One of the most fundamental rights of mating, through hundreds of species, is that of the parents to seek each other out. Rape violates not just the woman's body, but her right to choose the father of her child.

That part, you can unrape.

and you obviously can't unrape a republicans brain. i say we just abort the shit out of them.

Oh, lovely.

The Repugs continue to play with their War On Women Action Figures, and the Dims can keep dancing to the DC MSM tune:

One more step to the right
Hey take a jump to the right
A little bit farther to the right
Spin your partner to the right.

Oh my God. No, abortion won't unrape me, but it sure as hell makes the rest of my life suck a little bit less. Jesus Christ. Are these even human beings talking? Are these joke robots sent by aliens to fuck with us? That's about the only conclusion I can come to.

@2 If only we could shit the abort (obsession) out of them.

Sound logic.

Thankfully, we can abort another House GOP majority by voting them the fuck out

What is the magnitude of this problem? How many rapes are there each year, and how many of those actually result in pregnancy?

Just curious.

@8 The magnitude of the situation lies in your fucking conservatards telling any woman, even if there was only one ever, that she must carry an unwanted rape baby to term. That's heinous.

@8: In the US, "among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/87652…

@ 8, the rate doesn't matter. The rate isn't the point of GOP opposition to a woman's right to choose.

"Faced with polls saying that eight in 10 Americans think abortion should be legal when a pregnancy results from rape, these activists are actually pushing for more public discussion of the issue."

I think that this is a GREAT thing.
So now the Republican candidates will HAVE to talk about how they either:
a. want to make laws to force you to have a rape baby
or
b. disagree with the vocal and enthusiastic base of their own party

"One part of the plan is to train politicians how to answer difficult questions about the issue while also attacking pro-choice politicians."

I'm guessing that by "answer" they mean "evade" and "distract".
Because that tactic worked so well for Romney's election.

I can understand how they don't want to be seen as the "war on women" but when they choose to force a woman to bear the child of the man who raped her there really isn't any middle ground.

Thank you, @8. It's not the rate that matters. It's the principle of being able to make your own life decisions without the Christian Taliban taking away your freedom.

Some of their arguments are pretty clever. "Can you tell which child has the criminal father?" "Why should a child be punished for the crimes of her father?" Etc. It's no longer about the woman's life. It's about the life of the hypothetical child developing from the embryo. These Christians were always pretty good with their emotional appeals.

@8: You mean the magnitude of the "problem" to the individual? I'd say it's pretty substantial to the woman who was raped. But please, do try again to reframe the issue so as to defend your repugnant position.

Getting shrapnel removed does not unshoot you.

Getting a triple bypass does not un-heart-attack you.

I'd maybe believe these people's "principled" stand on this, which we are supposed to believe is about the fetus, who isn't responsible for being conceived, if everything else they stand for didn't point in entirely the other direction.

If they supported universal access to reliable safe contraception, prenatal care, postnatal care, adoption services or childcare assistance, etc - actually showing a concern for only wanted children being conceived and all conceptions resulting in children cared for by society, then maybe.

Absent that, it's all sex-negativity and slut shaming, so much so that even the innocent victims of rape have to be collateral damage. Bah.

The Xtians don't know when they've lost the argument. This is the same way the Catholic church acts. Keep claiming bullshit is the truth, even when it clearly is not. Americans want choice.

These motherfuckers refuse to even concede that pregnancy and especially childbirth are painful and oftentimes dangerous. But what can you expect from individuals who don't think women are human?

32,000??? Ho Lee Shit

But yeah, 100% of pregnancies caused by rape are caused by rape. And I'll bet that for pretty close to 100% of those, it's kind of a big deal. Which makes it a big deal for those women. How many women that is might be important...why?

@10
I can see why both sides of the issue would be concerned.

@11
I disagree. The rate does matter. A political fight on “principal” that involves a tiny number makes zero sense on either side. If it’s a large number, I can at least understand why principled (if misguided) people would be so willing to debate the issue (even if it’s bad politics to do so). It’s useful to know what motivates your opponent.

Remember, there are people on the right who, on principal, see this as 32,101 innocent babies being killed each year. They probably feel as strongly about this as equally principled people on the left would about 32,101 baby seals being clubbed to death each year or 32,101 acres of pristine wet land being paved over each year.

For the record, I think aborting a HEALTHY fetus is deeply and morally wrong in any event. I also think it’s a decision between the mother to be and her God and should be a legally available and safe option. I believe laws should protect people from other people but that the government has no right (or obligation) to protect people from an angry God. I don’t want the government sanctioning (paying for) or banning abortion. (But then I'm a small government kind of guy.) And frankly, while I believe a fetus is more than a clump of cells, I also believe it is less than a person. I don’t pretend to know when it does become a person, depending on the day I’d say sometime between 3 months before and 25 years after it passes through the vaginal canal.

Believe me when I say that I am a conservative who wants the conservative movement out of “moral” issues. It needs to go back, read its Goldwater, and focus on limiting government and increasing freedom.

And for the record, I've “been there” (more than once, in the room) with single girl friends for several births and abortions, at least one of which was the result of an alleged date rape incident.

