Why are these guys always Republicans?

[Zack Morris]

No Zack, we're in total agreement. Some rapes are more legitimate than others, no question about it. You, me, Akin, we all agree.

Did Clinton rape somebody?

[Zack Morris]

Sad that abortion can never discussed rationally. That's what this rape business is really all about.

There exist sound, secular arguments that can be made about government's role in limiting abortions to which stuttering, elected buffoons ought adhere, if they weren't so busy pandering their perceived constituency.

Of course there are excellent arguments favoring unfettered access to abortion also, especially early on.

The religious concept of "ensoulment" brings a lot of baggage to a debate that otherwise might have been satisfactorily settled long ago. Then again, there still remain some old-guard feminists that conversely expound their philosophies with quasi-religious fervor.

Secular arguments have been advanced by both sides and the pro-choice side won. We even had a court case to decide it. What's left is religious opposition and, remarkably, rape apologists. That's why a sane conversation cannot be had.

[Mr. Perfect]

No Zack, we're in total agreement. Some rapes are more legitimate than others, no question about it. You, me, Akin, we all agree.

Did Clinton rape somebody?

Not legimately I guess.

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

[Skin Job]

Sad that abortion can never discussed rationally. That's what this rape business is really all about.

There exist sound, secular arguments that can be made about government's role in limiting abortions to which stuttering, elected buffoons ought adhere, if they weren't so busy pandering their perceived constituency.

Of course there are excellent arguments favoring unfettered access to abortion also, especially early on.

The religious concept of "ensoulment" brings a lot of baggage to a debate that otherwise might have been satisfactorily settled long ago. Then again, there still remain some old-guard feminists that conversely expound their philosophies with quasi-religious fervor.

Secular arguments have been advanced by both sides and the pro-choice side won. We even had a court case to decide it. What's left is religious opposition and, remarkably, rape apologists. That's why a sane conversation cannot be had.

I'm neither religious, nor some odious "rape apologist." And yet here I am, in defiance of your worldview, ready for sane discussion. We might have that someday, when you are ready to put aside your ideological warrior mentality.

[Farcus]

Sad that abortion can never discussed rationally. That's what this rape business is really all about.

There exist sound, secular arguments that can be made about government's role in limiting abortions to which stuttering, elected buffoons ought adhere, if they weren't so busy pandering their perceived constituency.

Of course there are excellent arguments favoring unfettered access to abortion also, especially early on.

The religious concept of "ensoulment" brings a lot of baggage to a debate that otherwise might have been satisfactorily settled long ago. Then again, there still remain some old-guard feminists that conversely expound their philosophies with quasi-religious fervor.

Secular arguments have been advanced by both sides and the pro-choice side won. We even had a court case to decide it. What's left is religious opposition and, remarkably, rape apologists. That's why a sane conversation cannot be had.

I'm neither religious, nor some odious "rape apologist." And yet here I am, in defiance of your worldview, ready for sane discussion. We might have that someday, when you are ready to put aside your ideological warrior mentality.

Worldview? Who would religionize a statement of general fact by calling it a "worldview"?

Besides, "Worldview", as a philosophical concept, is more than a little fucked up.

[Skin Job]

Sad that abortion can never discussed rationally. That's what this rape business is really all about.

There exist sound, secular arguments that can be made about government's role in limiting abortions to which stuttering, elected buffoons ought adhere, if they weren't so busy pandering their perceived constituency.

Of course there are excellent arguments favoring unfettered access to abortion also, especially early on.

The religious concept of "ensoulment" brings a lot of baggage to a debate that otherwise might have been satisfactorily settled long ago. Then again, there still remain some old-guard feminists that conversely expound their philosophies with quasi-religious fervor.

Secular arguments have been advanced by both sides and the pro-choice side won. We even had a court case to decide it. What's left is religious opposition and, remarkably, rape apologists. That's why a sane conversation cannot be had.

I'm neither religious, nor some odious "rape apologist." And yet here I am, in defiance of your worldview, ready for sane discussion. We might have that someday, when you are ready to put aside your ideological warrior mentality.

Worldview? Who would religionize a statement of general fact by calling it a "worldview"?

Besides, "Worldview", as a philosophical concept, is more than a little fucked up.

There is one fact and several opinions in Zack's statement you characterize as "general fact," so it's not hard to deduce your opinion on the subject.

Look, if all that will come of this is substance-free attacks, count me out. My view on the subject doesn't lend itself well to either major political party, so my bringing it up is just exposing myself to abuse from pretty much everyone. Carry on without me.

[Farcus]

Sad that abortion can never discussed rationally. That's what this rape business is really all about.

There exist sound, secular arguments that can be made about government's role in limiting abortions to which stuttering, elected buffoons ought adhere, if they weren't so busy pandering their perceived constituency.

Of course there are excellent arguments favoring unfettered access to abortion also, especially early on.

The religious concept of "ensoulment" brings a lot of baggage to a debate that otherwise might have been satisfactorily settled long ago. Then again, there still remain some old-guard feminists that conversely expound their philosophies with quasi-religious fervor.

