How bad was Scott Walker's answer regarding abortion during the Debate?

[Likely Voter]

BTW, let's not forget that Marco Rubio also took the exact same position in the debate. You can be sure that folks at Clinton HQ took note of that.

Did he? I thought he'd only dismissed the rape exception part but didn't comment on the life of the mother part.

I looked back and you are right he wasnt asked about the life of the mother part, just rape and incest. Of course forcing rape victims to carry babies to term is probably just as toxic a position. We still don't know what his position is on life of the mother, but he could possibly be against that exception as well.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What would happen if feminists in Wisconsin attempted to recall Walker for these comments in the middle of the Presidential campaign?  I will say that if you read the comment, it could be construed in such a manner as to suggest that he's let a woman die if, in fact, aborting the pregnancy was necessary to keep the woman alive in the very present moment.

Anyone trying to recall Walker for short of a criminal indictment would be a total game changer for the trends of his popularity in Wisconsin and his presidential campaign. Like, I'd almost wonder if Walker paid them to try it!

I do think Walker needs to get himself elected President or Vice President.  I really believe he'll never carry Wisconsin again.

It's weird for me.  I really dislike Walker, as I am a union shop steward (and a registered Republican).  I don't think he really believes what he said, but what he said does at least reflect the idea that a fetus is a human life, regardless of the technicalities and legalities.  There's a disconnect between that sentiment and the vibe I get from Walker that he is really not interested in people and is only interested in his own career.  I sense no real compassion toward other human beings from Scott Walker that I would sense from, say, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) or Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA); so I view his statement as some sort of political calculation.

Having made this statement, if Walker wants to win the nomination, he now has to go full-bore to win the religious conservatives.  They'll be his most solid allies,, and he's made the boldest statement on abortion yet, and lots of folks still put that at the top of their issue list.  Walker is in the place where he has a new pathway to the nomination, but it will probably require a significant shift in strategy.  He'll be a pretty flexible politician if he pulls this off.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I was happy with his answer (and I'm a Scott Walker supporter).  The fact is that, since an unborn baby is a human being deserving of rights, in no case can abortion be justified.  The rape and incest exceptions make no sense, as the manner of conception is not the baby's fault (maybe, you could talk me into some legal use of the morning after pill in these cases).  As for the life of the mother, it is never truly an either-or situation (read that Life News article).  You can do whatever necessary procedure on the mother, but just don't actively kill the mother.  If, after trying as hard as possible to save both lives, the baby dies inadvertently, it is a tragedy, but not a murder.

Comparing this to Todd Akin is ridiculous.

[Torie]

I was happy with his answer (and I'm a Scott Walker supporter).  The fact is that, since an unborn baby is a human being deserving of rights, in no case can abortion be justified.  The rape and incest exceptions make no sense, as the manner of conception is not the baby's fault (maybe, you could talk me into some legal use of the morning after pill in these cases).  As for the life of the mother, it is never truly an either-or situation (read that Life News article).  You can do whatever necessary procedure on the mother, but just don't actively kill the mother.  If, after trying as hard as possible to save both lives, the baby dies inadvertently, it is a tragedy, but not a murder.

Comparing this to Todd Akin is ridiculous.

So why didn't Walker say that then? The bottom line in that long string of words, is that if there are two alternative medical procedures, one focused on saving the fetus, and the other the mother, the latter will be used. In fact, any MD who does otherwise, would have committed medical malpractice.

If I had to guess who has the lowest IQ out of the 10 up there, my choice would be Walker. 

[TJ in Oregon]

For the underlying issue, Shua hit the point, which is semantic, over whether an otherwise neutral surgery done to a pregnant mother that includes removing the fetus, is an abortion. Walker should have clarified this and will need to do so.

Megyn Kelly's reaction was nasty, a bit like her reaction to Trump. Walker also has good reason to complain over his treatment at the debate; he talked for about 6 minutes total and about 4 of them were on questions about abortion or whether he has received a direct divine command. Weirdly, Walker probably came off as the cliche socon candidate as they asked him about literally nothing that the Atlas PM doesn't put on the social axis for the entire debate.

What would happen if feminists in Wisconsin attempted to recall Walker for these comments in the middle of the Presidential campaign?  I will say that if you read the comment, it could be construed in such a manner as to suggest that he's let a woman die if, in fact, aborting the pregnancy was necessary to keep the woman alive in the very present moment.

Anyone trying to recall Walker for short of a criminal indictment would be a total game changer for the trends of his popularity in Wisconsin and his presidential campaign. Like, I'd almost wonder if Walker paid them to try it!

