No, Pat is being deliberately sensational and disingenuous.
The reason Huckabee's statement is being quote-unquote "demonized" is because it is a justification of rape. It is, in any sense, an attempt to qualify rape as right, reasonable, just etc. by virtue of its unmistakably positive externalities vis a vis human life. He attempts to square this with the unsupported notion that rape is wrong because of reasons - yes, these reasons are obvious to us, here, but let's assume for a second that they aren't, and note that he specifically avoids elucidating why rape is wrong - because to do so would undermine the pro-life argument. That is to say: if rape creates human life, and human life is beautiful and good, what possible thing could make this act of human-life-creation wrong? That it goes against the woman's choice? Now, since when does choice trump life in the pro-life line?
This is the fundamental quandary at work here.
This assumes that potential future existing life = life. That's a pretty big leap of logic.
It assumes that simply not having sex, or having safe sex, is the same thing as having sex, getting pregnant and killing the child. It assumes that, since neither is killing a person, it doesn't make any difference.
That's not the case, according to pro-life people at least.
A woman can simply not have sex, or she can have safe sex, and she's not doing anything wrong by choosing not to have a child (Catholics would argue that there is something wrong with birth control, but they still don't think its MURDEROUS and the rest of us don't generally have issue with it.)
Thus, there is no "Wrong" done by a woman not being raped in order to get her pregnant. In fact, it is only right that she will NOT be raped. There is no living child being criminalized by her not getting pregnant. (Not to mention the obvious issues.)
Once she is pregnant, at least according to pro-lifers, there is a life involved. Wrongly created, but it already exists, so you cannot at that point kill it or tell it it does not deserve to exist. THAT is what Huckabee was saying. That the child was a blessing, not the rape. But that's a nuance you might not be catching.
Now, I have no expectation for the raped woman to raise the child. I'm sure she can find someone somewhere who would adopt the child.
I'm going to make this as clear as I possibly can GhostWriter16.
He's saying a woman is obligated to act as an incubator for a rapist. That's what this is all about. I understand that you don't care about that, and that you think women are obligated to be walking eggs if they have the misfortune to be raped.
Subtext: Most decent women aren't raped anyhow. "Shouldn'ta been a'wearin' that dress."
If I had a daughter who was raped and the Republican thugs forced her to carry the baby I would be filled with an indescribably murderous rage.
But, none of that matters. You are intent on blessing me with the right to freely follow whatever moral code is all the rage amongst old white dudes. The farcical conservative definition of "Freedom" at its finest.
That's really not how I feel. I feel that the fetus' right to life trumps the woman's right to... anything else other than her own life.
Its not that "I don't carre" its that I think the fetus right to life trumps.
Oh, and that "Subtext" is absurd. Has nothing to do with the discussion. I think anyone who says anything like "She was asking for it" should be beyond ashamed. There may be some people who think that, but the vast majority of us are simply concerned with the existance of human life.
We have been over this many times before on this forum. Only those who make exceptions for cases of rape or incest are treating carrying baby as punishment. To those who actually consider a fetus a life worth protecting and consider abortion to be murder, the circumstances that led to the pregnancy are completely irrelevant.
Thank You
Or, you know, the woman who was raped considers carrying the baby to be a punishment.
That's not what its about though. It has nothing to do with the rape, it has everything to do with whether or not those of you who are bashing Huckabee are proposing murder.
Why didn't you say so? Here, this version is neither new nor international:
So you are saying that Joseph being married to Mary never had sex, What sort of marriage is that?
To be fair, back then every woman practically had to be "Married" for support. For whatever reason, Mary remained a virgin in marriage.
My question is... why? Even if you hold to the whole immaculate conception thing (Which I don't) why on earth is it sinful or even close to it for a woman have sex with her own husband?
I think its part of the whole Catholic view that marriage is somehow inferior to celibacy, which I personally find absurd.
