iOwnTheWorld.com

Concur, BFH. To quote Michelle Malkin from when Mark Sanford screwed up, literally: “Leave. Go away right now.”

+4

X,
should that include the Akin apologists?

+2

Do not mistake what I’m posting as an apologia for the guy.

That said, I am thinking he read an article, or one that reference it, from Discovery.com (http://news.discovery.com/human/women-sperm-selection.html), let that percolate and then wharfgarbled and regurgitated what he said to show off his bona fides to the pro-life base.

Whatever the case, why ever he said what he did, it doesn’t matter. Being this unprepared on the topic and winding up spitting out that opinion means he gets to be the new poster boy for the pro-abortion camp – he’s not Uncle Joe who gets a pass no matter what kind of a sewer lick comment that makes it out of his mouth.

I haven’t read any of Dana Loesch’s opinion, but I am surprised at how the right-side women are seeming to out-vicious the left in their effort to excoriate him. On top of that, Claire McCaskill has to go, and he was the GOP pick to make that happen (which went against Palin’s recommendation I might add). Add to the mix, the ‘legitimate’ adjective pertains to a use of FBI stats.. but as it’s said – particularly about politics – if you’re explaining, you’re losing. I don’t know how all this will shake out. There’s just barely enough time to get Steelman rolling again.

+9

This is reason enough for him to step down. He is a pariah and has to go. Another post at Gateway Pundit says that the Dems spent $1.5 Million to help him defeat the other two in the primary. This really, really stinks.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/08/report-mccaskill-pleased-akin-still-in-race-hes-the-opponent-she-wanted-vide/

+7

Stipulation: Akin is an idiot, and must withdraw from the race.

I don’t think he was talking about fake claims of rape. I thInk he was distinguishing forcible violent rape (that would trigger his preposterous notion of a female function that would prevent pregnancy) versus statutory rape, such as consensual sex with a willing 17-year-old.

+6

As for Akin, this is all too familiar: another Republican shooting himself in the foot, snatching defeat from the jaws of … you know.

+4

McCasKills babies. I have nothing against those Republicans calling for Akin to drop out.

It appears that Akin was using the “legitimate rape” phrase to mean that if abortion were outlawed except for rape and incest, liberal judges and doctors would simply deem anyone walking through the door as having been raped. Not hard to believe, is it? “Here, fill out this form that you were raped and lie down.”

As for “The woman’s body has a way of preventing pregnancy after a rape” is probably thinking too much by half. Physical trauma might play a part in shutting down parts of your brain but as for shutting down the reproductive process is stretching it a bit (ie, it was a foolish thing to say).

Clarify your remarks. Stop apologizing. Once is enough.

If he stays in, Akin’s got to confront the abortion issue head on. It will follow him the rest of the campaign (think Code Pink). Continue nailing McCaskill to Obama’s policies but include in his stump speeches and advertising women who’ve had abortions that now regret them, women who went in for an abortion but decided against it at the last minute and show the wonderful child that she has. Tug at the heartstrings. Put it out on the table front and center. Let those women share their stories about why they decided against it. “I asked the nurse to describe what happens to the baby and she told me the scissors puncture the base of its head yadda yadda.”

Whatever happens it will be more of an indictment against those calling for him to drop out if they do not support him if he doesn’t abide their demand. It’s not like he stuffed his schlong down a 17 year old boys throat, now is it?

+7

I think this kinda says it all…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZBPu7jJbJU

Personally, I think he should withdraw and let someone else run. If the RNC runs ads properly they can still pull this off…

+1

path, not bath.

+6

Gah, with friends like this….

Please, either vet or muzzle these guys!!

+3

I fully understand the Loesch wants to win the Senate, but (per her opinion about the right following the left’s lead) she can’t blame anyone other than Akin for his comments and the resulting fallout. Sure it’s probably the most critical Senate election in our lifetimes – but that just underscores Akin’s stupidity. My take is that Akin is unelectable now whether we like it or not. Best to cut our losses and move on. Damn shame, though.

+5

Considering everything that is at stake I believe Akin should do what is best for the GOP or more specifically what is best for the country. He has angered a lot of voters and that may be very relevant.

+5

I think it’s more a matter of terrible judgement on Akin’s part. From all indications he should have sailed to victory in Missouri. If he had two brain cells to rub together, when asked any questions on abortion he should have smiled as said “I’m pro-life and Claire McCaskill is Obama’s bitch,” then shut up. He’s an idiot and if he stays he makes it harder for all Republican candidates. He needs to go.

+6

Before you all do your morning Knee Jerks…”legitimate” rape applies to those were raped and the concieved.

He was simply stating that women will claim rape illegitimately and get free abortions. IOW fraud.

He should stay in. I’m sure McKasKILL has done worse.

