Well said Mike.

The party of individual freedom certainly wants to take it away when it comes to rape in the name of protecting the child

Uhmm no one said (in this bill) that she could not get an abortion, what it said was I should not have to pay for it. And it really didn't even say that, that is just what you have assumed and taken off with by adding one word, which Karl calls redundant, which would mean, it means the same thing, so it would NOT be a redefinition.. You guys need to work out your story before you start posting.

So if a person is a victim of rape, and there is no federal assistance for an abortion, how would you suggest this victim deal with the situation? Private insurance with a deductible, or possibly no coverage since some may call it "elective?" That is why changing the definition of what type of rape is allowed federal abortion assistance is important, and why right-wingers want to change it---they know that most insurance companies will deny coverage. I understand the religious belief behind no abortions, but I don't understand the ethical belief behind not allowing a victim of rape to remove a 9 month reminder of that tragedy.
And trust me, I'm not calling Mr. Frank to find out what I should post, so there is no getting a story straight. I post what I believe and try to support it with logic.

Well I as in the government should not deal with it, this is a personal issue, and as such should be dealt with personally. I don't understand why insurance should be involved either, so deductibles co pays whatever. If you want one pay for one? that is simple, now if you are going to discuss moral properness, or what the law SHOULD be then I say there is never a choice, it is a human life, and not just a reminder of a bad event, and if it is a human, and especially one that is not responsible for that bad event then how do you justify killing it. This is not a religious point of view, this is a moral point of view, that it is wrong to kill people for anything other than self-preservation, or to save another person’s life, which is why abortion should be legal to save the mother’s life.
As far as not using my name, trust me I am not a bot or troll, as you said look at my post history. but other than that in this world being a tuff guy takes a lot of time and money to get out of jail, so no one needs to know my name, and I don't need to meet anyone on the corner to defend my position, I put my ideas out here and they stand on their own.
nice chattin with ya

In-grate---I could not care less if you use your real name, and I did not even mention it in my comment. Following your logic of rape and abortion being a personal issue, then anyone who shoots a family member of mine I can shoot them since it's a personal issue, right? An abortion is a medical procedure requiring medical care, and that is where the insurance issue comes in. If a victim of rape (a morally abhorrant crime) wants an abortion from their pregnancy, and insurance doesn't cover it, then federal assistance should, much like victims of famine and drought. Perhaps you don't realize that the rapist, once they are out of jail, has access and rights to that child as well since he is the father. So the victim would have to grant the rapist rights to see the child, and has to deal with remembering the rape everytime that child goes to see rapist daddy. If the woman wants to get an abortion, then morally she should have that right.

Following your logic of rape and abortion being a personal issue, then anyone who shoots a family member of mine I can shoot them since it's a personal issue
I have no idea how you made that leap? I said abortion is legal right now in this country, it should not be, but it is, so if she wants one go for it, If you want a medical policy with coverage for abortion, pay for it, and have it, if they don't cover it, it is because the libs hijacked your healthcare and didn't let the competitive market allow you to buy the policy you wanted, so that is your problem. Or Just pay for it. All I said was there is no reason for me to pay for it.
Perhaps you don't realize that the rapist, once they are out of jail, has access and rights to that child Uhm, we are proposing new laws here, why not just make that not so? Why let him out of jail to start with? Damn libs want to let everyone go free. That too is your fault, not mine. If this woman wants to kill that child she legally can as of this time, it is not morally right any more so than it would be to kill any other child, but you go on and kill children if you want, maybe someday we will be able to kill adults that are an inconvenience to us too

MIKE KARL:
Would either of you
1) name one Republican who agrees with AKIN comment?
2) Would Mike explain "protecting the child" is the same as "Killing the child"
3) If someone is already in Poverty , how could you protect them from poverty.
Welfare "food stamps" is the continuation of poverty.
Food stamps are "Charity" please don't use that re-defining words on us.
4) There is no such thing as a "school Lunch" . All society has "lunch.

Maybe you would want "school lunch" to fit your "education" cost menu.
What about the poor children not in school? they live in self-described "STABLES"
Would that be a "Stable Lunch"?
You guys constantly mis-direct what good people need.
That is a Truthfull effort to HELP the POOR and NEEDY!

