The Ryan Plan and Catholic Social Teaching

Our liberals have been running with a meme which goes “Ryan’s budget plan is anti-Catholic” – the basis of the liberal argument is that a letter was written under the letter head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops which condemned the Ryan plan when it was first presented.  Without getting in to the intra-Catholic weeds on this, the mere existence of such a letter does not either indicate Catholic doctrine nor how the Bishops, if pressed on the matter, would rule.  Lots of liberals reside on the staff of the USCCB and they do take their opportunities to help liberal Democrats.

The letter, itself, held that the alleged cuts to social spending in the Ryan plan violated Catholic teaching as it relates to helping the poor.  Of course, Catholic teaching is that the poor have an absolute moral claim upon the wealthy for sufficient housing, clothing, food and health care – there can be and is no argument about that.  If you’ve got the means, you are morally obligated to help out the less fortunate.  On the other hand, how you are to help out is not set out with precision – because it can’t be.  Circumstances are so varied among both the haves and the have-nots that no one person can figure out exactly what one person should do for another in all circumstances.  The bottom line is that there can be a great deal of different opinion on the best means to the end – and Ryan’s bishop, Robert C. Morlino, has written an article clarifying the Catholic view – first laying out what is required:

…It is the role of bishops and priests to teach principles of our faith, such that those who seek elected offices, if they are Catholics, are to form their consciences according to these principles about particular policy issues.

However, the formation of conscience regarding particular policy issues is different depending on how fundamental to the ecology of human nature or the Catholic faith a particular issue is. Some of the most fundamental issues for the formation of a Catholic conscience are as follows: sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, marriage, religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and a right to private property.

Violations of the above involve intrinsic evil — that is, an evil which cannot be justified by any circumstances whatsoever. These evils are examples of direct pollution of the ecology of human nature and can be discerned as such by human reason alone. Thus, all people of good will who wish to follow human reason should deplore any and all violations in the above areas, without exception. The violations would be: abortion, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, government-coerced secularism, and socialism…

So, we can say, “politician A is in favor of elective abortion and as that is an intrinsic evil, I must not vote for politician A”.  But outside of the area of intrinsic evil, there is a lot more flexibility – and it becomes a matter of prudential judgement on the part of Catholics (and, indeed, everybody) to decide as best they can.

The bishop continues:

…Catholics and others of good will can arrive at different conclusions. These are conclusions about the best means to promote the preferential option for the poor, or the best means to reach a lower percentage of unemployment throughout our country. No one is contesting here anyone’s right to the basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, etc. Nor is anyone contesting someone’s right to work and so provide for self and family. However there can be difference according to how best to follow the principles which the Church offers.

Making decisions as to the best political strategies, the best policy means, to achieve a goal, is the mission of lay people, not bishops or priests. As Pope Benedict himself has said, a just society and a just state is the achievement of politics, not the Church. And therefore Catholic laymen and women who are familiar with the principles dictated by human reason and the ecology of human nature, or non-Catholics who are also bound by these same principles, are in a position to arrive at differing conclusions as to what the best means are for the implementation of these principles — that is, “lay mission” for Catholics…

It is up to us, informed by our Catholic teaching (if we are Catholics) and our good sense in conformity with natural law (if we are thinking people of any belief system) to figure out the best means of carrying out the necessary measures.  Such means can include government funding for social programs – but they don’t have to.  There is no moral requirement to raise tax revenues to spend on poverty relief – in practical terms it might be the best expedient, but that is an empirical question.  We think about it, decide our plans, implement them and see how they work – and then revise or repeal as experience is gained.  It is a lie – flat out – for anyone to say that any cut to social spending is morally wrong.  Cut, keep the same, increase – it is a matter of judgment.  Given that we have spent trillions on anti-poverty programs and poverty is now worse than before (and there is plenty of data indicating that long-term government dependency is morally destructive to both the individual and the family) a strong case can be made that reforms are necessary.  This, in the end, is all Ryan proposes – that we reform what we have with a mind towards making it more effective in achieving our desired end (less poverty).

As an aside, I’d like to note that I am nauseated by liberal attempts to knock Ryan on grounds of Catholic social teaching.  Honorable Catholics of good will and even non-Catholics who are generous and wise can take all sorts of exception to Ryan’s plan.  no problem with that at all – but what we have here is an attempt to smear Ryan and make him odious, as a Catholic, to his fellow Catholics.  And this is done for the narrow, partisan and downright disgusting program of generating sufficient votes to get the anti-Catholic Obama re-elected.  I’ll pay attention to these liberal carps about any Catholic’s plans once I see liberals subscribing to the entirety of Catholic social teaching – once, that is, they also come out against gay marriage and against abortion.

Advertisements

98 thoughts on “The Ryan Plan and Catholic Social Teaching

  1. Carmel Miller August 19, 2012 / 11:21 pm

    I am very put off by the Catholics. They brought in too many aliens from other nations and taught them to use the welfare systems and all the other advantages of the tax dollars that we the people paid in for our own use. As I write this note I am fully aware that the Catholic Charities is bring thousands of those Muslims who hate we the Christians here to America. This is disgusting. The Catholics double talk and leave others to clean up their pie in the sky dreams and mistakes.
    They need to learn how to respect our nation and support our Conservative values along with their freedom to practice their faith. They must speak up because the Muslims who have a cult pledge to kill Christians are coming for them. It is the Muslim rule to get to their perverted heaven they must kill a Christian.

    • bozo August 20, 2012 / 1:25 am

      You left off the church’s tax exemption that costs us rationalists billions in lost revenue for fire, police, schools and infrastructure, which I guess is only fair, since God will protect them from fires, crime, science and faulty bridges, so why should they pay taxes?

      But if they wanna keep playing politics, then that would officially be representation without taxation, equally deplorable as the inverse.

      • neocon1 August 20, 2012 / 3:19 am

        blowzo

        UNIONS pay NO taxes and they are a political arm of the left and muscle for the mafia….

      • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 11:39 am

        I happen to agree that when churches start to use their positions of moral authority to affect politics, they should lose their tax free status.

        I also think that unions should be taxed.

      • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 2:22 pm

        Ah, so now believing in randomness is called “rationalism”. Evidently it is considered “rational” to believe that there is no greater power in the universe than any individual, and that nothing in the history of the universe has ever had any deeper significance than randomness and coincidence.

        Also interesting is the theory that tax revenues not collected from religious organizations “cost” only those whose belief system consists of arrogance and denial. I guess if you don’t find any power greater than you, then you also find it easy to believe that every event affects only you. Perhaps the freaky clown can explain by what mechanism tax-free status differentiates between those who find meaning in the universe and those who do not, affecting only the latter.

      • bozo August 21, 2012 / 10:51 am

        “Evidently it is considered “rational” to believe that there is no greater power in the universe than any individual,” – sounds like Tony Robbins and Oprah had a baby. Wacky, Ammo. Just wacky, That derived from the culture of self-esteem being pushed by New Age-ers and their spiritual realization gurus? Too much TV, Ammo. Put down the remote and step away from the set if you know what’s good for ya. Slowly…

      • Amazona August 21, 2012 / 11:06 am

        freakzo, maybe you can find an app or a program that will let you chart your stupid comments and your lies, so you can keep track of them

        You are the one who referred to yourself as a “rationalist” in your effort to make a snarky anti-God point, and I merely referred back to your own statement.

        Evidently you spread so much crap around you can’t keep track of it.

        Or do you think your claim of being a rationalist can best be described as the ugly offspring of Tony Robbins and Oprah, blahblahblahblahblah?

        Whatever. You strive only to be a speed bump.

    • Mark Edward Noonan August 20, 2012 / 8:28 pm

      Carmel,

      Perhaps if you better understood that the civilization you live in and the liberties you enjoy were brought to you by the endless sacrifices of Catholics over a thousand year period you’d be a little less resentful of the fact that Catholics figure Our Lord’s command to be kind to the stranger is, indeed, a command…

      • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 8:33 pm

        …but it is not a command to be kind with someone else’s food, or money.

        I do agree with Carmen that the Church, in misguided belief it is acting out of charity, has supported and enabled a vicious and brutal political system.

        I don’t see this as an indictment of the Church, but of its foolish lurch to the Left in the 60’s, resulting in its contamination with the frilly disguise so often donned by the Left, that of kindness and generosity. That period has damaged the Church and we can only hope it regains its footing. I think it is moving in the right direction.

      • Mark Edward Noonan August 21, 2012 / 2:50 pm

        Amazona,

        The Catholic Church is supra-national – it does not believe that borders are bright, red lines. It can’t – its brief is to preach the gospel to all nations and that requires complete ease of migration. The world used to be a lot different about these things – think of it like this: some of the old Austrian Empire’s greatest leaders (Kaunitz, Metternich, eg) weren’t Austrian. The rise of nationalism (as opposed to a healthy patriotism) has poisoned our views of these things greatly – there is nothing, per se, wrong with people migrating from one place to another. And those who do migrate have a right (God-given) to expect kind treatment (not indifference and sink or swim on your own – but definitive help). What is wrong with our immigration system is that it has been tailor-made to create a non-integrated underclass in the United States while providing vast profits for corrupt corporations and, much worse, criminal gangs. It isn’t the number of people who have come in but how they have come in – and the fact of their illegality isn’t a bug in the system, it is the prime feature (ie, that which is most strongly desired…because corporations want their cheap labor, Mexico wants a profitable outlet for surplus youth, gangs want to make money, average folks want cheap access to child care, landscaping, etc). The blame for this ultimately rests with we, the people – the government is ours and does what we demand. And some times our demands are negative – in other words we allow evil to persist.

