Again?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    When Todd Akin made his comments regarding legitimate rape the Romney campaign asked that he drop from the race.  Will that be the case with Mourdock as well?  I would hope so, considering Romney endorsed his candidacy and Paul made a contribution to his election efforts.  Not asking the same of Mourdock would be a huge flip flop especially as Romney is trying to make a case to female voters. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Can't have people claiming that life comes from God.  That's just crazy talk!

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    When Todd Akin made his comments regarding legitimate rape the Romney campaign asked that he drop from the race.  Will that be the case with Mourdock as well?  I would hope so, considering Romney endorsed his candidacy and Paul made a contribution to his election efforts.  Not asking the same of Mourdock would be a huge flip flop especially as Romney is trying to make a case to female voters. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Can't have people claiming that life comes from God.  That's just crazy talk!

    [/QUOTE]

    Well...it kinda is actually

    [/QUOTE]

    So, you want to kill the people who were born out of rape, and survived/avoided abortion?  Is that your position?  You must, after all, you don't seem to think their lives have any value.

    That's the crazy talk.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Again?

    I do love when you conservatives try to hide behind the bible for your Talibanesque political opinions on women and reproductive rights.  It just demonstrates that your position has no logical merit and relies instead on insisting that a book of scripture decide public policy, kind of like Sharia law, but only different somehow.

    And for the record I am totally sure that if one of you knuckledragging cultural misongynists were to have a sister, female cousin, aunt, or maybe even mother raped you'd be RIGHT THERE to provide the comfort that person would need to see their brutal assault as a blessing from god.  Which, admittedly, is much better than stoning her to death for bringing dishonor to your family.

    So pat yourself on the back you guys, you aren't quite as bad as the most backwards and despicable people on the planet.  You are slightly better!

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    When Todd Akin made his comments regarding legitimate rape the Romney campaign asked that he drop from the race.  Will that be the case with Mourdock as well?  I would hope so, considering Romney endorsed his candidacy and Paul made a contribution to his election efforts.  Not asking the same of Mourdock would be a huge flip flop especially as Romney is trying to make a case to female voters. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Can't have people claiming that life comes from God.  That's just crazy talk!

    [/QUOTE]

    Well...it kinda is actually

    [/QUOTE]

    So, you want to kill the people who were born out of rape, and survived/avoided abortion?  Is that your position?  You must, after all, you don't seem to think their lives have any value.

    That's the crazy talk.

    [/QUOTE]

    I want women to continue to have a CHOICE as to whether they want to keep or not keep a fetus conceived by rape. Not sure why you struggle to get that.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Where we differ is that I recognize another life has entered into the equation, and I am hessitant to zero out that life based on political philosophy. You are fully committed to the mother being able to kill her baby based on political philosophy.

    I struggle with it because the life created is innocent, is it not?  Left alone, it would grow into a self-sufficent person.  I think that is worth pausing and thinking this through before leaping to killing off this life.

    Read some of the stories on the link I sent.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I do love when you conservatives try to hide behind the bible for your Talibanesque political opinions on women and reproductive rights.  It just demonstrates that your position has no logical merit and relies instead on insisting that a book of scripture decide public policy, kind of like Sharia law, but only different somehow.

    And for the record I am totally sure that if one of you knuckledragging cultural misongynists were to have a sister, female cousin, aunt, or maybe even mother raped you'd be RIGHT THERE to provide the comfort that person would need to see their brutal assault as a blessing from god.  Which, admittedly, is much better than stoning her to death for bringing dishonor to your family.

    So pat yourself on the back you guys, you aren't quite as bad as the most backwards and despicable people on the planet.  You are slightly better!

    [/QUOTE]

    You have issues, guy.  Seek help.

    Wanting to take pause to discuss the issue, and not leaping immediately to the position of the life-killing left is reasonable, wouldn't you say?  Or, is thinking this through not required. Just sign up for the Panned Parenthood point of view:  Babies are inconvienent, we'll kill 'em for you.

