Santorum and the rapist's child.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Alternatively titled: Women, the frothy mixture of feacal matter and lube says...


....you should be pleased to bear the child of your rapist, it is a gift from god. You should be happy and joyful that your creator viewed you as so special he saw fit to allow you to be violated in order to give you the precious gift of life. The fact that you weren't pregnant at the time only demonstrates his munificence as all all you women want is to get pregnant and you feel all feak and weeble when you're not. Obviously what you want can only be giving by a man, under normal circumstances it would be better if you were married to that fella, but if not then god is willing to supply the seamen in the shape of your attacker.

What a thoroughly pleasant individual.

[lankou]

Source, reference please?

[Robin Goodfellow]

Source, reference please?

....no.

[Don]

Source, reference please?

I do believe he's having a go at Rick Santorum.

[Opinionated]

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

[Verion]

I do believe he's having a go at Rick Santorum.

I suspect what he meant to say was that motherhood is a gift irrespective of what might have preceded it.

And it'd be wrong, because it isn't always.
Often it couldn't be further from strawberries and buttercups.

But honestly, I haven't read any comment of his. And I'm not going to. I'm not going to base my opinion of abortion on what mortal men decide some deity they "have faith in" feels about it.

I suspect it'd be a waste of my time looking it up.

As for seeing a topic headlined with "faeces and lube" on the front page... I find it just a little uncomfortable


...that came out all wrong.

GOD DAMN MAKE THE DOUBLE-MEANINGS STOP

EDIT: Wait, Opinionated posted a video for me so I'm watching it
Err... I agree with his comment on counselling - just not with his argument against legality of abortion :/

[uganda]

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

I was going to post that, but then I thought Robin might get put out by my helping poor old lankou when he was pointedly refusing to....ah well, what's that old story about the old man and his donkey?

[lankou]

I was going to post that, but then I thought Robin might get put out by my helping poor old lankou when he was pointedly refusing to....ah well, what's that old story about the old man and his donkey?

I though the thread opener was expressing Robin's opinion until the last sentence.

[Bright Young Thing]

....you should be pleased to bear the child of your rapist, it is a gift from god. You should be happy and joyful that your creator viewed you as so special he saw fit to allow you to be violated in order to give you the precious gift of life. The fact that you weren't pregnant at the time only demonstrates his munificence as all all you women want is to get pregnant and you feel all feak and weeble when you're not. Obviously what you want can only be giving by a man, under normal circumstances it would be better if you were married to that fella, but if not then god is willing to supply the seamen in the shape of your attacker.

Words cannot adequately describe how disgusted I am at this quote, and this man.

Some of you know my history, some don't, but put it this way.... I am shaking with anger, yet being returned to a dark dark place in my mind, by what he says.

What a revolting, repugnant man.

BYT

[Barry]

Words cannot adequately describe how disgusted I am at this quote,

You may well be outraged, but it is not a quote, it is something Robin made up.
He did not say those things.
In that video he gave sensitive and honest answers to questions posed by a person who resigned from the Daily Mirror after dishonest reporting put our troops in extra danger, and someone who has to account for his role in phone hacking.

[Robin Goodfellow]

You may well be outraged, but it is not a quote, it is something Robin made up.
He did not say those things.
In that video he gave sensitive and honest answers to questions posed by a person who resigned from the Daily Mirror after dishonest reporting put our troops in extra danger, and someone who has to account for his role in phone hacking.

He said the child was a gift from god yes? He said he would council his daughter to not abort yes? His opposition to Roe vs Wade is well know yes? All I did was join the lot together.

[uganda]

You may well be outraged, but it is not a quote,

No, it isn't. And doesn't pretend to be.

it is something Robin made up.

With clear reference to Santorum's actual words.

He did not say those things.

Not those exact things, no, but that was the size of it.

In that video he gave sensitive and honest answers to questions

They may have been honest, I'm not really sure where sensitivity comes into it one way or the other. You seem desperate to stand up for him - could this merely be because you are 'pro-life' too?

posed by a person who resigned from the Daily Mirror after dishonest reporting put our troops in extra danger, and someone who has to account for his role in phone hacking.

It wouldn't matter if he was being interrogated by a panel comprising Osama bin Laden, Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il, we are talking about what Santorum said, not on whether Morgan is an angel or not. Please don't set up straw man arguments, it's really boring.

