GOP official says God chooses to bless raped women with pregnancy

[Noomi]

Noomi, you need to check your attitude at the ******* door.

I'm not being callous simply because I have a different opinion from you. If you'd actually read this thread and my posts in it...instead of skipping to the shit you're irate about...you'd have read that I went into detail earlier about how horrifically bad it must be. And that women have a valid point that men shouldn't be the only ones dictating policy on such important issues.

I do care about women and I'm not being callous. It's a shame that since you've lost the argument you feel the need to get personal. Might wanna check with a doctor about that.

I thought you had stated that a rape victim should be made to have a rape baby. That is callous and cruel.

 

[Noomi]

Where did I say that? I said that it is legal to do one.

Come to think of it, it is legal to do both.

Please point out where I said either was right.

I am confused. Are you saying you are pro choice?

You are confused because you are making assumptions about me.

Pot meet kettle. You are the one making assumptions in another thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am confused. Are you saying you are pro choice?

You are confused because you are making assumptions about me.

Pot meet kettle. You are the one making assumptions in another thread.

Again, you are making assumptions. Amazing.

 

[Shelzin]

Are babies not blessings now?

I admit... Every time I orgasm now I want to tell her... "you've been blessed"

 

[courseofhistory]

Is it the baby's fault the mother was raped? Why should it be killed simply because its father is a rapist? Should we also kill the children of murderers and thieves to cut down on crime?

It is the mother's feelings which should be primary. She most likely holds feelings of hate and resentment among many other emotions toward her rapist. Having a child around to remind her of this horror is very often not what the woman wants or can live with. It should be her decision to abort or not and people should quit supposing, passing judgment, thinking she is less important than the fetus, etc. The woman who is raped is just as innocent as the fetus and since she is a living, breathing, thinking human being, her feelings should always be the deciding factor.

The mothers feelings should be primary? Why? If a couple has a baby and the man rapes the woman can she kill the baby? If not, what is the difference? It is still the child of a rapist, and that woman might still hate the father, and still not want to be reminded of the rape by the very existence of a child? Does it really make a difference that the rape happened after the child was born rather than before it was?

Yes, the living, breathing, vital, conscious mother should be primary. As for the rest of your convoluted statement. ???????

 

[courseofhistory]

Is it the baby's fault the mother was raped? Why should it be killed simply because its father is a rapist? Should we also kill the children of murderers and thieves to cut down on crime?

It is the mother's feelings which should be primary. She most likely holds feelings of hate and resentment among many other emotions toward her rapist. Having a child around to remind her of this horror is very often not what the woman wants or can live with. It should be her decision to abort or not and people should quit supposing, passing judgment, thinking she is less important than the fetus, etc. The woman who is raped is just as innocent as the fetus and since she is a living, breathing, thinking human being, her feelings should always be the deciding factor.

So you're comparing emotional pain, albeit bad, to complete and utter death?? That's

You offer no support for your conclusion that the mother should always get to decide.

Pain is worse than death? Not even close.

Does the fetus know it is dead or going to die? No. But the mother knows that she will be carrying a child that she may grow to resent and also, the child will suffer later due to this and if it ever finds out it was the child of rape, it will also bear the emotional consequences. I don't need to support the conclusion that the mother should always get to decide. It goes without saying.

But many men and some women subscribe to this ancient notion:

Let's go back to our patriarchal history for a moment. The origin of
patriarchy can be traced to the male need to establish paternity of
their children, especially in a propertied society where ownership is
heritable.

Standard socio-biological theory points to a biological need for people
to invest in their own children rather than someone else's. In the
animal world for instance, animals do not normally look after the
offspring of others unless they've been tricked into it. Males will even
kill another male's offspring so the female will be free to mate with
them instead. Now, women always know that the children they bear are
related to them, but men can never know for sure who their genetic
offspring are.

...

In ancient human societies, the obvious and most practical way for men
to ensure that they invested only in their own children was to dictate
and restrict women's sexual behavior. Throughout patriarchal history,
society has guaranteed men's paternity by controlling women's
reproductive capacity. Here's a list of some common ways this happened,
and still happens today in various countries: (examples listed)

...

