Video: Grayson taken to the woodshed by … MSNBC?

posted at 3:42 pm on September 28, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

We criticize MSNBC enough for its naked advocacy on behalf of the Democrats and Barack Obama, so in all fairness, we should note that they do have limits … and Alan Grayson apparently found them. Contessa Brewer engages Grayson on his disgraceful, dishonest “Taliban Dan” smear and — to her credit — refuses to let him off the hook for it. At one point, Grayson accuses Brewer of distracting attention from women’s issues, but Brewer fires back and tells Grayson that he approved the ad and its own off-message smears and out-of-context quotes. If Grayson was serious about the issues, Brewer asks, why not just stick to the issues rather than issue an ad rated “false” by Factcheck?

It’s worth noting that some of the allegations in the ad that Grayson repeats here are also challenged by Factcheck in its review of the ad:

As for Webster’s position on abortion, it’s true that he would prevent women from obtaining abortions even when the pregnancies result from rape, just as the ad says. And that goes for incest as well. He has been endorsed by the Republican National Coalition for Life, which states: “[W]e have listed the Republican Congressional Candidates whose responses to the RNC/Life Questionnaire indicate they are faithfully pro-life, and do not justify abortion for babies who are conceived through rape or incest, have a handicap, or a genetic defect.” When asked directly by a local television reporter whether he would support an abortion for a woman who became pregnant as a result of rape, Webster said “that’s not the issue we’re talking about” and evaded the question. Grayson’s campaign posted that clip on YouTube.

But the ad’s claim that Webster would “deny battered women … the right to divorce their abusers” is a distortion. The claim is based on legislation he sponsored in the Florida House of Representatives 20 years ago. The bill, HB 1585, would have allowed Florida residents the option of a “covenant marriage,” which would limit their divorce rights. Under the proposal, couples could dissolve a covenant marriage only in cases of adultery. But that would not have applied to anyone who did not choose to enter a covenant marriage. The legislation died in committee in June 1990. Webster has not advocated for covenant marriages as a congressional candidate.

If Grayson really wanted to air these issues, Brewer repeatedly points out towards the end of the interview, Grayson would have just stuck to the actual record.  Instead, Grayson equated Webster to terrorists who murder people and  “throw acid in girls’ faces,” as Brewer says.  That’s not an honest approach to women’s issues; it’s a man exploiting women’s issues in order to lie and smear his opponent.  Kudos to Brewer for knowing the difference and not retreating from it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Jimbo3 on September 28, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Quote the whole comment, Grayson Jr.

Ronnie on September 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Jimbo3 on September 28, 2010 at 4:33 PM

No, I meant that people who think babies borne of rape are inherently less worthy of life than babies borne out of marriage or whatever other non-rape situation.

Why, philosophically speaking is a baby borne of rape less worthy to live or less full of dignity? Do we birth babies of rape, then wait till they turn a certain age to tell them they’re of a lesser kind than other kids? Since they’re worth so much less, can we murder them and face lesser punishment?

I’d wager most Americans are for or against most things without too much deep thinking involved. There’s no good reason to suggest that babies of rape are somehow less worthy of life, and if you believe abortion is murder, suggesting murdering some and not others makes little sense.

TheBlueSite on September 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Hey, Ed, how about posting a link to Webster’s donate page in an update? Give him a little Delaware-style money bomb.

Ronnie on September 28, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Here is the link to Daniel Webster’s Donate page:
https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=8LI7KDO8RIOF

According to the FEC.gov website http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/HSRefreshCandList.do?category=disH&stateName=FL&congressId=08&election_yr=2010 Republican Daniel Webster could use some financial help to defeat Rep. Alan Grayson.

As of 8/4/10

Republican Daniel Webster’s Cash on Hand = $105,095

Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson’s Cash on Hand = $1,369,287

wren on September 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

What video are you referencing? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your “similar situation.”

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Never mind. Actually read the other post on this where it explains what the ad says.

Still, doesn’t seem completely new to me. I can’t think of anything but Michael Moore right now, but I feel certain this has been done with campaign ads before as well.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 4:45 PM

I’d wager most Americans are for or against most things without too much deep thinking involved. There’s no good reason to suggest that babies of rape are somehow less worthy of life, and if you believe abortion is murder, suggesting murdering some and not others makes little sense.

