Todd Aikin And Richard Murdick.

[Anomaly]

It's so much easier to find fault. It's twisting of words and intent to interpret Aikin's comments as more if an assault against women then the point he was making that it wasn't right to punish the child with death.

Murdock was making the point that a conception from rape was still a person loved and wanted by God.

But it's cool and trendy to blast imperfect people as bad and evil and just not good enough. Bastards are bastards no matter how willing the sex was.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351385277' post='2498896']
It's so much easier to find fault. It's twisting of words and intent to interpret Aikin's comments as more if an assault against women then the point he was making that it wasn't right to punish the child with death.

Murdock was making the point that a conception from rape was still a person loved and wanted by God.

But it's cool and trendy to blast imperfect people as bad and evil and just not good enough. Bastards are bastards no matter how willing the sex was.
[/quote]

What? No.

How people say things is important. Sure, the point he was trying to make about all children being loved by God no matter how they were conceived is all well and good and true. But the WAY he said it, and how many other politicians talk about it, shows a fundamental disconnect between them and the experiences of women who are raped and women who seek abortion. They have no idea what they're talking about. Why do you think so many women flock to any pro-choice or pro-reproductive rights group? Because those groups are the only ones that consistently show any understanding of these experiences, that offer any kind of solidarity and support for women.

It's so much easier to blast women who abort, trumpet the rights of a child and make abortion illegal. The cool thing to do is to don a bunch of cassocks, line up firing-squad style in front of an abortion clinic and say a rosary. The hard and unpopular thing is to work to fundamentally change how our society responds to sexual assault and pregnancy, and offer loving support for women so they don't feel like abortion is their only viable option.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote][color=#282828][font=Open Sans', sans-serif]Added to address the original question: as someone who is pro-life myself, I refuse to believe that these people must suffer political consequences for believing what they do, even if they were dumb enough to voice it. If a person can say that pro-life people should die and suffer no consequences, then why should these guys? [/font][/color][/quote]

Because they are political leaders. Their job is to represent people in a public forum. People who act in public should receive public consequences for their actions. Would you say that a bishop is wrong to publicly denounce a pro-choice Catholic politician, or even deny him or her communion? Public servants have a serious obligation to consider their words carefully when talking about sensitive issues. You give up the right to private consequences for your words when you enter public life.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Basilisa Marie

[qfnol31]

Basilisa, I was comparing them to other politicians who aren't roasted for equally thoughtless remarks. If a person is against abortion, our country treats them more poorly for the same sorts of comments than someone who is for abortion. It's a double standard that should not exist.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351447039' post='2499167']
Basilisa, I was comparing them to other politicians who aren't roasted for equally thoughtless remarks. If a person is against abortion, our country treats them more poorly for the same sorts of comments than someone who is for abortion. It's a double standard that should not exist.
[/quote]


Well, sure, it shouldn't exist. But still doesn't mean that we can't hold our people to a higher standard.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351452717' post='2499183']



Well, sure, it shouldn't exist. But still doesn't mean that we can't hold our people to a higher standard.
[/quote]I think it is fundamentally wrong to take the most negative interpretation possible of an assumed undertone or hidden intent of what he says and drown out the subject and intent of the words said.

You know why women flock to reproductive right rallies? I think it's a variety of reasons. It's hard to sacrifice yourself for someone you don't know. It's horrible to be obligated to care for months for someone that's growing inside you you may not have wanted. I get resentful when somebody demands me to give my time and health for their wants. I can't begin to imagine how hard it is for a young woman to become burdened with an obligation to someone because of a rape or give minutes of fun.

I do know a number of inconveniently conceived people that were that burden on their womb mothers. I also know women who were inconveniently burdened with those inconvenient obligations.

It's not fair that women get saddled with the biological obligation but that's how we are. No after the circumstances of conception, we each have our right to live unless we act with malice and intent to harm another. A baby cannot act with intent, even if it is harmful to the mother.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351470740' post='2499330']
I think it is fundamentally wrong to take the most negative interpretation possible of an assumed undertone or hidden intent of what he says and drown out the subject and intent of the words said.
[/quote]

Well, yeah, it is. But I also think it's naive to always take the most positive interpretation of an assumed undertone. Look, the pro-life movement gets so much flack from everyone else. We are not the majority in the forum of public opinions. We get accused of not giving a rat's behind about women, or anyone after they're done being babies, for that matter. Akin and Mourdock have since apologized for what they've said and/or how they've said it, I applaud them for that. But every time I turn around, there's another pro-life politician saying something really, really stupidly. I'm tired of it. If what we're saying really is the truth, we need to make sure we're packaging it in a way that makes sense to those we are trying to persuade.

