Instead of covering the dire economic situation our nation is facing, ” the media,” Jennifer Rubin writes, “following like lemmings behind the Obama parade, are still fixated on Todd Akin.” It’s not just that they’re fixated on Todd Akin, it’s that they’re eager to tie the Republican Party to the Missourian, conveniently forgetting that nearly every prominent Republican has criticized his crazy comments on rape, the candidates himself contending he misspoke and having apologized.
Mrs. Boxer accused her partisan opponents of a “sickness” and not liking their mothers. And no one is calling the three-term Senator to apologize nor attempting to tie her fellow partisans to her.*
Our media, however, are obsessed with Akin, with “the three news networks – ABC, CBS, and NBC – [giving] Akin’s gaffe four times the coverage they gave to Vice President Joe Biden’s overtly racist comments last week in Virginia.” Let’s see . . . one is the elected Vice President of the United States and the other is a candidate for elective office from a state with just 2% of the nation’s population. And the candidate’s gaffe gets more coverage.
How many episodes of his show did Piers Morgan devote to Biden’s gaffe?
It’s not just the networks. The Associated Press reports:
Meet the newest campaign issue for House Democrats: Todd Akin.
From Colorado to New Hampshire to Illinois, Democrats already are using the incendiary comments about rape made by the Missouri congressman and Republican Senate candidate as a political bludgeon.
(Via HotAir headlines.) They’ve even attacked Republicans who have asked for Akin to exit the race.
In many ways, the Akin affair says more about the Democrats than it does the Republicans.** It shows their desperation in this campaign and their determination to use whatever issue at their disposal to demonize Republicans.
They’re delighted they have another cudgel with which to beat the opposition, another shiny object to distract voters and another excuse not to discuss the real issues facing the nation.
——-
*No, her remarks weren’t as offensive as Akin’s, but they were offensive. She insulted her own constituents (and not for the first time).
**Though, to be sure, it says a lot about Republicans, that party leaders were quick to distance themselves from the candidate because of his crazy comments.
FROM THE COMMENTS: Rattlesnake disagrees with me that Mrs. Boxer’s remarks weren’t as offensive as Akin’s:
I don’t see how Akin’s remark was that offensive, it was just dumb and ignorant. Boxer, on the other hand, implied that women care about nothing other than birth control and abortion (and also the offensive things she said about Republicans).
He does have a point. Mrs. Boxer did level allegations against a certain class of people, Mr. Akin didn’t so insult his constituents.
Yes, but even that dignifies their efforts by calling the Akin matter an “issue”.
I’m not sure what the right word for it is, but an issue facing Americans in this national election, it is not. An issue is a significant question where 2 (or more) legitimate points of view contend. The Akin matter fails all parts of that definition. It’s a stupid comment by a nobody, thus insignificant. And even Akin has condemned his own comment; thus, there is only a single point of view on it; nothing in any serious contention.
The Democrats’ use of the Akin matter is quite simply the most low-brow, most irrelevant, most distractionary campaign strategy they could have chosen. Will it work? Are Americans, suffering from years of unemployment and an economy that can’t and won’t recover under Obama’s policies, really *THAT* stupid? We’re about to find out.
It is cloaks and mirrors, the democrats have latched onto Akin’s words and with the media around their fingers are using his words to distract voters from the fact that Obama has sat back and let the economy tank for 4 years and has no plan to improve things out side of the same old liberal ideas.
Obama is praising Akin for his comment because it distracts from the main issue-the economy.
My problem is the media is going to happily keep plugging away at Akin and cooperate with the Obama campaign by turning that into the big issue. Unemployment is sky high, but hey Akin has no clue about biology, rape and pregnancy.
Democrats are trying to fire up their base which is suffering from malaise. Nothing more, whatever.
Side note – I’m often hearing liberals argue that since prescription drug plans will often cover ED meds, they should be required to cover contraception. Does the federal government require insurance companies to provide meds for erectile dysfunction? They shouldn’t, but that doesn’t mean they should be required to cover contraception.
“My aim here isn’t to identify the national Republican Party or the conservative movement with the exact utterances of its […] members, but simply to say that they can’t encourage or embrace […] premises and then reject as alien entirely plausible applications of these premises just because they sound crazy to swing voters. If you want to marginalize pols like Todd Akin, don’t keep saying you are absolutely certain that as a matter of divine, natural and constitutional law, human life begins at conception. “
There is a cause to remove this douche and its spreading on youstand and Facebook –
http://www.youstand.com/cause/82112/remove-todd-akin-from-the-house-science-committee
I disagree. I don’t see how Akin’s remark was that offensive, it was just dumb and ignorant. Boxer, on the other hand, implied that women care about nothing other than birth control and abortion (and also the offensive things she said about Republicans).
By the way, there are a bunch of typos in this post (particularly in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs).
The Republicans must realize that the media for the most part is liberal, and any outrageous comment by their side of the aisle will be made into a nuclear bomb. This means that it behooves the GOP to really think before they speak. Unlike Democrats, they cannot get away with a slip of the tongue. Yes, it’s a double standard, and it’s not fair, but instead of whining, we have to accept this unfairness and deal with it accordingly. Be very precise in speaking.
Thanks, Rattlesnake, for alerting me to the typos. I think I got them all.
And good point as per the update (FROM THE COMMENTS) above.
What a load of crap. There are perfectly reasonable reasons to believe life begins at conception, and they have absolutely nothing to do with believing that women don’t get pregnant from being raped.
We are all suffering from the Obama malaise ………………. He is Carter all over again, but worse.
If life begins at conception, and Republicans want to be consistent, then, yes, like Akin, they must support the “life conceived,” whether it be from rape and/or incest. It’s very clear.
Akin is a product of the conservative movement that votes for him and the Republican Party that campaigns for him. His crazy statements shouldn’t surprise anyone that’s observed the Republicans’ abortion rhetoric over the past few years. It’s all well and good that a bunch of prominent Republicans can recognize a toxic political liability, but do they really disagree with his sentiment? More and more Republicans confess with exuberance that they won’t support abortion even in cases of rape and incest. I don’t know if your side hates women or is just confused by them, but this is a definite pattern. Let’s not forget that just this year, Republicans in Virginia tried to force women to be probed in the vagina if they wanted an abortion. Also this year – conservatism’s biggest media star called a woman a slut and prostitute who should post videos of herself having sex on the internet because she committed the crime of …. wait for it…. testifying to Congress about the necessity of contraception to women’s health.
