[Click to enlarge]
Via Matt Bloom
Hardly surprising. They got defeat written all over their faces.
“Some girls they rape so easy” What a horrible horrible statement.
Couldn’t believe that one myself…an absolute shocker
It sounds like a lyric from a country song.
To the tune of “Lying Eyes”
Some gurls they rape so easy
When the go out dressed so sleazy
There’s eyes are sayin yes, when they scream no.
When they find out a baby’s cooking,
It means God must have been looking
So, honey you best let that foetus grow.
Jesus. That’s simultaneously impressive and terrifying.
Mani – amazing!
There are no words to adequately describe how vile that statement is!
well there’s one word, it’s ‘hilarious’
Sounds like it’s spoken from experience…
I must be the only one who found it hilarious then. Not because I agree with the sentiment but because someone actually had the temerity to say it. A politician no less.
Would love a cup of tea. Three sugars and milk please.
Hmm, can I join you? We could have a party.
1 milk, no sugar for me.
I’d actually agree with Paul Ryan here..thats not trolling by the way. I can never even begin to imagine the horrors a woman or man would go through following a rape. Nor can I imagine the additional horror a woman would endure carrying a rapists child for nine months.I really don’t know if life begins at conception but I know the amazing potential of a child begins at that second.
Incidentally, I’m not thrilled about how I feel….I really can’t imagine how dreadful that situation is.
A number of those statements by Republicans are not bat-shit-crazy. Joe Walsh, John Koster and Paul Ryan’s statements are reasonable, standard enough pro-life views. The other’s are varying shades of wrongness.
Walsh and Ryan are just the standard ‘I’m avoiding having to think about the repercussions of this by dragging out the good old line about life being the preciousest thing there is’ line(not batshit crazy if you think denying women the right to bodily integrity isn’t batshit crazy!)
However, I take issue with Koster(and many others who have used this line) painting abortion as an ‘act of violence’ on a woman’s body. Abortion is no more ‘violent’ than any other surgical procedure, and since so many abortions can be carried out with a simple pill it’s far less so. Calling it ‘violence’ committed against a woman belittles the legitimate choice that many women have made to do what they feel is best for themselves, their lives, and their bodies.
Alec Baldwin summed it up rather well:
You know your party’s in trouble when you read this: A: The rape guy lost. B: Which one?
The irony of an Irish blog laughing at US politicians over abortion rights.
Thank you. It’s outrageous, people in Ireland get more concerned about US attitudes to abortion (where it’s legal) than they do to Irish attitudes where it’s illegal.
If you’re ‘pro-life’ then surely the above statements make perfect logical (and I realise using the term may seem paradoxical) sense? Bar maybe the one about how girls ‘rape’ so easily.
How about the clever “shut down” theory? You ok with that one?
Pat: I’m not aware of the ‘shut-down theory’ and I’m certainly not okay with the statements above. I’m pro-choice and always have been, I just find it out that people find the above statements coming from pro-life people to be shocking or in any way surprising. It fits perfectly with their worldview and any other point of view would be contradictory.
Some – Joe Walsh, John Koster and Paul Ryan’s statements do make sense from a pro-life point of view.
The others are rightly regarded as crazy.
If you are actually pro-life then being against abortion in cases of rape or incest is the only position that makes sense.
What makes no sense at all is having a position that only allows abortion in cases of rape or incest.
Not really. Many people are happily confused and are against abortion for contraceptive purposes but for it in the “cases of incest and rape”. These people vote too and are entitled to vote for abortion because it’s sunny on polling day or for whatever other reason. It’s the job of the more educated of us in society to reason with these people and demonstrate the great evils of abortion. Abortion only creates more problems than it seeks to “solve”.
Happily confused is still confused.
Pro-lifers arguing that abortion creates social problems and is bad for wimmin is also rubbish. Just be a man or women of your beliefs and say you believe abortion is wrong because your religion says so.
Surely it’s the pro-choicers who claim that a *lack* of abortion causes social problems?
In countries where abortion is illegal or hugely restricted, the lack of access to safe and legal abortion causes problems.
In countries where abortion is legal, opponents to abortion claim that it causes nebulous ‘problems’ in order to campaign for the restriction of women’s rights.
See that’s the problem here. The Pro-life side and the pro-choice side are so caught up in the moral issues surrounding the abortion debate that you’re refusing to see the bigger picture.
The lack of abortion facilities does cause social issues. Our government has proved time and time again that they are unwilling to provide an adequate support system for single mothers and struggling families. Contraceptive though readily enough available is also ridiculously expensive. Demonizing the women who have to get abortions due to economic factors is ridiculous. It’s like choosing between whether or not you want to starve. I believe in the right to abortion and the right to freedom of choice, however I am also aware that we do not live in a “child friendly” country that is willing to help and provide for us as we raise our children. If you’re so against the idea of abortion, then how about some suggestions of tackling the social issues that are deciding factors in abortion?