+6

This is such a tired debate. What is the percentage of pregnacies resulting from rape or incest again..less than 1%? He should step aside not only for his ignorant comments but also falling into this tit-for-tat trap when the real issue is that abortion and the morning after pill have become an acceptable form of birth control nationwide. Someone please correct me if I am wrong but I believe that 40% of pregnancies in NYC alone end in abortion– is that not a good example of where the attention should really be drawn on this topic?

+7

From Twitter:

Dana Loesch ‏@DLoesch
Todd Akin on today’s show 12:35 central. #dlrs

0

There were 8 candidates running in the Republican primary, only 3 were in a position of winning. Akin, Brunner and Steelman. It came down to a 3 way race with them. They all three claimed to be Tea Party Candidates, but in reality they were not.
I am so glad that I do not watch TV very often, the ads were nasty on all parts. Brunner came in second (barely). He was the Republican establishment candidate and fought nasty to all. Steelman (very close 3rd) was the true Tea Party candidate (Gov. Palin endorsed her). Akin had the endorsement of Mike Buckabee (whoo-hoo). He received more of the religious votes and the cross-over votes from Democrats wanting to knock out Steelman.
If he drops out, it will be Brunner that they get to replace him on the ballet. That was the goal of the Republican establishment anyway. The Republican establishment is as much behind this drawn out drama as anyone. If pushed, they get “their” candidate on the ballet.
Steelman was my vote and she was the one that the Democrats and the Republican establishment are both afraid of. As redgrandma noted above, Claire Bear wanted Akin and was ecstatic over his winning. She had the best chance of winning against him before this event, now she has a good chance of beating him. He needs to go and I will take Brunner (Steelman is better though) if it means Clair loses.

+4

Unforunately…Akin probably has to go…you know…PC bullshit. Gotta protect the GOP and their “numbers” even if it means backing down from the truth.

0

The Dana Show Webcam
12:35 Central with Todd Akin

http://www.971talk.com/webcam/

+1

Whoopi Goldberg must go, too. She said Roman Polanski wasn’t guilty of “rape” rape.

+3

Rush sez–

Akin is a distraction.

He was elected by DemocRAT crossover voters.

He will drop out as an honorable thing to do (by 5PM).

MO will get a better GOP candidate to run against McCaskill.

+4

In my little opinion, with the discussions here, you are proving why Akin has to step aside. As RosalindJ reminded earlier, “but as it’s said – particularly about politics – if you’re explaining, you’re losing”. With any discussion on the whys and details of what he said, you open a can of worms that just proves that he needs to go. People who have strong opinions on abortion (both sides) can not be persuaded with a few words. It is a divisive issue and it muddies the water this election. The pro-life people are playing into the made up Republican war on women, that Obummer started.
This election is so important, with the future existence of America in the balance. I, for one, think that the abortion issue should be a back burner issue and not front and center. If it means banding with people who have a different opinion of abortion to oust The Won, then I am for it.
For a large number of people, being a Conservative means financial conservativeness and smaller governments. They do not consider abortion as a winning argument, and they stay out of it for other issues that can be won in this election (or at least get the ball rolling).

+6

Reminds me of Senator Claghorn from “Allen’s Alley” on the radio…

“The senate, I say the senate reconvened just in time.

I was glad to see Senator Aiken back.

Achin’ back. Get it?

That’s a joke, son.”

+3

From HuffPo:

In the immediate aftermath of Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) declaring that it was biologically difficult for women who are victims of “legitimate rape” to get pregnant, top Republican officials urged him to take 24 hours to think about the damage his statement had caused and then, summarily, leave the race.

Akin has taken that day of self-reflection. And it appears that he’s not going anywhere. A Democratic ad-tracking source emailed over the following news on Tuesday morning.

“Akin just placed ad time starting for tomorrow,” the source emailed. “Orders just came down in St Louis. August 22-27.”

Akin has to get out of the race by 5:00 p.m. CDT. After that a court order would be needed to remove a name from the ballot.

+1

This is another one of those situations created by the dems to get republicans to either look like non caring jerks, or provide the dems with the loopholes that they need. (A no win situation)

So if you open up the “rape” loophole just like they did with the “health of the mother” pretty soon every woman that wants an abortion will claim “rape”. Rembember that in some cases “health of the mother” included mental health, not just life threatening. So she is depressed because she is pregnant……

But of course saying that would make us seem really insenstive, but as has been said above, it is not that child’s fault so…

Let’s say that I am glad that I am not running for office, because the only way out of this one would be to say something, like it is not the child’s fault nor is it the Mother’s and these types of rare occurences should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Instead of focusing on this, lets’ focus on how to get the rapists off the street to start with. Here is Wa, some woman is having a fit because they want to try her son as an adult after raping two women while still under 18. In the old west, rapists were often sent to the gallows,so perhaps if we quit thinking we could rehab them and make it a much tougher penalty, we could prevent the whole thing from ever occuring and of course there is always the option of open carry or concealed.

It is time we went on the offensive with these idiot dems!!!

