Todd Akin - "Women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape"" (See MOD REMINDER!

molloyjh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's the electorates role to keep the politicians in line, i.e. reasonable and rationale. A responsibility that the American public have seemingly absolved themselves of to a far greater degree than any other modern democracy. If they did that then we wouldn't be having these ridiculous debates about these kinds of ridiculous comments.

The ultimate responsibility for Democracy lies with the people. They decide if the system works or not and they decide just how farcical it gets. Nobody else. And they ultimately get the Government they deserve. If a politician thinks that Vietnam is still a divided country or that being "close" to a foreign country somehow counts as foreign policy experience then it is because the people have put individuals with such a loose grip on fact and reality into positions of power in the first place.

molloyjh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You realise you don't "have" to pick a Democrat to cite these examples all the time. People might think you were being partial....

Amerika

Hmmm… Akin claims he is staying in the race. A bit of a problem as the GOP only has 24 hours to replace him, but borrowing the Democrat playbook, that doesn’t mean much. In the New Jersey Senate race of 2002, and 15 days after the official deadline, Toricelli was dropped from the Democratic ticket because it was determined he couldn’t win, and was replaced with Lautenberg. It went through a court battle, but was allowed for the good of the people LOL. And Democrats wouldn’t be hypocrites in the matter would they?

Hopefully Akin (as he is being told he will get no support or funds from the GOP if he stays in the Senate race) drops out on his own, and Tea Party favorite Sarah Steelman takes his place. Steelman and John Brunner led Democrat Claire McCaskilll in the polls during the GOP primary. I think the GOP can still salvage this Senate race in their hopes of taking a majority for all of Congress.

- - - -
　
Advice to jank:
Welcome to the dark side. But if you continue your trek in the Land of the Rising Scum, you should know some things. There are four topics best to stay away from in the US Politics section… Guns, Gays, God and Abortion, regardless if your views match the majority of American thinking. Delving into those topics will usually cause one to be demonized, marginalized and symbolically lobotomized from the boards lynch mob, empowered by self-righteousness and numbers. You will also be subjected to numerous personal attacks such as "Level of ignorance is astounding" and "Grow up" which often goes unchecked, and are usually celebrated by the rank-and-file through the "Thanks" feature. But you will be expected to remain above the fray, for the minute you descend to the level of your detractors you will be taken behind the woodshed for proper discipline.

If you continue on your noble journey… just remember things aren’t always fair here, and it’s best to often refer back to the Godfather in your endeavor to present your viewpoints… “Go To The Mattresses,” and "It's Not Personal, Sonny. It's Just Business." Oh yeah... it's best to always keep a good sense of humor as your main ammunition. Good Luck!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

molloyjh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

For as much as you may find that funny all you are doing is perpetuating the whole thing. You are re-enforcing the black-and-white understanding of U.S. politics, not disrupting it. To disrupt it you could choose to say something like:

"I'm a Republican, but you're right this guy Akin is an idiot and should be dumped from the party immediately."

Now that would be unexpected and disruptive to the notion that Republicans are X and Democrats are Y. Of course it does presume that you are a Republican in the first place...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I must have missed those posts.

Seems to me that people are complaining about a section of the Republican Right that has decided women's bodies and what they do with them is an election issue. I don't recall anyone stating there are no Democrats who hold similar views. Could you provide links please?

Also seems to me you are reducing US politics to a standard black and white - or rather right and left - which ignores the existence of socially liberal Republicans and socially conservative Democrats. My family abounds with examples of both.

Duck Soup

Note that Paul Ryan was - as a number of people on the thread have mentioned - a co-sponsor of HR 3, the House of Representatives bill that parsed the difference between 'forcible rape' and presumably 'non-forcible' rape, but he was also a co-sponsor with Akin of HR 212, a 'personhood' bill that defined the fetus as a person from the moment of conception with all attendant rights. If HR 212 had passed into law it would have outlawed all abortion, including in cases of rape and incest, as well as outlawing some forms of hormonal contraception.

When asked by Mike Huckabee "Would you have supported a constitutional amendment that would have established definition of life beginning of life at conception?", Romney replied "Absolutely."

The point is that what Akin said in relation to no exemptions for abortion in the instances of rape or incest was not a fringe view, but one with support broadly throughout the Republican party.

What's confusing is that the Romney campaign is now saying that it would not ban abortion in instances of incest or rape, which goes in direct contradiction to what both Ryan and Romney have publicly said and done.

molloyjh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well then I'm glad I added in that last line!

