[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There is absolutely nothing "extremist" about defining a threshold for human life and maintaining that ground. Yes, it's absolutely deplorable that we even have to consider something as horrific as rape, but that doesn't mean a caretaker is "extremist" by focusing on the one in most peril. Honestly, this is the most cynical and divisive sh!t I've read in a long time.

Unless I misread things, the official platform doesn't even make exceptions for when the mother's life is in danger. That strikes me as extremist.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A plurality of Americans consider themselves pro-life and I maintain there wouldn't be sanity at all if it weren't for their voice.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What do you mean by "general tendencies"? Greater than 30% of Democrats self-identify as pro-life.

I'm glad you brought this up, because it just goes to show how worthless labels are without some context. For starters, there's no definition of what "pro-life" is. Second, people sometimes like to adopt labels while when they are asked what they specifically believe, they actually hold the opposite position. Observe.


http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

I took the first poll with multiple distinctions. Here's what I got:

Pew Research Center. April 4-15, 2012. N=1,494 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"

23% Legal in all cases
31% Legal in most cases
23% Illegal in most cases
16% Illegal in all cases
7% Unsure/Refused

So, I'll put forth that I think if people hold a position of thinking abortion should be legal in most or all cases they are pro-choice. If they hold it should be illegal in most or all cases they are pro-life. With that definition/standard here's what we get:

54% Pro-choice
39% Pro-life

Interesting perspective, eh?



Next, you countered that the illegal in all cases is not extreme (I agree that's ideologically consistent, if not completely lacking in mercy). Using that poll for reference we find by far the smallest percentage, 16% support that ideal. Less than 1 in 5 people support the idea banning abortions in all circumstances. I'd call that position off to the extreme, yes.

[Chongo]

More Pearls before swine

CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI

paragraph 38

Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

[The Final Dakar]

...which is great, if people could agree on when life begins.

[Waragainstsleep]

Its funny how fussy god is about abortion when you consider the stunt he allegedly pulled with the first born of Egypt.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

...which is great, if people could agree on when life begins.

Accordiing to medical text books, life begins at conception. "Personhood" is a moving goalpost.

Abortion proponents distort the meaning of personhood

Exactly what makes a human being a person is unclear. Some abortion-rights advocates define personhood by location — as in, outside the womb — or by such qualities as rationality and autonomy. Using that latter definition, Princeton philosopher Peter Singer argues that severely disabled newborns and demented adults do not count as persons while chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans do. Not surprisingly, Singer defends infanticide and euthanasia as well as abortion, claiming that it is illogical to protect human life simply because it is human.

Pro-choice pundits often squirm when Singer starts talking, but he merely follows their favorite new argument to its logical conclusion. If being human is not enough to entitle one to human rights, then the very concept of human rights loses meaning. And all of us — born and unborn, strong and weak, young and old — someday will find ourselves on the wrong end of that cruel measuring stick.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I don't know what war rape is, but it indeed sounds horrific.

It is.

It's not the issue here, but seriously: it's worth reading up on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Abortion proponents distort the meaning of personhood

And anti-abortionists distort the meaning of "proponent".

It's like everybody who's pro-choice is in favor of abortion. That's absolutist bullshit, and you know it.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Since when is preserve the species in conflict with biology and simple common sense?

Come now my friend. I'm pretty certain you realize the issue isn't Akin's opposition to abortion even in cases of rape and incest. Earlier in the thread I even said unequivocally that I respected the ideological consistency of his stance. Even if I question whether his ideology would actually be followed if his daughter came up pregnant ... consensually or otherwise ... by some thugged out brother from the hood in North St. Louis. In any event, the "Nor is Romney above alliances with so-called doctors who allow their anti-abortion ideology to fly in the face of biology and simple common sense." statement was in reference to the so-called doctor... a surrogate of Romney in his last presidential run ... who told Akin that scientific nonsense that led him to say "If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." Being anti-abortion/pro-life is fine. Being an idiot who thinks that a fertile woman's body can somehow magically reduce the likelihood of pregnancy in the case of "legitimate rape" is not.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You guys are slobbering all over yourselves here. Akin does not define anything more than another inept representative. A plurality of Americans consider themselves pro-life and I maintain there wouldn't be sanity at all if it weren't for their voice. There is absolutely nothing "extremist" about defining a threshold for human life and maintaining that ground. Yes, it's absolutely deplorable that we even have to consider something as horrific as rape, but that doesn't mean a caretaker is "extremist" by focusing on the one in most peril. Honestly, this is the most cynical and divisive sh!t I've read in a long time.