True. A consistent pro-life stance (anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-death penalty, anti-war) makes far more sense than one that allows exceptions for e.g. criminals, very old people, sick people, unborn, etc.
Yeah, I’d like to have a consistent pro-death stance – I’m pro-choice, pro-assisted suicide, but still anti-death penalty and anti-war. Darn the complexity of human beings.
Being ‘consistently’ pro-any-sweeping-concept is difficult and, honestly, a pointless endeavour. Does anyone really pride themselves on being ‘pro-life all the time about everything’?
Anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-euthanasia, anti-DNR, vegetarian(or possibly subsisting on pure energy and salt licks since almost everything we eat is/was alive), anti-death penalty, anti-assisted-suicide, anti-extreme sports maybe?
Things are so much more complicated than ‘life is good, death is bad!’
I’m very, very, very much in favour of defending human life for humanist and moral reasons.
It’s not that hard.
I can see how it could be inconvenient in certain circumstances but I think it’s a sound and consistent view to hold.
So you’re pro-life but only the lives of the healthy and strong. The weak and sick can choose to or have people choose to nudge them off this mortal coil?
The terminally weak and sick should be allowed to choose to end their lives with dignity at a time of their choosing, in my opinion.
If there’s any ~hugely important consistency~ there, it’s that suffering is bad and forcing someone to suffer just so you can proudly say you’re ‘consistently pro-life’ is shocking cruelty.
Paul Ryan was defeated as VP, but also was on the ballot for the house and maintains his seat, and his position as head of budget committee or other.
+1. Ryan is no loser. Whomever believes that he or his fellow male republicans care about any of that reproduction stuff need to grow up. Elections are money and status game we all know that.
Women are designed to carry a child. While I agree that a woman having to carry a child from a rape is not ideal; we must bear in mind that two wrongs don’t make a right. Murder is a worse crime than rape and a murder doesn’t undo a rape. Therefore, all women should keep their babies, regardless of the circumstances of the baby’s conception. You’d want to be one hell of a sociopath to kill your own flesh and blood.
“Women are designed to carry a child.” Yes, we’re just incubators – we’re good sandwich makers too. I hope you don’t masturbate ABM – with that attitude masturbation would constitute massmurder.
women are designed to carry a child
Among other things (that’s like saying that the only purpose of men is to father children…)
More importantly:- people are ‘designed’ to die too but that doesn’t mean we should all go around killing one another…
Why even bother arguing the point? People like ABM are the reason why the consensus on abortion has shifted over the last twenty years. For every 10 people who are quietly worried about the consequences of abortion, there’s loud idiots like ABM, making logical Swiss cheese of their argument, and driving away the moderates from their side.
I bother – not because I think I can change his mind – but because there is a very high possibility that a woman is in that awful position right now and when she reads statements like his she might feel even more alone and ashamed than she does already thanks to people like him. I hope that if someone is arguing against him that woman will feel a little bit less alone and know that most people don’t agree with him.
I hope that any woman reading this website (God help her) will have the good sense to go with her good instinct and not be relying on ivory-tower ideologies forced down her throat from the likes of Ivana Bacik and other feminists. Abortion is a disgusting industry. It’s disgusting not because women are stigmatised (as you seem to think), but because it’s an industry that’s in the business of preying on young vulnerable women.
ABM: Pot calling the kettle an ivory-tower ideology.
ABM, there you go again defending poor, vulnerable young women who ~surely~ don’t know any better from having the option to choose what happens to their own bodies.
You can take your patronising bullshit and go fuck yourself, thanks. Women should have the right to choose a safe and legal abortion and not be shamed by God-bothering jerks like your fine self.
@Jess The abortion topic always brings the liberal worms out to the surface for a feed. FYI, I didn’t mention “God” on this thread. You did. The topic of “God” always seems to be of particular interest to those (like yourself) of probable one-time Catholic persuasion. Your hatred is an unhealthy obsession bordering on compulsiveness. And then you go on to brand God-fearing, God-loving folk as somehow unworthy of a say in society. Jess, I really hope you don’t end up in hell with a hot poker rammed up your arse for all eternity. I really hope and pray that you don’t.
Good point, well made. And hopefully true when it comes to voting time.
Somehow I doubt he has a problem with mass-murder, just like his highly rational friends in the list above.
I agree that abortion is a horrible concept.
Particularly the later it gets in the pregnancy – and for this reason I think everything should be done to facilitate very early terminations.
I don’t think it’s possible to say what is and isn’t right for a pregnant rape victim – particularly if you haven’t been in that position yourself. It’s not just a question of logic. People are suffering from trauma, and logic isn’t sufficient.
I think it is a wonderful thing if someone in that position decides to keep the baby and/or bring it up, but not everyone is able to do so and I think it is too much to expect them to be able to, particularly if you are lucky enough never to have been in their position.
I think that the current system results in many later abortions, which could have been avoided if early abortion was available in this jurisdiction.