@ 20, don't mix up the impassioned feelings of those in the "pro-life" trenches with the old-school desire to keep women under foot. THAT is the driving force behind "pro-life," as is evidenced by the whole slew of anti-family policy positions favored by the GOP. (Most tellingly their utter opposition to real sex education, free condoms, or anything else they can spin off as "promoting promiscuity." Those programs prevent more abortions than 1,000 sign-waving freaks on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.)

However, for the sake of argument, I'll take go along with your statement. The actual number doesn't matter any more than the actual number of deaths from a terrorist strike matters. Emotional issues aren't driven by numbers. They're more along the lines of "even one [fill in the blank] is unacceptable." That's where the "pro-life" movement has gone on the issue, which is one that horrifies those who can easily imagine either being raped and becoming pregnant, or know a loved one to whom that can happen. You're not likely to feel better if it happens to 321,010 women instead of 32,101 every year. Nor will it help to call it "God's will" if it turns your life's plans upside down (even if she can have the baby adopted right away, being pregnant is a big life-changer for those months that it's happening).

Which reminds me, I wonder if Theodore Gorath would feel differently about medical insurance covering pregnancy in the case of rape?

Whoops, make that "@ 21."

@21, that's the most humanity and honesty I've ever seen from you. More of that, please.

Looks like these guys didn't learn much from losing the last election.

It's despicable, but not ideologically inconsistent with the thought that abortion is murder. And since they're idiots, the fact that their ideology causes them to say despicable things doesn't cause them to reconsider the thought process that brought them there.

So they're more comfortable being ideologically consistent and awful than reconsidering their take on the world. Republicans in a nutshell.

I think this is happening because Republicans (as usual these days) have no clue what's going on. In this case, I believe it's evolutionary psychology. Basically, people are inherently conflicted about abortion because both extremes (abortions for all! no abortions for anyone!) go against a deep-seated species survival instinct. That's why, if you can spin it right, you can get a mass of low-information-voter types to support either a "pro life" or a "pro choice" platform. (Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!)

However, the instant you cause people to think about rape, you trigger a completely different set of species instincts with regard to reproduction. Those instincts are not only pro choice, they are, I think, a lot angrier and more visceral and passionate. I think maybe the right used to know this, which is why they used to include rape exceptions in their abortion restriction proposals. It's not because of what they believed, it's because of what they thought they could slip past people.

@26,

Ideological consistency isn't the reason that they look to Nazi research to justify their position on the issue. I'm not even going Godwin on this. Akin's "legitimate rape" comments came directly from Nazi research on ovulation in concentration camps. That is how far these people will go. They ignore legitimate research that shows women are *more* likely to get pregnant from rape than from consensual sex while they simultaneously embrace Mengele. They are not ideologically consistent; they are FUCKED IN THE HEAD.

@15: Your comment is made of win.

Women have a way of shutting rapist genes down. It's called abortion, and as such it's a service to society above and beyond the way it serves the needs of the victim.

Go, Team Rape, Go!

@22: I never said insurance should not cover pregnancy, I said that forcing carriers and members to pay for AI/IVF treatments was wrong because they are not medically necessary.

Of course insurance should cover the costs associated with a pregnancy, because they are medically necessary once a pregnancy has occured. Making someone pregnant is never a medical necessity, no matter how badly someone wants a kid.

The people paying into the insurance pool should not be forced to pay for expensive treatments which are unecessary and often fail. Having a child is never medically necessary, and society does not need more.

That being said, I believe people who pay for their insurance privately or through their company should of course have that option, if they wish to fund it. I also support coverage for elective and (obviously) unelective abortions because carrying a baby to term is dangerous, and often an abortion is the safest route, and most beneficial to society.

@ 32, well, that makes a little more sense.

"Another is to emphasize the humanity of the rape survivor and her unborn baby."

I'm not understanding the first part of that sentence since the rape victim is a human and her humanity doesn't need to be emphasized. What needs to be emphasized is that she has every right to exercise autonomy over her own body, including ending an unwanted pregnancy.

@10 @21 It's crucial to point out that this 32,000 is somewhat of a guesstimate. What we do know is that every 2 minutes, someone in the US is sexually assaulted, and more than 50% of these assaults are not reported. (RAINN). In other words, there could be a lot more pregnancies that result from rape than are reported.

@37
Which I'm sure make both sides of the "debate" all the more ardent.

have you heard of ADOPTION? two wrongs don't make a right and adoption allows a mother to go on with her life, allows a baby to live and allows a childless couple become parents. Its a win-win-win. Anything wrong with that?

Also - there is an Umbilical Cord to consider. Its a separate human life. Different DNA, blood-type, etc., the fetus is not an appendage, its is a human life.

Put the rapist in jail. If its incest, put the dad, uncle, brother in jail. Otherwise, after the abortion - the crime just continues. Punish the right people is all I'm saying.

One doesn't have to be a Christian to use Common Sense.

have you heard of ADOPTION? two wrongs don't make a right and adoption allows a mother to go on with her life, allows a baby to live and allows a childless couple become parents. Its a win-win-win. Anything wrong with that?

Also - there is an Umbilical Cord to consider. Its a separate human life. Different DNA, blood-type, etc., the fetus is not an appendage, its is a human life.

Put the rapist in jail. If its incest, put the dad, uncle, brother in jail. Otherwise, after the abortion - the crime just continues. Punish the right people is all I'm saying.

One doesn't have to be a Christian to use Common Sense.