TheBlueSite on September 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

It isn’t the value of the baby, but the requirement of forcing a woman to birth a child of rape that is the problem. A lot of people just aren’t willing to make that demand.

sharrukin on September 28, 2010 at 4:45 PM

This Grayson guy, he isn’t just some left wing radical. I mean, look in his eyes. He’s nuts! Loco. One french-fry short of a happy meal. He’s only got one oar in the water. Not playing with a full deck. Has a screw loose. The cheese has slid off his cracker. One brick short of a load.

He’s frigging batsh!t insane!!

The people of his district better wake the hell up and I mean right now.

rollthedice on September 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM

It isn’t the value of the baby, but the requirement of forcing a woman to birth a child of rape that is the problem. A lot of people just aren’t willing to make that demand.

sharrukin on September 28, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Clearly it isn’t the value of the baby to those people. We live in a world where some parents will die for their children’s well being and others are only willing to do the opposite.

Ronnie on September 28, 2010 at 4:50 PM

This is what I never understood- If you think that abortion is murder, why would you make an exception for rape or incest? You’d be a monster to declare, “it’s okay to murder babies if they’re the result of rape or incest.”

That belief is probably rare among pro-life advocates. If they honestly believed abortion was literally murder, then the guy who gunned down George Tiller is a hero. A woman who gets an abortion should get the same sentence as someone who hires a hitman to kill a loved one. A more on-topic comparison: a woman who aborted her rapist’s baby would face more prison time than her rapist.

I think very few people who are against abortion would accept those circumstances. The truth must be that they see abortion as some lesser form of violence than cold-blooded murder.

I should also point out that the law already recognizes special circumstances where you can legally outright kill somebody. The legal view of murder is a little more nuanced than the ten commandments view.

RightOFLeft on September 28, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Quote the whole comment, Grayson Jr.

Ronnie on September 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM

I’m not going that far, but Jimbo, you are missing relevant quotes there. That said, Blue’s explanation is pretty much what I was thinking he was saying.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 4:52 PM

This is what I never understood- If you think that abortion is murder, why would you make an exception for rape or incest? You’d be a monster to declare, “it’s okay to murder babies if they’re the result of rape or incest.” It’s kind of akin to say that, somehow babies that are the result of rape or incest are somehow so worthless that they should be tossed into the garbage.

TheBlueSite on September 28, 2010 at 4:27 PM

I do believe abortion is murder and have wondered the same thing.

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Someone should take that interview and clip and splice it so that it appears that Grayson says “I raped women” – he does say “I” and he also says “raped women” twice. Its only fair.

pappy on September 28, 2010 at 4:55 PM

sharrukin on September 28, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Yeah, some people aren’t…but, I’d think if you honestly thought abortion is murder, to somehow accept murder in the case of rape seems pretty messed up. Sure, it’s a tough stance to tell a raped woman to carry a baby to term, but if it’s truly murder, to accept it is a mighty odd position to take. Discomfort (and whatever else you wanna toss into carrying a baby to term) VS murder. The two seem pretty easy to choose from if you ask me.

TheBlueSite on September 28, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Someone should take that interview and clip and splice it so that it appears that Grayson says “I raped women” – he does say “I” and he also says “raped women” twice. Its only fair.

pappy on September 28, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Make it taliban women and send it to every imam on the planet.

Ronnie on September 28, 2010 at 4:57 PM

That belief is probably rare among pro-life advocates. If they honestly believed abortion was literally murder, then the guy who gunned down George Tiller is a hero. A woman who gets an abortion should get the same sentence as someone who hires a hitman to kill a loved one. A more on-topic comparison: a woman who aborted her rapist’s baby would face more prison time than her rapist.

Why must that be the case? That’s now how people react to born babies who are killed by their mothers.

I should also point out that the law already recognizes special circumstances where you can legally outright kill somebody. The legal view of murder is a little more nuanced than the ten commandments view.

RightOFLeft on September 28, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Murder is a legal term for unlawfully killing someone. It’s not really any different from the ten commandment view.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Accepting a woman’s right to abort in a case like that isn’t necessarily preaching that those babies are worthless.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM

It is either accepting such babies as sub-human (therefore not murder) or the act as justified homicide.

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 4:59 PM

I can’t wait till he is unemployed.

Tim Burton on September 28, 2010 at 5:00 PM

He sucks hard ones with those lips and drools down his cleft chin.

afotia on September 28, 2010 at 5:01 PM

People make value judgments all the time that involve human life. We choose to keep driving cars despite the children who will die in car crashes. We allow alcohol despite the children who will die from some drunken idiot. We go to war knowing that innocent lives who have harmed no one will be snuffed out.