Akin is the inevitable result of the Republicans’ continued catering to a pro-life movement that is becoming increasingly irrational and uncompromising. Akin is no anomaly, and the culture and ideology that nourished him should take some responsibility for their part in creating him. I guarantee you he didn’t just come up with these opinions in the moments before this TV interview, and prior to that he was indistinguishable from any of the other pro-life fanatics that call the Republican party home. Flail around and pretend its a distraction – but this is a revealing insight into conservative philosophy whether you admit it or not.
Yes, there is, Levi.
We recognize women as people; you see them as vaginas and abortion machines.
You and your felliow abortion supporters — all liberal white males, hilariously — insist that all women support and endorse abortion at taxpayer expense, or they don’t count as women.
The reason you push abortion is simple. You see women as your property to use whenever you like, and you don’t want to wear a condom, abstain from sex, or pay child support. Therefore, abortion is the perfect option for you; it doesn’t require any change in your behavior and puts the onus for dealing with the problem on the woman.
Furthermore, since the Obama Party receives massive campaign contributions from abortion clinics and abortionists, it is in your interest to push as many abortions as possible; you essentially get royalties for every single baby killed.
So let’s not split hairs. This is not about women; it’s about selfish and irresponsible liberal males like yourself who want sex without consequences, abuse women to get it, and then cash in on forcing them to kill a baby.
Furthermore, your use of rape and incest is disgusting. You are more interested in justifying the abortion than you are punishing the rapist or the incest practitioner. Again, it’s because you have no interest whatsoever in the woman’s opinion or welfare; you just want to cover the tracks when you abuse what you consider to be your property.
But they don’t have to agree that women can’t get pregnant from being raped.
The point is, most conservatives and Republicans don’t agree with his factually incorrect statement that women can’t get pregnant from rape.
So, women = abortion?
Wrong. She testified to Congress about the necessity of government to force companies to pay for their employees’ contraception.
What is irrational about being opposed to murder? What I find irrational is the idea that fetuses suddenly become people during their birth.
Levi,
Should you click on this link you will dismiss it entirely because it is a (HORRORS) Christian site.
However, as a Darwinist and great believer in the immutable smugness of science (including consensus science) I challenge you to intellectually challenge the scientific logic and the math that is presented for your edification.
Since you want the election to be about abortion instead of Obama’s consistent and pernicious destruction of the economy, I will offer one small correction to this rant:
Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut. True.
This was because Sandra Fluke “testif(ied) to Congress about the necessity of contraception to women’s health.” False
Sandra Fluke claimed that cash strapped females could not afford the $3000 per year for contraceptives on top of their college expenses. Rush calculated how many condoms one could buy for $3000 and decided that coeds in that “trap” mush be banging away like an old screen door in a hurricane. He further reported that Planned Parenthood would load old Sandra up with loads of free condoms and Georgetown is relatively close to Planned Parenthood. Furthermore, both CVS and Wal-Mart have prescription pregnancy prevention pills in the $10-$15 per month range.
Rush correctly concluded that no conscious horny and bent on getting-laid co-ed who is smart enough to be in Georgetown Law School could be so dumb as to have to depend on the school nurse for free contraceptives.
Rush further correctly identified Sandra Fluke as a slut looking for the state to pay for her vaginal activities. She was even willing to take her case to a sham political sideshow arranged by Nancy Pelosi and let her bare face hang out in pleading for nanny state welfare as part of her vagina monologue.
When you click on the link I offered above, you will be advised about the probability of Sandra Fluke becoming pregnant by dropping on her back once or twice a day.
Exactly. There is no other possibility for the people who spew the “opponents of abortion hate women” nonsense.
So I take it we can now say Levi supports child molestation?
Vince @ #11:
Vince, you are essentially correct. I know that human life begins at conception, without regard to what conditions caused the fertilization of the egg.
From the ethical side, we have a series of conundrums:
1. What if the pregnancy is highly likely to kill the mother?
2. What if the pregnancy is the result of forceable rape?
3. What if the pregnancy is the result of incest?
4. What if the pregnancy is unwanted by the mother?
5. What if the pregnancy is unwanted by the father?
6. What if the pregnancy is unwanted by the society?
7. What if the pregnancy is unwanted by the guardians of the mother?
8. What if the mother wants an abortion after several months of pregnancy?
9. What if the mother wants the child killed after a botched partial birth abortion?
Vince, Obama voted to kill the child that survives a partial birth abortion. In that respect:
You painted Republicans into the corner of your choosing and I have returned the favor by putting you and all liberals in the “flip” and mindless corner of killing the “intruder” in the uterus at the Abortion Hut at the mall.
Hopefully, you would prefer to bring a higher level of thinking to the whole issue. After all, why not have the school nurse trained to do abortions, tattoos and piercings? And why not have the state, like Planned Parenthood, profile the poor and kill their babies in development? And, yet, it seems that liberals don’t have the same stomach for sterilizing the unworthy mommas and poppas. Kill the little intruded=OK. No questions asked. It is all so very, very consistent. Or not.
The Dred Scott decision was based that the “owner” could do as he wished with his “property.”
Study the case carefully. It is precisely the same logic that insists that the woman’s womb is her wholly owned nest and she can do anything she wants to any fledgling that pops up in it. She owns it; she can kill it. It is all so very, very consistent.
In this matter, the Democrats haven’t just hit the bottom of the barrel, but they’ve also managed to come out the other side.
Helio > There is not way of incorporating a scenario where “forcible” rape (or rape/rape, or legitimate rape … etc; though, the unqualified “rape” by definition is sufficient, is it not?) can be compared to the Dred Scott decision. There are no circumstances where the “owner” of your comparison can be raped. The owner does not will into existence his/her “property.” There is no biological tie.
But, you’re right in regards to the huge grey area of abortion: where does one draw the line? For someone to be a non-negotiating pro-life consistent with “life begins at conception” is as unfortunate as someone who believes a woman has a right to abort a third-trimester consensual conception, though her life doesn’t depend on it. There are some women who claim they didn’t even know they were pregnant until they were giving birth. Life is more complicated than a cookie cutter one size fit’s all. But, isn’t that was society is all about: coming to a sensible consensus?