The point remains that all you are doing is perpetuating what you are trying to disrupt.

KyussBishop

I don't really understand what is controversial in this thread; the threat from lots of influential GOP members being very hostile to womens reproductive rights is pretty clear (not just in politics, but through legitimization of those views throughout society and discourse), it's definitely an issue deserving significant attention, and Akin has done a good job bringing it to the spotlight with his enormously ignorant comments.

Nobodies criticisms have been overly emotional/hysterical, nobody is guilty of hypocrisy or double standards in their criticisms of him, people are not falling victim to a ploy or 'trap' of having their attention diverted to Akin, Akins policies are not some kind of "sure what do you expect?" inevitability, and well...Akin's views are pretty reprehensible and basically demand significant criticism all-round (particularly because they're widely shared, and attacking Akin delegitimizes support for the view), so it's confusing to see so much discussion that is tantamount to downplaying or discouraging that criticism.


A lot of it reminds me of threads critical of Israel or the US, where you get all sorts of comments trying to deflect attention from the US "why don't you criticize Russia/China/Iran instead?", or to just downplay criticism in one way or another "but 'x' country do that much worse, the US isn't so bad"; it's usually about the group someone is sympathetic to being criticized.

It hasn't been as clear-cut as that in this thread, but there's definitely the impression that there are attempts to diminish/deflect criticism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm… Akin claims he is staying in the race. A bit of a problem as the GOP only has 24 hours to replace him, but borrowing the Democrat playbook, that doesn’t mean much. In the New Jersey Senate race of 2002, and 15 days after the official deadline, Toricelli was dropped from the Democratic ticket because it was determined he couldn’t win, and was replaced with Lautenberg. It went through a court battle, but was allowed for the good of the people LOL. And Democrats wouldn’t be hypocrites in the matter would they?

Hopefully Akin (as he is being told he will get no support or funds from the GOP if he stays in the Senate race) drops out on his own, and Tea Party favorite Sarah Steelman takes his place. Steelman and John Brunner led Democrat Claire McCaskilll in the polls during the GOP primary. I think the GOP can still salvage this Senate race in their hopes of taking a majority for all of Congress.

- - - -
　
Advice to jank:
Welcome to the dark side. But if you continue your trek in the Land of the Rising Scum, you should know some things. There are four topics best to stay away from in the US Politics section… Guns, Gays, God and Abortion, regardless if your views match the majority of American thinking. Delving into those topics will usually cause one to be demonized, marginalized and symbolically lobotomized from the boards lynch mob, empowered by self-righteousness and numbers. You will also be subjected to numerous personal attacks such as "Level of ignorance is astounding" and "Grow up" which often goes unchecked, and are usually celebrated by the rank-and-file through the "Thanks" feature. But you will be expected to remain above the fray, for the minute you descend to the level of your detractors you will be taken behind the woodshed for proper discipline.

If you continue on your noble journey… just remember things aren’t always fair here, and it’s best to often refer back to the Godfather in your endeavor to present your viewpoints… “Go To The Mattresses,” and "It's Not Personal, Sonny. It's Just Business." Oh yeah... it's best to always keep a good sense of humor as your main ammunition. Good Luck!

Nothing personal in the so called attacks, its the internet for crying out loud, get a grip. It is more of a fact, that you seem to acknowledge the wrongdoings of Akin but seem hell bent on deflecting from him and concentrating on propaganda surrounding as you say, on demand abortion.
You also seem more concerned on talking about the democrats and how they are going to exploit this and if the shoe was on the other foot.... Why even do this ? Does it always have to be dems v rep all the time with you, do wonder the country cannot move forward.

It is an important issue and the media will senationalize and over run it but it is still important.
I don't care much for the unreasonable attention some politicians get over silly comments or actions but his comments have once again brought this issue to the front.

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

Nothing personal in the so called attacks, its the internet for crying out loud, get a grip. It is more of a fact, that you seem to acknowledge the wrongdoings of Akin but seem hell bent on deflecting from him and concentrating on propaganda surrounding as you say, on demand abortion.
You also seem more concerned on talking about the democrats and how they are going to exploit this and if the shoe was on the other foot.... Why even do this ? Does it always have to be dems v rep all the time with you, do wonder the country cannot move forward.

It is an important issue and the media will senationalize and over run it but it is still important.
I don't care much for the unreasonable attention some politicians get over silly comments or actions but his comments have once again brought this issue to the front.

Nothing personal might be your opinion, but I beg to differ. And I won’t reduce myself to utilizing some of the tactics of my detractors.