        To haul off and blame the Catholic Church for offering a welcome to God’s children – and especially those children who are already Catholic – is absurd. Fix the system so that the border is controlled and only legal entry is permitted…but don’t blame the Church for doing what God commands the Church to do.

  2. GMB August 20, 2012 / 5:45 am

    I’ll take arguing with idiots for a thousand Alex.

    Q. The largest owner of property in the United States

    A. Could it be the federal government?

    You are correct!!

    All that lost tax money. All those out of work public servants because the feds decided all that coal needed to stay under Grand Escalante National Park.

    Tis a shame about that right?

    • Cluster August 20, 2012 / 8:48 am

      Alex Trebek – “GMB, I believe the correct answer for that would be, What is the Federal Government”

      But you are correct sir. Pay no attention to the bozo on the end, he is not a serious thinker. Select your next category.

      • GMB August 20, 2012 / 8:20 pm

        “Could it be” is still in the form of a question. So I am still correct under the Jeopardy rules.

        😛

  3. Amazona August 20, 2012 / 11:45 am

    Latest on the Intolerance Front: The Republican Party of Sarasota County in Florida put up a “Repeal Obama” billboard on Friday. Today it stands destroyed.

    Let’s see—that’s a strike against free speech and destruction of private property. Throw in intolerance and that’s a hat trick for the Left.

  4. irisspirit August 20, 2012 / 1:17 pm

    Mark, I am not a Catholic, but it seems pretty clear what the Bishops said in their letter. I agree – the Catholic Church needs to say out of politics as does all other religious affiliations if they want to remain a tax free organization.

    • her is right August 20, 2012 / 1:59 pm

      I am not to a Catholic and yes they does need to say out of politics and so does what other religious also

      • Her am not Rite August 20, 2012 / 2:04 pm

        Didn’t the Pope write this?

        By its interventions in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends – as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good. The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible. There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called ‘spiritual life’, with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called ‘secular’ life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture.

        By this, the Church has every right to advise and express an opinion on things political; to expect otherwise is to be ignorant of the nature of church and government.

      • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 2:14 pm

        Yet the Pope’s letter says: “the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions.”

        I believe there is a difference between educating the members of a religion about that religion’s position on matters which may become political considerations, such as the Church’s teachings on abortion, and overt support for and promotion of a specific party or candidate.

        I find the former to be well within the religious teachings of the church,and the latter to be political activism which exceeds religious boundaries and which should mean loss of tax free status.

        For example, I see a huge difference in teaching Church doctrine on any subject, even though that subject is also part of a political debate, and having a candidate invited to the church as a “guest speaker” to give what is essentially a political speech, followed by exhortations of the priest or minister to vote for that candidate.

        We see the latter behavior every election cycle, particularly on the Left (I say “particularly” because though I am not aware of a Republican candidate doing this I accept the possibility.)

    • tiredoflibbs August 20, 2012 / 5:47 pm

      “the Catholic Church needs to say out of politics as does all other religious affiliations if they want to remain a tax free organization.”

      Velma, the contrary is also true – the government needs to stay out of religion. We now have obAMATEUR doing two things against the religious – forced into providing contraceptive and abortive drug coverage and obAMATEUR himself (and other Democrats) have CAMPAIGNED from the pulpits of many churches. But we don’t see the IRS investigating these incidents and questioning their tax free status.

      I don’t see you calling them out on that issue alone there velma. Of course, would require you to be a free thinker as you erroneously claim in your other persona.

      Why can’t you be consistent?

      • neocon1 August 20, 2012 / 5:56 pm

        AGAIN
        do these “stay out of politics” ravings by the lefties here against Catholics also apply to mosques? and majority democrat black churches ?
        DO the same people demand they lose their tax shelters as well?
        or does that only apply to Catholics?

    • Mark Edward Noonan August 20, 2012 / 7:44 pm

      Nonsense – the Church has every right to engage in politics. Christians refuse to enter in to a ghetto, thanks very much.

      • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 7:57 pm

        I think churches have every right to relate their teachings to current politics, but I also think if they overtly engage in political activity, such as the example I gave, they are giving up their tax free status.

        No infringement upon free speech, you understand, just a choice of status.

      • Mark Edward Noonan August 20, 2012 / 9:47 pm

        Amazona,

        The Church has a right to engage in politics and keep its tax free status. I’m an absolutist on this – free exercise means precisely what it says and if my freely exercising my religion means my religion engaging in politics then that is just the way it must be. Any attempt to curb Church intervention in the public square is a denigration of my liberties.

  5. Amazona August 20, 2012 / 2:29 pm

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/polls-ryan-choice-not-hurting-romney-among-florida/nRDgx/

    “A Rasmussen poll of likely Florida voters with a margin of error of 4.5 percent found similar results: 43 percent of all voters said Ryan was the right choice for Romney and 32 percent disapproved. Among seniors, 54 percent liked the Ryan selection and only 22 percent disapproved.

    Rasmussen asked Florida voters whether Ryan’s Medicare plan or the Medicare changes in the federal health care law “scares you more.” By a 48-to-41 percent margin, Floridians said the health care law was scarier. Among seniors, the health care law was rated scarier by 54 percent, with 34 percent saying they were more frightened by the Ryan plan.”

  6. bloodypenquinstump August 20, 2012 / 2:43 pm

    I can’t think of a single conservative position that Jesus himself would agree with. Sure there are plenty of bible passages that can be abused to fit conservative agendas but if Jesus lived today he would be considered a flaming liberal and hated as a communist by all the wingnuts here.

    • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 2:55 pm

      And what could be more compelling than the ranting of an anti-religionist claiming knowledge and understanding of the words of a man whose teachings he rejects?

      At no time in His teachings did Jesus ever tell anyone to take the property of one person and give it to another, to achieve salvation.

      We have gone over this before, many many times. Redemption is not a collective endeavor, and is not achieved by redistribution of the property of others. Each of us is personally responsible for his or her own salvation and this is also what Jesus taught, so each of us is instructed to engage in acts of personal charity and generosity, to share our own wealth.

      I for one suspect that if Jesus were to be teaching in 21st Century America He would be chastising those who piously lay claim to the Higher Moral Ground by taking what belongs to others and distributing IT in a posture of charity, while zealously guarding their own riches.

      How telling that stumpy has to inject his own sour personality even into a comment about Jesus, blathering about hatred and calling names.

      • Retired Spook August 21, 2012 / 10:14 am

        those who piously lay claim to the Higher Moral Ground by taking what belongs to others and distributing IT in a posture of charity, while zealously guarding their own riches

        Not all wealthy Liberals do this, but it seems to be especially prevalent among wealth liberal politicians. Joe Biden and Al Gore are prime examples.

    • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 3:16 pm

      While the purest Conservative position is just about the need for Constitutional governance, there are issues or positions held by most Conservatives, and stumpy claims that Jesus would reject all of them.

      So he believes that Jesus would not agree with the position that life is sacred, and that the killing of innocent babies because they are not convenient is a moral atrocity? Really? His concept of Jesus is of a man who would condone this brutality? Kill ’em in the womb, put ’em in boxes on shelves to die, all consistent with the philosophy of Jesus?

      He also seems to think that Jesus would frown upon the belief in human dignity, and on the belief in personal responsibility.

      His image of Jesus seems to be of a man who would disapprove of a government based on personal liberty.

      He seems pretty sure that Jesus would object to the belief that our freedoms come from God and not from man. (I wonder what aspect of that conservative position He would find offensive….)

      The Jesus who lives, or at least pops in now and then, in the murky muck of stumpy’s consciousness, would evidently approve of government-sanctioned taking of the property of others, to be used to solidify political power and enslave the poor in an unbreakable cycle of dependence and poverty.

      Hmmmm. We often have evidence that stumpy lives in an alternate universe, but this is the first time we have been told it includes an alternate Jesus, the antithesis of the one we know and love.

      • Canadian Observer August 20, 2012 / 5:31 pm

        Yes, of course, Amazona, Jesus would definitely be a true Conservative and would uphold every aspect of the Constitution if He were an American citizen. The Second Amendment would be considered sacred in His eyes and, no doubt, He would be fully armed and ready to stand His ground if He felt the least bit threatened.

      • neocon1 August 20, 2012 / 5:50 pm

        Co

        stick with reading arguing with idiots…….pg 13-69
        however was it the DISCIPLE Peter or Paul who cut off the centurions ear in the garden that fateful night?

      • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 5:51 pm

        While it has become popular for people who sneer at religion to suddenly posture as experts on “what Jesus would think” about various topics, it is just a silly effort at a gotcha.

        We can look back at the teachings of Jesus and we can not find any statements that support the Liberal political ideology, but there seems to be a popular theory that Jesus would be a socialist.