But, I suppose that makes me a moral relativist, huh?
😉
But, here we are, a bunch of males debating abortion. While their opinions are valid, it’s ultimately up to women whether or not to have an abortion (some choose not to). As well, it should be up to women to legislate over their bodies, also.
LOL. Sorry, Dottie. Wrote my comment before yours posted.
You know, if I thought this blog were keeping Levi from doing something productive with his life, I might feel bad.
Vince,
A woman made pregnant by rape is no different from a woman who assiduously went about getting pregnant in terms of “what” is occupying her womb.
I would be curious to know how you see the woman’s “domain” over “what” is in her womb as different in each circumstance. How does the baby caused by rape differ from the baby in the seventh month by a former lover who is now anathema to the woman?
Helio, A woman who has been impregnated via rape has been violated on an assortment of levels. Who am I or the government to say that she should have be further violated by having to go through the process of carrying the fetus full term?
Vince,
In #21, you seem to have implied that the Dred Scott property right was not applicable to a forceable rape scenario and in #25 you seemingly say that it is the woman’s choice over the life in her womb.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. To totally deny the efficacy of abortion under remarkable circumstances is as foolish as to permit it at the whim of the moment. Like it or not, it is the business of the public square to sort this very personal business out. You can not have a moral code and system of ethics in which everyone is a winner and tragedy has been erased.
As opposed to the fetus being violated by having its life ended?
#12: “Akin is the inevitable result of the Republicans’ continued catering to a pro-life movement that is becoming increasingly irrational and uncompromising.”
As a liberal, Levi naturally views the protection of innocent human life as “irrational and uncompromising” because just as NDT stated, he is not willing to compromise on the convenience of living a consequences-free life even if it means infants have to be slaughtered along the way. In his quote from March 28, 2010 below, Levi fully admits to holding this vile, narcissistic, amoral position.
“I’m perfectly capable of recognizing that abortion is a tragedy. It isn’t something that anyone likes to happen and it’s obviously a great moral dilemma. But that doesn’t justify depriving a woman of the ability to determine for herself when she should and should not start having kids…I’m just going to be on the side of the full-grown adults in this one. I don’t like that a would-be human life has to be snuffed out, but I don’t like the idea of a woman being forced to raise children that she doesn’t want much, much more. And it’s not about shirking responsibility, it’s about being sympathetic to the peoples’ individual and complex circumstances.”
You know-in my pro life position I truly believe it is always a baby-whether it is a newly fertilized egg or a fully developed fetus within hours of birth. Just because it doesn’t always look just like a baby doesn’t mean it is something else. From fertilization to birth the building blocks are there for a human baby.
That said while I personally believe the only exception should be in cases where the mother’s life is in danger, I am okay with allowing for a rape exception simply because the vast majority of abortions are elective-not because the mother’s life is in danger or she was raped, but because she has decided she can’t be troubled with having a baby.
I think arguing about rape/incest exceptions tends to take the focus off the real issue which is the millions of babies killed in the womb for purely elective purposes.
I am also a woman-I have carried and delivered 4 children. I have felt them develop and move inside me, I have seen their pictures on ultrasound (I have one that I love of my daughter in utero with her face turned towards the ultrasound camera that looks just like a newborn picture-you are going to have a hard time convincing me that my daughter was something other than human when that photo was taken.
I think there is something wrong in a society where we accept and even encourage the killing of life while in the womb.
Helio,
Touche.
So, you brought up the Dred Scott decision. And, if this country was consistent and resistent to progress, how far along woud we be? “Ownership” in terms of a woman’s reproductive biology wasn’t codified into the constitution like slavery was. You’re making the argument that “ownership” can skate on thin ice. And, you’re right.
Just because someone is an owner of “something” outside of themselves (i.e. a slaveowner, or more up-to-date examples of ownership, like a business owner, or pet owner) doesn’t give them “absolute” rights to do whatever they wish. They must act within the legal perimeters. However, what one does with one’s own body, it sounds like, you are arguing, also has limitations, even if that body’s right have already been comprised by a foreign source. It also sounds like a zygote or fetus dependent on its host for survival takes higher precedence than the host itself.
“You can not have a moral code and system of ethics in which everyone is a winner and tragedy has been erased.” This is correct. And, the women who make the choice to have an abortion, have to live with that choice for the rest of their lives. It’s their cross to bear and I’d hope that the government never steps in and takes the choice away from them. Sounds very nanny-state, so to speak, which, is ironic, to say the least.
Big deal. You want to tip your hat to a major political party that knows when to abandon a spiraling flame-out like Akin? Nothing about that should impress you. What you should be thinking, I would think, is what’s wrong with the Republican party that they embrace and elevate people like this in the first place? This could cost you guys control of the Senate, you know. Your party’s extremism probably did the same thing 2 years ago. Maybe it wouldn’t be a problem if you guys would stop trying to outdo each other in the I’m-So-Against-Abortion game?
Well yes. What are you implying, that I only think of women in terms of abortion? Make a point and stop wasting people’s time.
Jesus, just listen to yourself. You hate a stranger for nothing. Remember, she’s the one that got called a slut and prostitute and told to post videos of herself having sex on the internet by Rush Limbaugh because she…. wait for it….. had an opinion.
A place like this probably doesn’t have a lot of experience with vaginas, so maybe I will give you a quick synopsis. These things require an enormous amount of upkeep. Maintenance is expensive, and even when done impeccably, there are a variety of scenarios that can take place which involve trips to the doctor and additional countermeasures. Keeping in mind, that when this organ is functioning properly, it spends every fourth week bleeding and causing other symptoms which range from uncomfortable to excruciating. Having a vagina is no walk in the park.
Contrast this to the male anatomy, which as I know from experience, requires absolutely no extra attention and functions perfectly 100% of the time.
I mean, can’t we just give the girls a break? They’ve got to do all this extra work to take care of their vaginas, which I will remind you is the baby factory for our species, and though they live in a world where a wonderful pill exists that lessens the symptoms of menstruation and gives them control over their reproductive cycle, but is only available with a prescription – you would have them fork over another 50 or 60 bucks a month and shrug indifferently. It’s outrageous – and I think it’s dishonorable for packs of pretentious old men to dictate what kind of medical treatment their employees get it.
More control over the female reproductive system correlates with better health and more equality and less poverty. We should be desperately trying to give more women more reproductive control.
