Legitimate Rape and Abortion- Republicans back-pedal

[Night Strike]

Abortion rates drop thanks to free birth control. Isn't that what religious folks want?:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/1 ... th.control

As long as the money is provided by private donations and not public dollars/mandates.

[SirSebstar]

Abortion rates drop thanks to free birth control. Isn't that what religious folks want?:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/1 ... th.control

As long as the money is provided by private donations and not public dollars/mandates.

Because, yes you may not have a vote, and taxdollars are needed for an unfunded war you do not support, but good grief, lets not do anything that might actually be good for society. as long as i am not inflicted with it, i dont want to pay for it....
i heard someone use the word begrudge the other day... i think that must be it.

you begrudge someone from having birth control, which helps kids from ending up with kids and being overall less productive, not to mention bringing up ids in an environment that also does not help., but what, you want to keep subsidicing the big 250 corporations in the US?
religious beliefs should stay at home, they have no funcion outside your mind, and we all agree that your mind is still free (unless you are into scientology)

[Night Strike]

Abortion rates drop thanks to free birth control. Isn't that what religious folks want?:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/1 ... th.control

As long as the money is provided by private donations and not public dollars/mandates.

Because, yes you may not have a vote, and taxdollars are needed for an unfunded war you do not support, but good grief, lets not do anything that might actually be good for society. as long as i am not inflicted with it, i dont want to pay for it....
i heard someone use the word begrudge the other day... i think that must be it.

you begrudge someone from having birth control, which helps kids from ending up with kids and being overall less productive, not to mention bringing up ids in an environment that also does not help., but what, you want to keep subsidicing the big 250 corporations in the US?
religious beliefs should stay at home, they have no funcion outside your mind, and we all agree that your mind is still free (unless you are into scientology)

Did that rant make sense to anyone?

The Constitution requires the federal government to provide for the national defense of this country. If you don't like how that national defense is being carried out, you elect people who will change the way it is carried out. Nowhere in the Constitution does it tell the federal government to provide free contraceptives to anybody. It doesn't matter who is in office, until the Constitution is changed, contraceptives can't be provided by the federal government.

[Symmetry]

Abortion rates drop thanks to free birth control. Isn't that what religious folks want?:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/1 ... th.control

As long as the money is provided by private donations and not public dollars/mandates.

Because, yes you may not have a vote, and taxdollars are needed for an unfunded war you do not support, but good grief, lets not do anything that might actually be good for society. as long as i am not inflicted with it, i dont want to pay for it....
i heard someone use the word begrudge the other day... i think that must be it.

you begrudge someone from having birth control, which helps kids from ending up with kids and being overall less productive, not to mention bringing up ids in an environment that also does not help., but what, you want to keep subsidicing the big 250 corporations in the US?
religious beliefs should stay at home, they have no funcion outside your mind, and we all agree that your mind is still free (unless you are into scientology)

Did that rant make sense to anyone?

The Constitution requires the federal government to provide for the national defense of this country. If you don't like how that national defense is being carried out, you elect people who will change the way it is carried out. Nowhere in the Constitution does it tell the federal government to provide free contraceptives to anybody. It doesn't matter who is in office, until the Constitution is changed, contraceptives can't be provided by the federal government.

Condoms are a national defense issue now? Did that rant make sense to anyone?

[PLAYER57832]

Abortion rates drop thanks to free birth control. Isn't that what religious folks want?:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/1 ... th.control

Actually, no. The Roman Catholic Church has long taken the position of encouraging ALL births , increasing the population, particularly among Roman Catholics, but not exclusively. That directs most of their dictates.

I see it as very much contrary to Christ's teachings, in much the same way that a whole group of nuns is now being investigated and possibly will be ousted by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. However, that gets into other topics.

The big issue in this thread was the idea that any intelligent person in this century could still believe that women can actually control whether they have a miscarriage or not, aside from taking various medications and so forth. In fact, many of the old "classics" like "falling down the stairs" and such definitely do not work, though there are some herbs that do.

