Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(American Thinker)   American Thinker: what to say when asked about abortion. Article ends with "Press: But you didn't answer the question, Do you support abortion in the case of incest or rape?" Candidate: I'm not going to fall into your trap of sound-bite simplicity   (americanthinker.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, abortions, Republican, moral absolutism, Infraction  
•       •       •

1593 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Nov 2012 at 9:39 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-13 09:08:09 AM  

imageshack.us

 
2012-11-13 09:10:34 AM  
Someone get this man a new chicken.
 
2012-11-13 09:12:40 AM  
Honestly, and this goes for the right and the left: abortion isn't going away. The Supreme Court isn't likely to disturb Roe. It had it's chances years ago, and passed, and basically affirmed it in Casey. I know the candidates and the parties like to make a lot of hay by leaning on it, but it's got to be one of the biggest red herrings in politics. Abortion is not an easy thing for people to discuss. It's an emotional issue. We can debate the ethics and morality of it until the end of time, but in my mind, the legality of it as it stands in this country is settled. Unfortunately, I don't think there are many politicians in either party who could say that without inflaming people on both sides of the debate and getting skewered in the press.
 
2012-11-13 09:14:15 AM  
Raharu:

Awesome.
 
2012-11-13 09:24:51 AM  
Sometimes you read things hoping they're satirical.
 
2012-11-13 09:26:40 AM  

Raharu: [imageshack.us image 660x393]


I think we've gone past potato at this point.
 
2012-11-13 09:27:14 AM  

ManateeGag: Raharu: [imageshack.us image 660x393]

I think we've gone past potato at this point.


Whats past Potato?
 
2012-11-13 09:31:10 AM  

Raharu: ManateeGag: Raharu: [imageshack.us image 660x393]

I think we've gone past potato at this point.

Whats past Potato?


Rutabaga.
 
2012-11-13 09:33:50 AM  

clancifer: Raharu:

Awesome.


Concur! Consider it "stolen".
 
2012-11-13 09:35:00 AM  

Nabb1: Honestly, and this goes for the right and the left: abortion isn't going away. The Supreme Court isn't likely to disturb Roe. It had it's chances years ago, and passed, and basically affirmed it in Casey. I know the candidates and the parties like to make a lot of hay by leaning on it, but it's got to be one of the biggest red herrings in politics. Abortion is not an easy thing for people to discuss. It's an emotional issue. We can debate the ethics and morality of it until the end of time, but in my mind, the legality of it as it stands in this country is settled. Unfortunately, I don't think there are many politicians in either party who could say that without inflaming people on both sides of the debate and getting skewered in the press.


Let's see what a constitutional law professor has to say about this assumption:

The Supreme Court: The Best Reason to Vote Against Mitt Romney
 
2012-11-13 09:41:51 AM  

Nabb1: Honestly, and this goes for the right and the left: abortion isn't going away. The Supreme Court isn't likely to disturb Roe. It had it's chances years ago, and passed, and basically affirmed it in Casey. I know the candidates and the parties like to make a lot of hay by leaning on it, but it's got to be one of the biggest red herrings in politics. Abortion is not an easy thing for people to discuss. It's an emotional issue. We can debate the ethics and morality of it until the end of time, but in my mind, the legality of it as it stands in this country is settled. Unfortunately, I don't think there are many politicians in either party who could say that without inflaming people on both sides of the debate and getting skewered in the press.


The laws requiring an unnecessary vaginal ultrasound definitely tells me that this issue has been settled.
 
2012-11-13 09:41:57 AM  
Yea, that'll work.
 
2012-11-13 09:42:42 AM  

Raharu: ManateeGag: Raharu: [imageshack.us image 660x393]

I think we've gone past potato at this point.

Whats past Potato?


It's potatoes all the way down.
 
