General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRyan's take on abortion puzzles me
If morally a fertilized egg is a person, then morally abortion is killing a person and wrong. But it is ok in cases of rape or incest. Morally, why is it right to kill someone because of the crimes of his/her father?
I am not asking if you think abortion is right or wrong, morally or not, but I don't understand the position. And I know, I know, flip flop, very much not what he has done so far, wtf hypocrite Ryan. But why is it ok to kill someone because of the father's crime?
kwolf68
(7,365 posts)If the fetus is a living person, then are we obligated to protect it?
Do the pro-"life" dimwits suggest we intervene medically and attempt to prevent a NATURAL ABORTION (most often called a miscarriage)? I don't believe it would even be possible.
faith woos science
(66 posts)when the womans body rejects a pregnancy because it was forcible rape, should she be charged with murder?
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)Why would a woman's body "reject a pregnancy" because of "forcible rape" more so than for any other reason she was pregnant? And wtf is "forcible rape"?
JI7
(89,182 posts)uppityperson
(115,674 posts)I'd like to get their take on "forcible" vs (nonforcible?) rape too.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)uppityperson
(115,674 posts)JI7
(89,182 posts)faith woos science
(66 posts)Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, the Republican candidate for the Missouri Senate race, told a St. Louis news station on Sunday that legitimate rape rarely causes pregnancy: If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/08/20/todd_akin_s_legitimate_rape_comment_not_a_misstatement_but_a_worldview_.html
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)"rejected the pregnancy", not those who got pregnant due to illegitimate rape (whatever the hell that is).
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)rape" and, presumably "hard rape," "unforcible rape" and "illegitimate rape."
Apparently it has to do with whether the woman or child inflicted some amount of damage on her rapist, how badly the woman or child was injured during the rape, whether her clothes were asking for it, and whether she ventured outside the house without an escort or left her burka at home....something along those lines. Oh, and of course, if her body failed to reject the pregnancy, in which case it wasn't rape at all because, regardless of circumstances leading up to it, if she got pregnant she clearly wanted it.
faith woos science
(66 posts)but if you type Todd Akin into the googler you will see that I didn't mean anything but Todd Akin sure did. Or you could just click on the link I provided above. I'll leave you with him saying it himself.
HE says it at about the 2 min mark.
Sorry if I offended you by telling you what I thought everyone had already heard about, since it was a big news item for 2 weeks and even Obama addressed it here.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)edit or reply more to you.
I hadn't heard the whole Akin thing, it is awful
faith woos science
(66 posts)Glad to point you to it.
JI7
(89,182 posts)have they ever set up foundations or anything to do research to help prevent all those innocent children from dying of miscarriages ?
flyguyjake
(492 posts)uppityperson
(115,674 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Does that mean nature, God or whatever is responsible a murderer?
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)When people make other people die it is murder.
I have no belief in those statements, but have had them thrown at me. I do not understand how if someone believes that, they would still have rape/incest permission for abortions. And I know he has actively worked towards not having those permissions. But tonight he said it'd be ok, morally, to kill someone for their father's crime.
"God" is different though.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)This argument makes no sense to me. In fact, by your argument, mankind is saving babies that "God" wanted dead because without the help of science and doctors many of the babies born today would have died both before and after birth.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)I don't understand this argument either. I have talked with anti-choicers who spouted this. It puzzles me and they are never able to explain it very well. I have used the point you make here and that they can not explain either except "god" had them make machines/technology. I don't get it since those machines/technology often are responsible for people killing each other also.
Edited to add that I am a very strong pro-choice person, have worked (paid and volunteered) and donated much for this cause over the years. And my OP is mostly rhetorical as what Ryan was saying tonight was very different from what he's done so far and I don't understand his hypocrisy.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)It is okay to kill when someone breaks particular laws (of their choosing), in a war (even if the purpose of the war is to steal oil) or one considers it self defense (whether it was or not, especially if the other person is not white).
It is also okay to let people die because they are poor and can't pay for medical care, or can't afford food or shelter, even if they are children (although they think we should arrest and kill the parents for letting their children die).
I guess just allowing people to die through their policies isn't really murder to them.
