Benghazi or Mourdock? The L.A. Times Knows What’s Important!
The L.A. Times web site has links just under the masthead to the stories they believe are important. Which do you think has prominent placement this morning:
1) Obama situation room was told radical Islamist group took credit for Benghazi attack within two hours
2) GOP Senate candidate says God intends pregnancy by rape
If you answered #1, then I have taught you nothing. Take your dunce cap and go to the back of the room.
BY THE WAY: What is really so startling about these remarks?
“I know there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view, but I believe that life begins at conception,” the tea party-backed Mourdock said. “The only exception I have, to have an abortion, is in that case of the life of the mother.
“I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said, appearing to choke back tears. “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
Maybe there are people who grew up in a completely non-religious background who are shocked and offended by talk like this, but many of us have heard things like this all our lives, at funerals, hospital bedsides, and the like. Not every religious person believes that God wills every event to happen, and I think the better answer is that God gives people free will, and having free will encompasses the ability to misuse it. But there are certainly those who believe that everything that happens, good and bad, is part of God’s larger plan. And who am I to say they are wrong?
In any event, Mourdock has expanded on his remarks:
After Tuesday’s debate in southern Indiana, Mourdock clarified his position on rape and pregnancy.
“Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think God ordained or pre-ordained rape?” Mourdock said, according to the Evansville Courier & Press. “No, I don’t think that anyone could suggest that. That’s a sick, twisted – no, that’s not even close to what I said.
“It’s a fundamental part of my faith that God gives us life,” he continued. “God determines when life begins. I believe in an almighty God who makes those calls…. There are some things in life that are above my pay grade.”
Of course, that part comes nice and low in the story. The inflammatory stuff comes at the top.
So, Senate candidate in Indiana makes gaffe, or doesn’t, depending on how you see it . . . vs. President almost certainly told attack was terrorism long before sending out flunkies to claim otherwise. Yep, that first story is the one that needs prominent placement.
Hacks.
Ding!
Patterico (8b3905) — 10/24/2012 @ 7:51 amOh, I don’t know, Patterico. I’m really looking forward to being able to enslave women after the GOP victory … /sarcasm
Of course, its those religious groups who most advocate subordination of women who most support Obama. But LAT has never had any contact with reality.
SPQR (644d79) — 10/24/2012 @ 7:58 amI love theological discussions, better than philosophical ones. There was a famous dispute between a philosopher and a theologian. The theologian said, “Philosophy is a blind man, in a lightless room, looking for a black cat which is not there”. And the philosopher said, “And the theologian finds it”.
This guy is not running for preacher. He is running for lawmaker. His god, when it comes to making laws, should be America. Our history and experience, our values and plans.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 8:06 am“And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
Check the hadith. This sort of view also literally came from the lips of Mohammad himself, when asked about whether, when raping their enslaved infidel women, Muslims should ‘pull out’ before ejaculating into their slaves. Mohammed replied that since all lives are pre-ordained by Allah, their actions did not matter. Rape away to your hearts’ content, counselled Muhammad; if Allah wishes a pregnancy to result, that is what will happen; and if not, not.
Like I say, this is classical, core-belief Muslim theology.
I’d like to see the LA Times re-state their viewpoint in terms of the idea that all Muslims who share this belief (which means all true-believing Muslims) must therefore also be moral monsters.
Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950) — 10/24/2012 @ 8:06 amIf a slave woman gave birth to the child of her Muslim master, she and the child would be free, no longer slaves. That’s in the Hadith, too. And you can see it in the various shades of color of the Saudi royal family. As opposed to selling your own children down the river, like we did here.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 8:15 am“The Problem of Evil”
Why does God allow it? Does it have a purpose? What could it’s purpose be?
“God answers all prayers”
but sometimes the answer is “no”
Space Cockroach (8096f2) — 10/24/2012 @ 8:19 amMourdock should have anticipated that his deeply held personal beliefs would not just be misunderstood, but mocked and distorted for political advantage.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 10/24/2012 @ 8:20 am“And you can see it in the various shades of color of the Saudi royal family.”
Ah, well! So that makes it all okay then!
NOLAN RYAN: [pitches the whole point right down the middle and straight past your nose at 115 MPH as you stand there gaping and missing it.]
UMPIRE: Steeeeeee-rike!!!
Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950) — 10/24/2012 @ 8:34 amNo, Gojira, but I believe that that was the thought behind the question of withdrawl. If the woman gave birth, the man would face the dillema of marrying her or letting her and the child go.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 8:38 amYou could interpret it, “If God wants this woman to be free, she will bear you a son.”
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 8:40 amnk — doesn’t matter. My point is, the MSM wants God’s-will-rape-guy to be seen as a Bad and Stupid Christian Because Christians Are Bad and Stupid.
But orthodox Muslims who believe the Exact Same Thing would never, ever be held up to ridicule in this manner. Because their colorful, vibrant beliefs are Diverse, even though they are exactly the same thing as what Bad Christian Rape Guy believes.
Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950) — 10/24/2012 @ 8:56 amI saw in one of those Romney ads some footage of a speech Obama made to a Muslim audience, I think maybe in Egypt. In the speech, he decried the terrible, terrible American legacy of “de slabery”. (I can’t believe that 150+ years later, anybody in America is still talking seriously about “de slabery.”)
He seems totally oblivious to the fact that theologically and morally speaking, Muslims energetically APPROVE of slavery — especially when it involves dem luscious Christian white wimmens. (For reference, see, oh, all of Islamic history.)
Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:00 am6.“The Problem of Evil”
Why does God allow it? Does it have a purpose? What could it’s purpose be?
And when the stars threw down their spears,
And showered Heaven with their tears.
Material is corruptible. When God chose to make Spirit into matter, He must have understood that it would be imperfect and corruptible.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:01 amSo what kind of logical disconnect does it take to say the pregnancy is God’s plan but the proceeding rape was not? Sorry, that is just doubling down on stupid in my book.
Soronel Haetir (290041) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:03 am“BY THE WAY: What is really so startling about these remarks?”
Murdouck: “I know there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view, but I believe that life begins at conception,”
He lying. He does NOT respect the views of those who disagree with him.
He supports legislation to IMPOSE his views on pregnant women and others who disagree with his view, which he clearly thinks is based on a Higher Power.
Another lying sack of Republican garbage, just like Willard the Rat.
Abortion
Mourdock Stance
Richard Mourdock is strongly pro-life and believes that Roe v. Wade represents a serious misreading of the original intent of those who established our Constitution.
Would you support the passage of a Constitutional Amendment which would restore the right to life to unborn Children (Human Life Amendment)?
Mourdock: Support
Do you support the current federal policy of prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions except where the mother’s life would be endangered if she carried to term?
Mourdock: Support
Do you support a federal “Freedom of Choice Act” to invalidate restrictions on late-term abortions and regulations on the abortion industry in all 50 states?
Mourock: Oppose
P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:05 amGo back under your rock, worm (Ptillman).
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:19 am“I’m really looking forward to being able to enslave women after the GOP victory … /sarcasm”
Ah, a “joke” from the Rush Limbaugh School of Comedy.
If you force a woman to carry a fetus when she doesn’t want to, then you ARE enslaving her…period.
Maybe you don’t know what the word “sarcasm” really means…or perhaps you think it is funny to joke about imposing your religious views on everyone else.
Either way, Republicans are misogynists. That’s not a joke, that’s a fact.
P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:22 am“Go back under your rock, worm”
LOL, nice retort nitwit. Can’t stand it when the curtain is thrown back to reveal the sickness that is the modern day Republican party, eh?
P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:23 am14.So what kind of logical disconnect does it take to say the pregnancy is God’s plan but the proceeding rape was not? Sorry, that is just doubling down on stupid in my book.
Comment by Soronel Haetir — 10/24/2012 @ 9:03 am
Agreed. There is little logic in religion, and little place for it in law. Law is not based on some nebulous “logical” idea, it is based on what is necessary for the functioning and perpetutation of a society.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:24 amMourdock’s remark was sincere, well-intentioned, thoughtful, thought-provoking, and yet incredibly misplaced in a US Senate campaign.
Rape accounts for less than 1% of abortions in the United States, so it is foolish to play into the hands of Democrats by emphasizing rape so much. And anyway this is a matter for state criminal codes, not for the US Senate.
And logically, Mourdock’s position is very difficult to sustain. Should the state require Mr. Mourdock to donate a kidney if that’s needed to save someone else’s life? I think not. Requiring a woman to donate nine months and a lot of labor to sustain the life of a rapists’ child seems like very bad policy to me. But even if it were good policy, why in the name of God does a Republican US Senate candidate have to trumpet such an unpopular policy two weeks before what may be the most important election of our lifetimes?
Andrew (0c5498) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:26 amPunkass (ptillman), this is a discussion for adults.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:28 am20.Lemme ask you, nk….who pays for your medical bills?
Comment by P. Tillman — 10/24/2012 @ 9:25 am
I do. $644.00 a month for health insurance, $500.00 annual deductible, $6,000.00 annual out of pocket, $40.00 copay for specialist no limitout, $20.00 copay for prescriptions no limitout.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:31 amIf I stay within my PPO’s network.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:35 amThe media has made it impossible to talk about abortion at any level. Candidates from president on down to city council get asked about it even if has nothing to do with the responsibilities of the office being contested. And if the answer is not what the media wants to hear they twist it and tweak it and highlight it to make it sound even worse. It’s what they do. Therefore, one would think that after all this time candidates would expect the question and be prepared. (Especially after the Akin fiasco and the recent Joe Walsh mess with his idiotic life of the mother language.) The individual situation of each woman and when she should be able to get a safe and legal abortion is about as personal as it gets. It’s also both a key and volatile issue for many decent –let me repeat that, DECENT– Americans whose understanding of what “life” is, also constantly intersects and is informed by the spectrum of what “human rights” means or should mean.
Taxpayers should not have to pay for anybody’s abortions and there ought to be reasonable late term restrictions. Roe is the law of the land and has been for decades. No matter how infrequently it might occur, a male candidate saying he believes that a woman should always be required to carry her rapist’s seed to term does not sit well with many, dare I suggest most, women. Whether you prefer to blame the media hacks or the candidates themselves, I am sick of losing elections over this.
elissa (381c32) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:36 amOmigawd..the Donald’s big announcement is a game changer….$5 mil to charity of choom’s choice if he releases college transcripts and passport applications. Big whoop. I’m sure he’ll hop to it. Help the muslim brotherhood. Only caveat, must by oct. 31. Happy halloween attention whore.
calypso louis farrakhan (c971d5) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:40 am“Punkass (ptillman), this is a discussion for adults.”
No, it’s a discussion for white Republican Wingnut males who are happy to support politicians who will take away the rights of other people to decide on what medical procedures should or should not be performed on their own bodies.
How would you have felt if one of the procedures you had to have wasn’t allowed because someone else’s religion prohibited it?