    The position on the left is solely focused on the "rights" of the mother, without any regard to the "rights" of the unborn.  That the left has to take such a limited issue and blow it way out of proportion, not allowing the opposition to their ideasto be considered, is tragic.  The left has become the feeding ground of the closed mind.

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Again?

    As far as I'm concerned, the minute a candidate for office (or already in office) starts spouting about God and God's will, he's no longer speaking as a legislator who speaks for all his constituents.

    He has crossed a line.

    He may believe that being raped is God's will, but in a civil society, governed by laws, he has no right to impose his religious beliefs on others.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Again?

    Lets not move the goalposts, because your position is important and hiding behind the bible is not satisfactory.

    The bible is not the law of the land.

    The laws of the land have clearly stated that abortion is legal, i.e. women have a choice with respect to terminating a pregnancy.

    So for Mourdock to state rape that results in a pregnancy is god's will is a matter of his personal faith and interpretation of his religion. For him to apply that standard, potentially, to the laws of the land is a different matter altogether and netiher his opinion on the matter nor his reasons for forming that opinion are out of bounds.  

    None of which changes the fact that apparently many of you feel the same way and would apparently advise female friends and loved ones to carry a baby to term despite the fact that some waste of life assaulted her and one of his sperm was able to reach one of her eggs.  That she did nothing to ask for that baby is irrelevant.   That she may have been powerless to prevent the act of violence against her is irrelevant.  The only thing you...people...care about is that a sperm and egg came together and as a result that union should be protected by the force of the state even if it is against the individual's wishes.

    Individual liberty, right guys?

    Yeah, so when I say that anyone who carries these beliefs are Talibanesque I am not saying it for effect.  When I say that anyone who carries these beliefs are really just advocates for a theocratic system of laws, like Sharia, I am not saying it for hyperbole.  And when I say that anyone who holds these beliefs are just a notch above those that would stone a woman for being raped, I beleive I am telling the truth.   Hide behind your bible all you want boys, but the truth is you aren't any better than the backwards cave dwelling would be theocrats in Afganistan, or the hills of Pakistan, or any other jihadist hotbed.  You are literally the American Taliban when it comes to womens reproductive rights. 

    So you have that going for you.  Which is...something.   

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You are fully committed to the mother being able to kill her baby based on political philosophy.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ah but that is where you are confused. For a woman who has been raped and impregnated, politics is the LAST thing on her mind. Rape is a vile, hateful, disgusting act which likely scars women for the rest of their lives. Most would not want a child conceived from such an act. Those who don't mind can CHOOSE to keep the fetus. Those who do mind can CHOOSE not to keep the fetus.

    Why do you feel it's your business to decide that a rape victim should have to give birth to a child they don't want?

    [/QUOTE]

    I have yet to hear a raped women weigh in on this discussion.  I have posted several stories from babies (now adults) who have bee nborn under these circumstances.

    The rest of you are engaged in the worst political behavior: feigning outrage.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Lets not move the goalposts, because your position is important and hiding behind the bible is not satisfactory.

    The bible is not the law of the land.

    The laws of the land have clearly stated that abortion is legal, i.e. women have a choice with respect to terminating a pregnancy.

    So for Mourdock to state rape that results in a pregnancy is god's will is a matter of his personal faith and interpretation of his religion. For him to apply that standard, potentially, to the laws of the land is a different matter altogether and netiher his opinion on the matter nor his reasons for forming that opinion are out of bounds.  

    None of which changes the fact that apparently many of you feel the same way and would apparently advise female friends and loved ones to carry a baby to term despite the fact that some waste of life assaulted her and one of his sperm was able to reach one of her eggs.  That she did nothing to ask for that baby is irrelevant.   That she may have been powerless to prevent the act of violence against her is irrelevant.  The only thing you...people...care about is that a sperm and egg came together and as a result that union should be protected by the force of the state even if it is against the individual's wishes.

