Monster Rain wrote:
So what about pro-life people that happen to be female? I assume they hate women as well?

 Melissia wrote:
Because he spoke about it on national television, he gets to be the guy that gets dropped from the party while the party doesn't actually change at all on how it acts except that it tries to be more quiet about it.

 whembly wrote:
Abortion should be discouraged (note, I did not say "BAN", with adoption agencies/Charities stepping up to help those in need.

 BrassScorpion wrote:
Thankfully, this calls it out for what it is.

In case you've been deep-sea diving in the Mariana Trench, yet another Republican Congressman unwittingly revealed his party's contempt for and distrust of women. It's part of a reactionary, fundamentalist backlash to modernity. It's a war on science. It's a war on facts. It's a war on critical thinking. But, really, consider it a war on democracy.

Full article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/todd-akin-rape_b_1810928.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

and this is good too:

 labmouse42 wrote:
It seems we agree on most aspects. The only question is "When do we consider that zygote a human being?" What week of development is it? I find that when rational debate occurs, that discussions usually fall down to these lines. Its when irrational people use terms like "liberal socialist" or "dittohead" that the conversation breaks down.

 whembly wrote:
Abortion should be discouraged (note, I did not say "BAN", with adoption agencies/Charities stepping up to help those in need.

Its a minor point, but I would rather say "other options should be encouraged", not "abortion should be discouraged". Its the same thing, but a different attitude on how to handle it. That difference could help limit some zealot from going "For the Emperor" on some poor abortion doctor who is just doing their job.

As a side note :
It sounds like you have lived for a decent amount of time

. I am sure that you have been close to women that have had abortions. I have know a handful and it has never been an easy affair for them physically or emotionally. I don't think you will ever find a woman who goes to an abortion clinic with a flippant attitude. That's another reason that adoption agencies should be available for women.

I have had 2 of my friends give up children for adoption instead of having an abortion. In both cases they were very poor and unable to raise a child in a healthy environment. In neither case it was easy for the woman.
The challenge is both of those women were white. White babies are in high demand for adoption, and there is a waiting list that lasts years if you want to adopt one. Minority babies are not in such high demand -- which is a shame as ones skin color does not define what a person can be -- but as you said you have to call it what it is.
How, as a society, do we handle these large number of minority children that will be put up for adoption? How do we get the "white america" to happily adopt them as well?

Thank the sweet baby Jesus she and the party have you to be a mouthpiece for them. I eagerly await your next sentence or less followed by either a video or a cut and paste from the huffpost.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Not trying to defend him here, not at all, but I've heard that the consequences of sexual pleasure did boost the chance of pregnancy (my sex psy class is far away so please correct me if I'm wrong).

Of course that doesn't mean there's no chance of pregnancy if there's no pleasure.

Jihadin wrote:

Thank the sweet baby Jesus she and the party have you to be a mouthpiece for them. I eagerly await your next sentence or less followed by either a video or a cut and paste from the huffpost.

Thanks Auston for the urge to watch Taladega Nights

Rape and Abortion? Mitt, Put Up or Shut Up
Aug. 20, 2012

We’ve reached the “I Am Not a Witch” moment of the 2012 election season and the GOP Establishment is Not Amused with the Tea Party fave, Missouri GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin. In case you missed it, Todd Akin said it’s okay that he’s against abortion in cases of rape, because:

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. . . But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I thing there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

This is head-slappingly idiotic and offensive. But the real problem for the Romney-Ryan ticket is that Akin’s policy—no abortion, no exception–is the official position of the Republican Party.

The Romney campaign raced to put out a statement that Romney-Ryan “would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.” But you know what, I do not believe them.

In his biggest presidential-like decision yet, Mitt chose as his running mate a man who believes a woman who is raped must be forced to bear the child of her rapist. As I wrote last week, Ryan has insinuated that women who have abortions should be treated as criminals. And on the question of “legitimate” rape, Ryan co-sponsored a bill, with Akin and others, that tried to redefine rape as “forcible rape.” Romney himself has said he supports personhood amendments—which would have the effect of outlawing abortion for rape. And when Romney was Governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed a bill to require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims – falsely claiming that it was a method of abortion.

Romney, it’s time to put up or shut up. If you truly think that women who are raped should have legal access to abortion, show you mean it in clear, unambiguous language. How convenient for you that the Republican platform committee is meeting this week. Tell them to change the anti-abortion plank, which for decades, has called for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all cases.

Likewise, there’s one simple question every journalist following the Romney campaign can ask: “Governor, will you refuse to accept a platform that does not include exceptions exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother?” And if that platform hasn’t been changed by the end of this week, it’ll be time for the media to stop playing stenographer to the Romney campaign’s convenient lies about what it plans to do to American women.
Posted on August 20, 2012

What the Paul Ryan Choice Means for Women

It’s official. With his selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney has made the campaign to strip Amerian women of our freedom, equality, and economic opportunity a top priority of his presidency. Any ambiguity about Mitt’s personal investment in the antiwomen extremism that infects the Republican base and congressional delegation has now been cleared up.

