Quote:

---

The Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania today suggested that a woman who was impregnated by a rapist faces a similar decision to one contemplating whether to give birth to a child out of wedlock.

Tom Smith, who opposes abortion in all circumstances and is challenging Democratic incumbent Bob Casey, later sought to clarify his comments. He said he didn’t intend to compare out- of-wedlock pregnancy to one resulting from rape.

His comments and the attention they attracted came just eight days after another Republican Senate nominee, Todd Akin of Missouri, said victims of “legitimate rape” rarely become pregnant. Akin also opposes abortion in all circumstances.

Smith’s comments in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, were in response to a question about how he would react if a rapist impregnated his daughter or granddaughter, according to the Associated Press.

“I lived something similar to that with my own family, and she chose the life, and I commend her for that,” Smith said to reporters at the Pennsylvania Press Club, according to the Associated Press. “She chose the way I thought.”

He said the similarity was that the family member had “a baby out of wedlock.”

On a follow-up question, Smith sought to clarify his comments, saying he wasn’t comparing decisions raised by rape and out-of-wedlock pregnancy.

“No, no, no, but, well, put yourself in a father’s position,” he said, the AP reported. “Yes, I mean, it is similar, this isn’t, but I’m back to the original. I’m pro-life -- period.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Wow. You hear that? That's the sound of the Republican Party on self-destruct. They can't not make these gaffes because they can't not think this way. Their minds are their own worst enemy.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Wow. You hear that? That's the sound of the Republican Party on self-destruct. They can't not make these gaffes because they can't not think this way. Their minds are their own worst enemy.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Chris Christie today confirmed the GOP's war on women when he said Republicans shouldn't have to "cater" to women. You know, since women only make up the majority of registered voters and all...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
The article you cited says that he compared the decision faced by a woman regnant from rape is similar o that faced by a woman pregnant out of wedlock.

What is your problem with that? Unless you want mandatory abortions for victims of rape.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
In both cases - in ALL cases - he'd like to take away that decision. What you are arguing for is mandatory motherhood for rape victims.

---

Quote:

---

If life begins at conception does the State have a requirement or interest to protect that life? If the answer is "no"...why not? This is what the Republican Pro Life argument is all about.

---

Quote:

---

These are not bad people advocating rape...these are people trying to protect what they consider to be life, which is always a noble sentiment in any human being. You might oppose them for a variety of reasons (I'm assuming your not all a bunch of pro-death lesbian Feminazis, but rather thoughtful people who differ on the core principal of the origin of life)...but a little sympathy and understanding on both sides could really go a long way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

The answer *IS* "no", and for a very simple reason: That "life", that "person" as you claim, is not a United States citizen. The United States Constitution says so.

As the right has pointed out so very many times, non-citizens do not have, nor should they expect, the rights and protections the Constitution grants to citizens.

---

I note for the record that the Constitution makes a distinction between "citizens" and persons. The 14th Amendment says all persons born or naturalized are "citizens" but goes on to say that the State cannot deny a "person" their basic right to life without Due Process.

Thus conditionally all citizens are persons but not all persons are citizens. The Constitution provides for the rights of both classes.

Btw, absent the issue of when life is conceived your pro abortion argument begins to sound like a pro slavery argument.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

The answer *IS* "no", and for a very simple reason: That "life", that "person" as you claim, is not a United States citizen. The United States Constitution says so.

As the right has pointed out so very many times, non-citizens do not have, nor should they expect, the rights and protections the Constitution grants to citizens.

---

I note for the record that the Constitution makes a distinction between "citizens" and persons. The 14th Amendment says all persons born or naturalized are "citizens" but goes on to say that the State cannot deny a "person" their basic right to life without Due Process.

---

Define "due process". President Bush, Alberto Gonzales, and the entire Bush administration couldn't. What if I consider a visit to an abortion clinic to be "due process"?

Quote:

---

Thus conditionally all citizens are persons but not all persons are citizens. The Constitution provides for the rights of both classes.

---

It also provides ways to do away with those rights, doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Btw, absent the issue of when life is conceived your pro abortion argument begins to sound like a pro slavery argument.

---

Really? How so?

You realize that forcing women to bear their rapists' children is a lot like slavery, right? And when you call rape "a method of conception", that sounds like something a slave-owner would say.




