bbauska wrote:Holloway is an idiot as well. (Just got done checking...)

Galloway!

Ray Jay wrote:Regarding Akin, i'm a little confused. I realize that what he said was stupid, insensitive, outrageous, and that he should know better. However, he did fully apologize. Even so, there is pretty much a unified chorus (Rove, Palin, mainstream Republicans, almost all Democrats) to get rid of him. Is this mistake so egregious that the rest of his career is meaningless?

Yes.

Furthermore, I think McCaskill knows and has known this guy is a moron. Democrats invested $2M into his winning the primary. She even made an announcement feigning to be dumbfounded that anyone would call for him to get out of the race. He's her only hope.

Why? Because she is unpopular and the only way to get reelected was to have the other party put up a moron.

What he should have said: "I would never presume to tell a woman who has been the victim of rape or incest what to do. I believe every rapist should be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law. Furthermore, I would hope that in some cases the rapist is never allowed out of prison. I believe there are some predators who cannot be rehabilitated. At the same time, as someone who values all human life, I would hope that every consideration would be given to the baby, who is completely innocent of any wrongdoing."

Some of you prefer killing through abortions and some of you prefer killing through war and death sentences. You complete each other...yin and yang.

As you guys probably know, I'm pro-choice myself. That said though, I tend to think that if you genuinely believe that life begins at conception then the logical end point of that belief is to agree with Todd Akin. To allow abortion in any circumstances other than those where the life of the mother is threatened would effectively be to permit 'murder' by that definition. If you don't take that position then aren't you conceding that the whole abortion debate is a massive grey area ? Doesn't that just serve to reinforce the pro-choice argument ?

Akin is guilty of political naivety but I don't really see that his position is all that different to mainstream Republican thinking. He co-sponsored a bill with the current VP candidate which essentially called for the outlawing of abortion in rape cases, and by the logic of his own moral code he was probably right to do so. I may disagree with his moral rationale but I can at least respect him for sticking to his principles. I have a much harder time respecting Romney's position because it's quite apparent that Akin has been thrown under the bus for cynical reasons.

Sassenach wrote:Akin is guilty of political naivety but I don't really see that his position is all that different to mainstream Republican thinking. He co-sponsored a bill with the current VP candidate which essentially called for the outlawing of abortion in rape cases, and by the logic of his own moral code he was probably right to do so.

I think what actually happened was that Akin (and Ryan and about 170 others, including some pro-life Democrats) supported a bill that had been proposed by two other Congressmen that would outlaw federal funding for abortions with some exemptions (such as incest) and for 'forcible rape'. The problem with that being that 'forcible rape' was not previously in Congressional bills as a term, and which suggests that pregnancies from some rapes - 'non-forcible' ones? - would be treated differently.

That would not outlaw abortion in rape cases, but it would make things a bit harder for some victims by removing funding. The question of defining 'forcible rape' could lead to all kinds of ramifications.

I may disagree with his moral rationale but I can at least respect him for sticking to his principles. I have a much harder time respecting Romney's position because it's quite apparent that Akin has been thrown under the bus for cynical reasons.

I tend to agree. Romney is all over the place, suggesting both a pretty pro-life stance and a fairly pro-choice stance at various times.

Ryan, however, was quicker than Romney to call for resignation, and yet has himself been quite clear that on policy (if not dubious biology) he's very close to Akin.

danivon wrote:

Sassenach wrote:Akin is guilty of political naivety but I don't really see that his position is all that different to mainstream Republican thinking. He co-sponsored a bill with the current VP candidate which essentially called for the outlawing of abortion in rape cases, and by the logic of his own moral code he was probably right to do so.

I think what actually happened was that Akin (and Ryan and about 170 others, including some pro-life Democrats) supported a bill that had been proposed by two other Congressmen that would outlaw federal funding for abortions with some exemptions (such as incest) and for 'forcible rape'. The problem with that being that 'forcible rape' was not previously in Congressional bills as a term, and which suggests that pregnancies from some rapes - 'non-forcible' ones? - would be treated differently.

However, the reason the "forcible" rape language was in there was to prevent federal funding for "statutory" rape--for example, a 19 year-old getting his 16 year-old girlfriend pregnant. While it may be legally "rape," it is a far cry from the serial attack rapists. That language was eventually dropped.

I may disagree with his moral rationale but I can at least respect him for sticking to his principles. I have a much harder time respecting Romney's position because it's quite apparent that Akin has been thrown under the bus for cynical reasons.

I tend to agree. Romney is all over the place, suggesting both a pretty pro-life stance and a fairly pro-choice stance at various times.

Ryan, however, was quicker than Romney to call for resignation, and yet has himself been quite clear that on policy (if not dubious biology) he's very close to Akin.

