Archive for Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Opinion: For GOP, life is sacred, except when not

October 31, 2012

Advertisement

“… And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

— Richard Mourdock, GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate

Life is sacred.

That, Mourdock would later insist, was what he was trying to say last week during a debate with his opponents. Instead, he became the latest in a growing list of conservatives to trip over women’s bodies. The Indiana Republican said he didn’t mean it the way it sounded, i.e., that rape is something God intends or approves. Rather, his point was that “Life is precious. I believe (that) to the very marrow of my bones.” His party agrees. This year, the GOP adopted — again — a platform under which no woman could ever legally have an abortion. Not if she was impregnated by her own father. Not if she was raped. Not if the abortion were needed to save her life. Never. Because life is sacred.

And that leaves you wondering: What about the 12-year-old girl who has grown up dreading the midnight creak of her bedroom door, the weight settling above her, the whispered assurances that “This is our secret.”

What about this sixth-grader whose barely adolescent breasts are suddenly swollen and who wakes up racing for the toilet every morning, sick to her stomach? Is her life sacred?

What about the co-ed who can still feel the stranger’s hands forcing her knees apart, still feel his hot breath on her cheek, the lashing whip of his curses, that terrible moment of penetration, invasion, violation and bitter, impotent rage?

What about this student who now holds the home pregnancy test strip in her hand, watches it change colors and feels, as she slips to her knees on the bathroom floor with that hateful seed growing in her womb, as if she was just raped all over again? Is her life sacred?

What about the mother of three, just diagnosed with an aggressive cancer, the woman whose doctor says she needs chemotherapy immediately if she is to have any hope of survival. What about the agonizing decision she must now make, to refuse chemo, knowing it will mean dying and abandoning her existing children, or to take the drug, knowing it will kill the child she carries inside? Is her life not sacred?

It doesn’t seem to be, at least, not in the formulation embraced by the Grand Old Party. In that formulation, women are bystanders to their own existence, their individual situations subordinate to a one-size-fits-all morality, their very selves unimportant, except as vessels bearing children.

For that matter, the children themselves, once born, are not particularly sacred, especially if they have the misfortune to be born into less-than-ideal circumstances, situations where they might need help from the rest of us. But you see, “life” is not just the fact of existence. The term refers also to the nature and quality of that existence. So if we truly hold life sacred, we do not balance budgets by denying funding to programs that feed hungry children. We do not look the other way when kids have no access to health care. We do not countenance easy gun availability that makes the playground a war zone. We do not put up with child welfare agencies where tragedies routinely befall children who are always said to have “fallen between the cracks.”

Mourdock and other conservatives frequently tout the sacredness of life, but they seem to have a rather narrow definition thereof. They seem to consider life sacred only until the umbilical cord is cut. So for all its moral earnestness, their argument against abortion rights always manages to go too far and yet, not nearly far enough. If life is sacred when it is in the womb, well, it is also sacred when it is not.

Note: In a recent column, I described George McGovern as a World War II fighter pilot. The late former senator actually flew bombers during the war.

Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald.

Comments

observant 2 years, 8 months ago

&:06 AM, no poster on here yet telling us what a racist Pitts is. Won't be long till GOP/Teabaggers show up with that type of rant.

JonasGrumby 2 years, 8 months ago

It has been my observation that those who use the term "teabaggers" are either effeminate mean like Bill Maher or unattractive women like Rachel Maddow. I have see few, if any, exceptions to this observation.

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 8 months ago

Thanks for the reminder that the only women of use to the nation are the ones you find "attractive." Must have been dissed by them a lot. Hatred of women ~ the newest Republican core value. By the way, Rachel probably wouldn't find you to be her cup of tea either.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 8 months ago

Geez, what a foolish statement by Jonas and an equally foolish response by Pastor. Like two sides of the same coin, you two deserve each other.

Jennifer Dropkin 2 years, 8 months ago

observant, you make no contribution with this kind of comment. How about engaging in the substance of the article?

2 years, 8 months ago

Pilot fish is a very important job, I'll have you know.

