If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hot Air)   Anderson Cooper: You do realize that you're lying about Mitt Romney's views on abortion, right..Debbie? Debbie?... "Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down"   (hotair.com) divider line 355
    More: Amusing, Mitt Romney, illegal operation, global dimming, Mr. Roboto, blah blah, Robert Duvall, abortions, DNC  
•       •       •

6717 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Aug 2012 at 9:47 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



355 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-24 11:27:21 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.

Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.


Actually it's your side that believes that fetuses are children, but has no problem killing them in the cases of rape or incest.
 
2012-08-24 11:27:33 AM
If republicans cared as much about children as they do fetuses this country would be a much better place.
 
2012-08-24 11:28:33 AM

Vodka Zombie: "Romney thinks abortion doctors should be executed."

This is currently not Mitt Romney's position, but it will be at some point in this campaign. We're just planning ahead.


If your position is that abortion is murder, women who have them and their doctors are guilty of 1st degree murder, the penalty for which is execution in most states.
 
2012-08-24 11:29:31 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: At what point do you believe that a "fetus" becomes a person that should be protected from murder from things like Late Term Abortion?


He was saying murder. So I corrected your question. If I can answer, I'll say birth.

Late term abortion can/should be reduced/nearly eliminated from society but it is never murder. There is never should never be a criminal aspect to it IMHO.
 
2012-08-24 11:29:41 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.

Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.


And the Derp shines through.
 
2012-08-24 11:29:52 AM

magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.

Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.

Actually it's your side that believes that fetuses are children, but has no problem killing them in the cases of rape or incest.


"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
 
2012-08-24 11:30:56 AM
Between what's going on at the state and federal level...

www.guttmacher.org 

and the fact that Romney, was asked within the last year if he would support a constitutional personhood amendment said "Absolutely"...

and the fact that Ryan co-sponsered a bill with Todd Akin that split hairs between rape and so-called "forceable rape" to justify a ban on abortion with no exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother...

and the fact that the GOP just made "no exceptions" part of the party platform...

and the fact that Romney can't be trusted to hold steady on anything he says about any policy position...

means that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is totally justified.
 
2012-08-24 11:31:03 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.

Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.


Until what age do you approve of the murder of children who were conceived in rape or incest? Is there any age limit or can they be terminated at any point in their lives?
 
2012-08-24 11:31:53 AM

mrshowrules: Late term abortion can/should be reduced/nearly eliminated from society but it is never murder. There is never should never be a criminal aspect to it IMHO.


And yet there are those that say that it is a person once it can live outside of the womb. If a person, is it not murder if it can live outside the womb?

And I'm sorry, but if a woman has an elective abortion late term when the child could survive outside the womb, there should absolutely be a criminal aspect to it.
 
2012-08-24 11:32:17 AM

karmaceutical: At least in Florida, a woman would have the option to kill that unborn baby if she felt like she might be harmed in the birthing process.


You magnificent bastard
 
2012-08-24 11:32:44 AM

HotWingConspiracy: I do know that he picked a running mate that thinks pregnancy means you like rape though.


Okay, here's the thing, Paul Ryan's bill with Akin uses the term forcible rape - yes. But it's a LEGAL term that was used out of context by Akin in his quote, not in the bill. To review what forcible rape is according to the FBI:

"Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded."

Forcible rape is actually defined that way to separate from statutory rape, other consensual sex offenses. The bill which Ryan and Akin co-authored was to prohibit federal funding of abortions except in instances of forcible rape.

Paul Ryan is unapologetically pro-life - and everyone knows that. But the assertion that he thinks some rape is okay because of his proximity to Todd Akin on an abortion bill is irresponsible, untrue and frankly, disgusting.

Welcome to the 2012 campaign.
 
2012-08-24 11:33:09 AM
Anderson Cooper: You do realize that you're lying about Mitt Romney's views on abortion, right..Debbie? Debbie?... "Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down"

Why yes, yes subby. Both sides are equally robotic and bad. I think I will vote Republican.
 
2012-08-24 11:34:33 AM

Notabunny: Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.

Your point?

I think his point is that such an amendment would, by definition, ban all abortion, including those from rape and incest cases.

Lots of people wouldn't agree with such an amendment; however, it represents a philosophically defensible position.