It’s irrational to think that a woman who was raped should be forced to have her rapist’s child, which as I described earlier has become an increasingly popular position among the Republican party. I mean holy shit. I know that conservatives don’t get the pro-choice argument that just because someone had sex doesn’t mean they should be punished by having to start raising a human being in the next nine months, but that so many of you are willing to impose that sentence on a victim of sexual assault. A rape is horrible enough – why don’t we just drag out the recovery by forcing the victim to raise her attacker’s child?
And abortion isn’t murder. It just isn’t. The problem is unwanted pregnancies. It’s a problem you solve with lots of free education and healthcare. Not by calling your neighbors murderers.
Gee helio, is that what you think of me? I’m posting here on a conservative website, do you think I don’t enjoy going to websites maintained by people I disagree with and marveling at their schlock?
Bring it on my friend. Link me your favorite bookmarks.
Okay, so I read it.
Why’d you link it? I don’t care. Do you think the precise number of pregnancies by rape matters an iota? It doesn’t. Not at all. As for the paper, there’s nothing scientific or intellectual about it. Why does it start by insisting date rape isn’t a real thing? Is it somehow necessary for him to establish that there is only one category of rape? Scientifically-minded people would appreciate that distinction. And the math is a joke. He’s just dividing numbers. And at the end, he just kinda waves his hands and says, well, he doesn’t know the exact number, but it’s real small. Well, well, well, if it ain’t my religious friend heliotrope come to illustrate perfectly the defect in religious thinking. He starts with some stats, sloppily mashes them together with some other stats, says the mumbo jumbo magic words and all of a sudden it’s the result that he was hoping for! Do you realize that’s the opposite of science? Do you realize a scientists would never write the words, “So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more.” ?
I’ve heard of this guy you linked by the way. He’s kind of a laughingstock, I gather.
But really, most importantly, what’s the relevance? Okay, maybe there aren’t that many pregnancies by rape in this country. Is that supposed to make the argument that we should ban abortion for rape victims stronger? What if it were 5 pregnancies, you would prefer to make sure that the government directs its energies towards making sure that 5 rape victims a year didn’t have an abortion?
Yes, now you have your version of the story about how Sandra Fluke is a lazy slut only motivated by opportunities to beg for handouts. Good for you, you can pass judgment on people you know nothing about dealing with situations inherently unfamiliar to you and side with a fat, pill-popping media celebrity whose idea of being clever is calling someone a slut, a prostitute, and encouraging them to post videos of themselves having sex on the internet.
It’s just as bad as Rattlesnake’s, but at least he wasn’t like, ‘Hey! Go Rush Limbaugh!’
Why do you think anyone is encouraging it? The liberal position is only to let women have the most amount of options, it’s not an endorsement of abortion. We’re not trying to convince people to have abortions, we’re recognizing people’s right to wait until when they’re ready to start a family. People shouldn’t be forced to do something they don’t want to do, especially something that requires lifelong commitment.
I’ve never told anyone to get an abortion. My family of godless, pro-choice, diehard liberals never encouraged my brother and his girlfriend to get an abortion when they got unexpectedly pregnant. The kid’s about to turn two. They could handle it. They knew they had enough security and the kind of support network that they could make it work, however unplanned it might be. Lots of people don’t have that kind of security, especially the impoverished and uneducated. Pregnancy only compounds those problems, and that’s why society has a vested interest in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. And I don’t mean we need to abort those unwanted pregnancies, I mean that we ought to prevent them in the first place.
If you really want there to be fewer abortions, address poverty and education in this country. Calling for bans does nothing. People would get abortions legal or not, and I’ve yet to meet a pro-lifer who can actually describe what the consequences are for getting or performing an abortion in this world where it’s illegal.
A place like this probably doesn’t have a lot of experience with vaginas, so maybe I will give you a quick synopsis. These things require an enormous amount of upkeep. Maintenance is expensive, and even when done impeccably, there are a variety of scenarios that can take place which involve trips to the doctor and additional countermeasures. Keeping in mind, that when this organ is functioning properly, it spends every fourth week bleeding and causing other symptoms which range from uncomfortable to excruciating. Having a vagina is no walk in the park.
I have a vagina and it really isn’t that awful, and while I think it is great to encourage employers to provide birth control through their insurance, I also don’t think the government should force employers to do so.
As for abortion-like I said, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that my children in my womb were something other than human and had absolutely no intrinsic value.
I think the pro life movement would do better to focus on reducing elective abortion, however research shows that victims of rape who choose to carry the children they conceive to term have a better mental health outcome than those who choose to abort-so perhaps the left needs to stop shaming women who are raped into thinking there is something wrong with them if they keep their babies.
It doesn’t. I don’t support abortion in the case of rape, and I certainly don’t speak for conservatives who do, but am I supposed to be disappointed or something that someone with strong anti-abortion views would be elevated to his position?
I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t “moderate” my views for political gain. And, seriously, no one but radical feminists, Democratic elites, and idiots are concerned with abortion right now (and if that isn’t true, then that is just sad). I’m assuming the only reason Akin is losing so much support is that media portrayed him as a lunatic.
It’s funny that the Republicans are the ones waging a “war on women” even though they are the ones who actually believe women have brains and not just ovaries and vaginas (because it is obvious what the left really thinks, your (what I assume is supposed to be sarcasm) notwithstanding).
Please show where I said I hate her.
And I think Rush Limbaugh saying that about her was idiotic, but I’m not really interested in this debate. Beyond your factually incorrect statement, this is something I am very uninterested in.
What I would like to know is at what point an embryo/fetus/et cetera becomes a human life, and why.
But, that would be addressing the disease and not the symptoms. Why complicate matters by getting to the heart of the problem? A one-size-fits-all-morality provides all the solutions needed in these parts.
Funniest comment on thread.
#31: “And abortion isn’t murder. It just isn’t.”
Yes, it is, Levi. And you’ve already admitted it. But as you acknowledge in the quote below, you “side with the full-grown adults” on the issue over the “snuffed out human life.” It’s too late to lie your way out of this and try to conceal your real, repugnant beliefs by making the issue about “poverty” or “education” or some other euphemistic nonsense. Once again, here are YOUR WORDS:
“I’m perfectly capable of recognizing that abortion is a tragedy. It isn’t something that anyone likes to happen and it’s obviously a great moral dilemma. But that doesn’t justify depriving a woman of the ability to determine for herself when she should and should not start having kids…I’m just going to be on the side of the full-grown adults in this one. I don’t like that a would-be human life has to be snuffed out, but I don’t like the idea of a woman being forced to raise children that she doesn’t want much, much more. And it’s not about shirking responsibility, it’s about being sympathetic to the peoples’ individual and complex circumstances.”