    Individual liberty, right guys?

    Yeah, so when I say that anyone who carries these beliefs are Talibanesque I am not saying it for effect.  When I say that anyone who carries these beliefs are really just advocates for a theocratic system of laws, like Sharia, I am not saying it for hyperbole.  And when I say that anyone who holds these beliefs are just a notch above those that would stone a woman for being raped, I beleive I am telling the truth.   Hide behind your bible all you want boys, but the truth is you aren't any better than the backwards cave dwelling would be theocrats in Afganistan, or the hills of Pakistan, or any other jihadist hotbed.  You are literally the American Taliban when it comes to womens reproductive rights. 

    So you have that going for you.  Which is...something.   

    [/QUOTE]

    You are correct that abortion is the law of the land.  I must respect that, but, must I also agree is is correct?

    This is the new left:  Agree with our political philosophy or we will bring the house down on top of you.

     

    As far as the bible, I'm not hiding behind anything, including the bible.  Your arbritray assignment of the life of a product of rape as unworthy of existence does not stand the thinnest of moral judgements.

    So, you stand behind an arbritrary, unscientific definition of life.  That's hideous.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You are fully committed to the mother being able to kill her baby based on political philosophy.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ah but that is where you are confused. For a woman who has been raped and impregnated, politics is the LAST thing on her mind. Rape is a vile, hateful, disgusting act which likely scars women for the rest of their lives. Most would not want a child conceived from such an act. Those who don't mind can CHOOSE to keep the fetus. Those who do mind can CHOOSE not to keep the fetus.

    Why do you feel it's your business to decide that a rape victim should have to give birth to a child they don't want?

    [/QUOTE]

    How about Rebecca Keisling?  She was conceived by rape, survived two abortion attempts, has grown into a full adult.  

    What shall we do about her?

    Is it as easy to dismiss life when it has a name?

    Is she fortunate because she survived all this, or is she d@mned bercasue she beat the odds against the liberal baby killers that tried to end her life?

    Tell me what we should do about her.  I really want to know.

     

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Lets not move the goalposts, because your position is important and hiding behind the bible is not satisfactory.

    The bible is not the law of the land.

    The laws of the land have clearly stated that abortion is legal, i.e. women have a choice with respect to terminating a pregnancy.

    So for Mourdock to state rape that results in a pregnancy is god's will is a matter of his personal faith and interpretation of his religion. For him to apply that standard, potentially, to the laws of the land is a different matter altogether and netiher his opinion on the matter nor his reasons for forming that opinion are out of bounds.  

    None of which changes the fact that apparently many of you feel the same way and would apparently advise female friends and loved ones to carry a baby to term despite the fact that some waste of life assaulted her and one of his sperm was able to reach one of her eggs.  That she did nothing to ask for that baby is irrelevant.   That she may have been powerless to prevent the act of violence against her is irrelevant.  The only thing you...people...care about is that a sperm and egg came together and as a result that union should be protected by the force of the state even if it is against the individual's wishes.

    Individual liberty, right guys?

    Yeah, so when I say that anyone who carries these beliefs are Talibanesque I am not saying it for effect.  When I say that anyone who carries these beliefs are really just advocates for a theocratic system of laws, like Sharia, I am not saying it for hyperbole.  And when I say that anyone who holds these beliefs are just a notch above those that would stone a woman for being raped, I beleive I am telling the truth.   Hide behind your bible all you want boys, but the truth is you aren't any better than the backwards cave dwelling would be theocrats in Afganistan, or the hills of Pakistan, or any other jihadist hotbed.  You are literally the American Taliban when it comes to womens reproductive rights. 

    So you have that going for you.  Which is...something.   

    [/QUOTE]

    You are correct that abortion is the law of the land.  I must respect that, but, must I also agree is is correct?

    This is the new left:  Agree with our political philosophy or we will bring the house down on top of you.