        When it is pointed out that none of His teachings advocated or even approved of the taking of the property of others, for any reason, and that his teachings on charity and generosity always referred to the need of the individual to give of his own wealth and not that of others, Liberal lemming love to claim that they still, for some reason, have an inside line on the thoughts of a man whose teachings they reject and whose claim to the right to teach—His divinity—they deny.

        It’s really quite funny to watch them pretzel themselves into such convoluted positions. I suppose when they are not preaching about their opinions of a man they don’t even believe in they fuss over who would win, Ninjas or pirates. They certainly prefer the hazy world of make believe to the real world, where they get asked such hard questions, such as “What is your political philosophy?”

        CO’s puerile effort at sarcasm is an excellent example of how they scramble to substitute snark for content.

        Tell you what, guys—those of us who respect and believe in Jesus and in what He taught will just keep on following His directives to sacrifice OUR OWN wealth for the benefit of those in need, and leave the confiscation of the property of others to you Lefties.

        It’ll all sort out in the end.

    • neocon1 August 20, 2012 / 5:44 pm

      bloodypump

      but if Jesus lived today he would be considered a flaming liberal and hated as a communist by all the wingnuts here.

      You obviously know very little about the Father ans LESS about the Son.
      Remember Noah? sodom and Gomorrah? ever hear of Hell?

    • Mark Edward Noonan August 20, 2012 / 7:47 pm

      stump,

      Our Lord is neither conservative nor liberal – he is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. “Sell all you have and give it to the poor” is neither a conservative nor a liberal position – and, as such, you’ll find few rich liberals or rich conservatives who are willing to follow that…

  7. bloodypenquinstump August 20, 2012 / 3:05 pm

    “At no time in His teachings did Jesus ever tell anyone to take the property of one person and give it to another, to achieve salvation.”

    Which is why he preached armed rebellion against all tax collection. Idiot.

    • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 3:20 pm

      Don’t you even TRY to make sense?

      On Planet Stumpy, rebelling against those who confiscate the wealth of others translates into approving the confiscation of the wealth of others.

      Just look at the above post.

      Stumpy quotes me as saying “At no time in His teachings did Jesus ever tell anyone to take the property of one person and give it to another, to achieve salvation.” and then calls me an idiot because he says Jesus objected to people who take the property of one person to give it another.

      Nah, he doesn’t even try. As long as his posts reek of irrational vitriol he’s happy.

    • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 3:21 pm

      And no, I do not believe Jesus “…preached armed rebellion against all tax collection…”

      Time to clean out those mental filters, stumpy……

    • neocon1 August 20, 2012 / 5:45 pm

      Bpump

      Which is why he preached armed rebellion

      LOL keep digging

  8. bloodypenquinstump August 20, 2012 / 5:13 pm

    If you had the real actual historical Jesus in front of you and you said you wanted to vote Romney over Obama because you are a “christian” he would laugh in your face.

    • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 5:22 pm

      …asserts the guy in favor of killing babies and taking other peoples’ property because he doesn’t think it’s “fair” for them to have more.

      Claims the guy who sneers at religion.

      Bleats the fella who doesn’t have a clue as to who Jesus was, what He believed or taught, or what “Christian” really means.

    • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 5:26 pm

      But what about that claim that Jesus urged, what was it you called it?—ARMED REBELLION AGAINST ALL TAX COLLECTION?

      Just decide to drop that lie and find something else you can wallow in?

    • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 5:57 pm

      The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, as the first church of Christianity. Some of the most fundamental issues for the formation of a Catholic conscience are as follows: sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, marriage, religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and a right to private property.

      Violations of the above involve intrinsic evil — that is, an evil which cannot be justified by any circumstances whatsoever.

      None of these values are present in modern day Liberalism.

      Sort it out.

  9. bloodypenquinstump August 20, 2012 / 5:15 pm

    Saw this elsewhere but it made me lol.

    “Todd Akin insists he’s staying in the Missouri Senate race. Kinda sucks being forced to carry something you don’t want to completion, huh Republicans?”

    • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 5:25 pm

      ??????????????????

      Oh, is this supposed to be a reference to killing inconvenient babies?

      Well, Todd assumed responsibility for the race when he decided to run, just as a female assumes responsibility for the outcome when she spreads her legs.

      Todd is man enough to honor his commitment, while the pathologically selfish female has no such integrity.

      That what you are squalling about?

      And Todd’s commitment is for at least two years, while the female’s is just for nine months.

      • mitch August 20, 2012 / 7:19 pm

        So rape is an inconvenience? And please define “legitimate rape” for he used those 2 words in the same sentence. This Akin is a hard core right to lifer who (along with Ryan) sponsored a person hood bill which would criminalize the use of any form of birth control. So conservative of him. But it was a foregone conclusion that you would defend him. The trifecta of Republican alienation just grew. Again. Lets see, The President has a 15 point lead with women, Hispanics and seniors. Good luck with convincing them to vote conservative. Maybe if you continue to insult them, it just might work! “The pathologically selfish female”. Where are you, on a field study? YOU tell a woman who has been raped; and got pregnant that she should quit crying and raise the child. YOU tell her Ama. How would you feel if it was YOUR daughter? Or god forbid, yourself. You need to reconsider being so defensively judgmental. It’s not very conservative.

      • Her am not Rite August 20, 2012 / 7:42 pm

        “(Ryan) sponsored a person hood bill which would criminalize the use of any form of birth control.”

        What a crock of Horse crap! The bill says no such thing, and no legal expert has ever claimed it does; you’re simply an hysterical liar.

        Here’s what the bill actually says;

        “Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.”

      • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 7:50 pm

        Oh, get a grip, mitche. Your overheated hysteria is quite tiresome.

        Akin clumsily referred to a real rape, as opposed to the false claim of rape so often heard. How bizarre to think or even pretend he meant anything else.

        Rape is not just an “inconvenience”. Who ever said it was nothing more than that? You’re not just making stuff up again, are you?

        Rape is a violent act, an assault, that because of its sexual context is also more traumatic than many other assaults. It is ugly, it vicious, and no one is excusing or minimizing it.

        But people get over things. People experience awful things every day, things far more horrible than sexual violation, and we deal with it. My 17-year-old niece fell asleep driving her and her friends home from a concert, rolled the car, and two of her friends died. She found her best friend draped across a cactus with her head nearly severed. It was awful. It took time but she dealt with it. There are experiences more violent, more dreadful, more scarring than rape.

        In a callous effort to find some justification for killing unborn children, a faction has chosen to portray rape as the most horrible thing that can happen to a woman, so unspeakably awful that women are crippled by it. Forget the fact that women have been raped since the beginning of humanity, forget that for nearly all of that time resulting children were carried to term, forget the fact that given time real women come to understand that an innocent child is just that, forget that women have been strong and resilient for centuries—-no, now women simply cannot possibly handle the stress of carrying an unwanted child for a few months.

        As a woman I am so deeply offended by this new claim that women are just too wimpy, just too fragile, just too spineless, just too WEAK, to rise above a trauma and carry on with dignity.

        And I am disgusted by the supposition that killing off an unborn child will make the rape easier to handle. Somehow adding one horror to another is supposed to make the first one go away?

        And just for a change try to stick to the truth.; No one said anything about rearing the child of a rape. No one. Aside from the fact that for centuries the instantaneous dismay at learning of an unwanted pregnancy has been replaced by a deep and abiding love for the surprise child, once the shock has passed, aside from the fact that pregnancy is finite and does not last forever but in fact goes away within a few months, aside from the fact that there are couples eager to adopt babies, aside from the fact that these couples will pay for all living and medical costs for women who want to give up their babies, aside from all the REALITIES people like you ignore. rape is not so awful it cannot be dealt with and a pregnancy from rape is not the end of the world.

        You know what IS the end of the world? Being the unfortunate child conceived by a female who is so convinced of her own frailty she had decided that murder is better than pregnancy.

        If my daughter, or niece, or friend, were to become pregnant due to a rape, I would tell her the same thing. Do not claim I would not. I would advise that the urge to “make it all go away” by getting rid of the child would only make it worse. I would be frank and tell her that she will not forget the rape, no matter what she does, but that she will learn to live with it and it will not ruin her life or define her as a person or as a woman—but that killing an innocent child out of spite or fear WILL.

        As for your vicious and snotty attack, you can shove it. I WAS raped, when I was 17. And you know what? It faded into the background, more and more as I grew older, and the only thing about it that even began to define me as a person was the strength I gained from having had to deal with it, and dignity I preserved during the process—both of which I would have lost if I had become pregnant and dealt with that aspect of the experience out of weakness and selfishness.

        So you can take your lies and your lectures and your snottiness and your efforts to manipulate me and you can pack it in, though there may not be room because you are already so full of excrement it oozes out of every filthy word you write.

        As for this: “You need to reconsider being so defensively judgmental. It’s not very conservative.” well, it is exactly the kind of mindless vitriol I would expect of you. But then I have never had anything but absolute contempt for you anyway so that’s nothing new. It’s just another effort of a mindless cretin to make what you foolishly think is a funny point but really only spotlights your ignorance and stupidity, and above all your hypocrisy as your post seethes with your judgmental attitude.