Greg Cooper 2 years, 8 months ago

Agree with your sentiment, but the extent is a little out there.

Making believe that anyone, even a Republican of today's ilk, wants anyone "bruised and bloody" is making a rash, unsupported statement, the kind of thing they want to accuse Democrats of at every turn.

That the GOP of today has no use for after-term babies and children is obvious. That they use the pain and humiliation of the affected women and their families as fodder for their grist mill of fear is reprehensible.

But we of the reasonable faction have to remember not to stoop to their level and to continue using fact and reason to advance the condition of all humans, born and unborn. To do otherwise simply negates our stance and gives them more silliness upon which to base their nothing-but-emotion arguments.

Greg Cooper 2 years, 8 months ago

You have information that those two have adopted more children than their counterparts? Where does that come from? Silly statement number one.

What information do you have showing the second generalization? That would be quite interesting, also.

That asked, it makes no sense to me that these two "examples" prove, or even indicate, anything germane to this thread.

oldexbeat 2 years, 8 months ago

where are the facts of your statement about liberals not giving as much as conservatives -- does that include church giving to make that difference ? Facts, please. I don't believe your statement. And facts on that adoption statement, too.

notajayhawk 2 years, 8 months ago

So, liberals are not only less generous, but they're xenophobic as well> Thanks for clarifying that.

jhwk2008 2 years, 8 months ago

You obviously failed to read the study. Arthur Brooks' "study" is clearly debunked. He's the president of the American Enterprise Institute, a non-partisan think tank right?

Mike Ford 2 years, 8 months ago

observant....your schizophrenic views of what's sacred and what isn't kind of surprises me. You're right about the teabaggers coming here to troll and blame their accuser for being racist is dead on. we both fight these people. however....you deny the tragic history of indigenous peoples right in your own back yard and call me an obstructionist without apparently knowing or caring anything about this country and it's desires to suppress and destroy indigenous religions historically. Many indigenous people would obstruct as I have construction that destroys areas related to our history. This story is about the hypocracy of the gop that wants life and ignores poverty. sadly it's a lot like your hypocracy.

Greg Cooper 2 years, 8 months ago

You are, indeed, a nutcase.

Is there a class tea partiers must take that teaches inuendo and smear tactics as a political tool? If so, you've reached the A+ level. Thank you for your further proof that your kind need not be in chargte of anything.

tomatogrower 2 years, 8 months ago

Yes, it's taught by the Westboro church in Topeka.

deec 2 years, 8 months ago

I love the smell of zombie in the morning.

fiddleback 2 years, 8 months ago

“Pitts seems to have an intimate knowledge of these occurences....just sayin'.”

Very cute—as though ending with a playful shrug makes your insinuation somehow less reprehensible?

Thanks for demonstrating what passes for humor in your monstrous little world. I suppose that’s what a writer gets for trying to evoke visceral realities that you’d rather never fully imagine…

Just do yourself and all of us a favor: stop bothering to read stuff. To not only read but then express your rancid sub-thoughts not only punishes anyone exposed, but just underscores your hopeless, irredeemable cretinism. In just one sentence, you’ve easily proven that you’re too permanently stunted for these glimpses at the human condition to make the slightest improvement in that obtuse and callous vacuum you call a brain. Please, for everyone's sake, just stay under the rock.

Armstrong 2 years, 8 months ago

I have to hand it to Lenny today. No race baiting ( today ) Len has pulled out the Barry strategy. Play to emotion ( this article is dripping with estrogen ), give lots of personal stories, add numerous " what if / what about " ( note lack of fact ) then point out the minority situations and play it off like that is the main reason for XXXX point you are trying to pimp. Mix all the crap together and then throw someone or party under the bus. Nothing new to see here except for Lenny changing tactics.

Greg Cooper 2 years, 8 months ago

So, the minority need not be protected, even from these kinds of tragedy?

Your reply to Pitts' opinion shows just exactly how much your party cares for all humans.

