Missouri Republican claims 'legitimate rape' rarely results in pregnancy
(CNN) – U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, who won Missouri's GOP Senate primary earlier this month and will face incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in November's general election, said Sunday that he misspoke when he claimed "legitimate rape" rarely resulted in pregnancy.
Answering a question about whether or not he thought abortion should be legal in the case of rape, Akin explained his opposition by citing unnamed bodily responses he said prevented pregnancy.
"First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," Akin said of rape-induced pregnancy in an interview with KTVI. A clip of the interview was posted online by the liberal super PAC American Bridge.
"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin continued. He did not provide an explanation for what constituted "legitimate rape."
He added: "But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."
In a statement Sunday, Akin wrote that he misspoke in the interview. He maintained his opposition to abortion for victims of rape.
"In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it's clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year," Akin wrote. "Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve."
"I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue," Akin continued. "But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election."
Statistics on pregnancies that result from rape are difficult to produce, since rape is a crime that often goes unreported. The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, along with Planned Parenthood, each estimate that 5% of rapes lead to pregnancy. A 1996 study from the Medical University of South Carolina found the same percentage, adding that 32,101 pregnancies occurred annually from rape.
Akin, a six-term U.S. congressman, touted his socially conservative values on the primary campaign trail, and gained the support of 2008 presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. He was one of the first members of Congress to join the Tea Party Caucus in 2010 and has easily won re-election in recent years.
The lawmaker raised a notable $2.2 million this cycle, as of July 18.
Akin - who sits on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee - has long held a hard-line stance on abortion. He is opposed to abortions in all circumstances, and has said he also opposes the morning after pill, which he equates to abortion.
McCaskill, who is up against Akin in November's general election, almost immediately struck upon her opponent's comments Sunday, writing on Twitter: "As a woman & former prosecutor who handled 100s of rape cases, I'm stunned by Rep Akin's comments about victims this AM."
She later released a statement condemning her rival as "ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape."
“The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive," she continued.
McCaskill's website also splashed Akin's comments across the homepage, and included a link where supporters could donate money to McCaskill's campaign.
Republicans consider McCaskill, first elected in 2006, highly vulnerable in her re-election bid for a second term. Ahead of the GOP primary, a Mason-Dixon poll showed the senator falling behind each of the three main GOP competitors in hypothetical match-ups among registered Missouri voters.
A spokeswoman for Mitt Romney wrote that the presumptive GOP presidential nominee and his running mate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, did not share Akin's sentiments on rape.
"Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg wrote.
CNN's Ashley Killough, Kevin Liptak and Rachel Streitfeld contributed to this report.
All this in order to try to push for their ban on abortions no matter the situation (including if both the mother AND child will die as a result of the birth).
I couldn't help think of Rorschach when I read about this guy. He's so insane and disconnected from reality; he genuinely believes that he's helping the world and he's one of the last pillars of moral virtue, when in fact he's just some nutter who's inflicting more hurt than anything else.
All this in order to try to push for their ban on abortions no matter the situation (including if both the mother AND child will die as a result of the birth).
Okay here's me about to get flamed unto hell.
You know my stance on abortion. I do think the a priori moral thing to do in a rape case would be to carry the child to it's birth. I say a priori because I wouldn't dare blame anyone for having an abortion ever, and even less in such a case. I can't put myself in place of the expectant mother of her raper's child, but still, that kid shouldn't lose it's right to exist because his father is an utter donkey-cave.
I really think the 'legitimate rape' thing needs to be properly defined before we can have a proper go at this topic.
If the politician concerned didn't explain what he was alleged to have said perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, an embellishment by hostile media or just something misheard.
There may be a simple honest explanation other than 'he literally meant what he said'.
What he was trying to say was that if you got pregnant, you weren't raped, because if a woman is raped her body doesn't allow itself to be pregnant through some unknown (read: made up) biological means. Which is a vicious, disgusting lie, but that's what a lot of people apparently believe.
"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin continued. He did not provide an explanation for what constituted "legitimate rape."
He added: "But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."
What he was trying to say was that if you got pregnant, you weren't raped, because if a woman is raped her body doesn't allow itself to be pregnant through some unknown (read: made up) biological means. Which is a vicious, disgusting lie, but that's what a lot of people apparently believe.
I agree. Does he seriously think the a woman's body will react to a rapists sperm like some kind of immune response and destroy the potential fetus? He's a high school grad, right? Because that's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
Not trying to defend him here, not at all, but I've heard that the consequences of sexual pleasure did boost the chance of pregnancy (my sex psy class is far away so please correct me if I'm wrong).
Of course that doesn't mean there's no chance of pregnancy if there's no pleasure.
No, not really. If there's no egg already present in the womb(of fallopian tubes), the best mind-shattering sex on the planet isn't going to get a woman pregnant. It's just biology, and timing.
Melissia wrote: What he was trying to say was that if you got pregnant, you weren't raped, because if a woman is raped her body doesn't allow itself to be pregnant through some unknown (read: made up) biological means. Which is a vicious, disgusting lie, but that's what a lot of people apparently believe.
You sure
"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin continued. He did not provide an explanation for what constituted "legitimate rape."
Its ambiguous, and even the article claims such. I think there is room to suggest he was misreported misheard or garbled his words.
said Sunday that he misspoke when he claimed "legitimate rape" rarely resulted in pregnancy.
This supports it. I think there is reason to stop now and await an explanation. I dont think he should suffer the same ramifications for a tongue twister than if he actually thinks what your interpretation says he thinks.
He is a currently serving Senator right, not a new candidate. Assuming the worst, who is the bigger joke Senator Todd Akin or the voting populace of Missouri?
Kovnik Obama wrote: Not trying to defend him here, not at all, but I've heard that the consequences of sexual pleasure did boost the chance of pregnancy (my sex psy class is far away so please correct me if I'm wrong).
Of course that doesn't mean there's no chance of pregnancy if there's no pleasure.
The ovulation portion of the menstrual cycle is triggered by luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone, which are released by the pituitary gland as part of the cycle. Ovulation lasts for several days every cycle (and not every cycle is the same length, before you assume it's one month), and during this period sexual activity, voluntary or otherwise, can result in fertilization.
No, it is not. I'm not stupid enough to believe that.
Yes its ambiguous. The article confirms this: He did not provide an explanation for what constituted "legitimate rape."
Nor can we assume that he meant that females will reliably abort a pregnancy through rape: If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down So of itself it is no firm guide to policy of termination of foetuses caused by rape. Consequently as the belief is at most in a tendency for foetuses to be aborted by the mother natural processes then we cannot assume what any resulting political policy would be without further clarification.
We should also check to see if there is any truth to his words. Is an unwanted foetus statistically more likely to miscarry? Do we know either way.
The whole comment is ambiguous and so mind boggling stupid if it is to be taken at face value that its fair to allow the Senator the opportunity to clarify.
thread title wrote:
Republicans talk about "Legitimate rape"
I also challenge the loaded thread title though.
I very much doubt this idea is Republican party doctrine, but the alleged opinions of one man, if that.
You sure you aren't clutching at this, wanting it to be confirmed as to be taken literally, because it may damage Republican prospects in the upcoming elections?
Orlanth wrote: I very much doubt this idea is Republican party doctrine, but the alleged opinions of one man
Attacking women and women's rights has been a Republican party favorite tactic for decades.
A misunderstanding of the female body is also disturbingly common.
Oh that is a load of crap. Republicans are not attacking women, they're trying to defend unborn children. They feel the life in the womb as being the more important thing.
djones520 wrote: Oh that is a load of crap. Republicans are not attacking women
Yes they are, all the goddamend time. For example, quite a damned few Republicans, even ones on this very forum, argued that effectively "You're a slut if you use birth control!" Even if you're using it for medical reasons to control your menstrual cycle.
AegisGrimm wrote: No, not really. If there's no egg already present in the womb(of fallopian tubes), the best mind-shattering sex on the planet isn't going to get a woman pregnant. It's just biology, and timing.
I know that, i'm not slow. I was simply told that female orgasm had a positive impact on the possibility of fecondation. Since I'm not finding anything on it right now, I'll assume that was just earsay and bs.
Or for that matter, nevermind the stereotypical "welfare mother" that Republicans love ranting about, because oh no, how DARE someone who takes three jobs while trying to raise four kids accept some government help. Or the constant attack by Republican evangelists on any woman who works for a living, bashing them for not staying at home watching the kids-- how DARE a man do that. Or the fact that almost all of these attacks are combined with claims of sexual promiscuity and personal insults.
I get called a "feminazi" because I say women need a greater presence in the military as part of our civic duty (equal rights means equal responsibility after all). And that's one of the nicer things that Republicans gladly call me for merely expressing my views on women's issues, and I'm not exactly moving to deny men any rights here (hell, I'm all for equality in the courtroom regarding divorce and custody battles).
AegisGrimm wrote: No, not really. If there's no egg already present in the womb(of fallopian tubes), the best mind-shattering sex on the planet isn't going to get a woman pregnant. It's just biology, and timing.
I know that, i'm not slow. I was simply told that female orgasm had a positive impact on the possibility of ovulation. Since I'm not finding anything on it right now, I'll assume that was just earsay and bs.
That is not unrealistic to suggest. Orgasm heightens internal movements and increases female sexual secretions. Both could make it easier for sperm to complete their journey. It may be the biological intent of the female orgasm.
Spoilered because this conversation is getting in to bodily functions and sexuality, and so... yeah. warning and all that.
Spoiler:
A man doesn't have to orgasm within the vagina for the woman to be impregnated. During the entire course of intercourse, a fertile man is emitting small quantities of semen (presiminal fluid; colloquially referred to as "precum"), and thus any unprotected sex at all has a risk of pregnancy. Indeed, pregnancy can result from non-penetrative sex or even non-vaginal sex for this very reason, because all it takes is for a tiny amount of semen to end up on the labia or inside the vagina, somehow, for the pregnancy to result-- so long as the body is within the ovulation part of the cycle.
You know my stance on abortion. I do think the a priori moral thing to do in a rape case would be to carry the child to it's birth. I say a priori because I wouldn't dare blame anyone for having an abortion ever, and even less in such a case. I can't put myself in place of the expectant mother of her raper's child, but still, that kid shouldn't lose it's right to exist because his father is an utter donkey-cave.
I've often thought that if one believed that abortion is wrong because the child is a human being as deserving of rights as any other person, then it shouldn't matter whether the mother consented to sex or not.
But then I don't believe in outlawing abortion, so I'm not really the guy to go to for insight into the thought processes of people opposed to abortion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: I really think the 'legitimate rape' thing needs to be properly defined before we can have a proper go at this topic.
If the politician concerned didn't explain what he was alleged to have said perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, an embellishment by hostile media or just something misheard.
There may be a simple honest explanation other than 'he literally meant what he said'.
"Legitimate rape" has a history of use by anti-abortion groups who speculate that if an exemption for rape was permitted, there'd be a problem with women claiming they were raped so they could access abortion, and in turn speculating about how closely you'd have to verify a woman's story before permitting an abortion.
There's no reason to suspect the term was used in any context but that.
And that's enough to condemn this guy, without even looking at the simply unacceptable lack of scientific knowledge he's shown.
I get called a "feminazi" because I say women need a greater presence in the military as part of our civic duty (equal rights means equal responsibility after all).
I'm not sure how women can get a greater presence in the military without a draft. The ones who do enlist have, and the ones who don't wouldn't if they could help it. If you mean women in combat jobs *shrug* There's valid arguments on both sides of the house for that one, but that's another thread.
Do find it silly you get called a femi-nazi though. That term's usually reserved for man-hater feminists, and you seem very equal opportunity in your hate to me.
Back on topic: I've never been a huge fan of abortion groups, but I missed the "legitimate rape" term somewhere down the line. It takes a screwed up mind to look at a rape victim and think "Lying slut just wants to abandon her responsibility and murder her child."
Protestors at clinics screaming synonyms of "slut" and "prostitute" (many of which would be censored here) at any woman who enters (Even if they're going for reasons completely unrelated to abortion) is a long time standard of the movement.
AegisGrimm wrote:I agree. Does he seriously think the a woman's body will react to a rapists sperm like some kind of immune response and destroy the potential fetus? He's a high school grad, right? Because that's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
Sometimes High school education doesn't actually mean very much. Example.
And when Akin says "legitimate rape", I'm willing to bet he means one or more of the following:
-when she wasn't asking for it -when she wasn't dressed like she wanted it -when she wasn't married to her attacker -when she wasn't on a date -when she wasn't a slut -when she wasn't a prostitute -when she wasn't subconsciously enjoying it -when she wasn't just making it up
Orlanth wrote: I really think the 'legitimate rape' thing needs to be properly defined before we can have a proper go at this topic.
If the politician concerned didn't explain what he was alleged to have said perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, an embellishment by hostile media or just something misheard.
There may be a simple honest explanation other than 'he literally meant what he said'.
"Legitimate rape" has a history of use by anti-abortion groups who speculate that if an exemption for rape was permitted, there'd be a problem with women claiming they were raped so they could access abortion, and in turn speculating about how closely you'd have to verify a woman's story before permitting an abortion.
That so. Do you have a source?
I did a Google search on 'legitimate rape'. After 24 pages still hadn't found any title reference to anything other than the current issue.
There's no reason to suspect the term was used in any context but that.
Possibly if the context of its history of use by anti-abortion groups has any truth to it.
That still will not rule out having mispoken, which is what the Senator has been saying according to many of the links the above search revealed.
I stand by my original premise, it is fairer for us to wait until the Senator has had fair chance to explain himself giving the voting public in Missouri (therefore by extension everyone else) the opportunity to understand precisely what he meant.
And that's enough of an excuse for political opponents to condemn this guy, and by extension Republicans in general without even looking at what he actually meant to say .
Melissia wrote: Protestors at clinics screaming synonyms of "slut" and "prostitute" (many of which would be censored here) are a long time standard of the movement.
That I'm aware of, legitimate rape though, that's much more heinous for some reason.
Ironic these people call themselves Christians (for the most part in the US) and have that whole love thing they're supposed to be working on, then a portion of their populace does things like that. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that's not how that works.
AegisGrimm wrote:I agree. Does he seriously think the a woman's body will react to a rapists sperm like some kind of immune response and destroy the potential fetus? He's a high school grad, right? Because that's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
Sometimes High school education doesn't actually mean very much. Example.
And when Akin says "legitimate rape", I'm willing to bet he means one or more of the following:
-when she wasn't asking for it
-when she wasn't dressed like she wanted it
-when she wasn't married to her attacker
-when she wasn't on a date first
-when she wasn't a slut
-when she wasn't a prostitute
-when she wasn't subconsciously enjoying it
-when she wasn't just making it up
I typically don't wish ill will towards people, but I know that I would laugh if I were to read about someone dressing up like Jesus and fethstarting this guy's head.