[Barry]

With clear reference to Santorum's actual words.

There was no clear reference to Santorum's words in the OP, the subject had to be dragged out, as Robin was playing a little cryptic game. Wasn't it fun?

Not those exact things, no, but that was the size of it.

Misquotes are so boring.

They may have been honest, I'm not really sure where sensitivity comes into it one way or the other. You seem desperate to stand up for him - could this merely be because you are 'pro-life' too?

I'm not desperate to stand up for him at all. The gift from God remark was ill-advised, one would better argue that a pregnancy as a result of rape is a gift from the Devil.
I AM pro life, are you pro death?

It wouldn't matter if he was being interrogated by a panel comprising Osama bin Laden, Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il, we are talking about what Santorum said, not on whether Morgan is an angel or not. Please don't set up straw man arguments, it's really boring.

That was not a straw man argument, you need to examine the definition.

[Robin Goodfellow]

There was no clear reference to Santorum's words in the OP, the subject had to be dragged out, as Robin was playing a little cryptic game. Wasn't it fun?

No I wasn't Lankou always asks for references and I always refuse. Nothing cryptic about that. As for the rest I stand by it totally, his views on abortion, rape and women are well known, i did not exaggerate in the slightest. I just showed the results of adhering to his stated belief that abortion is wrong under any circumstances. I could have phrased it in a more respectful manner I will admit, but the thing is I don't have to. His stated goal of overturning Roe vs Wade would have the effect that the victims of rape would not be able to seek abortions.

[Opinionated]

OK I'm gonna throw the cat in amongst the pigeons and say I have a sort of begrudging respect for what he said, by which I mean it would be a huge hypocrisy to say I believe that life starts at conception and therefore abortion is murder - oh but it's not murder in some cases....

Still don't like the man though, or feel it's anyone else's decision but the victim in that scenario.

[Robin Goodfellow]

OK I'm gonna throw the cat in amongst the pigeons and say I have a sort of begrudging respect for what he said, by which I mean it would be a huge hypocrisy to say I believe that life starts at conception and therefore abortion is murder - oh but it's not murder in some cases....

Still don't like the man though, or feel it's anyone else's decision but the victim in that scenario.

I agree, but and it is a big but, while "admirable" his adhearance to that belief may be, the result of it is such that women will be forced to carry a child who through no fault of it's own would remind them they were raped. The motivation for his position does not for one second absolve him of the results of what would happen under his stewardship if abortion under were to be criminalised. The simple truth is women will always and have always sought terminations, standing in the way of that inevitablity only serves to put thinking breathing adults lives at risk.

Also in much the same way that it is hypocritical to accept abortion under certain circumstances if you believe it is murder. It is also hypocritical if you believe in abortion to think there is any difference between terminations at 10 wekks or 39 weeks 6 days. Though I have said that in another thread.

[uganda]

There was no clear reference to Santorum's words in the OP, the subject had to be dragged out, as Robin was playing a little cryptic game. Wasn't it fun?

Well, I must admit that Robin was being a bit cryptic at first in that he seemed to presume everyone would know the story. But once everyone knew what it was it was pretty obvious, and we all knew what it was by the time you commented.

Misquotes are so boring.

I daresay, but this was not a misquote. Nor any type of quote, for that matter. As we have both already agreed, no?

I'm not desperate to stand up for him at all. The gift from God remark was ill-advised, one would better argue that a pregnancy as a result of rape is a gift from the Devil.

Well, actually there is an argument that a perfectly good child can be born to a woman who was raped to have him/her, and in any case I don't believe children are a gift from either God or the Devil, neither of who it makes any sense to me could possibly exist. But if you don't care to stand up for him, why use such a completely inappropriate word as 'sensitive'?

I AM pro life, are you pro death?

I am about to demonstrate in the next bit that I don't just accuse people of using logical fallacies without knowing what they are. This is a classic case of a 'false dichotomy' wherein you have used a popular expression, boiled it down to its literal meaning and then offered its opposite meaning as a gainsay. For example 'I am a do-gooder, are you a do-badder?' Same with this. I am obviously not pro-death and you know it. I would be pro-life were it not for the fact that this meaning has been hijacked to mean something quite different. And, as was quite saliently put to Santorum and which he failed to answer, how does 'pro-life' square with the death penalty? There are plenty who could answer that pretty well, perhaps you're one of them, but he struggled quite badly.