I agree that the larger problems should be addressed. The problem is, no one can agree with how to do that (or even on what exactly is causing the problem).
Wherever you work and whatever you do, the government is already forcing your employer to do something – you do realize this? The government is probably forcing your employer to pay unemployment insurance and liability insurance and taxes and health insurance and whatever else. Are you up in arms about that? It’s not like the concept of government forcing entities to do things should be foreign to you.
What would be unusual, however, is consenting to let employers interfere in their employees’ personal health decisions. Think of the irony here; Republicans have been complaining for four years that ObamaCare is going to force the government in between doctors and their patients, and are presently insisting that employers have that same right with their employees! That’s not a coherent philosophy. It’s okay for your boss to interfere in your personal health, but it’s not okay for the government to provide basic healthcare services to poor people. Some society you people want.
No one’s trying to do that.
Oh, don’t talk to me about shaming women. Not when you can’t go a couple of months without seeing some pro-lifers camped out in front of the Planned Parenthood yelling at teenagers in crisis.
Poverty is causing the problem. People that don’t have money, people that don’t have an education, people that don’t have healthcare, people have none of those things; get pregnant. Getting people out of poverty is how you lower abortion rates. The alternative is criminalization, which is unrealistic and would create an abortions black market. Great, there wouldn’t be any counted abortions. Would that make it easier to ignore the thousands of abortions that would still occur?
I’ve given you your answer. Beat poverty. Fewer abortions. You can start small with education or healthcare. But what am I saying? That’s starting to sound like government talk, and conservatives don’t like the idea of the government trying to fix problems. Oh well. I guess I should have known all your theatrics were for nothing.
Actually, Levi, that’s a lie; the majority of women having abortions have income ABOVE the poverty line, no matter how you try to spin it.
Furthermore, even if your assumption was true, abortionists like yourself and your Obama Party have pushed poverty to record levels.
And this was classic:
<blockquoteGreat, there wouldn’t be any counted abortions. Would that make it easier to ignore the thousands of abortions that would still occur?
So your argument is that it’s better to snuff out millions of human lives because restrictions on abortions would knock that back to mere thousands.
As Sean A beautifully pointed out, and as this link shows, you fully acknowledge that abortion involves killing another human being. But even more disgusting is the pathetic rationale you give for doing so:
In short, YES. Sex makes babies. That is a responsibility that you accept when you have it.
And that really reveals Levi’s motivation here. Levi is promiscuous and irresponsible. Indeed, Levi states flatly that he fully supports and endorses killing another human being — which he acknowledges is a human life — in order for him to have recreational sex.
Once you understand that “progressives” are promiscuous and irresponsible above all else, you understand why abortion is their high sacrament. Without abortion, Levi would have to pay child support, wear a condom, or accept the word “no”. Since Levi’s “girlfriend” is a liberal woman, her only option is to abort, since Levi will shame her and call her names if she insists he wear a condom or that they wait until they’re ready to accept the responsibility of having a child.
ND30,
That was from your first link.
Promiscuous: (of a person) Having many sexual relationships, esp. transient ones.
ND30, do you presume to know something about Levi’s sex life? (i.e. that he doesn’t wear a condom, multiple partners) About the politics of his fiance?
Since you’re making presumptions about commenter’s sex life and their responsibility levels, are we to presume you don’t have recreational sex, because it doesn’t lead to procreation? Or are you excusing your recreational sex for that same reason? Or, are you a monk? It just seems to be fair game to discuss, since you so candidly throw out personal details about other commenters (that are probably not even true). But, hey, one man’s libel is another man’s Reverse Alinksy? Right?
I still want to know why levi supports the molesting of children.
Poverty is causing the problem. People that don’t have money, people that don’t have an education, people that don’t have healthcare, people have none of those things; get pregnant. Getting people out of poverty is how you lower abortion rates.
So you are arguing that abortion is the solution to poverty?
Abortion has been legal since 1973. There are still poor people. Poverty is still an issue. There is something wrong with your argument here.
As for unplanned pregnancy-if you aren’t ready to have a baby, then don’t engage in behavior that can result in having a baby. It really isn’t that hard.
But to pretend like the baby in the womb is somehow something other than human is ridiculous. To pretend as if abortion doesn’t kill a human life is ridiculous.
Perhaps this is the most abhorent to me:
Levi doesn’t want to snuff out a life because of the ‘Big Three’ (rape, incest, health of the mother). He wants to snuff out lives that are inconvienent. If a child gets in the way of his having fun, kill it.
Gods I don’t know how I missed this before, but I think this sums up Levi to a T “I’m going to do what I want to please me, and I’ll kill anyone who gets in my way.”
It is clear to me from this thread that abortion is a “fundamental right” for the liberals and anyone opposed to instant abortion gratification is ….. what? ….. a member of a hate group? (Sort of like the FRC and gay marriage.)
Levi weeps about the poor who need abortion and teen girls “in crisis” as if this “thing” in the woman’s womb is some sort of tumor which spreads a psychological malignancy.
What astounds me is how intransigent these abortion-on-a-whim people are. The “thing” in the womb is an unwelcome intruder which is forcing the woman to bear responsibility for her actions. (The “man” can just walk away, as we all know.)
We learn that Levi and his girlfriend are taking precautions, but they are not interested in parenthood any time soon. By inference, we presume that Levi will be a rock and take his lady to the abortion clinic and stand by her if she “finds herself” in pregnancy “crisis.” Levi says “we” in talking about the pregnancy of his beloved. I suppose, in that sense, “we” will have the abortion.
In the final analysis, a great deal has been put on display about the abortion issue and why the Democrats would rather demonize the Republican Puritans for their insistence on forcing women to deal with their unwanted consequences of making whoopie, than confront our great national fiscal crisis.
That’s not my argument. I said that you would reduce the number of abortions if you reduced poverty. Is that difficult to understand? How do you turn that into ‘abortion is the solution to poverty?’
