home
RSS
Conservative Christians rally around Akin in face of GOP criticism
Rep. Todd Akin has defied GOP pressure to get out of the U.S. Senate race in Missouri.
August 23rd, 2012
01:12 PM ET

Conservative Christians rally around Akin in face of GOP criticism

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

(CNN) – Even as the official Republican Party continues to try to derail Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin over his remarks about “legitimate rape,” a powerful force within the GOP has begun rallying to the candidate’s side: the party’s socially conservative base.

Powerful Christian activists in the GOP have begun pushing back against party leadership, alleging it has gone too far in trying to thwart Akin and that it is attempting to sideline issues that social conservatives care about, such as abortion.

The criticism is creating major tensions between the mainstream Republican Party and a key part of its base days before the GOP’s convention is set to open in Tampa, Florida.

“Following the pounding of Todd Akin by the GOP kings and lieutenants in the last 36 hours, I've come to the conclusion that the real issue is the soul of America,” wrote David Lane, an evangelical activist who’s influential in the Republican Party, in an e-mail to fellow activists Thursday morning.

Top Catholic to close GOP convention

“The swift knee-jerk reaction to throw Akin, a strong conservative pro-life, pro-family born again Christian under the bus by some in the Republican Party is shining the light on their actual agenda,” Lane continued.

“We haven't seen anything this vicious since some of the same operatives did this to (Sarah) Palin.”

While many conservative Christian groups have criticized Akin over his “legitimate rape” comment and for claiming that women’s bodies can prevent conception in such cases, the groups have also emphasized that they stand with Akin in opposing abortion, even in instances of rape.

Not all conservative Christian activists are taking Akin's side against the GOP.

"I think it splits the social conservative movement," says Richard Land, who heads public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention. "Some people say, 'Look he is our guy, we are going to stand with him.'

"And some people are saying the odds are this is a fatal blow at least in this election cycle," Land says. "For the good of the movement, for the good of the pro-life cause ... he needs to do what's best for the cause and throw himself on his shield."

Land, who was in Tampa on Thursday attending meetings around the convention, said he thinks Akin should drop out.

Many Republican leaders, from presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, also have called on Akin to get out of the race.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

The National Republican Senatorial Committee and the American Crossroads super PAC that backs GOP candidates both announced that they will stop spending money on the Missouri Senate race. Even tea party groups that have backed Akin in the past said he should step aside for the good of the party and the conservative cause.

The Republican National Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the social conservative criticisms of the party on Thursday.

Akin, who won a tough primary battle this month, has apologized for his comments but also defied pressure to get out of the election.

Republican officials have told CNN on condition of not being identified that the Akin controversy hurts on several fronts. It decreases the chances of capturing Missouri’s Senate seat, which is crucial to GOP hopes of winning control of the chamber, they said.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

And the brouhaha shifts the national discussion to divisive social issues that could repel swing voters rather than economic ones that could attract them in a climate of high unemployment and stumbling recovery, the GOP officials said.

Akin has bowed to Republican pressure to skip the Republican convention next week. But the Senate candidate was in Tampa on Wednesday night to meet with a powerful group of religious conservatives, according to a source familiar with the trip.

In a note to supporters Wednesday night, conservative Family Research Council President Tony Perkins heaped criticism on the GOP for abandoning Akin.

"Todd Akin has a long and distinguished record of defending women, children, and families and unlike the GOP establishment, I refuse to throw him under the bus over one inarticulate comment for which he has apologized,” wrote Perkins, who is in Tampa attending events leading up the convention.

“As for the GOP, it has no rational basis for deserting Akin when it has stood by moderate Republicans who've done worse,” Perkins continued. “Singling out Todd suggests a double standard, designed to drive out social conservatives.”

CNN’s Tom Cohen and Peter Hamby contributed to this report.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: 2012 Election • Abortion • Politics • Tea Party

soundoff (1,510 Responses)
  1. CBruce

    Hey government. If life *really* begins at conception, then why can't I claim the fetus as a dependant on my taxes until it's born?