That was not a straw man argument, you need to examine the definition.

Er, not really. You were making a comment on Piers Morgan's character, rightly or wrongly, but this was absolutely not open to discussion, all that was being discussed was Santorum's comments, Morgan's character being a completely different argument. It was basically a diversionary argument designed to strengthen your position against an argument that no-one else held, or at least had not claimed to hold, pretty much the epitome of a straw man argument.

[Verion]

I agree with uganda on the pro-life/pro-death argument and I believe he's done a good job defending his position on it (hat off to you sir).

I am "pro-life" in that I believe in avoiding unecessary death, however there are times when you can argue that death is necessary - medical necessity for example, or situations where the child has no hope of any standard of life. Outside of those conditions killing an embryo or foetus is not necessary. Therefore it is "wrong". How wrong? That is not for me to dictate to people as such - we kill bacteria 'unecessarily' every day and don't lose sleep over it. I would only wish to step in to defend an organism that either has particular significance (is the last of a species) or feels pain when it dies: on account of ethics.

Claiming that the interviewer was biased and unusually misleading is a legitimate argument as to why an interviewee would give unusually poor answers - My counter argument is simply this: he's running for president. Handling seething scrutiny from the press is going to be a job requirement.

As for claiming it is hypocrisy to suggest killing something that feels pain is worse than killing something that does not... how is this me being a hypocrite here??

[Robin Goodfellow]

As for claiming it is hypocrisy to suggest killing something that feels pain is worse than killing something that does not... how is this me being a hypocrite here??

Because the pain bit is a separate issue, the point is you are killing a human life and whether it can feel pain or not is completely immaterial to that. Besides it is perfectly possible to perform even a late term abortion with no pain what so ever to the fetus.

[Verion]

Because the pain bit is a separate issue, the point is you are killing a human life and whether it can feel pain or not is completely immaterial to that. Besides it is perfectly possible to perform even a late term abortion with no pain what so ever to the fetus.

But is it not also hypocrisy to claim that killing humans is murder, while killing potatoes is not?
Humanity doesn't seem to draw the line for things like potatoes.
Neither does it draw the line for dogs, which are considerably more sentient.
Only humans are afforded such protection; and then you have to define what a human is.
Genetically speaking an embryo or foetus is human irrespective of development.
But I would not say that ending the life of a few un-specialised cells is the same as ending the life of a human.
Outside of that, I'm not sure upon what basis to develop my beliefs relating to these ethics

[Bright Young Thing]

But is it not also hypocrisy to claim that killing humans is murder, while killing potatoes is not?
Humanity doesn't seem to draw the line for things like potatoes.
Neither does it draw the line for dogs, which are considerably more sentient.
Only humans are afforded such protection; and then you have to define what a human is.
Genetically speaking an embryo or foetus is human irrespective of development.
But I would not say that ending the life of a few un-specialised cells is the same as ending the life of a human.
Outside of that, I'm not sure upon what basis to develop my beliefs relating to these ethics

This argument IMO is getting a little bit silly......re potatoes.

As for dogs, healthy dogs are not killed as a matter of course, instead they are only really put to sleep if they are extremely ill. I cannot think of any vet who would kill a healthy dog for no reason.

As to the foetus debate, there are laws regarding when a foetus becomes a human being, and abortion is related to these.

We have had the debate on here regarding abortion, and it's still my view that if there is significant risk to the mother or foetus, either mentally or physically, then abortion is acceptable. Again IMO, a child conceived as the result of a rape would potentially cause mental distress and mental health issues to the mother, and therefore abortion is acceptable in those cases.

Of course, the victim of rape who has an abortion can still suffer mental trauma, particularly if they believe abortion is wrong, as it can lead to a feeling of enormous guilt for a long time.

How about the issue of the fathers rights when a woman has an abortion? Should the father have the right to stop the abortion?? Another point to ponder....

BYT

[Midas]

But is it not also hypocrisy to claim that killing humans is murder, while killing potatoes is not?
Humanity doesn't seem to draw the line for things like potatoes.

You're comparing chalk and cheese; murder is only murder, morally and legally, when it involves another independent human life.