Yes I’m partisan. Most everyone here is. And I have never hid my partisanship. If you haven’t noticed, US politics has been dominated by them versus us, democrat vs republican, liberal vs conservative… primarily since the Bush/Gore election of 2000. I feel I represent a lot of what goes on in politics here. I don’t post in the Political Theory section, as my partisan political views would be disengenous in that section. Perhaps the Political Theory section is where those who dislike partisan politics should limit themselves to.

Do you hear any of us using the Democratic tactic... That's just Todd being Todd... no big deal? NO! Akin was asked the question every Republican candidate is usually asked... “What about abortion in the case of rape and incest?” He should have been prepared with the appropriate answer. If he believes abortion should not be allowed ever, than just say that! Many would not like it, but we would respect him if he believes a baby in the womb deserves the same protection it would receive one second after coming out of the womb.

His comments have hurt the party. Even though just about every republican (including myself) has denounced his comments and called for his dropping out of the Senate race, most democrats and their media allies, along with most here, continue to proclaim Akin’s comments are representative of the GOP. Wouldn’t you admit that was pretty disingenuous?

And I will defend my party from those false accusations. We decry the double standards when it comes to media/political treatment of politicians’ stupidity. We as Republicans usually demand they leave, while Democrats usually rally behind the problem. It has just been reported (but I doubt you will ever hear of if from the MSM), that a state trooper caught a Minnesota State Democratic Representative having oral sex With 17-Year-old boy in some bushes at rest stop after a Craigslist Hook-Up. Do you see republicans trying to tie this type of behavior to the entire Democratic Party? NO! Because I feel he have a higher moral standard.

This is a war for the future of our country. With four more years under the Obama administration, I truly fear what our country will look like. And I will do my part to change our present course and defend and advance what I feel is the better political path. But I suspect you already knew that.

hooradiation

Amerika wrote: »

Do you see republicans trying to tie this type of behavior to the entire Democratic Party? NO! Because I feel he have a higher moral standard.

oh holy wow, you honestly believe that, don't you?

Suryavarman

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess restricting federal funding for abortions only restricts poor women's right to choose. Which is OK, because nobody cares about poor women.

Sarcasm aside, are you truly expressing the view that it doesn't matter what a legislator's view on a topic is because he's not voting on that topic right now? You truly, genuinely hold the belief that women shouldn't be concerned about a senatorial candidate's views on their reproductive rights?

Would you be completely happy to see a Communist Party candidate elected to the Senate, knowing that there isn't likely to be a vote this term on introducing communism to America? Or would you be concerned that his communist views could influence how he voted on a range of other issues that directly concern you?

Ending federal funding for something doesn't restrict somebody's rights. There is nothing to stop state or local governments, a charity, family or, god forbid, the person themselves paying for the abortion.

I don't think women should care about this senators views on abortion because a woman's right to choose is constitutionally protected and I can't see the necessary amount of senators, representatives and states voting for a constitutional ammendment.

Secondly I don't think women should care about Akin's views on rape as states make laws on rape, not the Federal Government. If that situation changes then of course women should start worrying.

Obviously I would be concerned if a communist was in congress and I was living in America. But that's because legislation advancing his views can be voted on and passed in congress whereas legislation advancing Akin's views can't be passed because the Constitution doesn't give congress permission to legislate on those areas.

hooradiation wrote: »

Yes, exactly.

One immensely stupid man saying something utterly reprehensible and showing a basic lack of comprehension on the subjects of both human reproduction and basic decency is in no way equivalent to someone else being mistaken about the current state of Vietnam.

To present them as such is....
*drum roll*
false equivalence!

(yes, yes it's a day late. deal)

Molloyjh originally asked if something like this had happened with a democrat that received little to no media attention. Permabear gave a pretty good example of Sheila Jackson Lee, who served on the committee of foreign affairs, not knowing that Vietnam was only one country as opposed to two.

How isn't that as ignorant as Todd Akin's comment? The woman is serving on the foreign affairs committee and doesn't know what, possibly, the most strongly opposed war in American history, and one of the more well known, resulted in. If anything what Lee said was even more ignorant than what Akin said.

Amerika

hooradiation wrote: »

oh holy wow, you honestly believe that, don't you?

You betcha

hooradiation

Suryavarman wrote: »

Molloyjh originally asked if something like this had happened with a democrat that received little to no media attention. Permabear gave a pretty good example of Sheila Jackson Lee, who served on the committee of foreign affairs, not knowing that Vietnam was only one country as opposed to two.

