Oh my gods, that was funny!!!!! :D

Michale.....

okay, if i ever decide to abort my toe i'll give you the chance. we'll call it toe v. wade.

You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me.... Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish. These f***ing ameteurs...
~The Big Lebowski

There are SOME Senators who have made a living joking about rape...

I'm just sayin'.....

Michale.....

Oh! Oh!! Let me!!! Lemme!!! Pick me!!! Pick me!!!! :D

Michale....

i happen to share that opinion. if it can breathe air, survive and grow up without being inside someone, it's a person. if not, it isn't.

Well, there are those who would say that if you throw those cells under a microscope, you're not gonna come up with a puppy or a dolphin or a pony. Them thar are human cells. ;D

so's my pinky toe. but if you chopped it off, it wouldn't be a person, it'd just be a collection of cells. some of those cells would still be alive, their DNA is human and the nerve cells would still be firing. does that make my severed pinky toe human life, and its amputation a crime against humanity?

But until they are carried and become viable, they are nothing more than cells...

My personal belief (which I realize is fraught with inconsistencies and pitfalls) is that it is life when the baby can survive outside the mother.

Up until that point, it's not life..

I have absolutely NOT scientific basis for that belief. It's just my gut..

Michale.....

Well, there are those who would say that if you throw those cells under a microscope, you're not gonna come up with a puppy or a dolphin or a pony. Them thar are human cells. ;D

CB: But the alternative is to kill an innocent child, who had no say in getting conceived.

I have to admit, these two opposing viewpoints BOTH makes sense...

I don't have a moral objection to abortion depending on the time constraint..

I don't believe that life begins at conception. But, somewhere along the 9-month line, life DOES begin...

If an abortion is performed within a reasonable time frame after a rape, I don't have a problem with that.

But if the victim of the rape makes a decision to carry the baby to term and then changes her mind with one or two months to go, I believe she should be forced to carry the baby to term...

If she doesn't want it, there is always adoption...

Michale.....

Rape is a crime. So I don't know that a rapist would have any more "rights," or say in the matter, than a bank robber would, with respect to how the stolen money should be handled. (Also, rape is committed out of hatred, not from a desire to procreate.)

And "exemptions," by their very nature, need to be defined

But they specifically haven't been. And there's obviously a reason for that: not everyone agrees on whether exemptions should be made.

The Republican candidate for VP has co-sponsored legislation which would outlaw all abortion -- no exemptions. So, yeah, I think it's a pretty mainstream Republican position these days, and I'm free to call it as I see it.

You can call it however, and whatever, you wish. But, again, the American people get to define "the center" (read: mainstream), and here's where they stand on abortion: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx#1

Personally, I think "rapists' rights" sounds way over the top and will likely do more to diminish the Left's position than anything else.

Forcing a woman to carry a baby to term after being raped is cruel and unusual punishment.

Well, I'm sure many would agree with you. But the alternative is to kill an innocent child, who had no say in getting conceived. People who believe life is sacred include those innocent little humans in their plans to protect the unborn, who can't protect themselves. And then there are those on the Right who are willing to make the exception for rape and incest. So I don't know what to tell you. People feel the way they feel, and those who have a genuine moral issue with killing an unborn child are, naturally, going to seek to defend that child, regardless of the circumstances under which it was conceived.

We, apparently, have conflicting views of what the GOP stands for in the here and now.

You seem to believe they stand for "RAPISTS RIGHTS". I believe they stand for "YES, WE DID BUILD THIS."

Tell ya what..

We'll let the public decide as to which platform is the TRUE GOP platform.. We'll see which platform becomes the reality..

One of us is going to be disappointed, to be sure. :D

Michale.....

You will be seeing more of me here in the comments from now on, I promise you.

This is because I have good news -- I have reached the second big milestone in my book project. Woo hoo!

I still have one more article submission, which I'll be running Thursday, but from then on it's back to normal until convention-time.

