How wide spread is the message that seems to come from the Republican Right that among the parties involved in a rape crime, the status of the woman is less important that that of the offender or that of the unborn child? See for yourself, here
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 … y#comments
Are the Gods Crazy? This GOP is determined to wear the Anti Woman mantle at any or all cost The Political Right can spare me the usual cover of 'liberal media' and such, This isn't the first GOP candidate that I have heard this stuff from......
I think that there is going to be hell to pay at the polls..
Please share your thoughts......
LOL, I was posting at the same time you were. I am appalled. I'd like to know why Republican voters keep elevating such misinformed people to high office. Aren't they embarrassed? Shouldn't they be embarrassed?
I don't get it.
I think that I get it, Pretty Pather, they hope to bowl everyone over by outspending the democrats with cheap advertising selling their crap like so much detergent. Overhelming and confusing, the people will not have the opportunity to carefully examine what it is they are being sold.....
Well, If it helps any... I'm embarrassed for them.
Just goes to show, there are idiots everywhere - Biden talks of chains and this yahoo talks of "legitimate" rape...Geesh!
ps. the Repubs don't have a monopoly on "elevating" chuckleheads to office - Wieners anyone?
Hey, GA, Biden said that in the context of the Wall Street recovery and he is right if the GOP gives these people a longer lease, we will all be in chains again. I did not see the statement as offensive at all. Not so with Akin....Much like comparing apples to hand granades?
I agree that knuckleheads abound on both sides, but surely you do not believe that Biden's badly worded statement and Weiner's sexual peccadilloes are equivalent? I sure don't.
@panther and Credence
No, I did not intend to make an equivalency comparison. But I do believe Biden's remarks were less than well chosen.
And had a Republican said what he said - there would be Democrats, red-faced with indignation calling for their head on a platter
Just pointing out there are chuckleheads on both sides of the fence. But, Akin does seem to be taking dumbness to a new level.
@Credence - check Biden's accusations, (and the Dems talking point), against Romney's "stated" proposals, re. Wall Street, before you decide he really does advocate what Biden says. Like the Medicare "battle of he-said, she said" you may find all is not as it is being represented to be.
oops just noticed I replied under appletreedeals - I hope it is obvious by the avatar and sig that I an GA Anderson
GA, yes you make your point their are 'chuckleheads' on either side. I think the we can generally say that the GOP is for deregulation "Wall Street" and the Dems are for less. It may be a generality, but has proven itself correct on countless occassions. But we are talking about policy and ideology on social issues here and the award for the Philistine goes to the GOP, who without equivocation, has no peer in the area of the sexual interference policy. While we Dems may have our deviates, the Deviate is an acceptable right wing member of the GOP, the quest to put a lock box on every womb. A goal that both Romney and Ryan hope to aspire to in perfection. How do we comapare, how are the Dems doing the "same' this time?
The title ANTI-WOMAN is completely deserved for which I hope they pay dearly at the polls.
Right on both counts, mostly. The reg/dereg issue is a subject that needs discussions based on actual proposals - not just broad-brush concepts. I am a devote capitalist - but like all things - there must be rules. And not ones made up by the players.
The anti-women label - yes, the Repubs deserve it - and also deserve to reap what they sow, but...
and this is a big but, there are a lot of American voters that agree with them - which is too bad for the rest of us
religious beliefs make pro-life or pro-choice a black or white issue when in reality it is, (or should be), anything but that. The Federal government has no business even being involved - much less making laws about it. Or financing it with tax dollars either.
Yeah but the ideological center of the GOP has moved starkly right over the last 25 years at a point that would Barry Goldwater look like a moderate. Their positions go beyond reasonable about abortion and such but are draconian touching on matters of reproduction and contraceptives where they have no business. This has got be one case where extremism will not be considered a virtue among moderate voters. If medical insurance pays for open heart surgery, abortion is a medical procedure no different from any other and should not be subject to rightwing litmus tests.
It's not widespread at all, which is why the laws are not following those few fringe representatives.
Fear not - the majority of the GOP and the Democratic Party are more moderate. It's just that the extremists are loud and the loudest gear is the one that gets the oil (media attention).
The House is full of "fringe" representatives. You apparently haven't noticed that, with the support of a few billionaires behind the curtain, the Tea Party has taken control of the GOP.
The Tea Party now has one of their darlings running for VP of the United States. Like I'm trying to point out, the GOP is elevating the fringe to a status unheard of in years past.
When will reasonable conservatives put a stop to it?
How is Paul Ryan a fringe candidate? Paul Ryan is a better candidate than any of the other three who will be on the ballot for high office this November. He well educated, his education is well documented. He has been a long time public servent from a politically diverse district and a politically complex state. He has authored a budget that will preserve Social Security and Medicare while resulting in eliminating the dual train wrecks rushing our way when entitlements will explode and sink the economy. He has worked in a bi-partisan fashion to generate that budget plan. his budget plan also balances the budget, albeit too far in the future for my tastes, without ripping the current budgetry priorities to pieces.