I should think that anyone who has been through what you have would understand this fundamental right.
P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:41 amIt’s not logically difficult to sustain. Although you are undoubtedly right; it’s bad politics. But that just goes to illustrate that logic and politics don’t have anything to do with each other.
A human being is a unique individual and complete at conception. Nothing more needs to be added. Nothing more can be added.
The fact that the child depends on its mother to keep it alive doesn’t change the facts.
If this is at all hard to sustain it’s because people often don’t want to face the facts. As we see shaping up with our overspending federal government and the Obumble admin’s handling of the Benghazi debacle.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:43 am“Taxpayers should not have to pay for anybody’s abortions.”
Based on what theory? Please don’t say moral objection.
P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:46 am“A human being is a unique individual and complete at conception. Nothing more needs to be added. Nothing more can be added.”
YOUR PERSONAL BELIEF.
Do not impose it on others Wingnut.
P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:47 amElissa, while agree with you that Mourdock’s answer was very unhelpful, your praise of Roe v. Wade is off the mark.
That decision is as much the “law of the land” as a decision saying that Obama can remain in office as long as he wants without standing for reelection. In other words, it us a corruption of this nation’s fundamental law, and one which invites further such corruptions.
Romney favors overturning it, probably four justices if the Suoreme Court currently favor overturning it, and I think it will be a great day when it is overturned. And if one or two states then criminalize abortion in the case of rape, then you can expect a swift constitutional amendment overturning what those one or two states have done.
Andrew (87a0de) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:48 amA human being is a unique individual and complete at conception. Nothing more needs to be added. Nothing more can be added.”
By forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions (which is contra to a vast number of the public’s view), you don’t see how this is hypocritical in that you are imposing your view on others?
It’s not a convenient one-way street, Tillman.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:49 amP.T. the troll calls belief of the majority of Americans “wingnut”. Not to mention that its biologically true that any animal organism is “unique” and “complete” at conception. Its PT that is the nut. Typical.
SPQR (644d79) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:52 amIt’s not the pro life part that’s bothering them as much as the “God” part.
Liberals don’t like the idea of a omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent entity standing by judging and influencing every thing they do and that happens to them.
That kind of shoots holes in their assumptions that human beings (liberals/progressives) can cause a Utopian civilization to come into being. (If they could just have complete control, they know they could get it right.)
God’s their competition.
they’re also resentful at the implication that the hypothetical victim deserved it somehow and also that by aborting a baby they’re somehow thwarting God.
Liberals don’t like that sort of talk. Makes pregnant women by any cause think about things that liberals don’t want them to.
Jcw46 (b4329c) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:02 amlike we did here.
Comment by nk — 10/24/2012 @ 8:15 am
Um, WE?
My family had nothing to do with any of that so speak for yourself only please.
contrary to what progressives would like to think, the people of the US don’t have a shared responsibility for what slaveholders did 150 years ago.
Feel free to feel guilty for what others have done, if you like.
Jcw46 (b4329c) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:06 amP. Tillman, I will address you seriously for the last time. I have survived bitter arguments with conservative commenters here, and Patterico too, because I show my true self. This is not an echo chamber. Patterico welcomes opposing arguments. Show your own true self. Argue in good faith. And, please, find another handle. P. Tillman is grossly disrespectful.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:06 amprobably four justices if the Supreme Court currently favor overturning it, and I think it will be a great day when it is overturned
At most 3, and possibly none at this point. TO overturn a 40-year-old decision would require more than it being an incorrect Constitutional interpretation, but it would also need to be seen as causing widespread injustice.
And that just isn’t there. Scalia, Thomas and possible Alito might vote to overturn, and might not. No one else. Stare decisis was accepted by the majority in the 1990’s. That argument has gotten stronger in the last 20 years.
Get over it. I have.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:08 amI enjoy how the leftards who’d like to shove “climate change” theory down my throat in the form of inane EPA regs if not cap & trade refuse to acknowledge what has been an established fact for over half a century.
The anti-science party. The libtards.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:11 amUm, WE?
My family had nothing to do with any of that so speak for yourself only please.
contrary to what progressives would like to think, the people of the US don’t have a shared responsibility for what slaveholders did 150 years ago.
Feel free to feel guilty for what others have done, if you like.
Comment by Jcw46 — 10/24/2012 @ 10:06 am
Neither did my family. And I do not feel guilty. I am proud of America and of the $500,000 who died to end slavery.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:12 amYikes. That “$” should not be there. The 500,000 men who died to end slavery.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:14 amNo, Kevin, there is no getting over it. Judicial dictatorship, elevation of judicial opinions over the text of the Constitution, granting a license to kill unborn children who possess all of their functioning bodily organs merely so the killers can enjoy more sexual intercourse. No. If we get over these things, then it would be better for Iran to nuke us. I mean that.
Andrew (5b25ee) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:20 am“hacks” as in “hackers”… it’s not that they don’t know how to report the news, it’s that they deliberately use the vehicle of reporting to distort and misshape information to obtain a personally desired end, just as computer hackers abuse software for their personal benefit at the expense of others.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:23 amMy personal position is that although, I believe that life begins at conception, I can understand how it could be argued against.
I’ve felt that the extremists have taken over the discussion and consequently nothing can change.
Pro abortionists want abortion till just as the child emerges from the womb.
Pro lifers want no abortion or even contraception under any circumstances.
Both are extreme.
My compromise?
