The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: libertybele on August 08, 2016, 02:12:15 am
-
Marco Rubio: No abortions for Zika-infected women
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio does not believe a pregnant woman with the Zika virus should be able to get an abortion despite concerns about microcephaly and birth defects resulting from the virus, he said Saturday.
"I understand a lot of people disagree with my view - but I believe that all human life is worthy of protection of our laws," the senator and former 2016 hopeful said in an interview with Politico. "And when you present it in the context of Zika or any prenatal condition, it's a difficult question and a hard one. But if I'm going to err, I'm going to err on the side of life."
Florida, Rubio's home state, has been hardest hit in America thus far by the mosquito-borne disease that is known to cause severe microcephaly and other birth defects. It's also one of the first places where the virus has been transmitted locally, with 16 known cases in the Miami area. More than 1,800 cases have been reported in the U.S. thus far, largely from travel to foreign countries where the virus is prevalent.
Rubio acknowledged that Zika does pose a significant risk of birth defects, but said that does not affect his position on abortion.
"Obviously, microcephaly is a terrible prenatal condition that kids are born with. And when they are, it's a lifetime of difficulties," he said. "So I get it. I'm not pretending to you that that's an easy question you asked me. But I'm pro-life. And I'm strongly pro-life. I believe all human life should be protected by our law, irrespective of the circumstances or condition of that life."
Rubio's comments about Zika and abortion are consistent with his past positions on the issue: the Florida pol said during his presidential campaign that he opposes abortion even in the case of rape or incest. As for Zika, Rubio has voted for funding to combat the virus in Congress and was the first Republican to co-sponsor President Obama's proposed $1.9 billion Zika legislation...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marco-rubio-no-abortions-for-zika-infected-women/
-
He's not wrong. It's a slippery slope.
-
That is a decision that should be left to God, the doctor, and the woman involved.
Now let the flaming begin.
-
I'll give him credit for staying pro-life, but I sure would hate to have one of my female relatives or friends have to go through such a terrible tribulation. God bless and have mercy on them all.
-
I'll give him credit for staying pro-life, but I sure would hate to have one of my female relatives or friends have to go through such a terrible tribulation. God bless and have mercy on them all.
Marco Rubio just went up a notch in my book I did not expect to agree with him on much...
-
That is a decision that should be left to God, the doctor, and the woman involved.
Now let the flaming begin.
Not flaming, just bringing up a discussion:
Last summer I was told I had uterin sarcoma based on a lymph node removed from my groin. The gyn onc insisted on a complete hysterectomy and 12 months of chemo. Because my cousin, most importantly my guardian angel, is a pathologist at Memorial-Sloan Kettering I questioned the results. Again, it's only because of her that I knew to question them. Seven months later, yes seven, I received my actual diagnosis. It wasn't a lymph node removed it was the primary. It wasn't uterine sarcoma it was epithelial. I didn't need chemo I simply needed a radical resection of the original biopsy.
Doctors are wrong. Before my radical resection a doc wanted to open me up abdomen to mid thigh and remove all lymph nodes reachable. I fired him like I did the hysterectomy doc. FYI, the docs are all world class b/c my cancer was literally one of a kind.
I wouldn't want a doc's opinion on my unborn. I say that as a moomy of three eight and under ^-^
-
Why on earth did he feel the need to go here? Just stupid to be sucked in to this kind of argument.
-
Microcephaly is not a death sentence. Although disabled is some ways, some have grown up with it to have fulfilling lives.
-
Microcephaly is not a death sentence. Although disabled is some ways, some have grown up with it to have fulfilling lives.
I admit, the only thing I know about is the new to me news reports.
All brought on by the Zima outbreak, to which I 've only seen babies on the news.
Is there a recovery rate that, admittedly, I am not aware of?
-
He's not wrong. It's a slippery slope.
It's the consistent pro-life position and I strongly agree with him.
Good for you, Marco.
-
I'm sure the eugenics love the Zika virus.
-
I admit, the only thing I know about is the new to me news reports.
All brought on by the Zima outbreak, to which I 've only seen babies on the news.
Is there a recovery rate that, admittedly, I am not aware of?