Neither does it draw the line for dogs, which are considerably more sentient.

Dogs are not human, and that's a cultural matter anyway - look at several countries in the Far East where dogs are on a par with other animals as a source of food. Remove the cultural aspect and you're happy to kill and eat a sheep or a cow, so why not a dog - rhetorical question to make a point really.

Only humans are afforded such protection; and then you have to define what a human is.
Genetically speaking an embryo or foetus is human irrespective of development.
But I would not say that ending the life of a few un-specialised cells is the same as ending the life of a human.
Outside of that, I'm not sure upon what basis to develop my beliefs relating to these ethics

A human life means independent life, not a collection of cells which will at some future time develop into independent life but are currently as much an integral part of their host as any other organ is. As I've said before, there's both a biological and legal difference, but this is starting to take this thread off its original topic and converge it with the one on abortion.

[Equivocal]

.............As to the foetus debate, there are laws regarding when a foetus becomes a human being.............

There are, but they appear to be very different in the USA - Link -

On the face of it, they might appear to be reasonable on the basis of protecting unborn children, and hence the interests of expectant mothers. However, I understand that prosecutions have been launched for what we in England would describe as gross negligence homicide against women who have lost babies by allegedly abusing themselves. One of these cases involved an attempted suicide which resulted in the woman losing her unborn child.

This approach appears totally wrong-headed to me, but is perhaps an inevitable consequence of adopting the ideas of the man referenced in the leading post.

[Verion]

A human life means independent life, not a collection of cells which will at some future time develop into independent life but are currently as much an integral part of their host as any other organ is. As I've said before, there's both a biological and legal difference, but this is starting to take this thread off its original topic and converge it with the one on abortion.

Yes, you've said this before. And again I call it into question. The ability to feel pain and suffering independent of it's host... as well as being genetically different from it... and despite this it isn't classed as living or human, 'just another organ'. But that's ok because it's been written in our laws for a very long time... Next time somebody needs blood that isn't theirs in a transfusion I'll just tell them that making them dependent on another human makes their lives unworthy of protection.

By definition of genomics it is surely a separate organism, and an organism of which by definition needs to be "alive" to be classed as one. And surely it's a matter of ethics to decide what organism is or is not human :/

You counter my point well and I'll applaud you for it, but last time it didn't get answered and again it's just shrugged off. If you didn't want to give an answer then that's absolutely fine... but to then go ahead and use the same argument in another thread again here...

It annoys me.
I want to see you step up and challenge my argument.
When you have the time, please hop into the abortion thread and look at what I wrote :'(

[Midas]

Yes, you've said this before. And again I call it into question. The ability to feel pain and suffering independent of it's host... as well as being genetically different from it... and despite this it isn't classed as living or human, 'just another organ'. But that's ok because it's been written in our laws for a very long time... Next time somebody needs blood that isn't theirs in a transfusion I'll just tell them that making them dependent on another human makes their lives unworthy of protection.

See BBC News - 'No foetal pain before 24 weeks' which references just one of many similar studies which have been conducted over the years. What's a blood transfusion got to do with this though, if someone is given a transfusion no genetic material is passed - only white blood cells contain DNA and these are removed during the processing of blood for transfusion.

By definition of genomics it is surely a separate organism, and an organism of which by definition needs to be "alive" to be classed as one. And surely it's a matter of ethics to decide what organism is or is not human :/

A separate organism is pretty useless unless it has independent life, which even symbiotic organisms have, and we've known for a long time that a foetus cannot survive unaided as independent life when separated from its mother prior to 24 weeks. But yes, it is also a matter of ethics, however ethics encompasses a great deal more than just the possible future life of a foetus; the wellbeing of its mother for one.

You counter my point well and I'll applaud you for it, but last time it didn't get answered and again it's just shrugged off. If you didn't want to give an answer then that's absolutely fine... but to then go ahead and use the same argument in another thread again here...

It annoys me.
I want to see you step up and challenge my argument.
When you have the time, please hop into the abortion thread and look at what I wrote :'(

If you want to discuss this any further, can I suggest we take it back to the abortion thread and not divert this one any further.