Oh, okay. You sell that message – never have sex except for like 5 or 6 times in your life when you want to have a baby. I’m sure that will go over well with people. What a clear-eyed, realistic solution to the problem at hand!
Again, if you don’t like abortions, there are ways to prevent them that are a bit more effective than protesting at abortion clinics and telling people with a straight face that they shouldn’t have sex for pleasure. I want to reduce the number of abortions, too.
The_Livewire,
Thy name is irony.
Regards,
Cinesnatch
It’s easier to live in a fantasy world where the human race has to live with the consequences of having sex, because, that’s always gone over so well, like, once upon a time, the human race in general resisted their urge for recreational sex and everyone did as they were told and the only babies that were born were the ones that were planned.
The only way in which women have “limited access to contraception”, Cinesnatch, is if you are of the belief that women have no right to say no to men, or that men cannot be asked to wear a condom.
Furthermore, the LGBT community is awash in free “contraceptives”, and the rate of “pregnancies” continues to skyrocket.
The fact that promiscuous liberal men like yourself and Levi don’t want to accept no or wear a condom is not reality. It’s childish and irresponsible, and it’s what is at the core of your Obama Party.
And then we get to the real center of the problem:
Nope.
We’re to presume that, unlike Levi, I do not consider that my having recreational sex takes priority over another person’s life.
It’s a very simple attitude, Cinesnatch. Have all the recreational sex you want, but accept the risk, consequences and responsibility of those decisions. And if you don’t want to accept the risk, consequences and responsibility of those decisions, then don’t have recreational sex.
You are arguing that sex takes precedence over innocent human life, that your need to have sex is more important than other peoples’ health and welfare, and that the consequences and responsibility for your having sex should be paid for by other people.
The only difference between you and Levi is the method of avoidance. Levi wants to kill innocent, helpless babies so he can have consequence-free recreational sex. You want to lie about your HIV status or sue other people to pay your bills so you can have consequence-free recreational sex. And in both cases you scream and cry that other people saying you can’t do that and that it’s morally wrong for you to do that are prudes, homophobes, etc.
Guess what? That’s life. You are too selfish and self-centered to limit and control your own behavior; other people are going to do it for you. It is not acceptable for Levi to kill babies because he doesn’t want to accept risk or responsibility for his actions; it is not acceptable for you to sue and harass other people into paying your bills, or to lie about your status, because you don’t want to accept risk or responsibility for your actions.
I’d recommend that you watch The Island or Clonus, but knowing you and Levi, it would just give you ideas of what society should be doing for you.
Vince,
The left is pretty much certain that educated elites can make great choices for the masses and regulate and fund and manage the society to some sort of cradle to grave state care and peace and harmony.
Meanwhile, the masses will have only the babies they want and the state will take care of extinguishing babies they do not want.
It is all so simple and simplistic. If a person wants to keep a baby that will be a huge medical cost to the state, certainly the state should have the good, common sense to eliminate the baby, because it will not be useful to the society and will cost so darn much in the process of keeping it alive.
I could extend this Fabian socialist nightmare scenario, but why go where George Bernard Shaw and Adolph Hitler have already gone?
It all begins with dehumanizing the “thing” in the womb.
The “consequences of having sex” is an occasional pregnancy. The female has roughly 36 days a year when the chances for pregnancy are at their highest. No contraceptives means that the woman is “vulnerable” for roughly 10% of the year. Without any reproduction education, the effects of extreme horniness and constant banging lead to a pretty good chance that the lady will be successful in getting pregnant.
On the other hand, there is always the ever famous one night stand pregnancy with a casual stranger, isn’t there.
For this we “need” a wide open infrastructure for abortion-on-a-whim?
Half of what the lady is having killed is her own genetic identity. Furthermore, repeated abortion is not benign in terms the female reproductive system. And then there is the “no shame” for playing the abortion game aspect of the construct.
Does the lady who gets an abortion “learn” something from the process? If so, is it something that taking responsibility for her reproductive organs might have kept her from the abortionists vacuum in the first place?
I would be interested in reading a little thoughtful balance concerning killing babies in the womb.
And that’s what this is all about.
Cinesnatch and Levi are hell-bent on avoiding any consequences whatsoever for their behavior, even to the point of engaging in activities that they themselves admit involve killing another human being.
This is why an abortion ban is even necessary. This is pathological rationalization. Both Cinesnatch and Levi have admitted that they will kill another human being rather than accept any responsibility for their behavior because their ability to have unhindered recreational sex is more important than the lives of others.
Wow, nd30, never thought that between the two of us, it would be I who had taken a vow of chastity.
I said that you would reduce the number of abortions if you reduced poverty.
So why do middle class and wealthy women get abortions?
I don’t think there is a connection between poverty and abortion, people mostly get abortion because like you they want to have unfettered recreational sex and avoid dealing with the ramifications of the decision.
You sell that message – never have sex except for like 5 or 6 times in your life when you want to have a baby. I’m sure that will go over well with people. What a clear-eyed, realistic solution to the problem at hand!
And that isn’t what I said or what I am arguing. I said, if you aren’t ready to deal with having a baby, then don’t engage in behaviors that put you at risk for having a baby. Many people have babies who were unplanned. Over one fourth of all births are from unplanned pregnancies. Shoot I have two kids conceived while on birth control pills (taken correctly)-but I didn’t head down to the nearest abortion provider because I didn’t plan them.
Having sex, even recreational sex, means assuming some of the risks and responsibilities that come with it. Pregnancy is one of them.
Again, if you don’t like abortions, there are ways to prevent them that are a bit more effective than protesting at abortion clinics and telling people with a straight face that they shouldn’t have sex for pleasure. I want to reduce the number of abortions, too.
Nice assumption there.
I have never protested at an abortion clinic (I actually am not a huge fan of standing around outside of places holding signs for any cause).
But you have already made it pretty clear you want your cake (recreational sex for pleasure) and to eat it to (kill any baby conceived from your recreational sex).
Also, you totally leave out the one option that allows you to avoid killing your baby in the womb and having your sex for pleasure-adoption.
A few facts from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
Only 30% of abortions are because the woman doesn’t think she can afford it (20%) or doesn’t want having a baby to affect her education (10%).
Over 60% are because a woman doesn’t want to have a baby or because she is having relationship issues of some kind or because other people object to them having a baby.
