About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Gerson falsely claimed Clinton said Catholics "somehow responsible for abortion in America"

September 27, 2007 1:17 pm ET

106 Comments

In his September 26 Washington Post column, Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter and policy adviser to President Bush, asserted, "[A]s [author Paul] Kengor points out in his insightful book, 'God and Hillary Clinton,' Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) defense of abortion rights has been strident, even radical. She has attacked pro-life people as enemies of 'evidence,' 'science' and 'the Constitution.' And she has blamed pro-life 'ideologues' for the prevalence of abortions because of their 'silent war on contraception' -- a remarkable accusation that Roman Catholic opposition to birth control is somehow responsible for abortion in America." However, in his book, God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life (HarperCollins, September 2007), Kengor does not assert that Clinton blamed "Roman Catholic opposition to birth control" for abortions. In fact, he does not claim that Clinton used the word "Catholics" at all, though he does engage in speculation of his own -- writing that Clinton "must have had in mind Catholics in particular" when she referred to "these right wingers [who] left women with no choice but to end their unwanted pregnancies with abortion."

From Kengor's book (Page 255):

One of the more surprising of these remarks came during a May 2006 assertion that right-wing "ideologues" were to blame for abortion. According to Mrs. Clinton, by denying women access to contraceptives -- here she must have had in mind Catholics in particular -- these right-wingers left women with no choice but to end their unwanted pregnancies with abortions. This movement to withhold contraceptives, said the senator, in strong language, "was started by a small group of extreme ideologues who claim the right to impose their personal beliefs on the overwhelming majority of the American people." She added: "They're waging this silent war on contraception by using the power of the White House and their right-wing allies in Congress -- and so far, they're getting away with it."

Kengor was apparently referring to a May 2006 email released by the Clinton campaign in support of resolutions to express the sense of the Senate and the Congress "concerning the value of family planning for American women." However, neither the email nor either resolution accused Roman Catholics of being "somehow responsible for abortion in America."

In the email, reproduced on the Justice Blog, hosted by the website of The Austin American-Statesman, Clinton asserted:

There's a quiet war going on in America -- against the most basic rights of Americans to make their own personal decisions about family planning.

It was started by a small group of extreme ideologues who claim the right to impose their personal beliefs on the overwhelming majority of the American people.

They're waging this silent war on contraception by using the power of the White House and their right-wing allies in Congress -- and so far, they're getting away with it.

That's why I need your help to fight back. We need to protect every woman's right to make her own decisions. That's why Congresswoman Nita Lowey and I have introduced a Congressional Resolution to Strengthen Family Planning Services for Women.

And, we need your voice to make sure every member of Congress votes on this Resolution. Become a co-sponsor today and help us pass this important resolution to ensure women have access to contraceptives.

Click here to Co-sponsor the Resolution to Strengthen Family Planning Services for Women

I will present your signatures to congressional leaders, because it's time for Members to listen to their constituents and defend women's privacy and reproductive rights.

Dozens of state and federal reproductive health programs have been cut or restricted in recent years. The so-called "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005" actually stripped away the promise to cover family planning for all Medicaid enrollees, further reducing access for those who need it.

Low-income women, denied access to contraception, are having more unwanted pregnancies -- four times as many as those for higher income women. And almost half of all unwanted pregnancies end in abortions.

It's time to find out if Congress is serious about reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Our resolution will ask Congress to go on record for programs and policies that make it easier for women of all incomes to obtain contraceptives and use them correctly.

Click here to Co-sponsor the Resolution to Strengthen Family Planning Services for Women

This is not a time for us to be quiet. We must be outspoken and determined to support every woman's right to make her own decisions about family planning.

This war against contraception endangers basic American values. It endangers women's health in order to score political points. And because the proponents of this war know that they do not represent the majority of Americans, it can only succeed if it is carried out in silence.

It's time for us to speak up. It's time to fight back against this silent attack on women's lives and our families' future. We can win -- if we join together.

The Clinton-sponsored "Resolution to express the sense of the Senate concerning the value of family planning for American women" read as follows:

Whereas the United States has one of the highest rates of abortion in the industrialized world;

Whereas reducing unintended pregnancies will reduce the number of abortions;

Whereas one of the most effective ways to prevent unintended pregnancy is to improve access to safe, affordable, effective family planning;

Whereas contraceptive use has declined (slightly among all women and precipitously among low-income women) and, as a result, unplanned pregnancy rates have risen among low-income women by 30 percent;

Whereas the impact of contraceptive use is hard to overstate--11 percent of women in the United States who do not use contraception account for 1/2 of all unintended pregnancies;

Whereas low-income women today are 4 times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and more than 4 times as likely to have an abortion as higher-income women;

Whereas abortion rates have increased among low-income women, even as they have continued to decrease among more affluent women;

Whereas 12,800,000 women of reproductive age are uninsured and 9,300,000 women of reproductive age live in poverty;

Whereas lack of coverage for contraception and other health care costs result in women of reproductive age paying 68 percent more in out-of-pocket costs for health care services than do men of the same age;

Whereas family planning is a vital part of helping women achieve the best health outcomes for both women and their babies; and

Whereas Women's Health Week is a time to recognize the important role family planning services play in the lives of women across the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that --

(1) Congress should help women, regardless of income, avoid unintended pregnancy and abortion through access to affordable contraception; and

(2) Congress should support programs and policies that make it easier for women to obtain contraceptives.

