I don't consider taking a birth control killing babies - so to me (and hundreds of millions of women whose bodies this also involves) it is about a woman to have the right to have autonomy over their own body, and not Paul Ryan to have the right to control a woman's uterus.

I heard this put eloquently today - if a zygote, which is only a potential human, and therefore less than human, is presumed to have a stronger claim to a woman's body than she herself does, then women are no longer fully human under the law.

All hail the American Taliban.

@Taoist
When then is an unborn child a full human?

@Jason
Please name other female products that aren't currently regulated by the government.

An unborn child becomes a fully responsible human person, under the law, at age 18. Prior to then, it is becoming progressively more human over time. This is as basic as it gets.

However, your question really is "when is a fertilized embryo human enough that its right to life overrules the mother's right to bodily autonomy." I would answer that as long as the embryo depends on the mother's body for life, then its rights are subordinate to her right to bodily autonomy.

To suggest anything beyond that is to render the mother less than human.

Furthermore, this is about more than "killing babies," it's about forcing victims to become subhuman incubators of their rapists' offspring.

As the proud father of a brand new baby girl, I can promise you that I'd go to the chair before seeing her forced, against her will, to carry her rapist's baby to term. I know people who have been raped, and what a toll it can take.

If a stupid, wrong, heartless and opportunistic politician like Todd Akin, or any who agree with him, think they're in a better position than my daughter to make that decision, then they can go f-ck themselves.

I'll never vote for a politician, or a party, that considers a corporation to be more of a person than my daughter.

@Taoist -- "An unborn child becomes a fully responsible human person, under the law, at age 18."

Interesting point. Parents can make decisions -- even irrevocable decisions -- for children under the age of majority. They choose where a child will live, what schooling they will get, what medical procedures will or will not be done to them.

Legal rights begin with viability at the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy, when abortion is prohibited except under certain circumstances. Rights increase at birth and so on, up to the age of 18 Under the right circumstances, a minor can become emancipated and make his or her own decisions.

J.B., I would postulate that until cortical activity begins ( around 8-9 weeks of gestation) an embryo should not have any more 'rights' than a cat or dog awaiting euthanization at the pound. They most certainly are aware of their circumstances and want to go on living. What is so special about Homo Sapiens, other than some religions tell us we're the crown of creation?

@J.B. --"Please name other female products that aren't currently regulated by the government."

It's only the prescription drugs that could harm a person if used incorrectly, without supervision by a medical professional. Male products are the same. Blue pills are by prescription, but you can buy nostrums for jock itch OTC.

Or you could look at it this way -

Imagine that your 14-year-old daughter doesn't come home after school. You start calling hospitals at 4AM, and find that she's been admitted after being robbed, raped, and beaten. Her physical wounds are largely superficial, but she's badly traumatized. Also, she may be pregnant.

The humane thing to do is to give that poor girl a morning-after pill. The GOP is taking the position that to do so would be to commit murder.

I don't mind telling the world - if my daughter wants the pill, then I'm getting it for her. If anyone finds out, I'll claim that I forced her to take it, and happily spend the rest of my life in jail. Fathers across the country will do the same. My child is not going to be enslaved by a rapist, no matter how much the GOP thinks she should be.

@Randy
So prior to the 9 week mark as the "embryo" fights for survival by making its way to the uterus, implanting itself, and builds a child via cell division; it isn't trying to be alive. That whole process is accidental? I challenge that since definite steps must be taken by the "embryo" prior to your contrived 9 week mark, it is aware.

Second, are trying to tell me that the government has no regulations on OTC feminine hygiene products? Products that have as much to to with the female reproductive system as the pill.

@Taoist
I think my house places a higher value on human life. Whether created in horrible circumstances or good ones, it is still life. Your assumption is that a child would only by looked at negatively; rather then possibly being a bright spot in the middle a disgusting situation.

@J.B. Schmidt -- Are sperm aware as they 'fight' to reach an egg that may or may not be there? That makes us all murderers.

The government may ensure that feminine hygiene products are safe to use, but it doesn't require that a woman prove that she's 'legitimately' menstruating before she's allowed to purchase a tampon, nor does she have to prove she really needs that Summer's Eve.

@Randy
I was unaware that currently a women had to prove she was sexually active prior to obtaining the pill.

Sperm is unable to replicate or grow. It will not on its own become a child and just because it has an engine and propeller doesn't mean by default it has a pilot. It will swim in a toilet bowl as freely as it will swim in a woman. In both it will swim until its battery wears out.