It isn't something you recover from, it is a birth defect where the head grows slower and thus restricts brain growth so it usually results in mental retardation. It isn't very common of a disorder. Survival is based on how capable of a support network the child has, like any mental disability, as they have challenges growing and taking care of themselves. Akin to Down Syndrome in that, with the right support network, someone with this condition can live a fulfilling life. It is obviously much more difficult in a third world country.
-
It isn't something you recover from, it is a birth defect where the head grows slower and thus restricts brain growth so it usually results in mental retardation. It isn't very common of a disorder. Survival is based on how capable of a support network the child has, like any mental disability, as they have challenges growing and taking care of themselves. Akin to Down Syndrome in that, with the right support network, someone with this condition can live a fulfilling life. It is obviously much more difficult in a third world country.
Thanks for the info. I admit, that I am ignorant of the complete facts here.
-
Much like every other excuse for abortion, Zika is a really lame excuse. The real solution is to roll back several liberal policies involving everything from chemical mosquito control to immigration control.
-
baby killing is immoral, period.
-
Not flaming, just bringing up a discussion:
Last summer I was told I had uterin sarcoma based on a lymph node removed from my groin. The gyn onc insisted on a complete hysterectomy and 12 months of chemo. Because my cousin, most importantly my guardian angel, is a pathologist at Memorial-Sloan Kettering I questioned the results. Again, it's only because of her that I knew to question them. Seven months later, yes seven, I received my actual diagnosis. It wasn't a lymph node removed it was the primary. It wasn't uterine sarcoma it was epithelial. I didn't need chemo I simply needed a radical resection of the original biopsy.
Doctors are wrong. Before my radical resection a doc wanted to open me up abdomen to mid thigh and remove all lymph nodes reachable. I fired him like I did the hysterectomy doc. FYI, the docs are all world class b/c my cancer was literally one of a kind.
I wouldn't want a doc's opinion on my unborn. I say that as a moomy of three eight and under ^-^
I would say, first, that the situations are not really comparable, but I would also say that every woman should have the same approach you have to all procedures, and that they, not the doctor or anyone else, is in charge of making the decision. Which is precisely what I was getting at.
-
baby killing is immoral, period.
I can agree.
:beer:
-
baby killing is immoral, period.
Maybe so, but it isn't Caesar's (civil government's) place to enforce morality. Divorce is immoral - let no man put asunder - but not only is it not illegal under most civil law, it is facilitated in many ways, such as no-fault divorce that requires nothing more than a simple filing with a court, and which can be granted even if the other spouse doesn't participate, so long as the filing spouse has lived in the state for a certain period of time. The same goes for working on the sabbath. We used to have all manner of so-called blue laws that enforced that religious rule; now, there are only a few remnants here and there.
Unless there is something that causes a breach of Caesar's peace, then the immorality of something is generally not a fit subject for Caesar's law. That is for God's law, to be handled by God, not by man.
-
That is a decision that should be left to God, the doctor, and the woman involved.
Now let the flaming begin.
God's already spoken on the matter so no need to assuage the guilt-ridden conscience of the doctor and the women by throwing Him into the mix.
-
Why on earth did he feel the need to go here? Just stupid to be sucked in to this kind of argument.
In case you've been away for the last 40 some odd years there is a movement in this country to contracept our sex, abort what gets through that gauntlet, then if born to turn them into homosexuals so they can grow up to kill the elderly. Anti-human sentiment is 'woven into our fabric' as one poster on another thread said. I respect Rubio for feeling the need to go there. Because it's all around us. Everyday. It's why ultimately the United States does not deserve to live.
And for those of you who bitch and moan about, "going there" and "unforced errors" and all that political crap are a big part of the problem. You are all cowards.
-
Maybe so, but it isn't Caesar's (civil government's) place to enforce morality. Divorce is immoral - let no man put asunder - but not only is it not illegal under most civil law, it is facilitated in many ways, such as no-fault divorce that requires nothing more than a simple filing with a court, and which can be granted even if the other spouse doesn't participate, so long as the filing spouse has lived in the state for a certain period of time. The same goes for working on the sabbath. We used to have all manner of so-called blue laws that enforced that religious rule; now, there are only a few remnants here and there.