How isn't that as ignorant as Todd Akin's comment? The woman is serving on the foreign affairs committee and doesn't know what, possibly, the most strongly opposed war in American history, and one of the more well known, resulted in. If anything what Lee said was even more ignorant than what Akin said.

Really - the mistake of not knowing about the unification of Vietnam (or, confusing one nation with another), is in the same league as Akin's ideas that a woman's body has a mechanism by which it can check to see if the rape is "legitimate" before allowing fertilisation to occur?
Which, leaving aside the fact that elementary biology is now a lost cause for this man, it's also seems to be built on the concept that there must be such a thing a illegitimate rape (not really rape?) and that should a woman fall pregnant due to rape, then the rape was not legitimate. Which I guess would make it her own fault, I guess?

The notion that these two events are even in the same ballpark is cretinous, and it's why I correctly called this nonsense false equivalency.

Is this some kind of demented hoax? Am I being punked, is that it?
It has to be.

joseph brand

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Originally Posted by KyussBishop
It hasn't been as clear-cut as that in this thread, but there's definitely the impression that there are attempts to diminish/deflect criticism.

Permabear wrote: »

If anything, there are efforts to disrupt the emotive, handwaving illogic that sees Akin as a synecdoche for all Republican politicians, who are allegedly engaged en masse in a "war on women's bodies."

Akin certainly deserves criticism. But so do these efforts to make his comments representative of the entire Republican Party.

If you believe Akin deserves criticism, then by all means, feel free to give your 2c worth. Don't hold back.

For some reason, you've felt it more pertinent to the discussion to mention the Irish government, Sheila Jackson Lee, The EU, Golden Dawn and The Middle Ages?? I haven't gone through the whole thread but have you mentioned the Household Charge or tinned spaghetti in any later posts?

If this isn't deflecting criticism then I don't know what is. Your posts read like statements from Akin's solicitors.

Brussels Sprout

I see Akin's opponent in the Senate battle has come out against calls for his removal from the race:

But Senator McCaskill, whose campaign appears reinvigorated by her Republican challenger's slip-up, did not join calls for him to stand aside.

She said Republicans were trying to "kick sand in the face" of their party's voters in Missouri who selected Mr Akin this month as their candidate

link

Guess she realises he's about the only Republican candidate that she could beat (and that's not even a certainty!)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

You know, I really don't. It's a hallmark of progressive societies that women's reproductive rights are a given; it's certainly the direction in which civilised societies tend to go, even if that progress is painfully slow (with Ireland being a case in point).

The point could also be made where a hallmark of a progressive society is that we don't kill unborn children. The point being that the term "progressive" is an abstract one.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Dismissing Akin as a lone crank is missing the bigger picture. Shrugging off the fact that the GOP's vice-presidential candidate is on record as stating that he believes that all abortions should be illegal is turning a blind eye to this growing assault on reproductive rights. Dismissing legitimate concerns about women's rights as "hysteria" is the sort of response that allows it to continue unchecked.

Growing assault? Were you asleep the past 10 years? Wasn't there a Republican in the White House that also had a GOP controlled house for 6 years? Did they make abortion illegal? Did they pass any wide reaching laws in relation to abortion during that time? Or are still trying to whip up hysteria. Please STOP with the "enemy at the gates" rubbish, you are better than that.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You know who can overturn Roe v Wade? The Supreme Court. You know who appoint Supreme Court justices? The executive branch. You know who's running for President? A candidate who has selected as his VP nominee someone who believes that abortion should be illegal (in other words, that Roe v Wade should be overturned). You know who gets to vet the executive's SC nominations? Congress.

As Permabear said, welcome to representative democracy. Or do want some sort of benign dictatorship that will instill your own value on everyone else, because I don't really get what you are saying?

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, do you still think it's completely harmless to women's rights to elect vehemently anti-abortion candidates? If you think the growing tide of suppression of women's rights is "utterly insignificant", then we honestly don't have a common basis for a discussion. I'm not sure what you want to change my mind to. If you're pro-choice, then we're in agreement there. If you believe that it's OK to be personally pro-choice, but wrong to highlight the massive surge of anti-choice policies being introduced in the US, then I don't see that there's anything amiss in my trying to persuade you that your position is logically inconsistent.

It is wrong to get whipped up into a frenzy over this issue, that is all I am saying as the facts and perception of reality quickly goes out the window. The key word here is elect. Like it or not, people will vote for Aikan despite these comments. If a big chunk of the electorate hold views like Aikan's then what should be do? Ban them? Make candidates hold a morality or biology test?

