Akin harmed no one, Bill Clinton did, yet your kind loves Mr CLinton.

Before you condem all Repubs, get your facts straight. the poll you refer to was taken before Akin's comments, dummy. no polling since

I understood a poll was just taken to gauge reaction to the Magical Secretion.

Who exactly did Bill Clinton harm Stella?

Hillary participated in seances in the White House. Seems the democrats didn't think that was strange or unacceptable behavior. Of course they didn't feel the same way about Mrs. Reagan and her mystic advisers. Funny how that goes.

So did Lincoln.

The White House is suggested to be the most haunted house in the U.S., with reported sightings of Abigail Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln (people such as Grace Coolidge, Eleanor Roosevelt, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, Lady Bird Johnson, and Winston Churchill all claimed to have seen or "felt" Lincoln's presence). If you're going to have a seance the White House would be the place to do it! ; )

Rape? Clinton never raped anyone. Women basically threw themselves at him. Tall handsome man in a position of power? You better believe he had his pick of girls. I mean they didn't call him "slick willy" because he was an awkward guy..

If you hear the tapes from Monica Lewinski she like thought they were in love and going to get married and all this stuff.

I agree it is totally unacceptable for people to abuse their positions of power BUT keep in mind that while Newt Gingrich was hassling Clinton for his affairs Newt himself was cheating on his wife.

Fact is you can go down the line and pretty much EVERY president has had a girl on the side. Women like men in positions of power and men with the weight of the world on their shoulders want some comfort. All the way back to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Fact is Clinton has a surplus and he didn't start any stupid expensive wars. Abortions were at a decades low and he passed comprehensive welfare reform.

If the price to pay for a successful country is the leader being a cad in his
PERSONAL life then well I guess i can accept that.

Exactly.

So you all want Akin to stay in the race and would vote for him if you were a voter in Missouri? Would you send him a campaign contribution?

@Dirk
That is irrelevant to the point you made.

However, on the issue of his comments, I disagree. However, I also disagree with McCaskill's views on abortion. Hence my vote would go to the person that holds the majority of other views that I do, that would be Akin.

The best solution is Akin step down and be replaced by a more suitable candidate. Not because of his views on abortion or because he made one stupid comment, but because the Dems are looking for anything other then the economy and Obama's record to throw against the Republicans.

Why do people hate Biden so much? Can you give me some examples of the bad stuff he has said?

Honestly I never see him since I don't watch cable "news" channels so all i know is his status as an elder statesman who Obama relies on for his experience on foreign policy and other stuff you only leanr from being around for 100 years,

I don't know that it's hate as much as it is that he's a human gaffe machine and every time a big deal is made of someone else's gaffe, he's bound to come up:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/joebiden/a/bidenisms.htm

And he gets a pass on them because...well...he's just old Joe.

@Dirk
I apologize, when I responded I thought was conversing with an adult.

For us adults unwilling to be spoon fed a messiah by our party leaders, there is not a perfect candidate. We are forced to compromise on the short comings. The current ballot includes Akin and McCaskill. Akin's ignorance on the female reproductive system is less damaging to the country then McCaskill's ignorance on the economic, real solutions to health care and government spending.

I pray the current ballot situation will change and Missouri will not be forced to vote for a man that is dumb. If only you Dems would do the same with Biden.

where is your anger, your outrage, you angst, at the fact that Bill Clinton is a spokesman for your party?

At least Bill Clinton wasn't raping altar boys. I wouldn't brag about being a member of the catholic church. and if you are a mom don't leave your children alone with your priest.

I think they are smart enough to know that most of are anti big government - we are just voting for less taxes

Bob, this is a pointless argument. You're saying that the medical terminology used to differentiate between the stages of human prenatal development is somehow wrong...? There's a better way to express your beliefs than taking issue with the technical terminology used by people who do this stuff for a living.

But, you've already said that you're pro-choice. I don't care what you call a zygote, but it would be nice if you wouldn't help Republicans fight their war on women.

so let me get this straight, you are offended by the term legitimate rape, but not offended by Bill Clinton's actual rape?

@Dirk
I am glad in your head, you are able to condemn Akin for saying something stupid; while finding justification for the destruction of an unborn child because it might have an "unpleasant existence".

You are really a stand up guy.

catholic mom -

Who raped Bill Clinton? When did this happen? Where was this reported? Did the person get convicted? Did this ever go to trial... anywhere?

I’ve never heard such an obscene thing like this before…

You know it is a SIN for a catholic to lie…

Interesting to watch the liberal leftie wing nuts come to the defense of know woman abuser and rapist William Jefferson Clinton.....show your true colors boys.

JB –
Just an attempt to bring some real science and logic into the discussion here, along with a clarification of terms… there is no such thing as an “unborn child.” By any reasonable biological definition, you have to exit the uterus to actually be a CHILD. Hence, if you are unborn, you cannot be a CHILD.

An “unborn child” is totally disingenuous and an obvious attempt to bestow attributes – typical emotional argument – upon a biological organism that they do not have. Your “unborn child” is, in fact, a fetus…

I suspect even you know that this FETUS is not riding around in the uterus on a tricycle…

Get REAL here…

As Wilson has pointed out, it's important to use the correct designation when describing human life (if I may be so presumptuous as to refer to it as human...and as life, I suppose) in its various stages.

Which is why most couples, upon learning they're pregnant, notify their friends and relatives to relate the joyous news that they're "with zygote". Those relatives and friends, in turn, as the blessed day approaches, may hold a "fetus shower" for the expectant...um...fetus vessel. The attendants oftentimes will purchase gifts for the fetus vessel at stores with names like "Fetuses 'r' Us", "Fetus World", etc. Only after the fetus emerges, extends itself from the fetal position and is physically detached from the fetus vessel do we have a mother and a baby, the latter of which in short order will receive yet another designation such as Sophia or Jacob or Blue Ivy or Hopper.

@John Wilson
It is a child depending on whether the mother wishes to keep it. Hence the word child is a completely subjective term. Those who wish to kill unborn fetuses call it such, those who believe that life is valuable call them children. It has nothing to do with science. Hence the term fetus is just as disingenuous.

Is riding a tricycle required for it to be called a child? At what point does this child have the right to life? Taoist believes when it is no longer dependent on the mother. I would like to know when that determination occurs? If a child can born and survive at 30 weeks, is the child that isn't born until 40 weeks not a child at 30 weeks? None of my children would have survived day 1 post birth without assistance from a parent. Are they therefore less human? While not physically connected to the mother, they still as dependent on her.

Please give me the time when a child has the right to live?

JB, why do you keep asking when you have the answer?

If an embryo is the unwanted child of rape, and if it can't survive outside of the mother's body, then she gets to decide if it lives or dies.

Your point about babies being helpless after birth is completely disingenuous. Any stooge with a bottle of formula can keep a baby alive. If a woman abandon's her baby, and it survives, then you don't charge her with murder.

Go to an NICU with your simplistic notions about when a fetus is viable and when it isn't, and you'll learn that the decision of whether or not to recuscitate a premature newborn is ethically fraught and has enormous consequences for everyone involved.

But, there's no doubt that an embryo isn't viable in the first trimester, nor a fetus in the first weeks of the second trimester (and complain all you want about the terminology, but these are medical terms - unlike Aiken's "shut the whole thing down"). So during those times, the fetus/embryo is a dependent part of the mother's body, over which she has full authority.

As I said, claiming otherwise is to claim that a dependent (and therefore less-than-fully-human) part of the mother's body has a greater right to the use of her organs than she does, which renders her less than fully human under the law.

