Unlike Romney, State Leaders Oppose Abortion After Rape
The state’s Republican leaders are at odds with the presumptive GOP presidential ticket on one key element of abortion politics — whether they oppose the procedure for victims of rape.
Mere hours after U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., and an ardent opponent of abortion in almost all cases, made comments on Sunday suggesting that women’s bodies would naturally reject pregnancy in cases of “legitimate rape,” Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan released a statement distancing themselves from him. They said their administration "would not oppose abortion in instances of rape."
Elected officials from Texas widely condemned Akin's comments ...
Comments (13)
Bruno F. Rivera via Texas Tribune on Facebook
You guys do know that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are straight up flip floppers. Vote for Ron Paul this weekend for the ALTERNATIVE!!
Jason Stradtner via Texas Tribune on Facebook
How about letting the states decide how to address abortion? That would mean the people of the state decide. Last I checked, abortion ended life, which we typically call murder, which is a crime already handled by our states. Just sayin
Greg Ellis via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Who is holding an election this weekend?
Wilkins Micawber
Every one of these "elected officials" (all of whom are men) share three things with Todd Akin:
-the firm conviction that they know what is best for women, even in cases where a woman has been physically and emotionally violated in a way that is impossible for them as men to experience first-hand;
-a profound ignorance of the most basic reproductive biology and medicine;
-and a consuming personal political ambition that pledges allegiance to ideology while paying lip-service to humanitarian concerns.
I will believe that Greg Abbott, Rick Perry, John Cornyn, et alia ex nauseum believe in the sanctity of human life when I hear ONE of them protest the wanton destruction of the hundreds of thousands innocent human lives that have been forfeited in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan through the reckless remote-control wars that have been conducted in the name of freedom and liberty over the past decade. Until then, every gaseous utterance that issues from their sorry gobs is the empty, self-serving, hypocritical blather of the vilest demogogue.
Dan Hawkins
Todd Akin's position is actually the only logical pro-life position. He just isn't using logic to express that position. People who are pro-life need to examine why they are so. Do they want use government to try to influence people's sexual behavior? Or do they want to use government to prevent people from escaping the consequences of their sexual behavior? Neither motivation is a legitmate use of government, and those in the pro-life movement would be hard pressed to create arguments that they are.
Or are they pro-life because they believe, as I do, that life begins at conception and that the unborn child at whatever stage of development, embryo, fetus, or infant, has that self-evident, innate right to life that we all have? Is that unborn child alive, as its growth and development would seem to prove, and is it human, i.e., can it be scientifically classified as homo sapien? I believe that those answers are yes and that convincing arguments can be made in their favor. If one is pro-life because one believes these things, then one must also believe that government has a responsibility to enact laws which protect the right to life of these unborn children. How then could one logically argue that unborn children conceived in rape somehow fall outside of that protection? They cannot without destroying their right to life argument and going to one of the first two questions I posed: do they want to use government to try to influence people's sexual behavior, or do they want to use government to prevent people from escaping the consequences of their sexual behavior?
The issue of abortion is an emotional issue, especially with the rape victim issue thrown in. Because it is so emotional, people tend to speak without thinking, which is why you occasionally get dumbass comments like the one Todd Akin made this past week. A lot of people who are pro-life hold that position because of their religious beliefs. This also tends to promote emotion over logic, and it's one of the reasons why I never use Biblical arguments when talking about the whole abortion issue.
Dan Hawkins via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Todd Akin's position is actually the only logical pro-life position. He just isn't using logic to express that position. People who are pro-life need to examine why they are so. Do they want use government to try to influence people's sexual behavior? Or do they want to use government to prevent people from escaping the consequences of their sexual behavior? Neither motivation is a legitmate use of government, and those in the pro-life movement would be hard pressed to create arguments that they are.
Or are they pro-life because they believe, as I do, that life begins at conception and that the unborn child at whatever stage of development, embryo, fetus, or infant, has that self-evident, innate right to life that we all have? Is that unborn child alive, as its growth and development would seem to prove, and is it human, i.e., can it be scientifically classified as homo sapien? I believe that those answers are yes and that convincing arguments can be made in their favor. If one is pro-life because one believes these things, then one must also believe that government has a responsibility to enact laws which protect the right to life of these unborn children. How then could one logically argue that unborn children conceived in rape somehow fall outside of that protection? They cannot without destroying their right to life argument and going to one of the first two questions I posed: do they want to use government to try to influence people's sexual behavior, or do they want to use government to prevent people from escaping the consequences of their sexual behavior?
The issue of abortion is an emotional issue, especially with the rape victim issue thrown in. Because it is so emotional, people tend to speak without thinking, which is why you occasionally get dumbass comments like the one Todd Akin made this past week. A lot of people who are pro-life hold that position because of their religious beliefs. This also tends to promote emotion over logic, and it's one of the reasons why I never use Biblical arguments when talking about the whole abortion issue.
Beverly Nuckols
Akin has absolutely apologized and said that he was wrong, both about the words he used and about the idea that a woman's body can prevent pregnancy after the stress or trauma of rape.. His gaffe has also led to many more learning that this common myth is untrue.
Pregnancy from rape is rare, but only because a woman is fertile for about 5 days of her cycle.
Nevertheless, those who are educated about human embryology understand that the child conceived in rape is also the child of the mother.
As to the division, who do you think we pro-life voters will choose: Obama, a man who fought to allow children who survive abortion attempts to die because his or mother wanted an abortion, or Romney, who opposes 99% of elective abortions?
Caitlin Gilchrist via Texas Tribune on Facebook
While I agree that it's the only logical position if you believe life and personhood begin at conception, that doesn't make me any less disgusted by the position itself.
Maricela Gonzalez Rios via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I SEE HOW IT IS!!! You men are chiming in, on WOMEN'S RIGHTS! Fix the "deadbeat dad" problem, first, then worry about the rest.
Patsy Painter Hull via Texas Tribune on Facebook
There is no reason why anyone should be legislating what I decide to do to my body.
Home Cooker via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Pious Empire shall not prevail. Kingofallclergy Ed
Bonnie McGuire
I would beg to differ with the lady that implied that a woman is only fertile about five days of her cycle. The truth is that while a woman is more fertile some days during her cycle, the risk of pregnancy is NEVER completely gone until after menopause. That's why the rhythm method used by many females that can't use other birth control for religious reasons have found that it's not very reliable.
Lisa Zajicek
Is this really going to be a political issue? It is morally wrong to kill!!!! Therefore, why should a child be sentenced to death for something they have no control over.....and before someone says it's not a child/baby it's a fetus, need I remind everyone that fingers, toes, and heart start forming within weeks of conception.