Based on this, I'm sure Sass has "no respect" for the President's position on gay marriage. He was for it, then against it, now is for it as long as no action is required on his part.

Ryan is not close to Akin. That is a talking point and it is unlike you to simply follow the DNC.

This is another attempt to move the topic away from the economy and the President's feeble leadership.

It's a current news item, and worthy of discussion on its own terms.

I must admit I'm not really up on the facts as regards Obama's gay marriage position so I can't really comment. I suspect that he's basically for it but pretended to be against it for a while for political reasons. If so then I'd be happy to criticise that, but I'm reluctant to offer an opinion without any knowledge of the facts.

Doctor Fate wrote:However, the reason the "forcible" rape language was in there was to prevent federal funding for "statutory" rape--for example, a 19 year-old getting his 16 year-old girlfriend pregnant. While it may be legally "rape," it is a far cry from the serial attack rapists. That language was eventually dropped.

Exactly. Statutory rape is still rape, because we consider that the minor could not legally give consent. Also, not much rape is 'serial attack' - quite a lot is a bit more subtle than that, so I'm not sure where the 'get her drunk or on GHB/roofies and take advantage' rape, or 'asserting my conjugal rights' rape stand in the parlance of 'forcible'

Besides, if the intention was to exclude only 'statutory rape', why not use 'non-statutory rape' instead of 'forcible rape'? It suggests a different distinction.

So, thanks for demonstrating how the language of the bill would have resulted in differentiating one kind of rape from another, and a tendency to treat the victims differently.

Ryan is not close to Akin. That is a talking point and it is unlike you to simply follow the DNC.

Both are on record as opposing abortions in pretty much all cases, and are both consistently regarded as strongly pro-life. They both worked on and supported similar bills to that end. This is not from the DNC, it's a matter of their voting record and ratings from pro-life groups.

The difference is, Akin was dumb enough to speak his mind and bring up some dubious justification for his position, and Ryan is smart enough to throw Akin under the bus (as it has been put).

Now, of course, Ryan is rowing back a bit, and conceding to Romney the policy direction, while at the same time being clear about his personal position.

This is another attempt to move the topic away from the economy and the President's feeble leadership.

Yes, quite. How clever of the DNC to get Akin to say what he did on TV. [/sarcasm]

Was talking to a Holloway... Damn... Grrr

Don't worry Brad, the less anybody has to know about George Galloway the better. He's quite possibly the most odious man in Britain.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:However, the reason the "forcible" rape language was in there was to prevent federal funding for "statutory" rape--for example, a 19 year-old getting his 16 year-old girlfriend pregnant. While it may be legally "rape," it is a far cry from the serial attack rapists. That language was eventually dropped.

Exactly. Statutory rape is still rape, because we consider that the minor could not legally give consent. Also, not much rape is 'serial attack' - quite a lot is a bit more subtle than that, so I'm not sure where the 'get her drunk or on GHB/roofies and take advantage' rape, or 'asserting my conjugal rights' rape stand in the parlance of 'forcible'

Besides, if the intention was to exclude only 'statutory rape', why not use 'non-statutory rape' instead of 'forcible rape'? It suggests a different distinction.

So, what do YOU suppose it means? What is its significance to YOU given that the language was changed? Is it nefarious? Is every change of language in every bill thinly veiled?

So, thanks for demonstrating how the language of the bill would have resulted in differentiating one kind of rape from another, and a tendency to treat the victims differently.

Because there is no difference?

A woman who is kidnapped, raped, tortured, etc. should be given no higher priority than a woman who says she was date raped days or weeks after the event?

I would disagree with that.

However, go back to my original statement: rape is not a Federal matter. Abortion only is because of Roe v. Wade. The question was whether there should be Federal funding of abortion in certain cases. The Democrats, of course, want funding for every abortion at all times. In fact, some, like the President, have consistently voted against any restrictions.

So, Democrats are going to have NARAL and Planned Parenthood speak at the DNC.

Great.

Most Americans are pro-life. One party is extreme--the Democrats.

Ryan is not close to Akin. That is a talking point and it is unlike you to simply follow the DNC.

Both are on record as opposing abortions in pretty much all cases . . .

Mmm, that's deep. So, did Ryan say that a woman can magically stop pregnancy during a rape?

. . . and are both consistently regarded as strongly pro-life. They both worked on and supported similar bills to that end. This is not from the DNC, it's a matter of their voting record and ratings from pro-life groups.

Again, voting to protect babies is not the same as outlawing abortion. We all know such a ban would require a Constitutional amendment--and that it's not possible.

The difference is, Akin was dumb enough to speak his mind and bring up some dubious justification for his position, and Ryan is smart enough to throw Akin under the bus (as it has been put).