No abortion after 1st trimester unless is approved by panel that is convinced of the necessity. This panel can develop protocols to be used in case of emergencies. Abortions to be considered as any other medical procedure. Principal funders of plans may object to providing and paying for a plan that allows this. They should provide an easy and less costly path for employees who desire this provision to pay for it separately at a proportionately reduced rate than fee for service.
Birth control to be paid for by any health plan (government included) as palliative and as a thoughtful judgment by the woman and her doctor.
this includes any day after pill.
Also, research should be funded for a method (other than barriers) for men to share the birth control burden and responsibility.
There, both sides should be unhappy with the compromise which would mean it’s balanced.
Jcw46 (b4329c) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:23 amThen you were using the royal “WE” then?
I only contest that the we was out of place and included others such as myself that dislike others apologizing or taking responsibility for me and for others in the US.
It’s a particularly subtle and easily ignored verbal tactic which I don’t ignore as it implies things the person saying it doesn’t have the right to imply.
Jcw46 (b4329c) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:27 amLiberals feels free to insist that how and who people have consensual sex with is a private matter yet demand others pay to keep the results of their private decisions consequence free.
No contradictions!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:31 amComment by Gojira, King of Monsters — 10/24/2012 @ 9:00 am
Muslims energetically APPROVE of slavery
Slavery somehow became extinct in Christian lands (maybe because of some kind of idea that only a non-Christian could be a slave, maybe also because slaves were not allowed to marry o something. The Moslems also had this, but they didn’t try to convert their slaves, if I have this right)
It was brought back because of the Moslems.
The Arabs contaminated the Portuguese, who contaminated the Spanish, and the Dutch, who contaminated the British and the French – the others who had colonies (it never got into the home countries)
But when it came back, the slaves were a distinct group of people, introduced to most people as already slaves, and color-coded.
It was very problematical to actually capture people and make them into slaves. Positive steps were needed to prevent the entrenchment of slavery: they weren’t taken most of the time.
Except maybe a little in Massachusetts. Here’s a story:
From the book “Black Cargoes (1962)
In 1645, a Massachusetts ship, the Rainbow, went to the coast of Guinea. There were some English slave ships waiting for cargo but there was none. So they got together, and with a small cannon known as a “murderer” attacked a Negro village, killed many of the inhabitants and took a few prisoners. Captain Smith of the Rainbow got two of the slaves for his share.
When he got back to Boston, he wound up in a lawsuit with the owners of the vessel as to how the profits from the voyage were to be divided.
In the course of this lawsuit the story of how these two slaves had been obtained (he basically caught them himself) was revealed.
Smith was put on trial for “murder, man-stealing, and Sabbath breaking” (this was Puritan Massachusetts during the English Civil War) but he was acquitted because the actions had taken place outside of Massachusetts. (It’s for reasons like that the Alien Torts Act was passed by the First Congress in 1789 – actually part of the Judiciary Act)
The two slaves, however, were confiscated and returned to Africa at the expense of the Massachusetts legislature.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:34 amSo extreme, Jcw46, not even Catholics are against contraception under any circumstances.
I don’t know where people get the idea that pro-lifers, particularly Catholics, are against birth control under any circumstances.
It must be a misreading of Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae.
It discusses marital sex. Not sex in general. A rape victim doesn’t “collaborate freely” and a rapist is not acting “responsibly with God the Creator.”
On the other hand, Catholicism isn’t big on pinning the sins of the father on the child. The kid isn’t the rapist.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:36 amMy personal position, Jcw46, is that life is a rare and precious thing. And that it should be lived free. I agree with President Reagan that an abortion should be allowed in self-defense, when the baby presents a danger of death or great bodily harm to the mother. (Yes, I believe a baby, at any term, is a human being.) But when it comes to rape or incest, I am not Solomon. I will leave it to the mother.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:37 amNot quite right. Slaves of Muslims figured out fairly quickly that if they converted no Muslim could keep them as a slave.
So what the Muslims did was to “adopt” their slaves.
Then send their dutiful sons out to work for them and to hand over their wages entirely.
We are talking about a religion that still has theological discussions about wife-beating, after all. Think they couldn’t get around the whole “a believer can’t keep another believer as a slave” thingy?
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:40 am43.Then you were using the royal “WE” then?
No, Jcw46. I was identifying myself as an American. Proud to be one always, warts and all. Will you accept me as one?
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:41 amOne question: Why rape and incest and not adultery and birth defects?
The second two are too callous?
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:41 amJcw46, you are correct that the extremists have taken over. But the end of the third trimester has no biological significance. It just happens to be one-third of nine months.
If you look at the biology, the real huge changes occur at the end of the seventh week, which is when the “embryo” becomes a “fetus”. At that point, the risk of miscarriage plummets. All of the major organs have been formed. And the baby starts to move, starting with its head.
All of the talk about trimesters is a distraction.
Andrew (5b25ee) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:41 amMeant to say “end if the first trimester has no significance”
Andrew (5b25ee) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:44 amMeant to say “end of the first trimester has no significance”
Andrew (5b25ee) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:44 amnk, I’m not aware of any circumstances where that’s the case. The kid doesn’t place much added stress on the mother until it’s viable. When it does start to stress Mom, well, it’s viable.
It’s just easier to do an abortion at one or two months into a pregnancy than it is at six months.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:48 am50.One question: Why rape and incest and not adultery and birth defects?
The second two are too callous?
Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 10/24/2012 @ 10:41 am
Adultery is meaningless, and my daughter and I walked to school, together, for many years with two beautiful little girls — one with Downs the other with Angelman’s. Their parents loved them. My daughter loved them. I smiled when I saw them.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:52 amAndrew, the trimester division of abortion, with different constitutional meaning, came from Roe v. Wade. Which the pro-life crowd pretends is holy constitutional writ, but reject its actual detailed holdings (and which really are not constitutional law any longer either).
SPQR (768505) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:52 amSammy?
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:53 amRoe v. Wade is a medical treatise with a bit of cultural history thrown in. There is no genuine legal analysis, about the 9th Amendment or anything else related to law as practiced in the United States.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:56 amWell, SPQR, the trimester division discussed in Roe v. Wade was crapola like the rest of that decision. I bet that not 1% of Americans (and .001% of American judges) know when the embryonic stage ends and the fetal stage begins, much less the difference between the two. The media has made sure that ignorance reigns supreme.
Andrew (133d06) — 10/24/2012 @ 10:58 amIt’s just easier to do an abortion at one or two months into a pregnancy than it is at six months.
Comment by Steve57 — 10/24/2012 @ 10:48 am
I dunno, Steve. I only knew happiness when my daughter was born. She was a difficult birth. I would have sacrificed her to save my wife. Everything turned out well and it got me to thinking … if people without kids knew what they were missing, they would throw themselves out of a high window.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 11:04 am60. “if people without kids knew what they were missing, they would throw themselves out of a high window.”
I agree. Although my bro with eleven or so may be over doing a good thing.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/24/2012 @ 11:09 amApparently one thing required to be a successful politician these days is the ability to make an adequate response to a question without really saying anything, because people who lie like a rug often get away with it and people accustomed to telling the truth get into trouble.
illman, society already imposes my morals on you every moment. I think it is morally wrong for you to kill me, or anybody else for that matter. As it happens, there is a greater societal consensus on that than many other things, so much so people don’t stop to realize that to say “you can’t enforce your morals” is a pretty unsophisticated and erroneous claim. So, you must get past that and at least raise the issue of how do we choose which morals to enforce and how do we enforce them.
I’ve felt that the extremists have taken over the discussion and consequently nothing can change.
Pro lifers want no abortion or even contraception under any circumstances.
Say what?
There certainly is a spectrum of conviction that “Pro Lifers” have concerning contraception. I imagine there are some against any form of limiting the possibility of pregnancy. Many are governed by conscience and/or the teaching of their church (predominantly Roman Catholic, I think) to limit contraception to “natural family planning”, the modified version of the “rhythm method”; many, many Pro Lifers have no problem with contraception if the method clearly works by preventing the fertilization of an egg, rather than interfering with the normal events of implantation and growth of the embryo to term. There is controversy (which I don’t think is necessary to repeat here) as to whether the typical birth control pill and some “morning after” pills prevent fertilization or function post fertilization.
Many people say they are against abortion except when the life (not “health”) of the mother is at stake, rape, or incest.
Some point out that if one’s conviction against abortion is because they think the developing baby in the womb is a separate human life worth protecting, then what difference does it make, to the child, on the circumstances of conception. While it is hard to argue with that logic, many people think requiring a woman to carry a child to term and give birth in such a painful situation is asking more than one should.
It would be interesting, for those who like to look at real life facts, to find out what women think 10 years down the road who were unfortunately in that situation. Were there women who carried the child to term and either raised the child or gave the child up for adoption? What about the women who had an abortion? Did having the abortion “help them cope” with what had happened, or did it seem to be simply an additional complicating factor?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/24/2012 @ 11:11 amLiberal mantra – Somebody else should be held accountable for my decisions.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/24/2012 @ 11:14 amAs with too many things, people obfuscate to win arguments rather than discuss facts to come to conclusions.
It is not common for something to threaten the life of the mother during pregnancy. A major problem would be eclampsia, when the mother’s blood pressure skyrockets often resulting in cerebral hemorrhage and death. There are some things that can be done to treat if diagnosed early (pre-eclampsia), but emergency C-Section may be necessary. As suggested in some comments above, this usually happens later in a pregnancy and the child can usually survive with today’s neonatal care (in a country with such facilities).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/24/2012 @ 11:30 amOn the other end of the spectrum, an ectopic pregnancy is when the embryo implants and is growing inside of a fallopian tube instead of the uterus. Without surgery this will rupture and likely cause the death of the mother, but at this stage the embryo is still very young and not recognizable as a baby (FWIW).
Breast (or other) cancer can be discovered during pregnancy and depending on the specifics to treat the cancer may be devastating (or not) to the developing child and delaying (or limiting) treatment of the cancer may (or may not) put the mother’s life at greater risk, though not emergently.
rape, or incest.
Some point out that if one’s conviction against abortion is because they think the developing baby in the womb is a separate human life worth protecting, then what difference does it make, to the child, on the circumstances of conception.
If I understand you, MD. It’s a hard question. But, in the end, the mother is entitled her to her life, too. We are not talking about gentle persuasion. We are talking about governmental coercion. Were I counseling the mother, I would say “Please, keep the baby”. But were the government to say, “We are from the government and we love your baby more than you do, and if you abort it we will send you and your doctor to prison” …? No.
You said it yourself. Abortion is not an easy “choice”. And not one without regrets.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 11:43 am“Stare decisis was accepted by the majority in the 1990′s. That argument has gotten stronger in the last 20 years.”
And yet, Stare decisis doesn’t seem to hold for any conservative viewpoint and definitely not for the Second Amendment.
luagha (5cbe06) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:09 pm“And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
This position is a humble position that recognizes the reality that our human perspective cannot encompass everything; that we are not omniscient. It’s hardly controversial.