Sounds like wild eyed proto-fascist to me.
It's also been documented that, while he claims to be both a Catholic and a Christian, both the Catholic bishops and Protestant pastors find his proposed policies severely lacking in any Christian principles.
Some and some have not, there is no universal opinion among ministers any more than among voters. Perhaps informing one's self about the bishop's opinions on Obama and Biden would help.
They are also quite critical of Paul Ryan's faith in Ayn Rand which is completely inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ, as are Ryan's Roadmap and budget.
Paul Ryan co-sponsored a bill to grant personhood to a fertilized egg. That is extreme, especially considering he believes abortions should be illegal, even in the case of rape or incest or to save the mother's life.
Here's a pretty interesting article about the Ryan-Akin anti-abortion bill.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu … _blog.html
@prettyPanther - I don't agree with that bill, or Paul Ryan's position - but, in the "Truth in advertising" spirit of things, it would be fair to note that he did not sponsor (originate) the bill, and was one of 64 co-sponsors.
caveat: this is GA Anderson logged in under Appletreedeals ID, (HP apparrantly has an issue now with multiple ID's posting in the forums)
Romney's pulling Ryan from the fringe on this issue.
From the Christian Science Monitor
Representatives Ryan and Akin, in fact, have voted in lockstep on abortion matters since Akin joined Ryan in the House in 2001. Moreover, they teamed up on a controversial bill defining life as beginning at conception. Similar measures put forward at the state level have been rejected by voters and lawmakers even in GOP strongholds such as Mississippi.
Still, Ryan's and Akin's voting records on abortion-related issues are barely distinguishable.
During his 14 years in Congress, Ryan has voted in perfect concert with the positions taken by National Right to Life, according to the NRL scorecard. That's 78 votes with NRL, and none against (he didn’t vote on three bills).
In his House career, Akin voted with NRL 59 times and against it once (Akin was one of 25 Republicans joining 189 Democrats to nearly sink the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003. Here’s NRL’s write up of the MMA vote.)
However, the two differ on one important matter: Ryan believes abortions could be an option in the case of danger to the mother, while Akin does not.
Paul Ryan claims to be a Catholic but he's really an apostle of Ayn Rand's so-called objectivism which is a form of social Darwinism. He is the leader of the Tea Baggers in the House of Representatives. He's dangerous because he seems to be leading Romney around with a ring in his nose.
I've said the same thing about the "fringe elements" of both parties. I swear, though, they seem to be increasing in number.
Howard, I don't see 'left wing" extremists dominating the Dems like rightwing extremists are front and center for the Republicans....
Seriously? My thoughts?
I think that the Republican party has been hijacked by some pretty primitive people. That they are running for government in a country with as many weapons as the USA (if you combined the military budgets of every country in the world, the USA outspends them) is frightening beyond belief.
It's the equivalent of the Ayetollahs running all the Muslim countries and having nuclear warfare to convince non-believers that they better believe and convert otherwise they are going to get nuked.
People in government shouldn't have these kind of primitive, barbaric, backward beliefs. There should be a law against it!
And you want to tell me these people are sane????
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … srael.html
Thanks, Sophia, If there ever were an undercurrent in American life, these guys are it. I have an article or two that speaks on the blolated US defense establishment. No one can tell me why we need more resources toward this than all of our allies and rivals combined. Perhaps the truth is that so called Free-enterprise/Capitalism needs a war compenent to function. President Eisenhower warned us about this in January, 1961. Unfortunately too many were more concerned about profits and failed to heed the message.
We claim to be the 'good guys' but we insist on having the same forces of intimidation as any of the mullahs! Thanks for dropping by.
Allain de Botton has a video somewhere on TED.com where he says that he seriously believes that people who want the kind of wealth and power that some hanker after and have, are a result of low self-esteem. I believe that.
I think that enormous egos are the result of repressed feelings of inferiority. Any deep thinking person cannot sincerely believe that they're greater than anyone else based on money and power... These people are able to do so because they don't dare to think deeply because it's too frightening to see how small they really are.
So what's this got to do with the USA Defense Budget? Well, the kind of people who are running it are ego driven. They want to be in charge of the greatest military in the world. They keep having to prove more and more because they have deep empty holes inside them. There is no ending to this cycle because it's deep, dark, black hole.
In addition, there's another section of people that are responsible for this. You can read about them here....http://www.cracked.com/article_18777_5-scientific-reasons-powerful-people-will-always-suck.html
The scary thing is that the implication is that women who are "legitimately" raped can somehow stop the pregnancy from happening. So, all those women who are saying they became pregnant after rape must be lying (i.e., "illegitimate rape"). Yes, if we allow abortion in the case of rape, women all over the country will be lying about being raped so they can get an abortion....
Even though he retracted his comment (because he HAD to, not necessarily because he wishes he hadn't said it), I think that many, many people who watched it will take home the message that women lie about being raped and that pregnancy is an unlikely outcome of rape.
It's hard to believe in this day and age that these myths about rape and pregnancy are out there and being further perpetuated. I think people will continue to spew garbage to further their political goals.