Those value judgments aren’t going to end simply because you call it abortion. Abortion as birth control, or for the sake of convenience is despicable. Demanding a raped woman carry to term is one of those value judgments. Most people are not willing to do that.

sharrukin on September 28, 2010 at 5:02 PM

This guy looks like one of the cartoonish characters from Warren Beatty’s Dick Tracy movie.
How can anyone vote for this buffoon?

lonestar1 on September 28, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM

If your opposition to abortion is that its the murder of a baby…which, I’d assume is the main opposition to it (what other issue would you have against it?)…then your argument would naturally be that all life is sacred, thus full of worth. If you say that it’s okay to murder SOME babies, then you’re not being consistent at all, for one, and two, you’re basically saying that some of these babies have lesser worth.

Would you murder a 5 year old borne of rape? Why not? Because he’s the same as any other 5 year old. No less worthy of life and dignity than anyone else. So, if your argument is the sacredness of life, well…

TheBlueSite on September 28, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Murder is a legal term for unlawfully killing someone. It’s not really any different from the ten commandment view.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 4:59 PM

I mean the definition of what constitutes actual murder, and the different classes that exist to apply penalties. If murder was on the books somewhere as “thou shalt not kill,” and nothing more, I’d agree with you.

RightOFLeft on September 28, 2010 at 5:04 PM

I do believe abortion is murder and have wondered the same thing.

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 4:53 PM

I think what sharrukin said is pretty accurate. The people who believe abortion is murder but still support it in those cases are likely just admitting that they wouldn’t force a woman to carry those children to term.

My personal position is that the public will never accept an outright ban on abortion. And since it isn’t legally classified as murder or necessarily believed by the entire population to be murder, it’s unwise to push for a complete ban on abortion.

Considering that rape and incest only account for less than 5% of all abortions, agreeing to this compromise would drastically reduce abortions in this country.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Man, Contessa Brewer is hot.

Too bad her name is too long by an “-essa.”

UltimateBob on September 28, 2010 at 5:06 PM

It is either accepting such babies as sub-human (therefore not murder) or the act as justified homicide.

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 4:59 PM

If your opposition to abortion is that its the murder of a baby…which, I’d assume is the main opposition to it (what other issue would you have against it?)…then your argument would naturally be that all life is sacred, thus full of worth. If you say that it’s okay to murder SOME babies, then you’re not being consistent at all, for one, and two, you’re basically saying that some of these babies have lesser worth.

Would you murder a 5 year old borne of rape? Why not? Because he’s the same as any other 5 year old. No less worthy of life and dignity than anyone else. So, if your argument is the sacredness of life, well…

TheBlueSite on September 28, 2010 at 5:03 PM

That’s assuming those answering the question are thinking beyond forcing a woman to carry her rapist’s child for nine months. I highly doubt any who believe abortion is murder are.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:09 PM

I think what sharrukin said is pretty accurate. The people who believe abortion is murder but still support it in those cases are likely just admitting that they wouldn’t force a woman to carry those children to term.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Is it murder or not?

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 5:09 PM

I mean the definition of what constitutes actual murder, and the different classes that exist to apply penalties. If murder was on the books somewhere as “thou shalt not kill,” and nothing more, I’d agree with you.

RightOFLeft on September 28, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Kill is a misinterpretation of the commandment. It is murder.

Which actually makes sense considering all the battles Israel fought after the commandments.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Is it murder or not?

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Of course it’s not. That’s a legal definition.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Even a naked squirrel gets laid once in a while!

Lonetown on September 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Why must that be the case? That’s now how people react to born babies who are killed by their mothers.

I think it is. I know that women who kill their babies typically get reduced sentences compared to other kinds of murder, but I think that’s because it’s a harder case to prove, and there are often mitigating circumstances, so prosecutors are more likely to go for lesser charges. I could be wrong about that.

RightOFLeft on September 28, 2010 at 5:13 PM

And Webster apparently supports a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution: “Daniel Webster would support legislation that the Constitutional protections of life and liberty extend to the unborn.”

Jimbo3 on September 28, 2010 at 4:38 PM

He can support it all he wants, doesn’t mean anything is going to change. Not really sure if you’re aware of what it takes to amend the Constitution.

ButterflyDragon on September 28, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Of course it’s not. That’s a legal definition.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM

So we can’t take the moral position that abortion is murder so long as abortion is legal?

That undermines the entire case against abortion, doesn’t it?

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Kill is a misinterpretation of the commandment. It is murder.