EDIT: Interesting. Apparently the original word that I changed to "fethstarting" wasn't being picked up by the filters.
How about:
And when Akin says "legitimate rape", I'm willing to bet he means the following:
- when sexual intercourse actually is rape.
We all get tongue twisters.
Take these two statements:
1. "First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's* really rare, If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down"
2. "First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's* really rare, If someone really is raped, the female body has ways to try to stop pregnancy."
*pregnancy resulting from rape from context.
Are we even sure that isnt true? Can the mental state of the mother, or a desire to conceive or a lack of desire to conceive actually effect the chances of conception or the chances of miscarriage.
After a two minute search, so this is far from exhaustive:
http://www.mrc.ac.za/mrcnews/july2005/mom.htm Research has already demonstrated that psychosocial stress - stress related to one's psychological state and social environment - may significantly affect not only the mother's wellbeing, but also the physical development of the child she is carrying.
In account of the above what the Senator said is even reasonable, if the obvious translation of legitimate in the context of the comment holds. He says that the female body tries to 'shut that whole thing down'. He does not imply it will, or must. It gives no room to blanket say that abortion will never be necessary in the case of rape because gestation to term wont happen. He said try. Yes that could be a tongue twister too, but usually one garbled word is enough, its not fair to assume lightning will strike twice here. Clarify 'legitimate rape' and what the Senator said may well make scientific sense.
So in order for what the senator said to be utterly stupid we need a translation of legitimate rape that sounds utterly stupid, which is unlikely as every Senator (and I would suggest almost everyone else) would know that rape is a crime and can never be formally 'legitimate' in the US. The word legitimate in all likelihood is therefore a mispoken word meaning something else.
That or evidence that rape is unlikely to cause stress or anxiety in women.
He is a fething Senator, it must be fairly difficult to be that stupid and get that far. Occams razor suggests that the simplest answer is that as the Senator said, he mispoke, he garbled a sentence, nothing more.
What it appears he was saying if you look at his comments fairly and in context does appear to be backed up by some medical websites. How accredited they are I cannot say.
In any case should he have the meaning of his words dictated by a horde of closet Democrats who will not wait to allow him to clarify.
http://www.mrc.ac.za/mrcnews/july2005/mom.htm Research has already demonstrated that psychosocial stress - stress related to one's psychological state and social environment - may significantly affect not only the mother's wellbeing, but also the physical development of the child she is carrying.
I have some disagreement with relying on the stress of being raped to cause a miscarriage, which is not a 100% guarantee. If this is what the politician's solution is, it is a flawed one in the extreme.
So in order for what the senator said to be utterly stupid we need a translation of legitimate rape that sounds stupid, which is unlikely as every Senator (and I would suggest almost everyone else) would know that rape is a crime and can never be formally legitimate in the US.
Or evidence that rape is unlikely to cause stress or anxiety in women.
It is known that some people are a little more heartless than others in their definitions of rape. In addition, the Senator's definition is probably not based on the law but on his perception of rape.
AegisGrimm wrote:I agree. Does he seriously think the a woman's body will react to a rapists sperm like some kind of immune response and destroy the potential fetus? He's a high school grad, right? Because that's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
Sometimes High school education doesn't actually mean very much. Example.
And when Akin says "legitimate rape", I'm willing to bet he means one or more of the following:
-when she wasn't asking for it -when she wasn't dressed like she wanted it -when she wasn't married to her attacker -when she wasn't on a date first -when she wasn't a slut -when she wasn't a prostitute -when she wasn't subconsciously enjoying it -when she wasn't just making it up
How about:
And when Akin says "legitimate rape", I'm willing to bet he means the following: - when sexual intercourse actually is rape.
We all get tongue twisters.
Take these two statements:
1. "First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's* really rare, If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down"
2. "First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's* really rare, If someone really is raped, the female body has ways to try to stop pregnancy."
*pregnancy resulting from rape from context.
Are we even sure that isnt true? Can the mental state of the mother, or a desire to conceive or a lack of desire to conceive actually effect the chances of conception or the chances of miscarriage
Melissia wrote: Orlanth apparently has never heard of Occam's Razor.
Funnily enough I didn't see that until after I wrote my post.
Occams Razor suggest the word 'legitimate' in reference to rape is simply a mispoken word, just as the Senator says it is. Because assuming a Senator manages to have a political career yet is unaware that rape is an illegitimate act is horribly unlikely.
Occams Razor also suggests that if he said 'First of all, from what I understand from doctors', marries up nicely to what some websites says happens medically then the simples explanation is that he garbled a sentence through the unfortunate choice of a single word.
Perhaps I can wield Occams Razor to suggest that those who oppose the Republicans will want to misrepresent what they say for political gain. Its simple to believing that morons who do not undertsrtand rape is illigitimate actually managing to get selected to stand then elected Senator.
He is a fething Senator, it must be fairly difficult to be that stupid and get that far. Occams razor suggests that the simplest answer is that as the Senator said, he mispoke, he garbled a sentence, nothing more.
Or you could do 2 minutes of research, instead of spending that time typing out speculation, and find his clarification. Which pretty much shows that he was using "legitimate rape" as a means of hand waving the issue in order to focus on denying access to abortion.
I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action.
Orlanth, stress may cause miscarriage, but miscarriage requires a pregnancy in the first place; ergo that is not a proper defense of that man's misguided beliefs-- or quite possibly just plain lies in order to reinforce his political position, but Hanlon's razor leads me to believe in incompetence instead.
I have some disagreement with relying on the stress of being raped to cause a miscarriage, which is not a 100% guarantee. If this is what the politician's solution is, it is a flawed one in the extreme.
Senator Akin seems to agree with you here. If I read him right he thinks the womans biology will try to shut down the pregnancy, a 100% guarantee is something he does not claim.
Its ambiguous, and even the article claims such. I think there is room to suggest he was misreported misheard or garbled his words.
No, not really. That little "video" tab in Google is your friend here.
Thankyou for that. So he want misheard, and he wasn't misreported by the interviewer - but may well be misreported here by those who assume a literal application of the word legitimate.
Its very plain from context senator Akin meant "in cases where it is legitimate to say rape caused the pregnancy".
There isn't actually a fair story here, he mispoke a single word.
Occams Razor also suggests that if he said 'First of all, from what I understand from doctors', marries up nicely to what some websites says happens medically then the simples explanation is that he garbled a sentence through the unfortunate choice of a single word.
Except it doesn't. The sources you cited indicate that psychological duress can impact the state of a fetus in an already pregnant woman, not prevent the woman from becoming pregnant.
Considering that the rate of pregnancy following from rape, in the US, is ~5%, (and ~15-20% in developing nations) and the natural rate of pregnancy (again, in the US) is ~7%, it seems unlikely that there is any natural response that makes it less likely for a woman to become pregnant if she is raped. Especially given that IVF, AI, and general fertility treatments are likely to account for the 2% discrepancy.
This took me 20 minutes to research, and I'm not on Akin's staff. Either his staff is incompetent, or he was looking to dodge an issue, and did so in a particularly inept way.
AegisGrimm wrote:I agree. Does he seriously think the a woman's body will react to a rapists sperm like some kind of immune response and destroy the potential fetus? He's a high school grad, right? Because that's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
Sometimes High school education doesn't actually mean very much. Example.
And when Akin says "legitimate rape", I'm willing to bet he means one or more of the following:
-when she wasn't asking for it
-when she wasn't dressed like she wanted it
-when she wasn't married to her attacker
-when she wasn't on a date first
-when she wasn't a slut
-when she wasn't a prostitute
-when she wasn't subconsciously enjoying it
-when she wasn't just making it up
How about:
And when Akin says "legitimate rape", I'm willing to bet he means the following:
- when sexual intercourse actually is rape.
We all get tongue twisters.
Take these two statements:
1. "First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's* really rare, If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down"
2. "First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's* really rare, If someone really is raped, the female body has ways to try to stop pregnancy."
*pregnancy resulting from rape from context.
Are we even sure that isnt true? Can the mental state of the mother, or a desire to conceive or a lack of desire to conceive actually effect the chances of conception or the chances of miscarriage
Dear Orlanth;
Women are not Bene Gesserit witches
sincerely,
~Science
If they were, the wyrding way would probably stop the whole rape issue flat out.. At least from what I remember of Dune.
No. Even so you tell me how someone gets elected to a very high office without knowing that rape is always illegitimate?
Senator Akin seems to agree with you here. If I read him right he thinks the womans biology will try to shut down the pregnancy, a 100% guarantee is something he does not claim.
There isn't actually a fair story here, he mispoke a single word.
I ask that question a lot.
Which would beg the question, what separates the life inside of a woman who had a miscarriage and the life inside of a woman who had an abortion.
I doubt the man did any real research. He had an agenda, after all. I doubt research would have mattered.
He is a fething Senator, it must be fairly difficult to be that stupid and get that far. Occams razor suggests that the simplest answer is that as the Senator said, he mispoke, he garbled a sentence, nothing more.
Or you could do 2 minutes of research, instead of spending that time typing out speculation, and find his [url=http://www.akin.org/updates/akin-statement-jaco-report-interview?
Already ahead of you by working out what he was saying rather than crying LOLWUT.
That isn't a clarification of how he mispoke. It doesn't say what he meant be 'legitimate rape' but it can only logically mean 'pregnancy from intercourse legitimately classed as rape'.
As for the intent that was clear enough first time around in the video you kindly posted.
0:05 to 0:09 - asked directly about whether abortion is acceptable in rape cases
0:31 to 0:37 - gives strong indication the unborn child should not be 'punished' for the rape.
I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action.
Which pretty much shows that he was using "legitimate rape" as a means of hand waving the issue in order to focus on denying access to abortion.
- I cannot share this conclusion, in fact its a little loaded. You can say Akin recommends that the foetus is not killed to account for the crime of rape but the rapist is punished instead. This is an encouragement for women who are raped to keep the child, but is not a direct denial of access to abortion. Any but the most rabid pro-choicer will understand that Akin is entitled to make a moral suggestion as to what a pregnancy rape victim ought to do. he need not be forced into silence for having an opinion while in possession of a Y chromosome.
- I see no evidence to suggest whether Akin actually would ban abortion for rape victims, at the point he goes that far he crosses the line. Moral suggestion is fine, it was his stated answer, he made no promise of legislation and it would be unfair therefore to assume he is planning such without further evidence to back that up.
- I can't call it 'hand waving' as the issue is addressed directly. It acknowledged that rape exists, it causes unexpected pregnancy and sometimes those pregnancies can come to full term. It shows an understanding of the issue and sympathy for the women involved. Whether individuals endorse his message that women should consider the life of the foetus first and not abort is separate in that one can endorse that decision or reject it and still consider the question raised by the interviewer as having been addressed properly, not evaded.
There isn't actually a fair story here, he mispoke a single word.
I suspect you wouldn't be nearly so forgiving if this had been a politician that you were not sympathetic towards.
I hadn't heard of Akin before today. I have no opinion on him. In fact the only US politician I have a personal opinion on is Obama, who I will state for the record is a fething disaster. I find Romney a 'disappointing' opponent, but have no real comment on his policies.
I wasnt being forgiving I was merelty giving the 'scandal' more analysis than most people tried. I do not see an issue here in what he said. Akin answered a direct question on abortion, he didn't try to avoid the subject though it is a dangerous question with polarised points of view. He placed his own point of view firmly accross in a non offensive manner showing sympathy for women and went no further than to suggest hat women choose to keep a child conceived of rape.
For the record I dont even agree with that. In my opinion rape is good immediate grounds for termination regardless of the health of the foetus or religious preferences so long as the decision to abort is taken within the legal time limit for abortion.
I was disgusted when news broke of IIRC a sixteen year old from the Republic of Ireland was denied abortion on religious grounds after having conceived due to rape. I was content to learn she fled the country to have an abortion elsewhere.
So in fact I DONT agree with him, I am just analysing what Akin said with a fairness that has so far been denied him on this thread.
Occams Razor also suggests that if he said 'First of all, from what I understand from doctors', marries up nicely to what some websites says happens medically then the simples explanation is that he garbled a sentence through the unfortunate choice of a single word.
Except it doesn't. The sources you cited indicate that psychological duress can impact the state of a fetus in an already pregnant woman, not prevent the woman from becoming pregnant.
Senator Akin said "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down".
He did not clarfy how or when, only that doctors told him the body tries to achieve this.
There is no certainty and Akin gave no specific methodology of how a pregnancy is stopped only that it could occur due to a natural process. This is why I translated his comment as such. as below:
"First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare, If someone really is raped, the female body has ways to try to stop pregnancy."
'Impacted state of foetus' leading to miscarriage is a pregnancy stopped, yes?
OK, we get it. You are sure his he misspoke and it's no big. So maybe now we can talk about what he unambiguously believes, as per his clarification: that American women who are raped should be forced to carry their rapists's child to term; and that's his vision for America.
djones520 wrote: Oh that is a load of crap. Republicans are not attacking women
Yes they are, all the goddamend time. For example, quite a damned few Republicans, even ones on this very forum, argued that effectively "You're a slut if you use birth control!" Even if you're using it for medical reasons to control your menstrual cycle.
The first question would be, why are you getting worked up over an idiot making an obviously contradictory statement? Secondly, who has said that and has anything they said ever had merit to it? If not, why care?
Melissia wrote:Or for that matter, nevermind the stereotypical "welfare mother" that Republicans love ranting about, because oh no, how DARE someone who takes three jobs while trying to raise four kids accept some government help. Or the constant attack by Republican evangelists on any woman who works for a living, bashing them for not staying at home watching the kids-- how DARE a man do that. Or the fact that almost all of these attacks are combined with claims of sexual promiscuity and personal insults.
Evangelists are known nutcases, why do you care what they think? If you think the 'stereotypical welfare mother' doesn't exist, you're in denial. There are far too many (of course anything over 0 is too many) mothers who don't work, are not married/in a committed relationship, or do not have a SO collecting a paycheck, so naturally they are on welfare. I've had minority coworkers bitch about that because it makes all poor unwed mothers look bad, when its only really applicable to a few.
Here's the real question, if you're not in a financially stable situation, why would you even getting pregnant? And once you have the first child, why would you continue to have more when you're on minimum wage? Sure, they should be commended for working hard, making ends meet, and dealing with their mistakes, but the thought process that led to those mistakes needs to be rectified.
Unless you're a fething idiot you should know having sex, even protected sex, brings the risk of pregnancy and STDs. Unless you are willing and capable of dealing with those situations, you should probably not have sex. Making the argument that people don't have the self control to not have sex is foolish. If we can't expect people to control their base desires, why should we expect rape, violence, verbal abuse, etc to not occur? Humans are animals, but we have minds. Use your fething head.
