Rick Perry Thread

[markomalley]

From the LA Times:
Rick Perry, in the midst of a furious late-stage effort to finish strongly in next week’s GOP Iowa caucuses, said at a town-hall-style campaign event here that his views on abortion has shifted and that he now believes the procedure is unacceptable in all circumstances.

Assuredly, the Texas governor has never been a moderate on the issue. But until recently, he had said an abortion might be justifiable in cases of rape or incest or if the mother’s life was in danger.
Just as I’ve complained about Romney, shifts in positions with politically expedient timing are always suspicious.

 

[couponfit]

From the LA Times:
Rick Perry, in the midst of a furious late-stage effort to finish strongly in next week’s GOP Iowa caucuses, said at a town-hall-style campaign event here that his views on abortion has shifted and that he now believes the procedure is unacceptable in all circumstances.

Assuredly, the Texas governor has never been a moderate on the issue. But until recently, he had said an abortion might be justifiable in cases of rape or incest or if the mother’s life was in danger.
Just as I’ve complained about Romney, shifts in positions with politically expedient timing are always suspicious.

Typically it makes very little difference what the president thinks. There’s very little wiggle room he has on the issue in his execution of law. The president can really think every baby should be murdered up to age one by strangulation and that would really change nothing. He conversely oppose any form of death at any age for any reason.

In reality his or her views really mean nothing as the opposing party can usually limit them strongly.

 

[Leegal]

From the LA Times:
Rick Perry, in the midst of a furious late-stage effort to finish strongly in next week’s GOP Iowa caucuses, said at a town-hall-style campaign event here that his views on abortion has shifted and that he now believes the procedure is unacceptable in all circumstances.

Assuredly, the Texas governor has never been a moderate on the issue. But until recently, he had said an abortion might be justifiable in cases of rape or incest or if the mother’s life was in danger.
Just as I’ve complained about Romney, shifts in positions with politically expedient timing are always suspicious.

The issue of allowing abortion is a moot question in the case of rape or incest. For there to be rape or incest, the crime has to be reported otherwise if we were to pass a law that allowed for abortion only in those two cases, all woman who wanted to get rid of an unwanted child would be crying rape or falsely accusing someone – a means to an end.

Since about 1990, if there are births as a result of rape or incest (reported), they will likely be observing Catholic women.

Part of reporting the rape includes being taken to the ER where someone is assigned to collected evidence. Included in the rape kit is an injection to prevent implantation of any potential life. The woman, a Catholic, would be obligated to refuse. Of course, they give several injections for STD’s as well.

I have no stats on births post rape by religion, but Catholics would be eliminated from such a new law anyway because they would not have been able to take the injection – hence they would not be seeking an abortion if they refused the injection, This would only affect:

1. Other non-Catholic religions (but why then did they not take the injection to prevent implantation if they reported the rape?)
2. Those who did not report the rape (no legal proof of rape or incest so how do we know? There will be a rise in false accusations made against men).
3. Underage females who could not consent, but did not report.

Women (over the age of majority) who had not been raped or abused by a relative (unreported) would be crying “rape” falsely in order to get an abortion later on after finding they were pregnant. There would be way under this proposal to know if it were a legitimate rape or incest unless it was reported to the police at the time of the incident. You would have to limit abortions to those who reported their rapes, and if they reported their rape, they got the injection that prevented implantation, provided they did not wait – so no need for abortion at all unless it somehow failed.

A Catholic, who would not be seeking an abortion, likely would not have allowed the physician or rape examiner who is collecting evidence, and treating the victim, to give such an injection either since it prevents implantation.

There would be no way to discern who was really raped after weeks and months had passed if they had not reported the rape. If not Catholic, they would have taken the injection so they would likely have no need for an abortion. Moot point.

It’s a ridiculous proposition and an unworkable law. Anyone who has worked in a hospital knows the medical process when examining a rape or incest victim.

The only possible exception I see here are underage children who feared reporting and wind up pregnant, because the girl could not consent.

While I take rape seriously, my sister does this work two days per week in a major hospital. Most of the rapes that she sees are not rapes, but parents claiming their child was raped because they want to know if the child is still a virgin and older women who went out and got a little crazy the night before and want my sister to tell them if they had sex. Yes, she gets real rapes too and she offers the injection which is now standard in every hospital across the country.

What I see coming out of such a law would be the increase of false accusations against men in order to get around the law.

