"We’re created by God for some special purpose," Mr. Akin told Mr. Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas.If God is for us, who can be against us?
The first link goes to the NYT, which has that as its top story on the front page. And right under it is: "G.O.P. Approves Strict Anti-Abortion Language in Party Platform."
While Republican officials stressed that the plank did not go into granular details, saying that they were better left to the states, the language of the plank seems to leave little room for exceptions to the abortion ban. It states that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”
“Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” said the draft platform language approved Tuesday.... "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”
The timing of the approval of the Republican anti-abortion plank was awkward for Mitt Romney, who has denounced Mr. Akin’s comments about rape and abortion and who has said that he supports exceptions to allow abortions in cases of rape. And it comes as his selection of his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, was already drawing scrutiny for his support for a more absolute ban on abortions, even in cases of rape or incest.
Posts
518 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 518 of 518allie - haven't seen any superior intellect here yet
That's because us superior intellects here tend to avoid these pointless games of political tiddlywinks, you silly twunt.
Me? I tend to avoid trading bons mots with people who can't be bothered with majuscules.
Allie,
"I'm not pushing MY BELIEF on anyone"
The heck you aren't. You're telling any woman who comes to her senses in the 2nd or 3rd trimester and goes, "What the heck am I doing carrying this to term?" that she's just plain out of luck. Where's the Sisterhood in that??
Lindsay,
But you and Allie are not on the same page. You want women to be able to decide to abort, right up to the moment the go into labor. (Or maybe right up until they successfully finish? Please clarify.)
Allie, on the other hand, wants the cruel arm of the state to force women to bear their babies if, through no fault of their own, they change their mind after that magic first-trimester ends.
Goddamnit, that does it! ))) whap (((
*looks up majuscules*
Perhaps it is a management consultant category issue. Not all options are on the table for the consultant. You don't want to destroy relationships needlessly which is what Akins does.
I may be the death nurse, but I do use majuscules, best form of birth control money can buy.
Right Ritmo honey?
Trading bon mots without the use of majuscules can result in an unfortunate sentence, and then it may have to be erased. So ladies make sure you make use of those majuscules, because we cannot have erasures!
Being a death nurse, I know these things. Right Ritmo honey?
Goodnight to one and all, what a waste of my time this day has been.
Kirk Parker said...
Lindsay,
But you and Allie are not on the same page. You want women to be able to decide to abort, right up to the moment the go into labor."
NO. I never said that nor did I ever imply that. What I have said over and over is that decision is the woman's not the State and made between her and her doctor not between a few men and a church. It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS to be in that discussion. You may not like it that the discussion is taking place at all and that is your right not to like it but you keep your nose out of it otherwise.
One one hand you want this to be a religious decision with no involvement of the government and then on the other hand you want the government to act as police for your beliefs.
IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS what a woman choses or are you simply stating that women can have choices but only if men let them?
Lindsey,
"the decision is the woman's not the State "
I rest my case. As I said, you want women to be ABLE TO choose to kill their babies, right up until the moment of birth. (That's not the same thing as wanting them to, in case you're having trouble distinguishing that.)
Although I probably shouldn't just assume you're only good with it up to birth; for all I know you're a devotee of Peter Singer and think killing children up to the age of 2, 5, or whatever the current age de jour is, is just fine, too.
Revenant, you put into quotes something I never said or implied.
Of course you did. You've been quite open about having neither an interest in what others think of your beliefs or an interest in offering any rational explanation for them. And you've certainly done your share of histrionic whining about people of differing beliefs.
Summarizing that as "agree with me or fuck off" is crude but basically accurate. :)
When you treat Rush and Palin and Coulter and Hannity as serious party leaders, eventually you will end up with elected officials who are as dumb as this guy, and it will drag the whole party down.
Huh. All of these people have come out against Akins, calling for him to withdraw. Personally, I have no sympathy for the guy. He is a tard.
But, is Akins as stupid as Biden? Well, probably, but it has to be close. Or Nancy Pelosi, who felt the spirits of women past invading her chair or something, when she was listening to Bill Clinton, alleged Rapist (whoever she was listening to doesn't matter, what matters is that Bill Clinton molested and allegedly raped women, but yet he remains some darling of principled leftists).
So the point is, there is decay, and that decay is in the form of the press. Perhaps 50 years ago, this tard's ideas would be accepted. But today, we get Pelosi tard, Bill Clinton's sexual predatory nature excused as he advances the agenda.
It's the screwed up press, pushing its new religious agenda in the left. It's not science, it's not reason, it's all about the winning leftist religion. And some wonder why the country is polarized.
I say, get rid of all tards, including the guy who thought too many people on guam would cause the island to tilt over and fall into the sea.
Revenant said...