    August 23, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Dave Jaipersaud

      Good point. So Mr. know-it-all Ryan why not. Answer that Republicans. Why can someone not claim a fetus on day one of conception as a dependent for tax purposes? Personally I think Paul Ryan is as dumb as a door nail. Republicans give him more credit than he deserves because the rest on them are even dumber.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • Dumbpolitics

      If the GOP win big in Nov. then I'm sure you will get that request. But they will rule out exemptions on any women folk in your family. We need to give more tax breaks to the 1%.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
  2. Facepalm28

    Haha, YES, right-wing nut jobs. Show us your ignorance! Proclaim it to all the nation! Support Akin and his idiocy, show us the true meaning of Republicanism, and drag your entire backwards party further into the extremist depths it desperately seeks to plumb.

    We'll wave at you from the White House.

    August 23, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
  3. rob

    And the Republican war on women (and gays, and blacks, and hispanics, and the poor, and the middle class, and atheists, and Muslims, and the environment, and ....) continues.

    August 23, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
  4. meatstacks

    At some point, reasonable, fiscal-Republicans must realize that they'll need to distance themselves from fundamentalist social-conservatives. Until then, Democrats will hold the white house.

    August 23, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • tacostand

      meatstacks... that's exactly it. I consider myself fiscally conservative but socially liberal. And If I'm going to fall on one side of the fence or the other, I'll go with the socially liberal side because of the crack pots like Akin and Bachmann. I'll vote Obama again. However, I would have strongly considered Jon Huntsman had he been able to stay in the race.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • AverageJoe76

      Once those republicans come out of hiding, mayb we can really get some issues resolved. Until then, we have a congress full of obstructionists idiots.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
  5. Captain Obvious

    The GOP is a perfect example of why abortion shouldn't just be legal, but mandatory.

    August 23, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
  6. clubschadenfreude

    well, good for them for "rallying" around a bigot who lies. Makes it much easier to know who the primitive screwheads are. I wonder, how must it feel to know that you have to tell intentional lies to get your way, to remain maliciously ignorant, to take the side of Satan, as it were? I do love to watch the hypocrisy.

    August 23, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • yogi

      And the scariest part is the GOP electorate, millions and millions of similar mindsets. Good Lord, only in America dumbness is so glorified.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
  7. barbarianofgor

    Should be clear the Republicans support this man all the way, therefore are just as guilty of his sentiment against women.

    Will ONE woman vote for him this election?
    Will ONE woman vote Republican?

    This is the real scandal.

    August 23, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
  8. tacostand

    Just when you think the GOP has gone 'all in' they still are able to pull yet another ace (or is it another joker?) from their sleeve. I'm more astonished every day about how crazy the GOP really is.

    August 23, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
  9. Daniel

    So the vicious are calling the vicious, vicious, how appropriate. I just enjoy it when they start feeding on each other. Perhaps there is justice in the universe.

    August 23, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
  10. Bill

    The religious zealot morons will be the death of the Republican party and ensure that there is no opposition to the Democrats. Not only will the Republicans fail to retake the Senate because of this alpha hotel Akin, they will also likely lose the White House. The Dems will successfully make the campaign about abortion and women's rights and divert attention from the economy. These fools have their heads so far up....they need a glass navel so they don't bump into walls.

    August 23, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
  11. God

    epar

    August 23, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
  12. Snow

    You know what the headline really means..

    "Conservative Christians rally around Ignorance even in face of GOP criticism"

    Are they really proud of this?

    August 23, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
  13. J.W

    I think that abortion is not a black and white issue. If I fathered a child I would never want it to be aborted, and I think it is horrible that anyone would have to make that decision. The fact is that sometimes abortion is the lesser of two evils.

    August 23, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • therealpeace2all

      @J.W.

      Not too bad, my friend.

      Peace...

      August 23, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Snow

      I agree completely with JW's assessment. Just because someone is pro-choice does not mean they get off killing the babies.. but like JW said, it sometimes is the lesser of the evils and to remove that choice completely is unethical.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • clubschadenfreude

      Not a bad sentiment, JW, but do you think your feelings should outweigh a woman's to the point she's forced to bear a child? Would you advocate that she be strapped to a table and fed via IV to make sure "your" child is never in any possible danger? Yes, that's an extreme case but you need to decide, as you said, what is the lesser of two evils?