2012-11-13 09:46:09 AM  

Cythraul: Nabb1: Honestly, and this goes for the right and the left: abortion isn't going away. The Supreme Court isn't likely to disturb Roe. It had it's chances years ago, and passed, and basically affirmed it in Casey. I know the candidates and the parties like to make a lot of hay by leaning on it, but it's got to be one of the biggest red herrings in politics. Abortion is not an easy thing for people to discuss. It's an emotional issue. We can debate the ethics and morality of it until the end of time, but in my mind, the legality of it as it stands in this country is settled. Unfortunately, I don't think there are many politicians in either party who could say that without inflaming people on both sides of the debate and getting skewered in the press.

The laws requiring an unnecessary vaginal ultrasound definitely tells me that this issue has been settled.


And all those new attempts at shutting down any clinics that didn't have janitorial closets of the exact new dimensions (really), and saying that they can be open, but only on Tuesday afternoons between 1:30 and 1:45, and you have to have 48 hours of religious "counselling" first (because the poorest women travelling out of town or even out of state for one totally have access to cars and hotels and can take a week off work), etc, etc.
 
2012-11-13 09:46:41 AM  

xenophon10k: Raharu: ManateeGag: Raharu: [imageshack.us image 660x393]

I think we've gone past potato at this point.

Whats past Potato?

Rutabaga.


If only they had stopped at Firetruck.
 
2012-11-13 09:46:54 AM  

sprawl15: Raharu: ManateeGag: Raharu: [imageshack.us image 660x393]

I think we've gone past potato at this point.

Whats past Potato?

It's potatoes all the way down.


Derp World. 

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-13 09:47:10 AM  
Posted yesterday in the Karen Hughes thread:

What a good candidate would do is say (assuming the truth of this) "Though I may personally disagree with my constituency's support of legal access to abortion in the case of rape, I could not in good conscience support a bill [like X] that could sentence the victims of a horrible, horrible crime to further abuses. How she (and if she allows, her family) chooses to safely recover is of no business to the state, and we would of course support her in any way we could."

*drops mic, walks away*

// if they could fathom nuance, that might be a good step
 
2012-11-13 09:48:56 AM  
img.photobucket.com

Holy impending Thinker trifecta, Batman.
 
2012-11-13 09:52:16 AM  

Cythraul: Nabb1: Honestly, and this goes for the right and the left: abortion isn't going away. The Supreme Court isn't likely to disturb Roe. It had it's chances years ago, and passed, and basically affirmed it in Casey. I know the candidates and the parties like to make a lot of hay by leaning on it, but it's got to be one of the biggest red herrings in politics. Abortion is not an easy thing for people to discuss. It's an emotional issue. We can debate the ethics and morality of it until the end of time, but in my mind, the legality of it as it stands in this country is settled. Unfortunately, I don't think there are many politicians in either party who could say that without inflaming people on both sides of the debate and getting skewered in the press.

The laws requiring an unnecessary vaginal ultrasound definitely tells me that this issue has been settled.


That and the states that are passing laws declaring that every abortion clinic must have at least 43 broom closets, and 19 dump sinks.

But hey, abortion is still technically legal.
 
2012-11-13 09:56:07 AM  
On the right, the anti-abortion position has become ossified as "the sanctity of human life." On the left, the pro-abortion position has become sanctified as "a woman's right to choose." These positions are presented as moral absolutes, and there is precious little room for discussion or moderation.

There's not much to discuss or moderate when the two arguments are fundamentally different. Therefore, the question that should be asked is "Which right is more important?"
 
2012-11-13 09:57:18 AM  

Cythraul: Nabb1: Honestly, and this goes for the right and the left: abortion isn't going away. The Supreme Court isn't likely to disturb Roe. It had it's chances years ago, and passed, and basically affirmed it in Casey. I know the candidates and the parties like to make a lot of hay by leaning on it, but it's got to be one of the biggest red herrings in politics. Abortion is not an easy thing for people to discuss. It's an emotional issue. We can debate the ethics and morality of it until the end of time, but in my mind, the legality of it as it stands in this country is settled. Unfortunately, I don't think there are many politicians in either party who could say that without inflaming people on both sides of the debate and getting skewered in the press.