     

    As far as the bible, I'm not hiding behind anything, including the bible.  Your arbritray assignment of the life of a product of rape as unworthy of existence does not stand the thinnest of moral judgements.

    So, you stand behind an arbritrary, unscientific definition of life.  That's hideous.

    [/QUOTE]


    The issue isn't about whether you (or anyone else) agrees with me.  This is about level setting some basics and establishing a floor for discussion.  Abortion is legal, and opponents of abortion are entitled to their opinion regarding abortion. 

    My anger has to do solely with the idea espoused by men like Todd Akin and this Mourdock fellow is the idea that the state has an obligation to adhere to an interpretation of christian faith and that the state as represented by these would be legislators could utlize its power to prevent a woman from obtaining a legal medical procedure even in the case of rape or incest.  I don't care about your or their religious underpinnings and morals and as far as I am concerned you all will sort out your successes and failings with your maker should you ever meet him/her/it.

    But for the time being we all occupy a very tanglible hunk of rock and in our little subdivision of that hunk of rock, the people have set up standards to determine how society should behave and the consequences for behavior outside drifts outside of those norms.  Those standards are enforced by regular people, some who wear uniforms, some who wear robes, and some who sit in judgement of those who violate those standards.  Those judgments are made based on a very particular sets of "laws" that have been and continue to be written by people who in their infinite wisdom may have drawn a good deal of influence from whatever deity they worship on Sundays, but still had the foresight not to make the book of their faith the law of the land. 

    Quibbling over whatever it is you think I beleive about the origins of life, or when life begins...thats hiding behind your morality.  Well, your morality means nothing to me, so why not instead of distorting, obsfuscating, and trying to make it seem like you have no choice but to carry a value system that more is line with nomadic tribesmen or violent woman subjugating cultures, why don't you just come out and argue the logical conclusion to your line of reasoning with respect to womens reproductive rights?   You don't believe in womens reproductive rights.  The woman's womb is subject to the laws of god, the state, and whatever the whims are of the legislative body that happens to be in power at that moment.  That's basically what this boils down to isn't it?  In a perfect conservative world there is no abortion issue because abortion doesn't exist.  Rape may very well be legitimate so why make an exception for abortion?  A father raping his daughter?  Who cares!  Women have special powers in their hootnannies that can kill off any invading swimmers!  But most importantly...and don't forget this one...its the will of god when a man takes a woman against her will and forcibily rapes her. 

    I mean, why even have laws against rape?  And I don't care if I am strawmanning this argument to death.  These are the things your fellow conservatives are saying.  These are the platforms they are running on.  Its 2012, in America, and this is the best we got in terms candidates to run our country?  These are the people you will vote for? 

    We should all be outraged.  And you are fraud for continuing to bob and weave and duck the issue being discussed. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Again?

    So the small government championing Tea Party now feels it is the Government's place to tell a rape victim they can't have an abortion? 


    Anyone who wants to impose their values over others, to that disturbing on an extent, is a seriously dangerous human being.  

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to DamianAllen:

    The issue isn't about whether you (or anyone else) agrees with me.  This is about level setting some basics and establishing a floor for discussion.  Abortion is legal, and opponents of abortion are entitled to their opinion regarding abortion. 

    My anger has to do solely with the idea espoused by men like Todd Akin and this Mourdock fellow is the idea that the state has an obligation to adhere to an interpretation of christian faith and that the state as represented by these would be legislators could utlize its power to prevent a woman from obtaining a legal medical procedure even in the case of rape or incest.  I don't care about your or their religious underpinnings and morals and as far as I am concerned you all will sort out your successes and failings with your maker should you ever meet him/her/it.

    But for the time being we all occupy a very tanglible hunk of rock and in our little subdivision of that hunk of rock, the people have set up standards to determine how society should behave and the consequences for behavior outside drifts outside of those norms.  Those standards are enforced by regular people, some who wear uniforms, some who wear robes, and some who sit in judgement of those who violate those standards.  Those judgments are made based on a very particular sets of "laws" that have been and continue to be written by people who in their infinite wisdom may have drawn a good deal of influence from whatever deity they worship on Sundays, but still had the foresight not to make the book of their faith the law of the land. 