Laura, thanks for weighin in. This is more than just a gaffe from a single clown, but this is the face of the GOP, 'unplugged'. They are careful to conceal this aspect of their political ideology, but every now and then there are countless examples of 'tyranny peeking". Some of these guys are deep down misogynistic and are afraid and intimidated by women. The same mentatlity found in the Middle East and such.
Who wants this sort running the show?
I cannot tell you all how troubling I found this when I first heard about it. I am a rape victim, of which the rape occurred from a family member. I was a teenager when this happened. It resulted in me becoming pregnant. My family and I immediately took the necessary steps to terminate the pregnancy. You all have no idea how thankful I am that I made that choice. There is no way that I would have been of a sound mind to have raised that child.
However, as a result from the trauma I had endured. When I became an adult and decided to have children, I found out that I couldn't. This was partially due to a back issue I have, but the doctors told me it was almost entirely stress related. I began to seek counseling to help myself cope with what had happened to me. Today, I now have a baby boy, and he is the most amazing thing that has ever happened to me.
What Akin said hurt me to the very core. His words insinuated that I had not gone through a "real" rape because I had become pregnant. I can guarantee you, Mr. Akin, it was 100% real and legitimate.
Sorry for my rant, everyone. This is always really hard for me to talk about. But I'm getting better at it. And if my talking about it will open people's minds to what rape really is and that pregnancy CAN happen from it, then I will keep talking about it.
Your insightful comment is appreciated and as you recognize first hand, the flippant attitude taken the Politcal Right does nothing more than to pour salt on old wounds for millions of women like yourself that questions Akin's authority on the topic at hand. The upcoming GOP platform on the subject is just as rigid, this guy is not an aberration but mainstream GOP, even though they want to make it appear otherwise.
Indeed. Here's another one. And a perfect example of HOW the Republicans are going about stripping women of their reproductive freedom using truly bizarre proposals.
Idaho Republican Chuck Winder is the sponsor of that state’s “Double Ultrasound Bill,” which would require women to have an ultrasound before they can access any abortion services. These ultrasounds would be offered “free of charge,” but women would have to have them performed at an anti-choice crisis pregnancy center, where anti-choice operatives would do their best to talk women out of terminating their pregnancies. Then, if the woman decides to go through with the termination, she would have to fork over the cash for a second ultrasound, which would be performed by the abortion physician.
Now, Winder is wondering whether women are capable of knowing what rape even is. Addressing his detractors — women’s groups who claim his double ultrasound law traumatizes women who are the victims of rape and incest, and for whom there are no exceptions — Winder wondered:
“Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this. I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that’s part of the counseling that goes on.”
What Winder is implying is that women are either stupid or just a bunch of lying, scheming whores, which plays into every negative stereotype ever created about women, which is exactly what men like Winder mean to imply, because they’re a bunch of aging, misogynist creeps who don’t like the fact that women can actually run their own lives without the oversight of men, which is really what this war on women is all about.
Thanks Mighty Mom, we all have varying positions on the Abortion issue from Pro-Choice to Pro-life. What gets me is that GOP presumes to administer to adult women as if they were minor children. There is this underlying foundation that the issues surrounding female sexuality are best left to their hands, patriarchs, to be sure.
We had a cowboy in Colorado that was running for the Senate named Ken Buck that would throw a mother under the bus to protect the baby. Absurd? It is happening within GOP circles nationwide and needs to be brought to the attention of reasonable thinking people.
We need to be concerned, regardless of our gender, as this kind of attitude spills over into so many others areas of contention, such as labor, for example. The Elephant's trunk is under the tent, we do not want the rest of it to come in and get comfortable.
Ah yes and the Dems are seeking to capitalize on the Akin fiasco at their convention. One possible theme is “Democrats: Our Long History of Respecting Women.” Hilary Rosen could remind delegates that stay-at-home mom Ann Romney “hasn’t worked a day in her life.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could discuss how the Muslim Brotherhood means an exciting future for Egyptian women. Bill Clinton could be introduced by any number of women, including Juanita Broaddrick. Who better than Bill to respond to Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment? Finally, a moving tribute to the Kennedys, and their special history of “respecting women.” Unfortunately, word is Mary Jo Kopechne will be unable to attend this year.
Yes, but none of them passed any laws to prevent women from making decisions about their own lives.
The Republican party also has their share of men who have had affairs...it's more to do with being male than what political party they belong to.
Cmon Onusonas, you have to do better than this.
Yes, progressives are going to capitalize on this stupidity from the right, but you have only yourselves to blame!
There is a bit of difference between indiscretionary sexual behavior from individuals and a party whose legislative program nationally and statewide is to deny women their basic choice in this of a most personal nature. You folks are the ones that talk about the constitutional amendments banning abortion, and there were no mention of exceptions. So don’t try to cover for them, they are Philistines who, through the stupidity of Akin will allow us all to see just how retrograde the GOP and the political right actually is…..
Control a women's reproductive rights (when raped or otherwise) and you control her future. This is misogyny, not pro life.
