Yet Another Republican puts foot in mouth about Rape.

[General Mung Beans]

I do have a problem with people who are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.

Well those positions are not necessarily contradictory since from a pro-life perspective a fetus hasn't done anything while a person liable to be executed has been convicted of crimes such as murder.

[Broomstick]

No, you stupid tool, "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty" together are stupid and hypocritical because you can't hold all human life sacred and precious AND also be in favor of killing people. I'm speaking from the standpoint of an outsider, not someone willing to swallow the religious propaganda.

[Scrib]

No, you stupid tool, "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty" together are stupid and hypocritical because you can't hold all human life sacred and precious AND also be in favor of killing people. I'm speaking from the standpoint of an outsider, not someone willing to swallow the religious propaganda.

Pro-life can be believing in the sanctity of innocent life. You may feel that a fetus is a person and that as an innocent it deserves the chance at life, this in no way prevents a person from also saying that some people forfeit their right to live because they have committed horrific crime.

[amigocabal]

Amigo, you are elevating a semantic difference above the actual substance of what is being said by these candidates. Yes, there are a lot of oddities and straight up stupidities in the way that the justice system deals with sex crimes but thinking these have to do with the way the word rape is used and not with deeper underlying problems with the way we define and categorize sexual assaults in legal contexts is an unbelievably superficial examination of the problem.

What is your problem with Ron Paul's quote?

[Scrib]

Amigo, you are elevating a semantic difference above the actual substance of what is being said by these candidates. Yes, there are a lot of oddities and straight up stupidities in the way that the justice system deals with sex crimes but thinking these have to do with the way the word rape is used and not with deeper underlying problems with the way we define and categorize sexual assaults in legal contexts is an unbelievably superficial examination of the problem.

The problem to me with the whole situation has nothing to do with the redefining rape bullshit, it just shows how much Republicans care about the different types of rape. If you were forced down and raped you get a free abortion, if you slept with your teenage boyfriend and you were underage and he wasn't you can go fuck yourself, slut. If you were tricked, go fuck yourself. If someone pulled his condom off and humped you, tough shit. And let's not even get into how such a distinction incentivizes claims of forcible rape. People would certainly get hurt.

If Mr. Mourdock means to imply that the product of the rape is a gift to the victim from God, then by his retarded fundie logic the man who raped her is an instrument of God. It's really not much different than saying "Your rapist gave you a gift!" I am incapable of adequately expressing how abhorrent and sickening that is.

Again, I'm not seeing the problem here. It all goes back to the problem of evil, which fucking twelve year olds can instinctively grasp. I can understand being atheistic and hating God and so finding this odious, but he's not saying anything weird or logically inconsistent. It seems to me that people pick and choose when God acts (or fails to act) when it's a storm in a far off part of the world or a bus accident then God. When rapist suddenly God is nowhere to be seen and people want to blame it all on humanity. People want to have the bullshit platitude when it suits them and ignore the other times.

[General Mung Beans]

No, you stupid tool, "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty" together are stupid and hypocritical because you can't hold all human life sacred and precious AND also be in favor of killing people. I'm speaking from the standpoint of an outsider, not someone willing to swallow the religious propaganda.

In addition to what Scrib said below, you seem to be implying that pro-life people can't be logically consistent unless they oppose killing people for self-defence. In addition plenty of pro-choice people support the death penalty even though they agree that human life is sacred and precious.

[SirNitram]

I'm not here to get into the 'can they be logically consistant'. They can be consistant all the way to Giveafuck Mountain, and I don't care. They're stupid assholes. People who want to restrict this are all about CONTROL. Control of women.

The rest of the thought is too far over the line.

[General Mung Beans]

I'm not here to get into the 'can they be logically consistant'. They can be consistant all the way to Giveafuck Mountain, and I don't care. They're stupid assholes. People who want to restrict this are all about CONTROL. Control of women.

The rest of the thought is too far over the line.

So you think the majority of millions of people who are opposed to abortion in this country are in it mainly to have control over women? Is that why people go on marches, engage in acts of civil disbobedience, and are even fanatical enough to launch terrorist attacks? Such an argument is as absurd as saying that people who want to institute gun control measures are all about expanding government power or those who support regulating or restricting homeschooling want to have power over families and parents. And polls indicate that there is little difference in gender on views on abortion: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/ ... 7570.shtml:

There are no major differences between mens' and womens' stands on the issue. 40% of men believe abortion should be generally available, and 37% of women think it should be. 20% of men think it should not be permitted, and slightly more women, 24%, agree.

[The Yosemite Bear]

not suprised, they just want their control of everything, and are tired of all those not as equal as them, non white males having any say in anything, now git back into the kitchen, or into that ghetto where we send all you non-folks... fuckin assholes

[SirNitram]

I'm not here to get into the 'can they be logically consistant'. They can be consistant all the way to Giveafuck Mountain, and I don't care. They're stupid assholes. People who want to restrict this are all about CONTROL. Control of women.

The rest of the thought is too far over the line.

So you think the majority of millions of people who are opposed to abortion in this country are in it mainly to have control over women? Is that why people go on marches, engage in acts of civil disbobedience, and are even fanatical enough to launch terrorist attacks? Such an argument is as absurd as saying that people who want to institute gun control measures are all about expanding government power or those who support regulating or restricting homeschooling want to have power over families and parents. And polls indicate that there is little difference in gender on views on abortion: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/ ... 7570.shtml:

There are no major differences between mens' and womens' stands on the issue. 40% of men believe abortion should be generally available, and 37% of women think it should be. 20% of men think it should not be permitted, and slightly more women, 24%, agree.

