By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Missouri Republican: 'Legitimate rape' rarely causes pregnancy

richardhutnik on 21 August 2012
Mr Khan said:
This has really been a boon to democrats, though, because even though Republicans have tried to disown him, he won't resign from Congress or drop out of the senate race, so he'll be an albatross around their collective neck for the next two months.

Unless he does bow out, but still...


The GOP would like him to drop out, in order that they be able to have enough time to put someone else on the ballot, in order to save their chances of taking over the senate.  As it is now, he stallls too long and the GOP won't ge the seat and the Democrats will hold onto the senate.  And then this issue remains afloat, so long as he is around.  It won't be top news cycle, but still float around some.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 21 August 2012

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/48732520#48732520

By the way, would those who push for carrying rape and incest pregnancy to term, also have the government step in make sure the child is able to grow up properly, and the mother gets sufficient support in the case the rapist father disappears and doesn't provide sufficient child support?  Or is the GOP just mandatory, pro-birth?



wfz on 21 August 2012
Legend11 said:

It doesn't make any sense to to refer to it as your "friend" or "sister" or "newborn" when asking people to decide for themselves if an embryo at fertilization or in the first few weeks is a human being or not.  The embryo at that point is not an almost newborn or a 20 year old friend because if it was then there would be no question about it being a human being.

Anyways I'm done discussing this as I feel that simply asking people to look at something and make up their own minds about it is hardly being unfair to Akin.  Asking this question doesn't require it to be asked from Akin's point of view or even to tell people what his stand is in the first place.

Also the question was never about a newborn that the parents stopped taking care of so you're the one that is actually guilty of creating straw man arguments with that and in stating the question needs to be asked from one of the viewpoints you've mentioned.

I'm going to nudge in here and say I believe you're not understanding what Kasz is getting at.

You presented a very loaded question in your first post written completely from the side of "look at this poor woman." Kasz then presented that others, who feel embryos are humans, would look at the topic from "look at this poor human baby." 

You must realize your question (asking people which side they'd choose) was very biased in the viewpoint it was presented in, and made to make a person feel bad for choosing the opposite side. Kasz was merely giving you a very valid, and opposite, way to approach the same topic from the other side of the spectrum.

 

Your inability to even truly understand the thoughts of those who believe the embryo is a human (which you made even more clear in this post of yours I quoted) shows how biased you are and how fueled and loaded your statements are. Kasz, who even shares the same basic viewpoints on this topic as you, manages to do it in a very productive, non-biased fashion that shows a more knowledgable approach to the topic. If I were you, I'd think about this and use it as a possible growing experience.



Legend11 on 22 August 2012
wfz said:
Legend11 said:

It doesn't make any sense to to refer to it as your "friend" or "sister" or "newborn" when asking people to decide for themselves if an embryo at fertilization or in the first few weeks is a human being or not.  The embryo at that point is not an almost newborn or a 20 year old friend because if it was then there would be no question about it being a human being.

Anyways I'm done discussing this as I feel that simply asking people to look at something and make up their own minds about it is hardly being unfair to Akin.  Asking this question doesn't require it to be asked from Akin's point of view or even to tell people what his stand is in the first place.

Also the question was never about a newborn that the parents stopped taking care of so you're the one that is actually guilty of creating straw man arguments with that and in stating the question needs to be asked from one of the viewpoints you've mentioned.

I'm going to nudge in here and say I believe you're not understanding what Kasz is getting at.

I understand completely what he is getting at.

You presented a very loaded question in your first post written completely from the side of "look at this poor woman." Kasz then presented that others, who feel embryos are humans, would look at the topic from "look at this poor human baby."

It's obvious you don't understand what a loaded question actually is so I'll explain it to you.  A loaded question contains a controversial or unjustified assumption.  There is no such assumptions in the question I've asked so I'm going to assume you're actually talking about loaded language.  I admit there is loaded language so it would have been better to simply ask if an embryo is a human life or not and leave it at that.

You must realize your question (asking people which side they'd choose) was very biased in the viewpoint it was presented in, and made to make a person feel bad for choosing the opposite side. Kasz was merely giving you a very valid, and opposite, way to approach the same topic from the other side of the spectrum.

Kasz question was a loaded question, my question was not, that's something I was trying to point out to him.  That was something that I think flew over your head if you though both questions were just as valid.  My question didn't actually state anything about the the embryo (while his forced the reader to assume it was a person).  As far as making someone feel bad I can't believe that someone would come to the conclusion that an embryo is a human being and then feel bad for choosing the life of a human being over the feelings/emotions of another.

Your inability to even truly understand the thoughts of those who believe the embryo is a human (which you made even more clear in this post of yours I quoted) shows how biased you are and how fueled and loaded your statements are. Kasz, who even shares the same basic viewpoints on this topic as you, manages to do it in a very productive, non-biased fashion that shows a more knowledgable approach to the topic. If I were you, I'd think about this and use it as a possible growing experience.