What’s the contra of this? That this is something that God struggled against but was unable to prevent?
Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:10 pmLet’s not forget that a fraudulent rape claim, was what expedited the Roe case,
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:14 pmNarciso, President Reagan supported a rape exception, provided that the rape is promptly reported to the police. That would prevent the kiind of fraud you’re referring to.
Andrew (8d0824) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:20 pmPetey ran away again.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:26 pm“By forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions (which is contra to a vast number of the public’s view), you don’t see how this is hypocritical in that you are imposing your view on others?”
Since when did your Fed taxes become a check box that you could direct to specific programs based on your personal moral beliefs?
We all accept the fact that the money is not spent exactly as we would like. It’s hypocritical to suggest that it’s ok for you to with hold spending on abortion but I can’t for wasteful defense spending??
This argument is a non-starter.
P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:44 pmBreast (or other) cancer can be discovered during pregnancy and depending on the specifics to treat the cancer may be devastating (or not) to the developing child and delaying (or limiting) treatment of the cancer may (or may not) put the mother’s life at greater risk, though not emergently.
I lost an aunt to that many decades ago. She made the voluntary decision to forgo cancer treatment through the pregnancy. Her son is still with us and a surface warfare office in the US Navy.
SPQR (768505) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:45 pmP.Tillman, the argument is not a non-starter. You just lost the democratic process and whine about it like the fascist we know you to be.
SPQR (768505) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:46 pm“Liberal mantra – Somebody else should be held accountable for my decisions.”
Please…this argument cannot possibly lead you to conclude that only pregnancy should be held to a standard of consequences rather than countless other human behaviors (many of which I am sure you engage in on a daily basis).
Again, another dead end argument.
P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:47 pm“You just lost the democratic process and whine about it like the fascist we know you to be.”
You’re incoherent as usual.
P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:49 pmThis seems typical of everywhere, they push their agenda;
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331497/nobel-mann-takes-revolting-peasants-mark-steyn#
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:49 pmThat this is something that God struggled against but was unable to prevent?
If this were so, then God would not be God. God, by definition and default, never needs to struggle to prevent something.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:51 pm“Pro abortionists want abortion till just as the child emerges from the womb.”
This is only an “extreme” position if you fully believe in and support the autonomy of the woman to decide what is best for her body, which the fetus is inextricably a part of until it is not.
P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:51 pm“This is only an “extreme” position if you DON’T fully believe…”
P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:54 pmThat view is so far outside the mainstream it is laughable, tillie.
JD (8a1df4) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:55 pm“Again, another dead end argument.”
Petey – Wrong, you are insisting on private decisions but socializing the costs of those decisions. You insist third parties pay for contraception and abortion. How is that not holding others accountable for personal decisions. Yours is the dead end argument, honey.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/24/2012 @ 12:59 pmI predict an invasion of squirrels from Petey.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/24/2012 @ 1:00 pmComment by nk — 10/24/2012 @ 11:43 am
I am pretty much in agreement with you, nk, but I am sympathetic to the logic of the argument I mentioned.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/24/2012 @ 1:11 pm“And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
For those that maintain this position, they are acknowledging the absolute sovereignty of God – in every part of life – whether mere mortals fully understand or not. And most often, we don’t, because we can’t, because we are so limited in our capacity to do so. We’re not God. He is. And we can only see the temporal and mortal side.
These are not issues that can or should be stifled with snarky comebacks like our familar trolls. It should be handled with care and great thought, and worked through with anything but glibness and arrogance.
My two cents.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/24/2012 @ 1:21 pmMourdock is wrong politically and very wrong headed on matters of what God wants versu Man’s Free Will.
Suffice it to say I am not one who knows whether God does (or not) get involved in human events.
But here is what I do know, it is a MORAL GOOD for all humans to believe in FREE WILL and that each individual is responsible for themselves and their actions.
Each person believing they are accountable for themselves and what they do is far preferable to people attributing their behavior to God.
Talk about Moral Hazard …. I killed, God intended it!!! LOL! Not good to think this way.
Rodney King's Spirit (9ce6d4) — 10/24/2012 @ 1:34 pmPetey is just furthering the dishonest framing of issues by Democrats that began at the start of the year.
In the Republican New Hampshire presidential debate I believe Romney was asked if he intended to limit access to contraception.
The question came out of the blue but was a set up to what would happen later in January on Obamacare. None of the Republican candidates had suggested limiting access to contraception and the left knew it.
When Sneaky Sebelius issued rules in January requiring employers, including religious employers, to provide free contraception and abortifacients to employees, the public erupted. Sandra Fluke made public appearance deceitfully claiming that she was shocked to find out that the health insurance plan of the Jesuit law school she chose to attend did not cover contraception and abortifacients and that paying out of pocket might cost students as much as $3,000 over three years.
Amid the uproar, the Obama administration came up with a transparently unsatisfactory 1st Amendment compromise for religious employers, who proceeded to sue the administration. The left framed the debate as one of access, when the issue was really religious freedom being trampled by the government mandate of Obamacare.
Also remember that in buying votes for Obamacare from his own party, Barky had to promise that the government would not be in the abortion business. That promise apparently expired soon after Obamacare’s passage.
The rest of Petey’s rant is just standard hyperbolic lefty fearmongering about what is remotely possible under a theocratic bible humping xtianist administration that morons have been frothing at the mouth about for years.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/24/2012 @ 1:36 pmRoe v. Wade, that sanctified Constitutional decision of the pro life movement, recognized the state’s interest in prohibiting abortion in the last trimester. But that an extremist position to PT the troll.