Right, you can read Ryan's mind. You "know" he would like to force every woman to carry to term. He's a Catholic; therefore, he wants to impose his religious views on everyone else.

Let's see, who else is Catholic . . . Pelosi, Biden--both are staunchly pro-life, right?

This is another attempt to move the topic away from the economy and the President's feeble leadership.

Yes, quite. How clever of the DNC to get Akin to say what he did on TV. [/sarcasm]

It's not about the DNC. It's about the media. They are worried for their man. They would rather talk about anything than his record--just like the President himself, who now has President Clinton cutting ads for him talking about the good old days. Clinton was a realist. Obama is trying to bask in the reflected glory.

Again, Akin was financially supported by the Democrats. They knew what they were getting. He just imploded earlier than hoped.

f

Most Americans are pro-life.

Yes. But only 20% feel that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.25% feel it should be legal under any circumstance....
the other 53% feel that there are circumstances under which it should be legal. And that could be everything from exceptions for rape and incest, to viability of the fetus etc.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Akin and Ryan are in the extreme minority.

Doctor Fate wrote:So, what do YOU suppose it means? What is its significance to YOU given that the language was changed? Is it nefarious? Is every change of language in every bill thinly veiled?

Well, the language was changed after people started raising a fuss about it. My thought is that it is a narrower definition than simply 'not statutory rape'.

And no, not all changes of language are 'nefarious', but this one was certainly questionable.

So, thanks for demonstrating how the language of the bill would have resulted in differentiating one kind of rape from another, and a tendency to treat the victims differently.

Because there is no difference?

A woman who is kidnapped, raped, tortured, etc. should be given no higher priority than a woman who says she was date raped days or weeks after the event?

I would disagree with that.

Priority for what? for the criminal investigation, I would say more serious types of crime need more urgent attention. However, this is not about that, it's about whether rape victims would be entitled to an abortion, or a funded abortion. Now, if there was a quota on such abortions, then 'priority' comes into play. However, if that is not the case, it is utterly irrelevant.

However, go back to my original statement: rape is not a Federal matter. Abortion only is because of Roe v. Wade. The question was whether there should be Federal funding of abortion in certain cases. The Democrats, of course, want funding for every abortion at all times. In fact, some, like the President, have consistently voted against any restrictions.

So, Democrats are going to have NARAL and Planned Parenthood speak at the DNC.

Great.

Indeed, The Democrats have a wide range of opinions on abortion, although I'm not aware of an actual policy platform of universal funding for abortion up to birth - perhaps you can point me to it?

One of the original sponsors of the bill above was a Democrat, meaning there are actually some Democrats in Congress who are pro-life. Similarly, there are some Republicans who are more pro-choice than others.

Most Americans are pro-life. One party is extreme--the Democrats.

[citation needed]

Mmm, that's deep. So, did Ryan say that a woman can magically stop pregnancy during a rape?

Not that I know of, and I never said he had. I am saying that on policy they are very close. The reasoning behind that may differ, the justification may differ, their way of phrasing their position on the very difficult subject of rape may differ, but the policies... not so much.

Again, voting to protect babies is not the same as outlawing abortion. We all know such a ban would require a Constitutional amendment--and that it's not possible.

Well, we all know that an Amendment is 'possible' (however likely it is). And we know that the RNC is (again) due to affirm that it supports such an Amendment. Still, it may not actually require an Amendment, if the SCOTUS determines at a later point to overturn Roe v Wade (which I believe it could, and is one reason why a lot of pressure surrounds the pro-life/pro-choice views of prospective SCJs).

However, I never said they voted to outlaw abortion, or that they did outlaw it. I corrected Sass who said that they did vote to, by explaining the reality - it was about outlawing federal funding. The reality is that it would at the very least make it harder for some women (including, it seems some rape victims) to get an abortion because of that lack of funding. At worst, it would mean rape victims not being able to get an abortion in some parts of the country.

Right, you can read Ryan's mind. You "know" he would like to force every woman to carry to term.

Do I need to be a mindreader? Don't worry, DF, I'm not trying to claim your superpower as my own...

Or can I just go by the things that Paul Ryan has said and done?

He does not support rape or incest exemptions, and would legislate to remove them. He has been a co-sponsor of legislation that does indeed not include such exemptions.