From Gerson's September 26 column:

As a moralist, she has been willing to work with conservatives on issues such as religious freedom in the workplace and highlighting the destructive impact of pop culture on children. She has joined congressional efforts against human trafficking and was an early supporter of public funds for faith-based social services. None of this indicates a privatized religious faith.

At the same time, as Kengor points out in his insightful book, "God and Hillary Clinton," her defense of abortion rights has been strident, even radical. She has attacked pro-life people as enemies of "evidence," "science" and "the Constitution." And she has blamed pro-life "ideologues" for the prevalence of abortions because of their "silent war on contraception" -- a remarkable accusation that Roman Catholic opposition to birth control is somehow responsible for abortion in America.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (September 27, 2007 1:21 pm ET)
         

      Never let the facts get in the way of a good talking point.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by the Grey Path (September 27, 2007 1:22 pm ET)
         

      Why does the Washington Post publish this religious bigot; the idiot that created the phrase "axis of evil"?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by redking75687 (September 27, 2007 1:22 pm ET)
         

      A moralist? Who votes to blow up arab children and fund Israeli racism and wants to force working families to pay thousands extra for health care a year??? Snakes are more moral than Hillary. She's a sociopathic opportunist trying to manipulate voters for her own ambition.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by norotornomotor9010 (September 27, 2007 1:40 pm ET)
           

        I have a rifle to..... oh never mind.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Eddy3957 (September 27, 2007 3:36 pm ET)
           

        I assume you're your referring to the influence of AIPAC on Mrs. Clinton and the potential for more Middle East war to eliminate Isreal's enemies.  I think the money spent in these efforts (directly and indirectly in the cost of oil) would be better spent on New York city condos for every Israeli family.  At 3 per family, 7 million Isrealis would require 2.4 million  condos at $500,000---would cost 1.2 trillion dollars.  I think that's a relative bargain.  To make room for the influx the current New Yorkers can be incentivised to leave until more housing can be built for say $200,000 per home or condo at a cost of 480 billion.  I think we can get this all done for iunder 2 trillion.

        The reason for New York would be to turn it into an independent state of the Jews along the lines of the Vatican within Italy.

        The housing market also needs the boost this would provide.  It would provide a lot of jobs. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by redking75687 (September 27, 2007 9:34 pm ET)
             

          I'd prefer the money be spent on giving each American health care and improving our urban neighbourhoods. But the Israel Lobby prefers that we get taxed for Israel and NOT for our own country.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by dangrady (September 27, 2007 1:29 pm ET)
         

      SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

      The likely Democratic nominee participates regularly in small-group Bible studies and is familiar with the works of Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich and Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- the theological heroes of mainline Protestantism (and of some stray Evangelicals like myself). // MICHAEL GERSON

      I have a problem with a idealogue presuming to annoit the next Democratic Nominee months before the first primary, and with so many qualified, and attrative candidates to choose from. We need to stay away from the pundits whom want to define us in Republican Terms!

      And she has blamed pro-life "ideologues" for the prevalence of abortions because of their "silent war on contraception" -- a remarkable accusation that Roman Catholic opposition to birth control is somehow responsible for abortion in America. /Michael Gerson

      Ok, first there were the birds and then there were the bees...........

      Happy Thoughts;

      Dan Grady

      Report Abuse
    • Author by norotornomotor9010 (September 27, 2007 1:35 pm ET)
         

      "Low-income women, denied access to contraception, are having more unwanted pregnancies -- four times as many as those for higher income women. And almost half of all unwanted pregnancies end in abortions"

       

      What a crock......

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Pithaughn (September 27, 2007 7:13 pm ET)
           

        NOR, I applaud your brevity, try posting with 0 words next time, it will make your point in a much more concise, pithy style.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 1:36 pm ET)
         

      So, HC says that these women were "left with no choice but to end their unwanted pregnancies with abortion".  

      Choice #1 - Have sex, OR NOT.

      Choice #2 - Adoption.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by norotornomotor9010 (September 27, 2007 1:41 pm ET)
           

        I love this line...