All of your solutions Give them something called "assistance" but hide the stab on the back as you TAX everything they need to survive. (Sales-realEstate-autoTax)
I still say, why don't you allow ALL the needy to Stop Paying Auto taxes and Home ownership Taxes just to call it "School Lunch".
That's what I call "Aborting the living-Poor"
Liberals are a disgrace to society.
Furthermore, any woman who has been raped and wants to take a morning after pill is perfectly OK with me.
Just how does that help the economy?

MIKE/KARL
Abortion issue will not determine our next President. Rapist claims have been used to destroy many lives --even the Living--(Read DUKE Lacrosse team case)

Absolutely not. Remind me again why we're having this discussion? Wasn't this all pretty much settled 40 years ago? Oh that's right, once again the GOP wants to turn back the clock to a "better" time. Better for who exactly?

Terrible Todd needs to crawl back into the hole from which he sprung, and NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

Well I would not want to, but if asked I would say that is what is right. If I were allowed to kill human beings just because they caused me emotional harm, where would we be? In fact the situation would be can I kill your child just because you harmed me? I think there is no way you can reconcile that as right. Rape is Rape, and Murder is Murder, and when there is separate and distinct DNA there is a new life, and that happens at conception. I don’t like that answer, but it is the right answer

thank you Karl for your informed opinions and fact checking. Abortion is a medical procedure, true or false? then it comes down to is it "elective" or "required". the arguement can be made that it is elective unless the mother's health is at stake. no archaic religous voodoo should seperate abortion from any other medical procedure.
But, at the end of the day, it is the definition of "The Mother's health" that is paramount above all other factors. If the mother believes that it will cause her undo harm to " HER OWN BODY" than it is not necsessarily elective anymore and it becomes required as the toll a pregnancy takes on a woman's body is, without question, potentially harmful with lifelong consequences.
IT IS MY LIFE NOT YOUR CHOICE

I see a lot of men commenting, so where are all of the women who should be uprising?! As a Missourian and a woman, I am horrified that Todd Aiken, who exhibits total and obvious disregard for women, especially "legitimate" rape victims, is our representative from Missouri. He makes it look as if we Missourians are so backward that we don't know about our bodies and what can and can't be "shut down" as if we crawled out of a cave somewhere. I resent that! You don't represent me, Todd Aiken!

Lying is not the opposite of legitimate rape. Rape is Rape. Lying about rape is lying about rape. Either way, Akin's job is not to be in a women's uterus and it certainly isn't between her and the government whether or not she was raped.

While that's really a different topic for a different thread, here is a history of Norma McCorvey, http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionus/a/norma_mccorvey.htm

In the meantime, Akin is obviously wrong about the woman's body shutting down during *GAG* "legitimate" rapes. Rapes are rapes and Ryan and Akin's dogmaeic ignorance on the matter is dogmatic ignorance.

Thanks

Then of course, on the flip side, the many women who have experienced infertility and have tried over and over again to get pregnant, according to Akin's logic, just need to tell their bodies to "turn it on." Sometimes showing the opposite extreme can give us a clue as to just how stupid a statement really is. Akin not only insulted women who have been raped, but also infertile couples who have been trying for years to get pregnant. Would love to know where Akin went to school, and make sure we call that school and check on their health and biology curriculums, just to make sure Akin was taught ideas from biology that 6th graders know

Seth, like I said earlier, Akin is no rookie. If he felt comfortable saying what it said and can still be elected by Missourians, then it says more about Missouri than it does Akin. Very depressing indeed if that is the case.

Absolutely Larry, no one has the right ot impose their beliefs on others; just like no one should expect others to pay the bill or suffer the consequences for those choices.

Rights are different than expectations.

If a pregnancy is the result of a rape, the "choice" was that of the rapist. If he doesn't pay for the abortion, should our society?

" just like no one should expect others to pay the bill or suffer the consequences for those choices."

so I should have to pay for health issues related to smoking? poor diet? lack of excercise? obesity? alcoholism? injuries sustained from risky activities, like riding a mountain bike or crossing the street?

That is the purpose of insurance - to pool risk, and that includes all risk.

Nope, that's the point. You should only have to pay for your OWN health issues. The rest is just coveting that of others.

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” - Thomas Jefferson

The hypocrisy here would be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerous. These same people on here that have been crying "my body, my right" for weeks now, can be found posting comments supporting Mayor Bloomberg and the Democrat-enforced limits on sugar intake.
So, "my body, my right" works when they are taking your money to pay for it, but doesn't count when the they are taking your rights. It's nice that they "want to protect us", but who is going to protect us from them?
That's not logic, it's conditioning. If it wasn't, these otherwise intelligent people would be able to see it.