An embryo is attempting to survive and there is a pilot mechanism guiding it to your 9 week mark.

@ JB -

Absolutely not. My entire position is that it should be the woman's choice. If she wants to have her rapist's baby, then more power to her. If she doesn't, then she shouldn't be sent to prison.

Your position, if I read you correctly, is that if she doesn't want it, then tough sh-t.

@J.B. -- And yet, this two-celled zygote with a 'consciousness' will sometime implant in a Fallopian tube, the abdominal cavity, or pass out of the body entirely (this happens a lot more than people realize). That sounds like a boat without a pilot to me.

You are imputing motives and awareness that does not exist.

As for women having to prove they are sexually active to obtain the Pill, they do not. Except in the Georgetown University case where they had to prove they were using it to preserve their health and future fertility rather than to *gasp* prevent conception.

@Taoist
I am saying we are destroying life.

@Randy
The implantation of the embryo in awkward places proves that will do anything to survive. Sperm swim like bumper cars until the accidentally reach their goal and that doesn't even guarantee success. You are removing a desire to survive to fit your cause.

Georgetown is a private institution and therefore has no bearing on our discussion.

@J.B. --"You are removing a desire to survive to fit your cause."

And you, sir, are inventing a desire to support yours. Implantation in a spot that will kill both host and zygote indicates random motion rather than a desire to survive.

As for killing 'life' -- yes we are. I presume you eat meat.

@Luke: The Aiken content is called an "Introduction". The "body of the essay" is about how our potential VP (heart beat away...) believes, has stated, proposed legislation, and voted on issues related to contraception and abortion. The last sentence is called a "Conclusion". While I agree that the "transition" that connects the intro to the body is questionable, that does not discount the content of the intro,or body. The conclusion is opinion that Jason supported.

Now enough of the middle school English writing lesson....

M.S. - something about that VP being a heart beat away made me cough up my Purple Cush. Something about Joe Biden. Whatever happened to him anyway? He has been very quiet.

@Bren
There are 27 bills that the House has passed that the Dems in the Senate refuse to bring to a vote. All them could help the economic and social situation in the US. Including passing a budget that they have rejected for 3 years.

In short, the House GOP has been doing things other then protect unborn children during that last 2 years and your beloved Dems have sat on their hands.

J.B., does that include the 31 votes on ACA? Please, only a person who has spent the last 3.5 years living in a sensory deprivation chamber would believe that the Tea/GOP-driven Congress has been at all effective, hence the 12% approval rating it now enjoys (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-21/obama-leads-romney-in-poll-showing-disdain-for-congress.html).

@Bren
What are you talking about? What do the 31 votes having anything to do with what I posted?

The approval ratings of Congress have been in the toilet for a decade.

@JB: Why are you complaining about Bren being off-topic? Your comment about economic issues is equally off-topic. This article is about a social issue that social conservatives are bringing to the table, and is a current issue of national discussion.

@MS
When did I say Bren was off topic? She respond to the fact there are 27 Bills passed by the House the Dems in the Senate refuse to bring to the floor for a vote, with a question about the votes on a specific bill. Her comment has nothing to do with what I posted and my original challenge that the Republican are only concentrating on the female sex organ.

J.B. I stand by my comments. I'm certainly not surprised that Congress has had such a low approval rating over 10 years. Profligate spending under George W. Bush, filibusters and obstruction since 2008. Elected officials working at cross-purposes with the people they are supposed to represent.

The Paul Ryan is a joke, representing a $4.3 trillion revenue loss over the first decade in which it would be enacted. Here's a nice breakdown from Paul Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/krugman-an-unserious-man.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

As I said, anyone who reads print or online media knows about Tea/GOP obstruction. And it's not just at the national level. Remember Walker's "Jobs" session that defined bicycles and changed high school sex ed curriculum to focus on "abstinence only." See, there's those female sex organs again.

You sound familiar. Have we met before?

Stella, I've been barking up that tree for weeks now. I believe Jason's wife knows, and readily accepts, Jason's sexual preference/confusion.

It's why she wears the pants (and the strapon), and he wears the women's glasses.

Such intellectually deep and relevant comments.... It may soon be time to take a break from the comments section for a while..

MS by all means please do take a break from the comments, thanks!

mau, except for the substantiation that HR:3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act which Paul Ryan co-sponsored, introduced the offensive and nonsensical term "forcible rape." Better listen to stara baba! Not saying that atheist philosopher fan Paul Ryan is specifically a member of the "Magic Secretion" Brigade as Ayn Rand was pro-choice and never wrote about it, but he does seem to keep some interesting company in the House.