        "four times as many as those for higher income women"

         

        Damned those working woman.....

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 1:51 pm ET)
             

          If you are "denied" contraception because you or your partner cannot afford it, then you choose not to have sex and possiblt risk pregnancy.  If you do choose to have sex, you are no victim. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by norotornomotor9010 (September 27, 2007 1:57 pm ET)
               

            I KNOW for a fact you can go to planned parenthood and get condoms.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by BillJ-MN (September 27, 2007 2:21 pm ET)
                 

              I've got a son in college who could speak to the effectiveness of condoms.  If he knew that's why he's here, that is.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by norotornomotor9010 (September 27, 2007 2:24 pm ET)
                   

                I know MANY people that have always used them with success, and only a couple that have used them with failure.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by BillJ-MN (September 27, 2007 2:33 pm ET)
                     

                  Of course.  I used them successfully for years.  They're very effective until they're not.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by norotornomotor9010 (September 27, 2007 2:41 pm ET)
                       

                    Your point? "They are not" is a small % compared to NOT useing them.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by BillJ-MN (September 27, 2007 3:23 pm ET)
                         

                      My point?  Let's see, Tommy asserted that you aren't a victim if you choose to have sex and said something about affording contraceptives and you replied with a comment about being able to get condoms at planned parenthood.  I will have to admit that I didn't quite understand why that was significant.  In response I made the point that condoms do fail resulting in pregnancy. 

                      Condoms have a breakage rate of about 3% which sounds fairly consistent with my experience with them years ago when I used them regularly.  Multiply that times many thousands of users and you're going to end up with a whole lot of pregnancies for people who are trying to be responsible.

                      Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (September 27, 2007 1:52 pm ET)
             

          Aren't you two oversimplifying the issue again? It's not black and white.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 1:55 pm ET)
               

            When you are making choices that involve bringing a child into the world, then you'd better be responsible for those choices.  Just because you don't have money for condoms doesn't mean you go ahead and have sex anyway, and then deal with the possibilities later.  

            Report Abuse
            • Author by norotornomotor9010 (September 27, 2007 1:59 pm ET)
                 

              I made terrible choices. And let me tell you, no matter how many condoms where thrown infront of me, I never used them. The goverment stepping in wont make a great difference. Parents need to step up to the plate, PERIOD.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (September 27, 2007 2:05 pm ET)
                 

              I don't recall rape being a choice.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 2:08 pm ET)
                   

                Snoop, There is no need to be disingenuous, you know I am not referring to rape.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (September 27, 2007 2:17 pm ET)
                     

                  Tommy, you were being a bit disengenious yourself by not making that clarification. You can't discuss abortion fairly if you just target one part of the debate, because the political argument isn't doing that. It's an all or nothing battle on the national stage.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by norotornomotor9010 (September 27, 2007 2:22 pm ET)
                       

                    To the far left and right, it does seem to be, "All or nothing"...... Just plain ignorant.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 3:37 pm ET)
                         

                      Motor, it is somewhat all or nothing when you talk about abortion being legal or not.  I think people are trying to make it seem like it could be just sort of illegal in order to sell an agenda of overturning Roe v Wade and making it illegal. 

                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 2:29 pm ET)
                       

                    Snoop, Rape is not a choice.  I am talking about women and men who choose together to engage in sex, unprotected or not, who do not have the means to bring a child into this world.  If this happens, and things happen, then adoption is a viable and noble choice to make.  Don't tell me that abortion is the only choice.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by snoopy (September 27, 2007 2:33 pm ET)
                         

                      I'm not telling you that, but it is one choice of many. How about if I had my tubes tied so I could have sex without wearing a rubber, and at some point the tubes reattach without my knowledge? That happens, are you gonna say I'm an idiot for assuming a medical procedure was foolproof?

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 2:42 pm ET)
                           

                        Snoop, Of course there are examples that contradict the norm, but I am not talking about rare cases or examples - you can't base an argument on that.  I am talking about taking responsibility for one's choices. 

                        Why so many of you want to divert the discussion away from that broader point and introduce rare examples is disingenuous.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by norotornomotor9010 (September 27, 2007 2:55 pm ET)
                             

                          Those small examples are a sign of losing a argument.

                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 3:19 pm ET)
                             

                          Tommy, you are the one diverting the discussion. I mean, what are you doing here? Scolding people for being irresponsible or advocating the anti-legal abortion line? It might make it clearer if you would go ahead and say what it is you are advocating. I mean, no one is advocating irresponsibility so why are you preaching about it here? What are you advocating? That abortion be made illegal?

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by norotornomotor9010 (September 27, 2007 3:22 pm ET)
                               

                            irresponsibility IMO is a underage kid not telling thier parents what happened. And paying for it themselves.