"Summarizing that as "agree with me or fuck off" is crude but basically accurate. :)"
You got the fuck off part right anyway.
You don't wage a culture war in the US Senate. It never works unless your goal is chaos.
Akin's mistake is assuming the campaign is going to be about the issues. His opponent and the press aren't going to grant him that.
The third party option is a serious mountain to climb, but preventing the Democrats from retaining this seat is worth pursuing that option.
When Roe was decided, Burgher/Blackmun the 'Minnesota Twins' naturally went to the Mayo Clinic to gain 'wisdom' as to when 'life' begins. We live with that 'perceived wisdom' today, a relic alongside frontal lobotomies, ironic, same surgical procedure used in late term abortions. I commend Ann for her view that any abortion is the killing of human life The question is when is the killing of a human justified. I have a niece who told me she was 'happy' with being pregnant but the birth HAD to take place in the 7th month. No amount of reasoning [I was her Godfather] could change her mind and yes, somehow she induced labor. The 'preemie' spent the 1st 3 months in neo-natal intensive care, he's about 2 years old and I do not know [who does] if there were any lasting effects on his human development. S I propose a modest scientic test as when huma life begins. We offer 10,000 women who planned abortions a sum of money to participate and deliver the babies. In the 1st 72 hours e tae care of them and tag them for electonic monitorng, rleasing all into a forest. At the point in time we learn that there is a 100% survival rate among those still lving say 5,8, 10 years of age we terminate the test and declare that age as 'true birth' granting the status of all life protections in accordance with our laws.
Do you mean every person who believes in the value of human life is responsible financially for all support of that human life?
That's consistent Progressive logic. Like how Progressives would TOTALLY turn on PETA if they didn't save all of the animals they take in...oh, wait.
The pregnant women hating cult that calls itself pro-life wants to have a hearing and a judge to decide if the burden of proof was met that the raped woman fought hard enough and screamed loud enough during the sex act. If not than the slut needs punishment for enjoying her rape.
First Zimmerman and now this. Jumping the Shark is bad if you do it ONCE. It's worse if you do it repeatedly.
ChipS--google missouri polls--at last reading Akin still has a narrow lead even after his dumbass comments, and Claire McCaskill is still even more unpopular in Missouri.
With a ridiculous +9 Republican advantage (which does not remotely exist in that state), he has a one point lead. In a poll with a spread close to reality, he's down by 5 or more.
Jr565, yes that blastocyst has a soul. Again who are WE, humans to force our belief systems on anyone?
So...bring back slavery, eh? Who are we to judge, right?
Make BC harder to get, so the logical conclusion would be a higher chance of an unwanted pregnancy, but yes, I guess that is too logical.
I was unaware that getting BC has been such an arduous chore for the last few decades.
I love that "I shouldn't have to pay for your BC" is now the same as "You can't have BC".
You know, because chicks can't manage a damned thing on their own or something, if one is to believe feminists.
Nobody insults women like their most vocal "defenders"
Dante said...
But, is Akins as stupid as Biden? Well, probably, but it has to be close
Considering Akin worked in the private sector, I vote Biden as much, much more stupid.
Lindsey Meadows said...
NO. I never said that nor did I ever imply that. What I have said over and over is that decision is the woman's not the State and made between her and her doctor not between a few men and a church.
Says a supporter of government run health care.
You are weapons grade stupid.
'It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS to be in that discussion. '
It is if we consider it murder. We are a supposedly civilized society condoning the slaughter of millions of our unborn and the rationalization you offer is that it is your personal choice to end one of those lives and the rest of us should fuck off.
You've told a questionable story of your being raped in college. Your story has the rapist getting off even though, according to you, he freely admitted in court beating you in order to get you to submit.
Is it any of our business as a civilized society to consider his beating you into submission heinous and to move to protect you and others from being brutalized or killed when confronted with violence that you are unable to personally counter?
Or should we turn a blind eye when the rapist tell us its none of our business and to fuck off?
IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS what a woman choses or are you simply stating that women can have choices but only if men let them?
Of course it's my business. You're asking me to pay for it. It becomes my business.
What you do to yourself with your own resources is no concern of mine.
Hey, remember when you criticized Obama for saying we have to pass his health care bill because Jesus was his brother's keeper and stuff?
I hope Jesus is his keeper because Obama sure as hell isn't. Heck, his brother had to ask Dinesh D'Souza for money because Barry won't give him a dime.
I'm also against the death penalty
As am I now...but not for moral reasons. The government is so brutally incompetent I don't remotely trust it to determine who should live/die.
The 2nd amendment gives the right to have guns and shoot people under certain conditions - kill them if need be - but a woman doesn't have the same right as gun owners when it comes to her own body.
Can you sell your body for sex legally in 49 states? No? Can you inject heroin?