Which actually makes sense considering all the battles Israel fought after the commandments.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM

I’ll take your word for it. Honestly, if it gets pro-life Christians to see that even the bible allows for some jurisprudence on what should be considered murder, I’m happy to be corrected.

RightOFLeft on September 28, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Ronnie on September 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 4:52 PM

This is what I never understood- If you think that abortion is murder, why would you make an exception for rape or incest?

That’s the only sentence I didn’t quote. And I didn’t because I thought he made it clear in the rest of his comment.

Jimbo3 on September 28, 2010 at 5:20 PM

I think it is. I know that women who kill their babies typically get reduced sentences compared to other kinds of murder, but I think that’s because it’s a harder case to prove, and there are often mitigating circumstances, so prosecutors are more likely to go for lesser charges. I could be wrong about that.

RightOFLeft on September 28, 2010 at 5:13 PM

I’m talking about things like prom babies. People consider it murder, but there’s usually much more sympathy for the teen girls.

So we can’t take the moral position that abortion is murder so long as abortion is legal?

That undermines the entire case against abortion, doesn’t it?

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Semantically, no, but that doesn’t mean it undermines the case against abortion. Those calling it murder are merely saying that abortion is the termination of an innocent life. They’re not saying it’s the illegal termination of an innocent life.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:25 PM

I’ll take your word for it. Honestly, if it gets pro-life Christians to see that even the bible allows for some jurisprudence on what should be considered murder, I’m happy to be corrected.

RightOFLeft on September 28, 2010 at 5:17 PM

I would have assumed most pro-life Christians already knew this. It seems that many of them support legal executions.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:26 PM

That’s the only sentence I didn’t quote. And I didn’t because I thought he made it clear in the rest of his comment.

Jimbo3 on September 28, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Maybe. I didn’t think you were doing anything intentional, but it’s in that sentence that he clearly makes his case that if you believe abortion is murder, it is then hateful to believe murdering babies whose fathers are rapists is acceptable.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:29 PM

That’s the only sentence I didn’t quote. And I didn’t because I thought he made it clear in the rest of his comment.

Jimbo3 on September 28, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Apparently not clear enough to get a relevant statistic from you.

Ronnie on September 28, 2010 at 5:33 PM

When you’ve lost MSNBC….

dczombie on September 28, 2010 at 5:35 PM

I’m talking about things like prom babies. People consider it murder, but there’s usually much more sympathy for the teen girls.

Would it have been more accurate to say that pro-life advocates do see abortion as murder, but most of them recognize the existing legal basis for treating some murder differently than others? I was making a guess in my first post that, based on their behavior and other views, the pro-life side doesn’t really see abortion as murder. But either way it seems perfectly consistent philosophically to recognize an exception in the case of rape or incest. It seems more consistent than the alternative, actually.

RightOFLeft on September 28, 2010 at 5:35 PM

I didn’t think you were doing anything intentional

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:29 PM

I do. Who copies an entire comment and leaves out the one sentence that everyone keeps telling him to look at? You can’t do that kind of pruning accidentally.

Ronnie on September 28, 2010 at 5:37 PM

I would have assumed most pro-life Christians already knew this. It seems that many of them support legal executions.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Most do. I was sloppy and didn’t make clear that I’m talking about the people like Webster who don’t recognize exceptions. In practical terms, I’m not that worried about it because the obstacles to overturning Roe v. Wade are nearly insurmountable, but that might not always be the case.

RightOFLeft on September 28, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Would it have been more accurate to say that pro-life advocates do see abortion as murder, but most of them recognize the existing legal basis for treating some murder differently than others?

Possibly. Intent usually makes a difference in court.

I was making a guess in my first post that, based on their behavior and other views, the pro-life side doesn’t really see abortion as murder. But either way it seems perfectly consistent philosophically to recognize an exception in the case of rape or incest. It seems more consistent than the alternative, actually.

RightOFLeft on September 28, 2010 at 5:35 PM

I’d say they do and they don’t. I believe most consider it the taking of a life and that most equate that with murder, but when pressed, most pro-lifers won’t say they want the mother locked up for having one. Part of this could just be that many women have been told that at certain stages of development the fetus isn’t really a baby, thus pro-lifers put more responsibility on the doctors than the women.

I think it’s also just that most pro-lifers aren’t out to demonize anyone and just want abortion to end. Yelling at pregnant women and calling them murderers doesn’t save a life, and most know this.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:43 PM

I do. Who copies an entire comment and leaves out the one sentence that everyone keeps telling him to look at? You can’t do that kind of pruning accidentally.