Also, this is just more distraction from real issues:
Unemployment. Economy. Spending. Results. Actual Policy. Broken Laws (Not Passing A Budget, Insider Trading, etc)
Whodini made an elephant disappear in a room full of people using these same tired tactics.

With one statement (that they've all been encouraged to run with for weeks), it somehow (to them) means that their candidates don't lie, cheat, chase away jobs, hide tax-hikes & bet away their homes. To these otherwise intelligent people, it means that all of their failed policies magically work.

Just keep proving my point, someday you might even see it.

Just a reminder Devon that this post is about Akin and Ryan's efforts to redefine Rape. It was also about the Fritzl rape, incest, imprisonment case to prove a point of why they are morally corrupt in doing so.

What topic would you like me to write about in order to make our comments relevant?

Devon, I think this 3 part series covers your topic pretty thoroughly: http://mehlville-oakville.patch.com/blog_posts/todd-akins-rape-comment-was-pseudoscience-but-what-about-the-morality-of-abortion-part-3-morality

'“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” - Thomas Jefferson'

That's a misquote, according to http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/j/jefferson-quotes.htm and http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/chain-email-10-jefferson-quotations

Jefferson actually wrote, in his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom:

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

wow well if that isn't some double talk. way to go Karl you are making a stronger case for voting GOP. Why is it that you think that passing a legal legitimate law to overturn the Supreme courts rule is somehow a "loop hole" it is not a back door entrance, it is an upfront challenge to that decision, and that is how we make the rules we live by. You would not be saying this if it were yet another challenge against our second amendment rights now would you?
I am not using my name because rule ONE which Dems don't get is trust no one. You don't know me anyway, so what is the difference. I don't need one of your Wack job left wingers showing up at my house someday to throw blood on my fur coat, so that is why I am not using my real name.

Rape IS rape, but ONLY if it's rape. Even the left should be able to figure that out.

Whether you want to dismiss them all or not, there are MANY cases, in which men have been accused of rape, when the girl was NOT raped.
Speaking of which, I wonder if Jesse Jackson ever actually paid for the eduacation of that dispicable young lady at Duke, like he said he would when he called for shutting-down the Lacrosse program DUE TO ILLIGITIMATE RAPE.
This girl managed to ruin the lives of MANY (including her attorney) all at the same time. If it would have been legitimate rape, it would've had one victim. Her lie (which makes it an illigitimate-rape) had many victims.

You can make fun, distract & try to villify all you want, and it's a shame when a woman's life is effected to the extent that it is after a rape. But a lot of lives have been just as damaged by illigitimate rape claims.
The difference is: if you are raped, people understand that you are a victim & it wasn't your fault. If you are illigitimately accused of rape, that's something that can stick with you for a long time. Certain people (the name-callers) will always see you as a criminal or rapist, they are likely to never see you in the same light as that faultless victim. Especially when the accusation makes the front-page or lead-story, and the exhoneration does not. That's why when Duke Lacrosse is given as an example of illigitimate-rape, they can't wait to just skip right over it.

Devon, that's revisionist history and not what Akin meant about legitimate rape.

He said that a woman has a way of shutting her body down. He wasn't talking about liars. Please. I've told you many times, your appeals to different topics and abuse of semantics just isn't going to work here.

Karl: You are wrong (as usual).
Devon is correct.
"Legitimate rape" phrase,was the main issue with AKIN.
"shut-down" was the scientific dumb comment in controversy.
But the phrase "legitimate" or Legitimate" is what YOU even elaborated on
when the story broke. The science part was of course a follow-up.
People wanted to know the difference in how a rape could be "legitimate".
Devon and PaulRevere(elsewhere) have made a case that "legitimate" is the "OPPOSITE OF FALSE" rape.
I would welcome anyone's comment trying to state just what the "Duke Rape case"
would be called using 20-20 hindsight.

