These idiots continue to educate us.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...379d6a-f0a1-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...379d6a-f0a1-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_story.html
Another Republican Senator gaff - Pregnancy out of wedlock and from rape are similar
- Thread starter Stoo
- Start date
It's almost like shooting fish in a barrel with Republicans these days.
With respect to the whole abortion debate - the Republicans have grown far more hard-core with respect to abortion. I think in the past, they may have said, "I'm ok with abortion in the cases of incest and rape, but not with everything else" but what happens then is those on the left go - "a ha, so abortion is ok", or "it's impossible to make the distinction, you either allow abortion or you do not"
So, nothing changes with respect to Roe v Wade and abortion remains legal which drives so many Republicans crazy.
So, you get idiots like this guy (and a rapidly growing number of Republicans) who have now changed their tack and say, "No abortion under any circumstances, not if she is raped, not if she is a victim of her father raping her, or her pervert uncle, no abortion ever, not even if we know that the mother is going to die. (It's God's will) - is that clear enough"
Now I am a pro-choice guy myself. I figure that abortion should be legal, but my reasons are probably a little cold. 1) There are already plenty of kids available for adoption in the USA that no-one wants, 2) There are already too many people in this world (cold but true), 3) If you disallow abortion who is going to look after all the unwanted children? (the so called pro-life crowd should really be called the "pro-birth" crowd since they figure once the kid is born, it's mission accomplished. Ask the same Republicans if they want their taxes increased so as to help single mothers to raise their children properly. What do you think that the answer to that would be), 4) There are already too many fucked up kids out there that belong to shitty parents living wretched lives. Why add to the problem. And 5) if someone is not ready to have a child, it should not be forced on them.
At the heart of it - it's quite simple. It's an unwanted child and American society will not step up to the plate to make it a wanted child.
With respect to the whole abortion debate - the Republicans have grown far more hard-core with respect to abortion. I think in the past, they may have said, "I'm ok with abortion in the cases of incest and rape, but not with everything else" but what happens then is those on the left go - "a ha, so abortion is ok", or "it's impossible to make the distinction, you either allow abortion or you do not"
So, nothing changes with respect to Roe v Wade and abortion remains legal which drives so many Republicans crazy.
So, you get idiots like this guy (and a rapidly growing number of Republicans) who have now changed their tack and say, "No abortion under any circumstances, not if she is raped, not if she is a victim of her father raping her, or her pervert uncle, no abortion ever, not even if we know that the mother is going to die. (It's God's will) - is that clear enough"
Now I am a pro-choice guy myself. I figure that abortion should be legal, but my reasons are probably a little cold. 1) There are already plenty of kids available for adoption in the USA that no-one wants, 2) There are already too many people in this world (cold but true), 3) If you disallow abortion who is going to look after all the unwanted children? (the so called pro-life crowd should really be called the "pro-birth" crowd since they figure once the kid is born, it's mission accomplished. Ask the same Republicans if they want their taxes increased so as to help single mothers to raise their children properly. What do you think that the answer to that would be), 4) There are already too many fucked up kids out there that belong to shitty parents living wretched lives. Why add to the problem. And 5) if someone is not ready to have a child, it should not be forced on them.
At the heart of it - it's quite simple. It's an unwanted child and American society will not step up to the plate to make it a wanted child.
1) Mr. Smith is a Senate Candidate, not a Senator.
2) That doesn’t seem to me to be what he actually was saying.
3) Although I disagree with him, the statement is at least philosophically consistent.
4) The electorate makes these choices, when moderate pro-choice Republican's are defeated what does that leave?
5) Mr. Smith was a registered Democrat until two years ago, and in fact has been elected to local office as a Democrat.
Out of wedlock - rape ... both work of the devil and punishable with life time sentences of unwanted children as a constant reminder to choosing evil. I'm guessing that rape is viewed as a girl getting what she asked for by dressing as a slut anyway.
The viewpoint is coldly administered until their own personal life is affected. They are assholes of the first class.
The viewpoint is coldly administered until their own personal life is affected. They are assholes of the first class.
I loved this quote;
Say wha? He realized he'd stepped in it and wanted nothing more to do with it.
So he saw the light and changed parties, fair enough. With quality candidates like this you can see why Romney's home state is not embracing Romney.
So Fun-guy and JTK are you saying that being precise is unimportant: a Candidate for President or Prime Minister is the same as being Prime Minister or President?
You don't see that his point was
You don't see that his point was
Neither of you see that when the electorate votes for people like Mr. Smith or Mr. Akin rather than more moderate candidates that you get what you voted for and that is a significant part of the problem. Perhaps you are confused because unlike Canada, candidates are only in very rare circumstances appointed to be such by political parties in the U.S.A.