 

[gakroeger]

Typically it makes very little difference what the president thinks. There’s very little wiggle room he has on the issue in his execution of law. The president can really think every baby should be murdered up to age one by strangulation and that would really change nothing. He conversely oppose any form of death at any age for any reason.

In reality his or her views really mean nothing as the opposing party can usually limit them strongly.

The morality of the president DOES matter in all issues not just the abortion issue regardless of his or her influence on a particular issue. If the president has zero influence (which is untrue) I still would not want him or her as president if he or she would condone the extermination of an unborn human being or any other immoral act.

 

[BVM_1221]

The morality of the president DOES matter in all issues not just the abortion issue regardless of his or her influence on a particular issue. If the president has zero influence (which is untrue) I still would not want him or her as president if he or she would condone the extermination of an unborn human being or any other immoral act.

I very much doubt that the voters care any longer about who claims the higher moral ground. “It’s The Economy, Stupid”. Also, the majority nof voters (especially the younger ones, and child-bearing age women) are pro-choice.

I understand and feel empathy for those Catholic voters on this Forum who regard abortion as the one-and-only issue, trumping everything else. But their reality checks are bouncing

 

[gakroeger]

I very much doubt that the voters care any longer about who claims the higher moral ground. “It’s The Economy, Stupid”. Also, the majority nof voters (especially the younger ones, and child-bearing age women) are pro-choice.

I understand and feel empathy for those Catholic voters on this Forum who regard abortion as the one-and-only issue, trumping everything else. But their reality checks are bouncing

You seem to classify ALL voters into the category of placing more emphasis on the economy than on morality, and the majority of younger voters into the pro-choice category. On what polls do you base your assumptions? More recent polling by the Knight of Columbus indicate quite the opposite on both counts and the trend seems to be swinging back toward morality. There are several polls that show current teenagers as more pro-life then their parents.

Once Catholics and others who consider themselves pro choice pull their collective heads out of the sand and realize that abortion is the violent killing of an innocent child and not the nice clean elimination of a problem; they quickly become pro life.

If you substitute abortion for morality in your argument, then yes we pro life Catholics are one issue voters. In order for America not to follow the same destructive path of immorality as the many previous civilizations who have done so to their ultimate destruction, we MUST start electing individuals in both parties who uphold the highest moral standards.

 

[estesbob]

I understand and feel empathy for those Catholic voters on this Forum who regard abortion as the one-and-only issue, trumping everything else. But their reality checks are bouncing

Only to those Catholics lookin to rationalize supporting pro-abortion canidates.

 

[estesbob]

You seem to classify ALL voters into the category of placing more emphasis on the economy than on morality, and the majority of younger voters into the pro-choice category. On what polls do you base your assumptions? More recent polling by the Knight of Columbus indicate quite the opposite on both counts and the trend seems to be swinging back toward morality. There are several polls that show current teenagers as more pro-life then their parents.

Once Catholics and others who consider themselves pro choice pull their collective heads out of the sand and realize that abortion is the violent killing of an innocent child and not the nice clean elimination of a problem; they quickly become pro life.

If you substitute abortion for morality in your argument, then yes we pro life Catholics are one issue voters. In order for America not to follow the same destructive path of immorality as the many previous civilizations who have done so to their ultimate destruction, we MUST start electing individuals in both parties who uphold the highest moral standards.

Agreed-without the right to life all other rights are meaningless

 

[BVM_1221]

Only to those Catholics lookin to rationalize supporting pro-abortion canidates.

Your sentence needs clarification. It could be taken as referring to two quitre distinct groups of Catholics who vote Democrat.

Group !: Those who vote Democrat BECAUSE of the Democrats’ support of pro-choice andpro-gay legislation. :bigyikes:

Group 2: Those who vote Democrat IN SPITE OF the Democrats’ support of pro-choice and pro-gay legislation.

I do not know of ANY Catholics in Group 1. There are probably a few, whose numbers get inflated by the anti-abortion crowd. But not in my area.

Most of the 50%or more Catholics who voted for Obama in 2008, and will probably do so again in 2012, are well aware of the Democrats platform on abortion and gay rights. They are also well aware of the rest of the Democratic platform that do approve and support. They are well aware of the Republican platform and those parts that they DO NOT approve and support. :coffeeread:

From this you might deduce that…

A) Most of the Catholic Democrats are NOT members of the these Forums, and therefore…

B) Do not swallow the whale that abortion trumps any and every other issue, because…

C) They are educated enough to know that the word “intrinsic” does not mean “infinite”

Note the word “education”. That may be the key to changing SOME minds. But blind, angry, spiteful, hatefull attacks on Catholic Democrats are counter-productive. :sad_yes:

 

[estesbob]

Your sentence needs clarification. It could be taken as referring to two quitre distinct groups of Catholics who vote Democrat.

