Anonymous wrote:No it doesn't make me Akin's friend. Rape is HORRIBLE. Unspeakably horrible. But IF you believe that the baby conceived...even in the horror of rape...is a human being, how can you justify ending the life of that baby. The baby didn't commit rape. Ending the baby's life doesn't punish the rapist. I agree that it would be horrible to carry a rapist's baby, and that's something I wouldn't wish on anyone, but the alternative is killing an innocent child.

So you're willing to transform rape from a few horrible minutes/hours into a nine-month living nightmare?

I do not get that. And if it was you or your daughter, I think you'd change your mind in a nanosecond.

Anonymous wrote:
God dammit, I do NOT believe that the embryo is a human being!!!!! The beliefs of you, Akin, and your Aunt Fanny have NO bearing here! Apply your beliefs to YOUR uterus and its contents, NOT. MINE. And not anyone who is not YOU.

So if I shoot someone because I don't believe they are a human being, does that make it ok?

If a woman drowns her 3 month old because she says they aren't a human being, is that ok?

Why do the beliefs of others matter in those situations but not in the case of abortion?

Anonymous wrote:If you knew the unborn child was the Antichrist would you abort it?

Tough call, God's full of mysteries, life happens, yadda yadda.

If you knew the unborn child was the Antichrist would you abort it?

the Raging Grannies have a thing or two to say about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anc_gP2_QeI

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And remember, it's possible in the opening scenario that she could have been raped. The Republican National platform is opposing abortion with NO EXCEPTIONS.

Either it's a baby...a human life...and abortion is wrong. Or it's not a baby, and not a human life, and abortion is an option. I understand, but don't agree, with both of those positions. But I don't understand how anyone can believe that abortion is ok in the case of rape, but not ok the rest of the time? If it's a baby, a human being, how does the horrible act of his/her father change that?

This is what makes folks Akin's friends. You look at the act of the father- punish him and the life of the child "not the baby". What about the victim- how about not making her pay for someone else's crime by carrying an unwanted child. I'm pregnant now with a very wanted baby, but with the difficulties I'm having, this would be punishment akin to prison for someone who did not want to have a child.

No it doesn't make me Akin's friend. Rape is HORRIBLE. Unspeakably horrible. But IF you believe that the baby conceived...even in the horror of rape...is a human being, how can you justify ending the life of that baby. The baby didn't commit rape. Ending the baby's life doesn't punish the rapist. I agree that it would be horrible to carry a rapist's baby, and that's something I wouldn't wish on anyone, but the alternative is killing an innocent child.

God dammit, I do NOT believe that the embryo is a human being!!!!! The beliefs of you, Akin, and your Aunt Fanny have NO bearing here! Apply your beliefs to YOUR uterus and its contents, NOT. MINE. And not anyone who is not YOU.

No it doesn't make me Akin's friend. Rape is HORRIBLE. Unspeakably horrible. But IF you believe that the baby conceived...even in the horror of rape...is a human being, how can you justify ending the life of that baby. The baby didn't commit rape. Ending the baby's life doesn't punish the rapist. I agree that it would be horrible to carry a rapist's baby, and that's something I wouldn't wish on anyone, but the alternative is killing an innocent child.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ya know,if Ryan said it like THAT, it might actually sound like he has some sympathy for the rape victim, instead of a blinda adherence to his inflexible position -which will never, ever negatively, personally impact HIM.

But that's not how he says it. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/24/ryan-on-abortion-exceptions-rape-is-just-another-method-of-conception/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And remember, it's possible in the opening scenario that she could have been raped. The Republican National platform is opposing abortion with NO EXCEPTIONS.

Either it's a baby...a human life...and abortion is wrong. Or it's not a baby, and not a human life, and abortion is an option. I understand, but don't agree, with both of those positions. But I don't understand how anyone can believe that abortion is ok in the case of rape, but not ok the rest of the time? If it's a baby, a human being, how does the horrible act of his/her father change that?

This is what makes folks Akin's friends. You look at the act of the father- punish him and the life of the child "not the baby". What about the victim- how about not making her pay for someone else's crime by carrying an unwanted child. I'm pregnant now with a very wanted baby, but with the difficulties I'm having, this would be punishment akin to prison for someone who did not want to have a child.

No it doesn't make me Akin's friend. Rape is HORRIBLE. Unspeakably horrible. But IF you believe that the baby conceived...even in the horror of rape...is a human being, how can you justify ending the life of that baby. The baby didn't commit rape. Ending the baby's life doesn't punish the rapist. I agree that it would be horrible to carry a rapist's baby, and that's something I wouldn't wish on anyone, but the alternative is killing an innocent child.

