GOP 2012 platform includes a constitutional ban on abortion

11 posts / 0 new

While the Democratic platform attempts to move American forward by embracing things like marriage equality and a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the Republican platform is trying to take us backward. CNN reports that early drafts of the Republican Party’s 2012 platform include a constitutional ban on abortion – and no exceptions for rape or incest.

This news breaks just days after Missouri Republican Congressman Todd Akin suggested women who are “legitimately” raped can’t get pregnant and therefore don’t need abortion coverage. It also comes one year after every single Republican in the House of Representatives – including Paul Ryan – voted to redefine rape in H.R. 3 – limiting abortion to only those women who are victims of “forcible rape.”

Will someone please inform the Republican Party that America is not a theocracy – and that it’s the 21st century.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 10:59 am

Comments

from today's Democracy Now program (video and transcript available) :

Todd Akin’s "Legitimate Rape" Comment Sheds Light on Paul Ryan’s Extreme Stance on Abortion

... The controversy is spilling in the presidential race due to Akin’s close ties to Mitt Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan. In 2011, Ryan and Akin co-sponsored the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which attempted to redefine rape by introducing the term "forcible rape." ...

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/21/todd_akins_legitimate_rape_comment_sheds

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

Life vs. Death.. Fantastic dichotomy

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am

Huh! Legislation of dogma is "choosing life?" Choosing for women instead of respecting their individual sovereignty is some moral high ground? Fetal sentimentality trumps real concern for living children, and in the context of the misogyny and incredible ugly masculinist crap like "legitimate rape" we find the politics of conscience in the war against women's equality.

Making the woman carrying a fetus inflicted upon her give birth rests on the moralistic idea that every fetus is "a person" and already human in every sense. The biology is ambiguous about how and when the process comes to this point. Those who want to call fertilized eggs persons are forcing a lot of metaphysical justification onto biology.

"Choosing life" can be to follow one's vocation and give up some other things. It can be to say that a few children are enough. The smarmy "Pro-Life" brand does not carry over to other areas where life needs to be honored over death. It is only "Women's Choice" that is under attack, not war or hunger. So take that "life or death" dichotomy and rethink it.

We ain't gonna go back to the coathanger days. If the anti-abortion folk in America want to enjoy a nice peaceful future, they had better call off their ugly religious wars on the rest of us. Nobody is making you have abortions. But, you have no right to interfere with the rights of others to get the medical help they need and want.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

So your saying you REJECT the other sides argument. I would hope you at least understand it before rejecting it. There are plenty of people in this country that place the unborn fetus over the happiness of the mother and find the abortion of innocent, defenseless life morally wrong.

They have as much chance of getting an Abortion amendment passed as the Left has in getting Gay Marriage amendment passed . But apparently still fun to talk about,

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am

The GOP has proposed cutting funds for clinics that perform abortions, cutting funds for low-income support groups, cutting funds for promotions of contraception, and cutting funds for food stamps.

So if the GOP had their wishes granted, there would be even more young parents who can't take care of their starving babies on their own, and the Republican party would be condemning thousands of American families to poverty, illness and suffering.

How does any of that "respect" the life of a child?

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 2:04 pm
Quote JTaylor:

The GOP has proposed cutting funds for clinics that perform abortions, cutting funds for low-income support groups, cutting funds for promotions of contraception, and cutting funds for food stamps.

So if the GOP had their wishes granted, there would be even more young parents who can't take care of their starving babies on their own, and the Republican party would be condemning thousands of American families to poverty, illness and suffering.

How does any of that "respect" the life of a child?

Or the next Einstein, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, Ghandi, Lincoln, Kennedy..... Name your transformational Person of the century... Was just aborted. Because someone, somewhere was scared of what the future might hold.

Can I assume you are against Geronticide, Sex selective abortions, Capital punishment. Partial Birth Abortions,

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am
Quote Capital1:
Quote JTaylor:The GOP has proposed cutting funds for clinics that perform abortions, cutting funds for low-income support groups, cutting funds for promotions of contraception, and cutting funds for food stamps.
So if the GOP had their wishes granted, there would be even more young parents who can't take care of their starving babies on their own, and the Republican party would be condemning thousands of American families to poverty, illness and suffering.