Whatever Karl,
If my stance was hypocritical nonsense, I wouldn't want people to bring up the subjects that prove it either.
Mis-direction, name-calling, false-witness, etc. That's all this is, that's why you tried to turn it around on me when I called you out on it.
It's always the same, regardless of which subject you want to take out of the context. Off-topic or not, if I hadn't given a valid indictment of the "my body, my right" rhetoric, & shown the left's hypocrisy of it, you would've addressed it.
You are the one who either doesn’t understand or is trying to twist what Akin said into some sort of hatred when everything in this article qualifies for the same distinction.
'caveman logic' - 'willful ignorance' - 'cruelty, greed, contempt, arrogance, abusive, belittling, misleading, spiteful, denigration' - 'Stone Age toolmaker' - "willful cruelty, greed, contempt, arrogance, abuse,"
It's funny how you can make those types of declarations & still attribute the hate to someone else. What's not funny, is you trying to tell me what he meant, when you are obviously either an idiot or intentionally misrepresenting those statements, pretending they are something else.
No one has said that Elisabeth Fritzl was not a victim of legitimate, forceful rape - It was never even said, yet you attribute attribute it to them, as if it's what they said, when it’s YOU came up with it. Proving again, that you are either pushing an agenda at all costs, or simply don’t understand.

Speaking of "isn't going to work here", this whole "parallel" is an obvious & weak attempt at reductio ad absurdum (which is turning into something I have to call-out many of you on almost daily). Today is apparently no different.

"Are you saying that she didn't choose to shut her body down?"
Nope, He never said women did anything consciously to "shut-down" her body. So, again, you think of something stupid, but then act like that stupid thought belongs to someone else (This has become quite a pattern, hasn't it?)

Even you know (whether you act like you're ignorant of it in order to use it for your agenda or not) that NO ONE is trying to say Ms Fritzl was not raped. No one that is, except you. Yet you try to attribute that which YOU came-up with, to someone else. It's an asinine, irresponsible & a blatant mis-representation, and you know it (or you would if you were the intellectual you try to portray).

PS - No "redefinition" of ANY word could, or would even try to, attempt to claim that Elisabeth's situation is any less horrible than it was, and no matter how much you pretend it can or will, it wouldn't.

Can you address anything without changing it to something else?
Are you saying that germs or bacteria have a human DNA just because they are on your skin? A child has very distinct, human DNA WELL prior to birth.

Akin also didn't say that if a woman got pregnant from rape, that she enjoyed it, you did. He was trying to explain what he had been told was one of the many reasons that a resulting pregnancy from one rape is rare.

I wouldn't expect you to understand any of this because it is what it is, whether you try to change it to something unrelated & rediculous or not.

Why don't we stay with the facts, instead of what you've chosen to infer.

Who are you anyway, Louie Freeh?

Devon:Keep it up! Principles always trump
the "unfocused".

The "Legitimate Rape" comment was an orchestrated "scream"
by the media to further a cause.
This Missouri state will recognize that there IS such a thing as
"Legitimate Rape". Like Karl's "Sanitizer" twisted analogy.
Inferred-Karl, would also assert that "Other People can RAPE YOU" simply by passing their DNA Germ-Cell to your hands.
Like the "shut down" comment--Karl's "sanitizer" comment has NO SCIENCE to back it up. Prove it Karl! Prove that the science exists to back up the statement that "anyone who uses sanitizer would be a serial killer". Was that "your conclusion or the medical world.?
You still have not answered the question many have brought forward.
IS THE DUKE LaCrosse Case --"Legitimate Rape"??????? Or is it a "woman's body shutting down to have NO trace of RAPE."?????

Karl, thank you for your article and for soundly defending your position.

As far as not putting names to comments: I don't, obviously. If that reduces their credibility in your eyes, so be it. I don't fear accountability: I use just one pseudonym so my Patch comment record speaks for itself. My opinions are my opinions and I try to back up my use of facts and quotes with references.

But please don't call me a coward. Unfortunately, some members of our species overreact, to put it mildly, and choose to act on their beliefs physically rather than with words.

"[L]et us remember Dr. George Tiller, Dr. Bernard Slepian, Shannon Lowney, Lee Ann Nichols, Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Britton, James Barrett and John Sanderson, and all those who lost their lives or were injured due to abortion related violence."
[http://debrahaffner.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html]

Sensible? - You make a good point, but I think names matter. While you are likely legit, many times political groups and campaigns troll boards and make comments with their talking points. For instance, when Mehlville was working on Full-Day Kindergarten, a poster started commenting on why it was such a bad idea. It turned out she was a public relations professional for tuition based Lutheran Early Childhood Education, but never mentioned it.

As far as deaths, while I am in no hurry to die; 1. I am in no hurry to die, but 2. I'm fully prepared. Not to imply that I am important enough to kill. If I were, folks like Bill Maher would have been killed a long time ago. That said, people have been killed for a lot lesser things.

