Sorry honey, your rape-induced pregnancy "is something God intended to happen"

And Mittens still supports the fool.

 

Well, Ryan agrees with him and I think Mittens actually does too but he'S after the center so he is trying to appear center...

 

 

How to deal with extremist views?  Embrace them with your VP choice.

 

 

- - - - -

 

A Japanese friend who saw this on CNN this morning asked:  how is this kind of Christian, one embraced by the GOP, different and less harmful to the US than the Taliban?  How would an America run by people like this be different say, than Saudi Arabia, which they put down so readily?

Edited by Bergermeister - 10/25/12 at 6:24am

In context, he obviously meant that the child was the "Gift from God", not the rape.
Of course, nobody is surprised that you and everyone else would twist it to sound like the rape was the "gift".

But nevertheless, what gives them the right to impose their religious beliefs on others?... Most people in this world don't even believe in the Christian God, so why would they base their laws or regulations on such beliefs???

Secondly: if their God is so omnicient and omnipotent, couldn't "He" have arranged for a more appropriate way to bestow this gift of pregnancy on the girl that didn't even want to be pregnant?... Immaculate conception perhaps? (I believe there's a precedent for that in their religion already!)

 

 

 

 

First, let me say that this is something a person running for office obviously cannot say.  This thread is proof positive, as was the media's reaction.  That being stated, while I understand you disagree with his comments, I think you'll find that there are many people who actually tend to agree.  If one believes that everything is God's will, then that would include rape.  I know there are certainly people who oppose abortion even in the case of rape.  You may vehemently disagree, but I'm not sure his comments come off as crazy. Of course as I said, making them was stupid, as any Republican has to know how the media and the Left (e.g. you) are going to portray said comments, but that's another matter. 

 

As for "a long line of Republicans making abhorrent comments, I would disagree with that on the merits.  You'll find a few (e.g. Akin) who said things that don't make sense or people may find extreme, but anything more than that is simple guilt-by-association to support the GOP War on Women narrative you embrace and put forth at every turn.   A perfect example is the term "forcible rape."  Why they feel the need to include the qualifier "forcible" I'm not sure, but that doesn't mean that somehow they think rape is OK in any sense.  Whether you think their position on abortion is right or wrong, these are people that are committed to protecting the sanctity of life.  You can certainly disagree with them by claiming the right of choice (eh, excuse me, "reproductive rights" is the correct Lefty weasel term) trumps the right to life in this case, but this again does not make them crazy and you sane.   At least, that's how things operate outside of BR world.  People can disagree without absolutely despising, deriding and mocking the person with whom they are disagreeing.  

"I want government out of my life, but I don't mind government interfering with other people's lives."
"I want religious freedom as long as I can use law to impose my religious beliefs on others."

 

I don't know of anyone who believes that.  

 

Then you're not paying attention. Lots of people. But unlike what JeffDM seems to be implying, this attitude is not limited to the right...it is also pervasive on the left.

It's what the pro-life stance boils down to. This does extend to the pro-choice stance a bit, especially if government funds are used to pay for elective abortion, or when government regulation requires elective abortion to be funded as health care.


You're quite right on that. To avoid too much generalization, a lot of US conservatives and US liberals have contradictory beliefs. No one really seems to want to admit it though.
Edited by JeffDM - 10/25/12 at 11:54am

 

That's for darn sure!

I got the same chart in my DailyKos email alert. Really BR, you should do more than just report their daily email alert here. Isn't that a form of spamming?

 

I don't agree with this.  The pro-life stance is based upon the idea of protecting those who cannot protect themselves.  The issue is the fact that pro-life position is that life begins at conception.  This is the entirety of the argument in a nutshell.  It's not so much a matter of wanting government to "interfere" with other individual's lives as it is to protect individuals lives.  Those individuals in this case are the unborn, and to someone who is pro-life it doesn't matter if that life is prenatal or preschool.

 

To put it another way...  The pro-life position "interferes" with the mother's life in the same manner in which laws against murder "interfere" with the lives of those who would commit murder.

 

Now of course, the pro-choice position is that life doesn't begin at conception.  Conception is just a biological process that results in another group of and is effectively no different then having an appendectomy.  Of course the difference there is that an appendix will not grow into a living, breathing, fully independent individual.

Edited by svnipp - 10/25/12 at 1:12pm

 

This is a exactly right and the point that makes the abortion issue different. It is fundamentally, in the eyes of those who are "pro-life" about protecting human life. Arguments, of course have been made suggesting an inconsistency or hypocrisy by some people who hold that view, but that's just fallacious argumentation.

 

The fundamental point you make is correct:

 

1. Pro-life people believe that human life begins at conception.
2. Insofar as biological science has anything to say on this topic, they are right.
3. If this is true, as a society we ought to strongly consider what can and should be done to protect these humans.