The issue here is that people speak often about "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as if they are diametrically opposed. What does either of those labels mean when the reality is that most Americans are not in favor of "abortion on demand at any time" ... nor are they in favor of "no abortions ever even in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother". Most people who consider themselves to be "pro-life" still think that Akin's position ... which mirrors the position of the GOP platform in the last 3 presidential election cycles ... is going too far because they think an exception should be made for rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I'm tellin' you guys, the Dems are going to overplay the absolute bat-crap out of this. There are far too many women with a staunch pro-life view for this "attack on women!" narrative to sink. You're welcome to try of course and you've got some good bait to be certain -- do well with it. Akin is still up 1% over McCaskill so if she does have the political savvy to pull this out, let's hope for the good folks of Missouri she's not into bloodletting snow seal pups.

To be certain the McCaskill campaign is going to ride Akin's idiocy until the wheels fall off! It may get her re-elected. It may not. The problem for the Romney campaign is that his comments are drawing unwanted attention to the GOP platform language on abortion which goes considerably farther than most pro-lifers are comfortable with. It draws attention to countless votes by Paul Ryan and other GOP House members that sought to differentiate on this dubious notion of "forcible rape". As if a woman who got slipped a roofie at a frat party and woke up to find out that a dozen drunk frat boys had run a train on her isn't really "raped". As if an underage teenage girl who was molested by an older family member against her will wasn't really "raped". As if a woman who's physically threatened and doesn't resist out of fear of further bodily harm wasn't really "raped" because the sexual encounter wasn't "forcible". These are the types of scenarios that are infuriating even conservative, pro-life women now that attention is being drawn to these votes. And something tells me that it's not going to blow over anytime soon.

OAW

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

And anti-abortionists distort the meaning of "proponent".
It's like everybody who's pro-choice is in favor of abortion. That's absolutist bullshit, and you know it.

Please, define "pro choice" for us.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Please, define "pro choice" for us.

Now that you brought it up, I'm an order of magnitude more curious about your definition.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by OAW 

As if an underage teenage girl who was molested by an older family member against her will wasn't really "raped".

Legally speaking, isn't consensual sex with an underage girl considered (statutory) rape too?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Accordiing to medical text books, life begins at conception.

False. Life exists before conception; the sperm and ovum are alive. All life comes from life. There is no moment of "when life begins." It is simply false to say "life begins at conception." Conception happens at conception, that's all.

And I'm not sure why you're bringing up Singer. The pro-choice movement doesn't rely on his personal ideas to justify legal abortion. Some animal rights people like him, but no one in the pro-choice movement gives him any regard whatsoever, so far as I know. When politicians and activists defend abortion rights, it is based on personal autonomy, public welfare, and feminism, not on Singer's peculiar notions.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Unless I misread things, the official platform doesn't even make exceptions for when the mother's life is in danger. That strikes me as extremist.

I think this is pretty much the defacto medical standard no? When the mother's life is in danger, they generally explain the situation to the potential parents and make their decision to go forward. I don't ever recall a sheriff being part of that exchange, do you? Ultimately, this is FUD.

I'm glad you brought this up, because it just goes to show how worthless labels are without some context. For starters, there's no definition of what "pro-life" is. Second, people sometimes like to adopt labels while when they are asked what they specifically believe, they actually hold the opposite position. Observe.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
I took the first poll with multiple distinctions. Here's what I got:
So, I'll put forth that I think if people hold a position of thinking abortion should be legal in most or all cases they are pro-choice. If they hold it should be illegal in most or all cases they are pro-life. With that definition/standard here's what we get:
54% Pro-choice
39% Pro-life
Interesting perspective, eh?