How does any of that "respect" the life of a child?


Or the next Einstein, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, Ghandi, Lincoln, Kennedy..... Name your transformational Person of the century... Was just aborted. Because someone, somewhere was scared of what the future might hold.
Can I assume you are against Geronticide, Sex selective abortions, Capital punishment. Partial Birth Abortions,

Everything is God's will, according to the Bible. Perhaps this includes which fetuses survive and which ones don't. So Einstein, Gandhi, Kennedy or whoever were not aborted because God wanted them to live and change the world. We don't know. It could be God's Plan for a single mother to get an abortion instead of desperately trying to raise the child on her own.

Of course I don't believe any of that. Christians need to constantly be reminded that a fertilized egg is not a human child. Taking a pill that cancels a fertilized egg is not murder. It is not the same as someone shooting someone else in the head. Because it is not murder - defined as one person killing another (because an egg is not a person) - it only involves the woman in her own body, perhaps with or without the counsel of the man who fertilized the egg. It is the woman's choice. Not yours. Not the Pope's. Not the State's. Republicans do not have the right to deny anyone their right to live their own lives as they wish.

Understand that and stop trying to defend Republicans' selfish attempts to interfere with people's private lives.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 2:04 pm

Cap, you are much better in person. This is inflamatory and beneath you. Are you asking a question or taunting. Think about it.

The "Einstein" argument against abortion defies any knowledge of human biology. If every fetus was a person from conception, loved by a gracious God, the spontaneous miscarraige would never happen. Every birth would be healthy and wonderful, and no woman would ever die in childbirth. It ain't that simple, and to make a woman's "choice" about the consequences she will have to live with from a pregnancy tainted is the real sin here. We are not going to provide her with the means to be a mother and the person she feels called to be. We are not going to be there for her when she has to deal with a lot more than she knows she is ready for. You and the anti-abortion cult are just going to be there getting in the way of her choice and stigmatizing it in grossly exaggerated rhetoric.

As a moralistic diversion from the real issues of human life on earth and what might be "life affirming," this fetal sentimentality is a fascinating example of denial and diversion. Sublimation 101. We are "pro-life" while we march to imperial petro-glory and ignore science. Incredible!

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote drc2:Cap, you are much better in person. This is inflamatory and beneath you. Are you asking a question or taunting. Think about it

I have already thought about it.... I am asking you to think about it.

BTW.. your post are generally more inflammatory than mine. I'm asking you to view the issue from the other side. If that is inflammatory, so be it. The sheer disgust the left levels at people who when it boils down, just want to save children. I find the position interesting... Someone would support and protect a child 1 minute after birth, but not 1 minute before birth.

I personally do not subscribe either side and my official position is Viability. Which I have stated many times. But I remain fascinated by the extremes.

Yes... I am much better in Person... I would NEVER speak of Abortion in a Bar over beer. Luckily, I am not in a Bar.

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am
Quote Capital1:
Quote JTaylor:

The GOP has proposed cutting funds for clinics that perform abortions, cutting funds for low-income support groups, cutting funds for promotions of contraception, and cutting funds for food stamps.

So if the GOP had their wishes granted, there would be even more young parents who can't take care of their starving babies on their own, and the Republican party would be condemning thousands of American families to poverty, illness and suffering.

How does any of that "respect" the life of a child?

Or the next Einstein, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, Ghandi, Lincoln, Kennedy..... Name your transformational Person of the century... Was just aborted. Because someone, somewhere was scared of what the future might hold.

Can I assume you are against Geronticide, Sex selective abortions, Capital punishment. Partial Birth Abortions,

So, does this Einstein argument mean that you know want to insure that every child, and protoplasm has access to a quality public education, affordable universal healthcare, safe food and access to public housing? Or is the concern for the next Einstein from conception to the moment the ObGyn smacks his ass, and then Einstein is on his own?

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Currently Chatting

GOP Blocks Equal Pay...again.

Just in time for election season, Senate Republicans blocked legislation aimed at closing the gender pay gap. For the third time since 2012, Republicans refused to allow debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, and reminded women that the GOP doesn't believe in equal pay for equal work.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system