Ronnie on September 28, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Considering he left this part in:

I’d say the liberals who preach that these are worthless babies are sort of the hateful ones if you see abortion as murder.

TheBlueSite on September 28, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Jimbo3 on September 28, 2010 at 4:41 PM

I’m accept his assertion that he didn’t believe he was changing the comment’s meaning.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Semantically, no, but that doesn’t mean it undermines the case against abortion. Those calling it murder are merely saying that abortion is the termination of an innocent life. They’re not saying it’s the illegal termination of an innocent life.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Ah. Just a matter of semantics?

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Kudos? She was begging him to back down. She was almost apologizing to him for asking the questions.

InterestedObserver on September 28, 2010 at 5:47 PM

This guy has to be in league with demons. A palpable sense of evil is about him.

paul1149 on September 28, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Most do. I was sloppy and didn’t make clear that I’m talking about the people like Webster who don’t recognize exceptions. In practical terms, I’m not that worried about it because the obstacles to overturning Roe v. Wade are nearly insurmountable, but that might not always be the case.

RightOFLeft on September 28, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Ah. I wasn’t exactly following you. I’ve long been unconvinced that abortion will ever be illegal in this country. I imagine those who believe abortion is murder but think it should be legal in cases of incest and rape feel the same way.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Ah. Just a matter of semantics?

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 5:45 PM

The word murder, yes. But considering there’s no word for legally and willfully taking an innocent life, it’s an understandable replacement.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Of course it’s not. That’s a legal definition.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM
So we can’t take the moral position that abortion is murder so long as abortion is legal?

That undermines the entire case against abortion, doesn’t it?

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Introduce the death penalty…

Is that murder? Not legally, no…

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Ah. Just a matter of semantics?

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 5:45 PM
The word murder, yes. But considering there’s no word for legally and willfully taking an innocent life, it’s an understandable replacement.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:51 PM

I have a 25 year old niece. If she was raped, I would not want her forced to keep the resulting baby. If she had willing sex and got pregnant, I would encourage her to keep the baby, and help her in any way I could.

The biology of the baby is no different, only the circumstances.

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 5:58 PM

The word murder, yes. But considering there’s no word for legally and willfully taking an innocent life, it’s an understandable replacement.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Then back to the original, fundamental questions, rephrased:

Is it any less killing an innocent to kill a child conceived by rape than to by similar means kill those conceived otherwise?

Is it more acceptable?

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 6:00 PM

I imagine those who believe abortion is murder but think it should be legal in cases of incest and rape feel the same way.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:49 PM

I just think there comes a point when you can’t ask that of someone.

If a person does something and becomes pregnant then they should accept the responsibility for that. Rape and incest are very different because we are talking about something that was done to the mother. I understand that the child didn’t do anything wrong, but neither did the mother.

sharrukin on September 28, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Is it any less killing an innocent to kill a child conceived by rape than to by similar means kill those conceived otherwise?

Is it more acceptable?

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 6:00 PM

What if were your wife? Your daughter? Your sister? Your niece?

You would be willing to force them to carry the innocent baby to term?

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 6:02 PM

I have a 25 year old niece. If she was raped, I would not want her forced to keep the resulting baby.

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 5:58 PM

What you would want is not the question. I’m asking about what’s consistent logically and morally.

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 6:03 PM

What you would want is not the question. I’m asking about what’s consistent logically and morally.

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 6:03 PM

I couldn’t morally force my niece to carry the baby of the animal that raped her.

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 6:05 PM

What you would want is not the question. I’m asking about what’s consistent logically and morally.

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Well as I said, what about cars, alcohol, and war?

We kill innocents all the time for what we see as the greater good. Why is refraining from such demands on another innocent also not a part of the greater good?

sharrukin on September 28, 2010 at 6:06 PM

What you would want is not the question. I’m asking about what’s consistent logically and morally.

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Could you morally force your daughter to carry the baby of the animal who raped her?

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 6:09 PM

I couldn’t morally force my niece to carry the baby of the animal that raped her.

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 6:05 PM

But it would be moral for her to kill such a baby? Because of the sins of the father?

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 6:09 PM

But it would be moral for her to kill such a baby? Because of the sins of the father?

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 6:09 PM

Who gives a damn.

What if it was your daughter? Are you going to force her to carry the baby?

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 6:11 PM

What if it was your daughter? Are you going to force her to carry the baby?

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 6:11 PM

I’d have some difficulty forcing her, for a number of reasons you know well.

I would encourage her to, since having accepted abortion as murder anything else would be inconsistent.