                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 3:23 pm ET)
                               

                            Whoops, didn't think that one posted. Sorry for repeating myself here.

                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 3:29 pm ET)
                               

                            I have never advocated that abortion be made illegal.  But nice try considering that is not the thrust of this topic thread.

                            Read it again.

                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 3:21 pm ET)
                             

                          Tommy, why don't you say what you are advocating? I mean, the discussion is about whether or not abortion should be illegal. You haven't actually taken a position on it, you've just scolded people for being irresponsible. Could you clear that up? This seems like an important discussion but it's getting confused.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 3:27 pm ET)
                               

                            Read it again.  This thread is not about the legality or illegality of abortion.  So, read it again.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 3:35 pm ET)
                                 

                              I wasn't trying to trap you in something.  It just reads to me like Snoopy was talking about the need for legal abortions.  So when you argue about responsibility and such it seems like two conversations.  I just bring it up because this is the type of confusion that seems to be muddling the abortion debate on a grand scale.  Some do it on purpose and some are confusing issues. 

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by snoopy (September 27, 2007 3:49 pm ET)
                                   

                                Exactly. It was appearing to me that Tommy was suggesting there is this big group of irresponsible adults out there getting pregnant and getting an abortion out of convenience, and issues like condom breakage or tube reconnections are supposed to be some disengenious argument because they are "rare". I think it would be helpful if Tommy could provide some information charting out how many irresponsible people there are vs. the collective whole so we could at least get an idea, cause I don't buy the idea that some large % of abortions are due to irresponsible behavior.

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 3:55 pm ET)
                                     

                                  Snoop, the numbers aren't even the key.  Even one case of rape resulting in pregnancy makes the anti-choice argument fall down.  The American government simply cannot guarantee equal rights under the law to a fetus. He did seem to be mixing the moral arguments with the legal ones just as the anti crowd does.  A lot of people call themselves pro-life because they're not thinking about the meaning of the law.  The real theocrats use this ambiguity to build their numbers and gain support.  I've found that when you really argue it logically most 'pro-lifers' don't like abortion but find they can't support making it illegal either.  My Catholic mom came to this conclusion in a five minute conversation we had in the 80's. 

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 3:59 pm ET)
                                       

                                    Oh and PS, by far the most succesful programs for reducing unwanted pregnancy and abortions have come out of organizations like Planned Parenthood.  

                                    Report Abuse
                                • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 4:02 pm ET)
                                     

                                  Snoop,  I was merely responding to HC's quote about low income women unable to afford contraception thereby having no choice but to abort.......read my initial post.  My point was about personal responsibility.  You were the one that is diverting the argument towards irrelevant examples of women who do not have a choice, as evidenced by the examples you cite.

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by snoopy (September 27, 2007 4:11 pm ET)
                                       

                                    I appreciate that, tommy and aa, but what I am concerned about is how people get lumped into the irresponsibility category. You know, I guess the best example I can give is my mom. Big follower of the catholic church, believed just what the priest told her. Since the church at the time forbade the use of condoms, she complied. When she felt she was getting overburdened with a large family, she asked the church, they told her to use the rythm method. Still got pregnant. Was she being irresponsible? No, she was just ignorant due to her belief that the church knew what was best for her. I think there are a lot of people out there who fall into that same boat, and I find it quite distressful that the very people who are pushing this irresponsibility mantra on the national scale are the very same churches pushing large families and rythm methods, or whatever the flavor the church allows today is.

                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 4:21 pm ET)
                                         

                                      Snoop,

                                      There is nothing irresponsible in having children if you can afford them, that is the point.  Of course there are examples, there always are - but I am talking in general.  If your religion frowns on contraception, then act responsibly as a result......take care of the children you bring into this world, that is hardly some extreme position to hold. 

                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by snoopy (September 27, 2007 4:42 pm ET)
                                           

                                        Tommy. I don't believe I am saying you are taking an extreme position. I am concerned you are applying a wide brush when there are apparently more examples out there where ignorance is the more likely culprit behind pregnancies. My mom wasn't a bad mom, but the church's hardline position was behind her choice to finally wake up and stop following everything the church said. Religion can be one of the largest drivers of ignorance.

                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 5:02 pm ET)
                                             

                                          That is why I believe in choice - pro choice.  If you find yourself in an unwanted pregnancy because your were ill-informed or ignorant, then do the honorable thing and give it up for adoption......aborting an unwanted pregnancy by saying you had no other choice is invalid.  People have plenty of choice, if not prior to conception, then afterwards. 

                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by snoopy (September 27, 2007 5:58 pm ET)
                                               

                                            OK tommy, I think I can agree to some extent with that. It's more reasonable approach you take with that statement.