Stata Baba not Stara

@David, growing up my parents/grandparents said stada or stata (sound) baba (though they weren't Polish). Probably picked up from their ethnic surroundings. Stara baba is from their mother tongue which is not Polish.

why not ask Juanita Broderick?

Randy, she didn't say "no" to the roofie or sex. She "asked for it" by drinking liquid. And since she didn't "shut it down" and/or emit the magical secretion, yes, tough luck for her.

You missed an important point. Was she wearing her wimple and ankle-length skirt? That's fundamental, as the Taliban points out that women's hair should be covered because it enflames men.

Ah, but Mr. Akin feels that the only person 'punished' in that situation should be the rapist. He obviously doesn't consider nine further months of bodily invasion to be any kind of punishment. One hopes we can develop a method of embryo transplants into willing (or unwilling) hosts, even males, so he can learn.

This also assumes that any human being would be just overjoyed to learn that they had been engendered in such horrific circumstances. Of course in Ryan's world, they would also be gestated with no pre-natal care, and born into a world where they and Mom are on their own. No medical care, no decent education, no living wage for those without a privileged start and a good education, and no prospects of a secure retirement at the end of it all. Who could possibly turn down a deal like that?

Fem Jason certainly has his grannie panties all in a bundle today. I'll make sure that I vote multiple times for Romney/Ryan just to piss off the lazy Democrats.

Hush, bella. Edward Cullen wants you. He's looking all soulful and angsty.

I do not know of an anti juice but I do know that sexual arousal in the female creates a secretion that provides protection for and helps in transport of sperm to egg if one is present. Rape usually does not include arousal but aversion.

@Joana Briggs -- Tell that to all the women in Darfur who are bearing the children of their gang-rapists. It will make them feel a lot better.

I'd point out to Mr. Akin that if pregnancies resulting from raps are very rare, that means that there would not be very many of them for the government to pay for.

I simply cannot believe that magical secretion is the national topic in the 21st Century. Why are we not laughing these pseudo-Puritans out of office.

Forcing women to incubate their rapist's babies is wrong. Sending women to jail for using the morning after pill is wrong. The GOP's extreme position on abortion is wrong, and opposing it is the correct response.

I've got to call BS on this. The issue is, in fact, "whether a pregnancy as a result of rape or incest can be aborted." The GOP says no, and they claim to be seeking a constitutional amendment to that effect. Don't try to cloud the issue; recognize that the GOP is seeking to define women as less than human.

Remember before Roe v Wade how it was difficult to get an abortion? Well it wasn't. They didn't call them abortions and they were done in Catholic Hospitals and paid for by insurance.

Where is the write-up of this Constitutional Amendment?

No, mau, Roe v. Wade closed the door on government control of what should have been a private decision. It left exceptions where government could intervene for health and safety reasons (requiring the procedure to take place in proper facilities during the second trimester) and when government had a right to preserve the life of a viable fetus (during the third trimester). It was the Hyde Amendment that turned the issue into a political one by insisting that government make a moral judgement about when public funds would be used for such a procedure. Currently, government can pay for abortions when the life and health of the mother is involved and when the pregnancy is not the result of voluntary sexual activity. Hence the focus on whether rape is 'forcible' or not.

I don't believe in circumcision, but Medicaid (and other 'government funded' plans like MSAs) pay for that. Sometimes our tax money goes for things we don't approve of.

Taoist Crocodile
10:43 am on Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Here's a link to the first article I found after a google search for "draft of Republican platform."

http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Republican-Platform-Draft-Reaffirms-Blanket-Ban-3805666.php

Either they're lying about wanting an amendment, or they want an amendment.

So, taking them at their word, they want to force raped women to become subhuman incubators for their rapists's children. How is that not an attack on women's rights? Even if a woman wants to pay for it herself, she'll still be considered a murderer, and therefore she'll face prison or execution, like the rest of the murderers. This is an attack on women.

@mau -- "Remember before Roe v Wade how it was difficult to get an abortion? Well it wasn't. They didn't call them abortions and they were done in Catholic Hospitals and paid for by insurance."

I do remember. As for Catholic hospitals, which of them performed elective abortions and what were they called? D&C where the doctor 'forgot' to perform a pregnancy test if it was for the 'right' sort of woman? If so, that's just an example of the hypocrisy we need to get rid of.

I'm told that before Roe v Wade girls took a "trip to visit relatives" in New York, in this area at least.

"Forced choice" is an oxymoron. Unless, of course, the decision to carry a pregnancy to term remains an actual choice.