I do think Walker needs to get himself elected President or Vice President.  I really believe he'll never carry Wisconsin again.

It's weird for me.  I really dislike Walker, as I am a union shop steward (and a registered Republican).  I don't think he really believes what he said, but what he said does at least reflect the idea that a fetus is a human life, regardless of the technicalities and legalities.  There's a disconnect between that sentiment and the vibe I get from Walker that he is really not interested in people and is only interested in his own career.  I sense no real compassion toward other human beings from Scott Walker that I would sense from, say, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) or Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA); so I view his statement as some sort of political calculation.

Having made this statement, if Walker wants to win the nomination, he now has to go full-bore to win the religious conservatives.  They'll be his most solid allies,, and he's made the boldest statement on abortion yet, and lots of folks still put that at the top of their issue list.  Walker is in the place where he has a new pathway to the nomination, but it will probably require a significant shift in strategy.  He'll be a pretty flexible politician if he pulls this off.

Oh I don't think he'll carry Wisconsin again either, but if they actually tried to recall him again things would change in a hurry. Don't underestimate the wackiness of the Wisconsin Democratic Party; remember they lost to Walker three times already. Also, don't be fooled by my temporary PA avatar (I'm only traveling for the summer), I actually live in Madison, WI.

I sympathize with a lot of what you said. I am not a union member myself but I was raised in a union household and do think unions have an important place in our economic system (however flawed things are at the moment). If I were in the Wisconsin state legislature I probably would have voted against Act 10 because I do think public employees unions ought to be able to collectively bargain for benefits. But, I don't hate Walker and I voted for him. I don't regret it. As far as I could tell Walker's opponent's support of abortion and gay marriage were the only lucid positions she managed to enunciate during the 9 months she spent running for governor.

As for his comments on abortion, the more emotional style of someone like Chris Smith just isn't how Walker is (and Casey isn't actually pro-life but that's another topic for another day). Despite being something of a pro-life hardliner myself (I've stood outside Planned Parenthood with a sign before, for starters...), I have never once seriously doubted Walker's commitment to the cause from the way he's acted as governor. He did say a couple ambiguous things about abortion at points, but when directly asked, he's also given some very clear pro-life answers and acted upon them as governor to the extent of his ability. Walker comes across as something of an automaton and that's just part of his personality. I won't deny that. But behind it, I really do think he believes he's fixing things and improving the government of Wisconsin even if his vision is a tad flawed. Much like I said of Trump, Walker is also not the scary monster his Madison opponents have made him out to be.

[TJ in Oregon]

I was happy with his answer (and I'm a Scott Walker supporter).  The fact is that, since an unborn baby is a human being deserving of rights, in no case can abortion be justified.  The rape and incest exceptions make no sense, as the manner of conception is not the baby's fault (maybe, you could talk me into some legal use of the morning after pill in these cases).  As for the life of the mother, it is never truly an either-or situation (read that Life News article).  You can do whatever necessary procedure on the mother, but just don't actively kill the mother.  If, after trying as hard as possible to save both lives, the baby dies inadvertently, it is a tragedy, but not a murder.

Comparing this to Todd Akin is ridiculous.

So why didn't Walker say that then? The bottom line in that long string of words, is that if there are two alternative medical procedures, one focused on saving the fetus, and the other the mother, the latter will be used. In fact, any MD who does otherwise, would have committed medical malpractice.

If I had to guess who has the lowest IQ out of the 10 up there, my choice would be Walker. 

Torie, the medical practice in question is directed at saving the life of the mother. The argument is over whether or not (in the ectopic pregnancy case for instance) removing the affected Fallopian tube is an abortion. It isn't over whether or not the mother can die to save an 8-week fetus or some other sort of option to save one or the mother. The fetus can't be saved at that point and the appropriate course of action is to remove that section of the tube. Legality aside, removing the tube is not morally the same as an abortion since you aren't directly killing the fetus. It shouldn't be surprising that some people will call that an abortion and some won't, because those who are consequentialists will say it and abortion are the same thing and those who aren't will say it isn't.

[Torie]

I was happy with his answer (and I'm a Scott Walker supporter).  The fact is that, since an unborn baby is a human being deserving of rights, in no case can abortion be justified.  The rape and incest exceptions make no sense, as the manner of conception is not the baby's fault (maybe, you could talk me into some legal use of the morning after pill in these cases).  As for the life of the mother, it is never truly an either-or situation (read that Life News article).  You can do whatever necessary procedure on the mother, but just don't actively kill the mother.  If, after trying as hard as possible to save both lives, the baby dies inadvertently, it is a tragedy, but not a murder.