Ergo, Republicans want to make women into subhuman incubators. I know it seems to be too horrible to be true, but that's what we're dealing with.

@Taoist
A mother freely giving up her child to be cared for is still caring for her child that is completely on her for survival.

Can a mother 2 days post birth decide to hefty bag the child into the nearest dumpster, like she could 3 months earlier when it was equally as dependent? If not, what has changed?

Woman have been give a gift that allows them to produce life. Aren't we demeaning woman by saying that gift is no different then her being born with a spleen or liver, as you wish to make the comparison?

Lastly, resuscitating a premature child is our obligation, since no longer a parasite and now a human, unless it has consented to a Do Not Resuscitate order.

@ JB -

You are suggesting that it is it more demeaning to give women choices about their bodies than to force them, under penalty of death or prison, to be the subhuman incubators of their rapists' children.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that if human biology was different, and if you were at risk of being raped and forced to carry a child, you would have a different take on this issue. As it is, you can blithely sacrifice the freedoms of American women, in service of your religious agenda.

All hail the American Taliban!

@Taoist
Life is life. Whether it be in me or my wife. If that makes me a religious zealot, then so be it.

Yes, JB. It does make you a religious extremist, who wants to change our secular republic into a Christian Theocracy. It's weird that you feel comfortable admitting this, considering how much you claim to love the Constitution.

Let me ask you this - am I going to be able to eat shellfish in your new Christian America, and can I shave my beard?

JB –

As I see it, an ovum/fetus has no RIGHT TO LIFE, as that is defined by the society in which the mother lives – often the state in which the mother lives – cultural considerations, and prevailing laws and practices regarding viability, life, death, and neonatal statutes… every fertilized ovum doesn’t deserve a birth certificate, name, and an immediate ID card to go vote…

Most states don't even charge murder for the death of pregnant moms that lead to fetal death. Alternatively, in a case where a fetus is ripped from its mother and killed, it has to be proven it has taken a breath before it can be called murder.

A perhaps more important question is should we be bringing every fetus, at ever-decreasing ages and ever-increasing costs into the world, simply because we have the science to push that agenda? Who is going to absorb those costs?

You have shown, over time on the Patch, a complete distain for contributing to society, the poor children who are currently here or anything else that requires some of your money, unless it is named: J.B. Schmidt…

This planet reached a population of 7 BILLION on October 31, 2011, and we cannot sustain a healthy life on this planet for them. Do you really want to give the RIGHT TO LIFE to every fertilized ovum in America?

@Taoist
Depends, do we have to kill babies to harvest the shell fish?

@John Wilson
Please provide a quote from where I emphasize a disdain for the poor. I reject the current welfare system, not caring for the poor. The rhetoric written on the inside of your blinders prevents you seeing this.

Life based on when it takes its first breath is completely subjective and gives certain children rights at younger ages based on fertilization then others. Every fertilized egg deserves a right to life. If you feel you are capable of playing god and deciding which unborn child lives or die, then you obviously know which unborn children will benefit the world the most as they reach maturity.

JB -

Probably not, but I can't really foresee what life would be life in the backwards-ass version of the USA that the science-denying, religious extremist cohort of the GOP are trying to bring about. I guess you would know better than me. So, will we?

JB - please help me to understand. You reject the welfare system yet believe every life is sacred and deserves the chance-that we shouldn't play god? I am having trouble reconciling that - not unless you are making the generalization that every recipient of welfare has the opportunity to provide for themselves yet chose not to or is less than human.
As your comments are from the conservative viewpoint, are you suggesting the private sector address the welfare system?
If not the government - who?

@Taoist
It took longer then expected, but thanks for the insults. I shall turn the cheek and walk away.

@FreeThought
Our country was one of the most successful and prosperous countries prior to the welfare system. Therefore one must ask: Was it truly needed?

The current welfare system, especially as the President has done away with the work requirement, is a trap because it provides a reasonable existence without bettering your life. Accept for #1 below, all welfare should be short lived, hard to attain and require the recipient work for it.

I believe we need a system that: 1) Supports completely those incapable of self sustained existence and without family capable of assisting them. 2) Short term (6mo - 1yr per 10yr span) assistance for those caught in situations where the private sector is unable to help. 3) No assistance is given unless they proven a) They are unable to be hired b) Have exhausted every means of private sector assistance c) Can prove they will continue to seek private sector assistance or employment. 4)Government aid is extreme minimalist and heavily controlled on purchasing ability. 5) This is done on a case by case basis.

Government must be the extreme fall back position, not the only answer as it is currently presented. It is not playing God, it actually gives the recipient the most freedom with respect to his/her life. The current system traps its recipients in the false 'class warfare' notion that they are kept poor by those that aren't. We need to return the ugly stigma to welfare.

I am sorry, JB. Most of what is said is flat out not true. The period this country was most prosperous was after WWII. This was a period after the Great Depression. During the Depression, a welfare was definately established. One could argue that before the Depression economic conditions were very similar than they are now (economists have made this point). This is getting off topic. Most to all of your conditions are in place. For those accepting unemployment, it is required employment is being sought. It is a weekly requirement. There is a very low percentage allowed. If I were to lose my job today, I would not be making the same amount of money if I were on welfare.
Please believe me, with the economic meltdown, welfare is the only option for a vast majority of families. The stigma is there. Ask anyone. They would rather be working. They just can't find a job - not even at McDonalds (they are too overqualified).
I would really check the sources of this argument JB. None of it is true. It's all bunk.

It just is.

How would the religious authorities in the American Taliban punish a rape victim who used a black market morning-after pill in order to ensure that she didn't have to carry her rapist's baby to term?

After all, you can't prove that it was an abortion, especially if she took it right away. She may or may not have been pregnant; would she be arrested on suspicion of murder, and forced to provide blood and other samples for testing? If she was found to have been pregnant, what would the punishment be? Imprisonment? Death? What if it was impossible to tell; would she still be guilty of a crime?

I'd really like to know what the pro-life absolutists have to say about these real consequences of the constitutional amendment the GOP plans to promote.

JB -

Does this work for you?

J. B. Schmidt

8:50 am on Friday, July 20, 2012

@John Wilson
People joined communities for protection of their own private property. They do not form communities in order to redistribute their own wealth to those with less. In fact, as you start to destroy the personal property and wealthy of the individual in order to establish an arbitrary level of equality you destroy the community through the creation of class warfare. Suddenly the protection the community originally needed, erodes from the inside as groups attack other groups.

@FreeThought
I didn't say it was the most prosperous. However, as the influx of new entitlements continues to grow we are declining as the most prosperous nation.

We now have unemployment extended for 99 weeks. If you believe those people are diligently looking for employment or that the government carefully inspects their job searches, you are foolish. Not to mention that we have millions moving to SS Disability when there unemployment runs out. So please keep your talking points, they are not based in reality.

As for welfare, the Clinton initiated work requirement was lifted by the current president. A recent study has shown that immigrants have become multi-generational users of welfare. Hence, your premise that there is a stigma is bogus. The use of food stamps has sky rocketed in the last 4 years at the same time the government has imposed regulations on the private sector restricting its ability to provide for the poor. If I had to provide for my family, I would not be overqualified to McDonald's.

It is a happy thought that your tax dollars are not flushed down the toilet of the welfare system, but its pipe dream. Just research people using the their welfare visa card for cash and gambling with it or using food stamps to be junk food.

Are there people using the system to better themselves, yes. But that is the minority. If it wasn't the money spent on welfare would go down, not through the roof.