 

Additionally, those who are pro-choice gain much when they try to diminish the value of these humans, often by re-labeling them based on their stages of growth in a way that implies a lack of humanness and thus legitimately subject to the decision of another human to be "terminated" (amazing how easy it sounds when you used different words.)

But those labels are valid. Sometimes the pro life position might refer to even a zygote as a baby. That's false, and I consider that to be more dishonest. And the plain fact is that nature is the most prolific abortionist of all.

In the case of rape, banning abortion amounts to an unfunded mandate to incubate in which the mother had little to no control over initiating.

Another big thing I don't like is using religious doctrine to justify pushing their pro life agenda, which goes against religious freedom because religion is being used as a tool to dictate laws even on those that don't believe in said religion(s).

If it's about protecting those that can't protect themselves, then why limit options at the other end of the spectrum? I agree with having steps to make sure those options aren't coerced, but forcing even terminally ill patients in extreme pain to live out life sounds like legislated cruelty.
Edited by JeffDM - 10/25/12 at 2:15pm

 

I never said they weren't. These labels merely refer to different stages of growth and development of a human. However they are used to imply that somehow the being is not a human.

 

 

 

Agreed and in the past I've repeatedly offered to concede rape and incest to our abortion "rights" friends if they would be willing to discuss the other 90% of the abortions that happen for far less serious and terrible reasons.

 

 

 

It's fine that you don't like it. There are lots of things I don't like either (including the underlying worldviews that many other people use to push their agenda.). But those are really irrelevant here. They are red herrings.

 

The issue of abortion can be discussed and debated without invoking religious beliefs per se.

But that underlying motivation is still there, it is the sine qua non of the pro-life situation in the US, even if it's not discussed.

 

So what? Why are you concerned with the motivations? It's a distraction. It's irrelevant. The real issue is the policies, laws, regulations, etc. that are being proposed and whether or not they violate someone's rights or violate the constitution or principles of the country (which are, more or less, embodied in that constitution.)

 

I'd really like to see you provide some supporting argument for that assertion. Are you sure that you are not confusing biological science with religious dogma?

 

Does the religious feelings of the individual somehow reduce the value of their opinion?  Are you saying that the argument for being opposed to abortion should be given more weight if it comes from someone who says that they are against it just because they FEEL it's not right as opposed to someone of faith who opposes it at least partially because of the teachings in the bible?

 

Here's a challenge for you...  Find a person who is the product of rape who seriously and honestly wishes that they had been aborted and never born.  I'll be impressed if you can find one.  More likely a serious search for such an individual will leave you frustrated with a LOT of such individuals being extremely glad that they had the chance for life.

 

There's plenty. There are multiple simple and clear biological facts including the fact that this being has its own unique (different from both parents) human DNA.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

Stating that there are multiple supporting facts is not an argument of any kind - it's another assertion. Claiming that life is defined by the presence of unique DNA is very creative (no pun intended), but implies that zombies exist and that clones are not really alive. Did you intend to admit those conclusions?

 

No - he is almost certainly saying that the appeal to religious authority is not a valid enhancement to what is really just their personal opinion, and yet that is how it is presented - God's law should be everyone's law.

 

I know it is an assertion. I don't happen to have the time to create a bibliography for you. I assumed that the entity living within a human womb being a living human was fairly self-evident biologically and scientific speaking.

 

 

 

That certainly isn't the only thing, but of course you've assumed it is. Odd. No, life is defined by multiple factors...like the fact that the entity is living, consuming, growing. That it has human DNA (and grows into a more mature and fully developed human being) makes it human. That its DNA is its own unique DNA (different from, but built from its parents) makes it a unique individual from both of its parents. Surely you see these things. But maybe not.

 

 

 

You're asking me if I intended to admit your fanciful non sequiturs?
 

Oh look, Romney is eliminating the gap between him and Obama with women voters, so the liberal press is trying to help out Obama and guarantee the Dems the senate. It's a 2 for 1 special!

 

Nobody with any brains is falling for this nonsense anymore. Of course, Obama has a commanding lead of voters with little or no brains.

 

So you believe that making assertions, then claiming scientific backing for them, and then saying that you do not have the time to support them constitutes a meaningful discussion?

 

Are you saying that the unique DNA thing is a necessary but not sufficient condition (refuted by the feasibility of cloning) or a sufficient but not necessary condition (refuted by the absence of zombies)? You see those were not non sequiturs; they were a reductio ad absurdum refutation of your assertion. You might consider reflecting on how we define death, medically speaking, as an aid to understanding how we define life from a scientific perspective.

