At least 78 GOP candidates would force women to bear rapists’ babies

[ensho]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/78-gop-candidates-force-rapists-babies/


-snip-

The Republican National Coalition For Life, a political action committee formed by anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schlafly, sends out questionnaires every election season to Republican candidates asking them to lay out their positions on abortion.

(Schlafly is a nasty woman)

-snip-

The list was flagged earlier this week by Charles Johnson at the Little Green Footballs blog. Johnson counted 112 candidates who hold that view of abortion, but a Raw Story count of the listed candidates found 78 who have won their primary and indicated they would make no exceptions to allow abortion.

As the list doesn't include all US states or all candidates running for the House or Senate, the total number of candidates backing a full abortion ban is likely higher. The list also does not cover gubernatorial candidates or politicians running for state or local government.
--------------------------

may all of the woman haters swallow their own tongues and never voted into office

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I can understand being against abortion for various reasons, but for the life of me...

I can't possibly understand why anyone would prohibit it in cases of rape or incest.

It is a horrific and brain-dead position.

[MH1]

3. it's very simple

if abortion is 'murder' - ever - then it is always murder. But of course, it is NEVER murder. If it's murder, it must have been infanticide, not abortion.

I don't understand the worship of the fetus concept. There is no mystery and no miracle to conception. For most people of child-bearing age, if you have unprotected sex frequently, you're gonna get pregnant. No mystery, no miracle. So why is every fertilized ovum sacred?

[Karenina]

5. I can understand being against abortion for various reasons,

and those reasons are PERSONAL. If you have personal reasons against abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE.

I can't possibly understand why ANYONE would demand an unwanted child be brought into this circus of a society that we now have. Especially when our proliferation is a MAJOR PROBLEM.

[golfguru]

9. The argument the anti-abortionists use is

that the baby has done no crime and therefore does not deserve
to be killed.

My argument is it is not a baby if it can't survive with even the
best medical procedures, outside the mother's womb. Therefore the
raped woman must have the choice to abort the FETUS.

[Enthusiast]

10. I'm with you.

It's an insane position. I think most of these people would change their minds if their loved one was pregnant through rape or incest. They would whisk their daughter/niece off to a foreign country to have a safe legal abortion.

[JoePhilly]

2. Here's why ....

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (King James Version)

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Its the way you punish a rapist ... :sarcasm:

[LiberalFighter]

4. I'm wondering if that requirement applied to someone outside their religion?

I thought those in the Jewish religion back in those days were against marriage involving outsiders.

[Hekate]

11. It was a way of protecting chattel and family. It's better than honor killings, I'll give it that.

If women in ancient times were chattel (property), which apparently they were, it's interesting that their rights as persons in Jewish law were still delineated.

In an extreme "honor" culture such as we see in the Taliban, a raped or seduced woman is considered to have dishonored her male relatives by surviving the rape, and may be killed by them with impunity.

By contrast, ancient Jewish law made a provision for the woman to be taken as a wife -- she could not be cast aside by her rapist or seducer, nor could her male relatives cast her out, but had to try to rectify the situation. It was, oddly, a form of protection for the woman -- she was required to be provided for the rest of her life.

An important feature of Jewish law is that it is not entirely contained in the books Christians call the Old Testament, but has been continuously discussed, written about, and revised considerably over the millennia, and is enshrined in many books and commentaries. IOW, that was then, this is now, a distinction my idiot fundy former son in law failed to understand.

As for "outsiders" as it relates to this old text -- I don't exactly know and someone else will have to speak to that. I do know that the child of a Jewish woman, regardless of how she got pregnant, is Jewish. The tribe is matrilineal to this day; however intermarriage certainly has taken place over the millennia and Jews today range from blue-eyed blonds to Middle Eastern to African in appearance. There are provisions for conversions, although there is no proselytization. The story of Ruth and Naomi has many interpretations, and conversion ("Thy people shall be my people") is one.

However, as relates to abortion (which is where this thread started), the mother's life and health have always had priority in Jewish law, and abortion is not considered murder. The focus was and is on the woman -- her pain, her care, her health, and her life to be saved over that of an unborn fetus.

In Christian Europe and America for many centuries what happened in the first trimester was considered women's business; doctor and lawyers only got interested after "quickening" in the second trimester. However 20th century technology allowed both doctors and laypersons to see every stage of fetal development down to the meeting of sperm and egg, and for those inclined to focus on the zygote/fetus/unborn baby over and above the woman, this made it all the more compelling to view abortion as murder.

I think Christians have had more trouble defining women's rights and the care of women in the matter of abortion, and it is Christian teachings that formed secular laws defining abortion as murder. Even then, the life and health of the mother were always given consideration in law and medical practice, and it was considered too extreme by far for 19th-20th century Protestants to adhere to Catholic teachings on abortion. I have read more than one novel written "back when" where a Protestant family has discussed not sending their mother/sister/daughter to the nearest Catholic maternity hospital because of the belief that if there were any trouble with labor and delivery that the baby would be saved before the mother. I used to think it was prejudice, but now I know that it was not.

Nowadays I'd want to know if my daughter's obstetrician was a radical Christian fundamentalist, frankly....

Complicated business. Shame on the GOP for nurturing extremists.

Hekate

[Odin2005]

6. GOP: The Rapist Party.

[JaneQPublic]

8. Right. They're "Pro-Choice," only for rapists, not women.

That is, for the choice of rapists to choose any woman they want to give birth to their babies.

[struggle4progress]

7. And it seems some of them would even further then have the woman stoned for adultery

[felix_numinous]

12. GOP fundamentalist base doesn't "want their country back"

they want to bring on the apocalypse--so why is this not treason????

Their money is poison and those that pander to these sick nutbags are enabling this social disease to spread.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

13. Dr. Ron Paul is a lying obstetrician/gynecologist.

He's practiced in Lake Jackson, TX, for about four decades.


He stated he's never had a pregnant patient with a life-threatening pregnancy. That is statistically impossible.


That would mean that out of thousands of pregnant women, NOT ONE has had an ectopic pregnancy? The Fallopian tube and zygote must be removed or it will explode and kill the woman.


He's had NOT ONE who needed a late term abortion because of fetal malformations, such as anencephaly?

Or because of cardiac insufficiency by the mother?


For that matter, he's had NOT ONE patient who had to have a C-section to save the life of the mother AND the baby? I had to have a C-section, which requires a skilled surgeon, or I and my daughter would both be DEAD, no doubt about it. There is no way I could deliver a normal baby let alone the healthy 8 pounder I had. I'm a small person. Simple mechanical obstruction. Baby's head is much larger than the hole in the pelvis. Simple.


Somewhere between five and ten percent of women need a C-section or they will die or be exhausted from labor and the baby will get hypoxia from prolonged labor and possible brain damage.


I can't stand these people who think pregnancy and delivery is just a walk in the park, and they play amateur obstetrician.


Why do these Libertarians think the government should interfere in women's reproductive decisions?

:banghead: :wtf: :grr: