Paul Ryan Co-Sponsored ‘Forcible Rape’ Bill Last Year with Rep. Todd ‘Legitimate Rape’ Akin

Paul Ryan Co-Sponsored ‘Forcible Rape’ Bill Last Year with Rep. Todd ‘Legitimate Rape’ Akin [pensitoreview.com]

Quote : Last year, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) joined with GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as two of the original co-sponsors of H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill which, among other things, introduced the country to the bizarre term “forcible rape.” Under H.R. 3, only victims of “forcible rape” would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they’re over 18. And while “forcible rape” isn’t defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don’t involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. “It’s basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape,” says Keenan. Although a version of this bill passed the GOP-controlled House, the “forcible rape” language was eventually removed due to widespread public outcry. Paul Ryan, however, believes that the “forcible rape” language does not actually go far enough to force women to carry their rapist’s baby. Ryan believes that abortion should be illegal in all cases except for “cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother’s life.” So rape survivors are out of luck.

Anyone here want to defend the Ryan/Akin "Forcible" rape bill passed by the Republican House?

GOP party platform sticks with anti-abortion stance, does not address rape exception [washingtonpost.com]

Quote : Republicans meeting to draft the party’s platform have agreed to stick with a plank that calls for a constitutional amendment protecting “human life”— a broad anti-abortion position that is silent on whether exceptions should be allowed in cases of rape and incest

to principled purists, acting on a basic principle, this makes sense. Liberals who operate on 'do whatever feels good' this is a hard concept to understand, but there are people who operate based on principles that are not ignored whenever the whim arises.

The principle here is: the euphemistically called 'fetus' is a human baby...abortion is murder / killing. Killing / murder of innocents without due process is a no-no. Thus it's not the innocent baby's fault that the mother was raped, and should not be summarily executed for the sins of the rapist.

Whether you agree with his view or not is irrelevant...people with principles follow that principle to where it leads, and act upon it.

Those who live without immutable principles in their lives will probably never understand this...but that's the way it is.

With that, that's all I will have to say on this...people who do not think abortion is murder will never convince those who do think it is murder, that it is not...and vice versa. People who do not think a fetus is a human baby will never convince those who do think it is a human baby, that it is not....the two shall never reconcile, as there is no such thing as middle ground between the two views...people have just to learn that others have opposing irreconcilable views, and learn to live with it.

While I do not agree with the bill at all I can see it as a stepping stone for the Republican party to eventually merge church and state. If you can convince the majority of the population to reject science in favor of faith then you have a whole lot of control. Just remember folks if it is a legitimate rape then God won't let you become pregnant.

Quote from dynamite : Just remember folks if it is a legitimate rape then God won't let you become pregnant.

no, that's not what he said...while i admit he didnt phrase it well, he was relying on doctors' medical expertise and knowledge:

From his book, Dr Willke states
http://www.abortionfacts.com/onli...oth_29.asp

Quote : In a healthy, peaceful marriage, the miscarriage rate ranges up to about 15%. In this case, we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate is higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If she loses 20% of 600, there are 450 left. Finally, we must factor in one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that is psychic trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get pregnant and stay pregnant, a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain which is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one really knows, but this factor certainly cuts the last figure by at least 50%, and probably more, leaving a final figure of 225 women pregnant each year, a number that closely matches the 200 found in clinical studies.

relying on what he read or was told, is not the same as saying "God won't let you become pregnant", but the christophobes are sure to twist his words and frame it that way so they can push their agenda.

Quote from Radeck : to principled purists, acting on a basic principle, this makes sense. .... Those who live without immutable principles in their lives will probably never understand this...but that's the way it is.

.... until it get's in the way of his political ambitions: [latimes.com]

Quote : In response to a question about his differences with Romney on exceptions to a ban on abortion, Ryan said: "Look, I'm proud of my record. ... Mitt Romney is going to be the president; the president sets policy. His policy is exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother. I'm comfortable with it because it's a good step in the right direction.

Quote : With that, that's all I will have to say on this...people who do not think abortion is murder will never convince those who do that it is not...and vice versa. People who do not think a fetus is a human baby will never convince those who do that it is not....the two shall never reconcile, as there is no such thing as middle ground between the two views...people have just to learn that others have opposing irreconcilable views, and learn to live with it.