Gee, you mean your right to your body is not absolute? The mind boggles!
If it doesn't concern me, why should I care if you're forbidden from getting an abortion?
Not to be crude, but using Lindsay's example --- why should men care if a woman they don't know is raped? It isn't the man's body, after all.
The 2nd amendment gives the right to have guns and shoot people under certain conditions - kill them if need be - but a woman doesn't have the same right as gun owners when it comes to her own body.
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
^That is supposed to be an argument?!
I guess the author of such drivel is unfamiliar with the term "self defense" and can't grasp that a baby is not trying to kill a mother.
Also note, you silly ignorants always let the mask slip on this topic. Obama termed pregnancy as "punishing" his daugthers.
You all feel the same way.
You are sick people.
Rusty said...
"Of course it's my business. You're asking me to pay for it. It becomes my business.
What you do to yourself with your own resources is no concern of mine."
You don't pay for it pinhead. There are laws about tax money finding their way to pay for abortions.
God I hope the rest of you aren't as stupid as this chucklehead.
This is your 'a game'? Your vaunted triple digit IQ? Your rapier intellect and eviscerating logic at work?
Shush, Lindsey, the adults are talking. Legos are in the other room.
Lindsey Meadows said...
You don't pay for it pinhead. There are laws about tax money finding their way to pay for abortions.
You tell 'em, dummy!
I'm sure no taxpayer dollars that are sent to planned parenthood have anything to do with abortion!
After all, 98% of PP's service to pregnant women are abortions, so why would they?
"IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS what a woman choses or are you simply stating that women can have choices but only if men let them?"
It is also none of your business men, if she wants you to pay child support. She can kill your child against your will, unless she doesn't, then you can pay for it.
"After all, 98% of PP's service to pregnant women are abortions..."
Flip it...it's more like 3%....
I'm sure no taxpayer dollars that are sent to planned parenthood have anything to do with abortion!
Why stop there? Using her logic, NONE of my money should go there since their clients are women and it's none of my business and all.
machine said...
Flip it...it's more like 3%....
Um, no it isn't.
You can stop lying now.
Fact Check: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.
Most states ban use of its funds as well.
These true believers are scary.
If there aren't children, how do you fund SS or keep society going?
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.
“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”
These true believers are scary.
No one thought to ask her how do we fund SS or fund anything if there are fewer of "we, the people?"
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.
“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”
@Seeing Red: So your think more copulation is the answer to Social Security? And that includes rape? You gotta be a guy.
Best comments I've seen on Akin (from a professor who specializes in the biology of sexual conduct):
Brooks questioned whether Akin was confusing human biology with that of Australian Black Field Crickets, a species for whom forced copulation is impossible.
"She has to mount him voluntarily and she is unlikely to do so unless he has a sexy song. But once she has mated him and he has attached a bag of his sperm (a spermatophore) to her abdomen, she often chooses to remove it before its entire contents enter her body," he wrote. "Perhaps this is the kind of thing Todd Akin had in mind?"
On a more serious note, Brooks wrote: "What strikes me about the anachronistic attitudes of evangelicals and their Republican puppets to abortion, contraception, family planning, female economic empowerment and feminism in general, is just how unambiguously male these attitudes are.
"An entire political party in one of the most advanced and educated countries on earth has become a caricature of the most basal evolved insecurities about masculinity. They seem terrified of losing control over the means of reproduction and petrified of cuckoldry," he said.
Fact Check: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services.
Correct, as far as it goes. Noted, though that ~9% of PP *clients* receive abortions (other services provided are counted separately), that PP provides ~1/4 of abortion services annually in the US, and that those services account for ~1/3 of PP clinic revenues.
So your think more copulation is the answer to Social Security?
Do you know how the program works?
Current workers pay current retirees (which has always been the case).
Having more retirees than workers --- causes some major funding problems.
And that includes rape?
Were you born retarded or did you have to work at it?
Best comments I've seen on Akin (from a professor who specializes in the biology of sexual conduct)
"What strikes me about the anachronistic attitudes of evangelicals and their Republican puppets"
...
"An entire political party in one of the most advanced and educated countries on earth has become a caricature of the most basal evolved insecurities about masculinity. They seem terrified of losing control over the means of reproduction and petrified of cuckoldry,"
Yes, quite informative. Didn't take me long to go ahead and ignore this moron's opinion on...well, everything.
Do you support legally required child support? This is a consistency check, mind you.
Akin's position is perfectly consistent with mainstream Republican policy proposals. In fact, his position on this issue is essentially identical to Paul Ryan's position. Akiin's only sin, as far as the GOP establishment is concerned, is openly and honestly representing Republican party doctrine and the extent to which the party is out of step with the electorate on social issues.