      • Count d'Haricots August 20, 2012 / 7:52 pm

        15 points?

        Are you insane? Come join us her in August where the “gender gap” is down to 6 points and shrinking; Romney leads among Seniors and the Hispanic gap is less than it was for Bush in 2000.

        You are in serious denial, Dead-ender.

      • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 7:59 pm

        mitche is worse than a dead-ender—he is a squirming, steaming, sack of excrement with a keyboard, and a vile excuse for a human being.

      • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 8:09 pm

        Hey, micheboy, have you ever spoken with a woman who has given up her baby for adoption? Eh? Well, give it a try and find out what the hell you are talking about.

        When I was in high school the Pill was newish and abortion was rightly considered so vile and awful no one would have considered it, but girls did get pregnant.

        I was friends with three who did, and later in life I met others who had gone through the same experience. When I was 20, and planning a backpack trip through Europe with my boyfriend, we sold our tickets and instead took a high school friend to California where our plan was to stay with her till her baby was born and given up for adoption. (Her parents were the kind of Christians who ever forgave anyone for anything and referred to her cousin, who had been engaged for more than a year but had her baby eight months after her wedding as a “slut”.)

        My aunt and uncle in San Jose stepped in and asked her to live with them for the last three months of her pregnancy, so we would not miss any school.

        While I have not had this experience, I certainly was close to it, and I can assure you with absolute certainty that it was not the end of the world. Each and every girl or woman I ever talked to who had gone through it carried with her pride in her strength and love for her child, and none regretted giving it up to a loving family. None.

        And I have known girls and women who have killed off their babies because they just didn’t want to be bothered, just didn’t have the character to take responsibility for their actions, and they carried with them an air of shame. Oh, a couple put on a good show, acting casual (as one might try to do when going in to kill off the third baby conceived) but it was bluster and bravado.

        It is a shameful act, an act of cowardice and selfishness and brutality, and approval by such slime as mitche is hardly going to make it any more decent.

    • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 5:39 pm

      Aiken misunderstood a medical opinion. Yikes. Get a rope!!!!

      It happens.

      I was once suing a man for selling me an infertile stallion. I had gotten several good test results on his fertility before I bought him, only to learn later that the vet who gave me the reports was a friend of the seller. Anyway, for the trial we were careful to pick people we thought would understand the science we would have to present. We packed the jury with an engineer, a scientist, an air traffic controller, and others we thought would be able handle the technical details.

      We presented reports filed by the seller showing that the stallion had covered seven mares, each of them several times, over a period of three years, with no foals produced. And I later learned, from one of the jurors, that these so-called scientific types had decided that this translated into only seven breedings, as there were only seven females involved. My source said she tried and tried to explain that there had been 14 tries on one mare alone, in only one year, showing records of two to four attempts per cycle for five cycles, but they were insistent that one mare=one breeding.

      If people are asked to study and evaluate information specific to a case, and they are given a week to process the information, and it is explained to them, and they still get it so wrong, then why have a hissy fit over a man who either heard incorrectly or misunderstood what he heard, when there was no reason to think there would be a test on it later?

      Why? To feed the hate and vitriol of people like stumpy, of course.

    • neocon1 August 20, 2012 / 6:24 pm

      so the FELON – admitted DOPER accuses some one else of being a criminal, LOL
      smoke, coke, crack……..illegal loans, for school and his home…. disbarment,.but Romney is the criminal….LOL

  10. Amazona August 20, 2012 / 6:29 pm

    OT, but too good not to share.

    From Newsweek. Yes, NEWSWEEK!
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/08/19/shocking-newsweek-cover-hit-road-barack-why-we-need-new-president

    By Noel Sheppard | August 19, 2012 |
    “In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.”
    ……………………………………………..
    Ferguson also took aim at the media’s coverage of Obama:

    “Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing “war crimes.”
    …………………………………….
    Ferguson on Paul Ryan:

    “He is one of only a handful of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country’s fiscal crisis….But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.

    The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.
    Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.”

    Yes, this is from NEWSWEEK. I guess even the Complicit Agenda Media can figure something out if you hit them over the head with it long enough.

    Gotta go now—a flying pig just grazed my chimney

    • Cluster August 20, 2012 / 7:52 pm

      Amazona,

      I nearly spilt my coffee this morning when I saw that. Wow, is all I can say. Coming from Newsweek. Wow again. And if you ever want to go to Vegas, there is a resort I need to tell you about. Off the strip, and very nice. This is my new go to place in Vegas.

      Neo,

      That story was mentioned in the book the Amateur, you really need to read that book. It will shock you.

  11. mitch August 20, 2012 / 8:43 pm

    When the RNC and Karl Rove quit funding your campaign and Sean Hannity suggests you withdraw, you’ve got a problem. A big problem that underscores the dismissive contempt conservatives have for so many groups, especially women. Small government conservatives shouldn’t be so concerned about what’s between a woman’s legs unless, of course, they want their hypocrisy to be ridiculed.

    Dear Todd Akin,

    I am writing to you tonight about rape. It is 2 AM and I am unable to sleep here in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I am in Bukavu at the City of Joy to serve and support and work with hundreds, thousands of women who have been raped and violated and tortured from this ceaseless war for minerals fought on their bodies.

    I am in Congo but I could be writing this from anywhere in the United States, South Africa, Britain, Egypt, India, Philippines, most college campuses in America. I could be writing from any city or town or village where over half a billion women on the planet are raped in their lifetime.

    Mr. Akin, your words have kept me awake.

    As a rape survivor, I am reeling from your recent statement where you said you misspoke when you said that women do not get pregnant from legitimate rape, and that you were speaking “off the cuff.”

    Clarification. You didn’t make some glib throw away remark. You made a very specific ignorant statement clearly indicating you have no awareness of what it means to be raped. And not a casual statement, but one made with the intention of legislating the experience of women who have been raped. Perhaps more terrifying: it was a window into the psyche of the GOP.

    You used the expression “legitimate” rape as if to imply there were such a thing as “illegitimate” rape. Let me try to explain to you what that does to the minds, hearts and souls of the millions of women on this planet who experience rape. It is a form of re-rape. The underlying assumption of your statement is that women and their experiences are not to be trusted. That their understanding of rape must be qualified by some higher, wiser authority. It delegitimizes and undermines and belittles the horror, invasion, desecration they experienced. It makes them feel as alone and powerless as they did at the moment of rape.

    When you, Paul Ryan and 225 of your fellow co-sponsors play with words around rape suggesting only “forcible” rape be treated seriously as if all rapes weren’t forcible, it brings back a flood of memories of the way the rapists played with us in the act of being raped — intimidating us, threatening us,muting us. Your playing with words like “forcible” and “legitimate” is playing with our souls which have been shattered by unwanted penises shoving into us, ripping our flesh, our vaginas, our consciousness, our confidence, our pride, our futures.

    Now you want to say that you misspoke when you said that a legitimate rape couldn’t get us pregnant. Did you honestly believe that rape sperm is different than love sperm, that some mysterious religious process occurs and rape sperm self-destructs due to its evilcontent? Or, were you implying that women and their bodies are somehow responsible for rejecting legitimate rape sperm, once again putting the onus on us? It would seem you were saying that getting pregnant after a rape would indicate it was not a “legitimate” rape.

    Here’s what I want you to do. I want you to close your eyes and imagine that you are on your bed or up against a wall or locked in a small suffocating space. Imagine being tied up there and imagine some aggressive, indifferent, insane stranger friend or relative ripping off your clothes and entering your body — the most personal, sacred, private part of your body — and violently, hatefully forcing themself into you so that you are ripped apart. Then imagine that stranger’s sperm shooting into you and filling you and you can’t get it out. It is growing something in you. Imagine you have no idea what that life will even consist of, spiritually made in hate, not knowing the mental or health background of the rapist.

    Then imagine a person comes along, a person who has never had that experience of rape, and that person tells you, you have no choice but to keep that product of rape growing in you against your will and when it is born it has the face of your rapist, the face of the person who has essentially destroyed your being and you will have to look at the face every day of your life and you will be judged harshly if you cannot love that face.

    I don’t know if you can imagine any of this (leadership actually requires this kind of compassion), but if you are willing to go to the depth of this darkness, you will quickly understand that there is NO ONE WHO CAN MAKE THAT CHOICE to have or not have the baby, but the person carrying that baby herself.

    I have spent much time with mothers who have given birth to children who are the product of rape. I have watched how tortured they are wrestling with their hate and anger, trying not to project that onto their child.

    I am asking you and the GOP to get out of my body, out of my vagina, my womb, to get out of all of our bodies. These are not your decisions to make. These are not your words to define.

    Why don’t you spend your time ending rape rather than redefining it? Spend your energy going after those perpetrators who so easily destroy women rather than parsing out manipulative language that minimizes their destruction.

    And by the way you’ve just given millions of women a very good reason to make sure you never get elected again, and an insanely good reason to rise.

    #ReasonToRise

    Eve Ensler
    Bukavu, Congo

    • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 8:52 pm

      Congratulations, mitche—you have defied all predictions and found someone as bone-deep stupid as you are.