@John Wilson
Where in that quote do I show disdain for the poor?

I made a factual statement unless you can point to a culture that was formed in order that they could pool their money and care for the poor. They may over time choose to set aside their wealth to help each other. However, that is not their reasoning for forming a community.

I am sure that took some time and I admire your effort, but please try again.

JB - the reasons food stamps spiked is in response to the largest financial meltdown since the Great Depression. Your statements about immigration and work requirements - lies. Flat out lies. There is no governement regulation to prevent the private sector from providing for the poor. If there is, Please state the statute. The study about immigration - the Heritage Institute does not count. More of thier studies have been disproven than confirmed.
I don't think my talking points are the issue, JB. Please turn off Fox News put yourself in the position of the unemployed. It's not that they can't work at McDonalds. Not even McDonalds will hire them. Desire for a job is not getting a job. The private sector is not creating employment on their own. They need to be incentivised. The present environment is not doing that - and it's not the fault of regulation. There hasn't been regulation with teeth the past 10 years. If it wasn't for welfare - a great number of Americans couldn't eat.
That's not right.

Bob McBride -

OK, we will keep this all in baby Mom and kid talk just for you; none of this biology speak for you folks who can discern a tree from Bush...

By now, everyone has heard the deeply disturbing and offensive comment made by Todd Akin. But it's worth reading it again:

"From what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

It's bad enough that a supposedly serious major party candidate apparently has such an utter lack of understanding of science and basic medicine that he thought this statement was true, but to diminish rape and question reproductive choices for women who are raped?

I sincerely hope you can follow that... if you still have problems understanding, either pray or find a 12-year old kid to explain it to you...

Again, "From what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

John, personally, I really have no problem with a mom aborting her baby for any reason. It's her decision, it's something that can be done safely and heaven knows we have numerous other examples of disregard for human life one can point to to make a case for hypocrisy. I'm also not the least concerned that it's going to be outlawed.

However, I do think we should refer to it using the same terms we use when we consider it (and by it I mean, a baby) as something we want to keep, rather than having whole separate set of terms meant to imply it's got more in common with an appendix or a cancerous tumor than a human life.

In keeping with my original comment, I've never heard a woman who miscarried refer to the event as having lost her fetus. Have you?

Bob McBride -

Yes...

I work in Reproductive Health, Science and IT, and precision is extremely important.
The precision in formulation of thought and proper language in these fields are critically important for communication.

If you want to fudge around with reproductive health issues, you probably should learn the language, if you are going to communicate effectively and accurately.

You sound like a person calling tech support for help on their computer, and when the technician takes you through a series of steps and then instructs you to click on "any key" you tell him you can't find it...

This may be just fine when you are talking with your wife or children, however, when you are dealing with professionals in the field, you only confound the confusion, along with introducing too much emotion in an all too emotional topic.

No offense intended…

JB & FreeThought -

FreeThought, don't let the christian zealot snowball you with his unintelligible mountain of verbiage... he doesn't have any facts, only opinion, vague thoughts, feelings, beliefs and outdated religious dogma... he also lies A LOT…

JB – you stated that Obama rescinded the welfare to work rule, eliminated any provision for work.

When?
Where?

This claim has been thoroughly debunked on many sites. Only YOU, Willard, Ryan are perpetuating this outrageous lie.

The states have been requesting for many years now, some flexibility in the welfare to work federal program, now 16-years old. States thought that they could do a better job with this program – although I suspect they just want the $$$ to fill their budget gaps – and they wanted to be allowed to experiment with their own solutions. Obama finally relented, with several provisions 1) they would have to put as many people to work as the federal program did 2) they had to get approval from the federal government to both start and continue the program 3) they had to demonstrate a higher percentage of people placed in work than the federal program did. 4) they had to provide timely documentation of these results.

2-Republican governors have applied and been accepted for the program.

http://www.wbur.org/npr/159791065/despite-fact-checks-romney-escalates-welfare-work-requirement-charge

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/tiny-explainer-welfare-work-requirements/261357/

@John Wilson
NPR, really? I am glad you picked a non-biased news source.

The problem with you liberals and your media outlets is 1) the media outlets assume all information coming from a Democrat controlled agency is 100% accurate and 2) the viewers accept it blindly.

Assuming you did some research and dug up the HHS memo, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html

Then read through it and the supporting documents, you would have come across the following. (quoted from above HHS document) "While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement"

Where did this authority come from?? http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/17/presidential-memorandum-maximizing-effectiveness-federal-programs-and-fu and I quote, "work closely with State, local, and tribal governments to identify administrative, regulatory, and legislative barriers in Federally funded programs that currently prevent States, localities, and tribes, from efficiently using tax dollars to achieve the best results for their constituents."

@John Wilson (cont)
That Memorandum was drawn up in reference to EO 13563. Where it states and I quote form Sec 1(a), “Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation”

Then again let me quote from Sec 1(c), “each agency is directed to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and
costs as accurately as possible”

Hence, if you follow the bouncing ball (if you did the research, you would know that bouncing ball is actually documented in each link I have posted) EO 13563 allows agency the ability to change regulations. The Memorandum instructs Federal agencies to use the EO to restructure regulations. Finally the HHS uses that authority to strike down 402(a)(1)(A)(iii), aka the work requirement.

Wilson, we're not in your lab or office speaking to professionals. There's no reason not to use the common parlance when referring to the mother or the baby since those are the terms used, even in the doctors office, when it's a pregnancy one plans on keeping. Trying to take the emotion out of the subject by using other medical terms not only doesn't work, it's disingenuous, since (unless you're an extremely odd person) you don't use those terms when referencing pregnancies and births in your own family.

JB – (P. 1)

A LIE is a LIE…

YOU, Willard, Ryan [Willard’s surrogates] are being patently dishonest when you say Obama has waived the work requirement in the welfare to work program…

Additionally, while “EO 13563 allows agency the ability to change regulations. The Memorandum instructs Federal agencies to use the EO to restructure regulations. “ While there is administrative flexibility, restructuring and waivers within TANF, there is no legislative authority to WAIVE THE WORK REQUIREMENT. The Program’s essence is WELFARE TO WORK.

“Section 1115 authorizes waivers concerning section 402. Accordingly, other provisions of the TANF statute are not waivable. For example, the purposes of TANF are not waivable, because they are contained in section 401. The prohibitions on assistance are not waivable, because they are contained in section 408.

JB – (P. 2)

While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes INTENDED TO LEAD TO MORE EFFECTIVE MEANS OF MEETING THE WORK GOALS OF TANF.”

Further: “The claim that the administration’s changes amount to an “end” to welfare aren’t new — they popped up in July when they were first announced. But they are especially misleading given that the move by the Department of Health and Human Services came in response to requests from at least two Republican governors in Utah and Nevada, who complained paperwork requirements and narrow participation metrics were hampering their ability find recipients work.

JB – (P. 3)

This had been a complaint from Republican-led states in the past: Romney himself signed a letter with 28 other Republican governors in 2005 requesting Congress grant waivers to allow more flexibility in administering the program.

Nor was the waiver in question intended to circumvent the law’s original intention of putting welfare recipients to work. As the Obama campaign noted, the July HHS memo said that states would have to PROVE that any changes would BOOST EMPLOYMENT, a position that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius reiterated last month after a slew of similar attacks from House Republicans.”

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) and Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) – with unemployment at 11.6% in Nevada - would hardly be asking for waivers from HHS Secretary Sebelius to WAIVE THE WORK REQUIREMENT…

A LIE is a LIE…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/spin-and-counterspin-in-the-welfare-debate/2012/08/07/61bf03b6-e0e3-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/tanf/index.html

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/romney-puts-false-welfare-attack-at-center-of-campaign-1.php

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/tanf/about.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-weinstein/obama-welfare-to-work_b_1772739.html

JB -

This is a long way off topic... just to deal with your nonsense... Enough Already!

@John Wilson
You continue to articles from liberal media outlets. Way to think outside the progressive box.

Bob McBride –

Yes, no professionals.

In addition, yes, too, I do not call my daughter’s pregnancy a zygote or fetus in family conversations, unless a medical condition is being discussed; an Internet blog is not, however, a FAMILY CONVERSATION. On any blog, you are dealing with a wide variety of people, with vastly different educational achievements, cultural differences, life experiences, biases, religious backgrounds, etc. Hence, if I am going to error, I am going to error on the side of exactitude and clarity that the subject matter requires.

IF you want to talk about abortion, pregnancy and developmental issues peculiar to human growth, in a PUBLIC FORUM, then you cannot rationally call every thing a CHILD!

Stages of human development through birth:

Ovum > Sperm cell > Gamete > Zygote > Blastocyst > Embryo > Fetus > CHILD – upon birth.

This is very basic HS Biology, and these are very rudimental forms of life here…

Now, if you want to call a gamete a CHILD that is totally up to you; it is just that, it does not bring much clarity or reason to what we are presumably talking about…

IF you want to call a zygote a CHILD – so you may evoke images of small babies crawling around on the floor – and surreptitiously drag unwarranted emotionalism into a biological discussion about the reproductive growth cycle, then you are not only being patently disingenuous, but intellectually dishonest...

Finally, you impugn your own credibility on the issue a hand…

You must be a blast at social functions, Wilson.

Cut the crap. Even in the doctors office nobody uses those terms. The only reason not to use "mother" "baby" or "child" is to dehumanize it if it's unwanted so as not to offend the senses of the person choosing to terminate it. It's no different than referring to bystanders killed in a war zone as "collateral damage".

Bob McBride –

Apparently, you are offended because you simply cannot differentiate between EMOTION and THOUGHT.

Please tell me how do you dehumanize a zygote? It is what it is...

[You may go anthropomorphic on us and call it a CHILD, however, that is going in the opposite direction: giving it attributes that it simply does not possess…] That would be, well, dishonest.

The only reason not to use “baby” or “child” and why we do not call blades of grass CHILDREN or BABIES is that it is not ACCURATE!

One of the primary reasons we differentiate and discriminate between a plethora of things is so we can UNDERSTAND THEM…

Clearly, you do not want to discuss anything REAL here, just call EVERYTHING a CHILD or a BABY.

Would you please spare me a few minutes and take this embryo… err CHILD for a walk?

Collateral damage would be vastly more appropriate in describing how you have destroyed your brain with incessant partying…

Now, now Johnny...no need to get nasty just because I've put something out there that you can't dispute logically.

When a woman is pregnant and goes to the doctor, nobody is talking about a gamete, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus. They use the term baby. That's the point of reference when you're discussing this subject amongst the general population. If it's good enough to use those terms when the baby is wanted, it's good enough to use those terms when it's not.

My brain is fine, yours is about ready to seize up and quit on you.

Actually, Bob, you're wrong about that. My wife and I just had a baby, but our doctors, and the books we were reading, were credible enough to actually use the appropriate terminology.

In fact, it was kind of cool when the embryo became a fetus; one of many developmental milestones that an expecting couple marks.

Interesting. No mention of the "baby" by the doctor or anyone else in their office during the entire time of the pregnancy? All or most of the time referred to as an embryo or fetus or zygote or some such?

Oh, I'm sorry - so your position is that if anyone ever calls a fetus a baby, then that has some significance?

My wife and I wanted a baby, and we've been extremely fortunate to have a healthy baby girl. We wanted the fetus to be a baby, long before it actually was. So no, nobody corrected the doctor when she found the heartbeat and said "that's your baby!" She knew that we wanted one.

However, if a woman went to a doctor and was afraid she was pregnant, and not ready for it, then it would be both incorrect and irresponsible for the doctor to insist that the embryo, or fetus, was a baby.

I will report that I cringed a little bit when the ultrasound tech labeled the embryo on our first ultrasound a "BABY." I really hope that's not a standard practice.

Bob McBride -

I would sincerely like to encourage you to start going to REAL AMERICAN MEDICAL DOCTORS... witch doctors and Voodoo practitioners do not count.

Secondly, CHILD, I mean Bob, CHILD, I mean Bob, CHILD…

Finally, my brain has functioned famously for over 481,800 hrs. now and it is not likely to seize up or quit…

Just an exhibition, not a competition;please no wagering:
Google:"baby shower gift registry" @ 29,300 hits and "zygote shower gift registry" @ Zero(0) hits

That's my point, Tao. When it's wanted, it's a baby - even if the term makes you cringe when you see it on an ultrasound as put their by a professional in the field of medicine. When it's unwanted it's a zygote or a fetus or spermy-eggie-thingie or anything but, G-d forbid, not a baby, because we don't want to be killing babies, do we? Even though that's what we're doing.

Good googling, Jay. And Wilson wonders why no one shows up with gifts at those thrown by his family.

Bob, you missed the point of my story. Even though my wife and I wanted a baby, we're both pro-choice, and we're educated enough to know that zygotes, embryos, fetuses and babies are different things. We would have been much more devastated to have lost a fetus at 28 weeks than an embryo at six weeks, because it's a different thing.

Similarly, my wife could have miscarried the first few months we were trying, but I don't wonder or lose sleep over it.

And apparently you're better educated than your doctor, who referred to it as your baby when, according to you, it wasn't one. You did her a disservice by not setting her straight. I'm sure she would have appreciated the correction, along with the explanation why she, the tech who marked your ultra-sound and every other health care professional who routinely refers to the anything-but-a-baby as a baby are incorrect when they do so.

Catholic mom.

Which rape was committed by Bill Clinton? Kathleen Willey?

Taoist Crocodile
13 seconds ago
Bob, this is a pointless argument. You're saying that the medical terminology used to differentiate between the stages of human prenatal development is somehow wrong...? There's a better way to express your beliefs than taking issue with the technical terminology used by people who do this stuff for a living.

But, you've already said that you're pro-choice. I don't care what you call a zygote, but it would be nice if you wouldn't help Republicans fight their war on women.

By suggesting that using the word baby when referring to abortion as well as in those cases where the baby is wanted isn't incorrect, because professionals and others do it all the time, I am in no way assisting anyone in an imaginary war on women. I'm suggesting that to call it something other than a baby is disingenuous when the exact same life form is referred to as precisely that when the desire is to keep it, rather than kill it.

I'm pro choice as long as there's no attempt to sanitize it. If people are encouraged to choose abortion because they're being led to believe that what they're killing is not a baby, then I'm not for that at all. That's rationalizing the act as something other than what it truly is. That being said, if it's your baby and you choose to kill it, I don't really think it's anyone's business to tell you you can't as long as the medical profession is willing to assist you in killing it in a humane (as possible) and safe fashion.

And if others who support a person's right to choose abortion find my description distasteful, then maybe they need to consider what it is they're supporting - as I have.

Bob,

Your suggestion that the reason pro-choice people don't call an embryo a baby because they don't want to face the fact that they're killing babies may be true in some cases, but not in all, and certainly not in mine. Give other people the same credit for thinking through the difficult ethical issues surrounding the nature of human personhood that you extend to yourself.

It's not inconsistent to be perfectly comfortable taking the morning after pill, yet to be opposed to third trimester abortions or, for that matter, people stomping puppies to death.

I see it argued against often enough by people who'll turn around and refer to a wanted pregnancy in the exact opposite fashion to feel comfortable asserting that it's more than just some people who do it for that reason. If you believe that it's a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason because it's her body, whether the organism aborted is called a baby or not shouldn't matter, really. And yet we've got people arguing steadfastly that it should not be referred to in that fashion. If ethical conflict is resolved by rationalization, it's not really resolved at all.

For the record, I don't support inter-species early post-birth abortion - also known as puppy stomping,

@Taoist,

At the risk of attracting slings and arrows of both the right and the left, I have to give in to my science geek side and comment on something you said directly above.

The morning-after pill is not abortive, contrary to what many on the left and right have said over the years. Studies consistently show that the pill delays egg release, thereby preventing fertilization. In fact, studies up to this point indicate that the pill doesn't even inhibit implantation of the egg if it does become fertilized, giving potential baby killers yet one more chance to reconsider.

So, risking temporary wrath upon myself by either community, I put this out there for your consideration, knowing that at least one aspect of this debate can end once people understand that a more reasonable option is out there.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/sexual-health/contraception/morning-after.htm

According to that source, at least, it looks like it's possible to consider it as either a contraceptive or an abortive measure, although there's no way of knowing which it's working as in any particular case. I choose to view it as a contraceptive.

@Bob-

I don't know when that article was last updated, but see the link below. In addition, several supporting studies came out of Europe since this article was written, so I'm pretty confident.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all

Looks like a more current and accurate source than the one I grabbed, Luke. Obviously doesn't change how I personally choose to view it.

@Bob - I don't blame you for wanting to be safe. Time will tell....

Luke, I just meant that I choose to view it as a contraceptive already, so the more current information that suggests that it's strictly a contraceptive works for me, personally.

Hope you like hot weather, with that attitude your going to spend an long time in it.

Robert E -

Great post... except you are dealing with Catholic Mythology - irrational beliefs and lah-lah land...

According to Dr. Willke, one of the recognized founders of the RIGHT TO LIFE movement, Mary would have had to CONSENT. In other words, Mary would have had to say, “YES, YES, YES!”

Sorry Greg hell is a christian invention I am not a christian so I have nothing to worry about. Any god that has to threaten you with eternal damnation to get you to worship him is not much of a god and not deserving of that worship. You bible makes your god sound more like Hitler then a loving god.

Huh? Abortion laws have been drastically changed - state by state womens clinics have been forced to close by law.

Please cite some evidence of abortions being unavailable in the states you're referring to.

More accurately would be the number of states that have attempted to close abortion clinics, rather than working on jobs.

Bob -
Hmmm... so you say that the GOP is just stringing along gullible pro-life voters? Interesting.

Just as the Democrats are creating fear amongst their low-information contingent over stuff like this. It goes both ways.

Well, I consider myself a high-information voter, and this looks to me like Republicans want to pass a constitutional amendment forcing women to incubate the offspring of their rapists. If you have an alternative way of looking at it, then I'd be happy to consider it.

They will be passing a law forcing the woman to marry her rapist next like it says in the bible.

You may want to expand any concerns you may have about how to properly designate various forms of human life beyond pre-birth and just after to a couple or more decades down the line, then.

This looks to me to be a guy who put his foot in his mouth and who is probably going to pay the price, one way or the other, for doing so.

@ Bob McBride,

I don't see what you're getting at with "various forms of human life beyond pre-birth and just after to a couple or more decades down the line." Care to elaborate?

And sure, he made the mistake about being honest about his ridiculous views. However, the GOP wants a constitutional amendment banning abortion in all cases, including rape or incest. So, it's not just about Akin.

I think if you look at your interpretation of what this is about, you'll understand my first statement.

Or to put it another way, if you're going to jump in the mud with the rest of the wrestlers, you're going to end up looking indistinguishable from the other participants.

This is about a guy putting his foot in his mouth. The abortion laws are not going to change.

Still not getting it, Bob - I'm a plain-spoken man, with no use for veiled statements.

And again, I don't understand the source of your certainty that abortion rights won't be curtailed. I'm sure it would be no skin off of Sheldon Adelson's or the Kochs' noses if they were; after all, the rich will always have access to abortion.

If it was a far-gone conclusion that these things have no chance of passage, then why continue to propose "personhood" amendments? Frankly, I felt that way about all of the anti- gay marriage amendments - that they were just political posturing. However, now we have them.

Okay. Plain as I can make it. If you don't understand now, so be it.

You can't simultaneously consider yourself a "high-information voter" and get sucked into the abortion argument. The laws are not going to change, regardless of what's being proposed by whom. It's just not going to happen.

If you used your actual name here, I'd back that up with a wager.

@ Bob,

So from that, I'd gather that you're someone who is comfortable voting for the GOP, partly because you either don't believe that they can successfully outlaw abortion, or don't think that they actually want to. I'm guessing that you believe that the consequences of such a change would be so unspeakably bad that the GOP can't be serious. Plus, if they won the abortion war, how would they get so many "low information voters" to vote against their economic self-interest?

To that, I only have to say that the GOP is playing with fire. And, as we see, it's starting to burn them; moderates are being unseated by radicals in every election. There have been single-issue political movements in the past (abolition of slavery and prohibition of alcohol, to name two), and they've achieved their aims and then passed away, without any thought to creating or perpetuating a new governing majority.

The extreme right wing is, for all intents and purposes, a single-issue party focused on making abortion illegal. I don't think they'll be content to serve the more moderate, plutocratic part of the GOP for much longer, and I'm not convinced that they won't get what they want. Which, as I've said here and elsewhere, is to turn raped women into subhuman incubators of their rapists' children.

Oh, and Bob - I don't use my real name here because I don't want to attract unwarranted attention from the gun crazies and apocalyptic religious zealots. However, someone has to call them out on being gun crazies and religious zealots.

If you really want to make a wager, we could work something out - however, I won't take this one, because I love my daughter and I truly hope that her rights are secure in the future, in case she needs them.

The question is not what I'm comfortable with. The question is what's going to happen. Abortion is not going to be outlawed - no woman is going to be forced to carry to term a pregnancy she does not want, for any reason beyond what's currently in place in that regard. Period. It's not going to happen.

Virtually every election that's come and gone in the time since I've been cognizant of them has, eventually, come around to this same, tired argument and ultimately the laws have not changed. There is absolutely nothing different about this time. It's a wedge issue and, like most wedge issues, it remains one without changing anything one iota.

It'll be used by one side to get out those who hate abortion and by the other to get out those who think they're going to lose access to it. If the parties, when they got into power, did half the stuff they outright promise, much less the stuff they flirt with, we'd have had riots in the streets many times over.

Suggesting otherwise and jumping into the pit with all the others doesn't make you a "high-information voter" - by a long margin.

You know, Bob, there is a whole lot of sence made in that comment. I can see it. I can wrap my head around it. You can convince me of this.
In your opinion, what can we do - systemically, as a country - to encourage this kind frank and realistic... this open minded ability to have an open minded conversations with our elected representatives.
As well as our comments...

Bob,

I think you underestimate the determination of people like JB. He's not going to be satisfied with Republicans who keep stringing him along. And really, the focus on the economy since 2008 has been a boon to the pro-choice absolutists, as it means that they don't have to run on their extreme views. They just have to say that they'll repeal Obamacare, that they'll cut taxes, that they'll balance the budget... and, oh, by the way, they're also opposed to abortion in all cases.