Group !: Those who vote Democrat BECAUSE of the Democrats’ support of pro-choice andpro-gay legislation. :bigyikes:

Group 2: Those who vote Democrat IN SPITE OF the Democrats’ support of pro-choice and pro-gay legislation.

I do not know of ANY Catholics in Group 1. There are probably a few, whose numbers get inflated by the anti-abortion crowd. But not in my area.

Most of the 50%or more Catholics who voted for Obama in 2008, and will probably do so again in 2012, are well aware of the Democrats platform on abortion and gay rights. They are alsowell aware of the rest of the Democratic platform that do approve and support. They are well aware of the Republican platform and those parts that they DO NOT approve and support. :coffeeread:

From this you might deduce that…

A) Most of the Catholic Democrats are NOT members of the these Forums, and therefore…

B) Do not swallow the whale that abortion trumps any and every other issue, because…

C) They are educated enough to know that the word “intrinsic” does not mean “infinite”

Note the word “education”. That may be the key to changing SOME minds. But blind, angry, spiteful, hatefull attacks on Catholic Democrats are counter-productive. :sad_yes:

Thank you for your opinion. However people should bear in mind it does not reflect the etchings of the Church. A Catholic can not vote for a pro-

 

[estesbob]

Your sentence needs clarification. It could be taken as referring to two quitre distinct groups of Catholics who vote Democrat.

Group !: Those who vote Democrat BECAUSE of the Democrats’ support of pro-choice andpro-gay legislation. :bigyikes:

Group 2: Those who vote Democrat IN SPITE OF the Democrats’ support of pro-choice and pro-gay legislation.

I do not know of ANY Catholics in Group 1. There are probably a few, whose numbers get inflated by the anti-abortion crowd. But not in my area.

Most of the 50%or more Catholics who voted for Obama in 2008, and will probably do so again in 2012, are well aware of the Democrats platform on abortion and gay rights. They are also well aware of the rest of the Democratic platform that do approve and support. They are well aware of the Republican platform and those parts that they DO NOT approve and support. :coffeeread:

From this you might deduce that…

A) Most of the Catholic Democrats are NOT members of the these Forums, and therefore…

B) Do not swallow the whale that abortion trumps any and every other issue, because…

C) They are educated enough to know that the word “intrinsic” does not mean “infinite”

Note the word “education”. That may be the key to changing SOME minds. But blind, angry, spiteful, hatefull attacks on Catholic Democrats are counter-productive. :sad_yes:

There is no difference between group one and group two. Both groups have rejected Church teaching in favor of their politics

 

[irishpatrick]

I very much doubt that the voters care any longer about who claims the higher moral ground. “It’s The Economy, Stupid”. Also, the majority nof voters (especially the younger ones, and child-bearing age women) are pro-choice.

I understand and feel empathy for those Catholic voters on this Forum who regard abortion as the one-and-only issue, trumping everything else. But their reality checks are bouncing

Count me as one who thinks abortion trumps all other issues “combined.”

Let us try to place this in a more stark pov. How would people feel if slavery was made legal today? Would banning slavery be enough to rise to the level of being the single most important issue?

Let’s go more radical. Say some insane group said they planned to kill 1.3 million innocent Amnericans every year, and that they found a law that allows them to do that legally. Would banning that law be enough to rise to the level of being the single most important issue?

Sorry–but anyone who does not understand that abortion is the worse practice that has ever been legally approved, has checked their conscience at the door imo. Respectfully.

How can we think we even deserve to remain a nation, or people, if we continue the legal slaughter of millions of God’s precious innocents?

 

[irishpatrick]

Your sentence needs clarification. It could be taken as referring to two quitre distinct groups of Catholics who vote Democrat.

Group !: Those who vote Democrat BECAUSE of the Democrats’ support of pro-choice andpro-gay legislation. :bigyikes:

Group 2: Those who vote Democrat IN SPITE OF the Democrats’ support of pro-choice and pro-gay legislation.

I do not know of ANY Catholics in Group 1. There are probably a few, whose numbers get inflated by the anti-abortion crowd. But not in my area.

