Ryan/Akin views on rape
The Ryan Bounce
They wrote it in proposed legislation, several times, okay, many times. Ryan and Akin are twins on the issue of denying women’s rights, with a “guys rule” attitude.
BTW: Ryan also considers one of his idiot bills that got a 250 to 16 vote “bipartisan”! HAR! But that’s just his idea of “balance” as well.
Maybe now someone in the Republican camp (other than the ’leadership") will actually read the party platform.
You’ve got this ’toon pegged, and I agree with you.
Ryan has nothing to do with this? Really? So he isn’t sponsoring a bill that would outlaw ALL abortions, including in the event of rape?
What statement are you making? The article was appropriate in that it shows what Aiken should do, withdraw as Gauhtier has done. However, his enounter was apparently consentual sex with a male minor. Had it been rape I would have understood your reasoning better. Or was your point that Gauthier is a Dem? Rep Steve King® stated yesterday that he’s never heard of pregnancy resulting from statutory rape. At least the young man Gauthier was with doesn’t have to worry about an unwanted pregnancy.C.
I don’t agree with them, but it’s a simple, logically consistent point of view to ban all forms of abortion under the old maxim “2 wrongs don’t make a right”. These convoluted, back-assward crazy statements about “women won’t get pregnant unless they want to”, one kind of rape is “better” than another, etc. just make them seem ignorant and nuts.
The one exception the pro-lifers really have to consider is for the health and safety of the mother. Simply denying there ever is a concern for the health and safety of the mother is another point that makes them sound nuts. Before 20th century medicine, giving birth was one of the leading causes of mortality among women.
It was noted this morning that Ryan’s so-called “bipartisan” plan wasn’t passed until he dropped his precious “forcible rape” language. So although he’s not an outlyer by any means, most Republicans have more sense of shame. Now he’s trying to say “rape is rape.” Then, why make such a big deal over the distinction for so long when it was clearly offensive? And why Etch-a-Sketch it now?
Looks like Ryan’s the one who’s “back in chains.”
Just a small point. You guys are still referring to “them” as having a “right to life” position. Isn’t it really an anti-abortion position. If they were really “right to life”, wouldn’t they be on the front lines to feed the poor, provide health care and end stupid wars.
I’d have said something, but you beat me to it.I just wish more people thought as you do….. now c’mere and let me give you a hug!
I’m fascinated by WHEN it becomes human. Obviously a sperm (or egg) of and by itself is not human. So when does it become human? Is there some flash of lightening and Shazam the union suddenly becomes a human? Is it human before it has consciousness of its surroundings? What are the “characteristics” of a human asopposed ot those of (for example) a chicken ? We can make claims of when we THINK a human life begins, but the truth is we don’t know. Till we do we are arguing about how many angels candance on the head of a pin. And till we do, shouldn’t we give the persons who have to suffer the pains of childbirth, not to mention the 18 year expense of raising one, the benefit of the doubt? Finally, till we have something to contribute to the information, shouldn’t we turn our attention to things we CAN do something about. Like the kids who are already here and dying because they don’t have enuff to eat?
Bruce offered a polite, reasoned contrary opinion, and I appreciate it.The first-principle difference between the pro- and anti-abortion camps is the definition of when a lump of cells achieves “personhood”. Bruce laid out quite eloquently his case for taking the bar down to roughly the ~month period. This still leaves open some common ground on RU-486.I doubt they would phrase it this way, but as there is no quantifiable test for a “soul” the purist anti-abortion position could be characterized as an Occum’s Razor approach – we can’t test it so the simplest thing is to say life starts at insemination.The only quibble I had with Bruce’s point is the comment on late-term abortion. My understanding is that procedure is mostly considered when the life of the mother is at stake. It’s not like people are carrying for 6 months to have a recreational late term abortion.I tend not to agree with the anti-abortion position, but I can understand the principles it derives from. I think Blackmun’s “any time in the first trimester” was a pretty reasonable swag given the state of the science at the time.
Please consider using the “correct” terminology in this discussion.There is a BIG difference between pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pro-choice and pro-life.This lack of precision really screws up any discussion.
OK, I’ll bite. Forget the philosophy (I’m out of dimes.) But please provide me with the SCIENTIFIC determination of when HUMAN life begins (and the source for yor conclusions).
What’s life? A nice cold beer after a hard day’s work, that’s life. When does it begin? About 5:30, if traffic isn’t too bad.
To be a little pedantic, the chicken eggs and caviar we eat tend to be unfertilized making the “are they alive” question moot.As I said above the only real contention here among reasonable people is where you draw the line at “life”. If you accept the contention that the line is at insemination, then the rest of the anti-abortion/pro-life reasoning falls out naturally, and equating abortion with murder follows logically too. Even the extreme stridency of the fringes can be understood, if not condoned.I don’t agree with putting the line there, but Bruce has been very civil and reasoned and willing to agree to disagree.Not being willing to be civil, not being willing to accept the common ground we can find, and not being willing to agree to disagree are why our country is in such a mess.
Stuart Carlson and Jerry Resler
April 12, 2017
May 28, 2018