Doubt I would get elected, but at least, I might get some attention to the real cause of this mess, which is due to the dems and their refusal to punish the guilty but kill the innocent.

+4

@kono – I wish I could give you a million thumbs up for your first ocmment. Very well stated!!

And, unfortunately – tend to agree with your second comment as well.

+1

Team Obama was already attempting to focus on women’s issues (especially health and abortion), even before Akin.

Obama Team aired more ads about Romney’s views on Planned Parenthood than anything else, and on Friday, it launched an ad linking Romney to Ryan’s opposition to abortion in cases of rape/incest.

Liberal views on *women’s issues* prevail in affluent and college-educated urban areas—where a strong performance among women could put Obama over the top.

A big chunck of the undecided voters are white voters without college education, and an overwhelming majority of ‘em support abortion in instances of rape/incest.

Obama has been attacking Romney on Bain and tax returns.

AND, Obama has been spending MILLIONS to talk abortion and women’s *issues*.

Akin’s comments ARE ONLY feeding those Obama ads in the mind of those swing voters, especially female swing voters.

ALSO: Akin raises the question of Ryan’s opposition to abortion in cases of rape or incest–which Team Obama was ALREADY emphasizing (since Friday).

Paul Ryan’s bill to “redefine rape” may receive more attention, because it contradicts Romney’s support for abortion in cases of rape/incest.

+4

Gov. Mike Huckabee ‏@GovMikeHuckabee

Todd Akin will return to The Mike Huckabee Radio Show in the next 30 minutes to announce his final decision on if he’s staying in the race.

+1

Well said Jaynie59. If I could give you 100 Thumb ups, I would.

+1

Kono,
What if God’s plan is different than your plan? What if God only plans on giving your wife one pregnany? >>>>

What if you don’t give a crap about God? What is this, Saudi Arabia?

+5

Kono,
I don’t mean this answer to be combative to Christians, or to imply that I don’t believe in God.
I am merely making a point about theocracy. I don’t want to live under one, even if it’s my theology.

+4

Just for the sake of argument (And, please Kono, I am NOT characterizing you as the person I am about to profile) I want to ask what trumps what here?

I am sure there exists a person who is vehemently opposed to race mixing. I’ve witnessed enough comments for the past 3+ years to know that there are a few iOTW readers that feel that way.

I also know there are a number of readers who feel that the moment of conception is life and that life cannot be taken for any reason.

What happens when a person is raped by another race?

This presents a dilemma, no?

Is God telling you that your views on “race mixing” are asinine?

Or do we make a special dispensation for occasions such as this?

+2

But but but FUR …… you don’t want God to be angry too!!

Seriously, the things of God&Christ should stay autonomous, and immune from state control. As should be the economics of gold/money and of guns.

Fuck Islam, it’s not a religion: it’s a socialism. So the state could decree it as illegal.

+3

DON’T BLAME ADKINS

Blame the GOP for not closing the primary.

This is how The Establishment gets their Boy on ballots…ie dole, mcnasty etc.

+3

@BFH

This kinda seems like the argument that if there is a possiblity that an innocent man goes to the gallows, then we should ban all capital punishment. This is exactly what the stupid libs want us to be arguing about. Instead how about ways to reduce this crime altogether, such as harder sentences, not blaming the woman or making her look like she enticed him, allowing a third party to assist her in defending herself, ….

+6

Why in the world would any woman want to carry to term a baby spawned from a friggin rapist? This doesn’t say too much about the importance of choosing a father with all the attributes you find important in a human being.

Cut to the lawn party, and little Jeffrey is running around, people ask if little Jeffrey is adopted because he looks just like Trayvon Martin.
“No, Jeffrey has his real father’s looks, my rapist.”

I think this is a question that needs to be answered before a potential marriage. I do not think it unreasonable that a spouse not want to raise a bastard child, a child whose father is among the worst society has to offer. And to be blunt, I think this is all a bunch of bloviating by many “purists” who take the “point of conception” as the moment life begins but would fold like a Korean ironing board under the right circumstances.

+4

@Fur: re: My bride gets raped and at the hospital we’re informed that there is a pill that will prevent the conception.

Hopefully, you didn’t just abort your own baby.

+3

THE JERK IS STAYING. GOD HELP US ALL.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/21/Akin-staying-in-the-race

0

My bride gets raped and at the hospital we’re informed that there is a pill that will prevent the conception.

Fertilization doesn’t occur at the moment of whoopie – it can take up to a couple days. Therefore, no ‘spark of life’. Is it contraception? Sure. If you’re comfortable with that, great.

+2

Damn that second bold wasn’t supposed to be there. Sorry.

+2

Concealed Carry stops the problem before it starts.

Next.

+8

@X: Seems it’s been a bit of an issue for awhile, pharmacist’s conscience clause, Catholic hospitals and all.