This is a good point and what's more interesting to me is that if you break it down even further, you'll find more women supporting greater restrictions on the procedure than men which IMO puts the whole "ATTACK ON WOMEN" ruse into perspective. I think what happens in these surveys illustrates the struggle between how they'd handle their own personal crises and what decision they're making for others. It is near impossible to ask a woman to bear and birth the offspring of a rapist. Your survey shows that most can't. This leaves you with one of two decisions. Either you support life in all cases in spite of the condundrum of asking a women to bare and birth the offspring of a rapist or you take a much simpler approach (some may refer to it as compassionate, others as chickensh!t) supporting it in the case of rape essentially allowing for it in all cases. In short, if there were an effective means of parsing rape from the equation (less than 1% of all abortions performed), you'd have an overwhelming majority pro-lifers. Why? Because it's a perfectly sane view.

Next, you countered that the illegal in all cases is not extreme (I agree that's ideologically consistent, if not completely lacking in mercy). Using that poll for reference we find by far the smallest percentage, 16% support that ideal. Less than 1 in 5 people support the idea banning abortions in all circumstances. I'd call that position off to the extreme, yes.

Wait, that poll shows 19% supporting abortion in all cases and yet, the 3% between them and those who deny it in all cases is the difference between extreme or mainstream? I don't buy into the math problem here.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

False. Life exists before conception; the sperm and ovum are alive. All life comes from life. There is no moment of "when life begins." It is simply false to say "life begins at conception." Conception happens at conception, that's all.
And I'm not sure why you're bringing up Singer. The pro-choice movement doesn't rely on his personal ideas to justify legal abortion. Some animal rights people like him, but no one in the pro-choice movement gives him any regard whatsoever, so far as I know. When politicians and activists defend abortion rights, it is based on personal autonomy, public welfare, and feminism, not on Singer's peculiar notions.

First the move was from conception to implantation. Now it has change to personhood.

I don't remeber which member it was, but they were claiming we can't discuss abortion until we agreed that it was based on personhood.

There must be something in the water in Austrailia. Prof. Singer of Princeton is not the only personhood advocate that has proposed allowing parents to kill their children after birth. Australia's "The Journal of Medical Ethics" published an article advocating Singers positions.

In the article, entitled After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, ethicists Alberto Giubilini of Monash University, Australia, and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne, argue that fetuses and newborn babies share the same ‘moral status’, and that the arguments in favour of abortion therefore apply equally to newborns. They conclude:

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

Singer took it to a logical conclusion. When a human becomes demented or enters a vegitave state (no longer self aware), they no longer are a person and can be "euthanized."
JME article

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?


Then there's Virginia Ironside from the UK.

[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RAAhTL4Arg[/VIDEO]

[BadKosh]

I'm glad to see we're giving Biden a pass for his thousands of foot in mouth moments. Double standards.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think this is pretty much the defacto medical standard no? When the mother's life is in danger, they generally explain the situation to the potential parents and make their decision to go forward. I don't ever recall a sheriff being part of that exchange, do you? Ultimately, this is FUD.

I apparently I had misread things, but seeing as your statement doesn't make any sense in relation to mine, I'm guessing so did you?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is a good point and what's more interesting to me is that if you break it down even further, you'll find more women supporting greater restrictions on the procedure than men which IMO puts the whole "ATTACK ON WOMEN" ruse into perspective.

I can't believe I have to ask for this but... source? If it's on the very link I posted I didn't notice it under a quick search for the term "women."

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think what happens in these surveys illustrates the struggle between how they'd handle their own personal crises and what decision they're making for others. It is near impossible to ask a woman to bear and birth the offspring of a rapist. Your survey shows that most can't. This leaves you with one of two decisions. Either you support life in all cases in spite of the condundrum of asking a women to bare and birth the offspring of a rapist or you take a much simpler approach (some may refer to it as compassionate, others as chickensh!t) supporting it in the case of rape essentially allowing for it in all cases. In short, if there were an effective means of parsing rape from the equation (less than 1% of all abortions performed), you'd have an overwhelming majority pro-lifers.