Armstrong 2 years, 8 months ago

Are all liberals this stupid ? What did my post say ? So even you can understand, Pitts article puts a minority situation in the light of being the majority of the problem. As usual Pitts and liberals are wrong - again

notajayhawk 2 years, 8 months ago

"Are all liberals this stupid ?"

That was either a rhetorical question, or you haven't been on these message boards very long.

Greg Cooper 2 years, 8 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 8 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Armstrong 2 years, 8 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

fiddleback 2 years, 8 months ago

(this article is dripping with estrogen)

I'd say it's dripping with the blood of the rapes he so vividly described; your comments seem to drip something altogether more putrid...

If you believe Romney will win, feel free to bet your LJW posting habit on that outcome. I already have such a wager going with JonasGrumby, and would happily try to expand if you're interested.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 8 months ago

One wonders how many of these legislators have one belief in public and entirely another in private.
Living in TN, we're getting hit in the face right now with a political scandal off the charts. Google Scott DeJarlais.
Even your beloved Mitt Romney paid for a surrogate mother so his son could have a child. Buried in the surrogacy contract was a provision that the pregnancy could be "terminated" if anything was found wrong with the fetus.
This isn't the elephant in the room, though. The real issue isn't abortion. These people couldn't care less about abortion. What they really want to regulate is sex. Especially the sex lives of women. They tell you to "put an aspirin between your knees". They file lawsuits to deny contraception. They defund programs that effect a half a million women at a time, using "abortion" as an excuse. They do this when the reality is that easy access to contraception is about the most sure fire way to truly lower abortion statistics. And don't even begin to think that they don't know that. They do.
One of the things that has truly horrified me, though, is how, in this past election season, rape has become a political football. One in five women in this country has been or will be sexually assaulted at some point in her life. Put that into perspective. Go to the grocery store and just stand there and count off five females (including children). It's almost a sure bet that at some point in her life that one of those women has been or will be raped. If she does get pregnant from that rape and chooses to carry the pregnancy to term, in 31 states in this country (including KANSAS!), her rapist can sue for custody and/or visitation rights and can block the woman from either getting an abortion or giving the baby up for adoption.
This is an article about the facts of rape. I doubt many of you will click through to it, but if you do, I'm putting a trigger warning on it. Believe me, it's pretty horrifying. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/50-facts-rape_b_2019338.html

notajayhawk 2 years, 8 months ago

"Buried in the surrogacy contract was a provision that the pregnancy could be "terminated" if anything was found wrong with the fetus."

Actually, the clause in the contract gave Romney's son and daughter-in-law the right to PREVENT the abortion. under the law, the surrogate could have had an abortion at will, the clause you refer to states:

"In the event the child is determined to be physiologically, genetically or chromosomally abnormal, the decision to abort or not to abort is to be made by the intended parents. In such a case the surrogate agrees to abort, or not to abort, in accordance with the intended parents' decision."

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 8 months ago

I see no difference between what the printed clause states and what I said.
Notice, I said "could be", not "would be".

notajayhawk 2 years, 8 months ago

Your statement came in attempted support for your contention that peoples' beliefs are different publicly and privately. The contract (which was an oversight, incidentally, in a previous contract that clause WAS removed) gives the Romneys control over the decision, not the surrogate mother - I see no difference between their public and private beliefs.

voevoda 2 years, 8 months ago

In an ideal world, every pregnancy would be planned and welcome and healthy. We don't live in an ideal world. So what are we going to do about pregnancies that are unplanned, unwelcome, and unhealthy? In a total reversal of their usual stance, it is the arch-conservatives who want to extend governmental control in this matter: they want the government to be able to decide whether a pregnancy is sufficiently unwelcome and unhealthy to allow women to terminate it. It would turn women into petitioners before state-appointed panels--"death panels" to use Sarah Palin's words in a way she didn't intend--that are legally obliged to privilege embryos over adult women. It is hard to imagine how any American, no matter how strongly he or she believes in the sanctity of life, could endorse this kind of violation of our civil liberties. Women need to retain the right to decide for themselves without the intrusion of the government.