Perhaps it is. But the fact that Mitt Romney supports it indicates that Wasserman-Schulz was not lying when she said he wants to ban abortion in all circumstances, since that's exactly what a personhood amendment would do.

Yup, but supporting the amendment while claiming he favors some exceptions allows him wiggle room for the shills.

Is "allows him wiggle" a euphemism for "pisses off his fundie base"?


He can direct the fundies to the Personhood Amendment and tell everyone else he favors some exceptions. It's classic Romney!
 
2012-08-24 11:36:48 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.

Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.

Actually it's your side that believes that fetuses are children, but has no problem killing them in the cases of rape or incest.

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."


Which is why he supports an amendment because those really keep the government out of the equation.
 
2012-08-24 11:37:02 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.


If life starts at conception is the drinking age now 20 years and 3 months?
 
2012-08-24 11:37:47 AM

mksmith: Galloping Galoshes: whatsupchuck: I guess I won't be voting for Wasserman-Shultz for president now. Nor the Republican candidate.

Who's left?

Nobody, unless you're wedded to voting for hope over experience.

I have experienced a number of appalling right-wing Republican presidents in my adult lifetime, beginning with Richard Nixon, who have worked hard to destroy America and its people. I keep hoping we can elect a series of liberal Democratic presidents and a similarly-controlled Congress who might be able to dig this country out of the shiat-pit the conservatives have dragged it into.


Nixon, right-wing? Paranoid, sleazy, ok, but right-wing? He created the EPA, OSHA, imposed price controls, proposed health care for all employees and the poor, supported the ERA and proposed the first federal affirmative action program, reached out to China, actively supported integration...
Not even close to what would be considered today a right-wing president.
 
2012-08-24 11:38:21 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: mrshowrules: Late term abortion can/should be reduced/nearly eliminated from society but it is never murder. There is never should never be a criminal aspect to it IMHO.

And yet there are those that say that it is a person once it can live outside of the womb. If a person, is it not murder if it can live outside the womb?

And I'm sorry, but if a woman has an elective abortion late term when the child could survive outside the womb, there should absolutely be a criminal aspect to it.


You want to reduce/eliminate late term abortion, the solution is not criminlization of it. It is sex education, birth control, socialized health care and supported organizations like Planned Parenthood.

Look at the stats of the US versus the rest of the world. They are all doing a better job eliminating this as an elective procedure. I'd rather a late term fetus be aborted than be another unwanted child with serious medical problems and disabilities for life.
 
2012-08-24 11:39:56 AM

Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.

Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.

Actually it's your side that believes that fetuses are children, but has no problem killing them in the cases of rape or incest.

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Which is why he supports an amendment because those really keep the government out of the equation.


I wasn't aware that Romney was a Libertarian as I am.
 
2012-08-24 11:39:57 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: mrshowrules: Late term abortion can/should be reduced/nearly eliminated from society but it is never murder. There is never should never be a criminal aspect to it IMHO.

And yet there are those that say that it is a person once it can live outside of the womb. If a person, is it not murder if it can live outside the womb?

And I'm sorry, but if a woman has an elective abortion late term when the child could survive outside the womb, there should absolutely be a criminal aspect to it.


"we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

one of these statements is BS
 
2012-08-24 11:40:25 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish.


No, I'll read into your near plagiarism of the relevant Wiki sentence and sudden change in tone whatever I wish.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You're the one that has no problem with killing children.


Really? Please state where I said this.
 
2012-08-24 11:40:46 AM

magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: mrshowrules: Late term abortion can/should be reduced/nearly eliminated from society but it is never murder. There is never should never be a criminal aspect to it IMHO.

And yet there are those that say that it is a person once it can live outside of the womb. If a person, is it not murder if it can live outside the womb?

And I'm sorry, but if a woman has an elective abortion late term when the child could survive outside the womb, there should absolutely be a criminal aspect to it.

"we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

one of these statements is BS


Do you believe 100% with everything in your party's platform?
 
2012-08-24 11:40:54 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: Because of that pesky constitution-

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Once you define a fetus as human, you can't simply say, well yeah, they are human, they are persons, but we aren't going to apply the constitution to them.

Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?


If we changed that to "conceived," then the GOP could complain about anchor-farking.

/as long is it's not legitimate rape, of course.
 