      Or, much more likely, you are printing a fake letter from a fake person to support your fake position.

      The “stay out of my vagina” meme is a tip-off.

      Go away you vile disgusting little creature.

    • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 8:54 pm

      “RAPE SURVIVOR !! Oh, gag me with a spoon. “SURVIVOR” my ass. What a crock.

    • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 8:59 pm

      “…a window into the psyche of the GOP….”

      “DESTROY WOMEN!!!!!!”

      What a total pantload! You people must have a staff of certified hate-tested hysterics on call to write your insane screeds.

      If you are trying to establish credibility for your own vile rant, you sure picked a loser, as all this BS does is prove that there are at least two of you in the world—a truly distressing idea.

      Every post of yours deepens my disgust for you.

    • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 9:04 pm

      “who has essentially destroyed your being !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

      Well, it couldn’t have been much of a being to be so easily DESTROYED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      This does prove my theory that only the most brainless, vapid, empty shells of humanity who happen to be biologically ill-equipped to pee standing up so refer to themselves as “WOMEN”—not understanding that the term requires more than a vagina—–fight for the “right” to butcher innocent children.

      Them, and their male counterparts.

      REAL women are strong, have courage, have integrity, and would never write such utter trash.

  12. Mark Edward Noonan August 20, 2012 / 9:49 pm

    Ok Mitch – but from the non-insane side of the aisle, there is this:

    Rebecca Kiessling, a pro-life attorney from Michigan, fully understands the national debate going on concerning the controversial comments Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin made about abortion and rape. Kiessling was conceived when her mother was victimized by a rapist.

    “It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, if it’s a legitimate rape, that’s really rare. The female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” Akin said. “The punishment ought to be on the rapist, and not in attacking the child.”

    Kiessling responded to the comments saying that the use of the term “legitimate rape” was unnecessary and improper and she gave her advice for how pro-life candidates can thoughtfully and articulately address the sensitive subject of rape and abortion.

    “First of all — never say ‘legitimate rape,’” Kiessling said. “Ron Paul used the same terminology last January and he got lambasted for it too. This kind of remark only serves to perpetuate the suspicion of rape victims’ accounts. It’s estimated that only 1% of rape victims ever see their rapist convicted as charged. Rape is rape. “Legitimate rape” almost sounds as if it was somehow justifiable.”

    “If you are 100% pro-life with no rape exceptions, there is no need to question the veracity of a rape victims’ account, because you are against all abortions. It would not matter if a woman was not or not raped,” she continued.

    While abortion advocates often talk about supporting a woman’s right to privacy, Kiessling says rape exceptions in abortion laws turn that notion on its head.

    “Rape exceptions in the law actually put the government in the position of having to ascertain when the child was conceived, who the father is, whether the child was conceived during the alleged rape or during intercourse with her husband or boyfriend, and if the child was conceived during the time frame of the alleged rape, then the government would need to determine whether the sexual intercourse was consensual or not,” she explained. “So rape exceptions serve to perpetuate the injustice against rape victims that their accounts are to be viewed with skepticism, and it further leaves the majority of impregnated rape victims wholly unprotected under the law. Rape exceptions suggest that a “real rape victim” couldn’t possibly love “the rapist’s baby” and that rape victim mothers don’t exist.”

    The pro-life attorney says pro-life candidates need to be coached on how to answer the media’s inevitable question.

    “Senator Rick Santorum, during his presidential campaign, said that he thinks that a child conceived in rape is “a gift from God,” and he was made fun of for that. Just Google images for “Santorum rape” and you’ll see all of the posters where he is mocked for this statement. While I believe it’s true that every child is a gift from God, including children conceived in rape, I don’t believe this was the best response for the interview,” she explained. “If it had been my birthmother sharing that she believes that I’m a blessing and a gift from God, she would not be mocked and ridiculed in the same way he was. And then Sharron Angle, during her Senate race in Nevada, said it’s a “lemonade situation,” which did not come across well at all. The problem is not with these candidates’ values. The problem is how they express them.”

    Kiessling gives a three-step process in terms of how candidates should answer the question:

    1. The Supreme Court has said that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for rapists and that rapists don’t deserve the death penalty. I don’t think the innocent child conceived in rape deserves the death penalty for the crimes of her father. It seems to me that is cruel and unusual punishment.

    2. Rape victims are four times more likely to die within the next year after the abortion, with a higher rate of suicide, murder, drug overdose, etc.. As someone who really cares about rape victims, I want to protect them from the rapist, and from the abortion, and not the baby. A baby is not the worst thing that could ever happen to a rape victim — an abortion is. We need to educate the American public on the truth in this matter and not make public policy based on myth and misinformation.

    3. Rape victims choose abortion at half the rate of the average unplanned pregnancy, which is over 50%. Only 15-25% of rape victims choose abortion, depending on the study. The majority of rape victims choose to raise her child — not “the rapist’s baby” — HER child.

    Of course, I also think it helps to share a personal story and there are lots available, of women who became pregnant by rape and either regret aborting, are raising their children or are birth-moms, as well as stories of those of us conceived in rape and/or incest. You can find those stories on my website:

    http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html and http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/PregnantByRape.html

    • Cluster August 20, 2012 / 10:06 pm

      Ron Paul used the same terminology last January?

      Mitch,

      Knowing how deeply in tune with women’s issues you are, and how sensitive you are to offensive remarks such as this, can you please show us all where you expressed the same level of outrage towards Paul?

      We will wait. Thank you in advance.

    • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 10:17 pm

      Thank you for this, Mark.

      And for the record, I do not believe one word of this so-called letter. It reeks of the sick rhetoric of the pro-abortion crowd, and it makes assertions that I simply cannot believe, such as women having to choke down their hate and rage when they look at children conceived by rape.

      It is nothing but a perpetuation of the myth we see put forth every day now in the Obama ads featuring overaged little girls whimpering about how terrifying it is to be a woman with Mitt Romney running for the presidency. It is an extension of the Fluke scam about some mythical “woman” being reduced to a whimpering pile of bewilderment and fear upon learning she would have to pay for something she wanted from a store. It is part of a campaign to portray women as helplessly dependent on authority figures who pay their bills and remove inconveniences, like pregnancies, from their lives because they are female and therefore simply not capable of handling their own problems.

      I just called my cousin in Maryland for a reality check and she, too, sees the same thing. Maybe we were just lucky to have parents who taught us about responsibility and dignity, who would have been horrified if we had matured into silly, simpering, clinging, helpless, hysterical creatures like the persona allegedly represented in that bogus letter. But we were brought up to be proud to be women, and not the odd creatures presented to us now as examples of womanhood, pathologically selfish and utterly helpless and with personal identities so incomplete that they can be DESTROYED !!!!! by a single event.

      I can tolerate people who are simply misguided but mitche has proved himself, or herself, to be beneath contempt, callously and dishonestly trying every dirty trick in the book to slime conservatives even when it involves lying.

    • Amazona August 20, 2012 / 10:27 pm

      Just look at this utterly disgusting effort to justify killing an unborn child by implying that there is something so wrong with it that it deserves to be killed: “Imagine you have no idea what that life will even consist of, spiritually made in hate, not knowing the mental or health background of the rapist.”

      “SPIRITUALLY MADE IN HATE???” Talk about gibberish, but gee, who wouldn’t find it imperative to get rid of something SPIRITUALLY MADE IN HATE!!!!!!!—that is, if you can buy into such nonsense.

      Yeah because medical science has proven that the emotional state of the biological parents at the time of intercourse really does dictate the worth of the resulting child. Anybody can tell you this.

      And for sure you are fully justified in knocking off an infant whose father’s mental or physical health history is unknown.

      It’s disgusting.

      I would rather they just say they can’t be bothered with little things that don’t matter to them, like the lives of others, instead of inventing these bizarre and vile justifications for their actions.

  13. Jeremiah August 20, 2012 / 10:06 pm

    Human passions unbridled by morality and religion…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. – John Adams

    • patriotdad1 August 21, 2012 / 4:09 am

      Yeah, them scary human passions! Can’t have none of that stuff!

    • Count d'Haricots August 21, 2012 / 5:06 am

      Remember Jeremiah “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.”

  14. Count d'Haricots August 21, 2012 / 5:17 am

    I do not think we can find any conservative has agreed with Akin on his claim, nor any Republican of national stature.

    But if you think what Akin said is “reality” we can’t stop you from making a Biden of yourself.

    • neocon1 August 21, 2012 / 5:39 am

      Smoke screen alert……
      anything to take the national attention off the disgrace that is the Ochimpy regime.

      2004-2005, according to the 2005 National Crime Victimization Study (PDF, 287KB), 64,080 women were raped. According to medical reports, the incidence of pregnancy for one-time unprotected sexual intercourse is 5%.
      By applying the 5% pregnancy rate to 64,080 women, RAINN estimates that there were up to 3,204 pregnancies as a result of rape.

    • neocon1 August 21, 2012 / 5:47 am

      Rape/Incest and Abortion

      Rape and incest are violent and evil crimes committed against vulnerable people. The perpetrator needs to be punished to the full extent of the law. And the victim deserves to be treated with the deepest compassion, enormous support, and special care. But what if a woman becomes pregnant as the result of a sexual assault?