20Cent

jank wrote: »

Growing assault? Were you asleep the past 10 years? Wasn't there a Republican in the White House that also had a GOP controlled house for 6 years? Did they make abortion illegal? Did they pass any wide reaching laws in relation to abortion during that time? Or are still trying to whip up hysteria. Please STOP with the "enemy at the gates" rubbish, you are better than that.

The party is getting more extreme. Look at the tea party influence. Ronald Reagan and Bush were pinko liberals to these guys. Look at the legislation they have tried to pass this is just one of them:

No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act: This one tries to change the federal definition making a category called forcible rape. WTF does that mean? it suggests that in some cases rape is not forceable? If you start talking about legitimate rape then that means they must think there is a illegitimate rape. This isn't just Akin misspeaking they tried to legislate this, co sponsored by their selection for VP! 200 repeublicans voted for it and a dozen or so Democrats. That's not just a fringe view in the party its a mainstream view. (Before anyone goes there I'm referring the forcible/illegitimate rape not Atkins complete ignorance of biology. They ratified a call for a constitutional ban on all abortion including incest and rape at their convention last Tuesday.

They also want to define life as the moment of conception. This would make the pill and many types of contraception illegal! How's that for freedom etc if the pill was banned!!All this while banging on against big government!

Its patronising and disingenuous to suggest people are being "whipped into a frenzy" about this. Like the Democrats are making a big issue out of something small it to get votes. It is a big issue and a serious one and people have the right to be concerned about it particularly women its their bodies these men are making decisions about.

poeticseraphim

Have you ever read things on the internet and been dismayed to find the world more sexist than you thought?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

B0jangles

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A pro-life legislator will presumably create laws preventing all women from having abortions , no matter what their own choice would be.

A pro-choice legislator would presumably create laws allowing all women to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

Situation 1: Freedom of choice removed.
Situation 2: Freedom of choice affirmed.

Also do you think in a "progressive society" those 40 - 57% of women should be forced to continue with their pregnancies?

Personally I'd have thought a really progressive society would have comprehensive sex ed for all children so they are informed about how to prevent unplanned pregnancies, plus widely and readily available cheap or free contraceptive options so that even the poorest can avail of them, plus free medical care for those too poor to afford private healthcare, so that pregnancy and childbirth won't mean bankruptcy due to huge medical bills.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Seems on Twitter that Atkins is now blaming the "liberal elite", he hasn't commented on his own party wanting to disown him. Also using it to fund raise what a horrible man.

molloyjh

Amerika wrote: »

Nothing personal might be your opinion, but I beg to differ. And I won’t reduce myself to utilizing some of the tactics of my detractors.

Yes I’m partisan. Most everyone here is. And I have never hid my partisanship. If you haven’t noticed, US politics has been dominated by them versus us, democrat vs republican, liberal vs conservative… primarily since the Bush/Gore election of 2000. I feel I represent a lot of what goes on in politics here. I don’t post in the Political Theory section, as my partisan political views would be disengenous in that section. Perhaps the Political Theory section is where those who dislike partisan politics should limit themselves to.

Do you hear any of us using the Democratic tactic... That's just Todd being Todd... no big deal? NO! Akin was asked the question every Republican candidate is usually asked... “What about abortion in the case of rape and incest?” He should have been prepared with the appropriate answer. If he believes abortion should not be allowed ever, than just say that! Many would not like it, but we would respect him if he believes a baby in the womb deserves the same protection it would receive one second after coming out of the womb.

His comments have hurt the party. Even though just about every republican (including myself) has denounced his comments and called for his dropping out of the Senate race, most democrats and their media allies, along with most here, continue to proclaim Akin’s comments are representative of the GOP. Wouldn’t you admit that was pretty disingenuous?

And I will defend my party from those false accusations. We decry the double standards when it comes to media/political treatment of politicians’ stupidity. We as Republicans usually demand they leave, while Democrats usually rally behind the problem. It has just been reported (but I doubt you will ever hear of if from the MSM), that a state trooper caught a Minnesota State Democratic Representative having oral sex With 17-Year-old boy in some bushes at rest stop after a Craigslist Hook-Up. Do you see republicans trying to tie this type of behavior to the entire Democratic Party? NO! Because I feel he have a higher moral standard.

This is a war for the future of our country. With four more years under the Obama administration, I truly fear what our country will look like. And I will do my part to change our present course and defend and advance what I feel is the better political path. But I suspect you already knew that.

"My party" this, "my team" that. This is exactly what is wrong with American politics.