Got anything to back that up?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wait, that poll shows 19% supporting abortion in all cases and yet, the 3% between them and those who deny it in all cases is the difference between extreme or mainstream? I don't buy into the math problem here.

Well, you're the one who just created that strawman of math, so don't look at me. I was examining the pro-life extreme, as we're talking about the GOP platform. If you'd like to make some point about the pro-choice abortion-on-demand extreme, be my guest.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I'm glad to see we're giving Biden a pass for his thousands of foot in mouth moments. Double standards.

Everything is ok because the other side did it!

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I'm glad to see we're giving Biden a pass for his thousands of foot in mouth moments. Double standards.

Says the person who has yet to make one comment about Akin in a thread actually about Akin.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Says the person who has yet to make one comment about Akin in a thread actually about Akin.

It's ok because ironknee does it!

[subego]

Here's a not too overwhelmingly biased interview with the person who wrote the GOP platform on abortion. I'm dissecting it now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/24/did-republicans-actually-endorse-a-full-abortion-ban-maybe-not/

[subego]

And here's the text of the platform.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/23/full-gop-platform-statement-on-abortion/comment-page-2/

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

And here's the text of the platform.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/23/full-gop-platform-statement-on-abortion/comment-page-2/

The words, rape, incest or danger aren't in the text. I'm confused.

[subego]

Originally Posted by subego 

Here's a not too overwhelmingly biased interview with the person who wrote the GOP platform on abortion. I'm dissecting it now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/24/did-republicans-actually-endorse-a-full-abortion-ban-maybe-not/

The tl;dr is some people want a rape clause, some don't. Health of the mother is akin (heh) to self-defense.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The words, rape, incest or danger aren't in the text. I'm confused.

From the interview, I gather it isn't felt there's enough overall momentum for the various factions to duke it out yet. With health of the mother I gather there's general consensus that's acceptable.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

From the interview, I gather it isn't felt there's enough overall momentum for the various factions to duke it out yet. With health of the mother I gather there's general consensus that's acceptable.

So their platform is being misrepresented by the media? And the GOP doesn't point this out?

This is weird.

Edit: Something doesn't add up here, because I'm reading about platforms with exceptions and Reince Preibus is doing preventative damage control on said platform with regards to Romney's own stances. Ugh, politics, you suck.

[subego]

They seem to be trying, like with that interview.

There's something of a timing issue. The platform was still being finalized a day or two ago, so there was a lot of drive-by speculation going on. CNN had an advance copy. I'll see if I can dig that up, and we can check it against the real deal.

[The Final Dakar]

Here's what's confusing me:

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...n-mitt-romney/

The Republican Party is poised to adopt a platform next week that calls for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with no exceptions for rape or incest.

The abortion language, approved today by committee, is similar to what the GOP adopted in 2004 and 2008.

This implies they had language with exceptions before right?

[subego]

Here's the CNN article on the advance copy. This got lots of linkage from people making a dust-up.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/21/gop-platform-committee-approves-tough-anti-abortion-stance/

Yup. That's full-on bullshit reporting.

[The Final Dakar]

In that case, Reince Priebus and the rest have pulled some Democrat level loss of controlling the message. If the platform allows for everyone involved to have their own nuanced views, it's not evident from a cursory reading.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Here's what's confusing me:
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...n-mitt-romney/
This implies they had language with exceptions before right?

Quick Google for the 2008 platform and it is similarly vague. Undefined (from a policy standpoint) "Human Life Amendment", and expanding the 14th Amendment.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

In that case, Reince Priebus and the rest have pulled some Democrat level loss of controlling the message. If the platform allows for everyone involved to have their own nuanced views, it's not evident from a cursory reading.

Because it doesn't. You can't have a constitutional amendment which accommodates a bunch of nuanced views. The platform only accommodates nuance by way of being unobtainable in its current form. Not really a point you want to stress too hard.

[The Final Dakar]

My head is beginning to hurt... So the platform is essentially worthless? Is it preaching to choir?

The only thing I gather form the articles is its purposely vague.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

My head is beginning to hurt... So the platform is essentially worthless? Is it preaching to choir?
The only thing I gather form the articles is its purposely vague.

I didn't want to use terms like "worthless", but since you said it, well... yeah.

I'm trying to puzzle through exactly what's the motivation behind having such a pie-in-the-sky part of their platform. I think it's been pretty irrelevant for the last couple elections. In 2004, we had Bush's record to inform us. In 2008, I think the Democrats didn't want to do the full-court press on abortion at the risk of offending potential religious voters.

So, inertia?

[The Final Dakar]

If it's so vague, why are they trying to distance it from Romney? Romney has what I would consider a moderate pro-life position. Preibus' statement then kinda reads as an admission of being guilty as charged or trying to defuse potential media bias. Though the latter seems less likely seeing as no one is looking to correct the narrative. (Our platform means nothing isn't a better narrative)

(Not that you should necessarily know any of these answers)

[screener]

Question, when does a fetus have brain wave, activity.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Legally speaking, isn't consensual sex with an underage girl considered (statutory) rape too?

Indeed.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If it's so vague, why are they trying to distance it from Romney? Romney has what I would consider a moderate pro-life position. Preibus' statement then kinda reads as an admission of being guilty as charged or trying to defuse potential media bias. Though the latter seems less likely seeing as no one is looking to correct the narrative. (Our platform means nothing isn't a better narrative)
(Not that you should necessarily know any of these answers)

I may have missed part of what you and subego were saying, but are you guys wondering why there are no references to rape, incest, or health of mother in the Republican platform? As I understand it, there is no exception for rape, incest, or health of mother and I don't think the Republican Party has referenced any of these since their first official platform in 1974. The basic premise has changed little, only escalating in tone from "... favors public dialogue on abortion and supports efforts to seek a human life amendment..." to "we support a human life amendment and endorse legislation that makes it clear the 14th applies to unborn children."

Romney is not separating from it because it's vague, he's separating from it because it's absolute and instead of talking about the overall direction of the country, he'll be talking about rape, incest, and women in dire circumstances; not the kind of happy-joy tone you want to set for your campaign. But... by opposing it for rape, he essentially disappears into the abyss of consensus view and the conversation is not polarizing enough to distract from issues a President is usually held accountable for.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I apparently I had misread things, but seeing as your statement doesn't make any sense in relation to mine, I'm guessing so did you?

You couldn't see that I was challenging the notion that this exclusion is somehow extremist? I don't think you misread the republican party platform the first time around, but later on you didn't seem certain enough of anything to be guessing what I misread.

I can't believe I have to ask for this but... source? If it's on the very link I posted I didn't notice it under a quick search for the term "women."

Apologies, I assumed this was the same poll I was looking at yesterday.

Got anything to back that up?

I suppose a compilation of various polls would be necessary to satisfy as proof because frankly, I'm not able to find anything that gets this granular. When you look at whether or not the procedure is generally deemed "moral", you get a much greater response that it is not than you do the other means of posing the abortion issue. This leads me to believe that "rape" invokes a toxic enough image that it does the most harm to the pro-life argument. I'm pretty comfortable with this which I realize isn't worth much.

Well, you're the one who just created that strawman of math, so don't look at me. I was examining the pro-life extreme, as we're talking about the GOP platform. If you'd like to make some point about the pro-choice abortion-on-demand extreme, be my guest.

I'm not the one who cited the 16% figure as indicative of extremism. I can tell this isn't going to be a fair discussion without knowing exactly where you stand on the abortion issue.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I may have missed part of what you and subego were saying, but are you guys wondering why there are no references to rape, incest, or health of mother in the Republican platform? As I understand it, there is no exception for rape, incest, or health of mother and I don't think the Republican Party has referenced any of these since their first official platform in 1974. The basic premise has changed little, only escalating in tone from "... favors public dialogue on abortion and supports efforts to seek a human life amendment..." to "we support a human life amendment and endorse legislation that makes it clear the 14th applies to unborn children."
Romney is not separating from it because it's vague, he's separating from it because it's absolute and instead of talking about the overall direction of the country, he'll be talking about rape, incest, and women in dire circumstances; not the kind of happy-joy tone you want to set for your campaign. But... by opposing it for rape, he essentially disappears into the abyss of consensus view and the conversation is not polarizing enough to distract from issues a President is usually held accountable for.