      August 23, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Topher

      So since it is the "lesser of two evils," when exactly is it OK to kill an innocent life?

      August 23, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Huebert

      Topher

      It is never ok to take an innocent life, but I don't consider a fetus to be a life.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • duh..

      @Topher.. when is it OK to make a woman go through 9 months of continuous stress and mental turmoil when she does not want it? or is trying to forget the event that caused it?

      August 23, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • well..

      "innocent life"..

      isnt that bacon you had in breakfast once a life? wasn't that innocent? why did you kill it? not just kill, but cut it, shred it, mince it, and whatever not..

      see thats how stupid your argument also sounds.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Larry Pooface

      From a political organization who believes that the government should make choices for them, you would think they'd all be pro-choice.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • Topher

      You're saying a pig's life is as valuable as a human's and you say my argument is stupid?

      August 23, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Simran

      Why is a pig's life not as valuable as your's then Topher??? Please elaborate.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • Huebert

      Topher

      If you are postulating that life is sacred why wouldn't a pigs life be as valuable as a humans?

      August 23, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • Simran

      It is ironic when I think of it from the view that God created us. God made plants and mostly those poor things feed on sunlight, take some water. Some of course eat insects too. But then, he made herbivores that ate those plants, then came carnivores who ate the lower animals, and then of course, he made man, who thinks he owns the world and can eat whatever he wants – pigs, lamb, chicken, fish, whatever... Only objection is he cannot eat fellow humans.
      Why is it okay to eat the poor animal kids???

      August 23, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Topher

      Simran

      "Why is a pig's life not as valuable as your's then Topher??? Please elaborate."

      God has set humans above all other living creatures. He gave us dominion over them and even declared it OK for us to eat them. Even if you don't believe in God are you telling me a pig should have all the same rights humans have?

      August 23, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Simran

      Topher,
      The next time you eat a chicken, please remember it was somebody's baby!!!

      August 23, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The fact is that the male half of the equation can let their opinions and desires be known, but the choice is not and cannot be ours to make.
      We can argue the semantics and the ethics, but in a very real and practical sense it is the mother who has control. If she wishes to abort, nobody can stop her! Making abortions illegal will only make them more dangerous.
      Banning the practice simply drives it underground. Laws that restrict what one may do with their own body are never effective. All they do is assuage the self-righteousness of those who think they know what's best for everyone else.
      Just look at laws that prohibit drug use and prosti/tution.
      Ever notice how the people pushing for such laws to be passed never do it for their own benefit – it's never "I need this law to prevent ME from doing something" – nope – it's always a law for their neighbour "for their own good".

      August 23, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Simran

      Topher,
      Yes exactly that is what I tell you – pigs have the same right as humans. Every creation of God (if that is what u want to believe) should have equal right to live and survive. A god who says that man is superior was a delusional man (if that is what he said) and so are his followers.
      How can this be justice that it is okay to kill and eat the poor creature bcoz it cannot speak for itself? Just like the fetus cant speak for itself.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Simran

      If you show me a God who regards his/ her entire creation with the same love and compassion, and doesnot discriminate to say – it is okay to hurt this plant or animal etc etc... Well then, maybe I would want to believe in God too.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • Simran

      "God has set humans above all other living creatures. He gave us dominion over them and even declared it OK for us to eat them." – Please support this with fact as to where exactly did god come up with such a justification? (I would prefer if you use a source outside of your Bible – coz that simply doesn't mean anything).

      August 23, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Topher

      Simran

      There is clearly a higherarchy (sp?) to life. Man is above animals like animals are above plants.

      "If you show me a God who regards his/ her entire creation with the same love and compassion, and doesnot discriminate to say – it is okay to hurt this plant or animal etc etc... Well then, maybe I would want to believe in God too."

