28
   

Republican Senate Nominee: "Legitimate" rape victims don't get pregnant

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 11:12 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:



When are you saying human life begins and on what grounds?


Might I suggest it begins on fertile grounds?
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 11:15 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
when it come to men being force to assume the duty of support of children they did not wish to fathers by the state you had reply that is just too damn bad.

Child support refers to the support of already born children--and, in those cases, both parents bear the responsibility for the care and maintanance of such children.

The child support issue is unrelated to abortion which only pertains to a woman's control over her own body, and to her decision about whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. Again, you ignore the fact that it is only the woman who goes through a pregnancy and all the health risks to herself that might be a consequence of her pregnancy.

There is no "double standard"--you are trying to manufacture one in order to promote an issue which is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Start your own thread on the issue of child support if it's important to you.

If you really believe we are talking about "a child" rather than a fetus, with regard to abortion, then you really shouldn't support abortion at all, should you?

spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 11:16 am
@BillRM,
Aristophanes posed the situation over 2,000 years ago of women going on sex/fertility strike to get the men to accede to their demands. Wonen do it all the time.

What would you suggest if a "catchfire" internet site got that going. You have three choices. Accede to the demands, do without or let the country die.

How can women have rights over their bodies when the matter is of such vital economic importance?

And the idea is not all that difficult to sell considering what is involved.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 11:22 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Why is that a problem? If Mourdock believes that there is a universal moral code based on biblical principles, then why shouldn't he want that code enforced through legislation?

Because it violates the separation of church and state.

We have a secular government, religion should not determine our laws.
Quote:
You seem to believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion about abortion -- but that's just another way of saying that you want everyone to share and abide by your moral code. I don't see much difference between Mourdock and you, except maybe that Mourdock is being more honest about his position.

No, Mourdock is free to make personal decisions based on his own moral code, but not to impose his religious standards on anyone else's decisions.
I'm not dictating the decisions for anyone else, I want everyone to have the freedom to make such choices for themselves--without government interference in the matter.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 11:23 am
Richard Mourdock's Rape Comment
Wednesday October 24, 2012
Richard Mourdock's rape remark upsets voters and possibly God, so Stephen enlightens his fellow conservatives on rape's approval rating.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/420541/october-24-2012/richard-mourdock-s-rape-comment
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 11:36 am
@firefly,
Sure supporting a child is directly connected with the right of abortion as with that right no woman is force to have a child if once is conceived during a sex act and therefore avoiding all duties to support a non desire child.

A man with due notice should have the same right to avoid the duty to support a child he did not desire as long as a woman had that right by way of an abortion.

I would allow the issue to be address by an agreement ahead of time between a couple that if a child is conceived between them he will assume the duty of support if she decide to not to aborted a pregnancy and he therefore had lost the right to rejected fatherhood and if the couple are in a married relationship or a long standing live in relationship he would also not have that right.

Seem more then fair given that even a husband now have no legal say in his wife deciding to abort his child.
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 11:39 am
@spendius,
Quote:
When are you saying human life begins and on what grounds?

Quote:
The delusional thinking is that a fetus is a human being. A fetus is only a fetus and it cannot survive without its mother's body, which makes critical thinking on abortion simple: We own our bodies, and neither the government nor the church has any jurisdiction or say in what we do with it. Once it's breathing independently outside the mother's womb it has rights, but until a fetus becomes a human being, it is part of its mother's body.

The problem with people who argue against this is they are thinking through emotion instead of logic. Abortion is a sad but sometimes necessary event, but the mother should be free to choose what happens inside her own body. The fact is that the advent of contraception and legalized abortion has done more to liberate women than any two events in history, and the all-boys clubs of "women should be kept barefoot and pregnant" are none too pleased. Women have been controlled, bullied, and abused by men since the beginning of time, and maintaining control of their reproductive rights is one of the methods men have used to keep them from rising up in the world.

As long as a woman had to be home raising kids, she couldn't go out into the world and stake her own claim or make her own money. Men not only had a physical strength advantage over women, but they enjoyed absolute monetary power as well. It's hard to have equal rights with empty pockets, and unplanned pregnancy was the catalyst of inequality.

Birth control and abortion changed all that, and in the past 40 years we have witnessed the greatest emancipation of women in American history. Women now have the power to forge their own destiny, earn unlimited amounts of money, and challenge men for political power. This evolution would never have taken place in America without legalized abortion. Overturning Roe vs. Wade has never been about saving babies. It's about controlling women, and the religious extremists will continue masking this hidden agenda until they are exposed.