Chris1962 -

You can call it what you want, but it will give the right to any rapist to pick out the mother of his child. From that point on, he will have a whole slew of legal rights as the father. I call that giving rights to rapists, because that is exactly what it is.

And "exemptions," by their very nature, need to be defined, or else you are not for any exemptions. That's the way exemptions work. Republicans have been happy with no exemptions since 2004 in their platform.

The Republican candidate for VP has co-sponsored legislation which would outlaw all abortion -- no exemptions. So, yeah, I think it's a pretty mainstream Republican position these days, and I'm free to call it as I see it. Forcing a woman to carry a baby to term after being raped is cruel and unusual punishment. These Republicans are also against "morning after" pills, so she wouldn't even have that option if they got their way.

Forcing a woman to have to deal with her rapist for 18 years and 9 months in the legal system after her rape is also cruel and unusual punishment, as I see it. Because, like it or not, he will have fatherhood rights. Which the GOP wants to guarantee for him.

That is today's GOP. Why any woman would vote Republican is beyond me. Fortunately, fewer and fewer of them intend to, if the polls can be believed.

-CW

That just earned you my unshakable vote for MIDOTW award. And, it's only Tuesday!

And, it makes up for quite a lot, actually ... :)

-CW

Actually, this is EXACTLY what the Republican Party stands for. They just wrote it into their party platform. You can't get more "mainstream Republican" than that. The party platform IS "what the party stands for" -- that is the entire point of the document. What the Republican Party stands for is rapists' rights.

Chris1962 -

See above. While I don't know the percentage of people who believe this, I can accurately say that that percentage controls the Republican Party. So, either the extremists have taken over the party, or the party has become extremist. Either way, rapists' rights are now in the official Republican Party platform -- as happened in 2004 and 2008, I might point out.

Deal with it -- this IS today's Republican Party, and this IS what they stand for. You can disagree with it, but the fact remains.

Michale -

The Republican platform committee is the one painting with this brush, not me. Deal with it. This is not some lone right-wing nut case. Paul Ryan wrote bills with this guy to give rapists rights. That's a fact, Jack.

I'm glad Akin is staying in the race, because he's the poster boy for what the Republican Party stands for -- not some "off the reservation" nutcase.

Seen polling among women recently? It's about to get even worse for Republicans, that's my guess.

-CW

Looks like he might stick it out..

Michale.....

And is it being handled as a "hate crime"?

Interesting overnight poll: "While voters overwhelmingly disapprove of Akin’s foray into reproductive science, pollster Tom Jensen explains, “for many voters their dislike of McCaskill trumps their concerns about Akin.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/21/ppp-poll-todd-akin-isnt-dead-yet/

{chortle} {chortle}

A pretty small segment of society believes that, Chris, so I don't know why you're calling it the "mainstream Republican position":

With all due respect to our fearless leader, I see that a lot on CW.COM

The denizens want to wash their hands of every Left-Wing nut case (speaking of Left-Wing nut cases, why no comments on that Leftie who shoot up a conservative Family Center??) or pathetic Oowzer (rhymes with Luser) and claim that it's just a one off event, not representative of Democrats as a whole.

Yet, some whacked out Right Wing nut makes a boneheaded and obviously frak'ed up statement and, all of the sudden, it's the brush used to paint the entire Republican Party...

I'm just sayin.....

Michale

A pretty small segment of society believes that, Chris, so I don't know why you're calling it the "mainstream Republican position":

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx#1

I suspect that the "20%" group, who want abortion illegal under all circumstances, is comprised of conservatives. And since conservatives exist on both sides of the aisle, I wouldn't assume that they're all Republicans. Dem conservative Catholics may have a problem with abortion, too. It's not exactly sanctioned by the Church.

I like your style of late and, it might even work! :)

or maybe he's just like wiener, but a wiener who pulls out earlier. out of the race, i mean...

That is what the Republican Party stands for as much as Anthony Wiener is what the Democratic Party stands for..

It works both ways...

Besides, Akin has dropped out of the race... Apparently he has a little more integrity than Weiner has...

Michale.....