GOP: Female body has natural defense against pregnancy in case of legitimate rape

By this logic we shouldn't have any laws, try it with any crime. Prohibiting ______ does nothing to solve the problem, as in ______ still happens. Murder, rape, tax evasion, speeding, drug possession, online piracy, suicide, etc. I think you would find it very difficult to come up with a law which completely eliminated whatever it was meant to prevent.

 

damn what a great post.

 

I actually sleep much better at night than I would if I took it upon myself to pretend I had the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body, as if I were some kind of supreme moral authority.

You are the one who seems "haunted"....

 

"By the end of his first term, President Obama will have signed into law a series of tax cuts that, taken together, exceed the value of those signed into law by President Bush."

http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...287/obama-vs-bush-whos-the-bigger-tax-cutter/

 

Fathers: None of the power all of the responsibility.

 

The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery in the whole US following the Civil War during the war the Emancipation Proclamation officially abolished slavery in secessionist states. While there might have still been some slave owners legally owning slaves in states like Maryland that didn't secede slavery as an institution pretty much dead by then.

Except the US Constitution isn't a religious book but the legal definition of the US government. It also is a text that can and has changed with the times. When it comes to any legal rights debate in the US the Constitution is the definitive text on that matter.

 

Well at least now I know you aren't trolling me. You have some serious reading comprehension issues when you reply to posts on forums.

Do you only post when exhausted or something?

 

I am not an expert on human development but my understanding is that consciousness arises earlier, although I am not sure when that is definitive. So while human brain development continues through most of our life time consciousness is an earlier occurrence. To me that would be my standard of when life begins.

For practical purposes though I am fine with restrictions on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.

 

OK, but from what I know this isn't based on anything related to brain development.

 

You see, this is the crux of the debate. If you look at Roe and it's progeny, the Court has tried to weigh the right of the mother to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy with the right of the fetus to live. The questions the Court has handled include at what point the right of the fetus outweighs the right of he mother, or better put at what point the state has a compelling right to intervene on behalf of the fetus.

The mother has a right, but there is a silent third party to consider. The third party's survival being directly at question. When you think of it in those terms, it becomes a much more difficult question.

 

With as awful, crazy and factually inaccurate as his statements on rape are, I am shocked that anybody admits to favoring him at all.

 

Hey giddyup, I'm a Jew. I had relatives in the Holocaust. Go **** yourself.

 

I guess you once lived with a frivolous b**** that loved killing babies. If she cried after, those must have been crocodile tears. I hope you kicked her in the p***y and sent her to jail for those baby murders she did.

 

That's your party, bud.

Although Romney is playing his usual all-sides-of-the-issue as according to his audience, having gone from 100% pro-choice, to rape/incest/life of mother exception pro-life, to choosing a running mate that would make zero exceptions (and co-authored legislation with Akin on this very point), to saying he's for rape/incest exceptions, to allowing his party (because you know it's up to him and no one else) to write a platform that removes rape and incest exceptions.

According to your party's platform, if a 12 year old girl is raped by her father and becomes pregnant (you know, if her body's magic rape detector fails) she has two choices: carry her incest/rape foetus to term or go to jail.

What's it going to take for you to realize you're hanging (and, worse, voting) with a bunch of callous assholes?

 

Wow, how is this type of language even close to acceptable on this BBS? Batman, what gives you the right to viciously attack another poster like this? Would you treat a nurse like this?


Libs, police your own.

 

That is the point you can't prove it and in that sense are advocating policy on belief and not on fact since you can't prove when life begins.

True the Constitution can be amended or reinterpreted and as a matter of policy the Life Amendment in the Republican platform is the way to do it. That said the current jurisprudence is that personhood is established at birth.

Actually that isn't a FACt. You yourself say you can't prove when life begins so it is just an opinion that the fetus is child. That still skirts the issue that the woman's rights are doubly violated. First by being raped and second by being forced to carry a pregnancy to term. To take your reasoning it seems like you have a hidden agenda to subvert the rights of women by elevating the rights of the unborn.

When your wife was pregnant was everything fine? Did she enjoy the morning sickness, back pain, out of control hormones, risk of complications from a variety of things? Pregnancy under the best of conditions isn't easy even when it is wanted now consider a woman forced to deal with all of that as a result of a rape. While you might place some special significance on pregnancy consider a woman who has been raped and then is forced to be reminded of that as they go through a pregnancy they didn't plan for or want. That is punishing the woman for the rape.

You've already undermined it since you admit to not knowing for a fact that it was a human when it was alive. Anyway a dead human isn't a human so your original statement was still in error.

Because you are the one making a positive statement that it is. Logically the one who makes an affirmative argument the burden is on them to prove it. Further you are advocating making policy based on that opinion that actually doesn't apply to you since you can't get pregnant. The burden is all on you.

And logically if take a bag of flour, some eggs and some sugar and follow the recipe a cake will result. We don't consider it to be cake though until the process is completed.

The Hippocratic Oath doesn't apply unless you accept your position apriori. The Oath doesn't apply to something like this.

The philosophical foundation to your argument that life begins at conception would mean that if you were out to protect that life then abortion isn't the only problem since the overwhelming majority of fertilized eggs never are able to develop.
Yes it is ironic that fertility research involves creating so many embryos. Does that mean then that you also oppose fertility research?

Let me ask you another question though since you are so concerned with protecting in your words all those innocent lives in utero. Do you support programs that would provide more neo-natal care and nutrition to pregnant woman? Would you support greater funding of such programs?

You don't seem to understand what the word "choice". The pro-choice position isn't about imposing since it is a choice. The only way it is imposing is if abortions were actually mandated.

 

As I have said before I find this attitude far more troubling than your view that life begins at conception. It basically says that while you claim to value the lives of those unborn you really won't do anything other than moralizing and trying to changing the laws. It shows that your concern doesn't extend to anything practical to address the root causes of why people even want abortions in the first place.

It is the same as prohibiting alcohol without offering treatment for alcoholism.

The problem with this view is that abortions still happened even when it was outlawed. So while outlawing it will cut down it won't end the practice. What it will do is end up putting doctors and woman in jail and make the procedure much more dangerous as it goes underground.

Ask yourself, how much do you really care for ending abortion if you don't want to take the responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies, making things easier for pregnant women while pregnant, and to raise children?

 

Actually, all his genuinely funny Energizer Bunny-like stick-to-it-iveness and hilarious "I know now my stupid chain letter isn't actually 'true,' but what if it was? Let's discuss it for 100 pages" aside, giddyup just equated the Jews that were exterminated by the Nazis to fetuses. That was the line for me. He's been a **** to women here since 2002; he has also been the most steadfast defender of racists and racist statements in BBS history. Now he's adding Jews too?

That's enough for me from the person that thinks it's more offensive to call someone an idiot or an ******* than it is to call them a murderer.

Bye, giddyup. Have a nice life. Or, you know what? Actually, don't. Have a crappy one. You've earned it. Either way, bye bye.

Oh, happy ignore list, how I love thee.

 

First off that was a post in response to a post not from you and second that response was exactly on topic to Mathloom's post.

You might want to question your own reading comprehension.