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 6:16 PM

I have a 25 year old niece. If she was raped, I would not want her forced to keep the resulting baby. If she had willing sex and got pregnant, I would encourage her to keep the baby, and help her in any way I could.

The biology of the baby is no different, only the circumstances.

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 5:58 PM

I understand that and can’t imagine forcing a woman to keep a piece of her rapist inside her for nine months. Though, I could never advise anyone to have an abortion unless carrying the child would kill her. Even then, I’d probably just keep my mouth shut.

Is it any less killing an innocent to kill a child conceived by rape than to by similar means kill those conceived otherwise?

Is it more acceptable?

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 6:00 PM

No, but until technological advancements allow a fetus to grow outside the womb it’s more complex than that. It always is, even when the woman isn’t raped. The choice isn’t to either let the fetus live or die. The choice is to either kill the fetus or let the fetus live inside you for nine months.

When you’ve invited the fetus into your body by choosing to engage in sexual activity, letting the fetus stay for another nine months is the very least a woman can do. When someone else “invites” the fetus in, it’s understandable that most would see that the woman has no such obligation.

For instance, I’ll borrow a pro-choice argument. Say I decide to allow doctors to fuse my body to that of someone I love deeply in order to share my organs and thus keep this person alive (since this is made up, let’s also assume our bodies only need to be fused for nine months before damaged organs can heal or something). Removing this person from my body will mean death for that individual, and since I chose to take on this responsibility, it would be inexcusable to change my mind later, simply because I find I don’t like being a siamese twin.

But if, however, I am drugged and kidnapped so that someone else can fuse my body with his loved one (who presumably is innocent in this and has no prior knowledge of this plan), against my will, it doesn’t change the fact that removing this person will mean that person will die. I didn’t choose to be fused with someone, but once in that position, my choice is to either let that person live or to force that person to die. It doesn’t make it any less the termination of an innocent life, but people are far more likely to view my actions as acceptable in the second scenario.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 6:20 PM

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 6:16 PM

And if she chose otherwise? Would you judge her a murderess? Would you ban her from your life?

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 6:20 PM

I understand that and can’t imagine forcing a woman to keep a piece of her rapist inside her for nine months. Though, I could never advise anyone to have an abortion unless carrying the child would kill her. Even then, I’d probably just keep my mouth shut.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 5:43 PM

This stand I can understand and respect.

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Would you judge her a murderess? Would you ban her from your life?

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Yes. No.

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 6:24 PM

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 6:16 PM

I could never force any rape victim to carry the baby to term. If I was asked my opinion, I would ask her to only consider her emotional ability to do so.

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Why is refraining from such demands on another innocent also not a part of the greater good?

sharrukin on September 28, 2010 at 6:06 PM

That’s the question though, isn’t it? Is terminating a pregnancy that results from rape the greater good?

There’s not much I would ask of a rape victim. Legally, I don’t believe I want rape victims forced to carry their rapist’s child to term. But depending on my relationship to the woman, I would offer all the help I could, including raising the child.

Not all rape victims who get pregnant have abortions. There are many stories of women who not only gave birth but raised the child as well and are more than glad that they did.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 6:28 PM

If I was asked my opinion, I would ask her to only consider her emotional ability to do so.

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Ah. So emotion is what determines what’s murder and what’s not?

I guess that’s right.

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 6:29 PM

DarkCurrent on September 28, 2010 at 6:24 PM

I don’t imagine you’d ever answer yes to that second question.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 6:29 PM

This stand I can understand and respect.

ladyingray on September 28, 2010 at 6:23 PM

I’m the same when I hear about an abortion after the fact. I’m heartbroken and wish I could have done something, but once it’s over, I’m not going to beat up on a woman who’s already beating up on herself. I can’t lie either and say she did nothing wrong, so I just listen and honestly say I’m sorry.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Why, philosophically speaking is a baby borne of rape less worthy to live or less full of dignity?

TheBlueSite on September 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Philosophically speaking, it’s not a baby. At the time of a potential abortion, it’s human, probably a human being and a fetus, but not necessarily a baby. The term baby implies an assignment of person-hood. The in vitro point of development in which the creator given rights associated with a person are recognized by society is determined by society. Single cell organisms defined by their DNA as human beings don’t necessarily have rights. People have rights.

elfman on September 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM

One thing for sure you are arguing about a red herring. This is such a rare situation.

CWforFreedom on September 28, 2010 at 7:15 PM

elfman on September 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM

You keep spinning it. Sleep well.

