Republican convention

[He_Man]

To politically astute voters like those of us on the World News forum, these planks matter. The majority of voters, planks are things in the bottom of a boat.

 

[bellasbane]

From what I have seen drafted, laws do not address these distinctions either, which is why personhood laws and such do not have my support. If not addressed at the highest level, we leave the fate of sick women in the hands of any number of ill-informed ideologues. The right to life of neither baby nor mother should left to chance.

This is exactly how I feel.

I support a personhood amendment, but not a human life amendment. And even then it should have a lot more qualifications than anything so far proposed.

I could never understand why the lives of innocent women were so unimportant to the militant pro-life movement. Then the Aken story popped up and I realize that there are people who are willing to believe that if something goes wrong with a woman’s body (i.e., it fails to protect her from getting pregnant after a rape) it is a sign that she is not really innocent after all.

How far is that from making the case that every miscarriage or complication that results in the death of the child is actually indicative of intent to harm, because a woman who is blessed by God with a pregnancy, and who really wants to bring a child into the world, would never miscarry, etc.

 

[Corki]

This is exactly how I feel.

I could never understand why the lives of innocent women were so unimportant to the militant pro-life movement. Then the Aken story popped up and I realize that there are people who are willing to believe that if something goes wrong with a woman’s body (i.e., it fails to protect her from getting pregnant after a rape) it is a sign that she is not really innocent after all.

Wow! Not to derail this thread but that’s not what he said** at all.**

How far is that from making the case that every miscarriage or complication that results in the death of the child is actually indicative of intent to harm, because a woman who is blessed by God with a pregnancy, and who really wants to bring a child into the world, would never miscarry, etc

So far, the law is doing a pretty good job at protecting us from this problem. In states that have strict child endangerment laws that cover the unborn, there have been challenges based on the mother’s lifestyle. These challenges have resulted in refining the law through it’s interpretation. If we can deal with what a woman does to herself, we can certainly craft a law or use judicial process to deal with medical treatments. In most cases, the informed consent laws would cover any issues.

Theraputic abortion is the term insurers use to describe an intended end to a pregnancy. Many states have laws where an unborn child can be considered the victim of a homicide even if the mother lives. The same language (theraputic abortion) has been inserted in these laws to protect abortionists from prosecution under the laws. It is not hard to use precise language to explain what an intentional abortion is vs. the loss of a child from medical treatment.

 

[He_Man]

This is exactly how I feel.

Then the Aken story popped up and I realize that there are people who are willing to believe that if something goes wrong with a woman’s body (i.e., it fails to protect her from getting pregnant after a rape) it is a sign that she is not really innocent after all.

One random dude from Missorui who gets repudiated from every conservative circle represents “people?”

Should we broad brush people based on the speakers at the DNC while we are at it?

 

[seekerz]

This is exactly how I feel.

I support a personhood amendment, but not a human life amendment. And even then it should have a lot more qualifications than anything so far proposed.

I could never understand why the lives of innocent women were so unimportant to the militant pro-life movement. Then the Aken story popped up and I realize that there are people who are willing to believe that if something goes wrong with a woman’s body (i.e., it fails to protect her from getting pregnant after a rape) it is a sign that she is not really innocent after all.

How far is that from making the case that every miscarriage or complication that results in the death of the child is actually indicative of intent to harm, because a woman who is blessed by God with a pregnancy, and who really wants to bring a child into the world, would never miscarry, etc.

I’m right there with you in that understanding of the extremist mindset. It does upset me that babies lives are left to the whims of people already blessed with lives themselves. It equally upsets me to hear of what happens in places with poorly framed/understood abortion bans. Women should not have to fear that their miscarriages might be misdiagnosed as not ‘legitimate’. The direction should be FORWARD for everyone, regardless of their stage of life. Never, ever backward.

 

[seekerz]

Should we broad brush people based on the speakers at the DNC while we are at it?

You mean that isn’t already standard practice?

BTW, it’s not one random dude or one random word. It’s a mindset. The only logical reason to divide rape (not false claims, but rape) into ‘legitimate’ and non-legitimate, is so that rape victims can be treated differently. Differently how? Just listen to Akin.