Melissia wrote:Protestors at clinics screaming synonyms of "slut" and "prostitute" (many of which would be censored here) at any woman who enters (Even if they're going for reasons completely unrelated to abortion) is a long time standard of the movement.
Yes, there are nutters in the movement. This isn't news.
Already ahead of you by working out what he was saying rather than crying LOLWUT.
See, this is what you don't seem to understand. I know what he was saying. He was differentiating between rape that is real, and "rape" that is not. This in itself is a contentious issue, with thousands of pages of academic, journalistic, and personal debate surrounding it. For many people it is a "LOLWUT" issue, because it plants Akin quite firmly in the noninclusive camp.
I in no way, ever, thought he was claiming that there are legitimate forms of rape, but that doesn't make what he said any less stupid. He would have been better served by stating, simply, that he did not believe the suffering of the mother should be passed on to the child; which is essentially what his clarification amounted to.
- I cannot share this conclusion, in fact its a little loaded.
Of course it is, its a conclusion based upon limited information. It has to be loaded. I would think you would be comfortable with loaded conclusions, seeing as that's basically your shtick.
You can say Akin recommends that the foetus is not killed to account for the crime of rape but the rapist is punished instead. This is an encouragement for women who are raped to keep the child, but is not a direct denial of access to abortion. Any but the most rabid pro-choicer will understand that Akin is entitled to make a moral suggestion as to what a pregnancy rape victim ought to do. he need not be forced into silence for having an opinion while in possession of a Y chromosome.
He's running on a pro-life platform in Missouri, which already has extremely restrictive laws regarding birth control and abortion.
And shut up about being forced into silence. He's having his, very public, opinion mocked by people that disagree. If you say something, in that position, then you should expect dissent. It is funny, however, that you would become terribly upset that someone is being mocked while having a history of "PC dogma" complaints.
Melissia wrote:Protestors at clinics screaming synonyms of "slut" and "prostitute" (many of which would be censored here) at any woman who enters (Even if they're going for reasons completely unrelated to abortion) is a long time standard of the movement.
Yes, there are nutters in the movement. This isn't news. There are also Muslims who like to crash planes into buildings, strap bombs onto their chests and kill civilians, etc. Stereotypes work both ways. If you're going to stereotype the entire Republican party as a bunch of Bible thumping, gun loving, hypocritical, anti abortion donkey-caves, you should expect to be stereotyped and insulted back as an uneducated, lazy, minority prostitute that is good for nothing but sucking on the government's teat and lives for vengeance against whitey. Instead of spewing vitriol perhaps you should look for solution or better yet control your anger and mouth if you can't bring any positive elements to a discussion.
Already ahead of you by working out what he was saying rather than crying LOLWUT.
See, this is what you don't seem to understand. I know what he was saying. He was differentiating between rape that is real, and "rape" that is not. This in itself is a contentious issue, with thousands of pages of academic, journalistic, and personal debate surrounding it. For many people it is a "LOLWUT" issue, because it plants Akin quite firmly in the noninclusive camp.
Citation please.
'Legitimate rape' can be most simply defined as differentiating between causes of pregnancy that can be legitimately classified as rape and those that cannot.
its an unfortunately choice of phrase as it opens opportunities for you to assume stuff that isnt there such as 'legitimate rape'.
Just ignore that, is was a mispoken word because he was in TV and nervous and answering dangerous questions. Its not uncommon this sort of thing happens. Normally over here when a politician mispeaks in the house the opposition and the guys own backbenchers howl for a few seconds but then he/she lives it down. I think there is something to learn from this. Senator Akin shouldn't be raked over the coals for an errant word.
There is no need to go differentiating between rape that is real and rape that is not. The simplest explanation is that Akin meant 'actual rape', 'actually when raped', 'in the real event of rape'. However you want to phrase it without having to invent up a category of 'fake rape' or 'rape that is not' and assume the Senator thinks it exists and can make policy on it on the strength of one errant word.
- I see no evidence to suggest whether Akin actually would ban abortion for rape victims, at the point he goes that far he crosses the line.
This is, unfortunately, where you cross the rubicon from "reasonable dude in a discussion" to "culture war foot soldier" in my book. From his clarification
"I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action.
This was, like, the second google result from searching for "Akin abortion ban":
HOST: I wanted to get to the actual morning-after pill. So are you saying that you would like that to be banned for everyone, or do you have exceptions for rape and incest?
AKIN: As far as I’m concerned, the morning-after pill is a form of abortion, and I think we shouldn’t have abortion in this country. [...] The life of the mother, the situation there is one where what you want to do is optimize life, you try to save the mother’s life, you try to save the child. [...]
HOST: Just to be clear, though, you would like to ban the morning after pill totally for everyone?
AKIN: Yeah. I think that is a form of abortion and I don’t support it.
Emphasis mine. Those are his plain, unambiguous words he presented in an unrushed fashion. By all means, spin away. I understand you want to believe, so go to it.
- I see no evidence to suggest whether Akin actually would ban abortion for rape victims, at the point he goes that far he crosses the line.
This is, unfortunately, where you cross the rubicon from "reasonable dude in a discussion" to "culture war foot soldier" in my book. From his clarification
"I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action.
Those are his plain, unambiguous words he presented in an unrushed fashion. By all means, spin away. I understand you want to believe, so go to it.
How are you getting he wants to ban abortion for rape victims out of that? All he said was that he believes it is not "the right course of action." I agree and disagree with him. I don't think abortion is usually a good idea, there are better ways of dealing with pregnancy, adoption for instance (depending on your ethnicity sadly...>.<, or better yet don't get pregnant in the first place. Rape victims are stuck with raising the child, having an abortion, or putting it up for adoption. I don't know how it would effect someone if they learned that they were both adopted and the product of rape. I wish our society was past the point where our origins matter, but we're not and I could see how that would be emotionally devastating.
There really is no good choice for dealing with it and the worst part is that its not the victims fault at all. The rape alone is severely traumatic, but having to deal with pregnancy as a result of it as well is just maddeningly horrific.
"First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare, If someone really is raped, the female body has ways to try to stop pregnancy."
'Impacted state of foetus' leading to miscarriage is a pregnancy stopped, yes?
When he said "...that's really rare..." he was referring to pregnancy as a result of rape. Because the question asked was regarding pregnancy as a result of rape.
Again, you talk about context all the time, but you're ignoring it now.
"First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare, If someone really is raped, the female body has ways to try to stop pregnancy."
'Impacted state of foetus' leading to miscarriage is a pregnancy stopped, yes?
When he said "...that's really rare..." he was referring to pregnancy as a result of rape. Because the question asked was regarding pregnancy as a result of rape.
Again, you talk about context all the time, but you're ignoring it now.
Context still in place. Perhaps you just dont like what reading his comments in context tells you.
It indicates no plans to ban abortion for rape victims, denying you a legitimate excuse to get angry at his policies.
Maybe you wont be happy until Akin says. "I am a raving sexist fundamentalist bigot who wants to ban all abortion for rape victims. Make them interrupt their lives to raise the kids of violent criminals for 18 years."
Akin is not a Senator, he is runnng for Senate. At the moment he is a Congressman.
Good job though, you have proven that you're talking out your ass.
Picky, picky.
Took you (and everyone else reading my posts) a while to work out he wasn't a Senator, been calling him that for the last x pages so you didn't realise either. At least I have an excuse in that it doesn't make a blindest bit of difference whether what actual office title he holds for someone outside the country. He is an elected senior politician for Missouri. I cannot immediately point out Missouri on a map either, knowing which country Missouri is in is enough for me. If I need to know I will find out.
If I met the guy and called him by the wrong title I would feel suitably embarrassed. Outside of that I couldn't care if his actual official title was Senator, Congressman or Warmaster of Chaos. Who cares outside the US, the fact he is a senior US elected official is what's relevant, it ought to change nothing but.....
Hey look, I mispoke a word. Have no mercy, rah, rah.
Really? You're that lazy, and that ignorant? There have been extensive debates on this forum regarding the nature of rape. A forum about little plastic men. Just peruse this. There are more, but its Google Scholar, which is awful.
'Legitimate rape' can be most simply defined as differentiating between causes of pregnancy that can be legitimately classified as rape and those that cannot.
Which is what I said regarding my interpretation of the statement, and why I brought up the debate regarding the nature of rape.
Just ignore that, is was a mispoken word because he was in TV and nervous and answering dangerous questions.
No, he does this for a living. He's a politician, speaking in interviews is part of the job description. I'll tolerate a gaffe here and there, but his platform is consistent with what he said, and his clarification was as well.
The simplest explanation is that Akin meant 'actual rape', 'actually when raped', 'in the real event of rape'.
As I said above, I know that's what he meant, but the nature of rape is a topic of much discussion. To state that "legitimate rape" instead of just "rape" is to state that some things that others classify as rapes are not rapes at all.
Amaya wrote: The first question would be, why are you getting worked up over an idiot making an obviously contradictory statement? [...] Evangelists are known nutcases, why do you care what they think? [...] Why care?
I don't care. But it serves as an excellent example for the statement I made.
Amaya wrote: I've had minority coworkers bitch about that because it makes all poor unwed mothers look bad, when its only really applicable to a few.
Ah, so you agree with me. Okay, glad to hear it.
Amaya wrote: Here's the real question, if you're not in a financially stable situation, why would you even getting pregnant?
And are you deluded enough to think that they really intended it? Gak happens to people, and they have to deal with it one way or the other.
Amaya wrote: If you're going to stereotype the entire Republican party as a bunch of Bible thumping, gun loving, hypocritical, anti abortion donkey-caves
Then I'd be pretty accurate, given the way they depict themselves in their own primary election cycles.
Speaking in generalities about a political party's politicians (Especially one which enforces party loyalty like the Republican party tends to) does not indicate that there are no exceptions, but I assumed most reasonable people would realize this.
Context still in place. Perhaps you just dont like what reading his comments in context tells you.
It indicates no plans to ban abortion for rape victims, denying you a legitimate excuse to get angry at his policies.
Maybe you wont be happy until Akin says. "I am a raving sexist fundamentalist bigot who wants to ban all abortion for rape victims. Make them interrupt their lives to raise the kids of violent criminals for 18 years."
Took you (and everyone else reading my posts) a while to work out he wasn't a Senator, been calling him that for the last x pages so you didn't realise either.
Because I only just got here, and have had to parse you're needlessly verbose nonsense.
Who cares outside the US, the fact he is a senior US elected official is what's relevant, it ought to change nothing but.....
Hey look, I mispoke a word. Have no mercy, rah, rah.
There is a massive difference between being a Senator and a Congressman. It isn't that hard to be elected to Congress, because you only need to appeal to your district.
Maybe you wont be happy until Akin says. "I am a raving sexist fundamentalist bigot who wants to ban all abortion for rape victims. Make them interrupt their lives to raise the kids of violent criminals for 18 years."
In this conversation you do need to know, and you didn't attempt to find out.
So i need to be able to find Missouri on a blank map to talk about rape? or Akin? Which one. It pays for you to explain just how much BS you are spouting.
Evidently not as ignorant as some. Where is there any reference to this "rape"-that-is-not, you claim Akin believes in.
That was what I was asking for a citation about. Funnily enough I know what rape is, so sending me a Google scholar link to 'rape' is a little low, even for you.
I would also like to see how you back up the idea that Akin could believe in a form of rape or not rape that has a different chance of causing pregnancy. Remembering the context here set by the interviewer to Akin for pregnancy caused by rape, so anal rape doesn't count as an answer.
There have been extensive debates on this forum regarding the nature of rape.
Then you might have started by linking to the thread that hopefully defines "rape"-that-is-not.
Instead of guessing you might profit from learning from the law on this issue. Thats the clearest indication of whether full sexual intercourse is rape or not. You will find that if you have sexual intercourse with someone the circumstances and partner involved will in seperation or combine to legally define whether an act is rape. If full sexual intercourse is illegal either through denial of choice or age of partner its rape, if its otherwise legal its not rape. Two options, nice and easy. No phantom third option for you to claim Congressman Akin believes in because her one mispoke the words 'legitimate rape'.
Amaya wrote: How are you getting he wants to ban abortion for rape victims out of that?
How are you getting anything other then that? Granted, I edited my post to add a second example and your post was so lengthy that you almost certainly missed my expanding upon this, but I think his stance on this is pretty unambiguous. When asked directly if he'd ban abortion even for rape victims, he replied we shouldn't have abortion in this country, when asked more specifically about the morning after pill, he reiterates the same.
I did a Google search on 'legitimate rape'. After 24 pages still hadn't found any title reference to anything other than the current issue.
Well of course that's what you're going to get, this is a big story that's just broken, it's going to dominate news on the subject. It's also a particularly novel, odious way of phrasing the concept, worse than most have used in the past, so just typing those exact words into google will get you little of value.
So here's some examples of this culture among anti-abortions folk; Eric Turner, member of the House in Indiana and sponsor of the bill there that aimed to heavily curtail abortion rejected an exception for women who were raped, stating - “Someone who is desirous of an abortion could simply say that they’ve been raped or there’s incest." http://www.newser.com/story/115351/indiana-rep-women-will-lie-about-rape-to-get-abortions.html
Idaho senator Chuck Winder sponsored a bill stated the following when asked about having a rape exception entered into his own bill "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape."
I stand by my original premise, it is fairer for us to wait until the Senator has had fair chance to explain himself giving the voting public in Missouri (therefore by extension everyone else) the opportunity to understand precisely what he meant.
And I'm going to be fair to you and assume you're entirely unaware of the culture shown by, but not at all exclusive to congressmen Akin, Turner and Winder, and that unfamiliarity has led you to be far more generous than is sensible.
Because this is a thing that is not at all common among anti-abortion political groups in the US. And as such there is absolutely nothing unreasonable about someone using plain language to explain something that is commonly believed by people like him.
Fixed.
Absolute crap. There is simply no way to explain away his comments as anything other than what they were. He believes that there is some kind of anti-rape defence in the body that magically knows if the woman is really resisting the man or not, and if so then it produces some kind of anti-sperm measure. He believes this in spite of the fact that no medical practioner has ever located any such mechanism in the body, or even speculated about such. Basically he believes it because it makes it easier for him to believe certain things about rape, and likely other things about women who are carrying babies they don't want.
Sure, it will get used for political advantage. But that's what should happen when people say odious, idiotic things. Pretending to be 'fair' by not bothering to read the statement in question is frankly ridiculous approach.
Orlanth wrote: If full sexual intercourse is illegal either through denial of choice or age of partner its rape, if its otherwise legal its not rape. Two options, nice and easy. No phantom third option for you to claim Congressman Akin believes in because her one mispoke the words 'legitimate rape'.
Good job, you finally stumbled on the crux of the "What is rape?" question.