      Although pregnancy as a result or incest or rape is extremely rare, it does happen. In reported rapes, around 1% of rape victims become pregnant. Since rape often goes unreported, the actual percentage could be higher, with some studies estimating it as high as 5%. However, in one study of 2,190 victims, only 0.6 percent became pregnant as a result of rape.[1] In cases of incest, “considering the prevalence of teenage pregnancies in general, incest treatment programs marvel at the low incidence of
      pregnancy from incest.” Several reports agree at 1% or less.

      http://www.healingtheculture.com/rapeabortion.php

    • neocon1 August 21, 2012 / 6:07 am

      what they are hiding behind the smoke screens,

      The attack on Catholicism, and Christianity it’s self is all part of their agenda.

      ————————————————————————————-
      Former D.C. Union Boss: Our Goal Is to ‘Overthrow the Capitalist System and Build Communism’

      The Daily Caller brings these highlights of Golash’s speech, which was part of an Occupy gathering:

      “Progressive labor is a revolutionary communist organization,” Golash said during an Occupy DC “People’s Assembly” on August 19.

      “Its objective,” he added, “is to make revolution in the United States, overthrow the capitalist system and build communism.”

      Golash said he and his comrades are “trying to learn something from the historical revolutions of the past: the Russian revolution, the Chinese revolution, the revolutions in Cuba and Eastern Europe.”[…]
      Click here to find out more!

      “The capitalists — they have their organizations: the FBI, the CIA, the secret police, the military, the army, etc., etc. They have organizations to maintain their power. It’s foolish to think that without a disciplined organization made up not of a few people but of millions and millions of people, [we] can bring down capitalism.”

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/former-d-c-union-boss-our-goal-is-to-overthrow-the-capitalist-system-and-build-communism/

  15. Cluster August 21, 2012 / 6:17 am

    So Mr Bowman,

    How many “wingers” on your side of the asylum support the following mind boggling statement from Rep Carson?

    “America will never tap into educational innovation and ingenuity without looking at the model that we have in our madrassas, in our schools, where innovation is encouraged, where the foundation is the Quran. And that model that we are pushing in some of our schools meets the multiple needs of students.”

    There I go asking you to think again, I know how that hurts you.

    • neocon1 August 21, 2012 / 6:30 am

      Clarification for our hair on fire libs

      ‘I Misspoke’: GOP Senate Nominee Clarifies ‘Legitimate Rape’ Remarks

      Republican U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin (Mo.) made headlines Sunday when he said the following during a KTVI-TV interview:

      “First of all, from what I understand from doctors

      [pregnancy from rape is] really rare … If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

      “But let‘s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something —

      you know, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and*** not attacking the child,”**** he added.

      • Amazona August 21, 2012 / 9:41 am

        But don’t you see, any time a woman claims she was raped, that means she was raped—it was a real, or legitimate, rape, as opposed to a falsely claimed rape, which of course never exists.

        And once a woman has had her sacred hoo-haw poked against her will, she is utterly destroyed—– DESTROYED!!! I TELL YOU!!!—and the essence of her very being is lost.

        She is shattered beyond repair, doomed to a life of ceaselessly reliving the horror—THE HORROR I TELL YOU!!!!!! and is damaged in ways no one without a special secret SACRED place can comprehend.

        It is without any doubt the worst possible thing any woman can experience, an event from which she can never expect to recover, and one which will define her for the rest of her life.

        ***************

        Unless, of course, her name is Juanita Brodderick or Paula Jones, and then the lying bitches just show you what you can get if you drag a dollar through a trailer park, though Paula Jones is “too ugly to rape”.

        THEIR rapes were not ‘legitimate’.

        *******************

        I am as disgusted by the rape card as I am by the race card. Both rape and racism are ugly and brutal and inexcusable, WHEN THEY ACTUALLY HAPPEN. To have them trivialized into nothing more than political weapons is disgusting.

    • Cluster August 21, 2012 / 10:51 am

      Wow, so you do believe in America becoming a Muslim country. Why is that Dave? Why do you want to oppress woman and kill them if they stray from their marriage. I look forward to your explanation.

      Dave Bowman is not allowed to post here and his comments will be deleted. Responses to him will stand alone with no reference point and only serve to encourage him to try to post again. //Moderator

      • Cluster August 21, 2012 / 11:04 am

        Moderator,

        Sometimes it’s a lot of fun to toy with Dave, but I get the need to remove such human debris from an otherwise interesting debate.

        LEST EVERYONE THINK WE ARE BEING UNFAIR TO DAVE BOWMAN, PLEASE REALIZE THAT HE IS NOT SOME IDLE LIB WHO STOPS BY HERE TO COMMENT. HE HAS COMMENTED USING MULTIPLE SCREEN NAMES, REGISTERED UNDER MULTIPLE THROW-AWAY HOTMAIL ADDRESSES AND POSTED FROM AT LEAST A DOZEN DIFFERENT IP ADDRESSES, MOST ORIGINATING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.//MODERATOR

    • Count d'Haricots August 21, 2012 / 10:52 am

      I don’t understand why you think that’s possible Dave.

      There is no basis in science to make such a claim that the female body can “prevent pregnancy” from rape.

      It occurs to me that while no one on the Right concurs with such a notion and you are the only one I’m aware of asking how it is done.

      Study up and Let it go.

      • Cluster August 21, 2012 / 10:56 am

        Count,

        Dave is asking how it is done because he really doesn’t know that there is no basis. We are giving him way to much credit. After all, he does support Islamic teachings, so his understanding of women is inferior to the most of the general population.

      • Count d'Haricots August 21, 2012 / 11:00 am

        Dave? Dave who?

    • Cluster August 21, 2012 / 10:54 am

      I guess too that you believe America should kill gays, right Dave? I had no idea you were such a religious extremist. It’s alright though sport, I am tolerant of many people, even wing nuts like you.

      • Amazona August 21, 2012 / 10:56 am

        This is an interesting comment from Erik Erikson of RedState:

        The hyperbole from the left over Todd Akin has been disgusting. The man truly believes that children who are conceived out of rape should not be killed. The Bible teaches us that God raised us up from the dust of the earth and stitched us together in our mothers’ wombs.

        When you believe that, as Congressman Akin does, then it is asking much to tear apart what God has stitched together.

        The left would make this about his poor word choices. Some have actually accused the Congressman of being “pro-rape.” Congressman Akin said something dumb and inarticulate. But God bless him for trying to explain why so many Christians do not believe in an exception for rape and believe that to have one could see an increase in the number of claims of rape that are not actual rapes (“legitimate” rapes in his words), but are claims of rape used to justify an abortion when abortion is otherwise prohibited.

        It’s a terribly difficult position for politicians to defend, particularly in hyper-partisan climates. The Congressman tried and failed. On Thursday night he exacerbated the problem by agreeing to sit with Piers Morgan on CNN and then not showing up.

        I would rather Todd Akin in the United States Senate than Claire McCaskill. He said something he should not have. Claire McCaskill voted for Obamacare.

        Todd Akin should not have to withdraw from the Senate race in Missouri. But given how quickly party leaders sought to distance themselves from Todd Akin and pull money from Missouri, there is not much left for him to do. By 5 o’clock today, Todd Akin must withdraw.

        Todd Akin is a Christian. He must understand that one of the greatest sins — the greatest according to C.S. Lewis — is pride. His pride should not keep him in the race. Todd Akin believes that Obamacare must be repealed. He believes we must take back the Senate to do so.

        Given the way party leaders from Mitt Romney to John Cornyn have run from Todd Akin in the past 24 hours, Todd Akin must be willing to overcome his pride and realize that to advance his world view, he must end his campaign. The fight to take back the Senate runs through Missouri. It is a terrible burden to be now in Todd Akin’s position, knowing by staying in he could cost the Republicans the Senate and even be a drag on Mitt Romney’s chances to win Missouri.

        Should he stay in the race, he will be the boogeyman in the Democrats’ false claims about a war on women and the man every Republican blames should they not take the Senate.

        Every politician thinks he can win. Some times he just can’t. By 5 o’clock this evening, Congressman Aiken needs to withdraw so his party can unite behind a new nominee.

        I hate to see a good man driven out by a hate-and-lie campaign, but the Rabidly Radical Left has mobilized such a mob of mouth-breathing thugs to misstate his comments and demonize him, it may well be that we have to accept the fact that he is mortally wounded and clear the field for someone else.

        I particularly appreciated Erikson’s distillation of Akin’s comments, and when stripped of the strident howling of the mobs it makes complete sense. It also points out the blatant lies being used to smear this man and, by extension, the Republican party.

        But it makes complete sense to say that, if rape is considered an acceptable excuse for killing an unborn child, then the number of alleged rapes will increase, as women use this excuse to get rid of their own inconvenient children. THIS is the context for the unfortunate phrase “legitimate rape”. It is not, never was, and never could be by rational people, be a comment that any rape is justified.