It looks to me like the platform is both vague and absolute, which is the problem.

It says "we want an amendment", which is absolute, but doesn't define that amendment by anything other than name, which is pretty gosh-darn vague.

Reading the interview with the person who drafted this year's platform, he makes it very clear it intentionally doesn't include or exclude exceptions.

Some quotes,

“We don’t set out exceptions because we don’t want to get into a debate over which version is appropriate,” said Bopp, co-chairman of the Republican party platform Subcommittee on Restoring Constitutional Government. “The issue is restoring legal protection for the unborn. We’re in favor of that concept, but not a particular amendment to do so.”

“We want the Constitution to provide legal protection to the unborn,” Bopp said. “But there’s no way the Republican party is going to be able to sort through dozens of versions of what that means legislatively, and get behind one. The pro-life movement can’t even do that.“

[subego]

OTOH, in the Preibus interview, the interview starts with the interviewer saying the platform has no exceptions, and Preibus ran with it.

Somebody needs to call a time-out.

[subego]

Originally Posted by subego 

interview, the interview starts with the interviewer

Yo, dawg...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

OTOH, in the Preibus interview, the interview starts with the interviewer saying the platform has no exceptions, and Preibus ran with it.
Somebody needs to call a time-out.

Exactly. In this it simply has no regard for the exceptions which is abundantly clear. Its detractors certainly make no qualms about bringing this fact to light.

Why does the platform not account for the exclusions? There's no way to account for them without becoming the turducken of stupid; discerning legitimate rape from falsely-cited rape (illegitimate), determining at what point the mother's health justifies abortion... none of this is the sort of "brighter tomorrow", sunny-day stuff to build a campaign around and the prospect of hopeless legislation would be just that, hopeless.

This is why I've come up with perhaps the most reprehensible policy initiative ever imagined, but it is the only way I know of that would technically satisfy both sides of the debate without the ugliness of discernment between this atrocious scenario and that; one abortion waiver for all. You get one abortion, use it wisely. This is in keeping with Clinton's "safe, but rare" argument, addresses the rape and incest argument, essentially cuts the number of dead in half by eliminating the use of abortion as birth control, and serves the greater-good principle the pro-lifers are after here.

And neither side would support it.

[subego]

That's part of what I'm saying. I don't think it's fair for detractors to say that when it's unclear whether there's an exception.

The amendment doesn't even exist. Shouldn't I take issue when people claim it contains specifics?

[subego]

As for the "one abortion per" idea, if anything, I'm ultimately too idealistic to support that policy.

I think we can have a government which doesn't interfere with one's personal liberty, and cut down on the primary causes of negligent abortions, which AFAICT are poverty and lack of education.

[Dork.]

Ho boy, this thread is entertaining. I'm sorry I missed it the last few days.

First of all, why "Turducken of Stupid"? It's unclear to me. Do you consider the Turducken do be the ultimate of foods, so this is the ultimate of stupid? Or do you consider this to be stupid wrapped in stupid, stuffed in more stupid? (That would make poultry stupid, which is wrong -- poultry tastes yummy, and stupid tastes like light beer.)


Second, I think the real reason why this has blown up in Akin's face is the notion of "legitimate" or "forced" rape, and the body somehow dealing with it differently. I think there's a latent message underneath a lot of anti-abortion rhetoric in politics. The politicians involved may not even realize they are doing it. But many of these politicians come to their pro-life views from their religion, and let's face it, religions are all about making judgements on moral behavior. And just about every religion has a moral code regarding when it's acceptable to have sex. Many pro-lifers base their opposition to abortion based not only on the concept that life begins at conception, but that sexual activity should be reserved for married couples. An unmarried pregnant woman (even one who'd been raped) has operated outside this moral code, so she's a dirty slut, and deserves to have her life turned upside down against her will by trying to raise a kid she didn't want on her own. (The young man who put her in this position may be eligible for scorn as well, if our dirty slut can figure out which of the six men she had sex with that month he is.)