SPQR (768505) — 10/24/2012 @ 1:37 pmMeanwhile, in actual significant news, its sounding like Israel is starting to move against Iran.
They must figure that Obama won’t be in office long enough to hurt them …
SPQR (768505) — 10/24/2012 @ 1:42 pmLet’s say the hypothetical woman chose to have the rapist’s child. Could the citizens of Indiana acknowledge that God intended that child’s birth to happen?
Mourdock’s God is able to bring good out of evil. Mourdock’s error was to cast his pearls before swine.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 10/24/2012 @ 1:48 pmPetey – If Republicans did not impose all these unspeakable horrors on wymmin during the eight years of the Bush dynasty, what makes you believe that they will be imposed during a Romney presidency?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/24/2012 @ 2:12 pmIn watching the fil portion of the debate, it is abundantly clear that Mourdock’s answer was nowhere near the position his opponent, DSCC, the MFM, and the trolls are attributing to him.
JD (8a1df4) — 10/24/2012 @ 2:21 pmTeam R really is determined to become the rape babies for jesus party but that’s their choice and me I am pro-choice so there you go
happyfeet (a397a0) — 10/24/2012 @ 3:25 pmMr. Feets – I think Gov. Romney is going to holding a Monster Mormon Truck Prayer Rally where you are traveling any day now. More fun than any one person should have!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/24/2012 @ 3:34 pmHacks do only what they know, and to paraphrase RR, it is not that they know so much, it is that so much of what they know just isn’t so.
Jennifer Rubin at the Post has a pretty good take-down of what has transpired….
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/24/2012 @ 3:36 pmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/richard-mourdock-and-media-misrepresentation/2012/10/24/0b5b02e2-1e0d-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html
would it were Mr daley! I’m in port fourchon tonight, which is almost precisely nowheres… They have tasty jambalaya at the marina also there are many large birds. It’s beautiful here like being at the end of the world but there’s not much open space for a proper monster truck mormon prayer rally due to the encroachment of the gulf waters everywhere
happyfeet (a397a0) — 10/24/2012 @ 3:48 pmThat is kind of BS, Happyfeet. He was responding to a specific BS question.
JD (8a1df4) — 10/24/2012 @ 3:49 pmhappyfeet, are you going to do “if this is Tuesday, it must be Pittsburg”? I am insanely jealous.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 3:57 pmMr JD if all the R’s were as hushmoufed and quiet-like as Mr Romney and only talked about jesus and rape and stuff using their hubcap-stealin voices the whole party would become more popular and enjoy an enhanced sense of self-esteem i think
happyfeet (a397a0) — 10/24/2012 @ 3:57 pmI don’t know what you mean about Pittsburgh Mr nk but all around me reel the indignant ocean birds
happyfeet (a397a0) — 10/24/2012 @ 4:00 pmGive me a little vicarious. Are you driving?
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 4:01 pmI stole it. It’s meant to mean are you just out to see the whole wide world?
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 4:02 pmOh. Yes I am seeing America and so far she’s beautiful… I’m driving and i’m not really going to anywhere in can easily fly to… So for now I am gonna mostly drive along the gulf Coast to Florida… Then at some point I want to go through the smoky Mtns national park and depending on the weather is want to follow the Appalachian as far north as I can then I will go to the great Lakes and such
happyfeet (a397a0) — 10/24/2012 @ 4:08 pm*i* can easily fly to… Commenting on this phone is hard I kinda miss my berry
happyfeet (a397a0) — 10/24/2012 @ 4:09 pmIf you reach Chicago. I can’t put you up, but I can give you multi-Asian, Colombian, or Italian, and a bar with attractive young people.
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 4:17 pm“Mourdock’s God is able to bring good out of evil. Mourdock’s error was to cast his pearls before swine”
Well said.
“…and depending on the weather is want to follow the Appalachian [trail] as far north as I can…”
Now you are talkin’! That is something I would like to do
Felipe (3243af) — 10/24/2012 @ 4:19 pmI’d say theconsequences are more severe, than anything Murdock might say;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/24/sources-say-counterterror-chief-reprimanded-for-calling-libya-attack-terror/
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/24/2012 @ 4:35 pmI’m not sure about Chicago yet.. but thank you! here is where I am tonight
m.flickr.com/#/photos/87554623@N05/8120569574/
It’s at the end of the brand new highway 1 expressway… i will always think of this place now whenever i hear talk of bridges to nowhere
happyfeet (a397a0) — 10/24/2012 @ 4:41 pm_______________________________________________
If you force a woman to carry a fetus when she doesn’t want to, then you ARE enslaving her…period.
Meanwhile, I think of all the liberals who have wanted to legally force the Boy Scouts of America to accept gays as troop leaders. In effect, enslaving such groups, and the people (and kids) within them, to the whims of the leftwing LGBT agenda and crowd.
I’ve said sarcastically in the past that the left believes that if it (meaning adult males interfacing with male children) is good enough for the Catholic church, it’s good enough for the Boy Scouts of America. But I didn’t realize how the underside of the BSA apparently already has more in common with the Catholic church than generally presumed.
If such organizations are forced by the left into the lunacy of political correctness of the 21st century, they’ll become more overtly dumbed down, coarsened and desensitized than they already are, or as bad as the society around them.
Liberals with their phony compassion and ass-backwards tolerance aren’t worth a damn.