Maybe the solution is to elect Sandra Fluke and mandate birth control pills to all women of child bearing age. That would solve the rape pregnancy epidemic which seems so prevalent on this site.

http://www.lifenews.com/2005/12/08/state-1315/

http://www.lifenews.com/2005/12/09/state-1318/

0

BFH (and others), here’s a nine minute exchange about rape and subsequent pregnancy via Chris Plante on WMAL today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KcqRSMbtXA&feature=youtu.be
.

+1

And I just realized I forgot to put a character after the link..sorry!

0

@RosalindJ: Thanks. Sending it to my friends and family.

0

“No, Jeffrey has his real father’s looks, my rapist.”

That’s about feelings, not about life.

Abortion is always a tragedy to the ones who will never live.

Statistics show that having an abortion is a mental and physical health tragedy to a large percentage of the women who have one.

Having abortion readily available is a tragedy for the diminishing concept of “responsibility” on the part of men and women alike.

This issue should be out in the open, not covered up in the name of “getting elected”. Akin absolutely needed to be better prepared/educated on how to address this topic–but avoiding it is not the answer.

+5

Let’s all have a vigil and a candlelight cryfest every time a woman spots.

Can we use common sense here?

A woman is raped, within minutes of the rape she uses a spermicidal jelly because she doesn’t want to become pregnant.
She may have prevented the conception, or ended the conception.
There is no way to know. She doesn’t become pregnant. You’re going to sit there with a straight face and say the psychological and physical damage to this woman is when she was using the jelly???

Let’s not muddy the waters by conjuring up the image of a fetus in a dumpster. It’s not the same at all. Your argument is closer to the argument that contraception is a sin.

+3

Rosalind,
call me callous, but I was unmoved by the anecdotal story in regards to my premise – given the option for using a drug moments after my wife’s rape to prevent the psychopath from using my wife’s vessel to spawn his demon seed I’m voting for that drug.

See you in hell, I guess.

+5

???

+4

“You’re going to sit there with a straight face and say the psychological and physical damage to this woman is when she was using the jelly???”

You are inserting words that I did not write, BFH.

+5

Folks, there is already enough stupidity in DC and we do not need this asshole, POS to add to the total. Again, he’s proof that a politician just doesn’t know when it’s prudent to just keep his mouth shut.

He’s toxic and will be a loser come the elections despite the lead he had in the pools.

Another idiot snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

Probably is an honors graduate from the Biden School of Powerful Rhetoric.

+5

Instead of mace, always carry a tube of spermicidal jelly. ‘Nuff said.

+1

I just got the Anthem message about the AS shirts. I’m buying one or two. It won’t make Akin go away, but I’ll feel a hellava lot better wearing one.

+1

BFH, I provided a link to a 1st person story of a man who was a product of rape to illustrate that despite the natural instinct of revulsion (and the worst plot lines of Law&Order SVU), there are people who have grown up and whose lives bear no reflection of that circumstance.

I’m not about finger-pointing. I understand the point you were making, and hope you will understand another perspective. It’s not (to me) one of us being wrong at the expense of the other type of discussion. Either choice is a hard one that has to be lived with. How easily that comes is strictly and privately up to each person.

+7

So the innocent child is evil in BFH’s world.
You’re talking about your ego when this is all said and done.
Might as well kill all the babies in the world that were born through rape because they are useless, evil human beings that will never amount to much.

+4

Yea, yea Maudie Great point!!!! Really BFH….it’s the proverbial slippery slope. We will “play” God when it suits us in the case of unplanned or inconvenient pregnancies and then pray to God when things go awry. IDK Fur, if we just made abortion illegal (no theocracy needed to accomplish this…..just common sense and a heart for the voiceless and defenseless) we wouldn’t have to debate this at all.

You write: Why in the world would any woman want to carry to term a baby spawned from a friggin rapist? This doesn’t say too much about the importance of choosing a father with all the attributes you find important in a human being.
Cut to the lawn party, and little Jeffrey is running around, people ask if little Jeffrey is adopted because he looks just like Trayvon Martin.
“No, Jeffrey has his real father’s looks, my rapist.”

So then you are more concerned about what men think than what God thinks? And adoption is off the table? Of course if you don’t believe in God than no worries at all….we can keep on the path we’re headed. Everything goes…abortion, gay “marriage” (and with gay “rights” comes an acceptance of pedophilia…but not to worry as children and especially unborn babies are expendable right?), embryonic stem cell research, cloning…I’m sure there’s more crap but that’s all I can think of at the top of my head.
I might not be so cavalier about “seeing you in hell”.
I’ll still hit the tip jar occasionally…especially when you post Bill Whittle.

+6

Kono, you’re back to God again in your argument, yet you say this isn’t a theocratic point.

Again, what if someone does not believe in God? They have to leave the country?
And how does the morning after pill lead to the apocalypse?
This slippery slope is ludicrous. You’re saying that if you don’t have complete fundamental Christian beliefs the alternative is Babylon.
Not a lot of faith in man that they could hold the line on spermicidal jellies in case of rape.