The laws requiring an unnecessary vaginal ultrasound definitely tells me that this issue has been settled.


I doubt those will stand or that they will lead to a reversal of Roe. I'm just skeptical that the Court will suddenly take it up after basically twenty years since the last major abortion case and forty years after Roe.
 
2012-11-13 09:58:12 AM  

Raharu: ManateeGag: Raharu: [imageshack.us image 660x393]

I think we've gone past potato at this point.

Whats past Potato?


Quivering chicken feathers.
 
2012-11-13 10:01:17 AM  
Press: Do you support abortion in the case of incest or rape?

Candidate: If I say yes, I lose the primary election, and if I say no, I lose the general election.
 
2012-11-13 10:04:05 AM  
i have a great idea. How about the candidates say where they stand on the position and let the voters decide!
 
2012-11-13 10:04:26 AM  
The most hilarious part of this is they continue to believe their problem is 'the way we talk about rape" not YOUR ACTUAL FARKING VIEWS ON RAPE.

/Rape Leopard for President
 
2012-11-13 10:04:26 AM  

Nabb1: Honestly, and this goes for the right and the left: abortion isn't going away. The Supreme Court isn't likely to disturb Roe. It had it's chances years ago, and passed, and basically affirmed it in Casey. I know the candidates and the parties like to make a lot of hay by leaning on it, but it's got to be one of the biggest red herrings in politics. Abortion is not an easy thing for people to discuss. It's an emotional issue. We can debate the ethics and morality of it until the end of time, but in my mind, the legality of it as it stands in this country is settled. Unfortunately, I don't think there are many politicians in either party who could say that without inflaming people on both sides of the debate and getting skewered in the press.



Yep, everyone likes to have their rights riding on a 5-4 vote. I'm sure they'll be consoled by knowing it's just "an emotional issue."

I'm not sure you could have phrased that in a more condescending way but wanna give it a try?
 
2012-11-13 10:04:56 AM  

xenophon10k: Raharu: ManateeGag: Raharu: [imageshack.us image 660x393]

I think we've gone past potato at this point.

Whats past Potato?

Rutabaga.


Arugala.
 
2012-11-13 10:05:21 AM  
This thread demands more Torg.
 
2012-11-13 10:08:29 AM  
How often is the "press" asking questions about rape just out of the blue?

And how much has been brought on by these idiots rattling their traps about something that they should never have even mentioned in the first place?
 
2012-11-13 10:09:17 AM  

aug3: i have a great idea. How about the candidates say where they stand on the position and let the voters decide!


In the past, this has been disastrous for the batshiat insane party. Better to let our media outlets scrub the message and pin it on the black guy.
 
2012-11-13 10:09:20 AM  

Nabb1: Honestly, and this goes for the right and the left: abortion isn't going away. The Supreme Court isn't likely to disturb Roe. It had it's chances years ago, and passed, and basically affirmed it in Casey. I know the candidates and the parties like to make a lot of hay by leaning on it, but it's got to be one of the biggest red herrings in politics. Abortion is not an easy thing for people to discuss. It's an emotional issue. We can debate the ethics and morality of it until the end of time, but in my mind, the legality of it as it stands in this country is settled. Unfortunately, I don't think there are many politicians in either party who could say that without inflaming people on both sides of the debate and getting skewered in the press.


Both sides are bad so vote to force women to have rape babies.
 
2012-11-13 10:12:10 AM  

Epoch_Zero: This thread demands more Torg.


ok, but...you asked for it!

paizo.com

paizo.com

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-13 10:16:54 AM  
The abortion issue is far from settled, despite Nabb1's claims to the contrary. It's a lot more complex than simply saying Roe v. Wade will likely hold. For example, just this year we've had two major attacks on Planned Parenthood's funding: one from Susan G. Komen and the other from the Federal Government. Both jeopardized important health care services for women because Planned Parenthood also provides abortions. And in addition to countless state-level restrictions, there's this:

Per NPR:
The annual spending bill for the Department of Health and Human Services, which is slowly making its way to the floor, includes a raft of abortion-related provisions. They include complete defunding of the federal family planning program, a separate ban on federal funding for Planned Parenthood until it pledges to stop using non-federal funds to pay for abortions, and a ban on using funds to implement rules requiring most health plans to provide birth control coverage.