      Plants and animals do not have a conscience. Humans do. And humans are the ones who sin against God and the ones God came to earth to save. Humans are clearly more important than plants and animals. God obviously loves all of His creation. He not only made humans perfect, but all of creation was made perfect. When God declares something to be "good" you can believe that it is. But when man sinned, corruption entered the world. It not only affected man, but plants, animals and all of creation. All of this will be restored one day.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • Simran

      How do you know that animals and plants do not have a conscience? Did God come in your dreams to tell u so?
      Ants and bees are also social creatures and very hardworking too. Much better than humans I guess.
      Just bcoz u cant understand everything, it doesn't give anyone the right to believe that they are superior. How do you know that the animals do not communicate and share emotions in their own ways, how do u know they do not feel the losses like u and I do? Just bcoz we cannot understand their ways ofcommunication.
      And again as I said, please use an argument outside of the Bible for a change!!!

      August 23, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • Topher

      Simran

      I'm supposed to tell you where God said this without using the Bible? That's ridiculous.

      And so you know where to find it, go to Acts 10:9 and read that passage. Peter dreamed he saw a sheet descend from Heaven and on it were all kinds of things that were considered unclean. "And there came a voice to him: 'Rise, Peter, and eat.' But Peter said, 'By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.' And the voice came to him again a second time, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.'"

      August 23, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • Simran

      Of course God is not going to come down here to answer my question – Why is it justified to kill my fellow creatures and eat them?
      But since, u know him up so close, maybe you could answer the same. Even if man is superior, isn't the one who is superior supposed to protect the ones below and rather not cons.ume them???

      August 23, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Topher
      A Candid Conversation between Two Species

      The Man: I am the predilect object of Creation, the centre of all that exists…
      The Tapeworm: You are exalting yourself a little. If you consider yourself the lord of Creation, what can I be, who feed upon you and am ruler in your entrails?
      The Man: You lack reason and an immortal soul.
      The Tapeworm: And since it is an established fact that the concentration and complexity of the nervous system appear in the animal scale as an uninterrupted series of graduations, where are we cut off? How many neurons must be possessed in order to have a soul and a little rationality?
      – Santiago Ramon y Cajal, Recollections of My Life

      Can you answer the Tapeworm's question?
      It also applies to the question of whether a blastocyst is a person....

      August 23, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • Simran

      Doc Vestibule,
      Oh, I would lo.ve to beat that with a dialogue from a Hindi movie "Ek saala macchar aadmi ko hij.da banaa sakta hai!""
      It sounds fun in Hindi, so I put it there – it says that one fvcking mosquito can render a man imp.ote.nt!!!

      August 23, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • Topher

      Doc Vestibule

      I know you aren't saying this really happened, but c'mon. A tapeworm doesn't have a conscience to form those thoughts nor does it have the ability to speak and ask the question.

      Also, man is not the center of all that exists. That's God. Man is just above all other living creatures God put here.
      Just because other creatures can hurt us does not mean they are equal. No creature has a conscience other than man. I could argue that animals have souls ... the Bible says both animals and man (but not plants) have a life force. But only man has a soul that has sinned against God, deserves Hell and needs to be saved.

      August 23, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      I always find it amazing how people can be part of a religion that makes the arrogant claim that man is above every other creation, yet dehumanizes and devalues humanity through the original sin crap.

      August 23, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • Simran

      "No creature has a conscience other than man."

      Requesting proof for the statement please....

      August 23, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • Simran

      Hawaiguest,
      Yes it is amazing, but mostly amusing. Isn't .it?

      August 23, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • Simran

      Topher is now digging deep into his Bible to come up with where those story writers said animals don't have a conscience.
      Good luck with that.

      August 23, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Topher
      You assert that God is the centre of all – but the statment made in this little though exercise is that Man is the predilect object of Creation. This is what the Bible says, isn't it? God is anthropocentric. You assert that God gave humans dominion over all the plants and animals – therefore, Man is the predilect object of God's Creation.

      As for the talking tapeworm – how is it any less credible than talking snakes, donkeys or incendiary foliage?

      August 23, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
  14. Gottlieb Schlittenfahrt

    I favor of throwing ALL republicans under the bus!

    August 23, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Mark From Middle River

      Wow dude ... folks just disagree. Why the need to kill folks just for believing, looking, loving, or anything different from you?

      If you want to take it to that level than how are you different than the judge who said that the country would be at civil war in November?