Orlanth wrote: Occams Razor suggest the word 'legitimate' in reference to rape is simply a mispoken word, just as the Senator says it is. Because assuming a Senator manages to have a political career yet is unaware that rape is an illegitimate act is horribly unlikely.
I don't think you get this at all. The use of the word 'legitimate' wasn't making any comment on rape, but was there to imply that in lots of cases women who say they were raped were not telling the truth. So the point is to say 'oh if she was really raped then she wouldn't get pregnant, because of the magical defences that I believe exist despite there being no such evidence... therefore if she's pregnant she must have actually been into it and is now lying.'
As my links above showed, Akin is not the first guy to believe women lie about being raped in relation to abortion, just likely the first to believe in magical anti-pregnancy defences in the event of rape.
Absolute crap. There is simply no way to explain away his comments as anything other than what they were. He believes that there is some kind of anti-rape defence in the body that magically knows if the woman is really resisting the man or not, and if so then it produces some kind of anti-sperm measure.
How did you work that out? Jedi mind reading powers?
Can you point to anything where Akin goes on record saying this is what he believes. If you can provide a fair citation I will agree with you and concede the argument. I am only going by what I read about this case, I dont know this mans electoral life history. Has he a certain notoriety for his opinions on rape (prior to embellishments on the interview refered to in the OP)?
He believes this in spite of the fact that no medical practioner has ever located any such mechanism in the body, or even speculated about such. Basically he believes it because it makes it easier for him to believe certain things about rape, and likely other things about women who are carrying babies they don't want.
Does he now?
Does he also believe that Obama is a Moslem and illegible to be president because he is not a US citizen.
So i need to be able to find Missouri on a blank map to talk about rape? or Akin? Which one. It pays for you to explain just how much BS you are spouting.
In order to talk about comments made by a Missouri Congressman regarding rape, which is what this conversation about, yes. I mean, you can talk about, in the literal sense, but you'll most likely be deservedly mocked for lacking any sort of context or relevant knowledge.
Orlanth wrote: Occams Razor suggest the word 'legitimate' in reference to rape is simply a mispoken word, just as the Senator says it is. Because assuming a Senator manages to have a political career yet is unaware that rape is an illegitimate act is horribly unlikely.
I don't think you get this at all. The use of the word 'legitimate' wasn't making any comment on rape, but was there to imply that in lots of cases women who say they were raped were not telling the truth. So the point is to say 'oh if she was really raped then she wouldn't get pregnant, because of the magical defences that I believe exist despite there being no such evidence... therefore if she's pregnant she must have actually been into it and is now lying.'
Citation for Akins belief in magical anti-pregancy defence from rape needed.
Hint. Twisting the words of the interview in the OP is not a citation. There is a simple logical alternative, he had a far less irrational opinion but mispoke in the interview..
A 1996 study by the American Journal of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found “rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency” and is “a cause of many unwanted pregnancies” — an estimated “32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.”
Akin is perhaps the boldest among a crop of conservative 2012 nominees who could hamper GOP efforts to take back the Senate in the fall. Akin has called for an end to the school-lunch program and a total ban on the morning-after pill.
His claim about “legitimate” types of rape is not completely foreign to the current Republican Congress, however. In 2011, the House GOP was forced to drop language from a bill that would have limited federal help to pay for an abortion to only victims of “forcible rape.” Akin was a co-sponsor on the bill.
Nor is this Akin’s first time suggesting some types of rape are more worthy of protections than others. As a state legislator, Akin voted in 1991 for an anti-marital-rape law, but only after questioning whether it might be misused “in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband,” according to a May 1 article that year in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Rep. Todd Akin said a second time Sunday that he had misspoken, and clarified his remarks on "legitimate rape" on Twitter, reiterating his earlier apology:
Todd Akin
✔
@ToddAkin
"To be clear, all of us understand that rape can result in pregnancy & I have great empathy for all victims. I regret misspeaking."- Todd
Mitt Romney's presidential campaign said late Sunday night that Romney and Paul Ryan "disagree" with Rep. Todd Akin's (R-MO) Sunday comments claiming women who are victims of "legitimate rape" have biology that prevents them from getting pregnant.
"Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement. A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," the campaign said in a statement confirmed by TPM.
Akin walked back his comments after a firestorm Sunday. Ryan, Romney's running mate, has said in the past he opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest.
A 1996 study by the American Journal of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found “rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency” and is “a cause of many unwanted pregnancies” — an estimated “32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.”
Orlanth wrote: If full sexual intercourse is illegal either through denial of choice or age of partner its rape, if its otherwise legal its not rape. Two options, nice and easy. No phantom third option for you to claim Congressman Akin believes in because her one mispoke the words 'legitimate rape'.
Good job, you finally stumbled on the crux of the "What is rape?" question.
Which has a single definitive answer denial of choice, or more specifically denial of choice by a participant above the minimum age of consent.
I didnt 'stumble' to find that.
Why have you not pointed out the alternative not-rape Akins supposedly believes in. Still waiting on that.
Orlanth wrote: There is a simple logical alternative, he had a far less irrational opinion but mispoke in the interview..
Wow. The level of denial here is impressive.
Indeed, he mispoke, he said he mispoke, and yet you still try and find extra hidden meaning in the words. Are you with Sebster in thinking Akin believes in magical anti pregnancy protection that cuts in during a genuine rape?
Your speculation was idle, and eventually proven incorrect, admit it.
It looks ok so far.
Occams razor:
- Akin mispoke, like he plainly said he did, he liklely meant to refer to the phenomena reported by the medical profession that women under emotional strain can miscarry and that rape can cause such a strain. The alternative being a new world view on rape that is not reported anywhere, including by the person who supposedly 'believes' in it.
- And some here and in the media have a simple motive for putting words in Akin's mouth. Its election time and if he has little enough platform to deny the words they make him look very stupid.
Akin consistently says he doesn't agree with abortion. He hasn't dodged the issues as has been suggested here but answered topical questions on abortion openly and without evasion. Sure he could choose his words more carefully and I don't agree with his political stance as a whole, but I cannot claim to see the extra stupidity that some like to claim they see in his policies on account of this interview.
I'm not even touching that Orlanth. It just kind of looks pathetic, like you're deliberately dodging the points made in order to try to avoid even potentially admitting to yourself that you might be wrong.
All I see is a politician saying something deeply stupid/offensive in pretty plain language and then trying to cover himself from the fallout saying "I misspoke" but not really wanting to be drawn on making a full clarification or retraction. If Orlanth claims his initial statement was unclear, what his "I misspoke" refers to is even more difficult to pin down. But that's how politicians are when they are caught saying something that's awkward but that they don't completely want to retract.
I guess Orlanth must be getting a bad back having to bend over so far to excuse this. You don't actually need to make any radical interpretation of what was said. He clearly was speaking of 'legitimate rapes', to exclude those which are somehow 'less serious' or even completely made up (which seems a common first reaction to all women claiming rape). The idea that women being 'properly raped', or however they phrase it, are being less likely to get pregnant isn't so difficult to believe coming from the mouth of the more lunatic fringes of conservative groups who have a pretty shaky grasp on science at the best of times. The worrying conclusion of course is that he's implying that be even getting pregnant, the women is somehow proving that she didn't entirely oppose or dislike being raped which is why it shouldn't be used as a reason to abort. He could have clarified all this of course but thinks "I misspoke" is adequate to cover his ass.
I had the same thought. Feth. If you have such an urge, go rent a hooker, bloody hell.
Yep... well I definitely am offering women a discount on pistols and defensive shooting/carry classes when I get my gunstore open. Numbers like that... that's roughly one in ten thousand.
*does some quick research*
*whistles* according to the FBI 84,767 rapes were reported to Law Enforcement in 2010 (last completed year of the FBI Uniform Crime Report: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls ) if you accept the statistic of 50-60% of rapes going unreported that's 169534 rapes in 2010 (going with the lower number of 50% of rapes going unreported.) On the plus side of those rather sad numbers, that is about 30,000 less reported rapes then 1991. So you can take that to be 30,000 less people reporting, or maybe the world has actually decided to suck a little less.
Howard A Treesong wrote: All I see is a politician saying something deeply stupid/offensive in pretty plain language and then trying to cover himself from the fallout saying "I misspoke" but not really wanting to be drawn on making a full clarification or retraction. If Orlanth claims his initial statement was unclear, what his "I misspoke" refers to is even more difficult to pin down. But that's how politicians are when they are caught saying something that's awkward but that they don't completely want to retract.
I guess Orlanth must be getting a bad back having to bend over so far to excuse this. You don't actually need to make any radical interpretation of what was said. He clearly was speaking of 'legitimate rapes', to exclude those which are somehow 'less serious' or even completely made up (which seems a common first reaction to all women claiming rape). The idea that women being 'properly raped', or however they phrase it, are being less likely to get pregnant isn't so difficult to believe coming from the mouth of the more lunatic fringes of conservative groups who have a pretty shaky grasp on science at the best of times. The worrying conclusion of course is that he's implying that be even getting pregnant, the women is somehow proving that she didn't entirely oppose or dislike being raped which is why it shouldn't be used as a reason to abort. He could have clarified all this of course but thinks "I misspoke" is adequate to cover his ass.
Doing that would require "responsibility" and "integrity" not to mention having some guts and being willing to own up to saying something fairly reprehensible.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: On the plus side of those rather sad numbers, that is about 30,000 less reported rapes then 1991. So you can take that to be 30,000 less people reporting, or maybe the world has actually decided to suck a little less.
I'd like to hope, but, what would explain such a significant drop? Sex offender lists? Harder sentences? Better reeducation programs?
Would harsher sentencing actually dissuade morons that couldn't understand that ''NO YOU SICK FETH'' actually means no?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: On the plus side of those rather sad numbers, that is about 30,000 less reported rapes then 1991. So you can take that to be 30,000 less people reporting, or maybe the world has actually decided to suck a little less.
I'd like to hope, but, what would explain such a significant drop? Sex offender lists? Harder sentences? Better reeducation programs?
Would harsher sentencing actually dissuade morons that couldn't understand that ''NO YOU SICK FETH'' actually means no?
I think education and awareness have increased significantly since the early 90s on rape and sexual assault. That alone could make for a large portion of the drop. It doesn't even have to be the potential victim but her slightly less drunk friend Stacy who decides she probably doesn't want to go off with that guy when she's drunk. Women also might be more likely to be defensively proactive. Mace, pepper spray, a firearm, all seem to be more and more common for a woman to carry for her own defense. A lot of women I know at least carry mace, and my city is not exactly what one would consider a hot bed of crime.
On the perpetrator side of things... who knows. I think education's actually helped a lot here too. I remember my last annual Sexual Assault/Harassment training session in the Marines that it was implied that a lot of rape is carried out "under the influence" so both parties really don't know what they're doing thanks to drugs and alcohol. For that kind of non-consensual sex, education on both sides could be game changing factor. For the seriously sick feths who get off on overpowering, dominating and completely controlling another human being (it's not the sex, it's the power a rapist desires) I don't think education can correct for that major mental malfunction.
Well, sure, it sounds bad when you say it like that, but how many of those were real rapes?
Hmmm, maybe if we email Mr. Akin's office, he can help us with a FOIA request to the FBI to find out what the percentage of real rapes to the other kinds of rape there are within the over all number.
On a side note, and I'm not saying Akin said this, implied this or thinks this. Or anyone else for that matter. But legitimate rape sounds like a term used to defend rapists. Like there's Legitimate rapes and the rest of the rapes, the victim (she or he) secretly wanted it.
Edit: Mr. Kovnik we should always be hopeful even in the face of dark things such as the subject at hand, because without hope, what do we have left?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: But legitimate rape sounds like a term used to defend rapists. Like there's Legitimate rapes and the rest of the rapes, the victim (she or he) secretly wanted it.
Which has a single definitive answer denial of choice, or more specifically denial of choice by a participant above the minimum age of consent.
No, it doesn't, because "choice" is not a cut and dry matter. That you're even pursuing this line of argument is ridiculous. What constitutes "choice" (read: consent) is a huge issue in defining what rape if. Glossing over it doesn't mean that the controversy doesn't exist.
And feth off, I'm not doing your research for you. You've exhibited enough laziness in this thread that being asked to type "Whats is rape?" into Google shouldn't be beyond the pale.
Why have you not pointed out the alternative not-rape Akins supposedly believes in. Still waiting on that.
Good job emulating Frazzled's weak attempts at deflection.
I've pointed out, several times, exactly why "rape" is contentious. You've ignored each and every one of those point in order to reiterate your crap argument so that you can try and save face.
You were wrong, your speculation was unfounded, and you lack the balls to man up and admit it.
Akin consistently says he doesn't agree with abortion. He hasn't dodged the issues as has been suggested here but answered topical questions on abortion openly and without evasion. Sure he could choose his words more carefully and I don't agree with his political stance as a whole, but I cannot claim to see the extra stupidity that some like to claim they see in his policies on account of this interview.
He's claiming that women possess a biological defense mechanism against unwanted pregnancy. This is factually incorrect, as stated above. His comment was stupid, you know it was stupid, but you're too arrogant to admit that your interpretation was lazy. So lazy that you couldn't even be bothered to look into who Akin is, or what Missouri policy is like. You commented blindly, got called on it, and now are feverishly attempting to justify your interpretation while consistently ignoring all information that has been brought to your attention since.
djones520 wrote: Oh that is a load of crap. Republicans are not attacking women, they're trying to defend unborn children. They feel the life in the womb as being the more important thing.
Where have you been the past 2 years?
Republicans have been pushing for the following over the past few years.
* Forced ultrasounds on women who want to have abortions
* Forcing victims of rape to have the child
* Reduced funding for planned partenthood's nonabortion services, like breast cancer screening
* Rolling back of equal pay legislation
* Rolling back of domestic violence legislation designed to protect women
What I can't figure out is why all the 'small government' people are pushing for such invasive things like forced ultrasounds.
labmouse42 wrote: What I can't figure out is why all the 'small government' people are pushing for such invasive things like forced ultrasounds.
From one of the articles:
It contains a bizarre provision that states nothing in the law will "prevent a pregnant woman from turning her eyes away from the ultrasound images"
In their defense, how can the party of small government properly perform a state-sanctioned slut-shaming when these willful harlots won't even look at what fruit their licentiousness has sown?
A mother that doesn't want it, a father that is in jail. Sounds like an exceptional start for a new life. I think the termination period on abortions is fine, and anybody arguing that the woman should carry a child from the consequence of rape is a fething nut job.
Women should be able to have abortions whenever they want, within the termination period.
I don't agree with it being used like a contraceptive (i.e. used on a regular/consistent basis), I consider that kind of behavior distasteful but it's not something I'd want to work into law.
Contraceptives should be free, Abortions shouldn't. Child support should be less... encouraging.