Correct, as far as it goes. Noted, though that ~9% of PP *clients* receive abortions (other services provided are counted separately), that PP provides ~1/4 of abortion services annually in the US, and that those services account for ~1/3 of PP clinic revenues.
People who parrot the whole "3% of their services are abortions" ignore how many seperate procedures they bill for to PREPARE for abortions.
Then again, these same ghouls turn a blind eye when a doctor like Kermit Gosnell butchers women left and right. Gotta protect abortion above all else, right? Only murdered 1 women and 7 born children.
But, hey, what are a few broken eggs, amiright?
Akin's position is perfectly consistent with mainstream Republican policy proposals.
Provided you're illiterate, sure. Same thing.
In fact, his position on this issue is essentially identical to Paul Ryan's position.
Obama's position on war is identical to Hitler's. They both kill innocent civilians.
Right?
Right?
Same thing, right?
Akiin's only sin, as far as the GOP establishment is concerned, is openly and honestly representing Republican party doctrine and the extent to which the party is out of step with the electorate on social issues.
Yes, says the advocate of the party of deviant art paid for by the threat of force of taxpayers...
I love that "Wedge issues" aren't a concern for Democrats now. They seemed to whine about it so often in the past...
It is also none of your business men, if she wants you to pay child support. She can kill your child against your will, unless she doesn't, then you can pay for it.
Perhaps men should choose their sexual partners more carefully if this is a concern to them. According to current law, women have the right to terminate a pregnancy without permission of their sexual partner, and if they choose to give birth the father has a legal and ethical obligation to pay child support.
Every man knows or should know this in advance of beginning a sexual relationship. If a man doesn't trust his sexual partner to make decisions with which he'll agree, he should find a different partner. It's really quite simple, requiring only the application of an ounce of intelligence and accepting responsibility for decisions. There's entirely no basis for men to whine about the consequences of their own choices and actions.
It looks like damikesc is having a meltdown. Lacking an intelligent rebuttal, or any facts to counter my argument, he's stamping his feet and screaming.
I did enjoy the mention of Hitler, though. Godwin to the rescue!
machine said...
Fact Check: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.
Hey dum-dum, I didn't say "total services"
So why did you?
Jake Diamond said...
Akin's position is perfectly consistent with mainstream Republican policy proposals.
Which is why so many Republicans are calling on him to step aside!
Jake Diamond said...
According to current law, women have the right to terminate a pregnancy without permission of their sexual partner, and if they choose to give birth the father has a legal and ethical obligation to pay child support.
So since men know the rules are rigged against them and have the option of not playing, it's inappropriate for them to point out the unfairness?
(1)I'm happy to put this in front of Americans as a basic philosphical difference between left and right.
(2) This seems to weaken rationale behind redistribution just a bit doesn't it? You mean you don't consider this principle in that area? Please don't tell me this is yet another justification of the left that appears in exactly one policy argument and nowhere else. The disillusionment of uncovering the lefts inability to meet their own principles would crush my minute.
Jake Diamond said...
Akiin's only sin, as far as the GOP establishment is concerned, is openly and honestly representing Republican party doctrine and the extent to which the party is out of step with the electorate on social issues.
Please reference the "Republican party doctrine" using the term "legitimate rape" and they one saying women have ways to "shut that thing down"
Please.
Idiot.
Jake Diamond said...
Lacking an intelligent rebuttal, or any facts to counter my argument
You don't have an "argument"
You have silly, borderline retarded drivel.
and the extent to which the party is out of step with the electorate on social issues.
Right!
Which is why there has been exactly 1 two term Democratic president since World War II.
More people want to restrict abortion than want gay marriage in America.
Moron.
"Argument" doesn't mean what you think it means, retard.
machine said...
Fact Check: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion
Great for you.
Abortions represent 98% percent of total services Planned Parenthood provide to pregnant women.
The GOP officially adopted the no rape exception for abortion just yesterday. This is how extreme and out of touch they are. They literally are held hostage by the extreme right-wing Jeebus wing who will take the entire party over the cliff and help re-elect Obama. But at least they held their "moral ground". Too bad our economy will go the way of Greece to satisfy their morals.
"Every woman knows or should know this in advance of beginning a sexual relationship. If a woman doesn't trust her sexual partner to make decisions with which she'll agree, she should find a different partner. It's really quite simple, requiring only the application of an ounce of intelligence and accepting responsibility for decisions. There's entirely no basis for women to whine about the consequences of their own choices and actions. "
FIFY
GOP Jeebus Wing - RE-ELECT OBAMA IN 2012 BECAUSE WE CARE ABOUT YOUR UTERUS!!!!
Alex, for once I agree with you.
We baby killers will get our abortions and you Jeebus freaks can have Obama, LMAO. It all works out in the end. Que sera sera.