                                            Report Abuse
                                  • Author by loonz (September 27, 2007 5:01 pm ET)
                                       

                                    "Snoop,  I was merely responding to HC's quote about low income women unable to afford contraception thereby having no choice but to abort

                                    tommy / Thursday September 27, 2007 04:02:22 PM EST"

                                    I'm not sure Hillary said this; it looks like the author's interpretation of what she said. 

                                     

                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 5:42 pm ET)
                                         

                                      Loonz, it's actually quite clear that what the article was about was Clinton being misquoted as having said that when what she said was something quite different. He just repeated the misquote.

                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by loonz (September 27, 2007 7:12 pm ET)
                                           

                                        I read the article again and the author didn't misquote her.  He pulled something out his ass.

                                        And I found this MMFA article confusing because they're only challenging the Catholic part because of Gersen's inflammatory remark.  They should have mentioned that Hillary did not say the only option for an unintended pregnancy is abortion.

                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 8:42 pm ET)
                                             

                                          Thought something smelled funny about all this. I guess Tommy was criticizing the ass thing then and not something that Clinton had said. Instead of a straw man it's more of an ass man? He might not have meant to cause so much confusion but who knows?

                                          Report Abuse
                                • Author by anotheramerican (September 27, 2007 4:02 pm ET)
                                     

                                  Snoop,

                                  I found these statistics on the web. Maybe this answers your question.

                                  http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by anotheramerican (September 27, 2007 4:04 pm ET)
                                       

                                    wow that came out small. Let me try again.

                                    http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html

                                     

                                    Report Abuse
        • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (September 28, 2007 1:46 am ET)
             

          Yeah, Norotor, if those hotel maids and waitresses would just grab their bootstraps like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, they'd make much better mothers.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by dangrady (September 27, 2007 2:22 pm ET)
           

        SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

        So, HC says that these women were "left with no choice but to end their unwanted pregnancies with abortion".  

        Choice #1 - Have sex, OR NOT.

        Choice #2 - Adoption./ Tommy

        Abstenance Only, has that worked?? Say, like the War on Drugs slogan, "Just Say No!"

        It's great to be a policy wonk with your head stuck where reality, and the strife this kind of ignorance maybe ignored!

        Let's say your daughter is attending college, she's a freshman, and getting good grades, staying with a roomy in school campus housing complete with security, and campus police.

        Let's say she is invited to enjoy a group study, and stays late with the male student whom she likes to discuss Christian Values with. He offers her a soda before she goes, and starts a conversation about scripture until she becomes groggy, and disoriented, then passes out.

        The next morning she realizes she's been undressed, and raped while she was unconscience. The male student swears he just let you sleep, and never touched you.

        She calls the campus police, gets a rape kit, and awaits results. She calls her doctor and gets a persciption for the "Day After Pill" but can't find a pharmacist that will fill the perscription. Days go by and her rape kit comes back inconclusive.

        She drops out of school and moves into her parents home to have a baby that her father thinks she should have adopted!

        He can't stand that she blew her college education for a night of sex!! He's ashamed, she's ashamed and guilty, and that "Day After Pill" would have cost $10.00 co-pay, and she would have been stil enrolled in school.

        This story or many like it happen every day untold times, but women should be denied reasonable options based on Evangelical based idealogy!!

        Welcome to the Evangelical Nation of Hypocrites!

        Happy Thoughts;

        Dan Grady

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 2:31 pm ET)
             

          The woman was a victim or rape.  There was no choice involved since according to you she was drugged and raped.  This is an entirely different circumstance than what I was referring too.  But you knew that.

          But nice try anyway. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 2:32 pm ET)
               

            Victim OF rape, not "or"

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Conchobhar (September 27, 2007 2:58 pm ET)
               

            If the argument against choice is that a child, with an immortal soul, is formed at the instant of fertilization, how do you justify killing that child because it is the result of a rape?  That would seem to me both illogical and immoral.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 3:07 pm ET)
                 

              Because I view rape and incest as completely different.  I have no problem reconciling my views where those instances are concerned.

              If you have a moral dilemma with my position, you are entitled to that view.  We disagree. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Conchobhar (September 27, 2007 3:18 pm ET)
                   

                The rape and incest occur prior to conception.  Is the resulting life any less innocent than the result of an irresponsible accident?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by norotornomotor9010 (September 27, 2007 3:21 pm ET)
                     

                  What Tommy seems to be saying is, with irrisponsability should come RESPONSABILITY.

                  Not the same as getting raped, sorry friend.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Conchobhar (September 27, 2007 3:38 pm ET)
                       

                    That part I understand.  What I'd like to have explained is the logic behind the preservation of one "innocent life," and the termination of the other.  It would seem to me that it's more about judgment and punishment than it is about reverence for life.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 3:41 pm ET)
                         

                      Thank you Conch,  these are the questions the anti-legal abortion groups can never answer.  Because argued to their logical conclusions, what they are demanding is absolutely impossible.  That's why they don't argue their points but instead preach about people being responsible. 