When he says that women who are raped against their will are less likely to get pregnant, what he's really saying is that those women who do get pregnant from rape must not have resisted enough, or somehow wanted it, so that's why their body cooperated. If they had just resisted more, they wouldn't have gotten pregnant. Am I reading too much into this? I don't really think so, and I think I'm not the only one who has made this leap. (But again, I don't think he realizes he's doing this, because it's a thought-bomb that's embedded in his sense of morality. Is that unfair? Maybe.)

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is why I've come up with perhaps the most reprehensible policy initiative ever imagined, but it is the only way I know of that would technically satisfy both sides of the debate without the ugliness of discernment between this atrocious scenario and that; one abortion waiver for all. You get one abortion, use it wisely. This is in keeping with Clinton's "safe, but rare" argument, addresses the rape and incest argument, essentially cuts the number of dead in half by eliminating the use of abortion as birth control, and serves the greater-good principle the pro-lifers are after here.
And neither side would support it.

Because it's a terrible idea.

Imagine a teenager uses her one abortion, then in her 30s gets IVF and becomes pregnant with 8 or 9 babies. Too bad lady, no more abortions for you!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Ho boy, this thread is entertaining. I'm sorry I missed it the last few days.

First of all, why "Turducken of Stupid"? It's unclear to me. Do you consider the Turducken do be the ultimate of foods, so this is the ultimate of stupid? Or do you consider this to be stupid wrapped in stupid, stuffed in more stupid? (That would make poultry stupid, which is wrong -- poultry tastes yummy, and stupid tastes like light beer.)


Second, I think the real reason why this has blown up in Akin's face is the notion of "legitimate" or "forced" rape, and the body somehow dealing with it differently. I think there's a latent message underneath a lot of anti-abortion rhetoric in politics. The politicians involved may not even realize they are doing it. But many of these politicians come to their pro-life views from their religion, and let's face it, religions are all about making judgements on moral behavior. And just about every religion has a moral code regarding when it's acceptable to have sex. Many pro-lifers base their opposition to abortion based not only on the concept that life begins at conception, but that sexual activity should be reserved for married couples. An unmarried pregnant woman (even one who'd been raped) has operated outside this moral code, so she's a dirty slut, and deserves to have her life turned upside down against her will by trying to raise a kid she didn't want on her own. (The young man who put her in this position may be eligible for scorn as well, if our dirty slut can figure out which of the six men she had sex with that month he is.)

When he says that women who are raped against their will are less likely to get pregnant, what he's really saying is that those women who do get pregnant from rape must not have resisted enough, or somehow wanted it, so that's why their body cooperated. If they had just resisted more, they wouldn't have gotten pregnant. Am I reading too much into this? I don't really think so, and I think I'm not the only one who has made this leap. (But again, I don't think he realizes he's doing this, because it's a thought-bomb that's embedded in his sense of morality. Is that unfair? Maybe.)

I think you're spot on.

The turducken here is a religious core morality, wrapped in ignorance and misogynistic bigotry, wrapped in logic failure and stupid conclusions.

The religious core morality isn't the problem. I mean, it is a problem to those who disagree, but it's not the problem with Akin's statement.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

That would make poultry stupid, which is wrong

Its definitely stupid while its alive.

[Dork.]

I'm pretty sure it is impossible to have a Turducken while the poultry in question is alive.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

When he says that women who are raped against their will are less likely to get pregnant, what he's really saying is that those women who do get pregnant from rape must not have resisted enough, or somehow wanted it, so that's why their body cooperated. If they had just resisted more, they wouldn't have gotten pregnant. Am I reading too much into this? I don't really think so, and I think I'm not the only one who has made this leap. (But again, I don't think he realizes he's doing this, because it's a thought-bomb that's embedded in his sense of morality. Is that unfair? Maybe.)

I'm actually going to defend Akin here. Your scenario implies he has experience of women who got pregnant from rape and then rejected it.

I think it's far more likely he's just ignorant of those women existing. He peobably doesn't know anyone personally, or through close association. No one's ever bothered to try and prove it to him. He obviously skated through biology, so if a doctor tells him it's so, who is he to disagree? I doubt he's ever talked to a rape victim about their rape, or looked at a statistic about it.