      August 23, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • skarphace

      Mark: maybe, just maybe, he was not talking about 'throwing someone under the bus' in the literal sense.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Mark From Middle River

      Sorry, just disproves the stereotype. All of us African Americans are not up to speed on Ghetto slang.

      August 23, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
  15. boocat

    S t u p i d Jesus freaks....they don't know the meaning of "christianity."

    August 23, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
  16. trex

    .........Hey, Akin........there's a "judge" down in Texas that will fix ya RIGHT UP...................bring ammo............

    August 23, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
  17. Huebert

    "they stand with Akin in opposing abortion, even in instances of r@pe."

    HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THIS POSITION?!?

    August 23, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • Topher

      Because we believe that baby is a person. A human. And that ending an innocent life is murder.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Huebert

      A fetus is not a baby.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • Patrick

      So something that doesn't even have a beating heart till at least the 6th week of development is a baby to you, something that couldn't even survive it it was brought outside of the womb. That is not a baby.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • Topher

      Call it whatever name you want. We still believe it to be a person and that to kill it is murder. Let's face it, if you let it continue to develop, and barring any problems, it will 100 percent of the time be born a human baby. It will grow up, a person, and have its own personality, characteristics, hopes, desires, loves and have all the same complexities you and I do. It is a human being. What audacity we have to say it shouldn't be given every chance at life the rest of us had.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • boocat

      Hey Topher......are you pro-death penalty? Are you pro-war? If you answer "yes" to either of these, then you're a d a m n hypocrite....

      August 23, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • Patrick

      You don't know that Topher, there can be many complications with a pregnancy. If you look at the children left in foster care it is usually the ones who have the most severe issues, especially if the baby is born addicted to crack.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • garc

      If you don't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?

      August 23, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Mark From Middle River

      I am Pro-Life and Anti Death Penalty. Also, who really is pro-war. Even if it is the concern of your own men, only a few are pro-outright or even indirect war.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • Topher

      Patrick

      Even a baby born adicted to crack is a person. That doesn't mean it's OK to kill him. Same if a person is born with severe mental issues. Who are we to play God with someone else's life?

      August 23, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • Patrick

      Topher, it's not a life till it can live on it's own, which it can't do in the very beginning.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • DaveB

      "Because we believe that baby is a person. A human. And that ending an innocent life is murder"

      And if that baby is born poor we'll let it starve because welfare is a hammock

      August 23, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • smokeee

      Its very similar to how Muslim beliefs override reason and practical thinking in the middle east where most of us in America call them crazy for things they do based on their religion. We have our own religious fundamentalists that adhere to their religion over practical thinking in the U.S., except ours are Christian. It is ironic that our religious right loves to call the fundamentalist muslims the crazies, if anything they're very similar types of people.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Topher

      Patrick

      That's ridiculous. Many people, do to birth defects, diseases or limit physical abilities cannot live on their own. They may need special care. Special housing situations. Some might even have to be hooked up to machines in order to live. When my father-in-law needed a new heart, he was hooked up to machines for months ... if he wasn't, he would have died. Do you think he should have been killed?

      Just because the child is still in the womb, that doesn't make it any less human. It just makes it a very young one.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • smokeee

      lol Topher, who are you to make decisions for another human being? We play 'God' all of the time when it comes to us and ours. People decide to have kids(creating life) which equates to playing 'God' in your eyes, and people decide to leave, abort, put them in foster care if they so decide. You're just not grounded in reality but thats the problem with most religious people.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Patrick

      Topher a baby weighing less than 500 gm does not survive and isn't fully developed into a person, you can't medically make the claims that you are trying to make.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Huebert

      Topher

      I'm sure that you see the difference between requiring special care and being physically attached to a human being.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Souljacker

      Topher: Why isn't the woman considered a person too? A person who now has to make a very difficult decision after being forced by a man to have intercourse against her will? Why do we ONLY care about a collection of cells in her womb? When does the woman's rights get recognized, the very rights that were already violated once when she was attacked?

      Who are you to decide?

      August 23, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Topher

      Patrick

      "Topher a baby weighing less than 500 gm does not survive and isn't fully developed into a person, you can't medically make the claims that you are trying to make."