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

Quote:

---

Righteous Abortion: How Conservative Christianity Promotes What It Claims to Hate
Posted on January 22, 2012

Shadow of the Cross One of the great ironies of American society is that most abortions in the U.S. are caused by conservative Christians. Read the statistics: Forty nine percent of pregnancies in this country are unintended, a rate that has been painfully stable for almost 30 years. Almost half of those pregnancies end in abortion. Or, to turn it around, over 90% of U.S. abortions are the result of accidental pregnancy. U.S. rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion far exceed any other country with similar economic development. So does our rate of religiosity. The fact that we are outliers on both is not a coincidence.

Three aspects of conservative Christianity promote abortion: pro-natalism, an obsession with sexual sin, and an emphasis on righteousness over compassion.

Biblical Christianity is not pro life. It is not even pro human life. Steven Pinker recently estimated that the Old Testament alone describes 1.2 million deaths at the hand of Yahweh or his servants. It is, however, pro-birth. Be fruitful and multiply. (Genesis 1:28) Women will be saved through childbearing. (1 Timothy 2:15). Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant reformation, put it in his own words: “If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her only die from bearing; she is there to do it.” Christian competitive breeding, a strategy for increasing adherents, is at the heart of the Catholic anti-contraceptive stance and the Protestant Quiverfull movement.
Mama’s baby, papa’s maybe. We all know what it means. By the time the Abrahamic religions emerged, the male desire to invest in only their own offspring had taken the form of men owning women. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. (Exodus 20:17) Women caught in adultery (or missing their hymens) were killed by the ancient Hebrews, just as they are by conservative Muslims today. Christianity’s obsession with sexual sin or rather with female purity has produced the American virginity myth. In contrast to more secular, open societies, American teens typically don’t seek contraception for a year after becoming sexually active. Contraception would make them guilty of the sin of premeditated sex.
38,000. That’s the number of Christian denominations. Ever wondered why? Traditional Christianity is about right belief, orthodoxy, rather than right living. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. Acts 16:31 Contrast this with the central virtue of Buddhism, ahimsa, or non-harm. “Catholic” (meaning universal) and “Orthodox” (meaning right belief) are competing turf stakes from one of the first splits after Christianity beat out paganism. But schism and fracture are just one consequence of beliefism. Many believers would rather be right than in community. They’d rather be right than compassionate. They’d rather be right than solve problems. They would rather oppose abortion than prevent it.

The numbers are in. The most effective way to reduce abortion is to de-stigmatize sexual education, de-mythologize virginity, and invest in broad access to the most effective contraceptives available. In the highly secular Netherlands, that formula has knocked abortion down to 7 per 1000 women annually, one third the U.S. rate. So why does the Religious Right keep their focus on restrictive laws instead of contraceptive access? Why do they promote person-rights for zygotes, in contradiction to the very essence of personhood? Why do they oppose medically accurate sex ed? Why do they pledge to defund Title X family planning?

Because abortion isn’t really what interests them. They want purity. They want righteousness. Some want designated breeders. Even those who don’t consciously promote more births are subject to the competitive strategies that were baked into the desert religions from the beginning.

The world is on the cusp of a contraceptive revolution. Compared to the best birth control available to your parents (the Pill), latest generation long-acting reversible contraceptives, also known as LARCs, drops accidental pregnancy by 10 to 50 fold. Each year one in twelve women on the Pill gets pregnant. Over a lifetime, that’s two or three extra pregnancies per woman – unsought children or abortions. With a hormonal IUD or implant, that drops to one in 500, because a LARC toggles the fertility default to “off.” If that wasn’t enough, some LARC’s also get rid of that messy monthly uncleanness (Leviticus 15:19-24) brought on by Eve’s curse.

Someone who wanted to prevent abortions would advocate showcasing LARCs in every teen health class in the country. They would make sure that the most effective contraceptives available were available to all. They would be more focused on wise childbearing than on virginity. Those who say they are all about ending abortion, don’t—because they aren’t.

This is Trust Women Week, a week to honor the moral and spiritual wisdom that women invest in our reproductive decisions. Join the virtual march. Listen to Deborah or Deb or Angela or Joy tell her abortion story at the 1 in 3 campaign. If you are ready, tell yours. And spread the word!

---