I do undestand the logic of those that believe an embryo is human so please stop making assumptions and stating them as fact.  The next time you wish to lecture someone please at least know what you're talking about. 



wfz on 22 August 2012
Legend11 said:
wfz said:

You must realize your question (asking people which side they'd choose) was very biased in the viewpoint it was presented in, and made to make a person feel bad for choosing the opposite side. Kasz was merely giving you a very valid, and opposite, way to approach the same topic from the other side of the spectrum.

Kasz question was a loaded question, my question was not, that's something I was trying to point out to him.  That was something that I think flew over your head if you though both questions were just as valid.  My question didn't actually state anything about the the embryo (while his forced the reader to assume it was a person).  As far as making someone feel bad I can't believe that someone would come to the conclusion that an embryo is a human being and then feel bad for choosing the life of a human being over the feelings/emotions of another.

Your inability to even truly understand the thoughts of those who believe the embryo is a human (which you made even more clear in this post of yours I quoted) shows how biased you are and how fueled and loaded your statements are. Kasz, who even shares the same basic viewpoints on this topic as you, manages to do it in a very productive, non-biased fashion that shows a more knowledgable approach to the topic. If I were you, I'd think about this and use it as a possible growing experience.

I do undestand the logic of those that believe an embryo is human so please stop making assumptions and stating them as fact.  The next time you wish to lecture someone please at least know what you're talking about. 


You say you understand the point of view of someone who thinks an embryo is a human, yet you continue to belittle it and mock it. That's why it seems you really don't... Again I'll applaud Kasz for taking a more netural objective look at the topic and not being high and mighty with his opinion, which is what you're doing.


You called Kasz' question loaded, yet yours wasn't? His was just as biased in the opposite direction as yours was in your direction. You are merely seeing things from your side of the playing field. You didn't state anything about the embryo, you're right. That's exactly where your question was biased. You kept talking about the woman and her family, drawing all attention away from the life inside of her and the consequences of it.

Your stance was basically "you're going to make this poor woman take this embryo to term even if she doesn't want to? You're going to make her suffer?"

That's very clearly written in a fashion to make people feel bad for saying yes. They're basically answering: "Yes, I'm going to make that woman suffer." That's a completely biased angle that doesn't involve the side of the argument dealing with the fact that those people believe the embryo is a human. If you don't see how you're being biased and loaded with your wording, then there's nothing I can do to help beyond what I've already explained.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 22 August 2012
wfz said:


You say you understand the point of view of someone who thinks an embryo is a human, yet you continue to belittle it and mock it. That's why it seems you really don't... Again I'll applaud Kasz for taking a more netural objective look at the topic and not being high and mighty with his opinion, which is what you're doing.


You called Kasz' question loaded, yet yours wasn't? His was just as biased in the opposite direction as yours was in your direction. You are merely seeing things from your side of the playing field. You didn't state anything about the embryo, you're right. That's exactly where your question was biased. You kept talking about the woman and her family, drawing all attention away from the life inside of her and the consequences of it.

Your stance was basically "you're going to make this poor woman take this embryo to term even if she doesn't want to? You're going to make her suffer?"

That's very clearly written in a fashion to make people feel bad for saying yes. They're basically answering: "Yes, I'm going to make that woman suffer." That's a completely biased angle that doesn't involve the side of the argument dealing with the fact that those people believe the embryo is a human. If you don't see how you're being biased and loaded with your wording, then there's nothing I can do to help beyond what I've already explained.

I am going to step here as someone who is pro-life and speak up.  I know, it is shocking that I would be considered this, because apparently by modern political logic, it is impossible to be pro-life and think GOP economic policy it bat loco and not based in any form of reality, and is geared towards the elite.  Mind you, with myself, I am pro-life but consider the going for a ban on abortion legally to be a waste of time, which wouldn't really get anywhere.  

This being said, one HUGE thing I see that is completely being overlooked here, by the said pro-choice side, is the fact that a human life is being argued to be lost.  You have the case of not making a woman suffer vs the taking of a human life (It is argued that).  The debate on abortion isn't even over the same issue, but yelling the sanctity of life vs the ability to control one's own body and do with it as you please.  Both sides yell real loud, and there is no away to get any agreement here.  For me on the issue, and I will go pro-life, the GOP's policies aren't pro-life at all.  They are pro-birth, then fully go "you are on your own", unless you push too far, like with care for the elderly, because they would take a bloodbath politically.  

But, both sides can end up yelling at each other, deluding themselves and not seeing bigger picture.



sethnintendo on 22 August 2012
Mr Khan said:

Is it "desirable" to have a miscarriage as a resolution to an unwanted pregnancy, though?


I am very happy that my old girlfriend had a miscarriage.  It was a gift from the Gods.  She actually didn't want to believe she was pregnant for awhile so she continued drinking, smoking cigs, drinking coffee, etc which probably ultimately led up to the miscarriage.  She finally came to terms that she was pregnant and went out and bought a bunch of ice cream to eat with her sister.  The next day she had a miscarriage so in effect she went and gorged herself for no reason.  I can barely take care of myself right now let alone a kid.  To me miscarriages can be a blessing.