Unless there is something that causes a breach of Caesar's peace, then the immorality of something is generally not a fit subject for Caesar's law. That is for God's law, to be handled by God, not by man.
What a series of insidious lies. That's the whole purpose of government to enforce the moral codes of a society. Don't try to hide behind legalisms to support the murder of unborn children and then act as if violence against the unborn doesn't, 'breach Caesar's peace'. What a pathological state of mind.
-
What a series of insidious lies. That's the whole purpose of government to enforce the moral codes of a society. Don't try to hide behind legalisms to support the murder of unborn children and then act as if violence against the unborn doesn't, 'breach Caesar's peace'. What a pathological state of mind.
I respectfully disagree. And that was the whole point of the separation between Church and State in the Constitution. I'm not hiding behind anything. If morality - Christian morality in particular - is to be enforced by the civil government, then everything, including divorce, working on the sabbath, taking the Lord's name in vain, must all be enforced. People complain when some muslims demand that blasphemy against Muhammed be prosecuted, and then turn around and make the same demands for their own religion.
-
What a series of insidious lies. That's the whole purpose of government to enforce the moral codes of a society. Don't try to hide behind legalisms to support the murder of unborn children and then act as if violence against the unborn doesn't, 'breach Caesar's peace'. What a pathological state of mind.
What do you propose as a solution?
-
Marco Rubio just went up a notch in my book I did not expect to agree with him on much...
Oh I don't think he's going to be going off course on conservative issues for a long time. He'll run for pres.again and this time will have his conservative bona fides sewn up.
-
I respectfully disagree. And that was the whole point of the separation between Church and State in the Constitution. I'm not hiding behind anything. If morality - Christian morality in particular - is to be enforced by the civil government, then everything, including divorce, working on the sabbath, taking the Lord's name in vain, must all be enforced. People complain when some muslims demand that blasphemy against Muhammed be prosecuted, and then turn around and make the same demands for their own religion.
There is no separation of church and state in the constitution.
-
He is on the wrong side of militant pro-choice. The baby must be perfect or the baby is an error. Imperfect babies must be destroyed. Zika babies are like chunks of concrete lobbed from an overpass. They must be avoided at all costs.
-
There is no separation of church and state in the constitution.
I will ask of you, as I have asked of The Jackal, what is the solution?
I am pro-life, even anti death penalty ( another subject for another day).
What is the solution?
-
What do you propose as a solution?
My solution is governmental and societal failure followed by civil war.
-
My solution is governmental and societal failure followed by civil war.
So, your solution is more killing to stop the killing that is going on now?
Seems sort of.... Anti-productive (to be kind).
Why and how would this be a positive solution?
-
Armchair warriors calling for a civil war.
:facepalm2:
Armchair? That's presumptuous. He could be sitting on a Davenport.
-
Armchair? That's presumptuous. He could be sitting on a Davenport.
Or a hammock.
-
So, your solution is more killing to stop the killing that is going on now?
Seems sort of.... Anti-productive (to be kind).
Why and how would this be a positive solution?
If it came to that, then yes. I always asked this of Trump supporters: what good is a wall if its purpose is to only protect the evil that is contained within those walls? What good is a presidential election when it is now considered an 'under card bout' to the main event of confirming SCOTUS justices, who have become the real power in America? There is this tendency to believe that things will be better if only our side had the levers of power. But what good is that when the fundamental structures are broken?
There is no election, no piece of legislation, no SCOTUS ruling that will fix the sickness that the United States has infected itself with. Sure we can hope and pray that abortion will die a natural death, like some hoped slavery would. But history does not bear this out. So the only positive solution is to see the American project in its current form destroyed. If it rises from the ashes, learns from its mistakes and becomes a society and government that respects life then all the better. If not, then it will deserve its fate.
-
If it came to that, then yes. I always asked this of Trump supporters: what good is a wall if its purpose is to only protect the evil that is contained within those walls? What good is a presidential election when it is now considered an 'under card bout' to the main event of confirming SCOTUS justices, who have become the real power in America? There is this tendency to believe that things will be better if only our side had the levers of power. But what good is that when the fundamental structures are broken?