All a critical thinker has to do is read what the Bible says about women, which treats them as the property of men with about the same status as cattle. Here's what American social activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton said about the treatment of women in the Bible:

"The Bible teaches that women brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced. Marriage for her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity and a period of suffering and anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a dependent on man's bounty for all her material wants, and for all the information she might desire."

It baffles me that any woman of even modest education can embrace a book that demeans them to this degree, yet this is the power of delusional thinking. Fortunately, millions of strong independent women refused to be subjected to the tyranny of ancient religious dogma and puritanical societal norms and are boldly creating their own futures. As women continue to gain more political power, social status and financial equality, they will make America a stronger, more prosperous country.

It's time for our leaders and future leaders from the right to get with the times and treat and support women the way they deserve to be treated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-siebold/indiana-gop-candidate-mourdock_b_2008830.html
firefly
 
  5  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 11:50 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
n a husband now have no legal say in his wife deciding to abort his child...

If you believe that it is "a child" in utero, and not a fetus, then you should not support abortion at all since it would be murder. Decide whether you are talking about "a child" or a fetus with regard to abortion.

Again, child support pertains only to the support of already born living children--and the care and maintenance of such children is the responsibility of both parents.

Why are you persisting in trying to hijack yet another thread by obsessively pursuing an issue which is irrelevant to the discussion of this topic thread?

Don't you know how to start your own threads to pursue topics of interest to you?



0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 12:16 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
We own our bodies, and neither the government nor the church has any jurisdiction or say in what we do with it.


I have. I'm not here to answer for the Church or the government. You want to trade on your sexuality and have a backstop involving killing an unborn baby is your affair. It leaves me cold. The Church and the government are nothing to do with it.

The banks knew they had a backstop with the bailouts. Hence the irresponsibility and the train of consequences which have by no means run their full course.

Abortion is the polar opposite of Romance. That's all there is to it for me. Ovid taught me that and he was no saint.

I presume you think it respectable for a woman to abort girls, or boys, until the scanner shows the sex she wants has arrived. That's happening.

And if you continue to use technical terms like "fetus" for an unborn baby in order to help you sanitise the operation I might take it into my head and use a few technical terms in my posts that you might not be very fond of.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 12:31 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
As women continue to gain more political power, social status and financial equality, they will make America a stronger, more prosperous country.


Wishful thinking from somebody complacently grazing on the side of the fence where the budget is masticated.

Why not an all female Congress, Executive and Judiciary? That would be good fun lads. For as long as it lasted I mean.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  0  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 12:36 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Because it violates the separation of church and state.

No it doesn't.

If a politician says "we should make theft illegal because it is contrary to the ten commandments," does that make laws against burglary a violation of the separation of church and state? The separation of church and state prohibits the state from mandating any adherence to a religious belief, not to passing a law that is informed by an ethical position that is, in turn, based on a religious belief.

firefly wrote:
No, Mourdock is free to make personal decisions based on his own moral code, but not to impose his religious standards on anyone else's decisions.
I'm not dictating the decisions for anyone else, I want everyone to have the freedom to make such choices for themselves--without government interference in the matter.

Suppose Mourdock had said: "I believe that life begins at conception and that there should be no rape exception for abortion, but I am an atheist and I base my opinion solely on science." Would that be imposing his religious standards on anyone else's decisions?
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 01:24 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Suppose Mourdock had said: "I believe that life begins at conception and that there should be no rape exception for abortion, but I am an atheist and I base my opinion solely on science." Would that be imposing his religious standards on anyone else's decisions?

But that's not what he said, is it? Nor can he justify his position without reference to a supernatural being. He clearly wants to impose his religious beliefs on others--as does Ryan, who made that quite clear during the V.P. debate.

A non-viable fetus is not a human being, in fact it is not an independent being of any kind--it is a part of the woman's body.
Quote:
The separation of church and state prohibits the state from mandating any adherence to a religious belief, not to passing a law that is informed by an ethical position that is, in turn, based on a religious belief.

Then the ethical position should be stated in terms that do not refer to God, or the Bible, or any religious authority, in support of that position.

Mourdock's position is based on religious dogma and not reality. These religious extremists/evangelists/orthodox/fundamentalist believers all have a government agenda that includes the proselytizing of their religion and codifying it into law. And they seem to feel this includes the right to control women's bodies, and their reproductive rights, and their medical decisions--all of which intrude on privacy rights, as well as other people's religious freedom.

And people like that seem to have a stranglehold on the Republican party.

joefromchicago
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 01:30 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Quote:
Suppose Mourdock had said: "I believe that life begins at conception and that there should be no rape exception for abortion, but I am an atheist and I base my opinion solely on science." Would that be imposing his religious standards on anyone else's decisions?