So Poverty is directly related to 20% of abortions, somewhat related to 10% but convenience is somewhere in the 50% category.
People are selfish, and selfishness motivates abortion far more than poverty does.
And of course, Just Me, it’s easier for Levi to claim that he only wants to help “the poor” rather than to acknowledge that he and his wealthy white liberal girlfriend like Sandra Fluke just don’t want to pay their bills or use birth control.
“The poor” to liberals like Levi are just an excuse for them to gorge themselves at the public teat. If Levi really cared about “the poor”, he would demand that taxes be LOWERED so that he would have more money to give to them himself.
Well, I guess not. If you’re one of the people that believe that rape victims should be forced to carry to term, then I suppose you’re happy to see people like Akin get as far as he did. But you can’t justify calling this story a distraction if these are the things that the Republican party believes.
That’s a lie. Republicans have been introducing abortion bills by the hundreds in legislatures across the country for the past few years. Are these the idiots that you refer to? Were you not aware that this is the case? Liberals are absolutely justified in talking about abortion because Republicans are trying to effectively ban it for millions of women across the country. That’s some game you guys want to play; actively pursuing your own ideological goals and blithely dismissing your opponent’s reaction and pretending like they’re the only ones that care and are using it as a distraction. You just want people to roll over while you eliminate a woman’s right to choose, is that it?
I quite literally can’t think of anything to say in response to the above. Sometimes there’s just too much stupidity, ya know? I can’t even begin to wrap my head around what this is supposed to mean. You think that Republicans are demonstrating a recognition of female intellect by making one-size-fits-all choices for them about their bodies, health, and lives?
She’s been identified as a target for all good Republicans to direct their loathing and you’re complying. She never did anything to earn even a fraction of the ire that the conservatives have sent her way.
Nothing was factually incorrect. She went to testify to Congress about contraception and women’s health. You’re the one putting words in her mouth, with your nonsense about how she wants to force her boss to subsidize her contraception.
That’s an impossible question to answer and is irrelevant anyway. No one feels good about getting or performing abortions and it should be our collective responsibility to try to prevent as many situations where they’re necessary as we can. People need help, and it just so happens that conservatives are against giving people help for most things. Folding your arms and saying that people should be more responsible is not a solution.
Per Just Me’s link above, which comes from Planned Parenthood’s research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, women in the United States cite “was victim of rape of incest” exactly 1% of the time as a reason for their having an abortion.
Or, put differently, in 99% of the cases mentioned, women and men want to kill a human being rather than accept the risk and responsibility of recreational sex.
You would be more credible if you were honest, Levi. Just state that recreational sex outweighs human life. Go on. You’ve already said abortion kills a human being; now make it clear that your recreational sex is more important than human life.
And this was beyond hilarious:
Oh, but you do, Levi.
Your entire Obama Party is stating that abortion is the number one most important issue in the country, and that everything should be about abortion. Your whole Obama Party and your Barack Obama are stating that abortion is so essential that it justifies violating the First Amendment and forcing everyone to perform it. Your entire convention speaker lineup is to push abortion. Your entire Obama media apparatus right now is going on about how wonderful abortion is. Your number-one spokesperson is a wealthy white liberal who is screaming and crying that the government should be spending billions of dollars annually to pay for her abortions. Your Obama Party and your Barack Obama want to hike taxes on everyone to pay for the abortions of white liberal women like your “girlfriend” and Sandra Fluke.
You are the Abortion Party, Levi. You push, promote, and support abortions, and trying to say otherwise is just clearly a lie.
And then, inadvertently, Levi reveals the whole motivation of abortionists like himself:
Of course.
Because liberals like you are NOT responsible, Levi. That’s the whole point. You are childish little brats who won’t take responsibility for your actions, and want the government to clean up for you and take the fall like your parents did.
And more importantly, Levi, you will not be responsible even if another human being’s life is at stake. You and your fellow liberals want your recreational sex, and you’ll get it, even if you have to kill another human being to accomplish the fact.
This is why abortion laws are necessary. Pathological brats like yourself will not stop murdering children or take the steps necessary to avoid murdering them in the first place. You and your fellow liberals have already demonstrated that you won’t use condoms, you won’t use contraceptives, and you won’t restrain yourself; you’ll kill the baby instead.
And people I would just sum it up this way: Levi would rather kill another human being than wear a condom.
That’s just it in a nutshell. Levi and Levi’s “girlfriend” would rather murder an innocent, helpless child, who had no control over where they were conceived, no ability to select different parents, and no chance to survive or even thrive, because Levi and Levi’s “girlfriend” are too lazy and cheap to use a condom.
And moreover, this need to murder another human being at no cost to herself is more important to Levi’s “girlfriend” than the economy, jobs, taxes, or national defense.
Because that’s what the Obama Party says. The Obama Party says that womens’ only concern is abortion and that the primary focus of the election should be on which party supports, endorses, and uses taxpayer money to pay for abortions.
And they freely admit, as did Levi, that they are pushing abortions because they believe people are stupid and cannot be responsible for their behavior.
The incredible racism, misogyny, bigotry, childishness, and pathological rationalization that are at the core at liberalism are getting laid out beautifully in this comment thread.
You think that Republicans are demonstrating a recognition of female intellect by making one-size-fits-all choices for them about their bodies, health, and lives?
lol this is the problem-liberals think women’s issues are solely tied up in abortions and birthcontrol.
Being a woman I am far more concerned about things like education (Mr. Obama’s children attend a very expensive private school and can walk into any university they choose because their last name is Obama, while Obama killed the DC voucher program-choice is good for the wealthy but screw the poor who are stuck in failing school systems).
The economy-Obama wants to bail out GM and banks at the expense of my children’s future. He wants to push through ridiculous requirements for birth control while ignoring the unemployment rate.
Oh and I don’t even want to get into Holder and everything that man stands for while OBama covers his rear end. Corzine is going to walk and start up another hedge fund-that’s political cronyism at its best.
But hey, I am supposed to vote my uterus and choose Obama-give me a break.
Of course you are, Just Me.
Because white liberal male Levi knows what is best for women, which is to abort their babies.
Most interestingly, it’s also the best option for white liberal male Levi; he gets his recreational sex, he doesn’t have to wear a condom, and he doesn’t have to pay the bill, take responsibility, or pay child support.
The woman has to do all of that.