As "Tea Party Patriot Joanna Briggs" stated, "she must choose." ~ And isn't that what this is all about - a woman's right to choose whether or not to have autonomy over her own body? How the hell can a group of (mostly) rich old white men tell women how and when they have to spit out babies?

Also, can someone please explain to me the difference between "forcible rape" and regular good ole' fashioned rape? Paul Ryan and Todd Akin Akin are co-sponsors of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," which would prohibit federal funding of abortions except in instances of "an act of forcible rape."
Isn't differentiating "forcible rape" from "rape" like trying to differentiate between "deadly murder" and "murder" or "Misogynist Pig" and "Paul Ryan" - They are after all, interchangeable, right?

@Jason -- I think that if we have the Constitutional right not to have to quarter soldiers in our homes, that would extend to women not having to host other human beings in their bodies for nine months except by continued consent.

Joana, my only response to your ignorant post is that you should volunteer at a rape crisis center to observe firsthand the violence of rape on a girl, boy, woman, or man. You should stand by and help as the swab kit is used to collect evidence as the victim is forced to wait in filth for this important task to be completed. That also includes STD screening. You should watch as the patient is examined for internal and external injuries which could include knife wounds, strangulation wounds, broken jaw, dislocated joints, etc.

Then dismiss another human being's new journey of lifelong anguish with another throw-away comment like "forced choice." Unbelievable.

@Bren -- It is beginning to bother me when conservatives -- the women especially -- wax sentimental about the 'precious babies' in the womb but are willing to throw them to the wolves once they are born. Human beings need food, shelter, medical care, education, meaningful work, and a reasonably secure old age. None of that is the responsibility of the Paul Ryan types. Those unfortunates who find themselves needing the social safety net should have made better life-choices. Like not being born in the first place. And round we go.

@Randy, that is a total insult, shame on you. I never threw the "precious baby" who I carried in my womb to the wolves. I fought for him from the time I found out I was pregnant. Guided him through the liberal school system and moral less society to a successful adult with good conservative values and work ethic. I didn't give up and I didn't throw him helpless into the government bureaucracy.

I find it ironic that Jason doesn't think that he also trying to dictate a woman's right to choose though his promotion of more legislation.

This whole thing could be settled by forcing all male babies to have vasectomies (which are reversible) at birth. When they come to their child bearing years (18 yrs or older and can prove they can provide for a child), then with the government permission they can once again be fertile.

Randy, I believe the current situation is exemplar in demonstrating the intellectual limitations of the left-brain thinker. My analogy for comparing left- and right-brain cognition is the left-brain ("conservative") perceives the world and time in a series of disconnected images. The right brain perceives images as a connected "film strip." Ergo, the left-brain "conservative" says, "Abortion is wrong, therefore no abortion." There's no connectedness to the social issues that spur abortions or the short- and long-term repercussions of making it illegal. Negativity sticks like glue; positivity slides off. It's the same with Medicare; negative comments are made by authority figures and believed. No connectedness into why Medicare was signed into law in the first place; no conception of the short- and long-term repercussions of cutting or eliminating it. No concept that this could deliberately hurt them.

The "conservative" woman's "precious babies" concept no doubt is derived from the left-brain notion that, because they themselves had a good experience with reproduction, everyone's experiences are therefore good. So if someone claims they didn't have a good experience they are obviously lying. Those accounts of ethnic attacks in Tsarist Russia, the American west, and elsewhere of girls and women literally being torn and cut to pieces during "non free will" reproductive experiences? Just lies.

mau, your suggestion about mandatory vasectomies wouldn't address the issue of rape as a violent crime. It also doesn't address the "deadbeat dad" issue of ending support for children in cases of divorce or break-ups.

@mau -- I didn't mean your own children. I meant the children of other women who didn't want to become pregnant in the first place. You would make a choice for them but your 'conservative values' (every man for himself) would make the world a much harder place for them to survive in.

That's a little bit like me telling people they can't divorce under any circumstances, just because I've been happily married for many years.

I frankly would pin a medal on any woman who chooses to carry the child of a rapist to term and then sees that child on well into life. But that is not your call or mine to make.

@Randy, so why do you want it to be the governments call. The more government intrudes the more difficult it is for a woman to make that personal choice of her own free will.

@mau -- Where did you get the idea I wanted it to be the government's call? Roe v. Wade limited the laws that government could make in this area. The decision, as much as possible, is left up to the individual woman, her doctor and her spiritual advisors.