    Quibbling over whatever it is you think I beleive about the origins of life, or when life begins...thats hiding behind your morality.  Well, your morality means nothing to me, so why not instead of distorting, obsfuscating, and trying to make it seem like you have no choice but to carry a value system that more is line with nomadic tribesmen or violent woman subjugating cultures, why don't you just come out and argue the logical conclusion to your line of reasoning with respect to womens reproductive rights?   You don't believe in womens reproductive rights.  The woman's womb is subject to the laws of god, the state, and whatever the whims are of the legislative body that happens to be in power at that moment.  That's basically what this boils down to isn't it?  In a perfect conservative world there is no abortion issue because abortion doesn't exist.  Rape may very well be legitimate so why make an exception for abortion?  A father raping his daughter?  Who cares!  Women have special powers in their hootnannies that can kill off any invading swimmers!  But most importantly...and don't forget this one...its the will of god when a man takes a woman against her will and forcibily rapes her. 

    I mean, why even have laws against rape?  And I don't care if I am strawmanning this argument to death.  These are the things your fellow conservatives are saying.  These are the platforms they are running on.  Its 2012, in America, and this is the best we got in terms candidates to run our country?  These are the people you will vote for? 

    We should all be outraged.  And you are fraud for continuing to bob and weave and duck the issue being discussed. 

    This is the best response I've read to date on the issue. In fact..in the future..I am going to save my breath where Skeeter is concerned and just refer him back to this post. I agree 1000%  with everything you've written and could not have said it better.



    As far as Skeeter's ludicrous assertion that he "hasn't heard from any women who have been raped"..I'll just say this. First Skeeter..no one knows what personal experiences a person brings to anonymous discussion forums..so I would not assume that we haven't heard from someone in that situation..no doubt someone who disagrees strongly with your position.

    Second...and I'll type this slowly so you can understand it....it   is    none   of   your   business. A woman doesn't have to talk about the traumatic events in her life in order to have an opinion. If you are interested in learning how women who have been victimized by rape feel about this issue..I suggest you visit an online support group for such a thing...or even do some reading beyond the obviously limited sources you already glean your information from.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DamianAllen:

    The issue isn't about whether you (or anyone else) agrees with me.  This is about level setting some basics and establishing a floor for discussion.  Abortion is legal, and opponents of abortion are entitled to their opinion regarding abortion. 

    My anger has to do solely with the idea espoused by men like Todd Akin and this Mourdock fellow is the idea that the state has an obligation to adhere to an interpretation of christian faith and that the state as represented by these would be legislators could utlize its power to prevent a woman from obtaining a legal medical procedure even in the case of rape or incest.  I don't care about your or their religious underpinnings and morals and as far as I am concerned you all will sort out your successes and failings with your maker should you ever meet him/her/it.

    But for the time being we all occupy a very tanglible hunk of rock and in our little subdivision of that hunk of rock, the people have set up standards to determine how society should behave and the consequences for behavior outside drifts outside of those norms.  Those standards are enforced by regular people, some who wear uniforms, some who wear robes, and some who sit in judgement of those who violate those standards.  Those judgments are made based on a very particular sets of "laws" that have been and continue to be written by people who in their infinite wisdom may have drawn a good deal of influence from whatever deity they worship on Sundays, but still had the foresight not to make the book of their faith the law of the land. 