I think the majority are mislead idiots. But it is about control. Insist it's absurd all you want; the reality is every single anti-choicer wants to control a woman's choice here. It's inherent to their entire idealogy.

[wautd]

I suppose at this point it should be standard procedure to ask what kinds of rape GOP political candidates support?

Damn, how can you parodize the GOP when in reality it's so fucked up already?

[Civil War Man]

This chart gets brought up in a lot of abortion threads, so may as well get it out there on this one since the topic shifted to consistency in pro-life beliefs.

[Scrib]

I'm not here to get into the 'can they be logically consistant'. They can be consistant all the way to Giveafuck Mountain, and I don't care. They're stupid assholes. People who want to restrict this are all about CONTROL. Control of women.

The rest of the thought is too far over the line.

If this was a general discussion about abortion logical consistency is not as relevant. Here it's about a specific statement. A specific statement that is freaking out even Christians who would accept it in other situations. So they're total hypocrites or they believe in a different type of God than the one commonly accepted.

[amigocabal]

I'm not here to get into the 'can they be logically consistant'. They can be consistant all the way to Giveafuck Mountain, and I don't care. They're stupid assholes. People who want to restrict this are all about CONTROL. Control of women.

The rest of the thought is too far over the line.

So you think the majority of millions of people who are opposed to abortion in this country are in it mainly to have control over women? Is that why people go on marches, engage in acts of civil disbobedience, and are even fanatical enough to launch terrorist attacks? Such an argument is as absurd as saying that people who want to institute gun control measures are all about expanding government power or those who support regulating or restricting homeschooling want to have power over families and parents. And polls indicate that there is little difference in gender on views on abortion: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/ ... 7570.shtml:

There are no major differences between mens' and womens' stands on the issue. 40% of men believe abortion should be generally available, and 37% of women think it should be. 20% of men think it should not be permitted, and slightly more women, 24%, agree.

I think the majority are mislead idiots. But it is about control. Insist it's absurd all you want; the reality is every single anti-choicer wants to control a woman's choice here. It's inherent to their entire idealogy.

So then all laws that restrict choice in any field is motivated by a desire to control a woman's choice?

[TheFeniX]

I suppose at this point it should be standard procedure to ask what kinds of rape GOP political candidates support?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/i ... visory.gif

Williams blew a 20 some-odd point lead with the "sit back and enjoy the rape" comment and refusing to shake Richard's hand. The whole debacle was ahead of my time (I was only ~8 ), but it's a pretty big and understandable sore point with my mother and it was plastered all over the local news.

[SirNitram]

I think the majority are mislead idiots. But it is about control. Insist it's absurd all you want; the reality is every single anti-choicer wants to control a woman's choice here. It's inherent to their entire idealogy.

So then all laws that restrict choice in any field is motivated by a desire to control a woman's choice?

Yes. You are asserting control to limit that choice.

Not all control is bad. Controlling destructive things can be useful. But notice that these laws are always on a specific group. You never hear these troglodytes talking about controlling the men. It extends all the way to slut-shaming.

[amigocabal]

not suprised, they just want their control of everything, and are tired of all those not as equal as them, non white males having any say in anything, now git back into the kitchen, or into that ghetto where we send all you non-folks... fuckin assholes

White nationalists oppose abortion even in the case of rape?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Pro-life can be believing in the sanctity of innocent life. You may feel that a fetus is a person and that as an innocent it deserves the chance at life, this in no way prevents a person from also saying that some people forfeit their right to live because they have committed horrific crime.

The fetus is not baptised, so it's all moot in the eye of the ever-loving and beneviolent Jesus. Understandably so, because the Romans (who, you know, slew him) were bigger issues to him than unborn babies ever were.

[Executor32]

not suprised, they just want their control of everything, and are tired of all those not as equal as them, non white males having any say in anything, now git back into the kitchen, or into that ghetto where we send all you non-folks... fuckin assholes

White nationalists oppose abortion even in the case of rape?

White nationalists tend to be Christian and extremely conservative, so while I wouldn't say that all of them oppose it, I'd be comfortable with assuming that one does unless they say otherwise.

[amigocabal]

not suprised, they just want their control of everything, and are tired of all those not as equal as them, non white males having any say in anything, now git back into the kitchen, or into that ghetto where we send all you non-folks... fuckin assholes

White nationalists oppose abortion even in the case of rape?

White nationalists tend to be Christian and extremely conservative, so while I wouldn't say that all of them oppose it, I'd be comfortable with assuming that one does unless they say otherwise.

On one of those white nationalist forums, one of them pointed out that banning abortion in cases of rape means requiring white females who became pregnant as a result of a rape by a black male would be forced to deliver a mixed race baby, and, in his opinion, could not understand how any white person could support that.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

On one of those white nationalist forums, one of them pointed out that banning abortion in cases of rape means requiring white females who became pregnant as a result of a rape by a black male would be forced to deliver a mixed race baby, and, in his opinion, could not understand how any white person could support that.

Even white pride crackheads are appalled by the GOP.