2012-08-24 11:41:20 AM

lennavan: Anderson Cooper: You do realize that you're lying about Mitt Romney's views on abortion, right..Debbie? Debbie?... "Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down"

Why yes, yes subby. Both sides are equally robotic and bad. I think I will vote Republican.


Subby must misunderstand the robot metaphor, since I don't think anyone would accuse Wasserman-Schultz of being unemotional.
 
2012-08-24 11:41:26 AM

Galloping Galoshes: Dr Dreidel: Galloping Galoshes: Your point? you may not agree, but that's a defensible point of view. Much more defensible than what SCOTUS put forward in Roe v. Wade.

The difference, of course, is that one is settled law, and the other is a philosophy with horrific ramifications for everyone.

All laws may be amended. Your second statement is but one side of the argument. Of course, since the other side disagrees with your position and assumptions, they are either stupid, evil, or both.


In this case, the amending would be done to the Constitution, but theoretically, yes - it could be done. Won't be, but the door's open. Good luck, and I'm sure the next Republican majority will be ALL over making abortion illegal at the federal level. Just like that last time they- oh, wait.

At the state level is where you're having success, but don't look at a list of unplanned pregnancies by state or abortions per state or out-of-wedlock births per state. You may find that women in those states high on each of those lists are the ones that want (need?) the services more, and that doesn't spell good things for the women in those states.

If you don't like the second half of the statement, how about I change the tense? "The difference, of course, is that one is settled law, and the other is a philosophy with that has historically had horrific ramifications for everyone.

Unless you like large families as a rule (with increasing mortality rates for both the women and their later offspring), abortion-seeking women turning to dangerously unhealthy alternatives (possibly killing/hurting themselves and causing grief for everyone they love), and, if you're one of the "Plan B is abortion is murder" types (or worse, "contraception is murder", but I'll credit you with not being that crazy), families not having any options to limit the number of kids they have while also retaining the freedom to bone as they please.

The reasons it should stay legal are:
1) Until someone can logically and scientifically equate a clump of undifferentiated cells implanted (or almost-implanted) in a uterine wall with an infant child, they are different things. We can treat them differently, as we do with under-18 and over-18 (I realize this is orders of magnitude above allowing them to buy cigarrettes).
2) So long as SCOTUS says abortion's legal, it's legal (federally speaking). Stop fighting this battle - you've lost (and the GOP won't help you, same as they haven't since 1973. You've helped them get elected plenty, but have they made abortion illegal yet?). Keep fighting in the states, if you please, but realize that you're only hurting the people, not helping.
3) Your religion does not get to tell me how I live. If my religion says that I must stone adultresses (and assuming you're a Muslim, Jew or Christian, it does), why keep me from carrying out what my religion demands? If my faith says that your giving blood is akin to murder, can I ban you from giving blood?
4) Because people who don't believe abortion is murder have rights, too. They want safe access to legal medical procedures. If we make appendectomies illegal, only outlaws will get appendectomies, but more importantly, only outlaws will perform them.
 
2012-08-24 11:41:48 AM

Galloping Galoshes: mksmith: Galloping Galoshes: whatsupchuck: I guess I won't be voting for Wasserman-Shultz for president now. Nor the Republican candidate.

Who's left?

Nobody, unless you're wedded to voting for hope over experience.

I have experienced a number of appalling right-wing Republican presidents in my adult lifetime, beginning with Richard Nixon, who have worked hard to destroy America and its people. I keep hoping we can elect a series of liberal Democratic presidents and a similarly-controlled Congress who might be able to dig this country out of the shiat-pit the conservatives have dragged it into.

Nixon, right-wing? Paranoid, sleazy, ok, but right-wing? He created the EPA, OSHA, imposed price controls, proposed health care for all employees and the poor, supported the ERA and proposed the first federal affirmative action program, reached out to China, actively supported integration...
Not even close to what would be considered today a right-wing president.


By today's standards Reagan would be considered a moderate to liberal President.
 
2012-08-24 11:41:52 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And yet there are those that say that it is a person once it can live outside of the womb. If a person, is it not murder if it can live outside the womb?

And I'm sorry, but if a woman has an elective abortion late term when the child could survive outside the womb, there should absolutely be a criminal aspect to it.