^ It’s a given that if the loosening standards of modern culture, particularly intertwined with the agenda of LGBT and the idea of same-sex marriage, come to their (il)logical conclusion, the enablers described above will be able to easily say, “well, we had to be permissive towards John Doe — even though he was overly affectionate with other males — because the law encourages us to do so, because it mandates we do so, because the ethos of ‘I’m-okay-you’re-okay’ is commonplace and widespread.”
Mark (4de17c) — 10/24/2012 @ 5:19 pm___________________________________________
sources-say-counterterror-chief-reprimanded-for-calling-libya-attack-terror/
Comment by narciso
I don’t know what’s worse: Officials within the government being discouraged to call an act of terrorism “terrorism” because top-echelon operatives (probably mostly of the left) don’t want Obama to look bad, or because they believe it goes against the political-correctness-gone-berserk trends that have been threading through the FBI, CIA and US military.
God (or Allah, or Gaia) help us.
Mark (4de17c) — 10/24/2012 @ 5:30 pm“But I didn’t realize how the underside of the BSA apparently already has more in common with the Catholic church than generally presumed.”
Mark – I’m not sure a direct comparison between the organizations can be made. All I know is that adult BSA volunteers have to go through background checks and training to protect both themselves against false allegations of abuse and spotting abuse by other adult leaders. It is not a subject taken lightly. There is also not a space on a youth membership or adult leader application for indication of sexual preference.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/24/2012 @ 5:36 pmSoftball, admittedly. Isn’t a better economy, with a bigger job market, the best thing that would liberate women?
nk (875f57) — 10/24/2012 @ 5:42 pmI think the bigger mistake was Romney’s response to this: condemning Mourdock’s comments and still supporting him could be a decision that might come back to bite him in the ass. This will give the democrats more to talk about, forcing him to do another 360 and distancing himself from the man himself. This will only play into the image of a flip-flopper that the Dems have been trying to pin on him.
The Emperor (03864d) — 10/24/2012 @ 7:12 pmI am SHOCKED that Chimperor/lovie thinks that this is a reflection on Romney.
SQUIRREL
Notice how this only works in one direction?
JD (8a1df4) — 10/24/2012 @ 7:28 pmMark – Here is a link to the press release from the Boy Scouts regarding the files you mentioned, which has significant background information as well as additional links.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/24/2012 @ 8:09 pmhttp://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us-intel-believes-some-benghazi-attackers-tied-to-al-qaeda-in-iraq/?iref=allsearch
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/24/2012 @ 8:22 pm_________________________________________
There is also not a space on a youth membership or adult leader application for indication of sexual preference.
daleyrocks, I’m being only a bit snide when I say that the way things are going, the BSA eventually will be required, or actually may happily choose, to list sexual preference on their applications. But not for the reason that the “it’s a witch hunt! It’s McCarthy-ite!” crowd may assume, or want the public to believe. But to enable those who check off “gay” or “bisexual” to become automatically favored over other applicants.
Sounds ludicrous?
No, because if it’s good enough for the CIA, it’s good enough for the Boy Scouts of America.
I never forget that the Supreme Court in 2000 ruled 5 to 4 — a bare majority — that it was constitutional for the BSA (a private organization) to have bylaws that ban homosexuals from being Troop leaders.
We’re such fuddy duddies.
Mark (4de17c) — 10/24/2012 @ 8:40 pm“daleyrocks, I’m being only a bit snide when I say that the way things are going, the BSA eventually will be required, or actually may happily choose, to list sexual preference on their applications.”
Mark – I don’t think you actually mentioned it. I brought it up. The Boy Scouts have a national policy, but most troops I talk to don’t give a crap so the only way to enforce it is is someone wants to deliberately out themselves and make a public statement out of it, which is exactly what you have seen happen.
Most of the adults who work with kids on a day to day basis are volunteers, not professionals. The two biggest institutional influences on scouting are the Mormon and Catholic churches, though.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/24/2012 @ 9:44 pmNot personal belief, science. Take a little time to study fetal development.
Because Christians believe that God designed us and that the natural consequence God’s design is that most sex leads to pregnancy. That has nothing to do with how the sex happens. The bible also says that any sex outside of marriage is sin. If I remember correctly, rapists were to be put to death. I believe that’s a good deterrent against rape. In the U.S., rapists were given the death penalty until liberals determined that it was cruel and unusual punishment for the crime of rape. So taking a page from the progressives, why is the far left pro-rape?
My answer to abortion in cases of rape is a question. What did the baby do to deserve the death penalty? Some might remember being told as a child, “two wrongs doesn’t make it right”.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 10/25/2012 @ 8:10 amNo baby can live without love, Tanny. It is a razor’s edge, morally. I, personally, would leave it to the mother’s conscience and not to carrying an unloved child to term under governmental threat, in the case of rape or incest.
BTW, I detest abortion as birth control, detest even more aborting babies because of birth defects, and I would want murder applied to partial birth abortions.
nk (875f57) — 10/25/2012 @ 7:45 pmI discovered, at age 27, that I had a genetic defect, and at age 54 that I had a birth defect. Good thing nobody told my mother. 😉
nk (875f57) — 10/25/2012 @ 7:49 pmThere’s always adoption. There are many, many people who would like to adopt a baby.
I’ve known two women who were raped. Both brought their babies to term. One let the baby go for adoption and the other kept and raised the child in a loving environment. The second child is now in college and well loved by his mother. The mother who gave her child up for adoption sometimes wonders what it would have been like if she had kept her baby.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 10/25/2012 @ 8:19 pm