Your complacency on this issue is part of the reason why there's a real danger that they'll succeed.

@Taoist
Please provide a quote where I am demanding abortion be illegal. I have been arguing when life begins. I believe it should be a states issue and I am against a national constitutional.

Okay JB, so in the state of Wisconsin, do you believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases, including rape? Because if that's not your point, then I don't understand why you've been arguing against a woman's right to choose this entire time.

Taoist,

It's always the economy and its always taxes. Obamacare is something unique this time around, but there's always some other issue or issues (Terrorism and the War in Iraq come to mind as two recent ones) used to, supposedly, differentiate between the two parties (Case in point - the two I mentioned - not much, as they're situational and tend to follow a natural progression from administration to administration - but that didn't stop them from being used).

And then there's abortion. When you want to inflame the wingers on either side, you trot that out. It happens virtually every election. And you're falling for it.

Again, this is about some goofball who put his foot in his mouth and the opportunists who jump all over it like they always do (on either side) when that happens. So we end up spending time debating something that's not going to change for the umpteenth time while we wait for the next shoe to drop.

Then again, what's the harm in it, I suppose? It's a well worn tradition, it hurts no one, no one's mind get's changed and Patch gets to trot out some eyeball counts to advertisers. Other than that...well...I'm done with it. I'd rather argue about Sendiks. We only do that here about 4 times a year.

Well, Bob, for some of us, abortion rights are an important issue. Maybe we're all dupes, and you're the only one calm and level-headed enough to see it.

Bob McBride – (P. 1)

I agree nothing is going to change on abortion law; this just occurs every election cycle, wedge issue… blah, blah, blah…

And then the following:

Attempts to defund Planned Parenthood [H.R. 3]

Attempts to overturn Roe v Wade [Republican Party & Christian entities]

Attempts to create state and local laws that would severely restrict access to abortion clinics and providers [Republican Party & Christian entities]

Mandatory waiting periods increasing after a request for an abortion – 24-72 hours

Mandatory ultra-sounds, at the patient’s cost, including vaginal probe ultra-sounds [i.e. Shaming] -Virginia

Untoward restrictions by the states in granting a license to physicians who care to practice abortion at a clinic or hospital within the state – Mississippi

Mandates upon health insurance providers – prohibiting them from offering abortion services in their health care offerings [Republicans & Christian entities]

The Republican Platform might include “no exception” for a woman to have an abortion

You might see concerted efforts by religious zealots, conflating a gamete with a CHILD, simply for emotional purposes – we have to protect the CHILDREN

[25 states include information on fetal development throughout pregnancy, when one requests an abortion]

Todd Akin’s would be castigated, denounced, because he exposed the party and revealed that his views and philosophy are identical to that of the Republican Party

The Republican Party's stance on rape is pretty clear:

- Rape is real and dangerous, so every woman should be armed with lethal weapons, and should slay potential rapists with bullets, blades and karate.

- If a woman is, however, raped and becomes pregnant, then it's her fault for (1) not being well-enough armed and/or proficient in martial arts, and for (2) enjoying it too much, which short-circuited her body's natural rape defenses.

- consequently, a women who is impregnated by her rapist is actually the one at fault, so she has to surrender her humanity and become a subhuman incubator for a bundle of cells that's 50% her violator, and happens to be more important than she is.

- At least, that is, until the fetus is viable, at which point she can pay out-of-pocket to have it cut out of her body. After all, no private insurance plan should have to pay extra to cut short the subhuman servitude and humiliation of a rape victim. Not in my America!

Please defend why the Democratic Party has not jettisoned a known rapist, William Jefferson Clinton.

I won't defend Bill Clinton the adulterer, but I will say that (1) Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape, and this is still America, and (2) the Democratic Party doesn't make forcing raped women into servitude as incubators a part of its platform.

Besides, If Bill Clinton should be jettisoned for being an adulterer, then McCain, Schwarzenegger, Giuliani, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and, of course, Gingrich, have got to go too.

So why is it, exactly, that you are leaping to the defense of Rape apologists? Do you, like AWD (below), believe that women enjoy rape?

@Taoist -- Whatever Bill Clinton did or did not do in the Oval Office and other venues is between him and his wife. That wasn't the point. He was impeached for lying under oath in a deposition, and I found that troubling. I still do.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. -- Numbers 31:15-18
I guess god supports abortion if the baby is a male.

I guess I don't know the total context, but it appears god supports slavery if every female virgin can "... keep alive for yourselves."
That phrase alone makes me very uncomfortable.
But never let it be said such a moral book like the Bible support things like genocide and slavery. This is what we should base our laws on? Sharia is bad but this is ok???
This is what I don't understand.

So we are talking about Ten Kennedy now??? His accident had nothing to do with rape or abortion. If we all took the time to litigate every scum bag thing every polititcian has ever done... let alone every bad thing you or I have ever done it would still have nothing to do with the discussion of the exemptions for rape and incest in abortion legislation. For the record, Mr. Kennedy did plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and served a two month suspended sentence. I know plenty who would say that wasn't enough and further investigation and prosection should have been made (I can't say I don't feel the same way when I read the case study and I am VERY liberal). The point is Mr. Kennedy was prosecuted and his case still has nothing to do with exemptions for rape or incest in abortion legislation.
Let's just stay on topic, please.

Ummm, also he's dead now. RIP.

@Robert E
There are passages that say God knows you from the moment you are conceived. Thus, God considers life the moment of conception. Since taking life is a sin, taking the life of an unborn child would be as well.

Please provide the passages in support of abortion.

Apparently all life is precious to the god of the Bible, unless it is a fetus conceived out of wedlock or conception happens within an “enemy” nation that does not worship him. The Bible teaches that abortion is acceptable if God performs it or he commands it to be done through contaminated water or by violent force. The Bible doesn’t really specify on the modern surgical method of abortion.
Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

Numbers 5:19-21

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.
Hosea 13:16
Well, look at it this way. It’s already been suggested that Sin and Suffering is allowed if God allows it to happen. Abortion is just another example of this rule in effect.

J.B the bible does not say taking a life is a sin it says murder is a sin. There are plenty of passages where the lord commands the taking of life. If you think this is true then you do not support war or the military for they take lives and that is a sin. you do not support capital punishment or even self defence.

For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called “God” of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children.

It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”. For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).
This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person. Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says it’s OK. And just in case you are thinking that the evil and immoral laws of the Old Testament are no longer in effect, perhaps you should read where Jesus makes it perfectly clear: "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)
I know that most Christians believe that God is a good and loving god, and wants people to do good things. I believe that most people want to do good things and behave morally. I also believe that many Christians haven’t really read the Bible, or just read certain passages in church. This is understandable, as the Bible is hard to read due to its archaic language and obscure references. Also many priests and preachers don’t like to read certain passages in the Bible because they present a message of hate not love.

@Robert E
You read the Bible. If only your hatred for God didn't prevent you from understanding it.

Its sounds like he understands it just fine. In fact, it sounds as though he understands it better than most. Perhaps he simply has a personal relationship with reality?

J.B. I don't hate your god any more then I hate the easter bunny or santa claus. You can't hate somthing that does not exist. I just have the abilty to read your bible with an open mind something you do not. It is not your fault you have been brainwashed ever since you were a child and can no longer see what is actually in your book. Try sometime to read it without your preconceived notions you might be supprised what you learn.