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Conchobhar (September 27, 2007 3:58 pm ET)
                           

                        Agreed, Hound.

                        There's an interesting topical post on Huffington today.  I've already reference it, but here it is again.  I don't know why it won't hyperlink.

                        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/the-devil-is-in-the-detai_b_65853.html 

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by anotheramerican (September 27, 2007 4:11 pm ET)
                           

                        Conch,

                        Personally, I don't see a difference. I am opposed to the exception for abortion because of rape because I do believe the conceived baby is just that. The baby is just as much a victim as the mother in the case of rape. As an aside, nobody argues killing the impregnated mother due to a rape. She of course is an innocent victim just like the child.  I do not believe in killing the innocent.  

                         

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 4:25 pm ET)
                             

                          What if a 15 year old girl becomes pregnant after being raped by her father.  Sorry for how disgusting that is, but when you're talking about giving a fetus equal protection under the law, you actually have to address that fetus too.  Does she have to carry it to term?

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by anotheramerican (September 27, 2007 4:36 pm ET)
                               

                            I thought I answered that.

                            You have described an ugly situation. However there are at least two victims here. One being the rape victim, the other being the baby. 

                            Lets say the father beat the daughter and caused injuries that required hospitalization and repeated surgery. The daughter would undergo much pain and suffering after the initial injuries. But she would need to undergo that suffering in order to help her recover. Being pregnant is similar in that it is a longterm effect of the rape. It will take a long time for the daughter to heal in both cases. Even so, the baby is still an innocent victim.

                            Once the baby is born, it should be placed for adoption, (with consent of the mother of course.)  

                             

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 4:44 pm ET)
                                 

                              Ok gotcha.  I sure hope to hell you guys never get that done.  My daughters aren't cattle.  I think it's good you spell it out like that because at least you're being honest.  I think the leaders of the so called 'Pro-Life' movement are hiding their agenda behind lots of preaching about responsibility and stuff.  There's no way you'd be able to sell what you're proposing to modern America.  Your position is considered 'extreme' even in the movement but I believe it's actually just more honest.  There really isn't a way to partly guarantee equal rights. 

                              Can't wait for a day when a husband intentionally gets his wife pregnant against her wishes because he knows she has no choice but to carry it to term.  Gee, hope that's not one of my daughters.  He intentionally undermined contraception?  Oh well, time to baby up maam.

                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by Brabantio (September 27, 2007 5:09 pm ET)
                                 

                              Talking about the "baby" as an innocent victim of abortion assumes that each fertilized embryo has a unique, individual soul.  Of course, we know you believe this already.

                              The question is, what kind of God allows this embryo to be a "victim"?  God sends an aborted rape pregnancy to hell for all eternity?  That's the only possible concern here.  If it goes to heaven, no problem.  If it's "recycled", then it's not a "victim" of anything.  

                              It seems slightly less than reasonable to base public policy on fear of a cruel, irrational deity.  But moral absolutism is less than reasonable, as you demonstrate on an alarmingly frequent basis. 

                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by snoopy (September 27, 2007 6:02 pm ET)
                                 

                              Does that hold if the baby has a severe handicap, or say due to inbreeding develops one of the wierder blood diseases that occur because of it? If the baby is brain dead?

                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (September 27, 2007 8:27 pm ET)
                                 

                              AA, to force a 15 child who was a victim of rape or incest to continue a pregnancy is heartless and any parent who would do such a thing should be subject to child abuse charges.

                              Report Abuse
                        • Author by Conchobhar (September 27, 2007 5:07 pm ET)
                             

                          AA, 

                          ". . . nobody argues killing the impregnated mother due to a rape."

                          Not here, at least.  In those lands where "honor" killings are still tolerated, it's a different story.

                          Though I oppose your position, I respect the consistency of your logic. I wonder if you are also opposed to contraception?

                          Report Abuse
                  • Author by loonz (September 27, 2007 5:09 pm ET)
                       

                    "What Tommy seems to be saying is, with irrisponsability should come RESPONSABILITY."

                    Some people view abortion as one of many responsible ways to deal with an unintended pregnancy.

                    Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 3:38 pm ET)
                     

                  Unlike some, I do not hold the strict pro-life, no abortion under any circumstances, position.  I also believe that Roe should be overturned and the states should decide for themselves.  I am not for making aborion illegal or throwing women and doctors in jail.  I am against abortion personally and believe that adoption is a courageous and noble choice.  