 

No. I simply don't have the time this very moment to create a bibliography for you while you feign ignorance. Plus I figured that these things would be fairly self evident to someone as seemingly intelligent as you.

 

 

 

Necessary but not sufficient. I don't see how the theoretical "feasibility" (but non-extensive) of cloning refutes this. And now we're down to ignoring the other items I listed and focusing on only this one. The question was whether or not human life begins at conception. What I'm saying is that the entity within the womb has the following characteristics that seemingly logically would qualify it as human:

 

1. Human DNA...the uniqueness of the DNA simply indicates that this entity is not merely an extension of the mother (as some claim), but is a new living being of its own. Theoretically a clone could be made of a human. When that happens we can discuss that clone's humanness.

2. Multiple signs of life

3. The reality that, if it continues to live, always grows and matures into a more full grown and mature human being (not anything else.)

 

 

 

Yes, I might. What definition would you like to present that would undermine the humanness of the in utero being?

Edited by MJ1970 - 10/25/12 at 3:31pm

 

I should clarify.  I don't know of pro-lifers who think that way.  Your response is better though.  

 

 

 

From a medical point of view, death is viewed as an absence of vital signs that would indicate functional respiration and/or a lack of nervous activity in the brain. In the early stages of development, the embryo is just an undifferentiated cell mass with no functional respiratory or circulatory system, no brain, and thus no brain activity. But it does have human DNA. Is it more alive than the egg before fertilization? In some ways - it is developing. Is it a human being? Not recognizably.

 

OK. So you're pointing out the limits of using the definition for end of life to help illuminate the definition of the beginning of life.

 

I disagree with the "undifferentiated cell mass" description. That's exactly the point I was making. It is a living, growing "mass of cells" with its own DNA and, if unstopped, will mature and grow into a full grown human.

 

 

 

Perhaps you are confusing your dogmas with biological science.

 

Disagree how with the "undifferentiated cell mass"? How can you disagree with that? That's what it is. Recognizable only by DNA analysis.

 

I keep my dogmas in the basement so that I never get them confused with anything else.

 

All the way!!!

 

I'm just curious if you have to put much effort into being such an ass or is it a natural talent?

 

I'm not arguing that an opinion based upon a religious belief should have more value than any other opinion.  Some on this forum just seem to feel that if a belief could even be based upon religious belief then it should not be given any value at all.  A religious basis for a belief does not grant any intrinsic value to the belief, nor does it detract from that value either.  Religion is simply factored into a person's beliefs the same way as other personal experiences are.

 

OK.  So when does a human life begin?  And what are the "early stages of conception?"  This is an image of a 10 week old embryo.  Tell me it's not a human life.  

 

 

I don't know when, but I'd say clearly not at conception. Neurogenesis begins around week 5, with brain activity around week 6.

Probably the most controversial topic there is....but one thing is for sure, those quotes at the beginning of the post are disgusting.....and I vote republican.  Someone should tell those forward thinking minds that.......

 

The world is NOT flat......slavery has ended......women can actually vote....and even buy property.  My take is the human life BEGINS at conception...and starts to look human very quickly...what we as humans do with that information is the key.....do we take a birth to term...when 5 doctors say the mother will surely die???  what do we do then...SOMEONE IS GOING TO DIE......my vote is terminate the birth...horrible yes, but a choice HAS TO BE MADE....what would the dopes who made those quotes answer that one.

 

Things are not so black and white when faced with these options.

 

Clearly?  You don't know when life begins but you know it's "clearly" not at conception?  I'm sorry, but that sounds ridiculous.  We know that cells begin dividing within what, 24 hours?  We know that rapid cell division takes place within the first two weeks.  How you can claim this is not life is beyond me.  

 

 

Actually, you are doing exactly that.  Your President and your Democratic party are letting Social Security go bankrupt, and cutting Medicare by $716 Billion.  By contrast, Mitt Romney has not proposed "cutting the social safety net."   

 

 

 

 

Let me ask you a question:  Whose money is being supposedly "transferred." 

 

 

 

I don't agree the Murdock quotes are disgusting.  The position is essentially the same as the Catholic position.  If one believes God controls all, then his comments are consistent with this.  Of course, it was still a stupid thing to say politically.  No one's arguing that.  

 

I'm sorry that sounds ridiculous, but I was presuming that you understood the difference between cell division and cell differentiation. And there is nothing inconsistent about knowing the absence of something without being able to define its presence. I'm certainly willing to consider other views, but I listed some criteria that I think are relevant and the conclusions that I draw from them, so would you consider making a counter-argument that goes beyond telling me I sound ridiculous and that my argument is beyond you.

 

Sorry, but it does sound ridiculous.  How anyone can conclude that a embryo at that early stage is not a "life" is beyond me.  Whether it should be legally protected is another matter.