I think the problem is - my problem anyway - is though Republicans always seem to run on topics of concern: like pocketbooks; the only issues they seem to focus on are social: abortion. If Republicans actually practiced what they preached in regards to their focus, we actually could talk more about pocket book issues.

Well, at the end of he day I am sick of paying for entitlements. That is my #1 concern. Please - can we just stop with all the weird social agendas? I know gay people - I think if they want to get married - who cares? If a woman wants to decide over her own body - whose business is it? If people want private schools - awesome - pay for it yourself. But don't ask me to pay for any of that. THAT is true conservative agenda - free choice at home and not asking others to pay for your choices.

Two points.

(1) A constitutional amendment banning abortion in all cases is part of the GOP platform.

(2) Nearly all of the Tea Party Republicans, who are expected to gain influence within the GOP after this election, are defiantly anti-choice.

I don't understand why anyone would be complacent about this issue. Sure, it's been political bait for both parties since Roe v. Wade, but the undeniable rightward shift of the GOP should signal that something's happening.

Why I am complacent about this issue:

A Constitutional Amendment requires* a joint resolution of Congress be approved by 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate. Then, it gets sent to the States where 3/4ths of the States must approve the Amendment.

After the Bill of Rights (First 10 amendments) only 17 additional Amendments have been passed in the 223 years we have been functioning under our Constitution(1789).

*or a Constitutional Convention called by State Legislatures

I've always wondered how otherwise rational people can support Republicans, even though they're so profoundly anti-science, anti-woman, and wedded to the notion of the US as a "Christian nation."

I guess the answer is that some people manage to convince themselves that all of this flirting with religious radicalism will never backfire. If you ask me, that's a dangerous way to think - especially if you recall the Bush years, and all of the jingoistic flag waving, and religious initiatives backed by the government. Oh, and all of those new laws and state constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriage. Right wing social engineering is a real threat.

It isn't acceptable for Democratic men to rape, use, or abuse women. I don't understand why claim that it is.

You sound angry. I hope you are not armed.

Why do I claim that is acceptable? Compare and contrast the level out outrage that you feel and the rest of your kind with what is going on in MO. Akin didnt rape anyone, he didnt abuse anyone, he didnt drown anyone, he didnt cheat on his spouse, philander, etc.....take a deep look at your priorities

meg, haven't you turned the entire issue on it's head (so to "speak"). It's not most Democrats that are attempting to introduce new interpretive levels of rape, that of "forcible" rate or unforced rape, it's a number of Republicans. Akin is not being "misunderstood" he honestly believes that a woman has control over what medical science terms, based on exhaustive research and testing, "involuntary function," i.e., egg fertilization.

No, meg - all he said is that women who are raped should be compelled by the state to carry their rapists' children to term, and that this is justified because "legitimate" rapes don't result in pregnancy.

I'm outraged by that because I have a daughter. I also know someone, who I love very much, who was raped. Twice. If anyone ever suggests to me that her rape wasn't "legitimate," then that person is going to be waking up in hospital. I never asked her if she took the morning-after pill, but I sure as hell would have.

For someone like Rep. Akin to consider that situation and say, essentially, "big f-cking deal - you're pregnant, and you're gonna stay that way," is an outrage. Maybe it doesn't bother you, but it bothers me.

fascinating how words make Democrats more angry than their fellow Democrat representatives who rape, abuse, misuse women.....tsk tsk, this is why I will never vote Democrat.

I'm afraid he did more than just mention the word rape. He spoke of the crime in an especially ignorant and insensitive way. This man has been in the position of affecting public policy on the basis of those ignorant and erroneous beliefs, and now he's asking for a promotion to the US Senate where he hopes to be even more influential.

But by all means, if you guys want this to be the face of your party, go right ahead. By the way, I didn't defend either Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy at the time.

Meg -
"but if one misunderstood Republic [What's a Republic?] mentions the word rape, he is must be drawn and quartered."

Well, Yeah!

However, I just love the way you count... the entire Republican House and the entire Republican Senate is ONE?

Joe Scarborough a Republican on ‘Morning Joe’ had it right when he said, “I’m getting mighty tired of being a member of the STUPID PARTY!”

How about you, Meg?

Akin is not the face of the GOP, but rapists Clinton and killer Kennedy are the face of your party

Mr Wilson, continue to be the rape apologist for the Democratic misogynist party.

meg -

the lab called... your brain is ready...

Meg I don't know if anybody told you or not but Ted Kennedy is dead so he's not the face of anything anymore and Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape so that is nothing but slander.

Well, meg, if we're picking spokespeople, then I nominate Neal Horsley to be the face of religious conservatives. Author of the "Nuremberg Files," failed gubernatorial candidate, domestic terrorist, and proudly unrepentant mule f-cker. Look him up - you're on the internet, after all.

That's right - a proud religious conservative who f-cked mules in his randy youth. How can anyone call themselves a religious conservative, when that movement is represented by domestic terrorists and mule f-ckers?

compare and contrast the level of outrage.....you give Democrats a pass for raping and abusing woman, and crucify a guy who is simply a dolt.

@meg...Is there anything of value yiu have to add? If not please don't waste every ones time with this tripe.

umm - Meg....What the heck?????

It's funny, what motivates people to vote. I, for example, refuse to vote for any Republicans until they can muster the sack to say they believe in evolution and global warming, because I think that degrading science is incompatible with the US making any economic or social progress whatsoever.

This anti-woman stuff really just piles on top of that, for me. Personally, if I was a woman, hearing the GOP wanting to control my uterus, and coming up with all of this skepticism about whether rape victims were "legitimately" raped, I like to think I'd turn my backs on them in a similar way to what I'm doing now.

One thing I'm glad to have learned, is that one in five women have experienced rape or attempted rape. ONE in FIVE.

What does that mean? It means you can't go around running your mouth about how rape isn't a big deal, because there's a good chance that a woman within earshot has a much different understanding of it than you do.

@Taoist

Glad to hear you would vote for Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney.

Sadly, Luke, I can't vote for anyone with an "R" after their name, partly because the party platform includes a commitment to criminalize all abortions, even in the case of rape. If Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman switch parties, then we'll see.

For the rest of the reasons why I can't vote for a Republican - here's a nice summary:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/the-crackpot-caucus/?hp

I will never vote for anyone with a (D) in front of their name mostly due to the fact that no Democrats will denounce sexual predator and rapist William Jefferson Clinton.

Hmm... apparently there was another mass shooting this morning. That reminds me of another pathology of the Republican party, and another reason why they need to make some major changes to their platform before they'll ever have my vote.

@Taoist
Your assumption is that the child is by default a punishment. You also continue to say that it is the rapist child, while saying that is the women's body. Which is it? In truth, is the child not half of both? Therefore, while killing off the rapists child, is she not equally destroying her own?

Here are some resources.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191804/Shauna-Prewitt-Attorney-rape-victim-pens-open-letter-Todd-Akin.html

http://www.issues4life.org/pdfs/news_20090910a.pdf

http://www.pandys.org/survivingthememories/mother.html

I will to my dying breath proclaim that at conception you have a new life and a blessing, no matter how horrible the circumstances. I would like to point out that the women mentioned above were just as critical of people with your view point.

The science of when life begins has assigned subjective designations as to when life is officially called life. A designation that has changed over the years and mostly as science progresses will continue to change in the future (for better or worse). Mine is not, it is an exact point in time that will not change and remains constant for all life. Hence, I would vote for a state ban on abortion. Not because God told me to, but because it is illogical to assume that life begins at different arbitrary times based on when we want it to be a child.