"Your party" does not represent you. And it would be naive to think they do. They don't give a monkeys about your well being or your good fortune. They care about getting elected and looking after themselves and their benefactors. It has been pointed out numerous times to you already that Akins comments were not a one-off within the Republican party and that this sort of thing has happened before. Numerous times. For decades now.

To think that in a country with over 300 million people can have their electorate accurately represented by 2 parties alone in itself is ludicrous. And to think that the American country has only been going down a bad political path in the last 4 years shows a sheer willingness to ignore what happened in the decades before. What has happened in the last 4 years is due to decisions made in the last 10-20 years (including the last 4). The Republicans have to share some of the blame for the situation you're in now too.

To ignore that is continue to doom your country to repeating this same old tired cycle. The Republicans are not being held to account by the conservative electorate and the Democrats are not being held to account by the liberal electorate. And the electorates primary role in democracy is to hold their representatives to account. But you're all so busy blaming the other guy that you're deliberately ignoring the things that you should be standing against, i.e. your representatives not doing their job. There's no point in you giving out about Democrats. You're never going to vote for them anyway so there's no reason for them to listen to you. So all this "debate" becomes pointless.

jank

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think stats like these are an indication of the nub of the issue for many of the pro-lifers. Abortion has become a form of birth control and contraception in a way that it was never intended. Whats more is that the tax payer is funding the irresponsible nature of many women's sex lives. Personal responsibility is something that is never mentioned.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

I think stats like these are an indication of the nub of the issue for many of the pro-lifers. Abortion has become a form of birth control and contraception in a way that it was never intended. Whats more is that the tax payer is funding the irresponsible nature of many women's sex lives. Personal responsibility is something that is never mentioned.

Are these all immaculate conceptions then? No men involved who were irresponsible?

molloyjh

jank wrote: »

I think stats like these are an indication of the nub of the issue for many of the pro-lifers. Abortion has become a form of birth control and contraception in a way that it was never intended. Whats more is that the tax payer is funding the irresponsible nature of many women's sex lives. Personal responsibility is something that is never mentioned.

So the answer is to ban it completely? It has to be either one extreme or another? Surely you can concede that there is the potential of a middle ground? I'm not fond of abortion becoming a de facto form of birth control (although is it not a fairly unpleasant form of birth control?). I think we need to be restrictive in how and when it's used. But I'd still consider myself pro-choice. Just moderately so. The question of abortion in that case of rape or incest is a straight forward one as far as I'm concerned. There-after it becomes more complicated.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are these all immaculate conceptions then? No men involved who were irresponsible?

Sure men have no responsibility in this area don't you know. They are entitled to have their fun and all the responsibility lies on the women who tempted the man. Of course a better answer to all this would be to cover the women up completely and then they wouldn't be able to corrupt the men. It's a wonder no one has thought of that before....

Amerika

molloyjh wrote: »

"My party" this, "my team" that. This is exactly what is wrong with American politics.

The point of political debate is to swing people's vote to favor your ideas. Otherwise debate is pointless. And thanks for the lecture on how US politics should be run… or something.

In a couple of weeks I’ll begin helping out with the PA Lehigh Valley GOP elections. The presidential election could all come down to Pennsylvania. And the most important part of the country could boil down to the suburbs of Philadelphia and the Lehigh Valley. How those two sections go might just determine how the state and the general election go. From my general observation in the LV, Senator Bob Casey’s favorabality is waining fast (nobody seems to know any of his accomplishments), and as for President Barack Obama… well he better get his butt here quickly and often or he’s toast. Abortion is not a main topic here… it’s the economy, jobs, and welfare is becoming more prominent.

It’s great to know one's individual efforts can have direct impact on the future direction of the country.

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are these all immaculate conceptions then? No men involved who were irresponsible?

Of course men are involved but aren't we talking about women here and the woman's right to choose or do you only want to blame men alone when unwanted pregnancy's occur?

Are you saying that women are unable to have safe sex if a man doesn't comply with their request? Are women all women that week! As I said where is the personal responsibility here.

K-9

jank wrote: »

Of course men are involved but aren't we talking about women here and the woman's right to choose or do you only want to blame men alone when unwanted pregnancy's occur?

Are you saying that women are unable to have safe sex if a man doesn't comply with their request? Are women all women that week! As I said where is the personal responsibility here.

