Missouri Republican: 'Legitimate rape' rarely causes pregnancy

[Barrister]

You understand that the part that makes me sad is that in this country, it isn't beyond the realm of belief that abortion will become illegal. That someone - someones - who believe this can not only win an election, but become the Vice-President saddens me immeasurably.

Of course if one buys the argument that said fetuses are people, allowing for abortion in rape cases that are not life-threatening to the mother seems solely the result of political compromise.

Yes, that's true. Interestingly, the loudest voices on this appear to be men. I wonder where the women are.

I don't know.  It saddens me that this issue gets put in such stark "you're with us or you're against us" terms, when it seems to me that both sides have fairly compelling arguments.

[PDH]

Yes, that's true. Interestingly, the loudest voices on this appear to be men. I wonder where the women are.

In the kitchen baking pie.

[derspiess]

I don't know.  It saddens me that this issue gets put in such stark "you're with us or you're against us" terms, when it seems to me that both sides have fairly compelling arguments.

Yeah, pick a side, dude.  You can *say* you're both pro-life and pro-choice, but that really just means you're pro-choice when you get down to brass tacks.

[Barrister]

I don't know.  It saddens me that this issue gets put in such stark "you're with us or you're against us" terms, when it seems to me that both sides have fairly compelling arguments.

Yeah, pick a side, dude.  You can *say* you're both pro-life and pro-choice, but that really just means you're pro-choice when you get down to brass tacks.

I've said before I believe in the Bill Clinton formula when it comes to abortion - that is should be safe, accessible, and rare.

It should be easily accessible.  There should be parental notification, only done in probably the first trimester, or maybe first 20 weeks.  Legitimate, unbiased counselling on alternatives is probably a good idea.

Is it cutting the baby in half?  I don't think so, but it is a compromise between two legitimate interests.

[merithyn]

I don't know.  It saddens me that this issue gets put in such stark "you're with us or you're against us" terms, when it seems to me that both sides have fairly compelling arguments.

I agree. But the problem with one side is that it stops the other from doing what they feel is right. Because of that, it has to be "for" or "against".

Anti-Choicers believe that the babies deserve protection, and the mothers are at fault for getting pregnant. Pro-Choicers believe that the mothers deserve the right to protect themselves and their futures, and the embryos don't have any protective rights yet.

How do you sit on the fence in a situation like that?

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, pick a side, dude.

THEN HOW ABOUT GETTING WITH THE PROGRAM JUMP ON THE TEAM AND COME ON IN FOR THE BIG WIN

[merithyn]

I've said before I believe in the Bill Clinton formula when it comes to abortion - that is should be safe, accessible, and rare.

It should be easily accessible.  There should be parental notification, only done in probably the first trimester, or maybe first 20 weeks.  Legitimate, unbiased counselling on alternatives is probably a good idea.

Is it cutting the baby in half?  I don't think so, but it is a compromise between two legitimate interests.

I agree on all points except parental notification (and don't bother to try to convince me on that one; it will never happen).

[CountDeMoney]

I agree on all points except parental notification (and don't bother to try to convince me on that one; it will never happen).

Albeit outpatient, it's still a surgical procedure for minors.  Just like a tonsillectomy, except with an Oreck.

Although petitioning a judge in lieu of parental notification in a closed hearing is a fine alternative.

[derspiess]

I've said before I believe in the Bill Clinton formula when it comes to abortion - that is should be safe, accessible, and rare.

It should be easily accessible.  There should be parental notification, only done in probably the first trimester, or maybe first 20 weeks.  Legitimate, unbiased counselling on alternatives is probably a good idea.

Is it cutting the baby in half?  I don't think so, but it is a compromise between two legitimate interests.

The Bill Clinton formula is simply a pro-choice stance with BS platitudes thrown in to make it appear softer.  From what I can recall from his presidency, he favored zero restrictions on abortion.

Now if I'm reading correctly you're saying you'd favor a ban abortion in the 2nd & 3rd trimester and would put restrictions or qualifications of some sort even on the first trimester.  To me that sounds like a pro-life stance, if maybe a soft one.

[Jacob]

This is nothing new?

That was unnecessary. And no I don't think it new that Republicans are against abortion.

How about criminalizing miscarriages?

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/31965

... erh, I mean "prenatal murder".

[derspiess]

Yeah, pick a side, dude.

THEN HOW ABOUT GETTING WITH THE PROGRAM JUMP ON THE TEAM AND COME ON IN FOR THE BIG WIN

IS THAT SOME KIND OF SICK JOKE?

[merithyn]

I agree on all points except parental notification (and don't bother to try to convince me on that one; it will never happen).

Albeit outpatient, it's still a surgical procedure for minors.  Just like a tonsillectomy, except with an Oreck.

Although petitioning a judge in lieu of parental notification in a closed hearing is a fine alternative.

And when one of those girls have a father like Paul Ryan who forces them to have the child against their will, then what? Sorry, but no.

[Neil]

Yeah, pick a side, dude.

THEN HOW ABOUT GETTING WITH THE PROGRAM JUMP ON THE TEAM AND COME ON IN FOR THE BIG WIN

Bruce Boa might have been my favorite part of that movie that wasn't Hartmann or Animal Mother.

[Neil]

I agree on all points except parental notification (and don't bother to try to convince me on that one; it will never happen).

Albeit outpatient, it's still a surgical procedure for minors.  Just like a tonsillectomy, except with an Oreck.

Although petitioning a judge in lieu of parental notification in a closed hearing is a fine alternative.

And when one of those girls have a father like Paul Ryan who forces them to have the child against their will, then what? Sorry, but no.

You're utterly and completely wrong on this one.

[Jacob]

I agree. But the problem with one side is that it stops the other from doing what they feel is right. Because of that, it has to be "for" or "against".

Anti-Choicers believe that the babies deserve protection, and the mothers are at fault for getting pregnant. Pro-Choicers believe that the mothers deserve the right to protect themselves and their futures, and the embryos don't have any protective rights yet.

How do you sit on the fence in a situation like that?

I find it a little weird how the average Republican pro-lifer cares so much for the life of the child before it's born, but after it's born it can starve to death or die from easily preventable illnesses for all they care.