The funny part is the so-called anti-abortion folks want to defund family planning, which will lead to - wait for it - more abortions. Oh well, nobody ever accused them of being very bright.
 
2012-11-13 10:19:17 AM  

aug3: i have a great idea. How about the candidates say where they stand on the position and let the voters decide!


That happened twice in this last election cycle. Both times the candidates were crucified in the press for things they did not actually say.

It is very clear that if you are ask a tough question the best thing a candidate can do is duck the question.
 
2012-11-13 10:19:27 AM  
I think that was the most reasonable sounding thing I've ever read on American Thinker
 
2012-11-13 10:24:59 AM  

skullkrusher: I think that was the most reasonable sounding thing I've ever read on American Thinker


Right up until the end, when Whargarble.
 
2012-11-13 10:28:06 AM  

Raharu: ManateeGag: Raharu: [imageshack.us image 660x393]

I think we've gone past potato at this point.

Whats past Potato?


Plaid.
 
2012-11-13 10:29:36 AM  

Cythraul: Nabb1: Honestly, and this goes for the right and the left: abortion isn't going away. The Supreme Court isn't likely to disturb Roe. It had it's chances years ago, and passed, and basically affirmed it in Casey. I know the candidates and the parties like to make a lot of hay by leaning on it, but it's got to be one of the biggest red herrings in politics. Abortion is not an easy thing for people to discuss. It's an emotional issue. We can debate the ethics and morality of it until the end of time, but in my mind, the legality of it as it stands in this country is settled. Unfortunately, I don't think there are many politicians in either party who could say that without inflaming people on both sides of the debate and getting skewered in the press.

The laws requiring an unnecessary vaginal ultrasound definitely tells me that this issue has been settled.


Yeah....
 
2012-11-13 10:30:05 AM  

skullkrusher: I think that was the most reasonable sounding thing I've ever read on American Thinker


That's a little like saying: "This is the best-directed Uwe Boll film I've seen."
 
2012-11-13 10:32:43 AM  

clkeagle: How often is the "press" asking questions about rape just out of the blue?

And how much has been brought on by these idiots rattling their traps about something that they should never have even mentioned in the first place?


There was a reporter in PA who asked about Akin's remarks and the candidate's response. The candidate responded that he understood what it was like to make a decision about a rape pregnancy because a family member of his once was pregnant out of wedlock.

He lost.
 
2012-11-13 10:33:27 AM  

Raharu: skullkrusher: I think that was the most reasonable sounding thing I've ever read on American Thinker

Right up until the end, when Whargarble.


I think the point of the end was just to say "It's more nuanced than that". Support abortion in the case of rape with the above caveats and changes over time and blah blah. A simple, blanket yes or no answer isn't sufficient - at least that's what I took the point to mean.
 
2012-11-13 10:34:01 AM  
indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com
 
2012-11-13 10:34:09 AM  

jso2897: skullkrusher: I think that was the most reasonable sounding thing I've ever read on American Thinker

That's a little like saying: "This is the best-directed Uwe Boll film I've seen."


beyond that - it was actually a pretty reasonable piece by any metric
 
2012-11-13 10:37:05 AM  

pdee: aug3: i have a great idea. How about the candidates say where they stand on the position and let the voters decide!

That happened twice in this last election cycle. Both times the candidates were crucified in the press for things they did not actually say.

It is very clear that if you are ask a tough question the best thing a candidate can do is duck the question.


So someone altered their quotes?
 