 

[seekerz]

The right to life of the baby is already ignored–for even frivolous reasons. Personhood amendments/laws would greatly improve things. We either have 1.9 million innocent children killed each year, or what, 100,000 women each year at risk due to fears of treatment that might affect the unborn child? Which puts the most innocent life at risk, personhood amendments or legal abortion?

The right to life, is ***never ever ***about numbers. Basic human right and dignities are non-negotiable, non-tradeable and non-transferable.

If a woman freely chooses to forgo her rights to medical care so as to save her baby SHE and ONLY SHE has a right to demand that of herself: no other human being, ever.

 

[Rence]

Wow! Not to derail this thread but that’s not what he said** at all.**

He said:

Republican Rep. Todd Akin, has spent most of the day backtracking after saying that victims of “legitimate rape” cannot biologically become pregnant and thus do not need access to legal abortions.

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy after rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in defense of his stand that rape victims should not be allowed to access abortions. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

If someone believes that nonsense, and really believes that ‘if it’s a legitmate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that down’, it only stands to reason that such a person would not believe a woman who is pregnant and claims to have been raped on the grounds that if it was a legitimate rape, her body would have shut that whole thing down. There’s no two ways about it. He screwed up and had to publicly grovel and admit his ignorance, and was abanondoned by his party. He brought shame to himself, to his party, and to his supporters. His words, which cannot be misconstrued, have sprung a world-wide reaction.

 

[seekerz]

Why? Is removing the tube an act that wills the death of the child? It isn’t a theological question of what is an willed end or means, it is a philosophical one. And philosophy is a key component to the crafting of good law.

Don’t take my word for it, ask anyone who personally takes part in such procedures: did you will for the baby to die when you took that tube out? My guess, the answer will go something like: “Will it? It was inevitable and I knew that beforehand, so how is willing it even relevant? To be honest, I never gave a thought to what I willed for the baby because in my mind it was as good as deceased.”

I’ve yet to see any personhood law even remotely address these complex realities.

 

[Corki]

He said:

If someone believes that nonsense, and really believes that ‘if it’s a legitmate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that down’, it only stands to reason that such a person would not believe a woman who is pregnant and claims to have been raped on the grounds that if it was a legitimate rape, her body would have shut that whole thing down. There’s no two ways about it. He screwed up and had to publicly grovel and admit his ignorance, and was abanondoned by his party. He brought shame to himself, to his party, and to his supporters. His words, which cannot be misconstrued, have sprung a world-wide reaction.

If you insist:

It is not nonsense that stress and trauma make it less likely that a person will conceive. That’s true. It’s not nonsense that there are legitimate cases of rape and there are false claims of rape. That’s also objectively true. It is also true that his words** can and have been** misconstrued, as in post # 62.

The main thing he did wrong was not to be prepared with a more coherent answer when the “exceptions to ban on abortion” issue came up. His words are no more nonsense than another candidate whose poorly chosen turn of phrase “punish my daughter with a baby” has continued to haunt him.

 

[seekerz]

If you insist:

It is not nonsense that stress and trauma make it less likely that a person will conceive. That’s true. It’s not nonsense that there are legitimate cases of rape and there are false claims of rape. That’s also objectively true. It is also true that his words** can and have been** misconstrued, as in post # 62.

The main thing he did wrong was not to be prepared with a more coherent answer when the “exceptions to ban on abortion” issue came up. His words are no more nonsense than another candidate whose poorly chosen turn of phrase “punish my daughter with a baby” has continued to haunt him.

He was asked a question about rape - not about false claims of rape. He had no business casting aspersions on THOSE women based on whether or not their bodies “shut that whole thing down.”

 

[Rence]

If you insist:

It is not nonsense that stress and trauma make it less likely that a person will conceive. That’s true. It’s not nonsense that there are legitimate cases of rape and there are false claims of rape. That’s also objectively true. It is also true that his words** can and have been** misconstrued, as in post # 62.