Yes, Hollie this is a good point, that is the crux of it, isn't it? If they can control your womb, they are well positioned to control the extent of your ambition and aspirations. The implications are most dire, reasonable minded people need to rouse and awake.
What the heck is "legitimate rape"?? This guy sounds like a maroon. The female body can shut down a pregnancy?? Did this guy flunk jr. high biology, or what? Glad Mitt put out a statement about this.
Well apparently during a "legitimate" rape the woman is so traumatized that her ovaries suck the newly released egg back up the Fallopian tube.
Kinda like a Hoover vacuum.
Then her waiting uterus collapses in upon itself like a fold-up tent. Finally the cervix slams shut tighter than a two-year old's lips when faced with creamed spinach.
Medically speaking of course.
That's what all the doctors say anyway.
Is this when the offending 'member' is severed?
The body of a good Christian woman would know better than to sever any male members... Our bodies are there for men to impregnate after all. I'm sure the rapist was just too busy to convince us that we should be his incubator. After all men have stuff to do and can't waste time dealing with our silly little protests that our bodies actually belong to us. Should a man really lose his member because we are stupid enough to think that just because something is attached to us that we should have control over it?
Not to defend a silly idea but - every fertilized ovum does not result in pregnancy. There is a link between stress and infertility. There is also a link between stress and spontaneous abortion. It might be worth a medical study. But Akin stepped on a land mine because he didn't think before he spoke.
"But Akin stepped on a land mine because he didn't think before he spoke."
Oh, he probably did a lot of thinking before he spoke. What he said was what he thought. Only, as is usual with people of this type, it's not quite as simple as he thinks!
In defence of a pro-life position regarding rape, which is horrifying, when a baby(pro-life remember) is killed because it is the product of a rape who is being puinished? What additional harm is being done? Is it really a solution to the trauma of rape?
I disagree, I don't believe he had given it much thought but ,like most people, believes as he believes without sufficient reflection.
Yeah, well when you or your wife get pregnant after rape, how long will it take you to murder the child through the neglect and abuse that seems to go on so much in the Tea Party states. There are child or woman murders every week!
oh, please. Aborting a few cells directly after discovery of being pregnant is hardly in the same league as a woman enduring nine months of pregnancy and carrying a child that will remind her for the rest of her life of a terrible experience. Then, in addition, she has to care for that child until he is at least 18. On top of that, did you know that single mothers, internationally, are the poorest of the poor.
Sometimes, one just has to go with the lesser of two evils. In this case, the abortion is the lesser of two evils. For anyone to expect a woman who has been raped to spend the rest of her life paying for what an evil person did to her is evil beyond words - and is the greater of the two evils.
Well for starters, your argument seems to suggest that a woman's only purpose is to birth and raise children, considering that you see no punishment in a woman forced into child rearing or at least birth and having other options in pursuing the life she chooses being taken away from her due to no choice of her own.
Second, the fact that she was just raped, but now has to deal with a child that is not one she wanted inside of her, and then give birth. There are several really fucked up parts to just this bit of time, like lets say, the massive amount of money it costs just during pregnancy, from doctor's visits to food and other necessities. Not to mention the emotional distress due to a pregnancy combined with the severe trauma of rape, if you can't believe that doesn't equal a recipe for potential suicide candidate....
Oh let's not forget that she has to also give birth, an excruciating physical ordeal, which to me sounds like the rape itself coming back full force in a different direction, not even considering the long term health implications. Like a ticking time bomb for round 2.
#3 After going through something like that, I can only expect the victim wishes to separate themselves as much as possible from the person who violated them in such a horrible way. How does one do this when there is literally a part of them growing inside of you? Even afterwards, that child will continue to exist, thus never breaking that connection in a physical sense, which I'd imagine makes it that much harder to work past in an emotional one.
#4 Here's for the anti-freedom-of-choice (*pro-life, my ass*) sensibilities. Who's to say this woman wouldn't choose to have another child at a later time with someone she loved, after working past the trauma and issues brought with it? This again is another point that aggravates me, because it again assumes that women are just meant to produce babies at every opportunity with no say in the matter, as opposed to a woman being able to decide "I want 2 kids, thats it". It is reasonable to suggest that this woman may still raise the same number of children in life had she chosen to abort the child she was impregnated with during rape, then years down the road after receiving the help she needed and deserves, ends up raising two kids in a loving family whom can actually know about their father as someone other than a fucked up rapist.
There's more I feel like I can add, but honestly I have to stop here. Anger at what you suggested precludes me from continuing to elaborate in a reasoned way, considering the people I love who have been through this before and the emotion I feel for them and their pain. Also, I understand you may be playing devil's advocate to some degree with your response, but it's not really ever something you should choose lightly without serious thought, especially on a subject like this.
Pro-lifers are likely also to be pro-capital punishment, anti-birth control, anti-comprehensive sex education, and opposed to government programs to provide pre-natal and post-natal care for single mothers and their babies and young children.
Glorify the fetus. All hail the almighty fetus.