Freddie
(9,232 posts)You never know.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)(yes, it's satire)
http://www.geocities.ws/preconceivedbabies/
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Yes, remember, 'unelected judges should not decide'. No, 'the voters should decide'.
Okay. So which voters? The voters in the whole country? No, they don't want that. Especially because the majority of Americans are pro-choice.
So "leave it up to the voters" means- what? Oh, leave it up to the individual states. Right. Because you know, allowing a smaller geographical and human area to have its own self determination in this regard is, somehow, preferable. But why stop at states? Why not let individual counties decide? Or, wouldn't it be better to let the issue be decided on a town-by-town basis? Or even better, block by block? One block could vote to allow abortions on the block, another could vote to prohibit them... wouldn't that be a preferable situation, whereby people of differing views would have the maxium ability to express themselves and their feelings on this admittedly "contentious" matter?
But wait. If block-by-block is good, why not house by house- each house could vote on whether or not they, personally, think abortion should be allowed! Yeah!
Oh.. hang on, I've got an idea.
Yeah, the best way to allow maxium leeway for individuals to express their own conscience on this issue? I'VE GOT IT!
Here's an idea! How about
[font size=4]we let the individual women who are pregnant decide for themselves about their own pregnancies, and their own bodies![/font]
WHOA!
Yeah. Great idea! Democracy in action!
athena
(4,187 posts)Thanks for posting that.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)That position appears to be the compromise Rmoney$Ryan position.
Ryan cosponsored a personhood bill with Todd Legitimate Rape Akin.
Sparky 1
(400 posts)all abortion and contraception away from women and burn every Planned Parenthood clinic to the ground, as would Mitt Robme.
Freddie
(9,232 posts)--Paul Ryan
In other words, ladies, rape, legitimate or otherwise, is no excuse. Suck it up and sacrifice yourself for that spawn, you ungrateful vessel.
I'm so glad this issue was brought up last night, women need to be reminded of what's at stake here.
dsc
(52,130 posts)and he said that Mitt's position is the one the administration will have.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Sometimes I'm not sure that my own makes sense. That's why it's best left to individuals to make up their own minds about it and live their lives accordingly.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)the people that take the extreme stance that it is murder, they are hypocrites because of what you point out.
I think there are pro-life people who do NOT hold that it is murder, for example Mitt Romney, but Paul Ryan is one of the extremists and I hope the Obama campaign is able to get that across to people.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I feel that too many births is morally wrong.
We need some sort of population control.
And all this religious garbage about abortion taking away their 1st amendment rights is garbage. You don't hear Jews saying that because the government pays people to raise pigs for food, do you?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)manage their own reproductive rates just fine, TYVM.
No, "we" don't "need some sort of population control". What we need is for people to be able to run their own damn lives. I'm pro-choice, which means letting people decide for themselves whether or not to have kids.
The so-called "population problem" is a geographically and economically localized and dependent phenomenon.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)is to outlaw abortion, contraceptives, and return women to chattel by stripping their right to vote. This is what happens when you base you law making on a text written by theocratic misogynists.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)...but understands it is politically necessary to make exceptions in certain circumstances.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)If a family member got pregnant out of wedlock, and wanted an abortion, he would see to it.
If a family member got stoned and was arrested for possession, he would fix it.
Elliot Ness of anti-alcohol fame died from the effects of booze.
Diane Feinstein packed.
Some blowhole shuffled his feet in a public loo.
_______________________
This is prohibitionist politics. No puzzle.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)If it's really a person, a life, at conception (or implantation) and the equivalent a postnatal person, then the origin or conditions of the conception is irrelevant. Otherwise, you can argue that you can walk up to a person that's a product of rape or incest and gun them down with impunity because the circumstances of their conception renders them non-persons.
There are lots of people of the opinion that if you play, you pay, and if you're having recreational sex and get preggers, then, well, too bad. Pop out the kid and use a condom next time. But if the conception is from forced sex, then it's okay to get an abortion. This would seem to stem from the mindset that sex for fun, especially outside the bounds of marriage, a detriment to society, social order, family values, and general morality. Probably from some kind of Protestant theological reasoning, too.
Most people know, despite the talk of the self-proclaimed pious and moral people, that there's a difference between a blastocyst and an newborn.