Ryan and Akin want to reimpose limits. A woman would have to prove to the government that she 'deserves' an abortion. That her rape was 'legitimate'.

And yet Ryan feels the government should stay out of our businesses while sticking its nose into our bedrooms.

It's a social issue but I agree with you Greg. It's tangential. We probably disagree on why the tangent's being thrown down, however.

I don't think the Obama/Biden administration has "failed" by any stretch, considering all that's been accomplished despite obstruction from Congress.

Then Joana I apologize. Empathy was not perceived from your comments. (Note, my comment was not about the clinic being filthy but the victims. Showers may not be taken until the evidence is collected).

Thank you for sharing your traumatic experience and I am glad you survived and recovered.

The operative word here is "choice". It should be a woman's choice. Prostitutes let men dictate what they should do with their bodies too. That is why I feel no man should dictate what a woman should do with her own body. And there is no hatred towards life. Take your Saint Hood elsewhere.

I'm hoping your ex-husband was there to support you and take care of the children while you faced this crisis.

And now they're groveling for her forgiveness and support.

My point was you were labeled TEA Party and accused of not knowing how it felt to be in that situation. I am glad you have told your story.

Do you write fiction for a living?

Well said, Anti-Alinksy...well except for using "incense" in place of "incest" ;-)

Good catch. I was relying on the spell checker too much.

This is just their current attempt to divert attention away from the real issues that will drive this election, jobs and the economy.

To date I have yet to hear anything from Barack Hussein Obama's liberal swarm about ANY positive accomplishment's he has achieved in the last four years. This is just another attempt at wagging the dog.

@Anti-Alinsky -- At least we didn't end up with 25% unemployment, which is what happened when Herbert Hoover just kept steaming ahead in the same direction after the '29 crash. That's what McCain planned to do -- just 'more of same'. Not enough federal revenue? Borrowing too much money? Cut taxes again. It's never worked before, but we're certain it will this time. Yeah, right.

Randy, be careful, you are opening a huge can of worms. First, you are going back over 80 years, it's whole different economy now. Second, by March 1930 the stock market had bounced back to March 1929 levels. No, not the peak it hit just before the big crash, but a respectable level. What pushed the depression on was consumer confidence, or lack of it. We still had functional production facilities, we still had consumers to buy products. What we didn't have was the jobs for people to make products and then buy them.

Your comment about "Borrowing too much money? Cut taxes again" is ridiculous. The Republican's aren't just about cutting taxes, it's cutting the outlandish spending we are doing. The private sector is better at creating self-sustaining jobs than government. Government has to rely on taxes, which just sucks money out of the private sector.

And finally, cutting taxes HAS been proven to generate tax revenues. Don't believe me? Look at tax revenues, particularly during the 1980's and the Regan tax cuts. Tax revenue continued to climb!

This recession has only gotten worse under Barack Hussein Obama, and if he manages to get reelected, I know it will get even worse!

@The Anti-Alinsky, you are dead on. The magician waves his magic wand and diverts everyone's attention from AFGHANISTAN.....GUANTANAMO BAY.....IMMIGRATION.....

Yes Jason, and thanks to Barack Hussein Obama's ARRA funds, those 4.3 million jobs only cost us 109,777.78 per job. (wasn't it 4.5 million a few days ago? how did we lose 200,000 jobs?)

In actuality Jason, you are ignoring the TRUE unemployment estimates of around 15%. Once a person reaches they limit for unemployment benefits, they are dropped from the unemployment rolls and no longer counted. Our unemployment rate is still too high, and when Barack Hussein Obama starts taking more from the job creators, it is just going to get worse!

Was your buddy Bill Clinton's rapes included in that number?

Jason, your 1.2 million sounded unrealistic. I'm not sure where the CDC came up with those numbers. Researching was a little tough, since for some reason the FBI and DOJ seem more interested in percentages and trends. However, I did find a nice little article from MS magazine ( http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/05/02/25-facts-about-rape-in-america/ ) that puts the actual estimate at 300,000, which is still 300,000 than it should be.

There were 1.21 million abortions in 2008 (hey, there's your 1.2 million number) according to guttmacher.
( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.pdf ). So if you count all 300,000 rapes as unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion, you still have some 900,000 women using abortion as a solution for irresponsible behavior.

And regardless of the anti-life (abortion) issue, our biggest problem in this country is the stagnant economy and getting quality leadership in the Whitehouse, Senate and House that will do something to create jobs and get the economy moving again.

@Joana -- Do you seriously think the Romney/Ryan ticket will preserve your Social Security/Medicare and reduce your cost of living?