This is the difference between conservativism and liberalism. Conservative males, in opposing abortion, are permanently saddling themselves with responsibility if they have recreational sex that results in a pregnancy. A live baby is a legal and financial responsibility. It would be so much easier for them to kill the baby and not have to accept any responsibility.
But they don’t — because that would be putting their recreational sex needs ahead of a human life.
Levi won’t do that. Levi is such an irresponsible person that he would rather kill a baby than have to pay child support or accept any responsibility for his actions.
And, again, you and I have disparate ideas about how to do that. You obviously favour government programs, while I favour capitalism. As for education and healthcare, I believe a free market approach is the best one to strengthen those institutions, which you obviously disagree with. There isn’t even any point in talking about this because it won’t go anywhere.
???
I’ve never said anything remotely close to that. I think abortion is important but I hardly think that’s the only issue facing women.
But whatever, go on with your ranting.
If there was any money to be made off of defeating property, it would have been done by now. What you’re really saying is that you’d rather do nothing. Even when you claim to be appalled by the so-called murdering of children, you refuse to mobilize an asset like the government because you’re a good little Republican that doesn’t think government spending ever helps, except for NASA.
Well, whatever. I guess you can figure out how to make money by educating poor people and providing healthcare for them with the free market. Go ahead, you can get in on the ground floor of what I’m sure will be a huge industry.
Actually, Levi, the reason conservatives don’t mobilize the government is because they are far better at doing it themselves.
Meanwhile, all you’ve shown that you “mobilize the government to do” is to buy liquor-stocked private airliners for insider-trading multimillionaires and throw lavish parties for Hollywood insiders and whiny multimillionaires.
In short, Levi, you scream and cry and insist AT GUNPOINT AND WITH THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT that we give you more money for “the poor” — and then you turn around and blow it on yourself and your cronies who are anything BUT poor.
You’re a liar and a mooch, Levi. You are STEALING from American taxpayers under false pretenses, blowing the money on your own luxury, and leaving the poor to starve.
What a sick, twisted, and degraded individual you are. You honestly believe that it is your birthright to steal money from others and waste it on yourself.
I guess you can figure out how to make money by educating poor people and providing healthcare for them with the free market.,/I.
I think in my mind education in a free market means giving even the poor people choices other than their failing schools provided by he government and controlled by teacher’s unions.
Public schools are failing all over the place even though the governmet continues to sink more and more money into them. I think a little competition where even the poor can allow their kids to attend somewhere other than the teacher’s union public school is highly needed.
Obama, the savior of education is really the protector of teacher’s unions while he sends his girls off to a 30k a year private school.
Sure I can; any issue not related to the economy is a distraction. Making a big deal about what Akin said is a distraction. And I still don’t agree that women don’t get pregnant from being raped.
Fine. Then talk specifically about abortion (and I speak generally in this case, not about you or I in particular, but about the two sides). If we’re going to have this discussion, don’t be disingenuous about it and claim Republicans are waging a “war on women.” If you’re so confident about the merits of your position, don’t argue against straw men (that is, don’t take Akin’s statement and attribute that to all Republicans, who have universally rebuked him).
One thing that always seems to be lost on the abortion proponents is that this isn’t about women at all. It is about the “thing” in her womb. If the left recognizes that women have brains, then why are they always marginalizing and insulting pro-life/conservative women? The two things are completely incongruous. And what is with the “war on women” rhetoric if all the Republicans are doing is trying to restrict abortion? If restricting abortion is a “war on women,” then how can you claim women are something more than abortion (or, in other words, the female organs that are involved in pregnancy)?
No, I’m not complying. Criticism is not “ire.” I do not endorse any treatment of her with ire.
I’m confused. What was the issue she was testifying about? If it was just “contraception and women’s health,” what prompted her testimony? If I recall correctly, she was asking for contraception that women wouldn’t have to pay for. If the employers/insurance companies aren’t providing contraception, then it would have to be directly from the government (as opposed to the contraception coming indirectly from the government, as in the other case). And if the issue of Fluke’s testimony wasn’t “forc[ing] her boss to subsidize her contraception,” what this about?:
Why would you argue that if the issue that prompted Fluke’s testimony wasn’t “forc[ing] her boss to subsidize her contraception” (or, in other words, the part of Obamacare that would do that, which, if I recall correctly, the Republicans’ opposition to which was the reason for her testimony)?
So, you’re admitting (again), that abortion is murder? Then how can you support it? Or is it that a woman having to deal with the consequences of her actions (which, regardless of what you say, is what pregnancy is) is more of an injustice than extinguishing the life of a human?
(1.) Our “collective responsibility” to prevent abortions when they’re NECESSARY”? Give.me.a.break.
O.K., Levi, which abortions are “necessary” and who decides which ones are necessary and which ones are not necessary? And do tell us all about parental notification and parental consent or keeping it all hush hush between the teen and her abortion mentor.
(2.) People need help and (….) conservatives are against giving people help for most things.
Bull feathers and ear wax. The great bulk of charity comes from conservatives. What you meant to write is that the liberals turn to the nanny state funded by a gun held to the head of those increasingly fewer people who pay taxes. Conservatives are against the wasteful, inept and ever increasingly corrupt nanny state and its Ponzi schemes and bloated bureaucracy while the group of people who need help grows larger and there is no evidence of improvement in their lives.
(3.) (…) saying that people should be more responsible is not a solution.
Cynical as that statement is, perhaps you are right. Perhaps people need to be required to be more responsible. Perhaps there needs to be a cost to being a freeloader and wealth transfer mooch placed on the moochers.
Perhaps the freeloaders could be sent to labor camps. Perhaps the moochers could be sterilized. Perhaps the nanny state could take a harsher view of these people who need “necessary” abortions and the state could insist on people who need help being an agent in their own rehabilitation and providing a compound where people who are not responsible can live in total irresponsibility.
You should read a little Mao and a little Stalin and a little Hitler and other such Fabian socialists and get your plans for the master race of nanny state elites a little clearer in your mind.
@Vince,
As is usual, you fail. It’s clear that Levi believes being part of a group means you must agree with it lockstep. Therefore I’m asking why (by his standards) he wants to molest children.
@Heliotrope,
To Levi, abortion is ‘needed’ whenever it would make life difficult for him.
Nice to see a comment from someone who actually has a vagina, rather than from someone who simply plays with one.