There is no election, no piece of legislation, no SCOTUS ruling that will fix the sickness that the United States has infected itself with. Sure we can hope and pray that abortion will die a natural death, like some hoped slavery would. But history does not bear this out. So the only positive solution is to see the American project in its current form destroyed. If it rises from the ashes, learns from its mistakes and becomes a society and government that respects life then all the better. If not, then it will deserve its fate.
.
So after reading what you have written. You are okay to kill to stop others from being killed, am I correct?
-
.
So after reading what you have written. You are okay to kill to stop others from being killed, am I correct?
Why don't you re-read what you wrote. Is there something inherently wrong with that? I argue from the point of inevitability. See my response up thread about this culture of death and tell me I'm wrong. If you have a culture that has no respect for life then that's what you're going to get.
-
Why don't you re-read what you wrote. Is there something inherently wrong with that? I argue from the point of inevitability. See my response up thread about this culture of death and tell me I'm wrong. If you have a culture that has no respect for life then that's what you're going to get.
And yet, I asked you a direct question, are you okay to kill to stop killing? Are you willing to be a participant in the"Culture of Death"?
I would assume so, based on your answer, so where does that leave you?
I would say, you are a very late term abortionist.
-
And yet, I asked you a direct question, are you okay to kill to stop killing? Are you willing to be a participant in the"Culture of Death"?
I would assume so, based on your answer, so where does that leave you?
I would say, you are a very late term abortionist.
You're entitled to your opinion of course. But then I've noticed you can't actually rebut anything I've said. You want to play the liberal troll but ultimately you have no answers because everything I've described about this culture and the way the government currently operates is 100% true. A true pro-life conservative (even one who opposes the death penalty) would have attempted to make the case for a culture that increasingly respects life. But you can't. Because you know that's not true. So let me ask you, what's the end game? How does a nation survive that adopts a culture of death? Let's hear your argument. My argument is simple. All I have to do is point to Europe. Is it not a continent that is in a state of degradation heading towards civil strife?
-
And yet, I asked you a direct question, are you okay to kill to stop killing? Are you willing to be a participant in the"Culture of Death"?
I would assume so, based on your answer, so where does that leave you?
I would say, you are a very late term abortionist.
Abortion is always wrong. Period
But there are legitimate reasons to cause the death of an adult human being. In regards to the death penalty, if God was against it, why did He pay it on our behalf? He could have just said the death penalty is immoral or wrong and saved Himself a lot of grief
There are also just wars. It is not a crime against God or man to fight such. There is a difference between murder and killing. Abortion is murder and is prohibited by God. Killing is unfortunate but at times just and even necessary.
-
Maybe so, but it isn't Caesar's (civil government's) place to enforce morality. Divorce is immoral - let no man put asunder - but not only is it not illegal under most civil law, it is facilitated in many ways, such as no-fault divorce that requires nothing more than a simple filing with a court, and which can be granted even if the other spouse doesn't participate, so long as the filing spouse has lived in the state for a certain period of time. The same goes for working on the sabbath. We used to have all manner of so-called blue laws that enforced that religious rule; now, there are only a few remnants here and there.
Unless there is something that causes a breach of Caesar's peace, then the immorality of something is generally not a fit subject for Caesar's law. That is for God's law, to be handled by God, not by man.
Forget the moral aspect: What about the unborn's rights that are being violated? The right to due process, the right to free speech, the right to be free from discrimination based, etc.
-
He is on the wrong side of militant pro-choice. The baby must be perfect or the baby is an error. Imperfect babies must be destroyed. Zika babies are like chunks of concrete lobbed from an overpass. They must be avoided at all costs.
It always amazes me how bass ackwards libs are. They scream for tolerance and acceptance of their beliefs and lifestyles, yet are so quick to slaughter the innocent for being imperfect. If somebody called Trigglypuff imperfect she would immediately scream about how her body doesn't need to conform to anybody else's definition of perfection. Zika baba? Abort.