In fairness Bannasidhe didn't say that, she was responding to your post that seemed to ignore mens part in procreation! Deflecting away from your post doesn't help us clarify what you meant.

jank

molloyjh wrote: »

So the answer is to ban it completely? It has to be either one extreme or another? Surely you can concede that there is the potential of a middle ground? I'm not fond of abortion becoming a de facto form of birth control (although is it not a fairly unpleasant form of birth control?). I think we need to be restrictive in how and when it's used. But I'd still consider myself pro-choice. Just moderately so. The question of abortion in that case of rape or incest is a straight forward one as far as I'm concerned. There-after it becomes more complicated.
.

Am I advocating its ban? No, just highlighted an unpleasant aspect to the pro-choice argument. Neither is particularly palatable.

In my opinion a woman could have as many abortions as she wanted if she pays for it herself but I don't think the state should be paying for it if its going to be used as a contraceptive method.

jank

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness Bannasidhe didn't say that, she was responding to your post that seemed to ignore mens part in procreation! Deflecting away from your post doesn't help us clarify what you meant.

Well it is interesting that men are only ever brought into this discussion when they are flirting their responsibilities. The insinuation is that women here are always the victim and men are driven by some biological necessity to impregnate vulnerable women.

Meanwhile back to reality we all know it takes two to tango. How come a woman (or a man..) can just insist on birth control? Again, what is wrong with taking personal responsibility with unwanted pregnancies?

On a side note, it is also worth noting that if a man decides to want the child yet a woman decides to abort it I don't think there is anything legal the man could do to prevent it. Do you think that is right? Men have very little power of the rights of the unborn or born for that matter, perhaps we should start a "war on men" campaign :rolleyes:

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, you're the poster boy for pro-choice.

What is a poster boy?

molloyjh

Amerika wrote: »

The point of political debate is to swing people's vote to favor your ideas.

Oh jesus it gets worse.

That assumes that you're 100% right 100% of the time. As far as I'm concerned the point of debate, political or otherwise, is to put forward an argument in a formal setting and listen to opposing argument(s) with a view to either substantiating your point of view or, and this is the more important point, educate yourself with regard to other peoples points of view.

Debate is pointless if you're not willing to learn anything new from it. Because if you won't how can you expect others to? And so how can anyone "swing" anyone else anywhere? And so what the hell is the point?

And that is a prime example of what I'm talking about. You're only here to convince others you are right, and they are only here to be converted. It's such bs.

jank wrote: »

Am I advocating its ban? No, just highlighted an unpleasant aspect to the pro-choice argument. Neither is particularly palatable.

In my opinion a woman could have as many abortions as she wanted if she pays for it herself but I don't think the state should be paying for it if its going to be used as a contraceptive method.

Not everyone who is pro-choice is pro-paying for abortion 100% of the time. I think the only cases where the State should ever pay is in cases such as rape, incest or extenuating circumstances such as where the health of the mother is at risk etc. And even at that (in the case of the last example) the State should only be paying where the woman cannot afford it herself. I'm very much against the State paying for all abortion. I don't think I've ever come across anyone who is in favour of that though.

K-9

jank wrote: »

Am I advocating its ban? No, just highlighted an unpleasant aspect to the pro-choice argument. Neither is particularly palatable.

In my opinion a woman could have as many abortions as she wanted if she pays for it herself but I don't think the state should be paying for it if its going to be used as a contraceptive method.

Well are you against free condoms for teenagers say? Or extend the logic are you against free pregnancy care or is it just abortion that you are against?

jank wrote: »

Well it is interesting that men are only ever brought into this discussion when they are flirting their responsibilities. The insinuation is that women here are always the victim and men are driven by some biological necessity to impregnate vulnerable women.

Sorry, I'm not getting that impression at all.

Bannasidhe

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness Bannasidhe didn't say that, she was responding to your post that seemed to ignore mens part in procreation! Deflecting away from your post doesn't help us clarify what you meant.

Absolutely.

Jank you stated 'Whats more is that the tax payer is funding the irresponsible nature of many women's sex lives. Personal responsibility is something that is never mentioned.'

Where is your comment on men being equally irresponsible and having their sex lives funded by the tax payer?

K-9

Sorry, my browser is acting up.

Well that's more a subject for humanities, I do see your point and it is a difficult one. I suppose abortion is free because pregnancy care is free and some places have free contraception. All are things availed of by choice. Women get free healthcare in those scenarios because well, they get pregnant, we don't! Seriously, I'm not being flippant but it's a bit like men getting prostrate care, it isn't discrimination or anything.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Well it is interesting that men are only ever brought into this discussion when they are flirting their responsibilities. The insinuation is that women here are always the victim and men are driven by some biological necessity to impregnate vulnerable women.