Secular arguments have been advanced by both sides and the pro-choice side won. We even had a court case to decide it. What's left is religious opposition and, remarkably, rape apologists. That's why a sane conversation cannot be had.

I'm neither religious, nor some odious "rape apologist." And yet here I am, in defiance of your worldview, ready for sane discussion. We might have that someday, when you are ready to put aside your ideological warrior mentality.

Worldview? Who would religionize a statement of general fact by calling it a "worldview"?

Besides, "Worldview", as a philosophical concept, is more than a little fucked up.

There is one fact and several opinions in Zack's statement you characterize as "general fact," so it's not hard to deduce your opinion on the subject.

Look, if all that will come of this is substance-free attacks, count me out. My view on the subject doesn't lend itself well to either major political party, so my bringing it up is just exposing myself to abuse from pretty much everyone. Carry on without me.

I was just taking the part of stuttering elected bufoons, some of whom are JDs who recognize the attribute soundness, when applied to argumentation means, "Consistent with premises" rather than "True" or "Consistent with the US Constitution". I also should remark that Zack made several statements of general fact, the last two being merely slightly less comprehensive than the previous.

Now, I like your posts even though I may not completely agree with them. I'd like to read as many of them as you want.
I think your problem here is that you want to seriously consider a side issue with a long history and you don't want to set up a thread somewhere else that you can point in an approximate direction.
You may have to settle for just having the cake unless you can fulfill the writer's obligation to compell the reader in this particular venue, no?

[Zack Morris]

I'm neither religious, nor some odious "rape apologist." And yet here I am, in defiance of your worldview, ready for sane discussion. We might have that someday, when you are ready to put aside your ideological warrior mentality.

On any given issue, you will find just about all possible opinions represented. I don't dispute that you have a secular anti-abortion opinion, but I have no reason to believe that there are enough of you to turn this into a national conversation worth having.

[Zack Morris]

No Zack, we're in total agreement. Some rapes are more legitimate than others, no question about it. You, me, Akin, we all agree.

Did Clinton rape somebody?

Not legimately I guess.

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

Precisely. For it to have been legitimate, it would have actually had to occur.

[Mr. Perfect]

Welcome to rape apologism Zack, Akin welcomes you with open arms.

[Zack Morris]

I'd like to see you explain how questioning the veracity of a rape allegation against a politician (one that was investigated by numerous journalists) is equivalent to claiming that women cannot be impregnated by 'legitimate rape.'

But I know you'll dodge.

[Typhoon]

I think I've yet to read a rational and thoughtful debate on abortion in the US on any forum.

[noddy]

i suspect their is no rational stance on the blurry line between potential human and actual human and this line dictates the crime of murder... which is hardly a minor quibble.

when the sperm hits the egg?
when the nervous system forms ?
when awareness begins ?
when they are viable outside the womb ?

each is rational to someone and thats before you get into the viewpoints before and after those points.

more than this!

the personal choice stance is itself a minefield of blurry lines..

when does a young adult get the full rights to make consent decisions ? 10 ? 15 ? 18? 21 ? 25?
when they are "pre adult consent" do family/parents get the choice or do the authorities ?
are the secular authorities state or federal ones ?
are their exceptions for when cultural/religious authorities are allowed for certain identity groupings ?

i also suspect it seems worse in the usa because they have this thing about each individual forming their own opinion, many societies tend to either have traditional viewpoints they dont question or elite classes which handle this for them but this is changing as modernity and technology influence them more.

[Mr. Perfect]

I'd like to see you explain how questioning the veracity of a rape allegation against a politician (one that was investigated by numerous journalists) is equivalent to claiming that women cannot be impregnated by 'legitimate rape.'

Why would we do that when we both know you characterize the above as rape apologism? I'm just going with your characterization here, the characterization you made, unless you would like to retract your position, the rape apologism position. Your position where you made clear above that we are talking about rape apologism. I would love to talk about the subject you brought up, rape apologism.

And then I would like to talk about your rape apologism, ie questioning the veracity of a woman, and whether her rape claims are legitimate. In the language of Todd Akin et al.

But I know you'll dodge.

I'm not the one who needs to dodge. I just put 90mph right in the strike zone, you can dodge or bunt or whatever you would care to enjoy.

[Mr. Perfect]

i suspect their is no rational stance on the blurry line between potential human and actual human and this line dictates the crime of murder... which is hardly a minor quibble.

when the sperm hits the egg?
when the nervous system forms ?
when awareness begins ?
when they are viable outside the womb ?

each is rational to someone and thats before you get into the viewpoints before and after those points.

more than this!

the personal choice stance is itself a minefield of blurry lines..

when does a young adult get the full rights to make consent decisions ? 10 ? 15 ? 18? 21 ? 25?
when they are "pre adult consent" do family/parents get the choice or do the authorities ?
are the secular authorities state or federal ones ?
are their exceptions for when cultural/religious authorities are allowed for certain identity groupings ?

i also suspect it seems worse in the usa because they have this thing about each individual forming their own opinion, many societies tend to either have traditional viewpoints they dont question or elite classes which handle this for them but this is changing as modernity and technology influence them more.