I'm just not afraid, but I can understand why others would be.

I forgot to mention that not only do political groups do this, they literally hire people to troll blogs and news websites to post their comments. When comments are allowed without using their real name, this effects the overall credibility of the comment thread. For what it's worth.

But there's no way to tell if a name is real or not. Patch allows easy access of the complete comment record, that's good enough for me for now. Maybe they can come up with a better way to deal with trolls.

I don't expect to be killed, either. Harassment is much more likely in this day and age. And that seems to have a fuzzy definition. I considered 5 calls in one 5 hour period with suppressed caller ID from the now Republican presidential candidate to be pestering, but obviously his staff didn't. Of no physical harm but not something I wish to deal with if I can take a step to avoid it.

Why because it is true? It IS true that a woman under stress is less likely to get pregnant than one that is relaxed and "into" it. That is a known fact. I could go into why, and how that works, but for the sake of time and some readers it might be a bit too graphic. I recommend you read up on it.

Itegr8er, can you provide some sources to back up your claim that "It IS true" and "That is a known fact"? You can spare us the details and just provide quotes from obstetricians and clinical researchers. For example, those contained in:
[http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/health/rape-pregnancy/index.html]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rape-assertions-are-dismissed-by-health-experts.html]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I prefer to judge the accountability and credibility of those references for myself.

Akin admitted today that he was medically wrong.

Will Integr8er? "IS" and "known fact" are strong assertions.

Sensible: here you go, you could easily google this too you know.

http://www.babycenter.com/404_can-stress-get-in-the-way-of-getting-pregnant_1336350.bc

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2010/08/27/cant-get-pregnant-how-stress-may-be-causing-your-infertility

Now you look up the rest.
Stress makes it harder to get pregnant, come on.

Akin butt is fried, he will say anything you want to hear now.

"Stress makes it harder to get pregnant, come on."

Did you mean chronic stress or acute stress?
[http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/health/rape-pregnancy/index.html].

What I meant was, but didn't care to take the time to type for you since you will reject anything that does not fit your agenda is that actually a woman is far more likely to get pregnant if she has an orgasm, the cervix dips down and opens during this and make an easier path to the uterus and fallopian tubes, do a little medical research if you don't believe me, but this is specifically what I was talking about.

So you're saying women who get raped and then get pregnant enjoyed it? How brave of you. Oh wait...bravery doesn't fit for some reason.

Integr8er, what is your answer to my question: Did you mean chronic stress or acute stress?

You made very strong claims: "It IS true" and "That is a known fact". I'm just asking you to back up your claims. If you can. It should be very easy if it's a known fact.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Sensible, Integr8er, what is your answer to my question:
I told you what I meant, if you don't read I can't help.
BOTH.

"Researchers do not yet understand the role stress plays, since women can and often do get pregnant even under the intense stress"

"Others [women] have found that a severely traumatic incident didn't impact their cycle at all."

Stress effects a woman's cycle, always has, always will. If you don't misunderstand or misrepresent, you can't name-call, I guess.
Dogma also applies to the religion of Liberalism.
Pseudoscience is what's used to claim that my "carbon-footprint" causes global-warming. (Dare you to get me started on that)
Misogyny is a word used by segregationists as they exploit the groups they've seperated people into. Proof that their bigoted, tiny little minds can only see us in these little categories they've created.
It's a name they call anyone who wants to help everyone equally. Insisting that helping everyone somehow excludes of these groups, when by definition, it includes all of them. They see nothing wrong with the reverse however, where they pretend to favor these groups at the expense of everyone else.
It's liberal rhetoric & name-calling (synonyms). It's hypocritical, asinine, bigoted & transparent. It's also btw, getting very old.
MSNBC for example, intentionally excluding any of those categories (women, blacks, black-women, hispanics, or any other group from which they are trying to exploit votes) from the telecast of the RNC. You have to see people in these groups in order to pull this off. Reason: to perpetuate the ignorance of those who think helping everyone equally, is somehow a hatred for this little group or that one. It's proof of the blatant, misleading dishonesty that stems from their own bigotry. It's everywhere around us, and it masquerades as enlightenment.