Most of the 50%or more Catholics who voted for Obama in 2008, and will probably do so again in 2012, are well aware of the Democrats platform on abortion and gay rights. They are also well aware of the rest of the Democratic platform that do approve and support. They are well aware of the Republican platform and those parts that they DO NOT approve and support. :coffeeread:

From this you might deduce that…

A) Most of the Catholic Democrats are NOT members of the these Forums, and therefore…

B) Do not swallow the whale that abortion trumps any and every other issue, because…

C) They are educated enough to know that the word “intrinsic” does not mean “infinite”

Note the word “education”. That may be the key to changing SOME minds. But blind, angry, spiteful, hatefull attacks on Catholic Democrats are counter-productive. :sad_yes:

Or…

Those Democrats are simply ignorant, as I suspect many of them are (perhaps even invincibly ignorant). Respectfully submitted, of course.

I honestly try not to blast individual Democrats because I firmly believe many are simply ignorant of the truth, either by choice, or by how they were raised. I also firmly believe that a great many of them are invincibly ignorant. I suppose I “choose” to believe that they are ignorant, because the alternative is too harsh for me to comprehend.

 

[irishpatrick]

Agreed-without the right to life all other rights are meaningless

Seems sort of obvious to me…

 

[seekerz]

The issue of allowing abortion is a moot question in the case of rape or incest. For there to be rape or incest, the crime has to be reported otherwise if we were to pass a law that allowed for abortion only in those two cases, all woman who wanted to get rid of an unwanted child would be crying rape or falsely accusing someone – a means to an end.

Do you have any idea how many rapes never get reported? Listen to the news lately? It’s not just little boys and coaches, I assure you. So to say that it can only be rape or incest if the crime is reported is ludicrous. Women can make up any number excuses to get an abortion if abortion is restricted to only certain conditions - rape is only one of them - which is why it is practically impossible to legislate away abortion.

Since about 1990, if there are births as a result of rape or incest (reported), they will likely be observing Catholic women.

Part of reporting the rape includes being taken to the ER where someone is assigned to collected evidence. Included in the rape kit is an injection to prevent implantation of any potential life. The woman, a Catholic, would be obligated to refuse. Of course, they give several injections for STD’s as well.

I’m not sure what injection to prevent implantation you are referring to or why you believe Catholic women are obliged to refuse. Please verify your information with credible sources.

I have no stats on births post rape by religion, but Catholics would be eliminated from such a new law anyway because they would not have been able to take the injection – hence they would not be seeking an abortion if they refused the injection, This would only affect:

1. Other non-Catholic religions (but why then did they not take the injection to prevent implantation if they reported the rape?)
2. Those who did not report the rape (no legal proof of rape or incest so how do we know? There will be a rise in false accusations made against men).
3. Underage females who could not consent, but did not report.

Since you have not provided a basis for excluding Catholic women, the above is moot.

Women (over the age of majority) who had not been raped or abused by a relative (unreported) would be crying “rape” falsely in order to get an abortion later on after finding they were pregnant. There would be way under this proposal to know if it were a legitimate rape or incest unless it was reported to the police at the time of the incident. You would have to limit abortions to those who reported their rapes, and if they reported their rape, they got the injection that prevented implantation, provided they did not wait – so no need for abortion at all unless it somehow failed.

Oversimplification. Rape/incest cannot be restricted to those who report for several reasons, including the psychological profile of such victims, coercion, cover-ups or failure to investigate, etc.

A Catholic, who would not be seeking an abortion, likely would not have allowed the physician or rape examiner who is collecting evidence, and treating the victim, to give such an injection either since it prevents implantation.

There would be no way to discern who was really raped after weeks and months had passed if they had not reported the rape. If not Catholic, they would have taken the injection so they would likely have no need for an abortion. Moot point.

All moot, since sexual assault is not limited to those who report at the time of the incident.

It’s a ridiculous proposition and an unworkable law. Anyone who has worked in a hospital knows the medical process when examining a rape or incest victim.

The only possible exception I see here are underage children who feared reporting and wind up pregnant, because the girl could not consent.

While I take rape seriously, my sister does this work two days per week in a major hospital. Most of the rapes that she sees are not rapes, but parents claiming their child was raped because they want to know if the child is still a virgin and older women who went out and got a little crazy the night before and want my sister to tell them if they had sex. Yes, she gets real rapes too and she offers the injection which is now standard in every hospital across the country.

What I see coming out of such a law would be the increase of false accusations against men in order to get around the law.

I think the last statement says it all: the male perspective. How else can one explain using your sister’s experience (a single person in a single hospital, likely on a single floor) to explain why such a law would be unworkable?