2012-11-13 10:40:39 AM  
There's a real simple answer for conservatives to give when asked the question:

I believe that at the moment of conception, a human being exists. One human being should not be able to kill another innocent human life, unless their is a reasonable belief that failing to do so would result in their own death (or significant bodily injury). To reiterate, a human being inside a womb should be treated no differently than a one-year old human being. If a child was one year old, and you learned that he or she was conceived during a rape, no reasonable person would advocate killing the child - it would be barbaric. It would be nonsense to even consider it ... just as it is nonsense to consider killing a not-yet-born human being because of the circumstances of his or her conception.
 
2012-11-13 10:43:02 AM  

SunsetLament: There's a real simple answer for conservatives to give when asked the question:

I believe that at the moment of conception, a human being exists. One human being should not be able to kill another innocent human life, unless their is a reasonable belief that failing to do so would result in their own death (or significant bodily injury). To reiterate, a human being inside a womb should be treated no differently than a one-year old human being. If a child was one year old, and you learned that he or she was conceived during a rape, no reasonable person would advocate killing the child - it would be barbaric. It would be nonsense to even consider it ... just as it is nonsense to consider killing a not-yet-born human being because of the circumstances of his or her conception.


So destroying fertilized eggs is the same as killing a one year old.
 
2012-11-13 10:44:18 AM  

Fart_Machine: SunsetLament: There's a real simple answer for conservatives to give when asked the question:

I believe that at the moment of conception, a human being exists. One human being should not be able to kill another innocent human life, unless their is a reasonable belief that failing to do so would result in their own death (or significant bodily injury). To reiterate, a human being inside a womb should be treated no differently than a one-year old human being. If a child was one year old, and you learned that he or she was conceived during a rape, no reasonable person would advocate killing the child - it would be barbaric. It would be nonsense to even consider it ... just as it is nonsense to consider killing a not-yet-born human being because of the circumstances of his or her conception.

So destroying fertilized eggs is the same as killing a one year old.


And every fertilized egg that fails to embed in the uterine wall should be investigated with as much rigor as any other death of a child.
 
2012-11-13 10:46:15 AM  
So to summarize this article they realize their views are reprehensible to the majority of Americans so the solution is to obscure it from the public.
 
2012-11-13 10:46:18 AM  

BSABSVR: Cythraul: Nabb1: Honestly, and this goes for the right and the left: abortion isn't going away. The Supreme Court isn't likely to disturb Roe. It had it's chances years ago, and passed, and basically affirmed it in Casey. I know the candidates and the parties like to make a lot of hay by leaning on it, but it's got to be one of the biggest red herrings in politics. Abortion is not an easy thing for people to discuss. It's an emotional issue. We can debate the ethics and morality of it until the end of time, but in my mind, the legality of it as it stands in this country is settled. Unfortunately, I don't think there are many politicians in either party who could say that without inflaming people on both sides of the debate and getting skewered in the press.

The laws requiring an unnecessary vaginal ultrasound definitely tells me that this issue has been settled.

That and the states that are passing laws declaring that every abortion clinic must have at least 43 broom closets, and 19 dump sinks.

But hey, abortion is still technically legal.


And Republicans are still technically opposed to big government and excessive regulation.
 
2012-11-13 10:46:20 AM  

Fart_Machine: SunsetLament: There's a real simple answer for conservatives to give when asked the question:

I believe that at the moment of conception, a human being exists. One human being should not be able to kill another innocent human life, unless their is a reasonable belief that failing to do so would result in their own death (or significant bodily injury). To reiterate, a human being inside a womb should be treated no differently than a one-year old human being. If a child was one year old, and you learned that he or she was conceived during a rape, no reasonable person would advocate killing the child - it would be barbaric. It would be nonsense to even consider it ... just as it is nonsense to consider killing a not-yet-born human being because of the circumstances of his or her conception.

So destroying fertilized eggs is the same as killing a one year old.


The sad thing is this is actually the argument of the pro-life movement.

But if that same kid needs welfare in some shape or form, these same pro-lifers would be more than willing to provide it to the kid so that he/she can grow up with out having to starve to death or turn into a criminal right?
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report