Jank stop putting words in my mouth. You made a judgemental comment about women's sex lives - I called you on it.

It is you who seems to have forgotten how many people it takes to tango.

molloyjh

Amerika wrote: »

Abortion is not a main topic here… it’s the economy, jobs, and welfare is becoming more prominent.

My understanding of the last few years in the US is that while unemployment shot up in Obamas first 9 or so months as President (linked to the recession) it has been on a downward trend ever since. So from a jobs point of view he seems to be doing ok given the circumstances.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

I also understand he has increased welfare spending. Now I know a lot of conservatives would have you believe that this is discouraging people from working, but the fact that he has had unemployment on a fairly consistent downward trend for nearly 3 years now might slightly fly in the face of that. Of course that doesn't stop Obamas opponents from saying on one hand that he is destroying the welfare system:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/opinion/mr-romney-hits-bottom-on-welfare.html?_r=1&ref=welfareus
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1775726792001/obama-gutting-the-welfare-system/

And on the other saying he is spending too much on it:

http://news.investors.com/article/622189/201208141752/record-welfare-spending-puts-us-on-dependency-path.htm?p=full

As for "the economy", isn't jobs and welfare part of that? I know American federal debt has continued to increase under Obama, but that process was started under Bush and I'm not sure exactly what Obama could have done with it having been left with that and a recession to deal with. Any ideas yourself?

So what areas of importance has Obama failed in and how?

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Jank stop putting words in my mouth. You made a judgemental comment about women's sex lives - I called you on it.

It is you who seems to have forgotten how many people it takes to tango.

Yet you skip the question of personal responsibility completely.

We both know that there are irresponsible men AND women out there, yet its the only woman's right to choose not a man. Do you think that is fair. If so you should be able to see the issue more clearly.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Yet you skip the question of personal responsibility completely.

We both know that there are irresponsible men AND women out there, yet its the only woman's right to choose not a man. Do you think that is fair. If so you should be able to see the issue more clearly.

No - you skipped it.

I pointed it out.

As for your statement that men cannot prevent an abortion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_rights_and_abortion

Seems it depends on where you live...or did you know that too but neglect to mention it as it would have rendered your point irrelevant?

molloyjh

jank wrote: »

Yet you skip the question of personal responsibility completely.

We both know that there are irresponsible men AND women out there, yet its the only woman's right to choose not a man. Do you think that is fair. If so you should be able to see the issue more clearly.

I think I see the point you are making, but because I am a big proponent of personal responsibility generally I can't agree with it.

It is the responsibility of both parties to behave responsibly regardless of the abortion issue. And just because a man may have no say in the abortion issue doesn't mean he is absolved of responsibility in the bedroom.

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No - you skipped it.

I pointed it out.

As for your statement that men cannot prevent an abortion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_rights_and_abortion

Seems it depends on where you live...or did you know that too but neglect to mention it as it would have rendered your point irrelevant?

So fine, don't answer the question.

Amerika

Akin's "legitimate rape" comments have now seemingly caused the Democrats to turn their upcoming presidential convention into a pro-choice assault on the Republicans. They will feature Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parent Action Fund, Nancy Keenan, president of the NARAL Pro-Choice America and Sandra Fluke, the privileged Georgetown University student who became a national figure with her plea for free federal provided birth control.

Seriously though… with the Akin's flap, isn’t it rather ironic and a sad commentary on the Democratic Party that Bill Clinton, an accused rapist, is being given a marquee roll at the upcoming Democratic Convention.

K-9

jank wrote: »

Yet you skip the question of personal responsibility completely.

We both know that there are irresponsible men AND women out there, yet its the only woman's right to choose not a man. Do you think that is fair. If so you should be able to see the issue more clearly.

Men have a say but don't have the final right because it's up to the woman if she wants to give birth or not. Otherwise men could force a woman involuntarily to give birth or abort and I'm not really comfortable with myself.

jank

molloyjh wrote: »

I think I see the point you are making, but because I am a big proponent of personal responsibility generally I can't agree with it.

It is the responsibility of both parties to behave responsibly regardless of the abortion issue. And just because a man may have no say in the abortion issue doesn't mean he is absolved of responsibility in the bedroom.

I never said that either. In fact I admitted twice that personal responsibility is the role of the man and the woman.

However, in the context of women's rights and their right to choose will the woman ever admit to personal responsibility or will it be shoved under a joint responsibility of both parties.

Can a woman ever be irresponsible only by her actions?