+1

Let me stipulate something. I have a shitty debate style. I know this by how many people get taken aback, or maybe even offended, when no offense is intended.
I argue my point as if you are dear friends or even family.
It’s not meant to alienate, it’s more like the inverse.

+6

Satan’s greatest accomplishment is that people no longer believe he (satan) exists…which naturally leads to one’s (un)belief in God’s existance too.

Ok…so leave God out for sec. Now where are we? Your morals come from where? You Fur? Conservatives? Scientists? Eeee gads….liberals?

I personally believe that we are in this shithole mess EXACTLY because of this country’s removal of God in our day to day lives. I could be wrong…and I sure as hell don’t want to “force” my religion on you or anyone else…I would just like to stick to some basic principles of protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as our founding fathers did. And that means no abortion and no gay marriages or any other “moral” ills of the day.

+8

Agreed Fur. Only I can argue with my family.

+1

And I am not offended by you in the lease Fur….my style isn’t exactly always tactful either.

+1

My remark “Either choice is a hard one” was strictly in reference to the choice of carrying to term and adoption vs abortion.

Now make me a sammich. Roast beef on rye, please.

+3

least.

0

“I think abortion is murder. I think preventing pregnancy when there is absolutely no way of knowing whether there has been conception is not.”

Thank you for that clarification of your point, BFH. You and I are in absolute agreement with your first sentence. Settled in my mind. As far as your second sentence is concerned, although I tend to agree with you, my views in that area are still in formation–I was not speaking to that aspect in my original comment.

Part of the difficulty of discussing abortion/rape/pregnancy/contraception, etc., is that the “lines/non-lines” between these concerns is almost always way too blurry. People start talking about one aspect and then the debate spreads all over the map.

What you said about your debate style: much appreciated.

+5

I think Akin is so retarded that he makes Biden look smart, so he should switch parties – especially since it was the DEMS who threw the most money at his primary campaign since they KNEW he was a rube!
If we could will our bodies to not get pregnant, in a “legitimate rape” or any other time that we would prefer to not get pregnant, nobody would be looking for birth control pills or abortion at all because people would ONLY be getting pregnant when they totally WANT to. Duh.
And that he is digging in his heels so as to bring the whole freaking Republican party down with him instead of just going away proves what a jackass he is, a big stupid incompetent egotistical retarded jackass. Perhaps he is a prog plant.

+7

I, of course believe life begins at conception…therefore the morning after pill is conceivably abortion. Playing the “I don’t know game” is like cheating at solitaire…..you’re not really fooling yourself are you?

+4

What is your stance on capital punishment?

0

There are already “slippery slope” dispensations put in place.
Why do pro-lifers generally agree to the provision that abortion would be acceptable if the life of the mother is in danger?

And if it is one life or the other, what does God say? What does man say?

And it really isn’t fair to pull the old “that is a rare instance” card. We’re not talking about the frequency, we’re talking about principles.

+3

You cannot POSSIBLY know if you’re pregnant the very second you are raped or have consensual sex.

You can be pregnant and then miscarry with your next menstrual cycle and not even know. Are you guilty of something there? No.

What difference does it make if you take a rape pill right after you’re raped? YOU DON’T KNOW if you are pregnant or not. Why aren’t we banning BC pills then?

If anyone knows how to determine whether you’re pregnant during sex, right after sex, using BC or not… Please let the rest of the class know. LoL

Akins needs to step down, he’s squirrely.

+8

Oh and there’s some asshole male democrat who admitted to fucking a 17 year old boy in a bathroom. Go bust his balls for a while.

+8

BFH–

“Why do pro-lifers generally agree to the provision that abortion would be acceptable if the life of the mother is in danger?

And if it is one life or the other, what does God say? What does man say?”

Are you familiar with (Saint) Gianna Molla?

0

yes.

0

I’m pro-life but I’m not going to tell a woman or a 10 year old not to take a pill or antibiotics or whatever they hell they offer her after she was raped.

Leave the abortion argument to the voters in each state.

+5

Fur. Taking God out of the debate is like taking the sun out of the noon sky. It’s impossible. The Founders understood this. We are a Christian nation, no matter what Obama says.

Biden or not, God exists.

As far as this issue goes, abortion is murder and murder is evil. No matter how anyone wants to frame it. You make a distinction with the morning after pill and straight up abortion. But then you say the demon seed should not be allowed. The inevitable conclusion to that is, the demon child should not be allowed to live.

I know that’s not what you mean. It can’t be….

+4

@kono.. i didn’t want to get into this but now i must. if you believe that God may have special plans for a baby conceived through rape then do you think that the actual act of rape itself was also a part of God’s plan or was it the consequence of the free will choice of a perverted sociopath? My guess is the latter and in that case I believe that God would make an exception for a woman who prevents a pregnancy from happening under those circumstances.