[PLAYER57832]

Abortion rates drop thanks to free birth control. Isn't that what religious folks want?:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/1 ... th.control

As long as the money is provided by private donations and not public dollars/mandates.

Not the question. The question is if an employer can deny an employee insurance coverage, dicate what insurance the employee has.. even deny them the ability to pay extra for specific coverage. (and yep, that specific issue was very much brought up).

[Symmetry]

Anyway, here's Akin on Abortion yet again:

Todd Akin, the Republican US Senate nominee from Missouri, stood by his latest comment over abortion on Wednesday, as physicians' groups condemned them as "part of an old-fashioned narrative" that presumed women are gullible and abortion doctors unethical.

Akin's claim that abortion doctors are "terrorists" who perform the procedure on women who aren't pregnant was made several years ago, on the floor of the House of Representatives. It resurfaced on Monday, two months after Akin caused a furore when he claimed that victims of "legitimate rape" could "shut down" potential pregnancies.

Yup, abortions on non-pregnant women, by terrorists.

Edit: forgot the link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oc ... sfeed=true

[PLAYER57832]

Abortion rates drop thanks to free birth control. Isn't that what religious folks want?:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/1 ... th.control

As long as the money is provided by private donations and not public dollars/mandates.

Because, yes you may not have a vote, and taxdollars are needed for an unfunded war you do not support, but good grief, lets not do anything that might actually be good for society. as long as i am not inflicted with it, i dont want to pay for it....
i heard someone use the word begrudge the other day... i think that must be it.

you begrudge someone from having birth control, which helps kids from ending up with kids and being overall less productive, not to mention bringing up ids in an environment that also does not help., but what, you want to keep subsidicing the big 250 corporations in the US?
religious beliefs should stay at home, they have no funcion outside your mind, and we all agree that your mind is still free (unless you are into scientology)

Did that rant make sense to anyone?

The Constitution requires the federal government to provide for the national defense of this country. If you don't like how that national defense is being carried out, you elect people who will change the way it is carried out. Nowhere in the Constitution does it tell the federal government to provide free contraceptives to anybody. It doesn't matter who is in office, until the Constitution is changed, contraceptives can't be provided by the federal government.

No where in the constitution does it say that women should be prohibited from following their doctor's advice, but somehow you feel free to declare that you and the federal government have that right, without even knowing the details.


Besides, the whole reason this thread began was because so many prominent individuals have opinions that absolutely impact the lives and health of millions of women.. but they cannot even be bothered to be sure their facts are correct. ANYONE who thinks that a woman can prevent getting pregnant when she is raped, without outside medications, etc. is just plain ignorant -- as in intentionally NOT looking at evidence and facts. Such a person has no business making ANY decisions for other people, never mind women's health decisions, and that is exactly what this is about.. not some high and mighty self-proclaimed religious beliefs or the constitution.

[PLAYER57832]

Anyway, here's Akin on Abortion yet again:

Todd Akin, the Republican US Senate nominee from Missouri, stood by his latest comment over abortion on Wednesday, as physicians' groups condemned them as "part of an old-fashioned narrative" that presumed women are gullible and abortion doctors unethical.

Akin's claim that abortion doctors are "terrorists" who perform the procedure on women who aren't pregnant was made several years ago, on the floor of the House of Representatives. It resurfaced on Monday, two months after Akin caused a furore when he claimed that victims of "legitimate rape" could "shut down" potential pregnancies.

Yup, abortions on non-pregnant women, by terrorists.

At this point, Akin himself is not much of a threat. Folks already know he is an idiot. However, the problem is that there are way too many individuals, still think such things are true and real.... plus, "strangly" a high percentage of them DO happen to be men.

And, there is also a high correlation between such thinking and thinking the earth is young, denying climate change.. in other words, there is a serious challenge to the idea that there is anything set, factual, scientific. Its all just political opinion... and THAT, regardless of your political beliefs is very, very scary.