Geez, JB - I asked a simple question, and you cloud the issue by accusing me of calling the child a punishment.

My question was very, very simple. In the example that I gave, what crime has been committed, and what should be the punishment? The GOP wants to make abortion illegal in all cases, and considers "Plan B" to be abortion. Well, if it's illegal, then what's the crime? How is this going to do anything other than create a thriving black market for morning-after pills from Canada?

You can disagree with people's choices all you want, and thump your bible until the cows come home, but the GOP wants to make abortion illegal. Do you support that in Wisconsin? If so, how do you want to punish poor, raped little girls whose fathers find them the morning after pill?

@Taoist
Then why not make everything legal? Since, everything prohibited creates a black market.

The person taking the pill would not be punished as that would be impossible to prove; however, like drugs, possession and distribution could be punished. Those providing black market abortions could be punished.

However, as Bob has pointed out, that is highly unlikely to occur and while some states might find a way to make abortion illegal the majority will continue to allow it.

OK JB, you're clearly unwilling to follow the GOP effort to outlaw the morning after pill to its logical conclusion.

So, let's take a trip to your interpretation of the American Theocracy that the GOP platform is trying to bring about. Abortion is illegal, birth control is illegal, and the morning after pill is illegal. However, the penalty for taking the morning after pill is similar to the penalty for possessing a dime bag, while the penalty for an abortion later in the term would presumably be closer to the penalty for murder.

So how, exactly, does that square with your notion that life begins at conception? If a zygote is as much of a human life after its first cell division as a fetus is at 38 weeks, then shouldn't the penalty for killing one be the same? Shouldn't there be a CSI-style investigation into whether the woman was fertile, whether she could have been pregnant, what she knew and when she knew it? Isn't it at least attempted murder? Think of the poor zygotes!

Maybe you're actually starting to grasp the fact that a zygote and a baby aren't the same thing...?

And you know what else, JB? I had a friend who recently miscarried. Now, she APPEARED to be devastated, and I won't forget the look on her face as long as I live, but what if she was lying? Shouldn't there at least be an investigation into the death of the fetus, to make sure that there was no foul play? Shouldn't there have been a police officer present at the hospital, while they induced her in order to get the dead fetus out, just to keep an eye out for something suspicious?

Am I starting to convey how offensive your position is?!?

@Taoist
Real classy, mock a miscarriage.

Yet, I'm offensive to women.

JB,

Now you're just being obtuse. I'm making the legitimate point that your view on the personhood of an unborn fetus, is enacted into law, would require government intrusion into the personal, challenging, likely traumatic experience of a miscarriage. Then again, the GOP brought us the Terri Schiavo media obscenity, so I'm not exactly surprised.

I don't know who you think your lame retort scores points with, but it's a transparent dodge of the difficult issue at stake. It looks, to me, like typical GOP blowhard behavior - thump your bible, grandstand, trot out the platitudes about personal responsibility, but when someone points out the logical consequences of actually trying to govern that way, you lose your guts.

All you have to do, to be logically consistent with your stated views, is to say "I believe that abortion is always murder, so anyone who has an abortion, or is suspected of having an abortion, needs to be treated as a murder suspect." If you don't agree with that statement, then I'd be interested to know why.

I certainly get a kick out of these 'get government out of the bedroom" types, especially when they want government to pay for the abortions and birth control! How about government gets out of the bedrooms and not pay for your perversion?

Oh, meg, no one ever got pregnant from the sort of sex acts the government used to ban. I'd list them here, but this is a family paper.

Randy1949 if we both agree to get 'government out of the bedroom' and we not have to foot the bill for the immoral irresponsible acts of the citizenry?

So, "meg," are you going to show a little more sack than JB? Do you agree that "abortion is always murder, so anyone who has an abortion, or is suspected of having an abortion, needs to be treated as a murder suspect?"

Or are you just another indignant, pissed-at-the-real-world conservative with no actual ideas about how to turn your spite into governance?

"So, "meg," are you going to show a little more sack than JB? Do you agree that "abortion is always murder, so anyone who has an abortion, or is suspected of having an abortion, needs to be treated as a murder suspect?"

Only the bloodthirsty abortionist, Tao, since he/she/it are the ones doing the killing.

meg, your sentence made no sense. The Hyde amendment ensures that government no longer pays for elective abortions -- that is, the termination of pregnancy that was incurred through voluntary sexual activity. Government does, unfortunately have to pay for the delivery costs of women on Medicaid, no matter how their children were conceived. It also pays the medical costs for those minor children up until the age of 18.

I would rather pay for an abortion in the case of rape than 18 years of further expense. I get the feeling from your comments that you would like to insist raped women carry their children and toss them to the wolves when it come to paying.

And what about the morning-after pill, meg? If a woman is raped and takes the pill, does that make her a murderer? Because that's the GOP platform. Morning after pill is abortion, abortion is murder. Are you saying you agree or disagree with the GOP on this one?

Oh, and meg - don't be dense. If abortion is murder, than a woman who seeks an abortion is an accessory to murder. Even one who was raped. It's pretty sick how far the GOP wants to take this; the rapist, if caught, would get a lighter punishment than the woman who aborted the unwanted pregnancy. Why do you hate women, meg?

J.B. maybe you can answer this for me sense you are such an expert on the bible. How do you stone the rape victim to death without killing the unborn child?

Robert E.,

Where do you get te idea that it says that a rape victim should be stoned? I think I have an idea of what passage you are misunderstanding, but I want to be sure,

@Dirk
It is only an economic issue for sex that is not consenting. For every other unwanted child, the choice was made to dabble in a risky practice where the consequences are fully understood. Therefore those who choose to engage should be held responsible.

Should the government be responsible for the risks associated with sky diving, bungee jumping or any other number of extreme sports where the risk is well known?

Dirk Gutzmiller -

You are correct, abortion, as well as rape and contraception, are all socio-economic issues for all of our society. The mounting financial costs of all of these challenges are only dwarfed by what we currently pay in the Defense Budget and Wars.

Should the “alternate universe” – the religious zealots – people ever get their way, a complete ban on abortion and the vile Personhood amendment, America will have completed its desent into a Theological Taliban country…

You know your political party has gone completely off the deep end when you are to the right of Islam.

Hey thanks for the link to that interesting article about Saturday Night Live. It doesn't have anything at all to do with rape, Todd Aiken, or the GOP's theocratic aspirations, but it was a nice break from all of that.

meg seems to be making a play to unseat Paul Ryan as the intellectual leader of the Republican Party.

You are quite dense Tao, but predictable that you are not outraged by Al Frankens joke about rape....when a republican mispeaks of rape=outrage, when a democrat does it(and actually rapes)=yawn.
You are an intellectual midget.

Hmmm... so Al Franken made a tasteless joke about rape before he was a Senator, and that makes him the equivalent of a current US Representative who thinks that it's a woman's own fault if she gets pregnant from a rape, because her body's supposed to have some natural defenses when the rape is "legitimate?" The right-wing mind really is a tangled mess.

Yeah, meg, and I suppose he was being serious when he and Tom Davis did a skit about being homosexual lovers. Or when he did an ongoing set of bits from bed with Ariana Huffington during the 200 elections called 'Strange Bedfellows'.

It's called satire.

Well, I just can't wait to hear what a misogynist white supremacist has to say about this issue. I'm sure this will take the conversation to new heights.

That piece of literary gold is BDSM fantasies, AWD, not rape fantasies. Learn the difference.