        We went through this in Colorado when the pro-death movement was pushing to have the state pay for aborting children conceived by rape. The pro-life people called their bluff and said OK, we can do that—but the rape has to have been reported and a police report filed, otherwise we will be opening ourselves to an onslaught of alleged rapes when in fact there was no rape at all.

        The despicable nature of the RRL is once again made clear, and the circulation of that bogus “letter”, is what we can expect from them.

        P.S. In another post, Erikson tells us that when he discussed this with his elderly mother, she finally told him something he had never known—that she was the result of a rape. The RRL would have killed her before she took a breath.

      • Cluster August 21, 2012 / 11:12 am

        Amazona,

        That is an interesting comment from Erick and I do enjoy reading Red State. To put the term “legitimate” rape into context, one only needs to look at the Duke Lacrosse team and the false accusations leveled against them that liberals seized on.

        For me personally, I detest abortion, but I find it impossible to put myself in a woman’s shoes in the cases of rape or incest and I know first hand what emotional turmoil that can bring, so in those instances, I will defer to the woman’s decision.

      • J. R. Babcock August 21, 2012 / 11:33 am

        I have mixed feelings as well about the subject of pregnancies resulting from rape. I used to be part of of social group that included a number of evangelicals, virtually of whom did not believe in a rape exception for abortion. And they were very vocal on this issue, particularly the men. I got cornered on this subject so often that I began carrying two laminated photos in my wallet of two very scary looking serial rapists, one white and one black. Every time someone would challenge me on this topic, I would pull out those two photos and ask them the following question: let’s say your wife is impregnated by either one of these individuals as a result of rape; if I were to give you a polygraph test and ask if you would force her to carry the chile to term, would you answer yes or no? I NEVER, EVER got a yes from a husband — EVER. I don’t recall ever having the discussion with anyone’s wife, so perhaps the position Amazona takes on this reflects the difference between how men and women view this issue.

      • Cluster August 21, 2012 / 11:38 am

        That’s a great point. It is impossible for any man to understand what a woman goes through in those instances, so to pass judgement on them, or to hold them to our standard in those instances is wrong. Again, just my opinion.

      • Retired Spook August 21, 2012 / 12:01 pm

        Two cheerleaders, who were a year ahead of me in high school, were raped during their senior year (1962), and, IIRC, they both received what was referred to at the time as a therapeutic abortion. And that was long before Roe v. Wade. They were both under 18, and I’m sure the decision was made by their parents.

        We’re still a long way from restricting abortion to only instances of rape and incest, but it seems to me that if we ever get to that point, the logical solution would be to “allow” abortion in those instances, with medical/legal proof required to support allegations of rape or incest. I don’t expect we’ll ever get universal agreement on this though.

      • Amazona August 21, 2012 / 12:14 pm

        Spook, you are probably right.

        What strikes me about the whole argument is the underlying assumption that everything is supposed to be fixable.

        Life can suck.

        For some reason we, as a people, have gotten to the point where we think that when something bad happens we are supposed to, or can, “fix” it.

        I count myself lucky to have been born into a time and family where there was not this airy-fairy belief that we were supposed to be immune to hardship, that hardship was a ‘punishment’, that everything had to be made better somehow.

        Sometimes it just is what it is and our job is to learn from it, get whatever good we can find or make out of it, and move on.

        Just as I comment on the unnumerable “bandaids” slapped on legislative problems when they develop inevitable Unintended Consequences, I think that most if not all of the supposed “fixes” we find so necessary just create different problems.

        And I find abortion to be the biggest example of this.

        I have also been fortunate enough to spend time with some really smart people, and one of the lessons I have tried to learn is how to identify the problem. When the unwanted baby is identified as the problem, then the only logical solution is to get rid of the baby. But what if the real problem is how the woman FEELS about getting pregnant by a rapist? Disgust, confusion, fear, conflict because of her feelings about babies in general, etc. Getting rid of the baby just adds guilt to the mix. If her real problem is fear—fear that the baby will remind her of the rape or rapist, fear that she will not love it, fear of how to handle an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy—then THIS is what should be addressed.

      • Retired Spook August 21, 2012 / 12:28 pm

        Amazona,

        I can’t recall every disagreeing with you on anything significant, and I don’t totally disagree with you on this. In fact, you offer the best argument against a rape exception that I’ve ever heard. It’s pretty obvious that men look at this issue differently than women. The last time I ever had the issue hit close to home was the two cheerleaders in the class ahead of me in high school, so it’s not an issue that I dwell on or have even thought long and hard about. I certainly don’t have a problem with a woman impregnated by rape deciding to carry the child to term. Such a woman, IMO, is to be admired. But I also would have a difficult time telling a woman who has been impregnated by rape that she MUST carry the child to term or be prosecuted for murder.

      • Amazona August 21, 2012 / 1:02 pm

        As far as prosecution for murder, even I have a hard time with that. I think that prosecuting the abortionist would be the way to go. I do understand the panic involved in learning of an unintended or unwanted pregnancy. I’m not indifferent to the problems of unintended or unwanted pregnancy. I grew up in a very poor family where every new pregnancy, or my mother or an aunt or other relative or even a neighbor was originally met with some degree of fear or panic at the beginning. But I also got to witness the growth, sometimes within just a few days, of love for the unborn child and a changing focus to how to make it all work, and this process is what underlies my opinion on abortion. This, and respect for the sanctity of human life.

        It is an amazingly complex issue. For example, when J.R. showed what he admits were photos of some “scary” rapists, I wonder what the reaction would have been if he had shown pictures of those men as babies or little boys, before they chose the paths that they chose. Not only is the unborn baby not a reflection of the adult rapist, it is also 50% from the mother.

        I would like to see, if possible, a survey of women who had become pregnant through rape, to see what their opinions are after carrying the child of a rapist—-are they glad they did it or do they wish they had aborted the child, did the child remind them every day of a horrible experience, did they ever hate the child, etc. The only way to gain anything like real knowledge of what this would be like would be to learn from those who have gone through it.

        We know that many women suffer terrible aftereffects of abortion. There are abundant data on the guilt experienced by so many women after the reality of their action has set in.

        We also know that many women, when seeing an ultrasound image of the baby they intend to abort, change their minds when they see the baby as a real baby and not just an indistinct clump of cells, as pro-abortionists tell them it is.

        So often a woman who has had an abortion later sees an ultrasound image, of a child of her own when she starts a family or of a the baby of a friend or relative, and realizes that she actually killed a BABY, and has a severe reaction of guilt and grief.

        It’s the grief that people don’t think about—-the feeling of loss when the reality sets in. I have a friend who counseled women going through this and she said it was tragic to see the pain they suffered.

        I don’t know if the data on regret and guilt after abortion are broken down to show how many of these women aborted children conceived in rape, or if there is a study of women who have aborted children under this circumstance to indicate how many are glad they did and how many suffer from guilt afterward.

        What I do know is that for whatever reason there are people who are ardently and aggressively pro abortion, who strongly resist any effort to bring clarity to the subject. In Colorado the legislature once agreed to have the state pay for abortions when and if the pregnant woman would agree to a three day waiting period, during which time she would receive counseling on other options and see an ultrasound of the infant. When the pro-abortion crowd rejected this, with great shrieking and hysteria, it became clear that their goal was not to help women deal with the problem of an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy but really just to push abortion.

      • Amazona August 21, 2012 / 11:59 am

        OK, I will chase you around, as my post is a response to yours,which first appeared in another place.
        *****************************

        Cluster, I see you are a victim of the Random Placement gremlin.

        The problem with accepting the idea that aborting a child that is the product of a rape is the assumption that this will somehow lessen the trauma of being raped.

        Think about it. We bombard girls with claims that if they are ever raped it will be the worst thing that ever happened to them, that they will never get over it, that the trauma is unbearable, that it will destroy the very essence of who they are, that it will define them forever, etc.

        That’s pretty scary, and it’s also total BS. Rape is an ugly, brutal act, and it does affect its victims. But it is only one of many ugly, brutal acts that affect their victims. I am deeply offended by the callous manipulation of people to further an agenda. Why aren’t girls taught that they are strong, and resilient, and can handle terrible things that might happen to them? But it is a political calculation to have women be weak, silly, fragile and therefore malleable and dependent.

        I was raped. I was also in an accident when a wheel froze on a curve and my car spun out and rolled off a cliff into a river. I got over the rape pretty quickly, but it was years before I could drive into a downhill lefthand turn without a twinge of panic. It still hits me sometimes. I was present when a man was killed in a construction accident and I knelt beside him and held his hand and prayed for him as he died. It stays with me and to this day certain sounds bring it all back.

        We all have ghosts of trauma that haunt us at unexpected times—-PTSD, fear of dogs after being bitten, etc. But it has been decided to play up the trauma of rape as somehow so vastly more awful, so incredibly indescribably overwhelmingly unbelievably permanently damaging and defining that no other event could possibly come close to its general awfulness.

        Building upon the original fallacy that rape is the worst thing that can happen to any woman is the even worse lie that killing a baby that results from the rape will somehow make it less awful.

        And there is tremendous pressure on the rape victim, who is already in shock and trying to deal with what happened to her, to get rid of the child. Just look at the rhetoric we see about abortion in the case of rape—it is nothing compared to the pressure put on an already vulnerable girl or woman.