For those who think that somehow God demands that every fertilized egg be treated as a full human being, consider this: God designed the female reproductive system so that a majority of conceptions would result in spontaneous abortion. The Bible is silent about the issue of abortion; Jesus never uttered a word about it. For centuries, Christian churches adopted a variety of different stances on this issue, and changed their minds. Even those people who hold that abortion is a grave sin ought to remember that only three out of the Ten Commandments are actually illegal, and most of the other provisions are explicitly protected by American law. Argue the moral issues all you want; try to dissuade women from choosing abortion. But don't impose your religious views on others through legislation.

Satirical 2 years, 8 months ago

Conservatives want to control and subjugate women!

It is ALWAYS a woman’s choice what to do with her own body. Forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn’t want is mean, cruel, and should never, ever, EVER be allowed (unless it is for a late term abortion or some other arbitrary line liberals conjure up. But only then is forcing a woman to have a baby it is acceptable…because a fetus isn't real....science says so…or something…)

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 8 months ago

Your "satire" is lacking. So is your sense of compassion.

Satirical 2 years, 8 months ago

cait48...

Your compassion is lacking if you EVER force a woman to have a child. Late term abortions for everyone!

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

Given that the opposite of your satire is that women NEVER be allowed either access to an abortion or even birth control, I believe it points to why a woman having a choice with certain limitations is truly warranted.

Satirical 2 years, 8 months ago

beatice...

If you think women NEVER having an abortion or birth control is the opposite of my satire, then you are missing the point. My point was that both liberals and conservatives believe in restrictions on a woman's right to choose. Liberals however use inflammatory rhetoric and are hypocritical when they claim putting limitations on abortion is evil or lacking compassion (when most of them agree on certain limitations).

If NEVER having an abortion is the opposite of my argument, then so is ALWAYS having an abortion. From The Simpsons Treehouse of Horros VII...

"Kang: Abortions for all. [crowd boos] Kang: Very well, no abortions for anyone. [crowd boos] Kang: Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others. [crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]"

Happy Halloween!

Satirical 2 years, 8 months ago

JonasGrumby...

What does Skippy mean?

notajayhawk 2 years, 8 months ago

Look up "argument from ignorance" on the logical fallacies list.

notajayhawk 2 years, 8 months ago

The lack of proof does not make a statement false. No more than a lack of proof to the contrary makes a statement true. In any event, if you weren't so lazy, you could have looked it up for yourself, as you are the one challening the contention.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?source=science20.com&_r=0

I realize the article I linked to is an opinion piece, I chose it because it will give you several possible sources of the proof you seek, if you were really interested in the facts instead of practicing your trolling skills.

chootspa 2 years, 8 months ago

While we're at it, you might want to look up ad hominem, hasty generalization, and caricature fallacies.

Greg Cooper 2 years, 8 months ago

I call BS. Please cite the information you believe, as a prior link has debunked your assertion.

tomatogrower 2 years, 8 months ago

Except they were counting money given to their churches, which can only be partly counted as charity, since the most of the money goes to the preacher and upkeep on the building. When you factor church donations out and even factor donations to PBS, NPR etc., then I would guess we are about equal.

This liberal has raised an adopted child. And it was a hard to place adoption. I know many liberals who have adopted children, but what about those whose parents keep them, but don't really want them and mistreat them? How are you conservatives going to deal with that? And what race are Brownback's? Would he adopt a mixed race baby or a baby with Down's syndrome? Many, conservatives and liberals alike, won't.

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 8 months ago

Yeah, those golden cathedrals really help the needy.

Seth Peterson 2 years, 8 months ago

Sorry Jonas, again spreading misinformation and ignorance. Studies have found time and time again those who lean to the more liberal end of the spectrum (especially Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics) give more than any other group. On the whole, the amount given by 'liberals' versus 'conservatives' is so one-sided against your argument you just look silly.