Rape is merely another method of conception. The method of conceptions is irrelevant to whether abortion should be allowed.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/24/ryan-on-abortion-exceptions-rape-is-just-another-method-of-conception/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And remember, it's possible in the opening scenario that she could have been raped. The Republican National platform is opposing abortion with NO EXCEPTIONS.

Either it's a baby...a human life...and abortion is wrong. Or it's not a baby, and not a human life, and abortion is an option. I understand, but don't agree, with both of those positions. But I don't understand how anyone can believe that abortion is ok in the case of rape, but not ok the rest of the time? If it's a baby, a human being, how does the horrible act of his/her father change that?

This is what makes folks Akin's friends. You look at the act of the father- punish him and the life of the child "not the baby". What about the victim- how about not making her pay for someone else's crime by carrying an unwanted child. I'm pregnant now with a very wanted baby, but with the difficulties I'm having, this would be punishment akin to prison for someone who did not want to have a child.

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous



I don't understand why poverty is a good reason to kill a baby.

I assume you've adopted a few unwanted babies; if not, you're a hypocrite meddling in other women's lives.

but see, as soon as someone says why doesn't the woman just have the baby and put it up for adoption, the pro-choicers scream about how terrible that option is, too (see the multiple references to the handmaid's tale just in this thread). i am reluctantly pro-choice, because i recognize that abortion may be a necessary evil. i wish we could focus more time and energy on finding ways to avoid the need for them. wish we could get to a place where adoption was a realistic solution and not seen as a backwards way of "keeping women down." hell, i'd rather see a law that allowed parents to pay women with unwanted pregnancies to stay health and place the baby (yes, i realize this is selling a child). it just seems to me that people are so focused on finding ONE solution that we miss the opportunity to find multiple options that might work in various different realities (perfect storm or not).

PP here. One possibility is profit sharing. But that puts a lot of risk onto the employee. Honestly, government assistance in the form of universal health insurance, subsidized day care, subsidized housing and subsidized food are what make it possible for new small businesses to hire workers at these wages and afford to make a profit which lets the company grow and thus be able to afford paying their own employees health insurance.

Maybe the government needs to subsidize small business employers (for a certain time period?) and then require that they offer health insurance along with a benefits package that has subsidies for child/elderly care, and possible housing or food subsidies.

Not that this scenario isn't also ripe for fraud.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting how you avoid the question because of the semantics. That's like not answering a question because there's a typo in the text. It bespeaks a small mind.

I disagree that the perfect storm is impossible. I own a small business and employ about 15 people who fit the description quite closely-- they are mostly one paycheck away from being homeless. I think many people are unaware of the true plight of the working poor.

ITA. My father and I own a small business together and all of our employees are what one would consider the working poor. They are paid $9.75-$14 per hour, no health insurance benefits (we really can't afford it) and they struggles they face on a day to day basis are often insurmountable. They cannot make ends meet at all without government assistance, how are try supposed to live themselves or support a child? It is a very different world from DCUM.

Honestly this sucks so bad it hurts. Do you feel this is how life in America should be? "I work but I need government assistance to survive"?

What would change this?

Paying them more and hiring fewer employees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting how you avoid the question because of the semantics. That's like not answering a question because there's a typo in the text. It bespeaks a small mind.

I disagree that the perfect storm is impossible. I own a small business and employ about 15 people who fit the description quite closely-- they are mostly one paycheck away from being homeless. I think many people are unaware of the true plight of the working poor.

ITA. My father and I own a small business together and all of our employees are what one would consider the working poor. They are paid $9.75-$14 per hour, no health insurance benefits (we really can't afford it) and they struggles they face on a day to day basis are often insurmountable. They cannot make ends meet at all without government assistance, how are try supposed to live themselves or support a child? It is a very different world from DCUM.

Honestly this sucks so bad it hurts. Do you feel this is how life in America should be? "I work but I need government assistance to survive"?

What would change this?

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous



I don't understand why poverty is a good reason to kill a baby.

I assume you've adopted a few unwanted babies; if not, you're a hypocrite meddling in other women's lives.

But if you do adopt, you are some despot trying to recreat a Handmaid's Tale. This thread is lose lose on that point.


Do you really think the only way to help poor children is to adopt them? (I'm not saying that isn't a good thing, but it's not the only thing)

Mother Teresa was prolife and dedicated her life to serving the poor. She never adopted. Was she a hypocrit?