                  I am for holding people responsible for the choices they make, especially when it involves innocent children and bringing them into the world.  If you do so and are unable to feed, clothe and properly care for that child, that is immoral.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Conchobhar (September 27, 2007 3:42 pm ET)
                       

                    Thank you.  We actually don't disagree.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 3:50 pm ET)
                       

                    What does it mean, "I am for holding people responsible for the choices they make?"  Who was arguing against that?  The origin of your argument would imply that someone was advocating something else.  Is the implication that Clinton was advocating something else?   

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 4:08 pm ET)
                         

                      Saying low income women have no choice but to abort when they are denied contraception is what this is about.  When I said they do have a choice, which is no sex or adoption, I get rape as an example.  Disingenous argument.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 4:12 pm ET)
                           

                        Ah ok.  It's a confusing debate because there is after all a powerful faction trying to make it illegal using arguments that sound a lot like what you were saying.  Easy to misunderstand. 

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 4:22 pm ET)
                             

                          Oh and Tommy were you saying that Hillary said this?  That women had 'no choice' other than to have an abortion?  Because actually no one said that.  The article was about how she was misquoted as saying that when what she said was different.  What was it you were criticizing again?  Sorry.  Still just kind of confusing.

                          Report Abuse
      • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 4:37 pm ET)
           

        Oh, ok Tommy, here it is.  You're quoting Hillary here but if you read the article you will realize that what it was about was her being misquoted.  That's maybe why that thread got so confusing.  You were criticizing her for the thing she was falsely accused of saying. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by sundog (September 27, 2007 5:40 pm ET)
             

          Aaaargh. Hate it when they get squeezed out. This was supposed to be way back on the first page of posts there.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by dangrady (September 27, 2007 2:37 pm ET)
         

      SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

      There was no choice involved since according to you she was drugged and raped. // Tommy

      So True! This Administration's Evangelical beliefs facilitate the denial of solutions to women while considering only their religous perspective while the consequenes suffered by others!

      If your daughter lied, and made the story up, that would make it ok to deprive her the pill??

      Happy Thoughts;

      Dan Grady

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 2:43 pm ET)
           

        Your argument makes absolutely no sense, sorry.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by dangrady (September 27, 2007 2:54 pm ET)
             

          SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

          Your argument makes absolutely no sense, sorry.- tommy / Thursday September 27, 2007 02:43:25 PM EST

          I have to assume you have never raised a teenage daughter!

          If your daughter came to you with a persciption for the "day after pill" and knew your beliefs in advance, you don't think she might make up a story like the one I laid out??? Really???

          If she came clean and told you she had a moment of weakness in her first extended experience away from home and on her own that you would tell her that she would have to drop out of school, have the baby, and put the child up for adoption??

          Would you tell your own daughter "too bad, so sad" you dreams of a college education is over, welcome to the splenders of single motherhood!!

          Happy Thoughts;

          Dan Grady

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (September 27, 2007 2:56 pm ET)
               

            "A moment of weakness"?  I thought you said she was drugged and raped?

            Never mind, your entire argument is becoming even more ridiculous as you try and wade through it.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by dangrady (September 27, 2007 3:00 pm ET)
                 

              SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

              I'm sorry Tommy I assumed you had been to college!!

              When you teenage daughter is on her own, alone, in another state without parental supervision. You know , the way millions of American daughters are every year!!

              You can't be that ignorant, Really!!

              Happy Thoughts;

              Dan Grady

              Report Abuse
              • Author by norotornomotor9010 (September 27, 2007 3:15 pm ET)
                   

                Sounds like a story to me......

                 

                Millions of underage girls in a different state then thier parents? Care to explain?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (September 27, 2007 3:51 pm ET)
                     

                  Teenage. 18, 19. College. Does that help? (You read "underage")

                  Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (September 27, 2007 3:00 pm ET)
         

      Mrs. Clinton is wrong again.

      This movement to withhold contraceptives, said the senator, in strong language, "was started by a small group of extreme ideologues who claim the right to impose their personal beliefs on the overwhelming majority of the American people."

       

      Richmond, VA (LifeNews.com) -- October, 2005 A new poll conducted by Virginia Commonwealth University shows a majority of Americans say abortions should either always be illegal or that abortions should be allowed in only very rare circumstances. In summary, most Americans oppose most abortions.

      Asked which of three views on abrotion comes closest to representing theirs, 12 percent of those polled said abortions should always be illegal. Another 44 percent said abortions should be allowed only in cases of rape or incest or when the pregnancy directly endangers the mother's physical health.

      Such cases constitute as little as 2 or 3 percent of all reasons for an abortion, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood.

      Just 39 percent in the VCU survey say abortions should always be legal.

      That means 56 percent of Americans oppose approximately 97 percent of the abortions performed annually in the United States and fewer than 4 in 10 support abortion.

      That squares with other recent polls.