While the baby is in the womb, he/she is an exalted HUMAN BEING. With rights!
The mother? Merely a vessel. No rights for her, no sir!
As soon as that same baby is born -- he/she is stripped of all worth and dignity.
Not worthy of further consideration.
The mother? Now deemed a welfare whore.
She only breeds to cheat the goverment out of more money.
She should have kept her knees together, the slut!
Unless, of course, the mother does the selfless thing and puts the baby up for adoption. To a heterosexual married couple, only, of course.
Who, once Ryan's plan outlaws in vitro fertilization, will be an even bigger, more desperate market.
I'm glad you said "likely," Ralph. I'm against capital punishment, for birth control, and for sex education. And I don't have an "extreme" view on abortion. Personally, I hate it, but I think EARLY abortions should be safe and legal.
I've never understood how those on the far right could be so against abortion and so against birth control/sex ed at the same time. They're living in la-la land if they think teens aren't going to have sex. Believe me - I KNOW teenagers!
What additional harm is being done? Seriously? You would have a 13-year-old incest victim endure the trauma of pregnancy and birth, not to mention raising a child, just to protect a fertilized egg?
I've heard this position before that the product of the rape is being "punished". It's not about punishment, it's about violation of a woman who was victimized. If a girl/woman feels she needs to have an abortion or take the morning after pill she should be able to. I'm tired of all these men in government that want to make it harder for a girl/woman to do so. Trying to even distinguish between different types of rape is disgusting to me.
So when a girl goes to a clinic and is denied help for abortion/morning after pill because her rape wasn't "legitimate" who's being punished then?
Clean up your language. A zygote is not a baby.
See... that is a problem that I have with the liberal pro-choice movement (and I am quite definitely both a liberal and pro-choice). I have been pregnant five times... each time the zygote/embryo/fetus whatever was a baby from the moment I found out. It would be hypocritical for me to say it was a baby if I wanted it and a zygote when I didn't.
I have heard the same hypocritical language with other pro-choice individuals when they were expecting. I have never once heard a pregnant pro-choicer call her/his unborn child a fetus or really anything but a baby. I think that it's too easy to hide behind semantics and science here to prove a point that really is silly.
Yes abortion should be legal. Yes it should be the woman's choice. Yes... it IS a baby... regardless of what scientific name you slap on it. Suck it up... the right has a point.
It's the only valid one they have though so take heart.
Check your dictionary. A zygote is not a baby. The fanatics use inflammatory language which winds up nut cases who try to kill abortion doctors, e.g., "stop killing babies," stop murdering children" etc. Calling a zygote or early fetus a baby is not correct use of the word. Zygotes aren't babies and abortion is not murder.
Which is exactly why the pro-choice movement hides behind what is essentially semantics so that the pro-lifers can't scream murder. Doesn't matter they still do anyway. In the mean time you are dehumanizing babies for the sake of winning an argument that you can't. The right is correct in saying it is a baby. Cope. Sure it makes the decision harder for a woman but maybe it should be hard.
I know what the scientific terms are and at what stage they apply. It also doesn't matter. If you have children... and I'm assuming you do... did you call your child a zygote/fetus etc? Or did you call it a baby? If you called it a baby then you are being hypocritical with your argument.
In your zest to prove a point you are simply denying a valid point by calling something a clinical name. It doesn't in the least change what it IS. It might make it easier for some people to sleep at night but then again maybe those people SHOULDN'T sleep at night. Pro-Choice doesn't mean Pro-Apathy. It means making an educated choice on what is the right decision for you. Hiding behind semantics colors that choice and removes the responsibility that comes with it. That's wrong.
Now... that being said you can call whatever it is that a women is carrying in her uterus Fluffy the Wonder Squirrel if you like... it doesn't matter. She has the right to decide what is in her uterus and for how long.
You seem to be assuming all women think the same way. You are being awfully presumptuous.
I did not starting thinking of myself as carrying a "baby" until about the fourth month of pregnancy, for reasons that are personal to me.
Ralph is right. A fertilized egg is a zygote. You can call it a baby if you want, and you have that right, but you would be wrong.
Not to be rude and certainly not a personal attack... but if those personal reasons had anything to do with being unsure of whether you could carry or whether you wanted to then you kinda just proved my point.
Clinical terms are used to create detachment.
I can't speak for PP but can concur that it didn't really register for me that this was really and truly a "baby" until I felt the flutter at 4 months.
But you raise an excellent point about detachment.
Exactly why Rs like Winder of Idaho want to make women have 2 ultrasounds before they can have access to an abortion.
Which I strongly disagree with. My vagina is also my own and I should be able to decide whether I want a 2 foot long phallic device shoved up there for an ultrasound before I have a medical procedure.
That being said while I don't agree with medical personnel attempting to talk anyone in or out of an abortion I also believe that something more than "hop up on the table" might be in order. Even if it's just information/referral to therapists in the area. I don't think that complete detachment is the right way to go because it isn't always permanent.