"Pseudoscience is what's used to claim that my "carbon-footprint" causes global-warming. (Dare you to get me started on that) "

I dare! Please see my global warming/climate change series on the Eureka Patch!

http://eureka-wildwood.patch.com/blog_posts/global-warmingclimate-change-we-did-it-part-2

I have read it Larry. I've also been studying this Carbon Footprint propaganda for years. I know it's close to your heart, and you've spent a lot of time studying it. I believe what you've studied, you know. But as always, there's too much left out: HAARP, it's uses, effects & capabilities (that are extraordinary) or how many there are in use around the world, the 1977 treaty between 60 (now 72) nations banning weather manipulation as a weapon except on one's own country (allowed & capable in '77), the lack of success of the "alternative" energy sources (as some of us remember from the 70's) or the Chinese studies concerning them, the amount of CO2 released from even the mildest volcano, the role of Maurice Strong (his goals, agendas, backers, & conflicts of interests), the Hara Corporations of the world (goals & investors), the source of grants & funding for the 'science', that governments across the world know that the ionosphere has free, clean & abundant energy for the whole planet & how to access it (HAARP), that the technology's inventor was removed from textbooks around the time Strong began this carbon-seizure, the amount of money (trillions & trillions per year) involved in the Green movement, who makes that money, the government revenue (cost for us) from the additional regs & lobbies... Just a beginning of the nearly endless list of factors conveniently left out of all of the research. A lot, even for those drinking from a "World's Greatest Scientist" coffee cup.

Space doesn't allow for a complete discription of the rest, but your welcome to it.

If you really want to see what's going on, how it started, the reasons, major players, and who benefits from hiding the solutions, I'd be glad to give you some places you have never even thought about looking.

"Stress effects a woman's cycle, always has, always will."

Did you mean chronic stress or acute stress?

I will tell you very clearly. It's about respect, credibility, character, and cowardice. If you don't want to give your name, then don't. But that is what I think of anonymous commenters, for the record.

Karl:
I am scared of "flying".
Besides, no room for my Horse.

Joyce,
re: "Most men think women should stay home barefoot and pregnant"

I'm not sure that a quality poll would support statement this as it is written. Perhaps if you added the word "Conservative" in front of men then it might more more accurate.

re: "Women should be the ones to decide their own family planning"
I agree 100%

Joyce:
It's woman like you that will continue to Blame the Men and the rest of this country "FOR YOUR IRRESPONSIBILITY".

Don't play sob games about being too "poor" to understand that getting pregnant is wrong---If you can't afford the outcome.
A baby is a "Choice" also.
Robbing a bank is a "choice".
Unfortunately, the American Woman like you, has denigraded themselves to a level of making their bodies a playground for MEN.
All your actions are a "Choice". Including the choice to "abort" your irresponsibility.
I have said it many times here---I don't care who chooses to Abort, when they choose to abort-- If I ran for President , I would certainly make it clear that woman who are not responsible with their "bodies" would not get ONE PENNY from those who are responsible with their actions.
WHAT PART OF "NO" don't you understand.
It has nothing to do with "RICH or POOR".

La Rupee Rev,

I don't think there is much concern here about you being in the White House any time soon, but you really shouldn't threaten us like that. :)

I think you could not be more wrong about men wanting women to be barefoot and pregnant. Most men would love for a woman to bring home some money so he could stop paying her way in life, I for one am supporting my wife while she gets a degree, so I can retire, so you are way off base with that comment. Second Abortion is not and should NOT be Family planning any more than killing a 2 year old when you get laid off so you don't have to feed him/her anymore. What substantially changes at birth that makes a baby more of a human..Nothing.

"Women should be the ones to decide their own family planning",
but not the associated costs though, right Larry?

Nice false-witness you're bearing there again too btw.
It's seems like the Liberal point of view here is the one that doesn't believe women are capable of handling these types of things on their own. That's why they constantly call for everyone to help pay their bills. It's out of that belief that others need to handle these things for them, that they are the ones that are down-grading women, by admitting they don't believe they are capable of handling these things themselves. Maybe they're just too enlightened to see it.

"What substantially changes at birth that makes a baby more of a human..Nothing."

Even the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in Roe vs. Wade.

Is a blastocyst a baby?

Sensible? I think so
Even the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in Roe vs. Wade.

Is a blastocyst a baby?
Science and our knowledge of Cells and DNA has changed dramatically since the 70's, and YES a blastocyst IS Human, It IS separate and unique DNA from both the mother and the Father, and YES it is a Baby.
...

"YES a blastocyst IS Human, It IS separate and unique DNA from both the mother and the Father, and YES it is a Baby."