A mother that doesn't want it, a father that is in jail. Sounds like an exceptional start for a new life. I think the termination period on abortions is fine, and anybody arguing that the woman should carry a child from the consequence of rape is a fething nut job.
Women should be able to have abortions whenever they want, within the termination period.
I don't agree with it being used like a contraceptive (i.e. used on a regular/consistent basis), I consider that kind of behavior distasteful but it's not something I'd want to work into law.
This situation always seems over stated. I've known very few people who treat abortions as a form of contraception. No doubt someone will come up with anecdotal examples, but it's far from the norm. Mistakes are made, people have accidents, there can be carelessness, but it's very rare that women actually think that abortion is an alternative to contraceptive. It's never a particularly nice process to have to go through, many struggle with it for long after.
Contraceptives should be free, Abortions shouldn't. Child support should be less... encouraging.
ramblerambleramble.
So you want to deter people having abortions by attaching a cost, but of course this means the state has to support these unwanted children which costs more than an abortion ever would. Solution? Reduce child support. So much for the welfare of the child being claimed by the pro-life lobby. You've just identified the problems with having unwanted children born into a broken family and yet you follow it up with the half arsed suggestion to both charge people for abortions and cut child support.
I can see you're not completely against abortion, but this point of view accentuated by some conservative sorts and is screwed up. The same people who claim to be protecting the sanctity of life and 'thinking about the unborn' are frequently the same people who vigorously oppose social healthcare and child support, meaning that while they supposedly seek to 'protect life' they have little interest in maintaining a high quality of life for the new born because they'd have to put their hand in their pocket and pay for it. Conveniently this means they don't want to pay for either contraception, abortions or social/child care. Yet it's all dressed up as 'protecting life', yeah sure. On some twisted level they must think they are morally doing the right thing, but I can't help thinking that it suits them to find a way to never pay for anything.
Which has a single definitive answer denial of choice, or more specifically denial of choice by a participant above the minimum age of consent.
No, it doesn't, because "choice" is not a cut and dry matter. That you're even pursuing this line of argument is ridiculous. What constitutes "choice" (read: consent) is a huge issue in defining what rape if. Glossing over it doesn't mean that the controversy doesn't exist.
You still fail to understand, there are legal thresholds by which sexual intercourse is rape or is not rape. There isn't a halfway point. If a case goes to court jury or magistrate decides is it rape. It comes down to a yes or no. Rob a woman of her choice, wherther by force, drugs it still rape. There is nothing to suggest a mythical half setting criteria by which someone things that biologically it isn't rape and 'natural defences' if any do not come into play and nothing to suggest that Ukin beleives in such except clutching to a single phrase that has been openly rejected as mispoken.
Akin mispoke. There is nothing to read into the withdrawn comment "Legitimate rape" except that Akin mispoke.
Why bother continuing?
Why have you not pointed out the alternative not-rape Akins supposedly believes in. Still waiting on that.
Good job emulating Frazzled's weak attempts at deflection.
Its not deflection its the actual thread topic:
Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape" formerly Republicans talk about "Legitimate rape".
Both of which were rather loaded from the outset anyway, whether from mass attribution of the words to an entire party or the idea that two mispoken words make someone an 'idiot'.
I've pointed out, several times, exactly why "rape" is contentious. You've ignored each and every one of those point in order to reiterate your crap argument so that you can try and save face.
You were wrong, your speculation was unfounded, and you lack the balls to man up and admit it.
Akin was man enough to own up and say he mispoke his words. You ignored that.
Why should I 'man up' when I stand on a decent and logical principle, critique a man fairly. If someone misspeaks, don't jump on him, let him clarify, accept the clarification and carry on.
I said he misspoke, you say the misspoken words have deep meaning as to his real position.
What a load of gak. You would need to be able to see into his head for a start, and you would have to, and have, completely disregard that the words are known to have been mispoken and have no value to exploit.
There is no real scandal to level at this man from the interview.
Actually you have yet to once provide a reason why we should accept without evidence that anyone can be assumed to have a belief that there is a type of half-rape by which a woman has no biological protection from completing as term of pregnancy and another type of true rape that does. Words like that were put into the mouth of a man on the backs of two words which were clearly withdrawn as misspoken.
I stand by that point because it makes sense. Why are you so desperate to read something else into what Akin said. I don't even care whether he is elected or not, it means nothing to me except a fair and just desire to defend someone against crass misrepresentation for partisan political gain. If Akin wins or loses his election I hope it is on the real issues, not phantom beliefs made up on the backs of two misspoken words.
Indeed, he mispoke, he said he mispoke, and yet you still try and find extra hidden meaning in the words.
Because he said the same thing in his clarification and openly runs on a platform that denies abortion regardless of circumstance.
What of it. So he's anti abortion. Hello, that was understood from the outset, from the OP and ther article it linked , from the interview transcript. If he is running for office in your region don't vote for him if you don't like that. However there are logical human arguments for both pro-life and pro-choice. It isn't a clear cut issue, people have good reason to say a pregnant woman has a right to choose and there is good reason to say a foetus is a human life and should not be discarded. Arguing from either of those points of view is not of itself idiocy. If you disagree with one side or other show some maturity, its isn't a case of people being 'idiot politicians' its about politicians who speak from conscience. I have more respect for those than the slimy gits who you cannot pin down with a straight answer.
Akin is clearly not of that ilk, yet earlier you accused him of doing just that; 'Dodging the question badly', apparently.
You seem to frequently put yourself as an expert as to whether someone is doing something 'badly', perhaps you should apply that to yourself.
No, I'm with myself (and possibly others) in believing that you're trying to dissemble in order to maintain the image you think that you present here.
Sorry, I have made one consistent message throughout. Namely: there is nothing scandalous or idiotic to read in the mispoken words "Legitimate rape".
I may have had to explain this myriad times in myriad ways, but only because though its a simple point, shown in hindsight to be true by the speakers own testimonial that he mispoke in the interview, it is flatly denied.
He's claiming that women possess a biological defense mechanism against unwanted pregnancy. This is factually incorrect, as stated above. His comment was stupid, you know it was stupid,
Does he now? He claims her heard from doctors that this phenomena occurs. Whether it occurs in cases of rape is incidental. If the doctors say that stresses can effect a pregnancy, and rape certainly causes a lot of stress then cases of rape could account for a number of cases where stresses effect or even terminate a pregnancy.
Akin wasn't explaining why such a phenomena occurs, he is reporting the fact that that it can..
It sweetened his position without compromising his principle, nothing stupid about that. Has he not misspoke two words nothing would have been made of it.
At no point did Akin say that a pregnancy by rape will be terminated by a natural biological process, he said the body can try to terminate. So its no blanket cover making abortion pointless, so logically it makes little difference, its a sympathetic platitude to women who are raped and pregnant. which is fair assessment as he made pains to say that he sympathised with rape victims, but also with the unborn children.
but you're too arrogant to admit that your interpretation was lazy.
It has a logical backing, I even included a couple of links both of which indicate the phenomena.
So lazy that you couldn't even be bothered to look into who Akin is, or what Missouri policy is like. You commented blindly, got called on it, and now are feverishly attempting to justify your interpretation while consistently ignoring all information that has been brought to your attention since.
In the OP it wasnt necessary to review Missouri policy, it was necessary to review the interpretation of Akins interview. I commented On Topic, countering claims that the mispoken words 'legitimate rape' held special meaning.
As for what there is to research, I did bother to have a look. Google for a start has many many pages on search not just on news on Akin and abortion, but all the ones I saw, and I skipped back at least 30 pages were relating to this interview. not actual policy in Missouri. The issue has been blown out of proportion to the extent that Romney and had to distance himself without any caveat of support. The vast majority is making a meal out of the mispoken words here.
As for the Missouri abortion policy, the most recent stuff I found it was a bipartisan anti-abortion movement, signed in by the state governor Nixon, a Democrat, with no mention of Akin in the article.
Akin bears no special responsibility for Missouri abortion policy, or the Republicans in general it appears.
This was vindicated as the words were shown to be misspoken. Akin only withdrew the misspoken words 'legitimate rape', he didn't not withdraw his position on abortion or declared sympathy for rape victims but reinforced them.
You so desperately want to call my words as 'commented blindly' and 'consistently ignoring all information' because by handwaving the comments away you don't need to find and apply any logical argument to counter them. It's basic dogma 101.
As for 'getting called on it'. You must be delusional. Akins policy on abortion was plain as day from the outset, from the Op post and the article it linked to. He is against it, firmly, plain as day. New information told us little there we didn't already know. There is no need for 'feverishly attempting to justify' anything except in your own head.
I really think the 'legitimate rape' thing needs to be properly defined before we can have a proper go at this topic.
If the politician concerned didn't explain what he was alleged to have said perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, an embellishment by hostile media or just something misheard.
There may be a simple honest explanation other than 'he literally meant what he said'.
My position has been consistent throughout. There was nothing to read into 'legitimate rape', subsequently proven spot on accurate as Akin declared it as having been mispoken. So that blows out of the water your rant that somehow I am trying to revise my position against the onslaught of the weight of your argument. In your own head pal, in your own head.
I will end my contribution to this thread here, if I could get a signed affidavit supporting my position you would still hand wave it away as 'badly argued' or some such rubbish. There is no fair reason to write this guy off as an idiot with truly wacky ideals, on the grounds of what we have learned. Unless you are fanatic enough to declare a standard pro-life position to be idiotic. Which would be most unfair as its an enormous grey area with solid room to stand on either side.
The most I can say against Akin in fairness here is that he should choose his words far more carefully, confirm he is pro-life/anti-abortion when pressed, accentuate the positive by giving the standard 'good reason' which for pro-life is the concern for the life of the innocent unborn human being, and then move on to other less contentious topics. I honestly do not see an idiot, I see a fairlty maijnstreasm politican who gave a bad interview and is paying an unfair price from the media, and for that matter from Dakka.
Akin was man enough to own up and say he mispoke his words. You ignored that.
Why should I 'man up' when I stand on a decent and logical principle, critique a man fairly. If someone mispeaks, don't jump on him, let him clarify, accept the clarification and carry on.
You seem very keen to dismiss the possibility that he only 'misspoke' in the sense that he was a bit too forthright and unguarded about his views. Sometimes when a politician or someone in power does something like this, it isn't a miscommunication so much as them letting the mask slip for a moment and them being a bit too open about their opinion on a matter. Talking about how they 'misspoke' after the fact is little more than back peddling because they're out of their depth and likely to become unpopular.
This is why live interviews with politicians are often far more useful than pre-prepared statements. Yes they can make mistakes, but often they can be more genuine and revealing.
Akin was man enough to own up and say he mispoke his words. You ignored that.
Why should I 'man up' when I stand on a decent and logical principle, critique a man fairly. If someone mispeaks, don't jump on him, let him clarify, accept the clarification and carry on.
You seem very keen to dismiss the possibility that he only 'misspoke' in the sense that he was a bit too forthright and unguarded about his views. Sometimes when a politician or someone in power does something like this, it isn't a miscommunication so much as them letting the mask slip for a moment and them being a bit too open about their opinion on a matter. Talking about how they 'misspoke' after the fact is little more than back peddling because they're out of their depth and likely to become unpopular.
This is why live interviews with politicians are often far more useful than pre-prepared statements. Yes they can make mistakes, but often they can be more genuine and revealing.
Ok. I will respond to this. Its a fair comment.
Yes you can read a lot into interviews, but for the media to assume that somehow Akin believes there are two types of rape a legitimate and some other type, that is clutching straws and would be beyond bizarre. It looked like a mosoken comment on the original transcript, it very clearly did when watching the video link dogma provides covering the interview. Furthermore he quickly recanted those words on Twitter as reds8n posted above, I think that deserves the benefit of the doubt.
I don't oppose abortions at all, I simply stated that people (who do exist, and I have some anecdotal evidence as you stated) who use it as a form of contraception are distasteful. I didn't say I wanted to stop them doing it, it just gets me a bit annoyed.
I think the social welfare system is a great thing, it has just become less of a safety net and more like a hammock for some people. The government/taxpayers shouldn't have to fund somebody to have as many kids as they like. I'm an only child because my parents couldn't afford to have another.
Although charging for abortions is probably a bit of a knee jerk reaction on my part, but it's hard to see how you could rectify the situation. Charging for abortions and reducing child support would probably just cause the number of abortions to sky rocket. I guess i'm staggering my way into a "Abort children that you can't afford" debate that I don't want to touch with a ten foot clown pole.
I do think the NHS gets burdened with these free treatments though. It's like 'free prescriptions for all up here in Scotland', I live in a fairly affluent area and it really annoys me that we shouldn't be paying something towards those prescriptions. I don't know whether it would cost more for the admin. of means testing or what. I'm also not suggesting having to pay for everything on the NHS, but prescriptions could at least be subsidized instead of being free (like they were, I'm sure the most vulnerable/those who need them the most got them free anyway no?).
Free uni fee's for Scottish and EU member states, but not allow English/Welsh students the same free Scottish education? That is most certainly wrong, and pisses me off immensely. I wouldn't be so
annoyed if it was just Scottish students, but the fact that EU students can come in for free is a bit of a slap in the face for the rest of the UK.
I guess my point is not so much on how much we spend on Social Welfare, but how it's spent. Better elderly care would be a good start. Getting more funds by scrapping our ridiculous Nuclear Weapons Program would be another good shout. There might be enough left over to have a proper armed forces again.
Got kind of OT there, but just wanted to point out i'm not against the Social Welfare system, I just have some problems with how it currently operates.
Can we all agree the Off-Topic Forum is for pictures of kittens and wiener dogs and debates that won't end except in a thread lock?
The politician said something that angered others, he redacted what he said as misspeak (it will remain to be seen how much he discusses at length in the future about the same subject and to what conclusions he may or may not come to now that he knows now to string two specific words together), and now we're investing half the posts in this thread to what another poster said.
I think we can move on to the next political hot button.
He's probably just catering to the 'outside of Saint Louis' vote: Most of what's outside Saint Louis is forested and rocky terrain populated with uneducated hillbillies. Going camping, I see the most beautiful scenery absolutely darkened by tar paper shacks with confederate flags painted on them. It's pretty depressing.
I'm kind of with Bikini Sean...er--WarOne, I mean, up there. Just be thankful that McCaskill will probably win, especially after stuff like this, and we won't be blessed with his 'special' kind of wisdom.
I've never understood the furore surrounding abortions over there. Seriously, if someone wants a termination, what the feth business is it of anyone else?
Bunch of pious tossers, 'pro-lifers'. Mind your own fething business and let people get on with whatever it is they want to do.
daedalus wrote: He's probably just catering to the 'outside of Saint Louis' vote: Most of what's outside Saint Louis is forested and rocky terrain populated with uneducated hillbillies. Going camping, I see the most beautiful scenery absolutely darkened by tar paper shacks with confederate flags painted on them. It's pretty depressing.