My philosophical difficulty with that position is that, as medical science advances, the point when a child can survive outside the womb continues to be earlier and earlier. So, can a fetus at a particular point of development not be a person in 2012 but be a person in 2020? What happens when the artificial womb is developed, and all fetuses can safely be born with all development occuring outside the womb?
 
2012-08-24 11:42:43 AM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish.

No, I'll read into your near plagiarism of the relevant Wiki sentence and sudden change in tone whatever I wish.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You're the one that has no problem with killing children.

Really? Please state where I said this.


This just in: stating scientific facts is "near plagiarism" of a wiki page.

And you stated it when you said that you had no problem aborting fetuses that could be viable. Since every fetus is different, you have to set a baseline. You are ok with killing a child that could be viable simply because it is before the cut off date for late term abortions.
 
2012-08-24 11:43:02 AM

skilbride: Paul Ryan is unapologetically pro-life - and everyone knows that. But the assertion that he thinks some rape is okay because of his proximity to Todd Akin on an abortion bill is irresponsible, untrue and frankly, disgusting.


According to your post, he does think some rape is okay, because he wanted to make abortion by statutory rape or incest illegal. Why would you do that?
 
2012-08-24 11:44:36 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And you stated it when you said that you had no problem aborting fetuses that could be viable. Since every fetus is different, you have to set a baseline. You are ok with killing a child that could be viable simply because it is before the cut off date for late term abortions.


Also, viable with or without medical assistance.

For instance, it's possible for a baby to barely be formed and put it in an incubator and survive.

So once we can play god and keep a baby alive with machines outside a womans womb - is that illegal? Or should it be when a baby can survive without machines?
 
2012-08-24 11:44:47 AM

cameroncrazy1984: skilbride: Paul Ryan is unapologetically pro-life - and everyone knows that. But the assertion that he thinks some rape is okay because of his proximity to Todd Akin on an abortion bill is irresponsible, untrue and frankly, disgusting.

According to your post, he does think some rape is okay, because he wanted to make abortion by statutory rape or incest illegal. Why would you do that?


We could just call the rape-caused fetuses "illegal aliens" and the GOP would stick an AR-15 up every victim's coochie.
 
2012-08-24 11:45:06 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And you stated it when you said that you had no problem aborting fetuses that could be viable.


Again, state where I have said this.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Since every fetus is different, you have to set a baseline.


wtfamireading.jpg
 
2012-08-24 11:45:18 AM
www.pleated-jeans.com
I Saper wrmans rhite to chuse
 
2012-08-24 11:45:46 AM

Galloping Galoshes: whatsupchuck: I guess I won't be voting for Wasserman-Shultz for president now. Nor the Republican candidate.

Who's left?

Nobody, unless you're wedded to voting for hope over experience.


There's a candidate who's had more than 4 years of experience as president?
 
2012-08-24 11:46:04 AM

magusdevil: soy_bomb: [i51.tinypic.com image 320x213][i56.tinypic.com image 284x213] 

/God bless her heart
//Democrats please don't let her go!

[weknowmemes.com image 543x351]
Lookout....


www.investors.com

Whoa!
 
2012-08-24 11:47:01 AM

skilbride: HotWingConspiracy: I do know that he picked a running mate that thinks pregnancy means you like rape though.

Forcible rape is actually defined that way to separate from statutory rape, other consensual sex offenses. The bill which Ryan and Akin co-authored was to prohibit federal funding of abortions except in instances of forcible rape.

Paul Ryan is unapologetically pro-life - and everyone knows that. But the assertion that he thinks some rape is okay because of his proximity to Todd Akin on an abortion bill is irresponsible, untrue and frankly, disgusting.

Welcome to the 2012 campaign.


Consensual sex offenses are not rape. Statutory rape exists as a concept because minors can not legally consent to sex.

Nobody who matters is saying that Ryan thinks some rape is OK. Nobody who matters is saying that Ryan believes that women who are raped can prevent conception.

People are correctly saying that Ryan and Romney and the GOP - and Todd Akin are on the same page: no exceptions for incest, rape, or the health of the mother. No amount of Romney/Ryan flip flopping can change that.
 
2012-08-24 11:47:05 AM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: And you stated it when you said that you had no problem aborting fetuses that could be viable.