"A blastocyst IS Human" and "it is a Baby" are far from universal beliefs. Very far.

"A blastocyst IS Human" and "it is a Baby" are far from universal beliefs. Very far.
It is not a belief, any more than black is black and white is white is a belief. You can't change it just by not believing it any more than you can say under 2 years old is not a life, or a child just because you believe it.

"black is black" and "white is white" are tautologies.

"It is not a belief". What is it ("A blastocyst IS Human" and "it is a Baby"), then? Certainly not a tautology.

Sensible? I think so
tautologies....really? does that make you think you are smart? really? It is not a belief". What is it ("A blastocyst IS Human" and "it is a Baby"), then?...what is it? it is a simple fact, and you are asking what the definition of "IS" is again. it is as simple as it gets. there are facts in the world, and this is one of them. I have been through the whole logic train, and you just try to deflect and reposition, I have spoken fact and truth, and I am done with you.

"you are asking what the definition of "IS" is again."

No, I'm asking: "Is a blastocyst a baby?" It should be really easy to explain based on your claims:

"that is what is right"
"it is the right answer"
"it is a simple fact"
"it is as simple as it gets"
"there are facts in the world, and this is one of them"
"I have spoken fact and truth"

"you just try to deflect and reposition"

Another "fact"? "When you have no argument," attack the person, even if you have to make up the attack.

"I am done with you"

Just like you dropped the acute/chronic stress discussion above when you couldn't defend your claim (that even your sources contradict).

I'll borrow Karl's words:

"I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it sounds to me you are of the mindset it doesn't matter what the objective evidence may be, your mind is made up. That's an interesting way to live...I guess."

And as long as you don't attempt to impose your "facts", "truths", or beliefs on me or make me pay for them, they don't matter to me.

If they are going to pay us back. How many people who get assistance ever do?

Here is another question, why are so many people in this position to start with, and I'll give you a hint, it's not just bad luck. If you study, and get good grades in high school, you can get academic scholarships to good colleges, then if you work some more you can get good paying jobs, and then you can help your other family members to do the same. However if you screw off and don’t' work, flunk out and get pregnant in high school, well then you are in bad shape for a long time.

Joyce:
1) If you want children and can't afford them,
I know that parish Preists definitely can Help both of you.
They hear these problems every day.

2) If you do not want children, see if your Doctor can explain when the best days to have sex are. Your Husband (if married) should be present.
If any man that you tell "No" to on any particular day does not respect that, may I suggest he would not respect "YOU".
I suggest you Warn him that any child result will be His responsibility, because society should not pay his Irresponsibility.
Understand that ny belief is that any unwanted child should be put up for "Adoption"
This way , you do not have any financial responsibility.
I believe that child is a Gift that should be enjoyed by some woman or Family who cannot have children. The Gift of Giving.
There is no reason to abort a life in my World. But, I would not condemn any Woman who wants to abort. AS LONG AS I DON't HAVE TO PAY IT.

I would pay for that child to be born. That woman can then put the child up for adoption to a Mother or Family who cannot have children.
So you would then have NO financial responsibility.

There are also many Charities to talk to.
Abstinence needs both understandings. I believe YOU have the upper and final say on this.

It was very clear what he meant and impossible to take out of context. “From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare, If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

The Josef Fritzl case is an example of why he is a buffoon and not only should he not be in Congress...he certainly shouldn't be sitting on the Science Committee.

Has anyone asked him what he meant by legitimate?

No, They don't even care what he meant, they got ahold of a piece of raw meat, now they want to make it as bad as they can for only one reason. They hate all conservatives.

Karl:
Do you want to now debate "It depends on what "is" "Is"?
You say it's "clear". Well let me try.
Legitimate is clearly used to set the stage of Truthful.
Is the President "legitimate?" I wouild claim he is not because of his constant "deceit"
Now , there is no proof of his deceit, but I could list a whole series of actions to make my point. We would have a community of Political junkies both approving and not approving of my reasons.
My statement could read:
"Well if we had a Legitimate President there are things he could DO to convince the people that he is truthful in what he has done."

Karl and all the media would certainly take my statement to task.
Mr PaulRevere- Are you saying the President is "Illegitimate"?
What exactly do you mean by "legitimate President"
Do you really mean , he is Foreign? Do you really mean non-qualified voters got him in?
All kinds of accusations, that meant nothing to the satement.
So , if AKIN said "woman bodies have a way.......", than the outcry should be
Prove it.
The outcry should NOT be---What is the difference in Legitimate rape and "illigitimate rape".
I could see history asking the question. Was "Barack Hussein Obama" a legitimate President with all the US apologies and Mocking of his people and suing his States for reasons beyond protection of the people.
Of course, you would disagree with that . I respect that.
But , it does make a case for the unnecessary political attacks.