I know it's easier on a woman making the choice to ignore the fact that what she has in her uterus-if left to it's own devices- would become a living breathing human being but I'm not sure that's the way it should go either. No decision is best made by completely ignoring the realities of one or the other options.
That would seem logical and appropriate.
However, 25 states already have mandatory counseling and mandatory waiting periods.
According to research, the decision is made (agonizingly) before the woman even goes to the clinic.
Just as Utah implements a new law forcing women to wait three days before having abortions, a new study finds that these mandatory waiting periods and laws requiring counseling before the procedures does not affect women’s decisions. In fact, the report published in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health found that 87 percent of women were highly confident in their decisions before counseling ahead of an abortion procedure.
Researchers gathered data from pre-counseling needs assessment forms and clinical intake forms of roughly 5,000 women at one abortion clinic in 2008. State laws adding waiting periods and mandating information that doctors must tell their patients assume that women need time and counseling to make their decisions, but the study’s data show that these assumptions are wrong:
In nearly nine out of 10 cases, women expressed high confidence in their abortion decision before they received any counseling; these women would likely not benefit from additional mandated counseling or delay. Furthermore, one-size-fits all policies may not address the complex needs of women who experience ambivalence, have negative beliefs about abortion, feel pressured to have an abortion, have spiritual concerns about abortion or have low levels of social support.
Past research has indicated that forcing a woman to view an ultrasound before she has an abortion did not change her mind, and now this report shows that other state laws adding barriers to abortion services do not help women either
Melissa, the clinical term "zygote" is accurate. The term "baby" is not. I have no problem with women thinking of a fertilized egg as a baby in their own minds, but to say that it is pro-choice people who are using semantics to bolster their position is backwards. It is the pro-life people who are inaccurately referring to a zygote or embryo as a baby and are using semantics to bolster their point.
And, no, I have never considered having an abortion.
I think both sides use terminology to their advantage. Women who miscarry a wanted fetus don't say, "I lost my zygote." Women who want to end the pregnancy don't say "I want to get rid of my baby." It's all a matter of word play, often depending on the person's frame of mind, regardless of the scientific terminology.
Yes, you are speaking about individuals. Melissa was referring to pro-choice and pro-life movements and claiming it is the pro-choice movement who is using semantics, when it is really the other way around, considering that "zygote" is an accurate term for a fertilized egg and "baby" is not.
What do those for late term abortions call the "creature"?
I don't know anyone who is "for" late-term abortions, so I can't speak for them. The moment when a fetus becomes a baby is the least well-defined and most debated. However, the term "zygote," which is what this discussion was originally about, is well-defined and referring to a zygote as a baby is not accurate.
"For" was a bad choice. I should have said "support the legality of." I don't think anyone is "for" abortion of any type.
One definition of the line between a fetus and a baby is when the fetus/baby is mature enough to survive outside the womb. I think I'll leave this topic henceforth up to the women. Old men best stay out of the fray.
You can call a zygote or fetus a baby if you want. That doesn't make it correct. Call it life if you wish, but not a baby or a child. And don't call abortion "murder" as the fanatics do every month in front of Father Coughlin's Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak, Michigan.
Just because I call it a baby doesn't mean I call abortion murder. That's a connection I'll leave to the right.
It's kinda like this... If I were to have miscarried the baby I'm currently pregnant with at 6 weeks and someone said that they were sorry I lost the embryo I would have been appalled at their insensitivity. I wanted this pregnancy from the day I found out we were expecting. You seem like a pretty nice guy too and this really is the first disagreement I've had with you but I expect that in those circumstances you would also have said something along the lines of "I'm sorry you lost the baby."
My point is that if in that case the embryo were a baby then it is always a baby. The only difference is whether it is wanted or not. That has always struck me as hypocritical.
Now with that said there are lots of times that ending a life is not murder. The Right can give you whole lists of times when it is perfectly acceptable... I also think that if killing someone who has broken into your house is not murder than removing an unwanted intruder in your uterus isn't either. So they are hypocritical too.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder. (animated=viable or capable of surviving outside the womb)
http://www.world-faiths.com/GCSE%20Shor … ortion.htm
I'm inclined to agree in most cases... of course I differentiate between murder and euthanasia though. I'm sure that St. Thomas and I have different reasons for our beliefs though.
It's a complicated line and unfortunately it really does come down to it always having to be one way or another. That makes things more difficult.
"Not to defend a silly idea but" and then you go on to defend it? The idea that a woman can't get pregnant if she's been truly (I think the term was "legitimate") raped is one of the stupidest, most backward ideas I've heard of lately. It's something a person remembers, like a disaster.
Why would you want to lend it any legitimacy at all?
And as for pro-lifers demanding that a woman who has been raped go through 9 months of pregnancy because of that rape is horrifying, to say the least.
And yet many women elect, freely, to carry that innocent life to term and give it up for abortion. It is not an issue on which all women agree.
http://afterabortion.org/2005/victims-a … l-assault/
It is, however, so emotional as to strip away all reason.
The point is that they elected it freely. They had a choice.