Perhaps men should choose their sexual partners more carefully if this is a concern to them. According to current law, women have the right to terminate a pregnancy without permission of their sexual partner, and if they choose to give birth the father has a legal and ethical obligation to pay child support.
Which, let's be honest, is utter bullshit. The man is an equal partner, allegedly. He should have free reign to walk away, to "abort" the child, so to speak. Anything less is quite unequal.
Women are just as capable of saying no as a man...yet you don't feel they should be held responsible, at all, for their choices.
Every man knows or should know this in advance of beginning a sexual relationship. If a man doesn't trust his sexual partner to make decisions with which he'll agree, he should find a different partner.
Women, however, are apparently not capable of doing the same. Good to know where you stand.
Again, nobody insults womens (or any "protected group") in this country quite like a Progressive "defending" them.
Lacking an intelligent rebuttal
You realize your shortcomings. Grand. Your post was moronic --- as, well, all of your posts are.
One doesn't waste the "A" game on a "D" level talent, son. Go and do better next time.
It's really quite simple, requiring only the application of an ounce of intelligence and accepting responsibility for decisions.
Hysterical.
You tell 'em dummy, women have "rights" not responsibilities!
Responsibilities are icky.
Like a fetus.
We baby killers will get our abortions and you Jeebus freaks can have Obama, LMAO. It all works out in the end. Que sera sera.
Sincere question --- how can ANYBODY religious support a party whose members mock them for having faith in religion rather than in the government?
You can piss on God all you wish. No skin off my back. But that some "checkout religious" folks will vote for a party that utterly hates them is baffling.
Alex said...
The GOP officially adopted the no rape exception for abortion just yesterday.
They also made similar proposals in 2000, 2004, and 2008, winning 2 of 3 of those elections.
OUT OF TOUCH!!!!
There is no such thing as a "rape baby."
There are only babies.
The term "rape baby" is an affront to humanity.
Jay - guess what in 2012 that doesn't fly anymore. The newest voting generation is 90% pro-choice.
Jason - to the woman it's a "rape baby", it's irrelevant what YOU think it is.
Jay - guess what in 2012 that doesn't fly anymore. The newest voting generation is 90% pro-choice.
American Politico, might want to check your figures there.
Very little on this thread has much to do with Mr. Akin's response to the question put to him by the interviewer.
Jason - to the woman it's a "rape baby", it's irrelevant what YOU think it is.
Slave owners felt slaves were their property. Apparently, what one thinks should trump all in the eye of AP here, so...
Very little on this thread has much to do with Mr. Akin's response to the question put to him by the interviewer.
Akin is a bloody idiot who, even though every Republican I can think of has called on him to resign, Democrats are desperate to say is the face of the Republican Party.
What he actually said is not material to that goal.
What Akin did in his stupidity was highlight the extreme GOP plank on abortion. Since the economy is not so bad, war is not current "hot", the election can go on social issues. Obama will run on scaring seniors(Medicare) and scaring women(abortion).
Also the nice thing the Akin-gate does it it exposes which of Althouse comm-enters are Jebus-freaks and which are not.
I find it unbelievable that I am politically closer to Allie then the rest of you.
"Also the nice thing the Akin-gate does it it exposes which of Althouse comm-enters are Jebus-freaks and which are not."
Going to get the lions ready, Alex? Demand that we give a pinch of incense to Caesar?
Shana... whatever. It's your side that is willing to throw the election to Obama so you can feel all moral righteous on abortion.
Yeah Alex, you're starting to look good to me, where have you been all my life? ;)
Alls well that ends well. Obama, FOUR MORE YEARS! Woo Hoo! Thanks Jebus freaks.
Allie, not that I agree with any of your Communist ideologies. I just happen to be pro-choice.
Bullshit, Alex. Pro-life presidents have never had trouble winning elections. Gen X women are more pro-life than their baby boomer moms, and Gen Y is even more pro-life.
Economics are a moral issue, too, for that matter. Thou shalt not steal. Taxpayers and future generations are being robbed. Pro-life presidential candidates lose elections when they are bad on economics, and give us new entitlement programs, bailouts, and various stimuli with our money.
Shana... the GOP leadership is fucking proud of the Talibanesque abortion plank they just ratified. The MSM will highlight that plank to election day and you think there will be no consequences for that?
So since men know the rules are rigged against them and have the option of not playing, it's inappropriate for them to point out the unfairness?
Oh yes, life is so unfair for men!
Seriously, do you whiners ever stop to think about how irrational your statements are?
It's terribly simple, really. If you are going to engage in activities that may produce a child, be prepared to pay for it. It's your legal and ethical responsibility. If you absolutely do not want to support a child, don't have sex with a woman who is capable of becoming pregnant, or alternatively, have a contractual agreement in place that clears you of any responsibility for any child that you father.