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

31 states currently do not bar rapists from seeking visitation and custodial rights for the children born as a result of their violent attacks. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/31-states-grant-rapists-custody-and-visitation-rights/56118/

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 8 months ago

If you think reproductive rights has nothing to do with the economy, you really need to think again.

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 8 months ago

That's soon to be a federal offense in this new forced birth era. Next on plate: going after couples who use the rhythm method of birth control. Babies for everyone! That'll keep them wimmin in their place.

mom_of_three 2 years, 8 months ago

Pitts hit the nail on the head in this article.

pizzapete 2 years, 8 months ago

This article reminds me of the twisted logic a local resident used to justify killing his wife. Apparently he felt it was better to kill his wife than get a divorce because getting a divorce went against his religious beliefs. People speculated at the time that he must have figured he could keep the murder a secret whereas a divorce would be more public and might diminish his good standing with his church. Given the choice between the two sins, he chose the one he thought he could get away with and remain an upstanding member of his church.

Is this the same sort of twisted logic that has led to the many cases of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church and Boy Scouts? Are these people thinking, sure rape is a sin, but as long as the perpetrator asks for forgiveness, the kid doesn't talk about it, and no one gets pregnant, what's the big deal?

George Lippencott 2 years, 8 months ago

Is there any real value in this article? Exactly what is the issue? The society tries hard to identify and punish all those who commit the crimes alluded to. The GOP does not support child rape, incest or any such horrible crimes and the implications in this article that they do are despicable. Is there any crime that some dim wit somewhere commits that people like Mr. Pitts will not blame on 30% of the population who hold conservative values?? Even when it comes to abortion the GOP is mixed with a wide variety of opinions. Fiscal conservatives just might be social liberals – until rabble rousers such as Mr. Pitts drives them to the dark side (GOP). Stupid!!

deec 2 years, 8 months ago

Members of the GOP may hold a variety of positions, but their official position is to force all pregnant women and girls to bear children, regardless of the method of conception.

"“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, which was first reported by CNN. “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.”"

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/g-o-p-approves-strict-anti-abortion-language-in-party-platform/

George Lippencott 2 years, 8 months ago

If that were true that is not valuing life differently. You reference a blog - how about referencing the platform (all of it).? Can you??

deec 2 years, 8 months ago

It's a direct quote from the platform.

George Lippencott 2 years, 8 months ago

Moderate 20 hours, 13 minutes ago

From factcheck.org

The Obama campaign is falsely accusing the Republican Party’s platform of calling for banning abortions even in cases of rape or incest. That’s not true. The 2012 platform is silent on exceptions — leaving that decision up to Congress and the states — just as it was in 2008 and in previous presidential election years.

Satirical 2 years, 8 months ago

Based on liberals outrage over Murdoch's comments, I think all liberals should find children conceived from rape and tell them God had no intention of them being conceived, and they are living proof that God made a mistake.

That make's WAY more sense than crazy old Murdoch saying "God loves every child."

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

Sati, are you saying Republicans believe rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children?

Satirical 2 years, 8 months ago

beatrice...

How is what you wrote, in any way, close to what I said?

chootspa 2 years, 8 months ago

Well, they both are total strawman arguments. I say that makes them completely related.

Satirical 2 years, 8 months ago

chootspa...

My comment is a logical extension of the article's faux liberal outrage and distortions. Mine is not a strawman. I took no position, and therefore beatrice's comment cannot be a logical extension of mine.

Do you have any more off topic and incorrect additions to this discussion?

Seth Peterson 2 years, 8 months ago

That word "logical"...I do not think it means what you think it means.

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

There is only one way to make sure that rapists are not able to choose the mothers of their children, and that is to allow women who are raped to have abortions if they choose. If someone does not believe women impregnated while raped have the right to an abortion, then by default they support the right for a rapist to choose the mother of his child.

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 8 months ago

I totally agree with that statement. In the interest of full disclosure I would like to say that I am a Democrat who is going to vote for Obama, and not a Christian or such, but only one who considers herself a daughter of God.

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 8 months ago

His guy Mitt approves of that message. Whatever it takes. Too bad that many, many Obama supporters have already voted.