As is probably obvious from this comment, I don’t believe that life begins when sperm meets egg, or on implantation; not everyone will agree with this, but in my view what needs to be looked at is the development of the unborn child and as early a time limit set as is reasonably possible. This should not be unrealistic where it is possible to test for pregnancy as early as 2 weeks after conception, and the abortion pill allows very early termination of pregnancy.
You cannot have it both ways brother. Either the unborn child is a separate living entity in need of the collective’s protection or it is the flesh, and therefore, property of the mother.
Or you can quite reasonably say that it is not part of the mother, but neither is it a human being in the full moral and spiritual sense, and therefore does not require the collective’s protection.
You’d want to be one hell of a sociopath to force a woman to be pregnant against her will for nine months.
Two words to James Murran in disguise: “F***k” and “Off”
The mask of tolerant liberalism slips yet again…
I have no mask on and don’t claim to be tolerant of everything, thanks. Is that the line you spin to everyone who disagree with you? I am intolerant of such things as misogynist bigots like yourself – ones who bleat on about something where he has no clue of the reality of the topic; someone who seems to think that forcing women to do something because “they are designed to do it” is not controlling or sociopathic. No liberal mask on me
That’s all very fine and you’re entitled to your warped opinions. The problem comes when you start hand-bagging. If you, a stranger, approached me and told me to “f off” on the street you’d get a smack in the gob for being an unruly yobbo with an attitude problem (were it not for the fact that you’re a woman – how “mysoginistic” of me… Then again, you’re such a feminazi, you’d probably insist that I punch you). You’re probably one of those highly logical “womens’ lib” types who wait for men to close the door that’s been held open for you. But don’t let me stop you from being an internet hard wo/man/superhero. Keep that mask on though. I’d say you’re some ugly inbred who’s mother should have made a “more informed choice” when she got up the duff, eh?
Why anyone in their right mind should bother to be ‘tolerant’ of ABM and his cracked, hateful worldview is beyond me…
If the child is 5 days old or five years old, whats the difference? Unless you can clearly say its not a real person before X date then…
a five day old or five year old is a separate entity, self-sustaining. A zygote or foetus is not, and has no right to use someone’s body without permission. The personhood of a foetus or lack thereof is not the issue, the issue is whether or not you believe people have a right to bodily autonomy or whether women lose these rights when a child is conceived. If so, why are parents not legally compelled to donate blood or a kidney if their child needs it? They decided to have sex, the child was conceived, it’s their responsibility to make sure the child’s ‘right to life’ is upheld even if it means they lose control of their own bodies. If you think that sometimes people’s right to determine who has access to their bodies is rescinded, where do you draw the line?
I hadnt thought about it from that angle. Thanks for broadening my perspective.
Thanks for not getting defensive. :) I can get a bit cross about these things . . .
+1,000,000 That is what pro-choice is about, having ownership of your own body to decide what you want to put it true. Nobody is saying that abortion should become common place, but the option needs to be there for people who need it and then support and help needs to be put in place to help people arrive at there choices.
Lou – are you in favour of access to abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy?
I’m pro-choice; however, I believe that a lot of the pro-choice arguments are poor, especially the bodily integrity one, as only the looniest of the loons would support ninth month abortion. That then brings you to where to you draw the line and it appears to be around self-sufficiency, which is an ever shrinking horizon.
Also, the pro-choice arguments say nothing to the pro-life arguments that abortion is killing an innocent person.
That’s a bit of a non-issue, no pregnancies are ‘viable’ before the 21st week and English law only allows abortion up to 24 weeks and 2005 only 1% of abortions performed were over at 20 weeks (where I would presume that it was because the foetus wasn’t viable or the pregnancy became dangerous). But yes, *theoretically* (because, to be honest, that argument is only ever theoretical because what person would remain pregnant for 9 months for fun? And what doctor would perform such a procedure? Late term abortion are only carried out when absolutely neccessary.) I am in favour of access to abortion up to nine months.
But as I said, it’s only really theoretical and is nothing more then a derailing tactic in most conversations,
And why is the bodily integrity argument poor? Neither a day old zygote nor a 80 year old human nor anything in between should have the right to access a woman’s body against her will.
And I’m not arguing with anti-choicers who think foetuses are equivalent to children, my point is that you can’t use pregnancy or someone else’s need for a person’s body/bodily resources as an excuse to withdraw someone’s right to control their own bodies.
+1000, excellently put.
We should worry less about what that crowd have t’say about abortion or anything at all for that matter, and get our own house in order .
this bait work like a charm, over and over again, it’s amazing :) fair play to you in fairness, broadsheet. respect!
Christmas is a commin’ – need to get the ole advertising revenues up.
Yeah, because advertisers love blogs full of soft-headed sorts complaining about abortion.
They’re looking for that sweet sweet Dyson money.
Hopefully we will see similar tossing out of the BS brigade here in Ireland.
I voted rapeublican