[DasInternaut]

I don't have a problem with what Scrotum said in this case. But then again, I don't agree with it either (I just don't have a problem). Don't get me wrong, I don't like the guy (especially after what he said about the NHS - see my deliberate misspelling of his name) and do not entirely agree with his stance on abortion, but he does appear to be what he says he is, complete with the various beliefs that entails. Of the retards competing for the Republican nomination, Scrotum is IMHO the only one who is actually what he says he is (e.g. a deeply religious evangelical Christian).

[Verion]

If you want to discuss this any further, can I suggest we take it back to the abortion thread and not divert this one any further.

Thanks for the response. My full reply to it is in the appropriate place

[lankou]

Nothing cryptic about that. As for the rest I stand by it totally, his views on abortion, rape and women are well known, .

Well know by who? I also have no idea who he is.
So without a spefic reference, I thought the thread opener was stating the the opinion of the person who started the thread.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Well know by who? I also have no idea who he is.
So without a spefic reference, I thought the thread opener was stating the the opinion of the person who started the thread.

Why not read a newspaper then occasionally. I mean he's been mentioned 106 times by the guardian over last six months. Time is a similar amount though their search doesn't give you a break down of the number of articles he appeared in.

[lankou]

Why not read a newspaper then occasionally. I mean he's been mentioned 106 times by the guardian over last six months. Time is a similar amount though their search doesn't give you a break down of the number of articles he appeared in.

I have not read a national newspaper in over 35 years unless someone draws my attention to yet another lot of lies in one of them.
I also cannot afford the cost of newspapers, there is also no newpaper delivery where I live.
As far as I am concerned News coupled with Paper is an oxymoron.

[Robin Goodfellow]

I have not read a national newspaper in over 35 years unless someone draws my attention to yet another lot of lies in one of them.
I also cannot afford the cost of newspapers, there is also no newpaper delivery where I live.
As far as I am concerned News coupled with Paper is an oxymoron.

That explains so much.

[Verion]

That explains so much.

It is true: Why on Earth would anybody leave the internet with it's live news feeds to go to a shop and pay for news printed on paper? To do the crossword maybe?

And I'd never heard of this guy either.
Maybe I couldn't be bothered to read stories about some muppet, or maybe my news feed isn't infallible :/

Whatever the case, hopefully that "explains a lot" for you

[Robin Goodfellow]

It is true: Why on Earth would anybody leave the internet with it's live news feeds to go to a shop and pay for news printed on paper? To do the crossword maybe?

And I'd never heard of this guy either.
Maybe I couldn't be bothered to read stories about some muppet, or maybe my news feed isn't infallible :/

Whatever the case, hopefully that "explains a lot" for you

In your case it explains a huge amount, mainly that you have no interest in American politics as Santorum has been in the running for a national position since the early '00's. He has been at the forefront of the tea party and various other Republican adventures especially the religious ones. His name has been if not frequently mentioned and quoted then enough that he is a household name across the entire US.

Lankou on the other hand has stated he eschews all media outputs so his knowledge only comes from what people point out to him. News Papers may not be perfect, but his rejection of them is simplistic to say the very least.

[Barry]

I have not read a national newspaper in over 35 years unless someone draws my attention to yet another lot of lies in one of them.
I also cannot afford the cost of newspapers, there is also no newpaper delivery where I live.
As far as I am concerned News coupled with Paper is an oxymoron.

You must read newspapers online, especially when you have a link here.
However, it's true this is American politics, some have little interest and only a few on this forum have a vote, so until the GoP representative is actually decided, this is all a bit of a moot point for many.

[Verion]

No.. I have an interest, just not enough to look up each republican. People I can recall are: Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingritch, Ron Paul. Those are the only names I've looked into :/ I heard Barack Obama is doing nothing for civil liberties in America, allowing American citizens to be locked up without trial and failing to roll back the touch-you-inappropriately-TSA. And that's a shame because I thought Obama was such a cool guy

[lankou]

It is true: Why on Earth would anybody leave the internet with it's live news feeds to go to a shop and pay for news printed on paper? To do the crossword maybe?

And I'd never heard of this guy either.
Maybe I couldn't be bothered to read stories about some muppet, or maybe my news feed isn't infallible :/

Whatever the case, hopefully that "explains a lot" for you

Because "News"papers have so so many lies printed in them why bother to read them at all, unless it is to as I do, prove they are lying, but it is not often they publish my comments with references to real data instead of their spun and lying version of it.