The idea of rape as a crime against women is relatively new. It was only
in 1993 that the United Nations finally designated rape as a war crime.
That's because under patriarchy, rape in war is used as a way to
dishonor and vanquish the (male) enemy. Marital rape only recently
became a crime in western countries, because it was a wife's duty to
submit to her husband and bear his children. Rape in general is an
opportunity for the rapist to father a child and thereby establish his
right to paternity by out-competing other men.

...

In the abortion debate, most anti-abortionists allow exceptions for rape
and incest. This makes no sense if all life is sacred, but it fits the
male paternity theory perfectly because these pregnancies represent
unauthorized paternity.
...

The traditional patriarchal systems that control women's sexuality and
reproduction are still widely protected today by laws, policies,
customs, cultures, religions, and even by most individual men and women.
By definition, those who enforce these right-wing, restrictive norms are
opposed to a woman's right to autonomy - the right to control her own
body and her fertility.

The article concludes by saying that a woman deciding to have an abortion is the ultimate insult to male authority.

 

[AmyNation]

Think about that a bit more mathematically for a second. You've got a 50/50 chance to kill a baby or not to kill a baby. Does one choice seem smarter than the other, taking into account the probabilities?

Make it more direct than a pregnancy. Let's take an ACTUAL BABY. Hold a Springfield .40 cal to its head. The guy who gave it to you said "I've had that thing for 30 years. It only has a 50 50 chance of firing." Would you feel comfortable pulling the trigger? Of course not!

I really wish humans had evolved with clear stomachs during pregnancy. Maybe if people could SEE the baby...they'd respect its life.

Of course no one would risk killing a newborn baby. But if you had the choice between killing a toddler and killing an 8 week old fetus, the decision would be easier - for most.

Would it?

Suppose the toddler was a child you have never seen, and will never see, on the other side of the world, and the fetus is a child you have been trying to have unsuccessfully for over 10 years. The answer would be just as simple, but exactly the opposite of the one you thought. Admit it, you really aren't qualified to parse situational ethics, you don't think about all the possibilities.

Actually it would still be very simple for me. I wouldnt even hesitate. One is a human the others are not.

I'm actually horrified to think there are people out there who would not save that child, but I guess there are no limits to what people will do.

 

[Vanquish]

Of course no one would risk killing a newborn baby. But if you had the choice between killing a toddler and killing an 8 week old fetus, the decision would be easier - for most.

Would it?

Suppose the toddler was a child you have never seen, and will never see, on the other side of the world, and the fetus is a child you have been trying to have unsuccessfully for over 10 years. The answer would be just as simple, but exactly the opposite of the one you thought. Admit it, you really aren't qualified to parse situational ethics, you don't think about all the possibilities.

Actually it would still be very simple for me. I wouldnt even hesitate. One is a human the others are not.

I'm actually horrified to think there are people out there who would not save that child, but I guess there are no limits to what people will do.

This post does nothing to advance your argument or the discussion, simply recites your opinion and then vague insults your adversaries.

At the end of the day, you can't refute the fact that what's inside the mother is a) human and b) alive/growing. So you're in favor of killing a life forever versus a lesser, albeit painful alternative.

Remind me not to get wounded out in the woods with you.

 

[AmyNation]

Would it?

Suppose the toddler was a child you have never seen, and will never see, on the other side of the world, and the fetus is a child you have been trying to have unsuccessfully for over 10 years. The answer would be just as simple, but exactly the opposite of the one you thought. Admit it, you really aren't qualified to parse situational ethics, you don't think about all the possibilities.

Actually it would still be very simple for me. I wouldnt even hesitate. One is a human the others are not.

I'm actually horrified to think there are people out there who would not save that child, but I guess there are no limits to what people will do.

This post does nothing to advance your argument or the discussion, simply recites your opinion and then vague insults your adversaries.

At the end of the day, you can't refute the fact that what's inside the mother is a) human and b) alive/growing. So you're in favor of killing a life forever versus a lesser, albeit painful alternative.

Remind me not to get wounded out in the woods with you.

I never claimed its not alive, just that it's not a person yet.

I personally believe everything that makes us human and alive in any real sense, lies in our brain. 95% of medical professionals seem to agree with me, which is why abortion is legal.

 

[bodecea]

Totally mind boggling! Many of these republicans have got to go! I'm usually never at a loss for words but...

I'm glad that their words on the subject are coming to light now.

 

[Vanquish]

Actually it would still be very simple for me. I wouldnt even hesitate. One is a human the others are not.