Do you genuinely believe that a woman forced against her will (by law) to carry a rapist's child would respond to the experience in the same way as someone who made the decision of her own volition?
*sighs* Long-term stress can cause infertility problems. There is no indication that an isolated trauma would prevent a pregnancy from occurring if she were fertile when raped.
Your other point... which is largely unrelated... is that stress can cause miscarriage is valid. Unfortunately that breaks your argument into "Why get an abortion when there is a real possibility that your body will kill the child itself?" Seriously? You want a woman to go through 9 months hoping for that? It's okay if "God" chooses to kill the child but it's not ok when the victim does?
There is little proof that emotional trauma -- fear, grief, anger or stress -- results in an increased risk of miscarriage.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/pregnan … riage1.htm
Apparently it is only physical trauma. It is still amazing that there are women so able to see the life in them as something separate from the horror of what created that life. Some might say they are irrational but how calling them courageous, instead.
So now you are arguing your own original point... ok.
If a woman wants to keep a child that was produced by rape then she should have that choice. If she can handle it then good on her.
However that is HER choice and it doesn't mean that everyone else in the world has to make the same choice. No one should be bound to anyone else's opinion of right and wrong in this instance.
He's just as bad when he "thinks." It's doubtful that he's even capable of thinking.
OMG, yes, I said GOD, I saw the interview. I shouldn't be shocked but I AM.
Mr. Akin is indeed challenged to put it kindly.
That is the Catholic position so the fact that plenty of Republicans hold it should be no great surprise.
Says a lot about how much stupidity - especially on women's issues - can still be lingering in Congress. The first thing I thought when I heard that he had made his stupid statement is that bad information about girls doesn't stop being passed around the boy's restroom when everyone grows up. I can see a bunch of congressmen standing around while somebody puts this piece of nonsense out as fact. They scratch their heads in wonder and go "Well, whattaya know about that!"
Anyone heard of David Barton? He is an uneducated and incredibly ignorant voice of the extreme right wing. Unfortunately, people who are just as ignorant and uneducated as he is believe the misinformation he preaches.
Read all about it right here!
http://www.otherwords.org/articles/davi … sone_share
I would but I don't want to give him page views - or a link for that matter. You might edit your post to make the ".com" a "dot com" so he doesn't get the link.
You know it's bad when Sean Hannity is telling Akin to drop out! I just read that this maroon is an engineer. How????
"Republicans are frantically trying to get Representative Todd Akin to drop out of the United States Senate race in Missouri after his remark about abortion and rape, but not because it was offensive and ignorant. They’re afraid he might lose and cost them a chance at a Senate majority next year. He would surely be replaced by a Republican who sounds more reasonable but holds similarly extreme views on abortion, immigration, gay rights and the role of government because those are the kinds of candidates the party nominates these days in state after state."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opini … ef=opinion
Representative Todd Akin said definitively on Tuesday that he would not leave the race for the Senate in Missouri, saying on Mike Huckabee’s radio show that "there’s a cause here" and that an outpouring of grass-roots support would propel him to victory without the support of the Republican establishment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/us/po … ad.html?hp
Thanks for explaining how this rejection of sperm and egg works, lol. Isn't it scary that people with ideas like this help to run our country? I mean, he has a wife and 2 daughters, so he must have a little knowledge about females. In a way it's sad that somebody's whole career is ruined from one stupid comment, but I imagine he's probably make many more like it, just privately. The R's will take care of him for life anyway. It's not like he'll be homeless or hungry.
Maybe it should be up to the woman to decide what to name what's in her uterus.
My educated guess is that she's going to go with one of two options, both of which center around her:
1. If she is happy and excited about the news, she will refer to it in the future tense. "I'm gonna have a BABY!"
2. If she is shocked and unhappy about the news, she will say, "Oh no. I'm PREGNANT."
She will not use the term "zygote" or "fetus." At only 6 weeks or whenever she finds out she's pregnant, she will not use the word "baby" at that point, either.
not having read all the comments cause i'm lazy that way, ha!...... i 1st would like to say all opinions matter and what i'm about to say is not directed at anyone here,....
i am a life long republican but have voted for democrats in the past and plan on voting for more than one in the future,.... i vote my concience NOT my party.
i'm pro choice and one of the rare breed republicans willing to say so in public,.... that said,... i pray and work hard to provide all the resources needed so that life is the option chosen most often.
i'm anti-death penalty,.... if you are willing to march in the streets for a collection of cells that hasnt formed apendage buds yet, how can you, in good faith and concience be willing and even gleefull that the state would murder another human being on your behalf,.... inject poison into the arm of some ones son or father,.... because you quote the bible to back it up?..... the bible was quoted to suport slavery in the south,.... that didnt make it right.
i'm deeply ashamed and disapointed in my party at times,..... but it is my party,.... i would rather work hard to change it for the better than to burn it down and walk away.
the republican party emancipated slaves under lincoln and busted monopolies under TR,..... we built a national road system and enineered the great society under Ike,... lincoln, TR and Ike would not recognize thier party. reagan kept the world from the brink of nuclear devastation by diplomacy and strength,... reagan would not recognize the GOP of today that chants his name like a magic word.
tod akin seems to be at a loss as to which excuse he wants to use,.....