Paul Ryan is a full service right-winger, a a far-right anti-birth control/ anti-abortion zealot and Grover-Norquist Ayn Rand style anti-government fanatic rolled into one.

Mitt Romney waves goodbye to women’s equality. Paul Ryan congratulates him.

Ryan is rightfully known for his budget “blueprint” (and wrongly known as a fiscal conservative.) His Robin Hood in reverse budget, it is critical to note, would have a devastating effect on women in particular. Consider health care. Between 9 and 18 million women would lose their health care from Ryan’s proposed cuts to Medicaid. Add to that the roughly 5 million women who receive their reproductive health care and cancer screenings through Title X—which Ryan calls for eliminating. Romney/Ryan’s central promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act would deprive 17 million uninsured women of the health care they would be eligible for under health care reform. Analyses of his proposed tax breaks for the wealthy estimate that 2/3 of the cuts to pay for the boondoggle would come from programs, such as nutritional aid and food stamps, that serve low-income Americans who are disproportionately women and children. Ryan is giving the expression ‘from the mouth of babes’ a whole new meaning.

Working women too have much to dread from Ryan. Remember how Romney and his campaign danced around the question of his view of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Well, Ryan voted against it. So now we know. Ryan has also voted against raising the minimum wage. The Ryan-Romney promise to shrink the size of government means eliminating government workers—disproportionately women. Ryan’s budget cuts aid to the states by 20%. Goodbye teachers and nurses.

On the social issues, Ryan rivals the best of the religious nuts. He has voted against stem cell research and for carrying guns in the national parks. He voted for a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriages and against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

The tell on Ryan’s extremism is his opposition to abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother. He was a co-sponsor of a federal fetal Personhood bill defining life as beginning at fertilization, which would have made some forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization illegal. He supported a bill that would have allowed hospitals to deny emergency care to pregnant women. As he himself has said, “I’m as pro-life as a person gets.” (See Michelle Goldberg’s must read for more on this.)

Take Romney-Ryan’s slashing of the social safety net, evisceration of equal pay laws, and attacks on birth control and abortion, and you see what the Romney-Ryan team wants for American womanhood.

Pregnant, underpaid, and dependent on men. That’s the GOP’s vision for us, ladies.

 AustonT wrote:
There it is. Same day service. Possibly even the same hour. Ahh, BrassScorpion, you never let me down with other peoples words and as little of yours as this site will allow.

Senator McCaskill’s Record:
* ObamaCare: Voted YES for Higher Costs and an Individual Mandate
* Obama Stimulus: Voted YES for $787 Billion More in Spending and Debt
* Dodd-Frank: Voted YES for Price Controls on Debit Cards Resulting in Higher Banking Fees for Consumers
* TARP: Voted YES on the $700 Billion Taxpayer Bailout of Mega Banks
* Auto Bailout: Called the $80 Billion Taxpayer Bailout of General Motors and Chrysler “Wildly Successful”
THE RESULTS:
^ Unemployment: 9.1%
^ Debt: $14.8 Trillion
^ Poverty: 45 Million Americans on Food Stamps

 whembly wrote:
Lemme remind everyone that this "isn't news" to MO. We knew Atkins was against abortion.

 AustonT wrote:
I don't have anyone on ignore. That's not how conversations work or happen. Plenty of people are irritating but I'd rather hear what they have to say.

 kronk wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
There it is. Same day service. Possibly even the same hour. Ahh, BrassScorpion, you never let me down with other peoples words and as little of yours as this site will allow.

The ignore function has been my light at the end of the tunnel of "love" that is DakkaDakka Off-Topic...

 purplefood wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Lemme remind everyone that this "isn't news" to MO. We knew Atkins was against abortion.

I think people are a bit touchier about the use of the term 'legitimate rape'. If it was merely a slip of the tongue then he's a bit daft and obviously not a great choice.
If it was intended and he believes there can be legitimised rape then frankly he should never have gotten into any kind of power unless he's really damn good at something else...

 purplefood wrote:

If it was intended and he believes there can be legitimised rape then frankly he should never have gotten into any kind of power unless he's really damn good at something else...

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

If it was intended and he believes there can be legitimised rape then frankly he should never have gotten into any kind of power unless he's really damn good at something else...

No no, I don't think he's trying to say that some acts of rape are legitimate. By 'legitimate rape' he's referring to those really obvious cases of rape, as opposed to all those other cases that are not so rapey, like they were dressed like a slut, or they were drunk, etc. It's still disgusting, but not quite in the way you're thinking.

What he seems to think is that in cases of what we could call 'proper-rape', like if a woman is just grabbed off the pavement and dragged into a dark alley, then somehow the female body can prevent the pregnancy occurring. If a woman is pregnant then it probably wasn't one of those 'proper-rapes' but one of those other cases, like they were drunk, or tired, or dressed immodestly, or changed they mind, or whatever misogynistic crap goes through the minds of these Republican sorts.

 AustonT wrote:
I don't have anyone on ignore. That's not how conversations work or happen. Plenty of people are irritating but I'd rather hear what they have to say.

 Amaya wrote:
I know people are typically stupid, but can people seriously not look at both sides of the argument and see that each one has merit?