      Oh yes I can. As far as science is concerned, a baby is alive at conception. It is distinct from its mother, has its own DNA and has all the "information" it needs to be born a human. It will never receive new information. At conception it has 23 pairs of chromosomes, and 50,000 genes from each parent. At this point it is already determined the se.x, facial features, body type and color of hair, eyes and skin. It has a beating heart at 18 days, brain waves at 6 weeks, fingerprints at 14 weeks and can feel pain at 9 weeks. Once again, left to its own devices and without natural complications, it will always be born a human person.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Bregginkrak

      Patrick: It can't be about survivability. There are old people, mentally challenged people, sick people, wounded people, infants, children, that can't survive without assistance. Obviously we don't kill them or allow them to die.

      We need to all agree on the crucial question: When does life begin? Roe v Wade says 6-7th month of in womb development. I saw my unborn children in my wifes womb at 18 weeks with fingers, toes, faces and moving. Hard for me to think they wern't "alive" at that moment. I think we need to formally revist the question of when life begins. Heart beating? Conception?

      August 23, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Prolife

      Patrick,
      Babies after they are born cannot live on their own. That thought process is ridiculous!

      August 23, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Huebert

      Topher

      Just because something could become a life does not mean it is one. An egg, even a fertilized egg, is not a chicken.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • Topher

      Souljacker

      "Topher: Why isn't the woman considered a person too?"

      She is a person. She just shouldn't be able to murder anyone.

      "Why do we ONLY care about a collection of cells in her womb?"

      It's not just a collection of cells. It's a person. Not only does the Bible agree with this, so does science.

      "When does the woman's rights get recognized, the very rights that were already violated once when she was attacked?"

      When will the child's rights get recognized? Does it not have the right to live? To be given the chance? Why should the child have to pay for the crimes of its father?

      "Who are you to decide?"

      Someone who cares that babies aren't murdered, that's who.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • Get Real

      Topher,

      The ONLY reason a 500gm infant could ever survive is because of human, scientific intervention. Up until very recently this was not feasible... and your "God" did not do a damn thing for billions of preemies throughout history.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Topher

      Name one other point in a persons life where they would be required to give up their bodily autonomy to act as a life support system for another being against their will.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Snow

      "Not only does the Bible agree with this, so does science"

      is a statement you pulled out of your a$$ to support your stand.. show me SOME scientific study that assigns personhood to a bunch of cells..

      If your argument about a bunch of cells being a person is true, then a bio sample in a petri dish is also a person.. why do you support throwing it away in trash?

      August 23, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Topher

      hawaiiguest

      "Name one other point in a persons life where they would be required to give up their bodily autonomy to act as a life support system for another being against their will."

      Other than organ donation? So you don't like how nature works so you think it OK to kill?

      August 23, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Topher

      Snow

      I gave my examples earlier. Go back and read them.

      "If your argument about a bunch of cells being a person is true, then a bio sample in a petri dish is also a person.. why do you support throwing it away in trash?"

      If you have conception you have human life. Your "bunch of cells" analogy can have many meanings. If I have a bunch of cells from a throat culture or other medical swab, that isn't a human life. It will not turn into a full-grown person. A baby in the womb will.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Sharon

      Not all the time Topher, not everything conceived becomes born, even your God kills in the womb.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • Snow

      So you think it is ok to ignore what happens to the mother? a young mother in Dominican republic (where abortion is banned) died because she was pregnant when she was meant to get a chemo therapy.. and chemo causes abortion. You say her life was less valuable than the fetus?

      August 23, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Topher

      Sharon

      "Not all the time Topher, not everything conceived becomes born, even your God kills in the womb."

