infertile couples that are desperate to do so.

Fair points, but considering much of Akin's problem concerns rape, I'm not sure I see the relevance.

[thegreekdog]

Practically (or, more likely, politically) I think you've hit the nail on the head. Someone who has a reasonable want to encourage women to carry full term with financial incentives will likely also be taking money and garnering support from a place like Planned Parenthood or NOW; so the likelihood of a bill getting passed is small.

I'm not sure this is correct. As the Republican party passed a measure supporting a blanket ban on abortion, and the Catholoic church supporting anti-abortion measures even when an abortion saves a woman's life.

These are not indicative of someone who has a reasonable want to encourage women to carry full term with financial incentives. Blanket bans on abortion are unconstitutional and any laws calling for a blanket ban are not able to be enforced as a result - which was my point previously. Congress cannot make abortion illegal short of a constitutional amendment.

[Night Strike]

Practically (or, more likely, politically) I think you've hit the nail on the head. Someone who has a reasonable want to encourage women to carry full term with financial incentives will likely also be taking money and garnering support from a place like Planned Parenthood or NOW; so the likelihood of a bill getting passed is small.

I'm not sure this is correct. As the Republican party passed a measure supporting a blanket ban on abortion, and the Catholoic church supporting anti-abortion measures even when an abortion saves a woman's life.

These are not indicative of someone who has a reasonable want to encourage women to carry full term with financial incentives. Blanket bans on abortion are unconstitutional and any laws calling for a blanket ban are not able to be enforced as a result - which was my point previously. Congress cannot make abortion illegal short of a constitutional amendment.

Well, besides the fact that reading into the Constitution a new right that was never present while simultaneously treating one class of people as less than human was a completely unconstitutional decision by 7 justices.

We got here because of the most reprehensible and unconstitutional Supreme Court opinion in the modern era. In a throwback to its infamous Dred Scott decision -- in which a pre-Civil War Supreme Court declared that blacks are not persons and hence cannot claim the protections of the Constitution -- the court essentially said in Roe vs. Wade the same of fetuses in the womb.

Roe vs. Wade has spawned more slaughter than all 20th-century tyrants combined. The consequences of this slaughter are vast lost generations of human beings who were denied by the law the right to live.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/23/abortion-and-rape/#ixzz24TQdjcFC

[natty dread]

Haha, silly republican. Fetuses are not people.

[thegreekdog]

Practically (or, more likely, politically) I think you've hit the nail on the head. Someone who has a reasonable want to encourage women to carry full term with financial incentives will likely also be taking money and garnering support from a place like Planned Parenthood or NOW; so the likelihood of a bill getting passed is small.

I'm not sure this is correct. As the Republican party passed a measure supporting a blanket ban on abortion, and the Catholoic church supporting anti-abortion measures even when an abortion saves a woman's life.

These are not indicative of someone who has a reasonable want to encourage women to carry full term with financial incentives. Blanket bans on abortion are unconstitutional and any laws calling for a blanket ban are not able to be enforced as a result - which was my point previously. Congress cannot make abortion illegal short of a constitutional amendment.

Well, besides the fact that reading into the Constitution a new right that was never present while simultaneously treating one class of people as less than human was a completely unconstitutional decision by 7 justices.

We got here because of the most reprehensible and unconstitutional Supreme Court opinion in the modern era. In a throwback to its infamous Dred Scott decision -- in which a pre-Civil War Supreme Court declared that blacks are not persons and hence cannot claim the protections of the Constitution -- the court essentially said in Roe vs. Wade the same of fetuses in the womb.

Roe vs. Wade has spawned more slaughter than all 20th-century tyrants combined. The consequences of this slaughter are vast lost generations of human beings who were denied by the law the right to live.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/23/abortion-and-rape/#ixzz24TQdjcFC

That's an entirely different discussion, unfortunately. I suspect were Roe v. Wade decided today, it would have a much different result; not because of the makeup of the Court, but because the viability of a fetus outside the womb has become more likely sooner due to the advance of science. Then the Court will have to decide whether terminating a viable fetus is a compelling state interest such that it overpowers the right of a woman to privacy. For whatever it's worth (not much, given my striking out on the recent Affordable Care Act decision), I don't think the Court will (a) hear such a case and (b) decide such a case in favor of the state law.

[comic boy]

I dont think highly of those who use abortion as last resort contraception but one cannot legislate on the basis of stupidity and ultimately women must be allowed the option that best suits them.
In a more perfect world I would like to think that it wouldn't be the hardest thing to encourage more co-operation between those who do not wish to raise a child and those infertile couples that are desperate to do so.

Fair points, but considering much of Akin's problem concerns rape, I'm not sure I see the relevance.

No they are not relevent to Akin , he is a moron so I consider that case closed so was simply musing about the more general picture.

[PLAYER57832]

And yes, I blame the Republicans for starting this whole thing for defending this jackass.

Well... there you go.

They WANT this to be an issue because they want to court a lot of conservative Christians who could care less if the Repubs support big business and the wealthy over average people, just as long as they promise to nearly eliminate or actually eliminate abortion and make life difficult for homosexuals.