I'm actually horrified to think there are people out there who would not save that child, but I guess there are no limits to what people will do.

This post does nothing to advance your argument or the discussion, simply recites your opinion and then vague insults your adversaries.

At the end of the day, you can't refute the fact that what's inside the mother is a) human and b) alive/growing. So you're in favor of killing a life forever versus a lesser, albeit painful alternative.

Remind me not to get wounded out in the woods with you.

I never claimed its not alive, just that it's not a person yet.

I personally believe everything that makes us human and alive in any real sense, lies in our brain. 95% of medical professionals seem to agree with me, which is why abortion is legal.

95%? Pull statistics out of your ass much?

The distinction between alive and personhood is a complete fallacy to make you feel better about killing babies. Feel free to cling to it. At least you realize it's alive. That's more than some.

 

[AmyNation]

This post does nothing to advance your argument or the discussion, simply recites your opinion and then vague insults your adversaries.

At the end of the day, you can't refute the fact that what's inside the mother is a) human and b) alive/growing. So you're in favor of killing a life forever versus a lesser, albeit painful alternative.

Remind me not to get wounded out in the woods with you.

I never claimed its not alive, just that it's not a person yet.

I personally believe everything that makes us human and alive in any real sense, lies in our brain. 95% of medical professionals seem to agree with me, which is why abortion is legal.

95%? Pull statistics out of your ass much?

The distinction between alive and personhood is a complete fallacy to make you feel better about killing babies. Feel free to cling to it. At least you realize it's alive. That's more than some.

You're right, it's probably closer to 99%.


Well yeah, an amoeba is alive, alive isnt really the issue. The entire issue is, how do medical professionals define a living person. They do so measuring brain waves, which zygotes don't have.

 

[Vanquish]

You're ending a life, period. However you justify it to yourself, you're murdering a child.

I'm not even a Bible thumper. I'm an atheist who applies logic, as you should be doing instead of hiding behind a definition of personhood. The development stage of the child is of no consequence, because life is life. Following your method, parents could get rid of babies after they're born since they can't sustain themselves.

The other part of your analysis that's lacking is the concurrent component of the future of what the child will eventually become. Make no mistake, it's still alive a conception and still human. What I'm saying is that by saying there's some period where it's not human yet STILL doesn't overcome the argument that you're ending what would, by your own admission, would inevitably be human. Active prevention of the already living child from continuing to develop ends its life.

Whichever side you come at this from, you're attempting to justify ending the innocent life of one for the inconvenience (as deeply troubling as that can indeed be) of another.

 

[AmyNation]

I don't care if you're an atheist or not. I go by medical facts, not moral feelings. When the facts change, my opinion will alter accordingly.

 

[Vanquish]

But you're not going by facts. Or at least you fail to combine them correctly

 

[AmyNation]

Doctors say, a fetus is not a human being like you or me because it lacks the most important part, a functioning brain.

When medical professionals change their mind, so will I.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Are babies not blessings now? I am not really seeing how a child is a curse or a punishment. Of course, Im not the President.

Ask all those women of Bosnia who were raped by the Serbs, if the off-spring of hate was a wanted bundle of joy.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Unwanted children (that's all of you bastards conceived out of wedlock) aren't wanted by God either. Right?

Why does God cause so many spontaneous abortions? Or does he/she? Whose version of God should we enact laws after?

 

[Katzndogz]

If it is true that 99% or even 95% of medical professionals believe in abortion, then why do democrats want a law to force medical providers into providing abortions?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

1. It's not a "baby" until it's born.
2. It's not even a fetus until week 22.
3. Victimizing rape victims twice by making them carry their rape babies full term and birthing them is disgusting on a human level. If you don't understand that, you're broken, and hopefully will stop voting very soon.

When you stop giving RAPE VICTIMS the option to not be reminded of the most violating and dehumanizing act you can perpetrate on a woman, your party has lost its moorings. Your party just adopted a plank that specifically removes exceptions for incest and rape. Ergo, your party is bat shit ******* crazy, and I hope you're all very much prepared for a strong backlash over the social policies your party is choosing to adopt.

It's also one more example of how you guys couldn't win this election if you tried. You're off message on the economy once more, and now we're back to talking about shit that you have never, ever won in the court of public opinion: abortion and Medicare.

Real Republicans have the Tea Baggers to thank for this, plain and simple.

Seacrest, out.