    Quibbling over whatever it is you think I beleive about the origins of life, or when life begins...thats hiding behind your morality.  Well, your morality means nothing to me, so why not instead of distorting, obsfuscating, and trying to make it seem like you have no choice but to carry a value system that more is line with nomadic tribesmen or violent woman subjugating cultures, why don't you just come out and argue the logical conclusion to your line of reasoning with respect to womens reproductive rights?   You don't believe in womens reproductive rights.  The woman's womb is subject to the laws of god, the state, and whatever the whims are of the legislative body that happens to be in power at that moment.  That's basically what this boils down to isn't it?  In a perfect conservative world there is no abortion issue because abortion doesn't exist.  Rape may very well be legitimate so why make an exception for abortion?  A father raping his daughter?  Who cares!  Women have special powers in their hootnannies that can kill off any invading swimmers!  But most importantly...and don't forget this one...its the will of god when a man takes a woman against her will and forcibily rapes her. 

    I mean, why even have laws against rape?  And I don't care if I am strawmanning this argument to death.  These are the things your fellow conservatives are saying.  These are the platforms they are running on.  Its 2012, in America, and this is the best we got in terms candidates to run our country?  These are the people you will vote for? 

    We should all be outraged.  And you are fraud for continuing to bob and weave and duck the issue being discussed. 

    This is the best response I've read to date on the issue. In fact..in the future..I am going to save my breath where Skeeter is concerned and just refer him back to this post. I agree 1000%  with everything you've written and could not have said it better.



    As far as Skeeter's ludicrous assertion that he "hasn't heard from any women who have been raped"..I'll just say this. First Skeeter..no one knows what personal experiences a person brings to anonymous discussion forums..so I would not assume that we haven't heard from someone in that situation..no doubt someone who disagrees strongly with your position.

    Second...and I'll type this slowly so you can understand it....it   is    none   of   your   business. A woman doesn't have to talk about the traumatic events in her life in order to have an opinion. If you are interested in learning how women who have been victimized by rape feel about this issue..I suggest you visit an online support group for such a thing...or even do some reading beyond the obviously limited sources you already glean your information from.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    I haven't heard from any women who have been raped, and are pregnant IN THIS FORUM.  You are distoriting things just like your hero Obama.

    You are welcome to your opinion,  as I am mine.  Sorry I err on the side of thinking things through versus jumping right into the liberal lie "our bodies, ourselves".  They are treating you, as women, like animals.

    I am glad you typed slowly.  Maybe it gave you time to think about the other life in this nasty problem, the unborn.  I am simply asking for that life to be considered as well, and to not expect that life to pay for the sins of the father, and to be offered as a sacrifice for the mother.  Not such an unreasonable position to consider, to consider, outside of massachusetts.  Only asking that you consider it, and you paint me as a an ogre.  I'll take it that as evidence that you haven't (or won't) consider other opinions generated outside of the Planned Parenthood thought bubble.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [/QUOTE]


     

    I haven't heard from any women who have been raped, and are pregnant IN THIS FORUM.  You are distoriting things just like your hero Obama.

    You are welcome to your opinion,  as I am mine.  Sorry I err on the side of thinking things through versus jumping right into the liberal lie "our bodies, ourselves".  They are treating you, as women, like animals.

    I am glad you typed slowly.  Maybe it gave you time to think about the other life in this nasty problem, the unborn.  I am simply asking for that life to be considered as well, and to not expect that life to pay for the sins of the father, and to be offered as a sacrifice for the mother.  Not such an unreasonable position to consider, to consider, outside of massachusetts.  Only asking that you consider it, and you paint me as a an ogre.  I'll take it that as evidence that you haven't (or won't) consider other opinions generated outside of the Planned Parenthood thought bubble.

    [/QUOTE]

    How do you know that..? Do you really think a woman would broadcast such a personal thing on an anonymous political discussion forum..?? Do you really need her to?? Do you know any women at all skeeter...any..?

    You are correct that you are entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to is to push your opinion on others ..especially women..as the law of the land. If you don't understand how hurtful and insulting Mourdock's comments are to women who have been raped..then you are more ignorant than I could have imagined.

    The decision whether to go through with any pregnancy resulting from a rape is personal, painful and none of ANYONE'S business..especially the government.

     

Share