Again, state where I have said this.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Since every fetus is different, you have to set a baseline.

wtfamireading.jpg


Are you going to personally determine if each fetus is viable? If not, then you have to set a baseline at which "most" will be. Some will be viable before that cutoff where abortion is determined to not be ok. You are fine with aborting those viable fetuses as long as they are before the cutoff.
 
2012-08-24 11:48:52 AM

Galloping Galoshes: whatsupchuck: I guess I won't be voting for Wasserman-Shultz for president now. Nor the Republican candidate.

Who's left?

Nobody, unless you're wedded to voting for hope over experience.


There are precisely four people on the planet right now who have more experience as President of the United States than Obama, and two of them are ineligible to run again.
 
2012-08-24 11:49:17 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: If not, then you have to set a baseline at which "most" will be.


Why do "you" have to do anything? Why can't we let the actual doctors decide? Oh wait, we do that already. Go away now.
 
2012-08-24 11:50:13 AM

cameroncrazy1984: According to your post, he does think some rape is okay, because he wanted to make abortion by statutory rape or incest illegal. Why would you do that?


Now you're getting into the legalese of the mess. Here's how it rolls out:

Statutory rape is actually forcible rape no matter how you work is because they aren't considered adults in the eyes of the law and therefore can not make their own decisions.

In instances where a father rapes his teenage daughter, it's statutory and incest.

If a father rapes his 18 year old daughter by drugging her, it's forcible and incest.

The only people really blocked by using federal funding by the bill would have been people over the age of 18 who banged family members.

At the end of the day, the only thing the bill did was block federal funding to abortions which didn't fall under the forcible / statutory rape.
 
2012-08-24 11:50:25 AM

skilbride: HotWingConspiracy: I do know that he picked a running mate that thinks pregnancy means you like rape though.

Okay, here's the thing, Paul Ryan's bill with Akin uses the term forcible rape - yes. But it's a LEGAL term that was used out of context by Akin in his quote, not in the bill. To review what forcible rape is according to the FBI:

"Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded."

Forcible rape is actually defined that way to separate from statutory rape, other consensual sex offenses. The bill which Ryan and Akin co-authored was to prohibit federal funding of abortions except in instances of forcible rape.

Paul Ryan is unapologetically pro-life - and everyone knows that. But the assertion that he thinks some rape is okay because of his proximity to Todd Akin on an abortion bill is irresponsible, untrue and frankly, disgusting.

Welcome to the 2012 campaign.


The FBI's UCR? Heavens to Betsy, that undoes all the criticism of Todd Akin!

Or, if you bothered understanding the acronym, the FBI differentiates between forcible rapes and "non-"forcible rapes for the purposes of statistical record-keeping. Both are still illegal and both are "legitimate" crimes and both are still rape, and - crucially - both are treated the same on an enforcement level.

What the FBI does is separate forcible from non-forcible into two statistical categories for reporting purposes. What Akin/Ryan's bill would have done is only allowed federal funding for an abortion if a woman can prove assault with her rape. Still think there's no difference?
 
2012-08-24 11:50:39 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Are you going to personally determine if each fetus is viable?


No, I'm not a doctor. Nor would it be sensible to have me personally wander the nation checking pregnancies of fetuses.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: If not, then you have to set a baseline at which "most" will be.


No, you don't.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And you stated it when you said that you had no problem aborting fetuses that could be viable.


Again, state where I have said this.
 
2012-08-24 11:51:25 AM

Fart_Machine: Notabunny: Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.

Your point?

I think his point is that such an amendment would, by definition, ban all abortion, including those from rape and incest cases.

Lots of people wouldn't agree with such an amendment; however, it represents a philosophically defensible position.

Perhaps it is. But the fact that Mitt Romney supports it indicates that Wasserman-Schulz was not lying when she said he wants to ban abortion in all circumstances, since that's exactly what a personhood amendment would do.

Yup, but supporting the amendment while claiming he favors some exceptions allows him wiggle room for the shills.

Is "allows him wiggle" a euphemism for "pisses off his fundie base"?

He can direct the fundies to the Personhood Amendment and tell everyone else he favors some exceptions. It's classic Romney!


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-24 11:52:12 AM

skilbride: At the end of the day, the only thing the bill did was block federal funding to abortions which didn't fall under the forcible / statutory rape.


So, it did something that is already prohibited under the Hyde Amendment? What's the point of that?
 
2012-08-24 11:52:36 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.

Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.