[quote]
You know why women flock to reproductive right rallies? I think it's a variety of reasons. It's hard to sacrifice yourself for someone you don't know. It's horrible to be obligated to care for months for someone that's growing inside you you may not have wanted. I get resentful when somebody demands me to give my time and health for their wants. I can't begin to imagine how hard it is for a young woman to become burdened with an obligation to someone because of a rape or give minutes of fun.

I do know a number of inconveniently conceived people that were that burden on their womb mothers. I also know women who were inconveniently burdened with those inconvenient obligations.

It's not fair that women get saddled with the biological obligation but that's how we are. No after the circumstances of conception, we each have our right to live unless we act with malice and intent to harm another. A baby cannot act with intent, even if it is harmful to the mother.
[/quote]

I agree with everything you've said here. And that's why we need to work to increase support for women. With people saying things like the way these politicians did, no one believes that pro-lifers want to given women the kind of support they need to deal with these obligations and trauma and whatever else goes into it.

[Anomaly]

Fair enough.

[kujo]

HE SAID WOMEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO "DEAL WITH" THE RAPERS SPERM ONCE IT ENTERS THEIR BODY SO THAT THEY DON'T GET PREGNANT!!!!!!

Not only is he "factually incorrect," but he is just plain stupid. Why anyone would defend him is beyond me. I don't care what he was [i]trying[/i] to say. He said something awful and insulting. Goodbye Todd Aikin.

[Anomaly]

[indent=1]
[color=#0000cd]Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.[/color][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin_%27legitimate_rape%27_and_pregnancy_comment_controversy#cite_note-11"][color=#0000cd][size=2][12][/size][/color][/url][/sup][/indent]

[size=4][color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]Above is what he said. Factually wrong in the idea that rape induced pregnancy is extremely rare. Reading a little more on the subject and Todd Aikin, I found there was pseudo-science "idea" (that has been proven wrong in the 90's) that forcible violent rape (as opposed to "statutory rape" with a consenting underage female), rarely resulted in conception. [/font][/color]

[color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif][b]Wrong, outdated, and a debunked idea, YES![/b] But I think spinning it into a misogynistic insult isn't rational or charitable and is as logical as saying abortion defenders just hate babies.[/font][/color][/size]

Edited October 29, 2012 by Anomaly

[kujo]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351520667' post='2499624']
[indent=1]
[color=#0000cd]Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.[/color][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin_%27legitimate_rape%27_and_pregnancy_comment_controversy#cite_note-11"][color=#0000cd][size=2][12][/size][/color][/url][/sup][/indent]

[size=4][color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]Above is what he said. Factually wrong in the idea that rape induced pregnancy is extremely rare. Reading a little more on the subject and Todd Aikin, I found there was pseudo-science "idea" (that has been proven wrong in the 90's) that forcible violent rape (as opposed to "statutory rape" with a consenting underage female), rarely resulted in conception. [/font][/color]

[color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif][b]Wrong, outdated, and a debunked idea, YES![/b] But I think spinning it into a misogynistic insult isn't rational or charitable and is as logical as saying abortion defenders just hate babies.[/font][/color][/size]
[/quote]

"[color=#0000CD][font='Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."[/font][/color]

There it is

[CatholicCid]

[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]I don't think Akin and Mourdock can be lumped together on their comments. Akin's comments showed an ignorance on his part that he has been rightfully blasted on. Mourdock's comments, however, seem more to be on the dignity of human life.