-
You're entitled to your opinion of course. But then I've noticed you can't actually rebut anything I've said. You want to play the liberal troll but ultimately you have no answers because everything I've described about this culture and the way the government currently operates is 100% true. A true pro-life conservative (even one who opposes the death penalty) would have attempted to make the case for a culture that increasingly respects life. But you can't. Because you know that's not true. So let me ask you, what's the end game? How does a nation survive that adopts a culture of death? Let's hear your argument. My argument is simple. All I have to do is point to Europe. Is it not a continent that is in a state of degradation heading towards civil strife?
I do not disagree with you, except for one fine point.
All life taken at the hands of another human being is wrong, death penalty included.
I agree that a society that allows this is already on the road to ruin.
The only justification I can think of is self defense.
Liberal troll. I am not one.
frankly, I do not even know what that means, although I see the word Troll thrown around.
-
I do not disagree with you, except for one fine point.
All life taken at the hands of another human being is wrong, death penalty included.
I agree that a society that allows this is already on the road to ruin.
The only justification I can think of is self defense.
Liberal troll. I am not one.
frankly, I do not even know what that means, although I see the word Troll thrown around.
Taking the life of another is "wrong" you say....by what standards? I mean, who says it's wrong? (Stay with me here, I do have a point).
-
Taking the life of another is "wrong" you say....by what standards? I mean, who says it's wrong? (Stay with me here, I do have a point).
Okay, I'll bite, what do you mean?
-
Okay, I'll bite, what do you mean?
You say it's wrong (killing).... I say where do you get your set of values from?
-
You say it's wrong (killing).... I say where do you get your set of values from?
I'd have to say the bible and my parents.
-
I'd have to say the bible and my parents.
Ok then, like most of us.
Next question is how can the death penalty by govt be wrong, when God himself is the one who established it?
-
I will ask of you, as I have asked of The Jackal, what is the solution?
I am pro-life, even anti death penalty ( another subject for another day).
What is the solution?
Pardon my memory lapse here, but solution to what exactly?
-
Ok. Then like most of us.
Next question is how can the death penalty by govt be wrong, when God himself is the one who established it?
Good question, but I would have to go with Jesus and "love your enemy", which kind of overwrote the old testament Eye for an Eye, in my not-so-scholarly opinion.
-
Good question, but I would have to go with Jesus and "love your enemy", which kind of overwrote the old testament Eye for an Eye, in my not-so-scholarly opinion.
I'm not a scholar. However Jesus was talking to individuals there. Not nations or Governments.
-
I'm not a scholar. However Jesus was talking to individuals there. Not nations or Governments.
Okay, fair enough.
I don't really have a good answer, that I can back up with biblical or historical references, I admit that.
My only answer is a personal one, that I think it is wrong to take life except in self defense.
-
Okay, fair enough.
I don't really have a good answer, that I can back up with biblical or historical references, I admit that.
My only answer is a personal one, that I think it is wrong to take life except in self defense.
Haha. I wasn't trying to be argumentative. I taught Government for many years and that question came up many times, even from parents. I'm used to explaining it that's all. I still get a lot of questions from folks and that is one that people don't understand until it's explained.
Not that I won't also debate someone on the subject also if they want to argue about it. Hahhahaha!
-
Haha. I wasn't trying to be argumentative. I taught Government for many years and that question came up many times, even from parents. I'm used to explaining it that's all. I still get a lot of questions from folks and that is one that people don't understand until it's explained.
Not that I won't also debate someone on the subject also if they want to argue about it. Hahhahaha!
No problem, I take no offense, and it is a good argument, one that isn't easily solved.
Take war for example. I could make a case that it could be considered self defense on a grand scale, and there would be the moral argument to be made that it is still wrong.
No easy answers, that's for sure.
-
I wouldn't want a doc's opinion on my unborn. I say that as a moomy of three eight and under ^-^
Great post. Knowing the right questions to ask is vital.
-
Maybe so, but it isn't Caesar's (civil government's) place to enforce morality.
You can't possibly be serious. All laws "enforce morality" in one way or another.
What you're really saying is that governments choose to enforce, or not enforce, certain moral issues.