[Symmetry]

Anyway, here's Akin on Abortion yet again:

Todd Akin, the Republican US Senate nominee from Missouri, stood by his latest comment over abortion on Wednesday, as physicians' groups condemned them as "part of an old-fashioned narrative" that presumed women are gullible and abortion doctors unethical.

Akin's claim that abortion doctors are "terrorists" who perform the procedure on women who aren't pregnant was made several years ago, on the floor of the House of Representatives. It resurfaced on Monday, two months after Akin caused a furore when he claimed that victims of "legitimate rape" could "shut down" potential pregnancies.

Yup, abortions on non-pregnant women, by terrorists.

At this point, Akin himself is not much of a threat. Folks already know he is an idiot. However, the problem is that there are way too many individuals, still think such things are true and real.... plus, "strangly" a high percentage of them DO happen to be men.

And, there is also a high correlation between such thinking and thinking the earth is young, denying climate change.. in other words, there is a serious challenge to the idea that there is anything set, factual, scientific. Its all just political opinion... and THAT, regardless of your political beliefs is very, very scary.

I'm honestly having trouble making sense of this thread as people try to justify Akin.

Here's my best try at putting together his statements on women.

Women are raped, sometimes legitimately and sometimes illegitimately. When it's legitimate rape they don't get pregnant, because women's bodies don't allow it but sometimes terrorists perform abortions on them anyway.

When illegitimately raped, women's bodies want to get pregnant, but shouldn't have an abortion, although terrorists make them

Akin is an idiot.

[Woodruff]

Abortion rates drop thanks to free birth control. Isn't that what religious folks want?:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/1 ... th.control

As long as the money is provided by private donations and not public dollars/mandates.

In other words, you want to have your cake and eat it too. I guess the abortion issue isn't actually as important to you as you claim.

[Woodruff]

Abortion rates drop thanks to free birth control. Isn't that what religious folks want?:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/1 ... th.control

Actually, no. The Roman Catholic Church has long taken the position of encouraging ALL births , increasing the population, particularly among Roman Catholics, but not exclusively. That directs most of their dictates.

I see it as very much contrary to Christ's teachings, in much the same way that a whole group of nuns is now being investigated and possibly will be ousted by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. However, that gets into other topics.

The big issue in this thread was the idea that any intelligent person in this century could still believe that women can actually control whether they have a miscarriage or not, aside from taking various medications and so forth. In fact, many of the old "classics" like "falling down the stairs" and such definitely do not work, though there are some herbs that do.

None of that has anything to do with religious folks being against abortion.

[Symmetry]

Abortion rates drop thanks to free birth control. Isn't that what religious folks want?:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/1 ... th.control

As long as the money is provided by private donations and not public dollars/mandates.

In other words, you want to have your cake and eat it too. I guess the abortion issue isn't actually as important to you as you claim.

That one kind of struck me as odd too. NS's objection always seemed religiously based, but profits before prophets on this.

[Night Strike]

Abortion rates drop thanks to free birth control. Isn't that what religious folks want?:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/1 ... th.control

As long as the money is provided by private donations and not public dollars/mandates.

Not the question. The question is if an employer can deny an employee insurance coverage, dicate what insurance the employee has.. even deny them the ability to pay extra for specific coverage. (and yep, that specific issue was very much brought up).

Yes, it was the question. Woodruff talked about "free birth control", so I answered that it's not the government's job to provide it or to mandate it. If people want any form of contraceptive, it's their job to pay for it or for organizations to use donated money to provide it for free.

Abortion rates drop thanks to free birth control. Isn't that what religious folks want?:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/1 ... th.control

As long as the money is provided by private donations and not public dollars/mandates.

In other words, you want to have your cake and eat it too. I guess the abortion issue isn't actually as important to you as you claim.

Nope, I want the government to not provide things it can't afford and it isn't Constitutionally authorized to do.

[john9blue]

what makes me laugh is the left's claim that akin's comments are believed by ALL republicans and are even part of the party's platform. it's a blatant attempt to rally the base using an idiotic black-and-white worldview of "us vs. them".