I'm kind of with Bikini Sean...er--WarOne, I mean, up there. Just be thankful that McCaskill will probably win, especially after stuff like this, and we won't be blessed with his 'special' kind of wisdom.
Not that I'm a fan of McCaskill, but I think she'll have this one in the bag. I've heard it rumored that Akin was who she wanted to face off with in the general election since he's too loony even for MO. Hard to believe, I know. One of his primary opponents was even more inept, she was supported by Palin. Wish she'd won, her ads were hilarious. Akin's are too, but more in a face.palm sorta way.
Also, for the record, it'd be the outside Saint Louis/ KANSAS CITY vote, as KC is a fairly reliable bastion for the Dems. Though your description of rural MO is spot on.
This man's comments are morally reprehensible and scientifically wrong.
Anyone in support of this nonsense should be better served moving to a fully misogynistic theocracy. I hear Iran is nice this time of year.
He's seems pretty confident in what he says there. He starts off saying that from what understands from Doctor's it's pretty rare (pregnancies resulting from rape) and that in cases of 'legitimate rape' (I assume to help us differentiate from those 'she changed her mind afterwards' cases) the female body can 'shut it down' but maybe it 'didn't work for some reason'. Although at that point he's more interested in talking about punishing the rapist which is a much safer topic to be on because I don't think anyone has much sympathy there.
I'm not getting the ambiguity being argued here. It's pretty clear what he said, he's not tripping over his words. You bet he misspoke.
Albatross wrote: I've never understood the furore surrounding abortions over there. Seriously, if someone wants a termination, what the feth business is it of anyone else?
Bunch of pious tossers, 'pro-lifers'. Mind your own fething business and let people get on with whatever it is they want to do.
Absolutely and totally.
This faction loves to tout notions of freedom and independence and the ridding of 'big government' from personal choice until it's matters of religion. They don't want the government or state anywhere near your health if you're dying of cancer or suffer a crippling accident, but want absolute authority over you if you've become fertilized, whether that fertilization was voluntary or not...
MeanGreenStompa wrote: This man's comments are morally reprehensible and scientifically wrong.
Anyone in support of this nonsense should be better served moving to a fully misogynistic theocracy.
That comment is not fair. Telling people to 'move to a different country' is unpractical. Have you actually ever tried to just move to Canada, much less a country like Iran.
Instead I would push for more states rights. Let the southern states ban all abortion if they want. If people don't want to live there, they can easily move to California, or some other state that does not have religious zealots in their state congress.
Albatross wrote: I've never understood the furore surrounding abortions over there. Seriously, if someone wants a termination, what the feth business is it of anyone else?
Bunch of pious tossers, 'pro-lifers'. Mind your own fething business and let people get on with whatever it is they want to do.
Ive told you, I only really have two proper issues with these Creationist Christian types in America, but its such a big two I absolutely loathe them.
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
How can people not be as outraged as I am, when they could affect any of us?
Namely, if some blokes gang rape my missus, and I happen to get terminal cancer a week later. They will try and force her to have the kid she concieved through no fault of her own, and force me to live as long as possible even if I'm proper proper fethed.
What's it got to do with them bastards?!
I'm alright ignoring gak that doesn't effect me too much being as easy going chap and all that, and I still wouldn't make a sign and go on a march or anything.. but being as their Hitler style "everyone must do what we decide" tactics on the assisted suicide/abortion debate could affect every family in America, I'm stunned more people aren't as outraged as I am.
This gak could actually affect me one day, so I find it really hard not to get super pissed with them!
Albatross wrote: I've never understood the furore surrounding abortions over there. Seriously, if someone wants a termination, what the feth business is it of anyone else?
Bunch of pious tossers, 'pro-lifers'. Mind your own fething business and let people get on with whatever it is they want to do.
Absolutely and totally.
This faction loves to tout notions of freedom and independence and the ridding of 'big government' from personal choice until it's matters of religion. They don't want the government or state anywhere near your health if you're dying of cancer or suffer a crippling accident, but want absolute authority over you if you've become fertilized, whether that fertilization was voluntary or not...
See, it's issues like this that make me pretty much a card-carrying secular stormtrooper. It completely infuriates me. Sure, practice your religion as much as you like, within the confines of your home or church, or within reasonable parameters as part of your community - no problem at all with that.
Practice it on me, however, and the first life I abort will be yours, pal.
They have absolutely zero right to force people to follow the tenets of a religion they do not subscribe to. That's just fething medieval. They can dress it up in all the sophistry they like, but what they believe basically boils down to this: If some scumbag rapes you, it's probably your fault (because of licentiousness, inappropriate or immodest clothing, refusing the sexual advances of your husband...) and even if by some slim chance it isn't your fault, you can't terminate the unwanted pregnancy because it would make Baby Jesus cry. Again, this what these fething lunatics actually believe. It's 2012!
What blows my mind is that this is the same group that will scream about "Government being to big" and "Government needs to leave us alone!"
Its why I don't have respect for 80% of Republican views. Ron Paul's views are an exception. If you want to have smaller government, I can understand the logic, but make it across the board -- not only where corporations are giving you kickbacks.
Part of the problem I have with a lot of the pro-life folks that I know is that they think that pro-choice = pro-abortion.
I would love to see abortion go away, or at the very least be something that only happens in the most extreme circumstance. But I also think that legislating it away does nothing to actually stop it and will only make it more dangerous for the women who are going to have them. Abortion is a choice, and I don't think it is one that is made lightly and for the majority of women it is a last resort. Taking legal abortions away is only going to bring back the days of motel/backroom abortions that left many women dead.
I think the best way to minimize abortions is to make sure that support systems are in place. Make sure that a mother can be fully confident that she and her baby will be taken care off after birth (insert comment about how nice it would be if conservatives cared as much about the baby after it is born as they do before). Increase adoption services and assistance to people who cannot have children. Provide as many alternatives as abortion as you possibly can, while leaving abortion legal and available as well.
Let the woman choose not to have an abortion because the services and support are there, that is why I am pro-choice. I realize that some women are going to have abortions and I want them to have that option available if they need it and I want it so be safe and legal. But if we actually support pregnant women and single parents then I hope less women will choose to have one.
d-usa wrote: I think the best way to minimize abortions is to make sure that support systems are in place. Make sure that a mother can be fully confident that she and her baby will be taken care off after birth (insert comment about how nice it would be if conservatives cared as much about the baby after it is born as they do before). Increase adoption services and assistance to people who cannot have children. Provide as many alternatives as abortion as you possibly can, while leaving abortion legal and available as well.
Adoption services are great for caucasian babies -- of which there is a waiting list to adopt. Sadly, many unwanted pregnancies happen with minorities, and there is much less demand for adoption of those children.
It sucks, but its true.
d-usa wrote: I think the best way to minimize abortions is to make sure that support systems are in place. Make sure that a mother can be fully confident that she and her baby will be taken care off after birth (insert comment about how nice it would be if conservatives cared as much about the baby after it is born as they do before). Increase adoption services and assistance to people who cannot have children. Provide as many alternatives as abortion as you possibly can, while leaving abortion legal and available as well.
Adoption services are great for caucasian babies -- of which there is a waiting list to adopt. Sadly, many unwanted pregnancies happen with minorities, and there is much less demand for adoption of those children.
It sucks, but its true.
One of the many hurdles, that is true. And that situation would be focused more on the "have confidence that mother and baby will be supported" aspect of reform. I think there is a lot we could do to hopefully minimize abortion and encourage women to have the child without resorting to making abortion illegal and causing the return of unregulated illegal abortions that will kill pregnant women. If we can help parents choose to carry the baby I would be happy, but I realize that we still need safe and legal abortions for women that don't make that choice.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: On the plus side of those rather sad numbers, that is about 30,000 less reported rapes then 1991. So you can take that to be 30,000 less people reporting, or maybe the world has actually decided to suck a little less.
I'd like to hope, but, what would explain such a significant drop? Sex offender lists? Harder sentences? Better reeducation programs?
Would harsher sentencing actually dissuade morons that couldn't understand that ''NO YOU SICK FETH'' actually means no?
Easy access to Pr0n maybe?
d-usa wrote: The amount of convoluted mind bending in this thread in order to defend a politician despite all logical odds is giving me a headache...
Yeah... no kidding... ouch
daedalus wrote: He's probably just catering to the 'outside of Saint Louis' vote: Most of what's outside Saint Louis is forested and rocky terrain populated with uneducated hillbillies. Going camping, I see the most beautiful scenery absolutely darkened by tar paper shacks with confederate flags painted on them. It's pretty depressing.
I'm kind of with Bikini Sean...er--WarOne, I mean, up there. Just be thankful that McCaskill will probably win, especially after stuff like this, and we won't be blessed with his 'special' kind of wisdom.
This is mostly true... except for the "uneducated" part... we are educated, gun-loving hillbillies
But, McCaskill is done... MO will vote for anyone beside her... and yes that includes Atkins. He's a known quality here and I don't think this comment will hurt him, if at all.
That comment is not fair. Telling people to 'move to a different country' is unpractical. Have you actually ever tried to just move to Canada, much less a country like Iran.
Instead I would push for more states rights. Let the southern states ban all abortion if they want. If people don't want to live there, they can easily move to California, or some other state that does not have religious zealots in their state congress.
I can get behind this...
This topic is really explosive. I get tired of hearing "Legitimate Rape"... or "Rape-Rape" or any other euphemism.
Rape is simply that... Rape.
I'm honestly torn on this subject...
On the one hand, Rape is one of the worst thing you can do to another human.
On the other hand, I do believe that abortion is willfully killing another life (how can it not?).
I've known people who've been raped (male/female) and seen the long-term damage...
On the contrary, I've befriended 2 people who were the byproduct of rape. Wonderful, normal people that their mothers chose to keep them. (or was unable to get abortion).
Also, in a candid moment with my mother... mom/dad "discussed" getting an abortion on their 3rd child (my brother) because if the hard times they were in... but, luckily, they couldn't do it and now my Bro is kicking azz and taking names.
However, I truly believe that FEDERAL government needs to stay out of this... this is a states issue.
I am truly in awe of the women who are able to carry a child to term that is the result of a rape, and I am amazed at the love they can show to a child that is also a constant reminder of that horrific crime against them.
I would imagine that the majority of women might not have the strength to do that, and I don't think any less of them for it though.
Howard A Treesong wrote: You seem very keen to dismiss the possibility that he only 'misspoke' in the sense that he was a bit too forthright and unguarded about his views. Sometimes when a politician or someone in power does something like this, it isn't a miscommunication so much as them letting the mask slip for a moment and them being a bit too open about their opinion on a matter. Talking about how they 'misspoke' after the fact is little more than back peddling because they're out of their depth and likely to become unpopular.
If you don't mind a quick divergence for a second, this is why I believe Obama is so adamant about using a teleprompter. I know some small section of the right wing likes to mock him for using a teleprompter because they see him as an idiot (who, inexplicably, became president) but in my feeling, the real reason he uses it is somewhat less practical and more craven; specifically it appears when he doesn't use the teleprompter he goes off-message and accidentally says how he really feels about stuff, often in politically unpalatable ways (i.e. clinging to guns and religion).
What blows my mind is that this is the same group that will scream about "Government being to big" and "Government needs to leave us alone!"
Its why I don't have respect for 80% of Republican views. Ron Paul's views are an exception. If you want to have smaller government, I can understand the logic, but make it across the board -- not only where corporations are giving you kickbacks.
Ron Paul is about as much of a Republican as I am and the Republican party is not in favor of smaller government. It's voting record and the growth of the federal government over the last couple decades proves that Democrats and Republicans are two halves of the same party, the big government party.
and Ouze I /like/ clinging to my guns, don't judge :p
d-usa wrote: I think there is a lot we could do to hopefully minimize abortion and encourage women to have the child without resorting to making abortion illegal and causing the return of unregulated illegal abortions that will kill pregnant women. If we can help parents choose to carry the baby I would be happy, but I realize that we still need safe and legal abortions for women that don't make that choice.
On the other hand, I do believe that abortion is willfully killing another life (how can it not?).
By that definition, taking antibiotics is also willfully killing another life.
?? I'm a red-necked hillbilly... I don't follow this...
Bacteria and other microscopic creatures are life forms. Penicillin kills them. We kill other life forms all the time. Had any meat or veggies in a meal in the last 24 hours?
On the other hand, I do believe that abortion is willfully killing another life (how can it not?).
By that definition, taking antibiotics is also willfully killing another life.
?? I'm a red-necked hillbilly... I don't follow this...
Bacteria and other microscopic creatures are life forms. Penicillin kills them. We kill other life forms all the time. Had any meat or veggies in a meal in the last 24 hours?
The argument against that is that non-human life is not sentient and therefore does not count.
Its a garbage argument IMHO, but that's what I've heard from the mouth of many people.
On the other hand, I do believe that abortion is willfully killing another life (how can it not?).
By that definition, taking antibiotics is also willfully killing another life.
?? I'm a red-necked hillbilly... I don't follow this...
Bacteria and other microscopic creatures are life forms. Penicillin kills them. We kill other life forms all the time. Had any meat or veggies in a meal in the last 24 hours?
Really...
As Mellissia mentioned earlier, I was talking about "human life"...
whembly wrote: As Mellissia mentioned earlier, I was talking about "human life"...
What makes a human life is up for debate. A zygote is little more than a cell/cluster of cells that may eventually become a human being under the right circumstances. The body may naturally flush it out of its system in what we refer to as miscarriage-- sometimes without the woman ever actually knowing that she was pregnant in the first place. That's also "killing", if a zygote is human.
People have been put in jail for far less than that.
Or perhaps you haven't thought your "right to life" argument out very carefully? I know the Republican party hasn't. It's just a political tool used to motivate the base, and the worst thing that could happen to them is for it to actually get passed.
whembly wrote: As Mellissia mentioned earlier, I was talking about "human life"...
What makes a human life is up for debate. A zygote is little more than a cell/cluster of cells that may eventually become a human being under the right circumstances. The body may naturally flush it out of its system in what we refer to as miscarriage-- sometimes without the woman ever actually knowing that she was pregnant in the first place. That's also "killing", if a zygote is human.
Right... I understand how "we make babies"...
There's a difference between the body's "natural abortion" (aka, miscarriage) vs actually going to the abortion clinic.
And to pre-empt this: *I* don't consider using contraceptive as "willfully killing" either... I have no problem with it.
People have been put in jail for far less than that.
So true...
Or perhaps you haven't thought your "right to life" argument out very carefully? I know the Republican party hasn't. It's just a political tool used to motivate the base, and the worst thing that could happen to them is for it to actually get passed.
BOTH sides aren't making their case IMHO.
