Tweet
The lamestream media is all over Tom Smith, Republican candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania.
Naturally, he's being pilloried in the press.
One God-mocker gets mighty close to the truth:
By "close to the truth", I mean "hits the nail on the head".
We True Christians(tm) know that a woman's God-given role is to bear children and serve their husbands and fathers. They are, as the Bible explains, property.
So yes, a pregnancy is a pregnancy.
I'm concerned, though, that Smith didn't force his daughter's fornication-pal to marry her. Now, he has a bastard grandchild who will be shunned from the congregation.
What was he thinking?
"My stance is on record, and it's very simplistic: I'm pro-life, period," said Mr. Smith, a former coal company executive from Armstrong County.
However, he stumbled when asked about how he would convince a daughter or granddaughter who was the victim of a rape that she should carry her potential child to term.
Mr. Smith replied that he "lived something similar to that with my own family, and she chose life. I commend her for that."
He added that his daughter wasn't the victim of a rape. Asked what the similar situation entailed, he said she became pregnant out of wedlock.
Asked if having a child out of wedlock is similar to rape, he replied: "No, no, no, but put yourself in a father's position, yes. It is similar. This isn't ..." He trailed off, then continued: "But back to the original [question], I'm pro-life, period."
He later reasserted that he was not comparing pregnancies from rape and from out of wedlock: "I said I went through a situation. It's very, very difficult. ... I believe life begins at conception. I'm not going to argue about the method of conception. It's a life. And I'm pro-life. It's that simple."
However, he stumbled when asked about how he would convince a daughter or granddaughter who was the victim of a rape that she should carry her potential child to term.
Mr. Smith replied that he "lived something similar to that with my own family, and she chose life. I commend her for that."
He added that his daughter wasn't the victim of a rape. Asked what the similar situation entailed, he said she became pregnant out of wedlock.
Asked if having a child out of wedlock is similar to rape, he replied: "No, no, no, but put yourself in a father's position, yes. It is similar. This isn't ..." He trailed off, then continued: "But back to the original [question], I'm pro-life, period."
He later reasserted that he was not comparing pregnancies from rape and from out of wedlock: "I said I went through a situation. It's very, very difficult. ... I believe life begins at conception. I'm not going to argue about the method of conception. It's a life. And I'm pro-life. It's that simple."
One God-mocker gets mighty close to the truth:
Smith doesn’t seem able to understand that consensual sex and rape are two very different things. To him, a pregnancy is a pregnancy. This view denies women their basic humanity. A woman is just an oven to bake the cake, and not a human herself. An object.
By "close to the truth", I mean "hits the nail on the head".
We True Christians(tm) know that a woman's God-given role is to bear children and serve their husbands and fathers. They are, as the Bible explains, property.
So yes, a pregnancy is a pregnancy.
I'm concerned, though, that Smith didn't force his daughter's fornication-pal to marry her. Now, he has a bastard grandchild who will be shunned from the congregation.
What was he thinking?