Comparing this to Todd Akin is ridiculous.

So why didn't Walker say that then? The bottom line in that long string of words, is that if there are two alternative medical procedures, one focused on saving the fetus, and the other the mother, the latter will be used. In fact, any MD who does otherwise, would have committed medical malpractice.

If I had to guess who has the lowest IQ out of the 10 up there, my choice would be Walker. 

Torie, the medical practice in question is directed at saving the life of the mother. The argument is over whether or not (in the ectopic pregnancy case for instance) removing the affected Fallopian tube is an abortion. It isn't over whether or not the mother can die to save an 8-week fetus or some other sort of option to save one or the mother. The fetus can't be saved at that point and the appropriate course of action is to remove that section of the tube. Legality aside, removing the tube is not morally the same as an abortion since you aren't directly killing the fetus. It shouldn't be surprising that some people will call that an abortion and some won't, because those who are consequentialists will say it and abortion are the same thing and those who aren't will say it isn't.

Well maybe it is medically impossible to have a hypothetical where one either saves the mother or fetus, and one must choose. If so, Walker should have pointed that out.

[TJ in Oregon]

Well maybe it is medically impossible to have a hypothetical where one either saves the mother or fetus, and one must choose. If so, Walker should have pointed that out.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible, as there are circumstances where one could make a choice that can lead to either outcome. However, in those circumstances (late term pregnancies), what will almost always be done is the fetus will be removed and treated as a preterm birth. In doing so, the life of the mother is saved and the child may or may not survive. Obviously no one would try to outlaw that; they might as well outlaw C-sections.

I agree with you about Walker's response. Among other things, he never addressed the point of the question.

[Torie]

So you put the fetus at more risk medically to reduce the risk to the mother. Precisely. Heck, even the Catholic theology subscribes to that - I think.

The really smart answer is to say look, I understand there are strongly held views on this issue, as well as Constitutional restrictions that are not likely to be overturned. What I think we should focus on is  restricting the abuses associated with late term abortions with which most Americans agree, that should pass Constitutional muster, as well as the abuses that have come to light with respect to Planned Parenthood. One should focus one's efforts on what it is realistically possible to accomplish.

[Higgs]

It sounds even weirder given the discussion was about him not even wanting to give women abortions to save their lives.

What alternative is he promoting to women? Death in childbirth?

Abortion is actually never necessary in order to save a mother's life:

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/10/11/is-abortion-ever-necessary-to-save-the-life-of-the-mother/

Then explain this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

We won't even get into ectopic pregnancies.

Did you even read his article? They directly address ectopic pregnancies, and the point is those kind of procedures aren't considered abortions.

This amounts to a semantic argument about what constitutes an abortion.  If Walker does not consider such procedures to be true abortions, he needed to say so.  He could say something like "If something needs to be done to save the mother's life, even if it ends up taking the unborn child's life in the process, it's a tragedy, but it is not in the same category as an abortion."  But that's not what Walker said.  He said something about other alternatives always being possible, which just sounds like wishful thinking. Hopefully someday there are no life-threatening pregnancies, but we are not there yet.

Yes, Walker should clear this up.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

I was happy with his answer (and I'm a Scott Walker supporter).  The fact is that, since an unborn baby is a human being deserving of rights, in no case can abortion be justified.  The rape and incest exceptions make no sense, as the manner of conception is not the baby's fault (maybe, you could talk me into some legal use of the morning after pill in these cases).  As for the life of the mother, it is never truly an either-or situation (read that Life News article).  You can do whatever necessary procedure on the mother, but just don't actively kill the mother.  If, after trying as hard as possible to save both lives, the baby dies inadvertently, it is a tragedy, but not a murder.

Comparing this to Todd Akin is ridiculous.

Just wait for the attack ads against Walker if he ends up being the presumptive nominee.

[Kingpoleon]

It sounds even weirder given the discussion was about him not even wanting to give women abortions to save their lives.

What alternative is he promoting to women? Death in childbirth?

No! He wants them to go to heaven above with their child.:rolleyes:

Absolutely despicable. Walker has nearly convinced me to vote for Hillary Clinton over him. I'd definitely prefer Sanders to this.

[Cory]

I couldn't help but think Rick Santorum didn't take kindly to Walker's comments.

[BM]

LOL at this flop. I always knew he was an overhyped simpleton and outside of his extremely insane and callous stance on this issue, his debate performance was completely dull, unmemorable, and lifeless. If you're pro-life, don't support a literal ZOMBIE for president.