But that's not what he said, is it?

I see you're having some problem with the premise of my question. Would you like for me to explain it?

firefly wrote:
Then the ethical position should be stated in terms that do not refer to God, or the Bible, or any religious authority, in support of that position.

Why does it matter? If Congress passed a law that prohibited exceptions to abortion based on rape that was clearly secular in nature, would you have a problem with that?

firefly wrote:
A non-viable fetus is not a human being, in fact it is not an independent being of any kind--it is a part of the woman's body.

More question-begging.
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 01:35 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
If Congress passed a law that prohibited exceptions to abortion based on rape that was clearly secular in nature, would you have a problem with that?

I don't think such laws, prohibiting abortions, or restricting them to only exceptional cases, can be justified on a purely secular basis.

And it is not begging the question to state that a non-viable fetus is not a human being, and, in fact, it is not an independent being of any kind--that is a statement of fact.
joefromchicago
 
  0  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 01:49 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
I don't think such laws, prohibiting abortions, or restricting them to only exceptional cases, can be justified on a purely secular basis.

That's not what I asked.

firefly wrote:
And it is not begging the question to state that a non-viable fetus is not a human being, and, in fact, it is not an independent being of any kind--that is a statement of fact.

Most question-begging takes the form of statements of fact. That still doesn't make it any less question-begging.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 03:17 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
passing a law that is informed by an ethical position that is, in turn, based on a religious belief.


I think that ethical positions and religious beliefs are based on pragmatic imperatives. I think Christianity is based on pragmatic imperatives. The ethical positions and religious beliefs are merely methods of inculcating the pragmatic imperatives because the logic behind the imperatives cannot be explained to the masses and wouldn't be accepted anyway on that basis.

That is the reason Christianity has been so successful, as would be expected in the evolution of knowledge starting with primitive hunter gathering and getting to here.

The promotion of abortion undermines Christianity and thus puts that success at risk. (To put it politely). I presume innocently.

To set oneself up against the Church from a pip-squeak individuality is gross over-estimation of the self.

When men are conscripted for war they don't have the rights over their own bodies that is being claimed here.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 03:25 pm
@spendius,
I have no interest in either promoting Christianity or prohibiting abortions in order to insure Christianity's success.

Quote:
When men are conscripted for war they don't have the rights over their own bodies that is being claimed here.

The "right" that's being discussed here is the right to make medical decisions regarding one's own body--and men, and women, in the military do retain that right.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 03:43 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
The "right" that's being discussed here is the right to make medical decisions regarding one's own body--and men, and women, in the military do retain that right


Wrong once more Firefly as people had been court martial for refusing to take the vaccines that the government judge is needed such as the one for anthrax.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

FORT DRUM, N.Y. May 28 —
A military panel on Wednesday found an Army reservist guilty of disobeying an order for refusing to take the anthrax vaccine.

The panel of eight officers only two of whom said during questioning that they have taken the six-shot regimen took 40 minutes to return a guilty verdict against Pvt. Kamila Iwanowska.

Iwanowska, 26, admitted in a court "stipulation of fact" that she refused to follow the verbal and written orders of her commanding officers. Army prosecutor Capt. Leslie Rowley said the statement was all the proof the panel needed, and neither side called witnesses.

Iwanowska, who is Polish and became an American citizen last year, told her superiors she considered the shot medically dangerous to children she might have in the future, saying the vaccine's long-term effects are unknown. As a Roman Catholic, she also cited religious reasons.

Since the vaccinations were made mandatory for all U.S. military personnel in 1998, hundreds of service members have been disciplined or discharged for refusing to take the shot. At least 37 have been court-martialed.

The Pentagon insists the vaccination is safe, with severe adverse reactions developing in about one in 100,000 vaccinations.

Iwanowska, of New York City, was charged after reporting for pre-deployment processing in January. Her unit was being sent to southwest Asia.

She is expected to testify during the sentencing phase, which was to begin later Wednesday. Iwanowska faces a maximum of 12 months in jail, a bad conduct discharge, reduction in rank and forfeiture of some of her pay, Rowley said.

"I still believe the Army is a good place and I don't regret joining," Iwanowska said after the verdict. "I don't regret what I did, I just wish it had turned out differently."



Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 03:54 pm


0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Oct, 2012 04:07 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Wrong once more Firefly as people had been court martial for refusing to take the vaccines that the government judge is needed such as the one for anthrax.

You posted an article from May 2003, but in December 2003, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court in Washington ruled that the Department of Defense could not force military personnel to take the vaccine unless through a special order by the president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_Vaccine_Immunization_Program

And, in no instance were people vaccinated against their will.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 08:16:08