He's been consistent about that since he first ran for Congress in 1998, as recorded by the press at that time, and by the National Right to Life Committee: Wisconsin Politifact

Let's see what it says about him on Wikipedia

Wikipedia wrote:Ryan describes himself as "as pro-life as a person gets"[124] and has been described as an "ardent, unwavering foe of abortion rights". Robert Pear, As Ryan Looks to Focus On Economy, Spotlight Shines on His Other Views (August 12, 2012) The New York Times, A9.</ref> The National Right to Life Committee has given Ryan a "100 percent pro-life voting record" since he entered the House in 1999; NARAL Pro-Choice America has noted that Ryan has "cast 59 votes on reproductive rights while in Congress and not one has been pro-choice."[125] He believes all abortions should be illegal, including those resulting from rape or incest, and only makes an exception for cases where the woman's life is at risk.[126][127]
During Ryan's 1998 campaign for Congress, he "expressed his willingness to let states criminally prosecute women who have abortions," telling the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel at the time that he "would let states decide what criminal penalties would be attached to abortions," and while not stating that he supports jailing women who have an abortion, stated: "if it's illegal, it's illegal."[126] He cosponsored the Sanctity of Life Act, which would provide that fertilized eggs "shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood" and would have given "the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories [have] the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions."[128] This could lead to laws that would "criminalize all abortion, as well as in vitro fertilization and some forms of birth control."[129][130]
Ryan has also supported legislation that would impose criminal penalties for certain doctors who perform "partial-birth abortions."[131] Ryan voted to cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood and Title X family planning programs.[131][132] He also opposed giving over-the-counter status for emergency contraceptive pills.[133][67] Ryan was one of 173 co-sponsors of the 2011 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act bill in the House of Representatives that would have limited funding for federally funded abortions to victims of "forcible rape". "Forcible rape" was not defined in the bill, which critics said would result in excluding date rape, statutory rape, or other situations where the victim had diminished mental capacity. The language was removed from the bill before the House passed the bill, the Senate did not vote on the bill.[134]

I concede that he will accept abortion in cases where the life of the mother is at risk (but opposes more loose 'heath of the mother' exemptions'). However, in such cases, the fetus would not be carried 'to term' anyway, as the mother's death otherwise would also lead to the death of the fetus.

So, I think I am quite correct on what I said. He thinks abotion should be illegal in all cases where a woman can carry to term.

He's a Catholic; therefore, he wants to impose his religious views on everyone else.

Let's see, who else is Catholic . . . Pelosi, Biden--both are staunchly pro-life, right?

I never mentioned his religion. Why did you feel the need?

He's a politician, he states his views quite publicly, he votes in accordance with those views, and the effect - if he were to have had his way on the votes he's made and on the basis of his statements - would be to have 'imposed' his views on abortion.

Whether that view is motivated by his religion is not relevant, even if the Roman Catholic Church itself is quite well known for wishing to have it's views imposed on society when it can.

rickyp wrote:f

Most Americans are pro-life.

Yes. But only 20% feel that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.25% feel it should be legal under any circumstance....
the other 53% feel that there are circumstances under which it should be legal. And that could be everything from exceptions for rape and incest, to viability of the fetus etc.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Akin and Ryan are in the extreme minority.

What's Romney's position?

Who is the nominee?

Again, if Democrats want to run as the "we kill babies" party, they're welcome to do so. I think the campaign is going to focus on economic matters.

I'd love to see a debate between Romney, who has been all over the map on abortion, and Obama, who has consistently fought for the right for a woman to end a pregnancy at ANY point she sees fit. I'd love to hear him defend partial-birth abortion. I'm sure that will help him.

In fact, why don't you take over Obama's campaign and put all the rest of his money into an infomercial about his support for late-term and partial-birth abortions? That would be really great.

Keep railing on about Akin. By election day, he won't be an asterisk, but the economy will still be an issue.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:f

Most Americans are pro-life.

Yes. But only 20% feel that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.25% feel it should be legal under any circumstance....
the other 53% feel that there are circumstances under which it should be legal. And that could be everything from exceptions for rape and incest, to viability of the fetus etc.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Akin and Ryan are in the extreme minority.

What's Romney's position?

Who is the nominee?

Goalpost movement ahoy!!! Ricky has provided evidence that directly challenges your assertion that 'Most Americans are pro-life'. Your response is totally irrelevant to that. If Ricky had behaved the same way, you would be (rightly) criticising him and (wrongly) using it as a means to ignore anything else he says.

Anyway, Romney is indeed the nominee. What is he standing on? I assume it is the RNC platform that is shortly to be agreed. What does that say about abortion?

"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," the draft platform declares. "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."

Source: CNN.

Where is the exemption for rape or incest? I can't see it, perhaps you can show me where it is, because perhaps CNN missed it or (in a typical piece of MSM trickery) deliberately omitted it.

[quote]Keep railing on about Akin. By election day, he won't be an asterisk, but the economy will still be an issue.[quote]I don't know if you've noticed, but it's Paul Ryan as well who is being discussed. He's on the ticket. Not that it's just about the elections, it's also a wider issue. I know that you can't help (especially in leap years) but to make every political issue about the slugfest to see who wins in November, the Heffalumps or the Eedonks, but there is actually a wider issue as well.