A),.... i miss spoke,.... implying that he does not have full mastery of the english langue in public
B),.... i was miss informed,.... implying that he surounds hjimself with people who feed him flawed info
C),... i miss guaged the sensitivity of the subject,.... implying he's poiliticaly tone deff
D,..... i am a dumb ass.
none of these seem pleasant.
I would go with D. Your politicians make ours look like intellectual giants.
When I first heard this story I was reminded of the Monty Python song "Every sperm is sacred", only in my mind, I heard it as "Every sperm is psychic".
As is the whole female apparatus, which has finely tuned sensors. The lady parts have scouts at the gates (vagina). The scouts assess whether what's going on is
a) "amazing sex"
b) "not great but acceptable sex"
c) a "fake rape" or
d) a "legitimate rape."
If d) the vagina scouts sound the "shut down" alert and the tubes clamp up and if necessary they suction any wandering eggies right back to safety in the ovary.
At least, that's how Todd Akin's doctor explained it to me.
If every sperm is sacred, men need to stop having abortions by ejaculating into condoms and other things not-the-vagina. Quit stomping on unborn spermies by flushing them down the toilet!
Sperm not sacred on its own.
Egg not sacred on its own.
After the hookup -- sacred.
Sex makes all the difference!
Sex = religious experience?
None of the GOP women in Congress support the extreme GOP platform on abortion according to a report just now on CNN. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are both pro choice. And several GOP members of the House also say they support exceptions to a prohibition of abortion. I didn't have a pencil or I would have jotted down their names.
Contrary to the picture being painted on this thread, most pro-life GOP politicians do support abortion in cases of rape, incest and when the woman's life is in danger. Plus there are many who support the right to choose.
Don’t know, Sassy Sue, looks like the Rick Santorum wing of the party is rearing its head in a mighty way. The carefully scripted GOP image of moderation is being exposed for what it is, a sham. Their platform regarding no abortion does not make any exceptions. That does not sound like moderation to me. Ladies need to prepared to put super glue over their private parts, maybe then the GOP patriarchs will be satisfied? If there are any moderates as you say, they are locked in the closet.
I don't think so Credence. Both Romney & Ryan, though both pro-life, have come out for the exceptions. I'm waiting to see the platform introduced at the Convention. I don't personally believe abortion needs to be in the platform at all, we have much bigger issues to consider, but if it is, I would hope those exceptions are included.
Of course it is going to be in the platform. It is a great diversionary ploy to avoid the real issues and their solutions. These guys only do and say whatever they need to get elected and finally get the power they crave. I think Romney is snakebit and unless I am wrong doesn't want to offend anymore people with the non-issue of gay marriage.
Ryan didn't exactly come out in favor of exceptions. My recollection is that he said he was deferring to Romney's position as head of the ticket. Romney has vacillated on the issue.
These two are turning out to be the Kerry/Edwards rerun dynamic duo of the GOP bid for President. The reason why Kerry/Edwards failed so fabulously was their wishy washy exposure of their platform and trying to avoid as many revealing details of any specificity. They in essence said we are better than him meaning "W" and depended on the peoples displeasure with him. You hear it so many times from the GOP "anybody but Obama". I am sorry but that just does not carry any leadership qualities that I am willing to get behind.
That's true. My recollection is that the majority of U.S. women support Roe v. Wade.
I once asked an acquaintance of mine, who believes that abortion is a no-no (even in rape and molestation), why she thought that.
And she said: If you get pregnant after a rape, the baby was meant to be there.
These people honestly and truly believe that life starts at conception. And most of them are likely trying to defend the rights of the unborn child. However, I do not agree with Akin, or with the notion that the rapist has any rights towards this child (whether or not the pregnancy is aborted).
by Credence22 years ago
This fellow has such a screwed reasoning system, check out this articlehttp://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 … c#commentsDoes he really believe that the indiscretions of a former President almost 20 years ago...
by JOC6 months ago
With his numbers crumbling with women, the Republican Establishment realizes that there's no way they can give him the nomination of their party. He finally offended one group too many with his statements against...
by Dr Billy Kidd4 years ago
Shout out to women. Does this feel like a stab in the gut from a rapist.Does it make you cross your arms ovrer your stomach to keep from feeling hallow?Does it remind you that Taliban males killl the raped woman because...
by Miss Info5 years ago
I was chatting with a friend, Sam, the other day. He is openly gay, insists that he is a traditional Orthodox Jew and is very adamant about his “rights”. He believed that “people should be able to live...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
GOP Congressional candidate Todd Akins wants to make a brand new category: "legitimate" rape. Anyway, for those still considering which candidate they will vote for in November,it's pretty clear where...
by Stacie L3 years ago
A Superior Court justice is admonished for his despicable remarks to a rape victim four years laterBy Mary Elizabeth Williams"That's right, a judge who said, in a court of law, that if someone doesn't want...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.