Look, let's call a spade "a spade".
Abortion kills a human life... there's no question to this.
The debate is really about whether or not this is acceptable.
whembly wrote: Abortion kills a human life... there's no question to this.
Yes, there is. Hell, it was really; only relatively recently in history that we accepted that all full grown adults were human, to be treated as actual people with rights.
You admitted just now, for example, that a zygote isn't human. And yet abortion bans would also protect zygotes as "human life", despite the fact that they are nothing more than a collection of cells that might possibly become human if given a very specific environment and a very specific set of nutrients, hormones, and etc over the course of approximately nine months.
Similarly, why is killing a child (if you MUST consider a zygote a child) okay in a miscarriage when it isn't okay in an abortion, which is just a chemically induced miscarriage?
whembly wrote: Abortion kills a human life... there's no question to this.
Yes, there is. Hell, it was really; only relatively recently in history that we accepted that all full grown adults were human, to be treated as actual people with rights.
Imagine that... the human species does learn!
You admitted just now, for example, that a zygote isn't human.
Not sure I follow... are you saying that my having no issues with contraceptives is implicit belief that a zygote isn't human?
Twisted logic there...
And yet abortion bans would also protect zygotes as "human life", despite the fact that they are nothing more than a collection of cells that might possibly become human if given a very specific environment and a very specific set of nutrients, hormones, and etc over the course of approximately nine months.
More twisted logic here...
Look, I understand where you're coming from... I just disagree that there's a timeframe/stage/magical level that delinates a zygote from a human life. They're all one and the same at different stage.
So, when I "say" I have no problem with contraceptives and that it can potentially kill a fertilized egg... yes, that was human life that was destroyed whereas had the women NOT taken the contraceptive, she probably would've remained pregnant.
It's acceptable now to use contraceptive (mostly)... and yes, that's a harsh way of looking at this.
Again, the debate remains as "when/how is it acceptable to kill life"? Instead of getting into an endless debate of "when does life begin?"... ugh.
And for the record, the "pro-life" crowd bugs me just as much as the "pro-choice".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Similarly, why is killing a child (if you MUST consider a zygote a child) okay in a miscarriage when it isn't okay in an abortion, which is just a chemically induced miscarriage?
Did the woman walk up to Mrs. Nature and ask for a "natural miscarriage"?? No...
A woman choosing to get an abortion procedure is killing an unwanted life.
There is a distinct difference.
Again, until we can have an honest discussing of when it's okay to kill life, this issue will never end.
There is no twisted logic here. Everything I said was true.
whembly wrote: Again, the debate remains as "when/how is it acceptable to kill life"?
Whenever it's politically convenient for the anti-choice crowd.
whembly wrote: And for the record, the "pro-life" crowd bugs me just as much as the "pro-choice".
The "pro-choice" group is not the same as pro-abortion. The stance is that it is the woman's choice of what to do with her body, not the state's. Many who are pro-choice dislike abortion, and would gladly try to talk mothers out of it. But in the end, they respect the mother's choice as to what she does with her body.
IMO-- and this is just my own beliefs, ignoring the "what measure is a human" argument-- if the state wants the child to live, it can go pay for an operation to have a surrogate mother or artificial womb carry the child to term, it should, however, legally force the mother to do so. Of course, this won't happen, because Republicans don't care what happens to the child after it's born.
whembly wrote: Did the woman walk up to Mrs. Nature and ask for a "natural miscarriage"?? No...
Why does that matter?
People have been put to jail for unintentional killings before.
You still fail to understand, there are legal thresholds by which sexual intercourse is rape or is not rape. There isn't a halfway point. If a case goes to court jury or magistrate decides is it rape. It comes down to a yes or no. Rob a woman of her choice, wherther by force, drugs it still rape. There is nothing to suggest a mythical half setting criteria by which someone things that biologically it isn't rape and 'natural defences' if any do not come into play and nothing to suggest that Ukin beleives in such except clutching to a single phrase that has been openly rejected as mispoken.
I never claimed there was anything like "half-rape", you're putting words in my mouth because you cannot confront the argument I'm presenting, because doing so would mean admitting that you're wrong.
I stated that what constitutes the denial of consent is an open question, and a large part of the conversation surrounding rape. There is no such thing as "half-rape", but what person X considers a rape, person Y may not. This is a major issue both in terms of abortion, and women's rights in general.
Akin mispoke. There is nothing to read into the withdrawn comment "Legitimate rape" except that Akin mispoke.
Why bother continuing?
Because you are plainly incorrect. You do not "misspeak" an entire sentence. I do not misspeak if I say "From what I've been told by psychologist when a man legitimately rapes someone, it was probably the victim's fault." This is especially true when you have a history conflating things that are not abortion (Plan B), with abortion.
Akin was man enough to own up and say he mispoke his words. You ignored that.
You're still hung up on what you think people are protesting, and it isn't the notion that there is "legitimate" sense in which women can be raped. I already explained, several times, what the issue is and, while it does relate to the word "legitimate" it does not do so in the way you're describing. What constitutes the denial of consent such that rape occurs is not a settled question. This is why I claimed that you're deflecting, because you're plainly misrepresenting the arguments presented by myself and several other posters.
And, honestly, he can claim to have misspoken all he wants but his initial comments are in line with the views of a person that conflates Plan B with abortion. That's why I'm ignoring the claim.
Why should I 'man up' when I stand on a decent and logical principle, critique a man fairly. If someone misspeaks, don't jump on him, let him clarify, accept the clarification and carry on.
His clarification was bad for the exact same reason that his initial statement was. That's the point which several people, including myself, have been explaining to you throughout the majority of this thread. You've ignored it every single time out of either willful ignorance, or a bald-faced and sloppy attempt at trolling.
If you disagree with one side or other show some maturity, its isn't a case of people being 'idiot politicians' its about politicians who speak from conscience. I have more respect for those than the slimy gits who you cannot pin down with a straight answer.
Politicians that speak from conscience are "idiot politicians." It takes maturity to realize that.
Akin is clearly not of that ilk, yet earlier you accused him of doing just that; 'Dodging the question badly', apparently.
Because he did. He could have simply stated that he was against abortion in the case of rape, which he has openly admitted to in other circumstances. Instead he used a weak appeal to nondescript "doctors" and a bit of pseudoscience, plus a dismissive term regarding rape, in order to avoid openly saying that. And, in doing so, he gave the opposition a soundbite so good that writers at the National Review are calling for him to drop out of the race.
He made an attempt at softening his response in the interview, and did so ineptly. You say he's speaking from conscience, maybe he is, but he plainly tried to avoid doing so and failed horribly.
Does he now? He claims her heard from doctors that this phenomena occurs. Whether it occurs in cases of rape is incidental.
No, it isn't. He directly claims that women that are raped have a biological reaction that either prevents or terminates pregnancy. In the context of that interview, in which claimed that pregnancy in the case of rape is very rare, he was most likely referring to the former.
As for the Missouri abortion policy, the most recent stuff I found it was a bipartisan anti-abortion movement, signed in by the state governor Nixon, a Democrat, with no mention of Akin in the article.
Akin bears no special responsibility for Missouri abortion policy, or the Republicans in general it appears.
Nor was it ever claimed that he, or they, did. You're the person injecting partisanship into this conversation.
At this point there is no reason to continue. You're not willing to engage the topic, or even entertain the information presented against you. All you're doing here is restating a position which has been thoroughly trounced by several posters, including myself.
whembly wrote: Look, I understand where you're coming from... I just disagree that there's a timeframe/stage/magical level that delinates a zygote from a human life. They're all one and the same at different stage.
So, when I "say" I have no problem with contraceptives and that it can potentially kill a fertilized egg... yes, that was human life that was destroyed whereas had the women NOT taken the contraceptive, she probably would've remained pregnant.
It's acceptable now to use contraceptive (mostly)... and yes, that's a harsh way of looking at this.
I don't understand Whembly.
You think its wrong to abort a zygote, as you view it as killing a human life. On the other hand, your OK with the birth control pill, which prevents a zygote from bonding with the lining of the womb -- thus killing a human life
Isn't that a double standard? Am i misunderstanding your point?
whembly wrote: Look, I understand where you're coming from... I just disagree that there's a timeframe/stage/magical level that delinates a zygote from a human life. They're all one and the same at different stage.
So, when I "say" I have no problem with contraceptives and that it can potentially kill a fertilized egg... yes, that was human life that was destroyed whereas had the women NOT taken the contraceptive, she probably would've remained pregnant.
It's acceptable now to use contraceptive (mostly)... and yes, that's a harsh way of looking at this.
I don't understand Whembly.
You think its wrong to abort a zygote, as you view it as killing a human life. On the other hand, your OK with the birth control pill, which prevents a zygote from bonding with the lining of the womb -- thus killing a human life
Isn't that a double standard? Am i misunderstanding your point?
A zygote isn't a 'human life'. At some point along gestation you have to draw the line, but a zygote is just too early to be called a 'human life'. It is living tissue, but it's little more than a cluster of cells that may or may not successfully develop even if you don't interfere. People making a fuss about the human lives lost due to birth control and abortion would be better off trying to help the many children already living in very bad circumstances instead of beating their drum about this.
Expect that from anyone who wants to end the rights of women.
Plus any Anti Woman (anti abortion) Republican is a Partei Verräter; destroying the rights of women is no consistent with small government.
Die Kirche hoch! Gestühl fest geschlossen. Die Kirsche marschiert mit ruhig festen schritt. Kinder die Rotfront und Reaktion abgetrieben, beten in geist in unser reihen mit!
Die Straße frei! Den Christen. Die Straße frei! Den sexistischen Schweine! Es schau'n aufs Kreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen. Der Tag für Sexismus bricht an!
Zum letzten Mal wird Sturmalarm geblasen! Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit! Bald flattern Christfahnen über allen Straßen. Die Frauenfreiheit dauert nur noch kurze Zeit!
Die Kirche hoch! Gestühl fest geschlossen. Die Kirsche marschiert mit ruhig festen schritt. Kinder die Rotfront und Reaktion abgetrieben, beten in geist in unser reihen mit!
Expect that from anyone who wants to end the rights of women.
Plus any Anti Woman (anti abortion) Republican is a Partei Verräter; destroying the rights of women is no consistent with small government.
Die Kirche hoch! Gestühl fest geschlossen. Die Kirsche marschiert mit ruhig festen schritt. Kinder die Rotfront und Reaktion abgetrieben, beten in geist in unser reihen mit!
Die Straße frei! Den Christen. Die Straße frei! Den sexistischen Schweine! Es schau'n aufs Kreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen. Der Tag für Sexismus bricht an!
Zum letzten Mal wird Sturmalarm geblasen! Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit! Bald flattern Christfahnen über allen Straßen. Die Frauenfreiheit dauert nur noch kurze Zeit!
Die Kirche hoch! Gestühl fest geschlossen. Die Kirsche marschiert mit ruhig festen schritt. Kinder die Rotfront und Reaktion abgetrieben, beten in geist in unser reihen mit!
Aren't you the one who was claiming that feminists want women to be raped? EDIT: Yes. Yes you were...
I never claimed there was anything like "half-rape", you're putting words in my mouth because you cannot confront the argument I'm presenting, because doing so would mean admitting that you're wrong.
You claimed there was a second set of characteristics that defined legitimate rape in separation to something else. Akin denied that position, you refuse to accept his denial.
You insist he meant something he refuses to claim he meant, that must mean you claim to know Akin better than he knows himself. Appeal to authority: denied.
I stated that what constitutes the denial of consent is an open question, and a large part of the conversation surrounding rape. There is no such thing as "half-rape", but what person X considers a rape, person Y may not. This is a major issue both in terms of abortion, and women's rights in general.
People may disagree on what is rape, which is why we have legislation.
Akin mispoke. There is nothing to read into the withdrawn comment "Legitimate rape" except that Akin mispoke.
Why bother continuing?
Because you are plainly incorrect. You do not "misspeak" an entire sentence. I do not misspeak if I say "From what I've been told by psychologist when a man legitimately rapes someone, it was probably the victim's fault." This is especially true when you have a history conflating things that are not abortion (Plan B), with abortion.
No he directly mispoke two words, 'legitimate rape' please pay attention.
Akin was man enough to own up and say he mispoke his words. You ignored that.
You're still hung up on what you think people are protesting, and it isn't the notion that there is "legitimate" sense in which women can be raped.
Which would concurs with my conclusion, later confirmed by Akin himself that that was mispoken. In all fairness you should ignore it, there is nothing to draw from it.
I already explained, several times, what the issue is and, while it does relate to the word "legitimate" it does not do so in the way you're describing. What constitutes the denial of consent such that rape occurs is not a settled question. This is why I claimed that you're deflecting, because you're plainly misrepresenting the arguments presented by myself and several other posters.
So you resort to fallacy of mass appeal.
I quite justly take Akins comments about what he said as of greater validity than the version of you would like to claim he said.
Let us return to your early comments on this issue:
See, this is what you don't seem to understand. I know what he was saying. He was differentiating between rape that is real, and "rape" that is not.
You 'know' what he is saying, so certain, even though he denies it flatly with a consistent logical path along which to do so.
What you should say is I really prefer to think he was differentiating between rape that is real, and "rape" that is not. It would be more honest. Even though that still makes no sense, and doesn't tally with anything else he is alleged to have said. Akin has not as far as much searches are concerned said anything remotely backing up your preferred view.
You have yet to provide the thinest shred of evidence of any quote or action of Akin which backs up your opinions. So he considers 'morning after pills a form of abortion' (Plan B Onestep), how does that prove he meant something other than he said he meant in his Twitter revision regarding 'legitimate rape'? Dogma you don't actually have argument, you just claim to speak for Akin with authority to contradict his opinions of him on his behalf. That isnt very honest frankly. It would be excusable if you were a journalist looking to write an article to score political points, but we can and should be more detached here.
I am even going as far as to defend him on a point of fairness though I flatly disagree with his paradigm on a personal basis. That by the way takes maturity.
If you disagree with one side or other show some maturity, its isn't a case of people being 'idiot politicians' its about politicians who speak from conscience. I have more respect for those than the slimy gits who you cannot pin down with a straight answer.
Politicians that speak from conscience are "idiot politicians." It takes maturity to realize that.
That's cold even for you. Cynicism and maturity are not one and the same.
To speak from conscience as a politician, or anyone one else, is to show integrity.
At this point there is no reason to continue. You're not willing to engage the topic, or even entertain the information presented against you. All you're doing here is restating a position which has been thoroughly trounced by several posters, including myself.
Fallacy of mass appeal again. Allowing for what the topic is, read the thread title to give yourself a clue, it has been engaged. Its not your preferred point of view, but that doesn't mean much. You put words in Akin's mouth by refusing to accept that he claimed he mispoke what he said. I could see why, even before he made his retraction I put forward a reasoning for what he said that in retrospect matched his retraction. This means that on this issue I accurately calculated what he meant to say. You might not like that, but that isn't my problem, it clearly is Akins's however.