      An August 2005 CBS News poll found 53 percent of respondents said all or most abortions should not be permitted and only 43 percent said all or most abortions should be permitted.

      Also, an April 2005 Gallup Poll showed most Americans oppose most abortions. According to the poll, 59 percent of Americans say they oppose all or most abortions.

      The Virginia Commonwealth University Life Sciences Survey conducted telephone interviews with 1,002 American adults from September 14-29. The margin of error in the poll is three percent.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (September 27, 2007 3:06 pm ET)
           

        My bad. The quote I referred to by Mrs. Clinton was in reference to contraception and not abortion. 

        Interesting statistics nonetheless.

        Please continue with regularly scheduled (MMFA) programming.  

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (September 27, 2007 3:13 pm ET)
           

        AA:

        Did you reread what you posted?  In the quote you used, Senator Clinton was talking about contraception.  The poll you cited concerned abortion.  Not quite the same thing.  Nice try, though.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by dangrady (September 27, 2007 3:06 pm ET)
         

      SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMCORAT!!

      The Virginia Commonwealth University Life Sciences Survey// ANOTHER MORON

      R. J. Reynolds did a telephone survey and concluded that smoking is no more dangerous than driving, but tastes good!! Got a light?

      Happy Thoughts;

      Dan Grady

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Pithaughn (September 27, 2007 3:11 pm ET)
         

      Criminalizing abortion, while making the "right to life" movement feel all warm and fuzzy for setting the nation straight, is inherently discrimantory. Rich women will still have access to safe abortions performed by medical professionals, poor women will not.

      Please get off your high horses, and realize no one is pro abortion, let's work together on reducing the number of abortions, something we all agree on.

      PS What will the sentence be for a 15 year old girl who is convicted of abortion???

      Report Abuse
      • Author by norotornomotor9010 (September 27, 2007 3:19 pm ET)
           

        The only conviction that 15 year old girl should get is up the her parents.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Pithaughn (September 27, 2007 3:42 pm ET)
             

          The question is what should the sentence be? A judge will eventually have to sentence girls as young as 11 who have been convicted of abortion. (This is what is known as gaming the situation, ie. if abortion is illegal and girls as young as 11 have been pregnant, we can assume that sooner or later an 11 year old will be pregnant, get an abortion, get conviceted and then get sentenced)

          what should the sentence be?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (September 27, 2007 4:25 pm ET)
               

            Pitt,

            The argument that if abortions are outlawed, rich women will still safely get them does not address the fact they would be breaking the law.

            Right now rich people can go to other countries to get certain drugs. Do we suddenly approve those drugs because the rich can go elsewhere and get them? 

            The rich can hide their money from taxes in hidden offshore bank accounts. Do we abolish taxes since the poor cannot avail themselves to these financial machinations?

            I hope you can see why your argument that  certain rich women will still use their money to get abortions does not automatically mean we can't pass laws to restrict abortions.  

            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (September 27, 2007 4:27 pm ET)
                 

              I should have referred to you as Pit. Sorry.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Pithaughn (September 27, 2007 7:25 pm ET)
                   

                Pit, Pitt, Wierd old guy, does'nt matter. I'm glad to see we both have had it up to our double chins with the antics of the rich. But, the question remains the same, what sentence should be handed down to a young girl who is convicted of having an abortion?

                Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (September 27, 2007 3:31 pm ET)
           

        Well said, Pit. Is the purpose of the anti-choice crowd the saving of innocent life, or the imposition of their faith?  There's a spot-on post on Huffington today.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/the-devil-is-in-the-detai_b_65853.html 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by dangrady (September 27, 2007 3:20 pm ET)
         

      SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

      Snoop, There is no need to be disingenuous, you know I am not referring to rape. // Tommy

      I wonder what I would do, if I were a woman whom has no interest in being pregnant, yet would need to have been raped to get the "day after pill?"

      How many women do you think would stay pregnant, and how many would claim rape???

      Public Policy based on Religous Fervor in action!

      Happy Thoughts;

      Dan Grady

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dangrady (September 27, 2007 4:28 pm ET)
         

      SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

      Maybe they should get thier tubes tied. Far more reliable. - [link to www.myspace.com] color="#0052a3">norotornomotor9010 / Thursday September 27, 2007

      You would subject college aged girls to a surgical contraception, but not a pill!!!????????

      Every effort to debate the logical consequence of anti-abortion policy on real people results in the same moronic suggestions from people whom care only about their rhetoric, and could care less about the consequences so long as it's somebody else whom have to suffer them.

      We had this debate when Roe vs Wade was decided. We saw the effect of these capricious arguments when your daughter ends up in an emergency room dying from the effects of a backroom abortion!

      Happy Thoughts;

      Dan Grady

       

      Report Abuse