I find it hard to believe that if something so horrific happened to you or someone you loved, you wouldn’t be sick over the idea of carrying a rapists baby and looking at its face after it is born. Luckily these cases happen very rarely so it shouldn’t really be an argument especially at a time that Republicans have bigger fish to fry.

+3

I don’t make exceptions. Killing an innocent life is killing an innocent life. Whether from rape or not. I’m talking about abortion. I’ll leave the pill and contraceptive argument to the rest of you.

Capital punishment is not the killing of an innocent life. It is not murder. Killing in a war (WWII) is not murder. It’s war. It’s different.

I think that’s apples and oranges to this argument….

+6

@ Gina

Carry that logic through then. If you know that the baby has downs, abort it right? No way God would allow that to happen to you right?

To answer your question: a baby is a gift. Life is a gift. The act of rape is clearly evil, immoral and unbiblical. It is never condoned by God. Evil things happen in a fallen world….

+4

BFH-

In re: Gianna Molla: John 15:13–”Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” It is no stretch at all to substitute “mother” for “child”.

Human beings lay down their lives for each other, and we call it heroism. Parents lay down their lives for their children, and we honor them. In the case of two lives being at risk in a pregnancy, only one of them can lay down her life. The other one’s life can only be preserved or destroyed.

Like muddjuice states, I cannot discuss any of these things apart from God. Anything else is moral relativism, and/or merely an exercise in logic and debate.

+4

That’s a loaded question, Fur.

0

I suggest you ask Gary Gimore.

0

My iPhone is now facing the death sentence. Gilmore. It chooses Mac and Cheeze as the last supper.

+2

@muddjuice.. first of all i didn’t say “abort”, i was responding to kono’s last post about the morning after pill which i do not consider to be the same as abortion. secondly, i personally could accept a baby born with downs and love that child. my feelings regarding a baby conceived as a result of rape however would be very different. i would want the rapist dead as well as ever last sperm he left behind. i would not want to pass on his DNA nor would i want to look at a child’s face as a repeated reminder of his degenerate father who brought trauma and angst to my life. If you honestly think you would be able to to face something so heinous call the church and have yourself canonized.

+2

Muddjuice,
You are wrong.
Capital punishment has taken innocent life. Many times. It’s been proven.

Man making these rules and judgements and justifications is flawed.

I think Christians have the right to proselytize whatever positions they believe in.

I draw the line when they seek to make their own God worldview man’s law.

You cannot speak for God on this issue, and God does not speak through you.

I can find people more orthodox than you who will say that when you had your tonsils out you sinned before God.

I never read in the Bible the part about not being allowed to disrupt cell division the moment the sperm penetrated the egg.

Perhaps God has allowed us to learn these scientific discoveries in order to prevent evil from impregnating good.

You have absolutely no idea.
Your faith is for you, not for me, and you
can’t make it so at the point of a gun.

+4

Conception from rapes and incests are EXCEPTION.

Thus we can’t think only from the perspective of the application of a Law (natural or positive) .

GRACE has to be taken into account. Only a sovereign individual fearing nothing but the LORD is capable of enacting grace, and take full responsibility for his decision and act.

Judaism and Christianism are redemptive RELIGION because they’re not only a system of laws. There’s also a redemptive element, the possibility of GRACE, which is immanent to the SOVEREIGNTY and dignity of the individual.

+7

” You cannot speak for God on this issue, and God does not speak through you.”

Yes you can. And yes HE does. We’re all media of God. If I think I know God’s will, then it’s my responsibility to enact it, without fear of any other laws and punishments.

+5

Gina…as Mudd has correctly stated, we live in a fallen world where sin exists. God however has the power to turn something terrible to use for His Glory. God will forgive us our sins (like abortion)….but I don’t believe He thinks it’s ok to abort a baby He placed in the womb.

And BFH….capital punisment is not the killing of the innocent. Big, big difference. And yes I am for it. Check out Ann Barndhart’s piece on Rudolf Hoess for a great arguement on capital punishment.

+3

You’re wrong Kono.
Innocent people have been put to death by the state.

+3

Yep, Akin screwed up. However, the establishment Republicans are making this bigger than the lamestream media.

Hannity’s radio show is a rebroadcast in Chicago. So I’m hearing it now at 8:25 p.m. He grilled the hell out of Akin. During the grilling I had an “A Ha!” moment. Akin apparently did not vote the way the establishment wanted (including Bush) on some issues. He’s not a player so they are not circling the wagons for him.

+3

There’s moral relativism amongst Christians themselves.

There are plenty of Christians who think of themselves as devout.

But they had sex before marriage.
Or they masturbate.
Or they divorced.
One person’s devout Catholic is another’s cafeteria Catholic.

There are practices in Christianity that have not survived culturally throughout time, and each person born into a new time can choose to become either a biblical period orthodox Catholic or the devout modern Catholic of the 21st century. Both look upon the other as unorthodox. And who is judging? God? No. Man.

+3

Regarding capital punishment.