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

Armstrong, this is the second time I've seen you LIE about the day on which people vote.

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

I was wrong. It is at least the third time that Armstrong has lied about when people are to vote.

Voter suppression isn't funny.

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

LJWorld, if you have a shred of dignity, you will remove Armstrong's lying posts on when people vote.

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 8 months ago

Cracking jokes in a discussion about rape. What a winner.Yet another sign of how much you resent women.

It's ok; we know who will have the last laugh here.

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

A lying attempt to prevent people from voting isn't funny and far too common from the party that does everything it can to prevent people from voting.

The LJWorld should be ashamed of itself for allowing such things to stay on its site.

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

It should concern all Americans when voting is limited, derailed, incorrectly tabulated, and in disenfranches citizens. I would think it horrid for machines to log the incorrect candidate.

You should be horrified that a newspaper allows people to lie about when the day to vote is!

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

Once could be considered tongue-in-cheek. Three times, he is lying and attempting to put out false information about when people are to vote. Pathetic.

Just so you know, until the moderator decides to remove me, I'll conduct myself as I choose.

Why am I not surprised to see you coming to the defense of a repugnant attempt to lie to voters? Could it be because you support Romney, another conservative who will say anything and flop his positions with the wind in his attempt to get elected?

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

Interesting, given that the red states where Romney has his strongest numbers have the lowest education rates.

But go ahead and convince yourself that the smart people are voting for Romney.

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

Alex, why is the LJWorld allowing someone to blatantly lie about when people are to vote? Does this newspaper care at all about honesty in politics? Pathetic.

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 8 months ago

The GOP stance on abortion only makes sense when viewed as an attempt to undermine women's rights and power in society.

"Life begins at conception" and "every life is sacred" are convenient means to prevent women from exercising power over their own bodies thus over their own lives and power in society.

George Lippencott 2 years, 8 months ago

From factcheck.org

The Obama campaign is falsely accusing the Republican Party’s platform of calling for banning abortions even in cases of rape or incest. That’s not true. The 2012 platform is silent on exceptions — leaving that decision up to Congress and the states — just as it was in 2008 and in previous presidential election years.

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 8 months ago

While it may not be an official plank in the platform, there are over a dozen Republicans campaigning for office who have explicitly indicated that they favor no exceptions, even in the case of rape or incest. Mourdock, Akin and Josh Mandel are not alone in their radical stances.

deec 2 years, 8 months ago

" we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed," So the states will have the right to violate a Federal constitutional amendment and allow abortions under certain circumstances?

George Lippencott 2 years, 8 months ago

Assuming the exceptions are not in whatever the feds pass - if anything. It is a long way from a stupid statement in a platform (would you like me to post some from the Democratic Platform) to a reality in law.

Hate is a bad thing even when directed at Republicans

deec 2 years, 8 months ago

You asserted that GOP believers held a variety of positions on abortion. The official platform of the party since 1984 has had a version of a human life amendment. It is stupid, but it is, and has been, the official GOP position for decades. Pointing out the platform of the party hardly qualifies as hate. Forcing women to have their rapist's baby-that's pretty hateful.

George Lippencott 2 years, 8 months ago

see factcheck.org (posted above). This is a rabid democratic myth. You should be better than that!

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 8 months ago

Smugly proud of forcing women to bear their rapist's child. I wonder how this new Republican core value would be if men were the ones violently assaulted? I can hear it now....Oh, he had it coming to him, dressed that way. Should have kept an aspirin between his knees.

George Lippencott 2 years, 8 months ago

There are over 30 million Republicans - where do they stand - you have not a clue. Learn to understand what you think you understand.

verity 2 years, 8 months ago

Sandusky gets life in prison for raping boys. These men want a girl or women who is raped to not only have to birth a baby and feel blessed by it, but in some states for the rapist to have parental rights.

John Koster, a Republican congressional candidate in Washington state, said that "Incest is so rare, I mean, it's so rare." Really, Mr. Koster, really?

