GOP Congressman says pregnancies from rape are rare

[JohnL.Burke]

I don't believe in abortion except for rape or the life of the mother. The reason I'm for abortion when it comes to rape is that I believe people should take responsibility for their actions. When rape is committed, the choice of the woman has been stolen from her. Responsibility no longer becomes the issue.
Of course, on the flip side of this coin. Why should the baby that was produced by rape be destroyed? The baby also had nothing to do with the rape. Is it not our responsibility to protect the most vulnerable and innocent among us? This is the part where my hypocrisy shines. I simply cannot bring myself to endorse the idea of forcing a rape victim to carry a baby to term. Here I come Hell!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes. yes they should.

They have 20 weeks prior to make that decision. And it's debateable whether they should be allowed to kill their offspring just because they didn't have a choice in getting pregnant. The child didn't do anything wrong. He/she just had a piece of trash father. And unfortunately, that's nothing new in our society.

Or is giving a woman 20 weeks to kill their child somehow not long enough to make a decision?

It's none of your fucking business. That's what it is. If a woman doesn't want the child of a monster growing inside of her, that's between her and nobody else.

So i guess is the drug dealer down the street kills a snitch, it doesn't matter to me either?

Guess what, as a member of society we have a moral obligation to protect the lives of our fellow citizens. We have a responsibility to care for one another.

You guess wrong.

A woman has a right to privacy, the right to determine to have a child or not; there is no ‘right’ to murder.

And, no, abortion is not ‘murder.’ Anyone who believes so is confusing civil with criminal law.

Last, ‘moral obligation’ is subjective, if one believes abortion to be ‘morally wrong’ then that means he doesn’t engage in the practice. It does not mean he has the right to attempt to use the authority of the state to impose his subject morals on society as a whole.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't believe in abortion except for rape or the life of the mother. The reason I'm for abortion when it comes to rape is that I believe people should take responsibility for their actions. When rape is committed, the choice of the woman has been stolen from her. Responsibility no longer becomes the issue.
Of course, on the flip side of this coin. Why should the baby that was produced by rape be destroyed? The baby also had nothing to do with the rape. Is it not our responsibility to protect the most vulnerable and innocent among us? This is the part where my hypocrisy shines. I simply cannot bring myself to endorse the idea of forcing a rape victim to carry a baby to term. Here I come Hell!

If one believes abortion is wrong he’s at liberty to advocate for its end, provided the solutions he advocates comport with Constitutional case law.

‘Banning’ abortion, making it illegal, is un-Constitutional, it is not a solution to the problem. We do not want the state involved in personal, private matters, we do not want the state dictating to a citizen whether or not he may have a child.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

OP: Take a relatively innocuous statement from an obscure GOP lawmaker and use it to distract from Obama's reign of tyranny. Get some real priorities.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

OP: Take a relatively innocuous statement from an obscure GOP lawmaker and use it to distract from Obama's reign of tyranny. Get some real priorities.

An elected Federal official advocating for the violation of citizens’ civil liberties is hardly ‘innocuous.’ It’s a perfectly legitimate concern, unlike the delusional notion the current administration manifests ‘tyranny.’

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I don't believe in abortion except for rape or the life of the mother. The reason I'm for abortion when it comes to rape is that I believe people should take responsibility for their actions. When rape is committed, the choice of the woman has been stolen from her. Responsibility no longer becomes the issue.
Of course, on the flip side of this coin. Why should the baby that was produced by rape be destroyed? The baby also had nothing to do with the rape. Is it not our responsibility to protect the most vulnerable and innocent among us? This is the part where my hypocrisy shines. I simply cannot bring myself to endorse the idea of forcing a rape victim to carry a baby to term. Here I come Hell!

If one believes abortion is wrong he’s at liberty to advocate for its end, provided the solutions he advocates comport with Constitutional case law.

‘Banning’ abortion, making it illegal, is un-Constitutional, it is not a solution to the problem. We do not want the state involved in personal, private matters, we do not want the state dictating to a citizen whether or not he may have a child.

Who's deciding rather a person can have a child or not? What are you talking about?
When Roe V. Rade was overturned it took away the rights of the voter. I disagree with this approach to governing.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

OP: Take a relatively innocuous statement from an obscure GOP lawmaker and use it to distract from Obama's reign of tyranny. Get some real priorities.

An elected Federal official advocating for the violation of citizens’ civil liberties is hardly ‘innocuous.’ It’s a perfectly legitimate concern, unlike the delusional notion the current administration manifests ‘tyranny.’

Perhaps, you should learn the meaning of the term, 'relatively.'

And, you don't think Obama is not tyrannical b/c you are willing to trade away certain rights to people who you worship.

 

[FA_Q2]

One would be enough.

One would be enough for what?

Remember, the topic here is that a politician CORRECTLY used the term ‘rare.’ One is enough for what in that context?

The fact is, someone on the right made an accurate statement and the left in this thread are all upset because it was a statement about abortions. Utter failure.

One woman becoming pregnant by rape would be enough to allow for abortion in the case of a woman becoming pregnant by rape. That clear enough? That was not too difficult to understand?

Very as that was not the topic of the thread or even remotely connected to the post you quoted. Again, for the slow here, the topic was a comment that was made by a GOP legislator that pregnancies from rape are rare and that is simply a fact. No amount of bloviating anger from the left changes that.