CWforFreedom on September 28, 2010 at 7:16 PM

Me thinks Contessa might be a tad worried about her job as well here? I mean…if they let Zuckerman go, and he was the head honcho….what’s a lowly anchor’s chances of hanging on right now?

capejasmine on September 28, 2010 at 7:19 PM

You keep spinning it. Sleep well.

CWforFreedom on September 28, 2010 at 7:16 PM

You too.

elfman on September 28, 2010 at 7:20 PM

I made my $50.00 donation from Louisiana..

A creep like Grayson needs to go join Chavez..

Panentheist on September 28, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Shouldn’t the ready availability of the morning-after pill eliminate the rape exception? Or is the rape exception just a lever the left uses to keep the door open, much like the nonsense ‘health of the mother’ exception?

slickwillie2001 on September 28, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Alan Grayson is the face and voice of the democrat party.
They are experts in character assassinations. Remember what they did to George Allen of Va. You know that it is really bad when MSNBC takes them to task. The democrat party if full of Alan Grayson types.

flintstone on September 28, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Would Grayson be considered the epitome of a genuine phony?

midlander on September 28, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Dems are in full panic mode. They are pulling out and dusting off the old arguments and throwing mud, hoping something will stick. Why can’t the GOP make an add with marionettes parroting phrases like “They are going to ship your job overseas”.Or “They are friends of Big Business”. Or myriad other phrases that you hear out of the DNC playbook. BTW- didn’t Chelsea Clinton marry one of those “evil” investment bankers and spend millions for the ceremony? Who’s the party of big money?

protonspinner on September 28, 2010 at 7:54 PM

I agree, make Grayson the face of the Democratic Party. The Dems have been trying to demonize the tea party over a few bad apples, and then they have been trying to ridicule the GOP over O’Donnell.

Well that sword can cut both ways.

firepilot on September 28, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Good heavens, Grayson is being attacked by Contessa Brewer from the right for lying in a political ad? Anyone know where this race stands in the polls?

Jaibones on September 28, 2010 at 8:02 PM

This is such a rare situation.

CWforFreedom on September 28, 2010 at 7:15 PM

It’s certainly rare for a rape to even result in a pregnancy, but it does happen.

Shouldn’t the ready availability of the morning-after pill eliminate the rape exception? Or is the rape exception just a lever the left uses to keep the door open, much like the nonsense ‘health of the mother’ exception?

slickwillie2001 on September 28, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Obviously not, considering many women still get pregnant from rape. The Morning After Pill isn’t 100%, and only gets worse if the woman waits to take it. Considering rape also includes drugging someone, it’s clear that not all rape victims even know they’ve been raped.

Furthermore, some struggle to come to terms with the situation and can’t think clearly enough to take that pill.

It is very, very rare, less than 5% of all abortions, but it does happen. This isn’t a scenario made up by pro-choicers.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 8:07 PM

“Why, philosophically speaking is a baby borne of rape less worthy to live or less full of dignity”

That’s not the issue. If such babies developed out in the ether, that would be one thing, but a woman’s body has been hijacked and subjected to what was once universally referred to as the pain and peril of childbirth (and pregnancy, and post-partum health complications).

A woman has a right to mitigate the cost to HER person.

Speaking only for myself, if I were concerned about my future marriagability I would not permit my body to be made subject to even the most benign destruction pregnancy can bring – a ruined figure ( stretching, tearing, breakdown of skin on the stomach and thighs, melasma, and so forth), let alone the devastating consequences possible – for a few examples – exacerbation of auto-immune disease or diabetes or preeclampsia or post partum psychosis), not for a rapists child.

But if I were married I have my husbands children and my husband to consider. My uterus is not for the taking of some other man’s progeny, nor my body, or my ability to take care of my family: to labor at home or to work for income…

Not for a rapist’s child. I would NEVER allow my body to given to benefit the genetic triumph of a rapist. The rapist is a diseased person with a diseased mind and spirit. He probably has a low IQ or genetic or congenital brain damage. He will not be allowed to take my body to reproduce.

But the real issue is that pregancy can be difficult and dangerous; this is the legal basis of any induced abortion, and women have a perfect right, for example, to delay ovulation with “plan B” type medication, and if that doesn’t work, to end the pregnancy as soon as may be.

SarahW on September 28, 2010 at 8:14 PM

The MSNBC interview seems to confirm that Alan Grayson is filth,. But we already knew that…

IntheNet on September 28, 2010 at 8:14 PM

Grayson is just a FLW…………Filthy Lying Wretch!!!!