Rep. Tom Smith (R-Pa.) compared pregnancy as a result of rape to "having a baby out of wedlock."

These and other recent comments by Republican men are vile and disgusting. This is not about morality, it is about power. Power by men over women.

And it will not stand.

Women will have abortions no matter what you think or want. And vicious and vile men like this will not be allowed to have power over us.

Once again, this is not about morality, it is about power. Power by men over women. And it will not stand.

George Lippencott 2 years, 8 months ago

No this is about shrill women making unsubstantiated allegations. Certainly there are some men who would like to put you back in a Burka just like there are some women who would be rid of men in their entirety. The vast majority of us are more nuanced.

Kathy Getto 2 years, 8 months ago

I have to call you out on your misogyny. Shrill women? You might as well have said, slt, cow, bith..................

Please enjoy the link, inspired by your "nuance". http://kiwi6.com/file/5php4ufki1

verity 2 years, 8 months ago

"unsubstantiated allegations"

Really? What did I say that is not substantiated? These are not allegations, these comments and the ones Pitts refers to are on record.

You can call me shrill, you can call me whatever you like and it will make no difference. I couldn't give a rat's ass what people like you think. I will stand for my rights and my humanity and that of other women.

Any person, male or female, with any humanity, will be disgusted by the dismissive way in which the rape of women is being treated by these men.

chootspa 2 years, 8 months ago

Shrill women? Really? That's your "more nuanced" argument?

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 8 months ago

http://www2.ljworld.com/users/photos/... I don't think I have seen more stupidity in my entire life than what I have seen by the GOP on the subject of rape this election season. I really do have to question if these people actually believe these things.

Kathy Getto 2 years, 8 months ago

Not difficult to understand at all. The problem with your opinion is your definition of innocent and how it applies to your party's politics. Remember what the bible says about the innocent? Let's take a developmentally disabled adult, who may have the intelligence of a child, unable to understand many things, including faith. Is that child of god innocent? Of course! Mind you, this same INNOCENT will be a victim of the extreme right's cuts to programs meant to give the INNOCENT a chance of leading a full life. You should really be more honest with yourself and admit this is not about the innocent at all, but as cait pointed out earlier, it is about power over women.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 8 months ago

"Innocence" is an artificial construct that predisposes the existence of "sin".
Argument fail.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 8 months ago

Innocence and sin, or their synonyms good and evil, may in fact be constructs of man, they may even be artificial (I'd have to get a Ph.D. in philosophy classes to figure out the answer to that one), but try having a society that doesn't have those artificial constructs. The only society that would function well under those circumstances would reside on the pages of a fantasy book. Perhaps the society that defines innocence (good) and sin (evil) within some broad, widely accepted range, is the society that functions best.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 8 months ago

I don't disagree with you. My personal belief is that "morality" is a self imposed code of conduct that most closely fits into the society in which you live (with some wiggle room). What is "immoral" to the society in which you live may be perfectly "moral" within another. (Fundamentalist Mormon polygamy is a good example of this.) Morality is also mutable and can change over time. What was moral at one time may not be moral now. There was actually a time in this very country in the late 1960's when Christian evangelicals supported the legalization of abortion. (Google it.) In fact, there is only a period of about 70 years that abortion was totally outlawed in this country.
In the end, if the definition of "sin" is a violation against "moral code" and it's changeable, then "sin", in and of itself, is an artificial construct and so is the concept of "innocence".

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

The problem isn't necessarily with the constructs of good and evil, or perhaps a better would be "beneficial" "neutral" and "harmful".

The problem with "sin" is that it's justification is primarily founded upon the viewpoint of a being that is not able to be spoken to, or even proven to exist. This divine backing is an active attempt, or at least provides the end result, of deflecting questions regarding its continuing relevance or practicality. "Why is this considered bad? "Because God says so." It frees the adherent to the concept of sin from actually demonstrating a true degree of harm to either the individual or the society.