        And, sadly, under this pressure, accepting the claim that this will somehow make it better, girls and women add to the ugliness of what happened to them by turning around and hurting someone else.

        Because that is the message: YOU WERE ATTACKED AND HURT SO TO FEEL BETTER YOU HAVE TO ATTACK AND HURT SOMEONE ELSE.

        The message is “You are weak and should not be expected to act with courage. This is too much for someone like you to handle. You’re just not strong enough, or brave enough.”

        There are alternative messages. One is “You are strong enough to handle this. You are alive, you have your life ahead of you, and this will someday be nothing but a bad memory, if you think of it at all” One is “How you feel now, in this moment, is not how you will feel in a week, or a month, or six months. ” And the best message is “As ugly and violent and inexcusable your rape was, this is an opportunity to have something good and innocent and beautiful come from it. It is your chance to take something awful and find something good in it—a new life, and pride in your own strength and courage.”

        I am a pretty strong-willed and decisive woman. If I were to go into a doctor’s office, weepy, and say I need a face life RIGHT NOW because I woke up this morning panicky about getting old, no reputable doctor would perform the surgery.

        But a shocky, stunned, traumatized girl can say “I am freaked out at being pregnant after being raped and I want this baby to go away NOW” and an abortionist will do it, no questions asked.

        I would be sent home to think it over, told to discuss it with family and friends, consider the possible side effects, evaluate my reasons for wanting the procedure, and in general would be counseled to be rational and prudent and sure of what I was doing.

        The scared, panicky, girl under great pressure will receive no such caring advice, no such recommendation to talk this over with friends and family, no warnings of the side effects (including crushing guilt, later) and no time out to look into and consider other options.

        My decision would not involve the ending of a human life. Hers would. If my decision is regretted later, chances are I would only be out some money. If hers is regretted later she has to bear the burden of her act for the rest of her life, and have it come home to her every time she sees a baby, or holds her own children later.

        But my main point is, a decision to abort a baby conceived in rape is made under intense pressure, in the turmoil of many strong emotions, and without giving the woman time to see how she feels about this unborn child once her emotions have calmed down and she has had a chance to think it over. She is told, outright, that she will hate and resent this baby and it will never be anything but a reminder of what she has already been told was the worst thing that could ever have happened to her, something that has already ruined her life, destroyed her being, and will define her forever as a rape SURVIVOR.

        The push to excuse abortion in cases of rape is based upon lies and emotional manipulation.

      • Cluster August 21, 2012 / 2:07 pm

        Amazona,

        I fully understand your point, but again, as a man, I will choose to stay clear of that issue and leave it to the individual woman. Like JR said, if my wife or daughter was impregnated through rape by a scum bag and wanted the abortion, I would support her.

      • neocon1 August 21, 2012 / 3:48 pm

        I too am somewhat conflicted on this subject.
        I would have to leave the ultimate decision to my wife HER Doctor ( not some abortion mill hack) and our Priest/Minister. If this pregnancy were to cause great anguish, depression, pain or other Malays then this would fall into a self defense category IMHO.
        If the woman said it sucks but it is part of my body and im having the child I would support that as well.

      • neocon1 August 21, 2012 / 3:51 pm

        PS

        The predictable GOP circular firing squad is on Full Auto on this slight trip of the tongue.
        casualties EXPECTED!!!

      • Canadian Observer August 21, 2012 / 6:07 pm

        That statement shows you to be a compassionate, caring and loving father, Cluster.

  16. Cluster August 21, 2012 / 11:10 am

    Amazona,

    That is an interesting comment from Erick and I do enjoy reading Red State. To put the term “legitimate” rape into context, one only needs to look at the Duke Lacrosse team and the false accusations leveled against them that liberals seized on.

    For me personally, I detest abortion, but I find it impossible to put myself in a woman’s shoes in the cases of rape or incest and I know first hand what emotional turmoil that can bring, so in those instances, I will defer to the woman’s decision.

    • Amazona August 21, 2012 / 11:54 am

      Cluster, I see you are a victim of the Random Placement gremlin.

      The problem with accepting the idea that aborting a child that is the product of a rape is the assumption that this will somehow lessen the trauma of being raped.

      Think about it. We bombard girls with claims that if they are ever raped it will be the worst thing that ever happened to them, that they will never get over it, that the trauma is unbearable, that it will destroy the very essence of who they are, that it will define them forever, etc.

      That’s pretty scary, and it’s also total BS. Rape is an ugly, brutal act, and it does affect its victims. But it is only one of many ugly, brutal acts that affect their victims. I am deeply offended by the callous manipulation of people to further an agenda. Why aren’t girls taught that they are strong, and resilient, and can handle terrible things that might happen to them? But it is a political calculation to have women be weak, silly, fragile and therefore malleable and dependent.

      I was raped. I was also in an accident when a wheel froze on a curve and my car spun out and rolled off a cliff into a river. I got over the rape pretty quickly, but it was years before I could drive into a downhill lefthand turn without a twinge of panic. It still hits me sometimes. I was present when a man was killed in a construction accident and I knelt beside him and held his hand and prayed for him as he died. It stays with me and to this day certain sounds bring it all back.

      We all have ghosts of trauma that haunt us at unexpected times—-PTSD, fear of dogs after being bitten, etc. But it has been decided to play up the trauma of rape as somehow so vastly more awful, so incredibly indescribably overwhelmingly unbelievably permanently damaging and defining that no other event could possibly come close to its general awfulness.

      Building upon the original fallacy that rape is the worst thing that can happen to any woman is the even worse lie that killing a baby that results from the rape will somehow make it less awful.

      And there is tremendous pressure on the rape victim, who is already in shock and trying to deal with what happened to her, to get rid of the child. Just look at the rhetoric we see about abortion in the case of rape—it is nothing compared to the pressure put on an already vulnerable girl or woman.

      And, sadly, under this pressure, accepting the claim that this will somehow make it better, girls and women add to the ugliness of what happened to them by turning around and hurting someone else.

      Because that is the message: YOU WERE ATTACKED AND HURT SO TO FEEL BETTER YOU HAVE TO ATTACK AND HURT SOMEONE ELSE.

      The message is “You are weak and should not be expected to act with courage. This is too much for someone like you to handle. You’re just not strong enough, or brave enough.”

      There are alternative messages. One is “You are strong enough to handle this. You are alive, you have your life ahead of you, and this will someday be nothing but a bad memory, if you think of it at all” One is “How you feel now, in this moment, is not how you will feel in a week, or a month, or six months. ” And the best message is “As ugly and violent and inexcusable your rape was, this is an opportunity to have something good and innocent and beautiful come from it. It is your chance to take something awful and find something good in it—a new life, and pride in your own strength and courage.”

      I am a pretty strong-willed and decisive woman. If I were to go into a doctor’s office, weepy, and say I need a face life RIGHT NOW because I woke up this morning panicky about getting old, no reputable doctor would perform the surgery.

      But a shocky, stunned, traumatized girl can say “I am freaked out at being pregnant after being raped and I want this baby to go away NOW” and an abortionist will do it, no questions asked.

      I would be sent home to think it over, told to discuss it with family and friends, consider the possible side effects, evaluate my reasons for wanting the procedure, and in general would be counseled to be rational and prudent and sure of what I was doing.

      The scared, panicky, girl under great pressure will receive no such caring advice, no such recommendation to talk this over with friends and family, no warnings of the side effects (including crushing guilt, later) and no time out to look into and consider other options.

      My decision would not involve the ending of a human life. Hers would. If my decision is regretted later, chances are I would only be out some money. If hers is regretted later she has to bear the burden of her act for the rest of her life, and have it come home to her every time she sees a baby, or holds her own children later.

      But my main point is, a decision to abort a baby conceived in rape is made under intense pressure, in the turmoil of many strong emotions, and without giving the woman time to see how she feels about this unborn child once her emotions have calmed down and she has had a chance to think it over. She is told, outright, that she will hate and resent this baby and it will never be anything but a reminder of what she has already been told was the worst thing that could ever have happened to her, something that has already ruined her life, destroyed her being, and will define her forever as a rape SURVIVOR.

      The push to excuse abortion in cases of rape is based upon lies and emotional manipulation.

  17. bloodypenquinstump August 21, 2012 / 1:14 pm

    This kind of filthy accusation will not be allowed on this blog, nor will your religious bigotry. One more example of this kind of writing will get you permanently removed as well. //Moderator

  18. bloodypenquinstump August 21, 2012 / 1:35 pm

    I’n Colorado the legislature once agreed to have the state pay for abortions when and if the pregnant woman would agree to a three day waiting period, during which time she would receive counseling on other options and see an ultrasound of the infant’

    the INFANT wouldn’t need an ultrasound.

    “It’s the grief that people don’t think about—-the feeling of loss when the reality sets in. I have a friend who counseled women going through this and she said it was tragic to see the pain they suffered.”

    Is that worse than the grief of dying during childbirth?

    • Amazona August 21, 2012 / 2:10 pm

      The ultrasound would show the infant and its degree of development.

      “Is that worse than the grief of dying during childbirth?”

      What an utterly stupid and meaningless comment.

Comments are closed.