Further, Franks was in no way advocating to ban abortions for rape victims. The legislation in question was banning abortion after a certain gestation period. The fanaticism of the left for abortions on demand at any point whenever anyone feels like they want it is no more radical or insane than those that advocate a complete ban on abortion. Both stances are extreme and fanatical.

OP: Take a relatively innocuous statement from an obscure GOP lawmaker and use it to distract from Obama's reign of tyranny. Get some real priorities.

An elected Federal official advocating for the violation of citizens’ civil liberties is hardly ‘innocuous.’ It’s a perfectly legitimate concern, unlike the delusional notion the current administration manifests ‘tyranny.’

He did not advocate any such thing unless you think that a woman’s liberty includes killing the unborn child at any moment in time before birth up to and including 9+ months. That is delusional as well.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Is he endorsing rape as a form of birth control?

What exactly did that have to do with anything?

 

[Stephanie]

I hope he keeps it up, along with Aiken. The GOP just keep losing elections.

omg...you people eat AND sleep elections

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I hope the idiot Rs keep saying shit like this.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's none of your fucking business. That's what it is. If a woman doesn't want the child of a monster growing inside of her, that's between her and nobody else.

So i guess is the drug dealer down the street kills a snitch, it doesn't matter to me either?

Guess what, as a member of society we have a moral obligation to protect the lives of our fellow citizens. We have a responsibility to care for one another.

You guess wrong.

A woman has a right to privacy, the right to determine to have a child or not; there is no ‘right’ to murder.

And, no, abortion is not ‘murder.’ Anyone who believes so is confusing civil with criminal law.

Last, ‘moral obligation’ is subjective, if one believes abortion to be ‘morally wrong’ then that means he doesn’t engage in the practice. It does not mean he has the right to attempt to use the authority of the state to impose his subject morals on society as a whole.

You dont have a right to privacy when it comes to your conduct to another person. If you kill your offspring, that's not a private matter.

The blood of alot of innocent children will be on your hands if you don't stop justifying their death for convenience.

 

[Avatar4321]

I hope the idiot Rs keep saying shit like this.

I hope they keep speaking the truth too. But for other reasons.

 

[Katzndogz]

Who cares now?

The President will not block the decision for any female regardless of age to have over the counter access to Plan B.

You get raped. OK.

Buy the morning after pill. Or hell's bells let's give it to a rape victim for free.

That's why this amendment isn't necessary for the new bill.

Plan B will last until girls start dying. Plan B for one thing, may not work at all. It doesn't protect against STDs, and it is an anti clotting agent. If its used as a form of birth control, the girl's next period could be deadly, or a small cut could result in a bleed out.

It will just take a number of deaths and a 1-800 BAD-DRUG commercial.

 

[Stephanie]

Who cares now?

The President will not block the decision for any female regardless of age to have over the counter access to Plan B.

You get raped. OK.

Buy the morning after pill. Or hell's bells let's give it to a rape victim for free.

That's why this amendment isn't necessary for the new bill.

Plan B will last until girls start dying. Plan B for one thing, may not work at all. It doesn't protect against STDs, and it is an anti clotting agent. If its used as a form of birth control, the girl's next period could be deadly, or a small cut could result in a bleed out.

It will just take a number of deaths and a 1-800 BAD-DRUG commercial.

They don't care about any of that...just crow how they are for a woman choice..just like the horrors of quilt a woman will deal with (from realizing she just killed her child) all her life from ABORTIONS...
they don't want people to hear that...so they make sound like it's a WALK IN PARK...drive in, suck out,over in 30 minuets...
not saddled anymore with a unwanted baby...quote by Barack Obama
they stand for nothing...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OP: Take a relatively innocuous statement from an obscure GOP lawmaker and use it to distract from Obama's reign of tyranny. Get some real priorities.

An elected Federal official advocating for the violation of citizens’ civil liberties is hardly ‘innocuous.’ It’s a perfectly legitimate concern, unlike the delusional notion the current administration manifests ‘tyranny.’

Except that that is not what he did, is it?



i am not going to hold my breathe waiting for you to condemn Pelosi.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I hope the idiot Rs keep saying shit like this.

Can you explain what he said that you disagree with? Would it help if I provide a quote?

“Before, when my friends on the left side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest the subject- because you know the, the incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low, but when you make that exception, there’s usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours.”

“And in this case, that’s impossible because this is in the sixth month of gestation, and that’s what completely negates and vitiates the purpose of such an amendment,” he added.

Look at that he is saying that it is impossible to argue that you suddenly figured out you were raped 6 months into the pregnancy, and use that to justify an abortion. Are you saying it is possible to rape someone without them knowing?

 

[LoneLaugher]

This happened.

Intended Consequences by Jonathan Torgovnik | MediaStorm

Against the odds?

 

[J.E.D]

You dont have a right to privacy when it comes to your conduct to another person. If you kill your offspring, that's not a private matter.

Yes, you do have a right to privacy, as abortion is a medical procedure. Abortion is legal and entirely a private matter. In other words, it's none of your business.

 

[Stephanie]

women Democrats have such class as she talks with A MAN about this...
so all you MEN hear this...shut up and sit down, you have NO RIGHT to speak on this even if it's your baby's life being sucked out.....

[ame=http://youtu.be/IrWavNDNk8I]Dem Tells GOP to Stay Out of Abortion Debate Because 'Not One of Them Has a Vagina' - YouTube[/ame]