Mourdock's comments:

[quote][/background][/size][/font][/color]
[left][size=3]Mourdock expressed his view that "life begins at conception" and that he would only allow abortions in circumstances in which the mother's life was in danger.[/size][/left]

[left][size=3][color=#202022][font=Georgia, 'Time New Roman', serif]"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God," Mourdock said. "And I think[b] [/b]even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."[/font][/color][/size][/left]
[/quote]
[left][color=#202022][font=Georgia, 'Time New Roman', serif][size=1][url="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57538757/richard-mourdock-even-pregnancy-from-rape-something-god-intended/"]http://www.cbsnews.c...g-god-intended/[/url][/size][/font][/color][/left]

[left][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=4][color=#202022]From the same article, Mourdock restated his position and attempted to remove any ambiguity following the debate:[/color][/size][/font][/left]

[quote][size=3]What I said was, in answering the question form my position of faith, I said I believe that God creates life. I believe that as wholly and as fully as I can believe it. That God creates life," Mourdock said. "Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think that God pre-ordained rape? No, I don't think that. That's sick. Twisted. That's not even close to what I said. What I said is that God creates life."[/size][/quote]

Edited October 29, 2012 by CatholicCid

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351522038' post='2499630']
"[color=#0000cd][font=Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif']the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."[/font][/color]

There it is
[/quote]
How is that an insult? Did you dig a little to see what the ERRONEOUS psuedo-science basis was? I'm not defending the scientific accuracy of the statement. I don't see it as being founded in a hatred towards women. And I'm also fully aware that many pro-abortionists qualify as juding a fetus' right to life as being equal to the mothers as being a war against woment and minimizing the life of the woman.


[color=#0000cd]Former president of the [/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Right_to_Life_Committee"][color=#0000cd]National Right to Life Committee[/color][/url][color=#0000cd] and general practitioner [/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._Willke"][color=#0000cd]John C. Willke[/color][/url][color=#0000cd], said rape victims are unlikely to get pregnant in a book published in 1985, in a 1999 article, and in a 2012 interview.[/color][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin_'legitimate_rape'_and_pregnancy_comment_controversy#cite_note-28"][color=#0000cd][size="2"][29][/size][/color][/url][/sup][color=#0000cd] [b]These claims were dismissed by professors of obstetrics at [/b][/color][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Medical_School"][color=#0000cd]Harvard Medical School[/color][/url][color=#0000cd] and the [/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_North_Carolina"][color=#0000cd]University of North Carolina[/color][/url][color=#0000cd].[/color][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin_'legitimate_rape'_and_pregnancy_comment_controversy#cite_note-NYT-21-08-2012-2"][color=#0000cd][size="2"][3][/size][/color][/url][/sup][/b]
[color=#0000cd]Pennsylvania state Republican representative [/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Freind"][color=#0000cd]Stephen Freind[/color][/url][color=#0000cd] was one of the first legislators to make the argument that rape prevents pregnancy, claiming in 1988 that the odds of a pregnancy resulting from rape were "one in millions and millions and millions."[/color][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin_'legitimate_rape'_and_pregnancy_comment_controversy#cite_note-Freind-3"][color=#0000cd][size="2"][4][/size][/color][/url][/sup][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin_'legitimate_rape'_and_pregnancy_comment_controversy#cite_note-29"][color=#0000cd][size="2"][30][/size][/color][/url][/sup][color=#0000cd] Similar claims were made by Republican [/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Aldridge"][color=#0000cd]Henry Aldridge[/color][/url][color=#0000cd] of the [/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_House_of_Representatives"][color=#0000cd]North Carolina House of Representatives[/color][/url][color=#0000cd] in 1995.[/color][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin_'legitimate_rape'_and_pregnancy_comment_controversy#cite_note-canard-0"][color=#0000cd][size="2"][1][/size][/color][/url][/sup][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin_'legitimate_rape'_and_pregnancy_comment_controversy#cite_note-AP0395-30"][color=#0000cd][size="2"][31][/size][/color][/url][/sup]

[kujo]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351522641' post='2499633']
How is that an insult? Did you dig a little to see what the ERRONEOUS psuedo-science basis was? I'm not defending the scientific accuracy of the statement. I don't see it as being founded in a hatred towards women.
[/quote]

The ignorance is the insult.

The ignorance of grade school anatomy 101, despite the fact that he is on the Committee on Science, Space and Technology in Congress.

Astoundingly stupid. Astounding. Hateful? No. Too dumb to be hateful.

Edited October 29, 2012 by kujo

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351522955' post='2499634']
The ignorance is the insult.

The ignorance of grade school anatomy 101, despite the fact that he is on the Committee on Science, Space and Technology in Congress.

Astoundingly stupid. Astounding. Hateful? No. Too dumb to be hateful.
[/quote]
People speak out of ignorance and say stupid things all the time. You're going to have a hard time if you don't want to go along with it from time to time.