“Thou shall not murder ”

Yet we can kill the homo sacer. To kill a homo sacer ain’t a murder. It’s a legal homicide.

The question of innocence versus guilt is related to Justice.

+4

And justice is related to life AND Law.

Islam is evil because it reduces justice to the written law.
Leaving aside the SINGULARITY of each case, each situations.
it’s thus against life. It negates grace, and is thus blind to the economy of justice.

But Judaism and christianism takes life into account.

+2

To make room for exceptions has nothing to do with relativism, but with the economy of life, with the reality of flesh & blood.
This is why we have a jurisprudence and an evolution of the justice system. It’s not only about the norm, about the general rules, about the constitution — it’s also about the exceptions, the singularity of some situations — in which the LAW of the land can not be executed!!

+1

Oh

0

You know what I’m hearing?

Children are innocent, the state cannot sanction their murder.
Oh, capital punishment? The murdered aren’t innocent. What’s that you say? Some people put to death are innocent? But we didn’t know that?
What’s that you say… what about the part when I said playing the “I don’t know card is like cheating at solitaire?”

We make up these rules as we go along to justify our beliefs. Now leave me alone, I’m going to go shoot a trophy animal and then maybe watch the History Channel. Tonight they’re showing some never before seen footage of the Nagasaki bombing.
(I do believe there were some pregnant women killed along with their innocent babies.)
Moral relativism!

+2

It is a scientific fact that a human being begins at fertilization. All human embryology texts agree on this. What is formed at fertilization (the joining of a male and a female gamete) is a zygote. This is the term for the first stage of human development. Therefore, we were all zygotes once.

As far as the ‘morning after’ pill, it seems to be a Schrodinger’s cat-type of argument. We don’t know whether fertilization has taken place, and therefore if a life exists which will be extinguished, or if you are merely stopping fertilization taking place in the near future, or perhaps doing neither. As in Schrodinger’s though experiment, this would be the similar to injecting a poisonous gas into a building that you are not sure is empty of humans. The moral implications are obvious.

[P.S.: First time commenter. Hi!]

+3

The state drops a bomb and has no idea whether they are killing a zygote, fetus, baby or whatever.
The moral implications are obvious.
The moral relativism is obvious.

There are many ultra-right conservatives that are against mixed marriages, and do not believe in race-mixing. There are churches, still, in 2012 that will not allow blacks to marry at their altar.
Bob Jones University condemns race mixing.
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=christianity+and+race+mixing&oq=christianity+and+race+mixing&gs_l=hp.3…1463.7013.1.7112.28.25.0.3.3.0.186.1932.23j2.25.0.les%3B..0.0…1c.YiumsbM_47U&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=821e711eab12c995&biw=1232&bih=670

A black man rapes and possibly impregnates their white daughter. The rape pill is sitting there in the plastic cup.

Which belief is let go? Moral relativism is gonna getcha.

+2

When Truman used the Bomb, it was to preemptively SAVE lives. To act on the FUTURE.

0

pfffffffffft.

That is quite a justification. Did God speak to Truman?
Was this a Truman/God joint?

+2

President Rela Tavism said today that the state will lift the moratorium on abortion that was issued by President Sarah Palin in 2022 in order to save lives.
Resources are scarce and the booming population is causing mass starvation, thirst and disease. Thinning the herd is needed.

President Tavism said a burning bush said it was okay. So, as usual, blame bush.

+3

It was an ECONOMIC decision.

To save the lives of countless GIs and of Japanese that would have died otherwise in the theaters of war, to STOP the war by triggering immediate surrender. It took two Bombs.

Truman ‘s decision saved hundreds of thousand of American and Japanese lives. That would have died if Truman hadn’t used the Bombs.
Those who died in Nagasaki and in Hiroshima paid the price of the emperor’s failure to surrender.

It was a sovereign decision. Truman took responsibility for it, as a leader. Truman certainly felt that God approved, otherwise he wouldn’t have the courage to enact.

+1

Every Japanese was responsible for the emperor.

As every American is responsible for Obama.

0

What happened to not taking the life of an innocent unborn under any circumstances?
I guess there are allowable circumstances.
Can you think of any others? Or does it stop with Truman’s altruism that trumped God?

+2

An individual is sovereign in that he feels confident to enact God’s will. He can be wrong, but God will be merciful.

A slave obeys the law as his master, even if he knows the law is unjust. He doesn’t what he’s doing. He’s not a sovereign individual, he doesn’t have any dignity.

A Christian is slave to Christ. He obeys Him as his only master. His dignity is immanent to this obeisance.

0

It’s economy : one has to consider the singularity of each situations.

Ideally, war would involve only virile men : not the children, the women, the sick and the elderly. But it’s possible that those will die in warfare, especially with the destructive power of contemporary weapons.

0

Wait, when did this become about World War II?

Oh well, maybe I’ll get this next time. See ya!

0

I guess one has to chose whose master to obey.

0

It’s not about WWII. It’s about what was presented as absolutism.