I think what we need is a one size fits all solution dictated from a legislative bench.

[Ibrahim]

I think we all heard about John Sununu's observations about Colin Powell's racist preference for Obama's foreign policy, but here is another GOP member and military man spilling the beans on his party:

http://gawker.com/5955445/former-colin- ... of-racists

Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists, and the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin, and that's despicable.

Wait, this sounds exactly like what I've been saying about the GOP. If the Republicans can't stop their candidates from talking about rape all the time, they at least need to muzzle guys like this.

[Demon of Undoing]

I thought the observation was pretty obvious. Not that there aren't racist democrats, but the vast, overwhelming majority of the times that I've heard blatantly racist comments ( and in the South, there is no shortage of them), the speaker is a hard core republican. I mean, why is this even controversial.

Pretty much the same with, shall we call them, rape- insensitives.

[Ibrahim]

I thought the observation was pretty obvious. Not that there aren't racist democrats, but the vast, overwhelming majority of the times that I've heard blatantly racist comments ( and in the South, there is no shortage of them), the speaker is a hard core republican. I mean, why is this even controversial.

Pretty much the same with, shall we call them, rape- insensitives.

I agree, this is old news for most.

Still, probably not the line the right-wing blogs and radio shows are taking in response to that statement.

[Marcus]

. . Not that there aren't racist democrats, but the vast, overwhelming majority of the times that I've heard blatantly racist comments ( and in the South, there is no shortage of them), the speaker is a hard core republican. . .

Holy Moly! I lived for 15 years in rural, East Texas—yellow dog Democrat country since the Civil War—and if I had a nickel for every racist comment I heard from a Democrat I'd be a millionaire today.

[Zack Morris]

The question is: would you rather have a nickel for every time a 'Texas yellow dog Democrat' said something racist or a Republican said something racist?

Do you think those yellow dog Democrats are voting Obama, by the way?

[Marcus]

The question is: would you rather have a nickel for every time a 'Texas yellow dog Democrat' said something racist or a Republican said something racist?

Do you think those yellow dog Democrats are voting Obama, by the way?

By the YD-Dems by a long shot . . you really, really have no idea. I grew up in the North among Republicans and Dems alike, and North or South, have heard immeasurably more racism from Dems than from Republicans. Take it or leave it.

Are those Texas YD-Dems voting for Obama? You bet. If the Devil was running as a Democrat and Jesus as a Republican, those folks would vote for the Devil.

[Farcus]

The question is: would you rather have a nickel for every time a 'Texas yellow dog Democrat' said something racist or a Republican said something racist?

Do you think those yellow dog Democrats are voting Obama, by the way?

What was that breathless line from Jew Grit?...
"I b'leeve I'd give fifttydolars to the first Texas waddy I heard say he ain't never drank watter outova whorse track. Goddammitaye know there'z gotta be one."

I'd kindly laike to meet a Texes YellerDawg Democret. I b'leeve I'd buyem a glassa Tee.

[Zack Morris]

The question is: would you rather have a nickel for every time a 'Texas yellow dog Democrat' said something racist or a Republican said something racist?

Do you think those yellow dog Democrats are voting Obama, by the way?

By the YD-Dems by a long shot . . you really, really have no idea. I grew up in the North among Republicans and Dems alike, and North or South, have heard immeasurably more racism from Dems than from Republicans. Take it or leave it.

Are those Texas YD-Dems voting for Obama? You bet. If the Devil was running as a Democrat and Jesus as a Republican, those folks would vote for the Devil.

Racists voting for Obama kind of cancel themselves out, then.

[Marcus]

The question is: would you rather have a nickel for every time a 'Texas yellow dog Democrat' said something racist or a Republican said something racist?

Do you think those yellow dog Democrats are voting Obama, by the way?

By the YD-Dems by a long shot . . you really, really have no idea. I grew up in the North among Republicans and Dems alike, and North or South, have heard immeasurably more racism from Dems than from Republicans. Take it or leave it.

Are those Texas YD-Dems voting for Obama? You bet. If the Devil was running as a Democrat and Jesus as a Republican, those folks would vote for the Devil.

Racists voting for Obama kind of cancel themselves out, then.

Too clever by half, Zack, you haven't a clue . . their politics (read "hatred of the Republican Party) overrides their racism. Nor do you understand their racism.

[Skin Job]

I've repudiated racism before on other forums, yet won't get on board here with any supposed "anti-racist" crowd, because intentions matter, and it mainly appears that those here who pretend to attack racism actually seize upon such as a weapon against groups of people, most of them completely innocent. This tactic does not lead to productive ends, and rather has the main effect of inducing those under attack to circle the wagons instead of engaging in debate. If appearances don't deceive, this suggests "anti-racists" have need for racism to continue, since it provides an oh-so convenient and effective bludgeon.