If you want 'DISHONEST' it's 'DISHONEST JOHN!', 1-800-DISHONEST!
ps:
Posted on 02/05/2012 6:59:20 PM PST by mnehring
Edited on 02/05/2012 7:06:55 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
During an appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan, GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul was asked whether as a man with daughters and granddaughters, Rep. Paul (R-TX) thinks that abortion is warranted if a woman has been impregnated by a rapist.
“If it’s an honest rape,” Paul replied, “that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.” He claimed, however, that if a woman is “seven months pregnant” and says that she was raped, “It’s a little bit of a different story.” Source
Abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent baby, NOT because it lets the woman off the hook (being punished by pregnancy).
So what you have to do to avoid letting them go off on that particular high dudgeon rant is flip to "darned shame we don't execute the rapists".
That short circuits their argument and puts them into a totally different sticky wicket many of them aren't able to deal with.
Most Leftwingtards will give up in exaspiration, turn their backs on you and probably call you a name.
Those just this side of pro-life (but still actually pro-abortion), who think they are conservative, might take up the argument of executing rapists.
That's just a guide to debates.
Now, executing the chillun' for the crimes of the father? You and I know what these pukes are proposing ~ but it's best to use the old "a soft word turneth away wrath" option first ~ even if we do propose killing the rapist. It's one of the few instances where killing someone can be considered the "soft word".
Do you support the nine to ten month imprisonment of a rape victim to ensure that her rapists seed is brought to term?
Sorry for the double post.
So then you are fine with the morning after pill? It is the same thing, just in pill form. What Paul describes is the older way, probably how he did it when he was an OBGYN. Now, they just give them an RU486 pill.
mamelukesabre: “I think its pretty obvious what he meant. I think its pretty obvious he’s right.”
Agreed. I’m sick of the way people demonize everyone who isn’t their candidate. Ron Paul says some things I agree with and some things I disagree with. It’s dishonest to try and warp what he says into something it’s not. Seriously. I despise the way people parse everything a candidate says in order to demonize them. Why do some people feel the need to destroy everyone who isn’t their candidate?
So, you don't want them 'punished with a child'? Where have I heard that line before?
You could do this at home with nothing more than a couple of wires appropriately placed and a 210 plug.
Or, would you demand we use licensed medical practitioners who inject various drugs?
Right and who is going to determine what is an ‘honest’ rape. A shot of estrogen? This guy’s off his nut.
Honestly ....He’s kuh rayyyyy zeeeee.
What effect would the killing of an adulteress have upon any unborn child that might exist as a consequence of such adultery? Do you think such effect would be intentional or unintentional? I see nothing in Mosaic law that would suggest that an adulteress should be allowed to live long enough to bear her child; indeed, I would expect that giving adulterer the satisfaction of having spawned someone who would outlive him would have been considered a bad thing.
Honestly ....He’s kuh rayyyyy zeeeee.
“Do you support the nine to ten month imprisonment of a rape victim to ensure that her rapists seed is brought to term?”
It really is a yes or no question.
Who said anything about imprisonment??
My position is abortion is wrong even in cases of rape. Those why support the rape exception are not pro-life & are woefully misguided if they think they are.
An “Honest” Rape is when a woman is violated against her will. Not when some girl gives it up for her boyfriend and then screams rapes, or some “wife” comes home from a business trip, after banging her boss in the hotel, and tells her husband he raped her. Due to the line of work I’m in, I know scenarios like these happen all the time.
If he had the sense God gave a goose he'd kept his mouth shut on the issue.
(Incidentally, Ms. Goldberg was wrong: Polanski's actions not only satisfied the definition of rape on the basis of his victim's age, but on the basis of the classical definition, since she said "no" until he plied her with quaaludes until she said neither yes nor no, and thus was "rape rape" to use her way of distinguishing the traditionally understood heinous crime from its expanded redefinition.)
“Who said anything about imprisonment??”
How do you expect to force rape victims to carry their attackers seed to term with it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.