Abortions For Rape Victims? Brownback Says No

[Blake]

"Rape is terrible. Rape is awful," but rape victims' rights come secondary to those of an unborn child, GOP presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback said on Saturday.

Campaigning before the National Catholic Men's Conference, Brownback questioned whether rape victims should get abortions.

"Is (rape) made any better by killing an innocent child? Does it solve the problem for the woman that's been raped?" the Kansas Republican asked at the St. Joseph's Covenant Keepers gathering.

"We need to protect innocent life. Period," Brownback said, bringing the crowd of about 500 to its feet.

Brownback also talked about keeping marriage between a man and a woman, saying nations that have allowed same-sex marriages were engaging in bad social experiments, with bad results.

He also encouraged married couples to stay together, saying unspecified studies have shown that if couples weather hard times for five years, their marriages tend to last. After five years, "people are happier than those who have had a divorce," Brownback said.

Brownback was the only presidential hopeful invited to speak, said Steve Wood, president of Family Life Center International. Organizers said that the event was about families, not politics, and that Brownback -- a Roman Catholic -- was there to talk about bringing his faith into public life. However, they criticized politicians who say they oppose abortion personally but don't seek to outlaw the procedure.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is also Catholic, is the lone Republican candidate for the presidency to support abortion rights.

[Ash]

so the victims innocence is less important than a mass of embryonic cells? Says who?

[Blake]

says this jackass.... duh ash!



mos def. a guy i would never vote for.

[Nyteshade]

Yes!! Let a child be born that the mother will probably resent!! That is the right thing to do isn't it?

[Sinner]

Can we abort Brownback?

[Ash]

we should be able to find a way to grandfather in abortions for those that were born alive.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by shadymuz

"Rape is terrible. Rape is awful," but rape victims' rights come secondary to those of an unborn child, GOP presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback said on Saturday.

Campaigning before the National Catholic Men's Conference, Brownback questioned whether rape victims should get abortions.

"Is (rape) made any better by killing an innocent child? Does it solve the problem for the woman that's been raped?" the Kansas Republican asked at the St. Joseph's Covenant Keepers gathering.

"We need to protect innocent life. Period," Brownback said, bringing the crowd of about 500 to its feet.

Brownback also talked about keeping marriage between a man and a woman, saying nations that have allowed same-sex marriages were engaging in bad social experiments, with bad results.

He also encouraged married couples to stay together, saying unspecified studies have shown that if couples weather hard times for five years, their marriages tend to last. After five years, "people are happier than those who have had a divorce," Brownback said.

Brownback was the only presidential hopeful invited to speak, said Steve Wood, president of Family Life Center International. Organizers said that the event was about families, not politics, and that Brownback -- a Roman Catholic -- was there to talk about bringing his faith into public life. However, they criticized politicians who say they oppose abortion personally but don't seek to outlaw the procedure.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is also Catholic, is the lone Republican candidate for the presidency to support abortion rights.

that term always cracks me up

A right is somethign the gov't is duty bound to protect.

Abortion is a "privilege" that the government gets to regulate.... despite the legal gymnastics and contortionism the Roe and Casey courts went through to restrict regulation.

Anyway, Brownback speaks for an incredibly small number of people who are generally "pro-life." The issue in society is essentially resolved (legal during 1st trimester, not after with exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother* + juduial bypass for parental notification requirements of minors) - politicians use it as a football to scare people (Dems do it too).


* here's where there's still real debate - what condintions qulify as a sufficient risk to mother such that we premit abortion - which conditions don't?

Originally Posted by Ash

so the victims innocence is less important than a mass of embryonic cells? Says who?

lol - I'm certainly in agreement that we permit rape victims access to abortion but to relegate an unborn child to the status as nothing more than a mass of embryonic cells is just a denial tactic Ash. Is there any confusion that the mass of cells is a baby? None what so ever. The issue isn't whether its a baby or not - its over whether or not it should be legal to kill it.

Originally Posted by Nyteshade

Yes!! Let a child be born that the mother will probably resent!! That is the right thing to do isn't it?

Ever heard of adoption?

I'm with you on the issue but there are alternatives to killing the child conceived during a rape. I have two friends who went full term and gave their children up that were conceived under those circumstances... I think it is the right choice... but I recognize some aren't that strong.

[Blake]

xian quit deleting posts (at least i think you did).


i'm not all for abortion, but at the same time, like you mentioned there are some exceptions. rape being the #1 exception imo.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by shadymuz

xian quit deleting posts (at least i think you did).

just updated it and moved it to avoid that damn - last postde shit at the bottom... its all still there

Originally Posted by shadymuz

i'm not all for abortion, but at the same time, like you mentioned there are some exceptions. rape being the #1 exception imo.

My point was that Brownbeck's position is an extreme minority position.

If Roe were reversed today you wouldn't see: back alley abortions, doctors or moms tossed into jail etc etc - though the "abortion rights" camp want you to think that. Nor do we see (commonly) abortion used as a preferred form of birthcontrol as some hard line pro-lifers would have you believe... though there are exceptions.... see "selective reduction." However, that is a sad cost we must pay in order to preserve access to abortion when necessary.

[Blake]

ahhhh I gotcha. my bad

[Nyteshade]

Originally Posted by xian

Ever heard of adoption?

I'm with you on the issue but there are alternatives to killing the child conceived during a rape. I have two friends who went full term and gave their children up that were conceived under those circumstances... I think it is the right choice... but I recognize some aren't that strong.

While that may be an alternative, the legal process of adopting a child combined with the number of children already born in need of homes just further burdens our social service system. Abortion should be left as a choice but I think they need to limit it to the first trimester unless medical complications are involved. If you can't figure it out while it's still a glob of cells, than you can carry it to full term while deciding to either raise the child or give it up for adoption.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Nyteshade

While that may be an alternative, the legal process of adopting a child combined with the number of children already born in need of homes just further burdens our social service system.

Healthy new born babies are in extremely short supply and rarely have trouble finding their way to loving homes if the decision to give up the child is made early on.

Neither of the women I know had even a minor amount if difficulty in the legal aspect and the child none in finding a home. Emotionally traumatic as hell for them but the legal and social services issues were not impediments - they facilitated the process.

Originally Posted by Nyteshade

Abortion should be left as a choice but I think they need to limit it to the first trimester unless medical complications are involved. If you can't figure it out while it's still a glob of cells, than you can carry it to full term while deciding to either raise the child or give it up for adoption.

That's where it gets tricky. Some conditions are not detectable until outside the 1st trimester window. Not claiming any answers here - just acknowledging the difficulties in figuring out a reasonable line.... Roe created a bright line trimester test Casey changed it to "viability." Frankly, I don't think its the courts business at all to establish the test or line - it belongs to the people through their legislatures but that would require reversal of Roe to get back.

[housefish]

Sam Brownback is a fucktard. He probably spends his spare time tour the creationist museum.

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by xian

adoption

. . . . . . . . . . . .

Too many people without in this world that could appreciate a life if someone cannot.

[housefish]

Originally Posted by Rufus P. Funk

. . . . . . . . . . . .

Too many people without in this world that could appreciate a life if someone cannot.

I hear that meth babies and crack babies are hot on the adoption circuit right now.