I do insist. It is pure nonsense to falsely clam that the acute stress and trauma associated with rape make it less likely that a person will conceive. False. THIS is objectively true. Even Akin knows he blundered and had to grovel for forgiveness for it on national television. He admitted he was ill-informed and was wrong. And quite obviously from his apology, those to whom he was apologizing took it exactly as he meant it.

cnn.com/2012/08/21/health/rape-pregnancy/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[_Abyssinia]

He said:

If someone believes that nonsense, and really believes that ‘if it’s a legitmate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that down’, it only stands to reason that such a person would not believe a woman who is pregnant and claims to have been raped on the grounds that if it was a legitimate rape, her body would have shut that whole thing down. There’s no two ways about it. He screwed up and had to publicly grovel and admit his ignorance, and was abanondoned by his party. He brought shame to himself, to his party, and to his supporters. His words, which cannot be misconstrued, have sprung a world-wide reaction.

What Akin said was dumb, he apologised and I do not defend his comments but there is a double standard

Whoopi Goldberg says Roman Polanksi rape and drugging of a girl who was 13 as not ‘rape rape’

David Letterman jokes about 14 year old Willow Palin being statutory raped by Alex Rodriguez

Rainn Wilson joking about rape

Daniel Tosh defended by comedians for rape jokes

Republican leaders swiftly denounced Akin

 

[Rence]

What Akin said was dumb but, he apologised and I do not defend his comments but there is a double standard.

We can’t effectively argue those cases because I know nothing about them. However, I did see and hear what Akin has been saying, first hand, on national television, so I have knowledge of it to discuss it. I’m glad that you aren’t trying to cover up for him like others are though. There simply is no excuse for it, and I thank you for that.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

What Akin said was dumb, he apologised and I do not defend his comments but there is a double standard

Whoopi Goldberg says Roman Polanksi rape and drugging of a girl who was 13 as not ‘rape rape’

David Letterman jokes about 14 year old Willow Palin being statutory raped by Alex Rodriguez

Rainn Wilson joking about rape

Daniel Tosh is defended by comedians for rape jokes

All these people are liberals but they are not held to account for their comments

Are those people running for Congress or the Senate? Akin is not a comedian who can get away with insensitive remarks. There is a difference expectation of responsibility. BTW, Mr. Romney has not withdrawn his opposition to Akin’s continuing to stay in the race.

:banghead: If Akin loses, the conservatives can flatten their foreheads cursing themselves why they didn’t insist on him leaving the race.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

To politically astute voters like those of us on the World News forum, these planks matter. The majority of voters, planks are things in the bottom of a boat.

I could not have said it better, He Man! The GOP plank is important and they struck the right cord with the pro-life position, which I understand is the same as that selected in 2004 and 2008.

 

[ProVobis]

Then you didn’t read through the whole article linked to in the OP.

But Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who is defending his seat against Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren, called the no-exceptions abortion ban a “mistake” in a letter to Priebus, saying it “fails to recognize the views of pro-choice Republicans like myself.”

“Even while I am pro-choice, I respect those who have a different opinion on this very difficult and sensitive issue,” Brown wrote. “Our party platform should make the same concession to those of us who believe in a woman’s right to choose."

That’s Massachusetts politics for you.

I will vote against the ballot initiative and hope that my fellow Catholics will do the same.

The problem IMO is that the liberal talking heads seem to always make the Republicans more “pro-life” than they really are.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The problem IMO is that the liberal talking heads seem to always make the Republicans more “pro-life” than they really are.

Judging by the liberals on CAF, the liberals are saying the Republicans aren’t pro-life enough.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

The problem IMO is that the liberal talking heads seem to always make the Republicans more “pro-life” than they really are.

The plank opposes every abortion. They aren’t against capital punishment. Give 'em a 50%*

Dem plank is for abortion on demand and they aren’t against capital punishment. Give 'em a 0%

*NB, I think that being anti-abortion weighs more than being anti-death penalty, BTW. In the first case, every single life lost is a completely innocent one and there are millions more lives at stake

 

[scipio337]

Are those people running for Congress or the Senate? Akin is not a comedian who can get away with insensitive remarks. There is a difference expectation of responsibility. BTW, Mr. Romney has not withdrawn his opposition to Akin’s continuing to stay in the race.

:banghead: If Akin loses, the conservatives can flatten their foreheads cursing themselves why they didn’t insist on him leaving the race.

Rich, every conservative with national exposure and a pulse has asked Akin to drop out, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee has pulled all funding.

I’m not sure how much more they could “insist”.