Legally and rationally, the woman alone must have the sole choice regarding abortion since she alone has the responsibility and burden of carrying the fetus to term. Any man who whines that "the rules" are unfair and simultaneously wants to change "the rules" so that he can force a woman to reproduce against her will is astonishingly simpleminded and hypocritical. Apparently this includes a significant fraction of the Althouse crew.
Jake Diamond said...
Any man who whines that "the rules" are unfair and simultaneously wants to change "the rules" so that he can force a woman to reproduce against her will is astonishingly simpleminded and hypocritical
In your utter retardation, you're unable to see where and why your "logic" fails.
Of course, you're not that bright.
So there is that.
Women are just as capable of saying no as a man...yet you don't feel they should be held responsible, at all, for their choices.
You must truly be an idiot. After all, this discussion arose from Akin's comments regarding pregnancies caused by rape. Are you suggesting that these rapes occur because the woman doesn't say no?
Aside from that, you probably should take a refresher course in human biology. If a woman becomes pregnant and decides not to abort, she is quite specifically taking responsibility for the care of the fetus. If she decides to keep the baby, she is specifically taking responsibility for the health and well-being of the child.
You need to take a few moments to think before you type. I realize you're really REALLY UPSET about this, but there's no excuse for writing such ignorant crap.
It's terribly simple, really. If you are going to engage in activities that may produce a child, be prepared to pay for it. It's your legal and ethical responsibility. If you absolutely do not want to support a child, don't have sex with a woman who is capable of becoming pregnant
In other words, the woman has no ethical responsibilities when engaging in casual unprotected sex.
It's a very sad state of our society that the eggs of a spotted owl have more protection than a human fetus.
I know you're stupid, Jay. No need to continue to prove it to me every 5 minutes.
Thank you Jake!
"Legally and rationally, the woman alone must have the sole choice regarding abortion since she alone has the responsibility and burden of carrying the fetus to term. Any man who whines that "the rules" are unfair and simultaneously wants to change "the rules" so that he can force a woman to reproduce against her will is astonishingly simpleminded and hypocritical. Apparently this includes a significant fraction of the Althouse crew."
By far the most intelligent thing anyone, including myself, has said on this entire pathetic thread. Lindsey and I both said it too yesterday, but not nearly loud enough.
Jake Diamond said...
So since men know the rules are rigged against them and have the option of not playing, it's inappropriate for them to point out the unfairness?
Oh yes, life is so unfair for men!
So because some men are very well off they don't need fairness and the rest can fuck off. Again, I'm great with this being a core philosophical difference between the left and right. The right supports equal protection, and you don't.
Any man who whines that "the rules" are unfair and simultaneously wants to change "the rules" so that he can force a woman to reproduce against her will is astonishingly simpleminded and hypocritical.
A silly and pathetic dodge as my objection is to your philosophy that knowing the rules should preclude one from saying they should be changed.
Show us more of what the left believes Jake. It can't get us a convert for every comment, but every little bit helps!
In other words, the woman has no ethical responsibilities when engaging in casual unprotected sex.
There are obviously quite a few guys here who need a human biology refresher course.
Hey Allie, I'll gladly swap my stalker (Jay the obnoxious dolt), for yours (Baron von Purpletights the creeper).
By far the most intelligent thing anyone, including myself, has said on this entire pathetic thread.
Well you claimed upthread that you believe abortion to be murder but don't want it illegal. That is by far the most idiotic thing I've ever read, unless of course you're pro-murder.
There are obviously quite a few guys here who need a human biology refresher course.
No, I just believe you have a bizzare definition of ethics.
See to me, creating a human being entails a great responsibility. Discarding an innocent life in the same casual manner you toss out old socks lacks a moral and ethical core.
Jake, it just goes to show ya, when you get stalkers, it's a sign you are winning, they fear what you have to say because they know truth is powerful and they want to shut it down.
They only "truth" they can accept is one that fits into their small sphere.
Well Colonel, then myself and Althouse and millions of other women are idiotic, I do not give a damn what you or any controlling right wing jerk thinks.
Jake Diamond said...
There are obviously quite a few guys here who need a human biology refresher course.
Right!
because you're like totally talking human biology and stuff!
You don't even know what biology is, you effing bozo.
Jake Diamond said...
I know you're stupid, Jay. No need to continue to prove it to me every 5 minutes.
I'm not the one making incoherent and illogical postings and pretending they have something to do with "biology"
You are.
Want to guess why that is?
Sorry for FTT'ing here, but...
"have a contractual agreement in place that clears you of any responsibility for any child that you father."
I don't know which is worse: the thought that you are so unaware that you think someone could make such a contract and have it enforced against the state and/or mother, or that you know full well that such a contract would be voided as fast as the judge could pull his/her pen out to sign the order, but somehow think the rest of us don't know that?