For a Catholic, abortion is not permissible in cases of rape or incest because it is never permissible to directly take an innocent life, period. What we need is to foster a compassionate, supportive environment for pregnant rape victims and to educate Catholic women that it is considered licit to use contraception if ovulation has not yet occurred (to make fertilization unlikely if ovulation subsequently occurs in close proximity to the attack).

We also need to accept that not all Christians share our beliefs and that attempting to force these on people could have negative consequences for the fight against abortion.

 

[CMatt25]

Did he only shift on rape and incest as the thread title suggests or in all situations as the link states? Rachel Maddow said last night she had a call into Perry headquarters to see if he’s also changed to no exceptions even to protect the life of the mother. But she hadn’t heard back.

 

[CMatt25]

Your sentence needs clarification. It could be taken as referring to two quitre distinct groups of Catholics who vote Democrat.

Group !: Those who vote Democrat BECAUSE of the Democrats’ support of pro-choice andpro-gay legislation. :bigyikes:

Group 2: Those who vote Democrat IN SPITE OF the Democrats’ support of pro-choice and pro-gay legislation.

I do not know of ANY Catholics in Group 1. There are probably a few, whose numbers get inflated by the anti-abortion crowd. But not in my area.

Most of the 50%or more Catholics who voted for Obama in 2008, and will probably do so again in 2012, are well aware of the Democrats platform on abortion and gay rights. They are also well aware of the rest of the Democratic platform that do approve and support. They are well aware of the Republican platform and those parts that they DO NOT approve and support. :coffeeread:

From this you might deduce that…

A) Most of the Catholic Democrats are NOT members of the these Forums, and therefore…

B) Do not swallow the whale that abortion trumps any and every other issue, because…

C) They are educated enough to know that the word “intrinsic” does not mean “infinite”

Note the word “education”. That may be the key to changing SOME minds. But blind, angry, spiteful, hatefull attacks on Catholic Democrats are counter-productive. :sad_yes:

Well said.

 

[seekerz]

Did he only shift on rape and incest as the thread title suggests or in all situations as the link states? Rachel Maddow said last night she had a call into Perry headquarters to see if he’s also changed to no exceptions even to protect the life of the mother. But she hadn’t heard back.

If so, that would be going against even Catholic doctrine which does allow for indirect abortion in the course of interventions to save the woman’s life. Practically, there has not been a situation in modern health care where abortion in all forms was totally prohibited - not even pre-Roe v Wade.

 

[Cider]

Your sentence needs clarification. It could be taken as referring to two quitre distinct groups of Catholics who vote Democrat.

Group !: Those who vote Democrat BECAUSE of the Democrats’ support of pro-choice andpro-gay legislation. :bigyikes:

Group 2: Those who vote Democrat IN SPITE OF the Democrats’ support of pro-choice and pro-gay legislation.

I do not know of ANY Catholics in Group 1. There are probably a few, whose numbers get inflated by the anti-abortion crowd. But not in my area.

Most of the 50%or more Catholics who voted for Obama in 2008, and will probably do so again in 2012, are well aware of the Democrats platform on abortion and gay rights. They are also well aware of the rest of the Democratic platform that do approve and support. They are well aware of the Republican platform and those parts that they DO NOT approve and support. :coffeeread:

From this you might deduce that…

A) Most of the Catholic Democrats are NOT members of the these Forums, and therefore…

B) Do not swallow the whale that abortion trumps any and every other issue, because…

C) They are educated enough to know that the word “intrinsic” does not mean “infinite”

Note the word “education”. That may be the key to changing SOME minds. But blind, angry, spiteful, hatefull attacks on Catholic Democrats are counter-productive. :sad_yes:

I think it’s funny that you turned this into a party issue, when the person you quoted said nothing about Democrats at all. Pro abortion is pro abortion regardless of party. I happen to know some pro abortion Republicans, sadly my mother is one.

 

[Cider]

If so, that would be going against even Catholic doctrine which does allow for indirect abortion in the course of interventions to save the woman’s life. Practically, there has not been a situation in modern health care where abortion in all forms was totally prohibited - not even pre-Roe v Wade.

No, his being against abortion even in the case of the mothers health/life is not at all against Catholic teaching. Yes, I know the Church allows for treatments to save a mothers life that can put the child at risk. And yes I know that people tend to refer to it as “indirect abortion”. But it’s not an abortion. Nor is abortion health care. Equating these things can lead to those without a full understanding of Church teachings into think that the Church condones abortion in some cases. Just as some equate NFP with birth control.