"Fetus" is not a "euphemism" for baby. It is the technical term for a particular stage of growth in the womb.

Quote from Radeck : relying on what he read or was told, is not the same as saying "God won't let you become pregnant", but the christophobes are sure to twist his words and frame it that way so they can push their agenda.

Your sarcasm detector is on the fritz.

Quote from Radeck : he was relying on doctors' medical expertise and knowledge

By "doctors'" you mean "pro-life activists" and by "medical expertise and knowledge" you mean "superstitions"

Quote from Radeck : to principled purists, acting on a basic principle, this makes sense. Liberals who operate on 'do whatever feels good' this is a hard concept to understand, but there are people who operate based on principles that are not ignored whenever the whim arises.

Unless, of course, the stimulus money was going to be spent anyway, right?

Quote : The principle here is: the euphemistically called 'fetus' is a human baby...abortion is murder / killing. Killing / murder of innocents without due process is a no-no. Thus it's not the innocent baby's fault that the mother was raped, and should not be summarily executed for the sins of the rapist.

Does your immutable principles about the killing of innocents also include drone attacks during wartime?

Quote : Whether you agree with his view or not is irrelevant...people with principles follow that principle to where it leads, and act upon it.

And they are free to act upon their priciples by not getting an abortion, or not entering a gay marriage or any of the other "immoral" acts that the religious right seeks to legislatively prohibit.

Quote : Those who live without immutable principles in their lives will probably never understand this...but that's the way it is.

And yet, these supposedly "immutable principles" would still allow for abortions in certain types of rape.

Quote : With that, that's all I will have to say on this...people who do not think abortion is murder will never convince those who do think it is murder, that it is not...and vice versa. People who do not think a fetus is a human baby will never convince those who do think it is a human baby, that it is not....the two shall never reconcile, as there is no such thing as middle ground between the two views...people have just to learn that others have opposing irreconcilable views, and learn to live with it.

I have no problem "living with" the fact that others have opposing viewpoints. But I have major problems with others trying to *force* their opposing viewpoints onto me through the codification of their religious tenents into secular law.

Quote from 124nic8 : .... until it get's in the way of his political ambitions: [latimes.com]

so did Biden...in fact Biden used the same verbiage: the president sets the policy.
You dont seem to complain when your side does it, only when the other one does.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blo..._blog.html

Quote : “Look. I am vice president of the United States of America,” Biden said. “The president sets the policy

Quote from smegalicious : I have no problem "living with" the fact that others have opposing viewpoints. But I have major problems with others trying to *force* their opposing viewpoints onto me through the codification of their religious tenents into secular law.

I have no problem "living with" the fact that others have opposing viewpoints. But I have major problems with others trying to *force* their opposing viewpoints onto me through the codification of their secular tenets. eg forcing the recongition of gay marriage, forcing coverage by religious institutions for abortion, etc.

your view about "forcing" cuts both ways...again, irreconcilable differences.

Quote from Radeck : I have no problem "living with" the fact that others have opposing viewpoints. But I have major problems with others trying to *force* their opposing viewpoints onto me through the codification of their secular tenets. eg forcing the recongition of gay marriage, forcing coverage by religious institutions for abortion, etc. your view about "forcing" cuts both ways...again, irreconcilable differences.

Not at all.

My view gives people *choice*. Have an unwanted pregnancy? You, individual, have the freedom to choose from the available legal options (keep, abort, adopt). No one else is making that choice for you.

Same for gay marriage. No one is forcing you to "recognize" a gay marriage, to go to one or even send a gift. You are not synonymous with "the state". The state is subject to different limitations & requirements in terms of establishing laws to govern all, as opposed to what you personally find "immoral" or otherwise objectionable.

Quote from Radeck : so did Biden...in fact Biden used the same verbiage: the president sets the policy. You dont seem to complain when your side does it, only when the other one does. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blo..._blog.html

I'm not the one who claimed "immutable principle."

Quote from Radeck : so did Biden...in fact Biden used the same verbiage: the president sets the policy. You dont seem to complain when your side does it, only when the other one does. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blo..._blog.html

You were the one claiming that Ryan has these "immutable priciples" that he won't act against just on a "whim".

Are you now changing that claim to one where it's okay if Ryan changed his immutable principles because a Dem did it, too?