AllieOop said...
Jake, it just goes to show ya, when you get stalkers, it's a sign you are winning, they fear what you have to say because they know truth is powerful and they want to shut it down.
Yep!
Because mocking this idiot shows I want to shut her silly posts down!
And I'm here quaking in my boots!
Hey, why don't you go enroll in Medicare and then come back here and screech about someone wanting to control your health care?
Thanks.
Well Colonel, then myself and Althouse and millions of other women are idiotic,
This isn't a revelation.
Maybe if you said abortion is wrong, but I think it should be legal, I could understand. But you defined it as murder and still think it should be legal. Actually that's not idiotic, it makes you a sociopath.
And you controlling right wing jerks and the women who walk ten steps behind them, thanks for giving us Democrats the Presidency, four more years!
They got their "plank", now they can shove it where the sun don't shine.
As for you rational conservatives, I'm sorry the Jebus freaks ruined it for you.
So, I posed this question the other day, Ill ask again. Why would anyone who believes abortion is a sin, abomination or at all morally wrong grant an exception for any reason? 2 wrongs don't make a right -right?
Colonel,
That is what Althouse also said, so I guess, she and I both are sociopaths, so why are you here commenting on a sociopath's blog, you jerk.
The most intelligent thing written on the thread, in your opinion, is something you agreed with and apparently said earlier yourself, Allie?
Shocka. ;-)
As for you rational conservatives, I'm sorry the Jebus freaks ruined it for you.
I think you may be putting a tad too much emphasis on the rantings of a little known Senate candidate to be the factor in deciding the outcome of the Presidential race.
But if that is what gets you through the day, by all means, bask in its irrelevance.
Shana... the GOP leadership is fucking proud of the Talibanesque abortion plank they just ratified.
...for the 30th year or so running.
I'm sorry it was such a shocker to you, AP.
It's terribly simple, really. If you are going to engage in activities that may produce a child, be prepared to pay for it.
UNLESS you're the woman. Then abort away!
Legally and rationally, the woman alone must have the sole choice regarding abortion since she alone has the responsibility and burden of carrying the fetus to term. Any man who whines that "the rules" are unfair and simultaneously wants to change "the rules" so that he can force a woman to reproduce against her will is astonishingly simpleminded and hypocritical.
The woman was quite aware of the risks at the time. Why is the man alone held responsible --- unless you don't think women can be responsible?
You must truly be an idiot.
Have to defer to your expertise in that field, son.
Aside from that, you probably should take a refresher course in human biology. If a woman becomes pregnant and decides not to abort, she is quite specifically taking responsibility for the care of the fetus.
Note the "decides" word in there? Men should have the same rights. Period.
By far the most intelligent thing anyone, including myself, has said on this entire pathetic thread. Lindsey and I both said it too yesterday, but not nearly loud enough.
Well, your "it's murder, but we shouldn't judge it" line was inspired idiocy.
Just checking --- you actually PASSED your nursing boards, right? Didn't cheat or anything, right?
Because the thought of somebody like you being responsible for the care of anybody is a terrifying thought.
Well Colonel, then myself and millions of other women are idiotic, I do not give a damn what you or any controlling right wing jerk thinks.
I didn't say it ---- but I don't disagree. You, clearly, are an idiot. As are most Progressive chicks.
And you controlling right wing jerks and the women who walk ten steps behind them, thanks for giving us Democrats the Presidency, four more years!
Hey, you women gave Democrats free reign to murder and molest women for years. Tell me more about how anybody should take you seriously.
The one good thing is I have a hard time finding women under 35 who think anything positively of feminism. Chicks like you, Allie, alienated many.
Colonel, That is what Althouse also said, so I guess, she and I both are sociopaths, so why are you here commenting on a sociopath's blog, you jerk.
Well I was trying to engage in a thoughtful discussion but since it appears you're only capable of flinging ad hominems to someone who disagrees with you I'll move along.
But I do want to thank you for reinforcing the image that liberals can only engage in groupthink and exhibit an utter lack of tolerance for a diversity of opinion. You Allie made a wonderful poster child for your side.
I think you may be putting a tad too much emphasis on the rantings of a little known Senate candidate to be the factor in deciding the outcome of the Presidential race.
She does have to ignore her party's distinguished history of molesting children and all. That MN legislator --- don't see a lot of Dems condemning him. Studds got applauded for doing that as well.
AllieOop said...
Well Colonel, then myself and Althouse and millions of other women are idiotic, I do not give a damn what you or any controlling right wing jerk thinks.
I have no wish to control you--I wish to see you control yourself.
Jake Diamond said...
" If a man doesn't trust his sexual partner to make decisions with which he'll agree, he should find a different partner."