Devon,

The Fritzl case is a perfectly reasonable case of rape where the woman's body did not magically shut down. We could of course list millions of cases if we took the time, but why not just use a case everyone knows about?

It also is a case of incest. Akin is against abortions in the case of incest as well, from what I understand.

I have plenty of reasons to support Claire, including that I was in the war room with her the night she lost her campaign for Governor and ran her IT infrastructure during the campaign. However, that's not what this blog post is about.

If you would like, I will write a post about all the reasons why Claire is a much more rational, reasonable, and legitimate Senator than Akin will ever be. Just let me know.

KFJ

See, it's not magic. Stress effects a woman's cycle. The rest is just you extending this to something else, again. There is nothing "perfectly reasonable" about the Fritzl case. It's not an indicator of your average rape victim & you knew that when you wrote this (I believe it's WHY you wrote it).
It's also a case of "enslavement" in order to REPEATEDLY offend her over the course of YEARS, in which case, a person would develop a variety of coping mechanisms just to be able to get through it. He DID NOT say that it happened 100% of the time & you even gave the quote that proves he didn't.
In legal descriptions of rape, they use "forceable rape" or "statutory rape".
I know that tiny minds need to have things simplified for them & need them to fit into little categories, but the rest of us understand that there are MANY kinds of rape, just as laid out by law, not just one. Rape has qualifiers, sticking to the argument that it doesn't just makes you 100% wrong. The Fritzl case & those like it (in my opinion) should have an additional qualifier.
Fritzl's case includes many other crimes beyond rape, that's why you chose it (because it's a stretch).
You dismiss the law & the qualifiers it uses, those who accuse someone of rape & pretend Akin said that a woman's body will "shut-down" a pregnancy everytime, you have to hope we do too, otherwise you don't have a point, even when trying to apply something that isn't there.
You'll never get it, so I'm done with this distraction....

Joyce:
I have responded to you before.
1)GOP does not care if you use contraceptives---as long as you pay.
2) Carry your own child- Feed your own child- or abort your child-or Adopt a child-or put up your own child for adoption----GOP does not care.

YOU JUS PAY FOR IT.

3) Charities exist for any needy food and shelter and clothing.
My rule would send food assistance to anyone Proving they earn less than $20,000 pr year. (just my opinion)

JOYCE:
I am wasting my time with you.
So, a final comment.
America's medical problems are not new. Doctors and hospitals always were paid directly by the individual who incurred the Bill. I always pay the Doctor by check $50.
(I have saved over $200,000 by simply buying High-deductible insurance for 30 years.) Anyone could do this. I make $10,000 annual interest on the $200,000.
That's how I pay for "Legitimate" medical.
Something this stupid obamacare does not even consider.

I have separate "accident Insurance" (it costs me $300 per year)
If I have an auto "accident" , I have Auto insurance, and I'm sure you do too. (much less cost than obamacare)
If, I fly, I pay $15 for insurance
I buy Travel insurance.

Viagra? Well? you just made my case.
Do you believe 25 year olds or any young woman should be paying anybody else's
Viagra, when they don't use it?
Of course not. ( My wife & I don't take birthcontrol pills)
So I agree that Viagra is not "medical care" and therefore I would think it is outside any Health care assistance for the needy.
There will a day when certain foods will come under "healthcare"
You better make sure you are well off because Obama-Health-TAX will only harm the Poor and needy.
They will be last in line, no matter how "Free" they think it is.
Obamacare takes away more Freedom to choose than you will ever imagine.
You will get exactly what you paid for.
Good Luck! At least I have some written documentation that I tried.

are you going to whip out your checkbook and write a check for a few thousand dollars
Why is that so far fetched to you when you write a check for MANY thousands of dollars for your Health Insurance? You do realize that insurcance companies ALWAYS take in more than they pay out for your care right?
YES YOU CAN PAY FOR YOUR OWN CARE!! THAT IS WHAT HEALTH SAVING ACCTS ARE ALL ABOUT!!
Wow so they don't pay for an ED drug, but they should pay to kill a small child??? Crazy!