      I know. But like I said earlier, barring any horrible medical problems, it will be born, not only a human, but a person. 100 percent of the time.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • AverageJoe76

      Abortion is simply a personal issue. No one should ever be able to force a woman to bare children. It's grossly hypocritical of anyone from the 'little government" crowd to expect the government to enforce this.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Snow

      "I gave my examples earlier. Go back and read them."

      aka.. you have NOTHING.. good to know how less you know outside your holy book

      August 23, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • Topher

      Snow

      I don't think anyone's life is less valuable than a fetus. When there's a medical issue with the mother, that's when difficult choices should be made, but they should still not be made just to kill the child. The young mother that needs chemo should still be given chemo to save her life. If the child dies, we mourn over its death. But at no point is that direct murder of the child. I would not say, OK, this mother is sick, let's murder her child then try to save her. No, you do everything you can to save the mother and hope and pray the baby survives and is OK. But if the mother decides to guarantee the child's life and not take the chemo, then she's a hero. Hopefully she lives and can be treated, too.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Topher

      You are not required to be an organ donor. There isn't a law that would allow them to just take your organs without your permission, and no one is forced to fill out that organ donor box when you get your license.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Why are you going round and round on the ethics of abortion? Nobody likes abortion. It's horrible.

      Regretably it is necessary.

      The abortion issue is about one thing and one thing only – gender politics and the patriarchical control of women. These "pro-life" men are afraid of Kay's revenge over Michael in the Godfather Part II. They cannot control their women in an unequal role if they can't keep them pregnant.

      All the circular discussion on the immorality of abortion is about control of women by men who are afraid of women. Women control the access to s3x – which is why r@pe is such a crime. Fear of pregnancy is the reverse side of that coin.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • Snow

      " But at no point is that direct murder of the child"

      Your logic falls short when you consider the fact that doctors know with 100% certainty that chemo to a pregnant woman will kill the fetus. So it can not get more direct than that. Definition of abortion states that when a fetus is killed as a direct result of any action taken , it is abortion. So under your abortion ban, giving chemo to a mother is aborting the baby and illegal..

      In other words, you support killing the mother rather than aborting the baby to save the mother..

      Don't just push your ideology without considering all facets and consequences of what you say. It is fancy and rad to you to say that you support the life and rights of the unborn fetus. But considering what you might happen by that ideology can turn your stomach in horror..

      Tread safely when you push your ideology on others.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • Topher

      Sorry, dude, but chemo during pregnancy happens. Just a quick Google search show this. Here's just one quote of many I found ...

      "The diagnosis of cancer during pregnancy occurs in about 1 out of every 1,000 women, according to a 2004 article in the Lancet Oncology journal by Elyce Cardonick and Audrey Iacobucci. If the chemotherapy treatment cannot wait until after the pregnancy is completed or if termination of the pregnancy is not an option, a woman can receive chemotherapy during pregnancy. Chemotherapy during the first trimester should be avoided because of the increased risk of birth defects; chemotherapy during the second and third trimester–while generally safe–can still be associated with after affects."

      So while we can agree it's not the best situation, chemo does not 100 percent guarantee the child will die.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • Canada

      @ Topher- From a Christian (though from Canada and not crazy) to another. Does Jesus or God lay it at all on the Government to detur a individual from temptation or sin? or is it up to that person and their soul? Will the Republican party save my soul, or will my connection to Jesus? therefore, how does putting legal boundries on abortion at all help any single human's soul, when the temptation lays soley on the Citizens conscience, and his relation to God?

      August 23, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • Topher

      Canada

      Are you saying I'm crazy? ;)

      "Does Jesus or God lay it at all on the Government to detur a individual from temptation or sin?"

      No. Government's role is to protect and defend us. Why isn't it protecting and defending the unborn?

      "or is it up to that person and their soul?"

      It's up to that person. They will have to answer to God for each sin. But since you and I both know God is the ultimate authority and thus sets the standard, and God clearly is against abortion, and the atheists are erroneously calling very early human life nothing but "a bunch of cells," isn't it up to us to fight for those lives? I'm not forcing any of them to believe in God, but they are wrong that it isn't a person. Those children have the right to live since God created them in the womb and deserve to be given the chance.

      "Will the Republican party save my soul, or will my connection to Jesus?"

      Republicans have nothing to do with this. I often disagree with the things they do and say. But pro-life right-wingers are on the correct side of this issue. I'll side with God no matter what.

      "therefore, how does putting legal boundries on abortion at all help any single human's soul, when the temptation lays soley on the Citizens conscience, and his relation to God?"

      Because it's a PERSON! If we are to believe what the Bible says about how He creates life (knits us together in our mother's womb, etc, etc.) then why aren't we to fight for God's will?

