Ryan AGAIN wants to force Raped Women to give birth, outlaw abortion/IVF/planB

[Likely Voter]

Getting back to politics and away from dorm room what if hypothetical debate, the new GOP are recognizing that talking about rape isn't a winner for them so it is surprising that Ryan would again wade into these waters. This week the GOP held a series of meetings to discuss the future of the party, here is a report from one of the events...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

bottom line is that the policy of having the gov force women to have rape babies is not popular. If you dont allow exceptions you will end up having to talk about rape in interviews and in debates.

[Blue3]

70% of Americans oppose overturning Roe v Wade, and the population is getting more pro-choice overall:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/21/16626932-nbcwsj-poll-majority-for-first-time-wants-abortion-to-be-legal?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=3

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

70% of Americans oppose overturning Roe v Wade, and the population is getting more pro-choice overall:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/21/16626932-nbcwsj-poll-majority-for-first-time-wants-abortion-to-be-legal?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=3

The anti-abortion people have had their extreme positions exposed. They lost at the ballot box in South Dakota and freaking Mississippi.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What good can forcing this woman to carry her child have? You're just guaranteeing a terrible life for the child, a terrible life for the mother (who is obviously going to be unprepared to raise a child), and a "victory" for the genetic line that was somehow able to rationalize and commit one of the most heinous of crimes.

it is sad that you believe that it is impossible for a child's life to be worthwhile due to circumstances of birth.  it is sad that you believe a mother cannot come to love her child - either in raising her or giving her an adoptive home.   but what is saddest of all is that you damn a child's character before she is born as a justification for her destruction. I might have hoped the 20th century was enough for us all to forswear social darwinist eugenics.

A child can have a worthwhile life regardless of circumstances, of course.

But very specifically, we are talking about a child born to a woman who would rather see the baby aborted than born. Forcing a mother to raise her rapist's baby -- a "baby" she'd rather "abort" -- is not a recipe for a healthy, happy family life.

Isn't it Republican to want happy, two-parent homes for everyone? Haven't we been warned of the dangers of single motherhood?

But yeah, this is totally about Hitler. Plan B for rape babies = Hitler. Obvious.

You can't speak of guarantees and genetic basis of criminality and then pretend you didn't.
Eugenics is not a respectable position, quite apart from Hitler. It's just that it took Hitler for a great many people to realize this.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

abortion is not simply a matter of unplugging an inanimate object indirectly leading to another's death. it is an act of aggression against a body. A better analogy would be if you had to cut open the violinist and remove his kidney in order to free him from you.

Why?  A fetus isn't cognizant, so maybe your analogy would work if the violinist was in a coma or something...

On what basis do you claim a lack of cognizance? Fetal life can hardly be compared to a coma given the existence of sense perception and response, physical activity and sleep-wake cycle.

[pbrower2a]

Not if you believe that life begins at conception.  If you truly believe that life begins at conception, that means that any abortion would be killing a human being, and even killing a human being to prevent psychological damage is not a complete defense to murder.  It is an excuse, but not a justification.

You seem to be under the opinion that because your belief is principled or because it's a logical extension of existing, commonplace reasoning (i.e., that life begins at conception), it's not radical.

I never said that.  He said that believing that life begins at conception is not radical.  My only point was that if you truly believe that life begins at conception, then you must logically say that abortion may be outlawed in the instance of rape.

And from the standpoint of one who believes that life does begin at conception, it is just as radical to say that abortion is OK in an instance of rape, because you're saying it is ok to commit murder.  It's all about the premise that you start with.

The observation that only an intended conception is a voluntary act and others are not voluntary, in view of the technology of contraception and the legal concept that any involuntary sex or sex that cannot legally be consensual is some form of rape mandates that abortion be available. Likewise some pregnancies can be harmful or even fatal to the female whom an anti-abortionist considers obliged to carry the pre-born to term. The idea that any developing fetus or embryo is a "gift from God" ignores that some of those "gifts" can be extremely inappropriate.

I posit this: what if some genetic test can demonstrate that the pre-born will have the genetic makeup that creates or allows a sociopathic personality? If one wishes to reduce the frequency of abortions, then maybe it would be wise to create an economic climate more friendly toward infants -- one in which economic distress that brings hardships to the working poor so that economic elites can enjoy unrestrained indulgence is no longer the norm.   

[Badger]

Inks, you're approaching this question like a law student rather than a perso. Trust me, I know the symptoms.