[Symmetry]

what makes me laugh is the left's claim that akin's comments are believed by ALL republicans and are even part of the party's platform. it's a blatant attempt to rally the base using an idiotic black-and-white worldview of "us vs. them".

Interesting, when did "the left" claim that "ALL republicans" believed that?

[Woodruff]

what makes me laugh is the left's claim that akin's comments are believed by ALL republicans and are even part of the party's platform. it's a blatant attempt to rally the base using an idiotic black-and-white worldview of "us vs. them".

No, it's a blatant attempt to point out that particular politician as an idiot.

[Woodruff]

what makes me laugh is the left's claim that akin's comments are believed by ALL republicans and are even part of the party's platform. it's a blatant attempt to rally the base using an idiotic black-and-white worldview of "us vs. them".

Interesting, when did "the left" claim that "ALL republicans" believed that?

Don't get in the way of his persecution complex.

[john9blue]

what makes me laugh is the left's claim that akin's comments are believed by ALL republicans and are even part of the party's platform. it's a blatant attempt to rally the base using an idiotic black-and-white worldview of "us vs. them".

Interesting, when did "the left" claim that "ALL republicans" believed that?

oh, excuse me.

"MOST republicans".

because that totally excuses their baseless accusations.

[Symmetry]

what makes me laugh is the left's claim that akin's comments are believed by ALL republicans and are even part of the party's platform. it's a blatant attempt to rally the base using an idiotic black-and-white worldview of "us vs. them".

Interesting, when did "the left" claim that "ALL republicans" believed that?

oh, excuse me.

"MOST republicans".

because that totally excuses their baseless accusations.

Oh please, quit the histrionics. Akin has his fair share of defenders, even on this site.

Taking up arms against his critics ain't exactly a good way to indicate that you don't believe in his nonsense.

[Woodruff]

In other words, you want to have your cake and eat it too. I guess the abortion issue isn't actually as important to you as you claim.

Nope, I want the government to not provide things it can't afford and it isn't Constitutionally authorized to do.

You mean like foreign aid to Israel? I don't recall you saying that should be eliminated.

[Night Strike]

In other words, you want to have your cake and eat it too. I guess the abortion issue isn't actually as important to you as you claim.

Nope, I want the government to not provide things it can't afford and it isn't Constitutionally authorized to do.

You mean like foreign aid to Israel? I don't recall you saying that should be eliminated.

It is the federal government's roll to establish relationships with other nations. If you don't like an agreement with another nation, vote people into office who will change or remove those agreements.

[john9blue]

Oh please, quit the histrionics. Akin has his fair share of defenders, even on this site.

Taking up arms against his critics ain't exactly a good way to indicate that you don't believe in his nonsense.

by "defenders" do you mean people who agree with his rape comments? cuz i haven't seen anyone defend those.

all i see is republicans saying "wtf we don't believe that" and democrats saying "YES YOU DO, you're all equally stupid"

[Woodruff]

In other words, you want to have your cake and eat it too. I guess the abortion issue isn't actually as important to you as you claim.

Nope, I want the government to not provide things it can't afford and it isn't Constitutionally authorized to do.

You mean like foreign aid to Israel? I don't recall you saying that should be eliminated.

It is the federal government's roll to establish relationships with other nations. If you don't like an agreement with another nation, vote people into office who will change or remove those agreements.

Funny how your argument changes when it's something you like. You're no more a Constitutionalist than Phatscotty is a Libertarian. Foreign aid is unConstitutional and is not something that we can afford.

[Woodruff]

Oh please, quit the histrionics. Akin has his fair share of defenders, even on this site.

Taking up arms against his critics ain't exactly a good way to indicate that you don't believe in his nonsense.

by "defenders" do you mean people who agree with his rape comments? cuz i haven't seen anyone defend those.

all i see is republicans saying "wtf we don't believe that" and democrats saying "YES YOU DO, you're all equally stupid"

Then you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.