      August 23, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Topher

      You still haven't answered my question!

      August 23, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • Topher

      Which is ... ?

      August 23, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
    • Canada

      I agree with you Topher, difference is. I don't trust in the world (whichever political party) to right the wrong's of the world, no matter how hard we might try. and we can't be surprised by that. It's written that in the end times before Christ comes, things get much much worse. "Who can stand that day, it will be a great day, it will be a dreadful day" . Only one will right those wrongs and actually save the unborn children. unfortunately, pushing belief on athiests (and the devil) will only push back, they are programmed to engage. Christians must humble ourselves. hold on to your values. as you can see in Politics, nothing ever fully mimics our belief, and never will. Best do Christians a favour and not push our ideals overtly. God is just waiting for them to knock on the door, and then his word is there. Remember, "Many will die for his name's sake" we will be persecuted. can we take up the sword? no, Then we will surley die. Our sword is the word of God. and it is not compatible with Politics.

      August 23, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • Topher

      Canada

      I know what you are saying. My faith is not in either political party, but in God. Politics do ask us to vote on issues and we must vote with out worldview.

      August 23, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • Snow

      if you read further into that same article, it says that the mortality of the fetus is not guaranteed. So in the case when the fetus dies, it meets the legal definition of abortion.

      So.. your suggestion is to give the mother chemo.. if the mother survives, but not the fetus, file a case against her and throw her in jail.. along with her doctors.. great plan! your god would certainly approve of your view..

      August 23, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • Canada

      Tropher – Good luck with the Foolish though!

      August 23, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Topher

      Name one other point in a persons life where they would be required to give up their bodily autonomy to act as a life support system for another being against their will.
      And organ donation is not mandatory.

      August 23, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • testmo

      The argument the pro-life camp ALWAYS comes down to relies on their belief that a "babies" life while in the womb is worth more than the life and desires of the woman that is carrying the "baby". how is that a logical argument? the unborn get more rights then a living, breathing, voting woman? that is why so many believe there is a legitimate war on women in this country.

      August 23, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
  18. Fellow Ozians

    "I've come to the conclusion that the real issue is the soul of America,” wrote David Lane, an evangelical activist who’s influential in the Republican Party...

    Which is it? Does America need a heart or a brain?

    (Dorothy)
    With the thoughts you'd be thinkin'
    You could be another Lincoln
    If you only had a brain

    August 23, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Is that a 'collective soul'?

      Are we now also a hive mind? Well maybe GOP supporters are part of a hive mind.

      Todd Akin is one of us
      one of us
      one of us
      one of us
      ...

      August 23, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
  19. J.W

    I think they did the same thing. They said contraception where is should say conception.

    August 23, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • ME II

      Yep. Once was bad enough...

      August 23, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
  20. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    August 23, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • Jesus

      Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.

      An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.

      The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs .

      August 23, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
    • PLEASE DON"T FEED THE TROLLS!

      either one

      August 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • Gecul

      Sometimes it's best to remain silent and let others think you are stupid rather than speaking and proving that you are. Stop your bumper sticker approach to life and you'll get better.

      August 23, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • truth be trolled

      what? there are only two of us??

      August 23, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • Dumbpolitics

      I just picked a couple of living ears of corn and put them in a pot of boiling water. I also grabbed some eggs from the hen house. One of the eggs had a drop of blood in them. I just killed an unborn chicken. I put some tobasco sauce in and mixed them up. Now I will have me some lunch. That is my personal choice and freedom to do. I don't want to take away your indivdual rights and freedoms. Why then should we do that to all of the woman in this country?

      August 23, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Rich

      Actually Jesus, prayer does work. The problem many people have is that they think they can tell an omnipotent being what is best. Praying for the Browns to win the Superbowl will recieve an answer. And the answer might be, "Ya, that's not going to happen". Praying for your child to be healed through a miracle may be answered with, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test". Praying for forgiveness, for strength and for vision and patience to see God's work and his plan for your life... that might just bring the most postive results. If you don't believe, that's OK. I pray that you have a wonderful and prosperous life.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Broadcasting

      RAMEN! May you be touched by his noodly appendage.

      August 23, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.