Of course, that's just an iceberg tip over what would be, as you say, a Ph.D thesis on ethics, morality, and how religion helps shape and is shaped by those things.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 8 months ago

Hey, jonas, why do I feel like it's 1 AM and I'm back in my dorm room?
42. That's the answer. 42. :)

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 8 months ago

There is also the fact that, by their very definition, "sin" and "innocence" are only applicable in creatures that are sentient, sapient and capable of making judgments. This leaves out just about every creature on earth, including fetuses, except for modern man. It's why we're called "homo sapiens".
Religions like to confer "innocence" on these creatures by default but it's a fallacy because one cannot exist without the other.
And THIS is why the religious right is so against "critical thinking skills".

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

Just to throw a monkey wrench :-)

Some religions believe in the concept of "original sin", which means we're born sinners, so there are no innocent human beings, not even infants.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 8 months ago

I actually thought about that, jafs. "Original sin" seems to be something dreamt up by the Roman Catholic church and filtered down to some (but not all) Protestant religions. It's the basis for their claim that Mary was "immaculately conceived" as only a woman free from original sin would be pure enough to give birth to a god.
Although it does seem to throw a monkey wrench into the concept that all fetuses are "innocent" , in the end it's just differences in religious belief and, as jonas_opines said earlier, a "justification... primarily founded upon the viewpoint of a being that is not able to be spoken to, or even proven to exist".

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

Maybe.

But, for those folks, they can't oppose abortion on the grounds of "saving innocent lives", right?

It's kind of interesting.

08Champs 2 years, 8 months ago

How about the death penalty? If life is sacred......

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

Nothing is sacred to the GOP, which is why Romney is their nominee. The man has flipped on so many of his beliefs that it is impossible to tell who people might be voting for if casting a ballot for Romney. If he makes it into office and is told that making it illegal for women to have access to birth control will get him re-elected, he will support that cause.

verity 2 years, 8 months ago

So you're saying the liberals made up all these quotes and these men didn't really say these things?

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

So let me see if I have this correct -- in your argument that the whole anti-women thing is b.s. liberal propaganda, you compare women having control of their bodies with a pedophile, prostitutes and a serial killer also having control of their bodies.

Gee, who could consider that argument and comparison anti-women?

While the past GOP presidents have not attempted to overturn Roe v Wade, the actions of GOP state legislatures in states around the country prove that Republicans are very interested in stopping women's choice over what to do with their own bodies.

Kathy Getto 2 years, 8 months ago

" how many repub prez have tried to overturn that law?

High school American Government epic fail.

chootspa 2 years, 8 months ago

How may Republican presidents have tried to overturn that law? Er, it's not a law. it's the Constitution. However, they have attempted to overturn that ruling. Reagan was the first to use R v Wade as a litmus test for picking Supreme nominees, and all the rest of GOP presidents have done the same. Does Google not exist on your internet?

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

"Ok, let's remake that video with Sandusky, a couple of prostitutes and a serial killer. Guess what, humans can not be trusted with their bodies."

Lolwut?

roadwarrior 2 years, 8 months ago

okay...as a neutral party here I have to say moderate...it's your position is what is very "me,me,me" clearly your pretty far removed from being effected by any of this so you want the focus to be on what is important to you...saving you money. To be a citizen is to realize that you must defend the rights of everyone or you cannot defend the rights of anyone.

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

Who are you talking to? I'm not particular sure what position you even think I hold on this issue.

chootspa 2 years, 8 months ago

I think he was attempting to address the ironically named "Moderate," but somehow the thread got borked.

George Lippencott 2 years, 8 months ago

Interesting

Are we defending the rights of one group to impose its values on another or the reverse?? I am defending my right to not have to pay for other people's elective actions. They of course are defending theri perceived right to try to make me do so

storm 2 years, 8 months ago

Practically everyone is pro-choice. For some, they'll choose only when conception occured from criminal acts. For others, they'll choose when birth control failed or was neglected.

George Lippencott 2 years, 8 months ago

Yep the question is when the abortion should occur. Note my point is that almost every6body is pro choice - they just choose different points in the gestation cycle to acknowledge the existence of the child to be as a person.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.