It was all over the place and while I didn't retweet it, knowing by now that Woody is far too slippery to come out and say something that explicit, lots of people did.
deBeauxOs pointed out (can't find the bloody tweet) that while the quote is a conflation of Santorum and Woodworth (and doesn't that creep a body right out?), it seems to reflect his view of the issue.
Now since Woody's got me blocked, it is huge pain in the ass to track down his actual tweets. Luckily, @lahtay44 copied his answer to a question on rape.
Typically, he deflects.
@WoodworthMP: **For some the answer might be different if question was"Do you support a raped woman's right to take her child's life?"**
I don't know if that was in answer to SomeCndnSkeptic, who has been asking for Woody's view on pregnancy resulting from rape for fucking months. I've asked him and will report.
So. You decide. The false quote is grosser, but is it fundamentally different from the loaded-language answer Woody did give?
Image source.
ADDED: SomeCndnSkeptic replies.
@fernhilldammit He said it is unanswerable because we have to "first agree on terms".Spin bullshit. #M312
— Steve Thoms (@SomeCndnSkeptic) June 27, 2012
ADDED: LifeShite links to this post! *Waves* at LifeShiters. Be sure to check this post from today too.
ADDED: LifeShite says I'm accusing fetus fetishists of condoning rape because they oppose abortion even in cases of rape. Have a read of this old post on how ff's discount the incidence of rape-caused pregnancy and thus, 'hey, hardly anybody gets knocked up, what's the big deal with no rape exemption?' I do call that condoning rape, wouldn't you?