Of course one can usually catch an absolutist in the throes of relativism. Just keep poking.
Now I’ve learned that life has a monetary value, because Truman was thinking economically when he killed untold unborn babies.

Perhaps we can begin issuing abortion credits? God will understand.

+2

Economy can’t be reduced to gold and capitalism.

Christianism is an economy of Christ: where His blood is the currency with which we pay our sins. A rare and precious currency produced by His suffering.

Bread was the currency of Auschwitz, the redemptive element of that economy without guns, gold, Christ nor God.

I never said life was indexed to a value that could be evaluated in gold!

0

Economy = grace + law

What gives grace = redemptive value

Gold redempt monetary currencies

Bread redempt life in survival situations such as Auschwitz

Christ redempts souls of non Jews

Israel (the promise to Abraham) redempts Jews.

+1

Why do you think Islam and socialism are evil?

Because they’re hostile to economy.

They reduce everything to a fiat law : Shari’a or the State.

0

Equating the non-intentional death of unborn children during an act of war, with the intentional destruction of a child in the womb, is blurring the lines again.

In the classic understanding of battle/war, the primary intention is not to kill children [obviously, there are/were certain groups in history who do, in fact, want to do that, so my statement must be taken in a general sense]. In abortion, the primary intention IS to kill children. Intention matters.

Therefore, bringing in the bombings at Hiroshima/Nagasaki is straying off onto a side path at the moment–one more applicable to a discussion of the morality/immorality of war than a discussion of abortion.

+1

Truman took the sovereign decision of bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima to redempt the lifes of American GIs that would otherwise be going into lethal theaters of wars.

Balance of justice. He evaluated, and decided. Some people paid the prices. In flesh and blood. It’s a very difficult decision to make. But leaders in wars take those decisions.

0

It’s about a decision that implies the destruction of flesh and blood.

0

Suppose a woman being impregnated by a dog.

Or a goat.

By a non human beast.

If she wants to abort, and would face God, no problem.

Same with a beastly man, a demonic man. The important is that she assumes responsibility and does it in a state of GRACE.

0

“Now I’ve learned that life has a monetary value, because Truman was thinking economically when he killed untold unborn babies.”

I have to think you’re trolling here.

+1

@BFH

Let’s not muddy the waters by conjuring up the image of a fetus in a dumpster. It’s not the same at all. Your argument is closer to the argument that contraception is a sin.

OOOkkkk….but we’ll muddy the waters with bride/rape scenarios and what will people think of my “wrong” colored baby? And BTW…yes I think contraception is a sin…but I’m not saying to illegalize it, but hell yes I would like abortion as a means of contracetion illegal.

You’re wrong Kono.
Innocent people have been put to death by the state.

Was it intentional Fur? Big, big difference and again….probably a very small percentage. Not to say that killing (the wrong) people via capital punishment should be taken lightly…but put it in perspective.

+2

Usually I agree with you on things Fur. But this is way out there for me. You are certainly doing an apples and oranges thing here.

People have already said this but “intention” is the issue. In regards to any killing. Murder, abortion, war, capital punishment. It’s the spirit of the act.

Much like lying. Thou shall not lie, right? But it’s the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. I can lie about the surprise party I have planned for my brother. I can lie about the gift I bought for my wife so it stays a surprise. I can lie during wartime to save the lives of my fellow soldiers.

Same thing here. It’s the intent. The intent in abortion is to kill an innocent life, on purpose, for convenience. The intent in capital punishment is to punish the evildoer who committed a capital crime. There may be mistakes in that but the intention is pure.

The atom bomb was debatable as to whether we should have used it. In the long run, it did save lives. I guess you could say this: in war, if a soldier is sniping from inside a building and killing your fellow soldiers and the only way to stop him is to bomb the building, which could kill innocent people, should you do it? It’s an interesting question with no good answer…..

+2

” What if said baby comes up with a “cure” to stop rapists and pedophiles?”

The chances of that are like, what … 1/10 of 1%? The notion that every fetus is potentially the next Einstein is ridiculous. Rapists are not carrying around great DNA.

The reality is that you want a woman to carry her rapist’s baby and live with that knowledge for nine months, pay all the associated expenses of prenatal care, and then give the baby away. Or keep it, and be reminded of her traumatic assault every time she looks at the child. What kind of life do you really think that child will have in that family? What will the husband feel about raising someone else’s kid against his will?

Women who abort either have a good reason, or they don’t. If they have a good reason, they should have the abortion. If they have no good reason, then they are stupid and/or irresponsible and I don’t want them breeding. They should have the abortion.

Finally, “innocent” is a meaningless adjective as applied to the fetus.

0

@Agnes Day–

“Finally, “innocent” is a meaningless adjective as applied to the fetus.”

That statement of yours is worse than meaningless. It is ludicrous.

+3

This man is a dream……A liberal Democrat dream…

Let him talk some more, let him talk up to the election in November…..

0