PappyD61 on September 28, 2010 at 8:33 PM

he has a face ya just wanna punch…

equanimous on September 28, 2010 at 8:41 PM

He’s frigging batsh!t insane!!

rollthedice on September 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM

No, he is just a liar. And evader.

AshleyTKing on September 28, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Alan Grayson has learned well from the GOP playbook. The only thing remarkable about the ad is that a Democrat concocted it.

bifidis on September 28, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Alan Grayson has learned well from the GOP playbook. The only thing remarkable about the ad is that a Democrat concocted it.

bifidis on September 28, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Is that the best you can do?

Look, HotAir isn’t that small of a website and we sure as hell deserve a better class of trolling than this.

Put some effort into it.

sharrukin on September 28, 2010 at 10:03 PM

“Why, philosophically speaking is a baby borne of rape less worthy to live or less full of dignity”

That’s not the issue. If such babies developed out in the ether, that would be one thing, but a woman’s body has been hijacked and subjected to what was once universally referred to as the pain and peril of childbirth (and pregnancy, and post-partum health complications).

A woman has a right to mitigate the cost to HER person.

I agree, but at some point between fertilization and birth, a raped woman loses her right to protect threats to her health and welfare by killing another human being. The fetus did not hijack her body, it was created there by someone else who hijacked her body. At some point, that fetus is a person, and one person does not have the right to kill another person unless it presents an eminent threat to their life.

A single cell embryo is a human being. So is a brain dead adult on life support. But neither is recognized by society as a person with a right to life. Currently, a fetus is recognized at 20 weeks when brain waves begin to normalize to create a conscious. That’s also about the same time that the fetus becomes potentially biologically independent, able to live outside the mother.

elfman on September 28, 2010 at 10:11 PM

I understand that and can’t imagine forcing a woman to keep a piece of her rapist inside her for nine months. Though, I could never advise anyone to have an abortion unless carrying the child would kill her. Even then, I’d probably just keep my mouth shut.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Whoa!! The baby is a piece of her rapist?

The baby is another human being. Regardless of how bad the circumstances it was conceived in, it’s not part of the rapist.

The problem with the whole question is that there’s no possible good answer. The woman who was raped is already a victim. If she’s then forced to carry the baby to term, it seems like it’s making her a victim all over again.

But if you solve that problem the easy way, by killing the baby, you’ve made another victim entirely.

One central fact in such a case: the unborn baby did not rape the woman! Why should the baby pay the price? I’d sooner see the rapist get the death penalty.

There is no way to “fix” a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape. It’s unfair to her to have to carry the baby to term. It’s even worse to kill the baby so no one is inconvenienced. The only thing you can really do is deal with the situation as it exists at that point: for whatever reason, the pregnancy is there, and it can’t be stopped without taking an innocent life.

But all the talk about “exceptions in the case of rape or incest” has no real relevance to the discussion of abortion. The people justifying abortion justify it on much lesser grounds all the time. The people who recognize that it’s murder understand that it’s still murder even when the woman’s pregnancy was forced upon her.

There Goes The Neighborhood on September 28, 2010 at 11:07 PM

When the late Democratic Sen. Mo Udall ran for president in 1976, he commented after one primary loss, “The voters have spoken . . . the bastards.” That’s a great line, but a poor message for a political party.

Grayson should use the same line, if his district were smart.

Schadenfreude on September 28, 2010 at 11:25 PM

It is very, very rare, less than 5% of all abortions, but it does happen. This isn’t a scenario made up by pro-choicers.

Esthier on September 28, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Made up by pro-choicers, no. But it’s certainly exploited by pro-choicers, who use it primarily to undermine the moral argument against abortion by trying to name a horrible circumstance where you might accept it.

And BTW, I know where your sympathies lie on the issue. It would certainly break my heart to see a rape victim be put in such a circumstance. But I think we should be able to admit that there’s only one right decision in such a case. Even if we feel enough sympathy for the woman wronged to wish it were not so.

There Goes The Neighborhood on September 28, 2010 at 11:27 PM

Tessa gets no clicks ’til she appologizes for her hit piece “journalism” when covering the tea party.

She could disembowel Osama Bin Laden with her bare hands and I still won’t give that piece of trash a view.

SuperCool on September 28, 2010 at 11:30 PM

We have plenty of hotties on the right, Grayson, but if you wanna steer Contessa to the dark side, then by all means keep flappin’ your piehole.

Grayson, you’re a vile heap of excrement.

Metro on September 29, 2010 at 12:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3