That might be the funniest observation yet. Show me a man who has a willing sexual partner who will drop her to find someone who is more philosophically agreeable and I'll show you a man who needs Viagra.
AllieOop said...
And you controlling right wing jerks and the women who walk ten steps behind them, thanks for giving us Democrats the Presidency, four more years!
It's so much better without the mask isn't it?
You're welcome.
"master cylinder said...
So, I posed this question the other day, Ill ask again. Why would anyone who believes abortion is a sin, abomination or at all morally wrong grant an exception for any reason? 2 wrongs don't make a right -right?
The exception in the case of abortion being to save the life of the mother is that there is no way to preserve both lives and so the situation is morally similar to killing an assailant in order to prevent them from taking an innocent life.
In the case of rape or incest, I agree with you that there is less moral justification because the child is innocent of the father's crime. I can certainly see how many women would find carrying a child conceived in rape as horrific.
Lindsey Meadows said...
Jake Diamond said...
" If a man doesn't trust his sexual partner to make decisions with which he'll agree, he should find a different partner."
That might be the funniest observation yet. Show me a man who has a willing sexual partner who will drop her to find someone who is more philosophically agreeable and I'll show you a man who needs Viagra.
So it is your contention that men are less able to control their sexual impulses than women? Does that translate into a willingness to decrease the financial obligations for child support? You know, diminished capacity and all that.
You don't pay for it pinhead. There are laws about tax money finding their way to pay for abortions.
Not state or Medicaid money, pinhead.
Hey! I can play that game too!
AllieOop wrote: By far the most intelligent thing anyone, including myself, has said on this entire pathetic thread. Lindsey and I both said it too yesterday, but not nearly loud enough.
Get over yourself, Allie. You're not convincing anyone of anything here. You're just doing your schtick.
Now hit me with your Rhythm Schtick.
I'm not sure what to think of newbie Lindsey Meadows. Contempt is the first thing that comes to mind, based on what she projects. I'm certain that's what she's going for though so I guess she's a success? It'll be interesting to see she how she evolves.
Trad Guy will be all over her soon enough, anyway.
If a man doesn't trust his sexual partner to make decisions with which he'll agree, he should find a different partner
Sure. But he shouldn't have to pay for her initial violation of trust. If the woman wants to keep the baby and the man doesn't, he should be off the hook for any child support payments or medical expenses resulting from the pregnancy.
People who are not given a choice should not be given obligations.
Unknown said...
"So it is your contention that men are less able to control their sexual impulses than women?"
I suspect that while a woman contemplates sex there is always the thought of pregnancy looming in the background and with men...well me will screw a snake if it wiggles enough.
Revenant said...
"Sure. But he shouldn't have to pay for her initial violation of trust."
Ever hear the line, "Don't worry babe, I'll pull out in time"?
Violation of trust my ass.
Chickie, don't you have a worm to eat or something?
People who are not given a choice should not be given obligations.
Yep. I do hope THIS kind of equality is in the offing.
chickelit said...
"I'm not sure what to think of newbie Lindsey Meadows.It'll be interesting to see she how she evolves. "
"Trad Guy will be all over her soon enough, anyway."
honeybunch, I have evolved ... unlike some...and Trad Guy is no match from what I hear...slow on the draw...shoots blanks...fits right in here.
Lindsey, I think Chickelit means all over you, like loving all over you, lol. Tradguy is actually one of the rational intelligent conservatives here. You'll love him the way I do.
I bet Tradguy got way more female love than the majority of the Neanderthals here, in his lifetime. He seems to know how to treat a woman.
Jay said...
women have "rights" not responsibilities!
Responsibilities are icky.
Like a fetus.
You are such a solitary bullshitter. I suppose you approach sex (with a woman?) without any thought to protection at all and, as we women have allowed things to occur in the PAST, expecting her to take care of all your needs including fighting off your little spermatoids.
Allie,
The woman in my life thinks I treat her just fine. She don't, however, look upon the ability to kill their babies as the sine qua non of life, so I suppose there's some self-selection going on their as far as our suitability for each other.
Hmm. Men who know how to treat women. How about a man who would approach the prospect of a child growing inside his lover's womb as something much more precious than tissue to be discarded at her or their whim?
That kind of "treatment" would be meaningful.
Also: This is the thread that never ends...it just goes on and on my friends...
Kirk, I don't know ANY woman who feels that the ability to " kill their babies" is the sine qua non of life. I had four pregnancies and four children, I never ever for one second considered abortion. Again, it's not your right, or mine to deny another woman this awful choice. You think these women are not incredibly torn about their decision? I am sure most are.
Allie,
People may say they don't think that, but how else would you characterize opposition to the various Born Alive Infants Protection Acts?
Post a Comment