Actually it's your side that believes that fetuses are children, but has no problem killing them in the cases of rape or incest.

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Which is why he supports an amendment because those really keep the government out of the equation.

I wasn't aware that Romney was a Libertarian as I am.


So you agree that such an amendment would be overreaching then and make any exceptions illegal.
 
2012-08-24 11:53:34 AM

cameroncrazy1984: skilbride: At the end of the day, the only thing the bill did was block federal funding to abortions which didn't fall under the forcible / statutory rape.

So, it did something that is already prohibited under the Hyde Amendment? What's the point of that?


Because congress is totally inefficient and full of a bunch of narcissistic assholes? :)

/ I think we can all agree on that?
 
2012-08-24 11:54:58 AM

skilbride: cameroncrazy1984: skilbride: At the end of the day, the only thing the bill did was block federal funding to abortions which didn't fall under the forcible / statutory rape.

So, it did something that is already prohibited under the Hyde Amendment? What's the point of that?

Because congress is totally inefficient and full of a bunch of narcissistic assholes? :)

/ I think we can all agree on that?


And by Congress, you mean the current Vice Presidential candidate from the Republican party. You don't see Democrats putting forth bills making something illegal that already is illegal.
 
2012-08-24 11:56:11 AM
Political mouthpieces stretch the truth to gain points for their party. Film at never because it's not farking newsworthy
 
2012-08-24 11:57:12 AM

Dr Dreidel: Galloping Galoshes: Your point? you may not agree, but that's a defensible point of view. Much more defensible than what SCOTUS put forward in Roe v. Wade.

The difference, of course, is that one is settled law, and the other is a philosophy with horrific ramifications for everyone.


Aaaaand what SCOTUS established in Roe v. Wade is almost exactly what was the accepted standard under English common law for somewhere around 800 years.

Broadly accepted compromises that allow a society to function: how do they work?
 
2012-08-24 11:57:52 AM

Dr Dreidel: that has historically had horrific ramifications for everyone.


Your absolutism is misplaced and incorrect.

Dr Dreidel: families not having any options to limit the number of kids they have while also retaining the freedom to bone as they please.


Abortion as contraception I disagree with. Take some responsibility for your actions.

Dr Dreidel: 1) Until someone can logically and scientifically equate a clump of undifferentiated cells implanted (or almost-implanted) in a uterine wall with an infant child, they are different things. We can treat them differently, as we do with under-18 and over-18 (I realize this is orders of magnitude above allowing them to buy cigarrettes).


Until science can tell us when a fetus is a child, I would go the other way.

Dr Dreidel: So long as SCOTUS says abortion's legal, it's legal (federally speaking). Stop fighting this battle - you've lost


"So long as" implies that change is possible, so people won't stop fighting. Also, they won't stop just because their opponents tell them to.

Dr Dreidel: Your religion does not get to tell me how I live. If my religion says that I must stone adultresses (and assuming you're a Muslim, Jew or Christian, it does), why keep me from carrying out what my religion demands? If my faith says that your giving blood is akin to murder, can I ban you from giving blood?


I don't get your point.

Dr Dreidel: Because people who don't believe abortion is murder have rights, too.


Everyone has rights, and they frequently conflict. I understand your arguments (well, all but the one) and I don't claim they aren't valid. Some woman carrying a baby, that she doesn't want, to term is not good for her, and probably not for the child either. In the case of a rape, the pregnancy will be a horrible reminder of what happened. However, I see the child as an innocent who shouldn't lose his/her life over the bad act of someone else. There are options other than abortion. So between the two options, I err on the side of life for the child. I see it a bit like capital punishment. Yes, the criminal that's killed will never commit a crime again, but what about the innocent man? And our criminal justice system is so good at convicting the innocent that I just can't support capital punishment right now.
 
2012-08-24 11:58:30 AM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Are you going to personally determine if each fetus is viable?

No, I'm not a doctor. Nor would it be sensible to have me personally wander the nation checking pregnancies of fetuses.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: If not, then you have to set a baseline at which "most" will be.

No, you don't.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And you stated it when you said that you had no problem aborting fetuses that could be viable.

Again, state where I have said this.


Late term abortions are already regulated at the state level and happen with such infrequency that his entire argument is an emotion-based canard.
 
Displayed 50 of 355 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report