Its good copy for the media to jump on him right now and conveniently avoid his clarifications posted on Twitter, as many of the articles have done. Blood is in the water, 'Congressman says something that was less ridiculous than it first sounds' doesn't make as good a headline.
More interestingly I am unsurprised but still disappointed to read that Paul Ryan distanced himself from Akin verbally and called his comments "inexcusable" even though Ryan is himself is known for being a vocal advocate for a prohibition of abortion extended even in cases of rape.
So its not in the interest of politicians or newspapers to deal with Akin fairly, perhaps I should not be surprised you want a piece of him too, but in your case it can only be schadenfreude, you don't actually have anything to gain or lose.
Yes Akin's interview will be costly, I feel sorry for him because in all honesty I really do think he has been horribly misrepresented. This can and possibly will hurt him far more than it ought to, I think there is a lesson here, if you are under the media spotlinght and have a controversial opinion on a heated issue keep watch over every single word you utter. So very few are needed to ruin a reputation.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit since its aim is to belittle or hurt someone, and to laugh at their expense; we associate the word "cutting" with it. On the other hand, true wit associates with the word "levity", and boosts everyone's spirits, being aimed at an action, a happening or an attitude.
Mary Purnell, Revesby
This is why I try and avoid sarcastic comments when trying to have productive conversation.
Monster Rain wrote: So what about pro-life people that happen to be female? I assume they hate women as well?
There is indeed such things as misogynistic women, just as there are misandristic males.
I wouldn't suggest all pro-life women are misogynistic just as I wouldn't say the same thing about pro-life men, but I do think a not insignificant portion of them are. The "Concerned Women for America" organization run by Mrs. LeHaye, wife of one of hte authors of Left Behind, comes to mind.
CWFA has earned the nickname "Concerned Women Against Women" for its activism, bashing poor women for not working hard enough while also bashing middle class women for working at all, apparently only being happy with trophy wives of rich men.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit since its aim is to belittle or hurt someone, and to laugh at their expense; we associate the word "cutting" with it. On the other hand, true wit associates with the word "levity", and boosts everyone's spirits, being aimed at an action, a happening or an attitude.
Mary Purnell, Revesby
This is why I try and avoid sarcastic comments when trying to have productive conversation.
If all you're doing is posting quotes and pointing out alleged logical fallacies, you should re-examine your definition of productive conversation.
Monster Rain wrote: So what about pro-life people that happen to be female? I assume they hate women as wellt
My guess would be one or more of the following:
1. fooled/guilted/shamed by religious indoctrination.
2. Raised/pressured to believe that they must accept being subserviant to what others tell them women should do/say/think.
3. Are actually just too afraid to stand out by saying something that they believe because others in their community/social circle/ family/etc. might cause them to be ostracized in some way.
The real problem here is morally. That's why all this effort goes into trying to define "life".
Thanks for being honest. I can appreciate that.
Its hard to define "human life" As a father, I can tell you that children are little more than eating blobs for the first few months of their life -- much less in the womb. Unlike other mammals our brains develop very slowly -- a huge evolutionary advantage as it allows for us to greatly adapt to multiple climates. The challenge is that it makes the definition of "when do we consider this person living" difficult to determine.
If one declares all zygotes life, then the corresponding logic is that 'the pill' would be murder. As we have seen, even in the great state of Mississippi, the 'personhood admendement' has been struck down. Its hard to get people to vote against birth control.
So logically, one must declare "human sentience" past the zygote state. We would like to declare it as before the birth stage for reasons I think should be obvious. Therefore, when do we draw that line? Morally its a hard decision to make.
Personally, I'm a a liberal libertarian. As a society we should provide social programs to help with adoption services and assistance on helping people to plan/raise families. On the other hand, if someone wants to abort their own children -- well that's their own business. it's their own life, and we should not interfere.
Melissia wrote: CWFA has earned the nickname "Concerned Women Against Women" for its activism, bashing poor women for not working hard enough while also bashing middle class women for working at all, apparently only being happy with trophy wives of rich men.
Those positions all seem to be contradictory, don't they?
Monster Rain wrote: So what about pro-life people that happen to be female? I assume they hate women as wellt
My guess would be one or more of the following:
1. fooled/guilted/shamed by religious indoctrination.
2. Raised/pressured to believe that they must accept being subserviant to what others tell them women should do/say/think.
3. Are actually just too afraid to stand out by saying something that they believe because others in their community/social circle/ family/etc. might cause them to be ostracized in some way.
There's a thoughtful response. Thanks for that.
So there's really no room in your view of pro-life women that they might genuinely believe what they say they believe?
I just watched the actual interview, maybe we are being too harsh on the bloke.
I mean, he said "Some doctors have informed me.." so maybe the old fether is just parroting what some ridiculous doc told him, and obviously, you trust doctors, and he is a politician not a doctor, so he might be a bit lacking with his biology education and just believe what his doc told him!
Huh. I think he must be confusing women with Rabbits, who do have a bodily function which allows them to absorb the foetus if the Doe believed that the kit would have little chance of survival.
Maybe he doesn't know the difference between a Doctor and a Veterinarian?
So there's really no room in your view of pro-life women that they might genuinely believe what they say they believe?
Lots of people genuinely believe things that are wrong/untrue, that doesn't change anything I said.
A number of the things I said (both 1. and 2.actually) often cause people to "genuinely believe" absurdities or support hateful/oppressive/backwards stances.
So there's really no room in your view of pro-life women that they might genuinely believe what they say they believe?
Lots of people genuinely believe things that are wrong/untrue, that doesn't change anything I said.
A number of the things I said (both 1. and 2.actually) often cause people to "genuinely believe" absurdities or support hateful/oppressive/backwards stances.
In other words anyone who does not. believe what you believe is wrong, and clearly has been snookered to not share your own views. Which are the only right/true ones. What a gem.
this 2009 blog post comes to mind, comparing a Navy press release with a CWFA press release regarding women serving on submarines.
To quote:
Concerned Women Against Women on Submarines
The Navy is considering a policy change that would allow women to serve on submarines, and this has the Concerned Women for America...well, concerned.
Let's compare the actual story...
The nation's top military officer has called for lifting the ban on women serving aboard submarines, in a significant step toward reducing the barriers to women in combat. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he seeks the change to broaden opportunities for women in the military. "One policy I would like to see changed is the one barring their service aboard submarines," Mullen wrote in answers to questions from Congress before his Senate reconfirmation hearing last week.
Lifting the ban would allow women for the first time to serve as officers and enlisted personnel aboard the strategic fleet of fast-attack and other submarines where sailors live and work in cramped quarters at sea for six months at a time. After combat- exclusion rules were lifted in the early 1990s, women in the Navy were allowed to serve on surface combat ships and in combat aircraft, but the ban on their employment in submarines remained.
The Navy has for years been exploring how best to bring women into its submarine force. In a statement this week, Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, said he is "very comfortable addressing integrating women" into the force, but added, "There are some particular issues . . . we must work through."
One issue, he said, is living space. Packed with specialized gear, spare parts, and food and other supplies to operate independently for three months, a submarine is extremely cramped...The submarines would have to be modified to provide adequate privacy for enlisted women and men, senior officers said.
Of greater concern, officers said, is the rate of retention for women in the Navy -- about 15 percent, compared with more than 30 percent for men -- and the possibility that the integration of women could lead to gaps in the relatively small submarine force. Women often leave in their late 20s to start families, although to improve retention the Navy in 2007 lengthened to one year the period that female sailors can remain ashore after childbirth...
...Once the ban is lifted, it would take a few years to integrate women successfully, both by training female Navy officers and enlisted personnel at all levels to move into the force and by designing a program to ensure a steady flow of women into jobs, the officials said. Integration would start with a small pilot program, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record.
One reason the Navy seeks to integrate women on submarines is that they make up a growing percentage of college graduates, including engineers. "There is a vast pool of talent that we are neglecting in our recruiting efforts," a senior official said. [The Washington Post]
U.S. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said Thursday that allowing women to serve on submarines is "an idea whose time has come" - and he said he sees no big hurdles to making it happen...he said he and other top officials believe "women should have the ability to serve throughout the Navy," and he sees no major impediments to their becoming submariners. [Forbes.com]
...with the press release that Concerned Women for America put out in response to this news.
Navy Considers Endangering Women to Appease Feminists
May lift ban on women on submarines
"National security is the Navy's primary mission, not advancing women's careers."
Contact: Demi Bardsley, Concerned Women for America (CWA), 202-266-4820
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 /Christian Newswire/ -- Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation's largest public policy women's organization, is disappointed in recent statements by Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus indicating their wish to lift the ban on women serving aboard submarines. Admiral Mullen advocated the policy change in written congressional testimony on Friday. Navy Secretary Mabus said he was "moving out aggressively on this."
"Unlike any other assignment in the U.S. Navy, the submarine service is a hazardous environment for women of child-bearing age," noted CWA President Wendy Wright. "No other assignment exposes women to a constantly recycled atmosphere of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and more than 200 potentially toxic chemicals. Those contaminants remain even with filtering. While normal adults can adjust to this environment, a developing child in the first trimester cannot, and the levels of carbon dioxide that crewmembers are exposed to can be linked to birth defects. Also, no study has been done to determine the impact of this environment on a woman's fertility."
"Another serious consideration is the threat to the life and health of the women assigned to submarine crews should an ectopic pregnancy occur. These cases, about four out of every 1,000 women per year, can be life-threatening situations that demand evacuation," Wright said. "For a great many women, the acute symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy are their first indication that they are even pregnant. Pre-deployment pregnancy testing is not a silver bullet either, since tests may not give a positive reading in the earliest stages of pregnancy."
"Along with the medical issues, there are very real social and psychological difficulties posed by mixing the sexes in the 'Silent Service,'" Wright added. "Military readiness and cohesiveness will be affected, and commanders will have the added difficulties of harassment and fraternization to deal with, which are inevitable in this situation of confined quarters with extremely little privacy. National security is the Navy's primary mission, not advancing women's careers." [Christian News Wire]
From this I think we can learn a few things about the way things work in the CWA's world:
1. The CWA knows what's best for the Navy better than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of the Navy, and other senior military officials.
2. The CWA doesn't trust the women who are actually in the Navy to weigh the risks and benefits of serving aboard a submarine and decide for themselves. If your priorities aren't the same as the Concerned Women's priorities...you're wrong.
3. The CWA has never considered that a man might have a potentially serious medical issue that they're not aware of, and that routine pre-deployment medical testing wouldn't necessarily reveal. They're also unconcerned with any potential health risks for women that aren't related to pregnancy or fertility.
4. In the CWA's world, woman=mother, or potential mother. No exceptions. If you're not pregnant, you're pre-pregnant. Lesbians, infertile women, women who don't want kids...they just don't exist (or shouldn't exist). And since that's the case, we should always be prioritizing that role over all else. If there's even the tiniest, remotest chance that you could be pregnant with a miracle baby capable of hiding from all pre-deployment pregnancy tests, or that your fertility could be affected (although there's apparently no evidence to suggest that it would be), well then why are you even considering getting on a submarine? What kind of woman are you?
4a. Of course, for all of their pregnancy talk, the CWA glosses over the actual problem of rape in the military, which is the one point that they could have raised that might have made their overreaction about the pregnancy issue seem a little more reasonable. Unfortunately, I suspect that their idea of a solution to that problem would be for women to wise up and realize that they don't belong in the military in the first place.
5. The CWA can't grasp the idea that maybe it hurts national security to exclude smart and talented and dedicated women from activities that they're perfectly capable of doing just because they're women. I'm guessing they also have trouble comprehending the fact that it's a bad idea to dismiss people with critical skills from the military just because they're gay, which happens to women at a disproportionate rate and is something that's actually worth being "concerned" about.
6. The CWA apparently thinks that top military officials devote a lot of time to thinking up new ways to make feminists happy.
So, based on this little exercise, I think we can safely conclude that there is no resemblance whatsoever between our world and CWA World.
The real problem here is morally. That's why all this effort goes into trying to define "life".
Thanks for being honest. I can appreciate that.
No problemo...
Its hard to define "human life" As a father, I can tell you that children are little more than eating blobs for the first few months of their life -- much less in the womb. Unlike other mammals our brains develop very slowly -- a huge evolutionary advantage as it allows for us to greatly adapt to multiple climates. The challenge is that it makes the definition of "when do we consider this person living" difficult to determine.
I'm a father of two boyz (yes... with the 'z' at the end!)... so, I am biased. Having said that, the problem is "morals".
Human life, is from fertilzed egg to the day we die. It's a biological fact.
The problem is moral and "technical legal" definition... as you succiently argue in the next passage:
If one declares all zygotes life, then the corresponding logic is that 'the pill' would be murder. As we have seen, even in the great state of Mississippi, the 'personhood admendement' has been struck down. Its hard to get people to vote against birth control.
Right...
All I'm saying is-call a spade, "a spade".
So logically, one must declare "human sentience" past the zygote state. We would like to declare it as before the birth stage for reasons I think should be obvious. Therefore, when do we draw that line? Morally its a hard decision to make.
Morally... yeah, where is the line?
Personally, I'm a a liberal libertarian. As a society we should provide social programs to help with adoption services and assistance on helping people to plan/raise families. On the other hand, if someone wants to abort their own children -- well that's their own business. it's their own life, and we should not interfere.
I can certainly understand this viewpoint.... there's no easy solution to this as we have zealots on both sides. Hence, why I'd advocate the federal solution... leave it up to the states to determine this.
IMHO: Contraception is okay (understanding that it does destroy life) <--- this is what I mean by calling spade, "a spade". This is an acceptable convention in our society (for the most part).
Abortion should be discouraged (note, I did not say "BAN", with adoption agencies/Charities stepping up to help those in need.
Well ladies and gentlemen! This is how to destroy your career with the following words "Rape is a rare occurrence and we should punish rape victims"! Congrats you Arsehole(Republican guy no one in this thread), you have just made me lose all respect for the republican party.
mattyrm wrote: I just watched the actual interview, maybe we are being too harsh on the bloke.
I mean, he said "Some doctors have informed me.." so maybe the old fether is just parroting what some ridiculous doc told him, and obviously, you trust doctors, and he is a politician not a doctor, so he might be a bit lacking with his biology education and just believe what his doc told him!
In case you've been deep-sea diving in the Mariana Trench, yet another Republican Congressman unwittingly revealed his party's contempt for and distrust of women. It's part of a reactionary, fundamentalist backlash to modernity. It's a war on science. It's a war on facts. It's a war on critical thinking. But, really, consider it a war on democracy.
Expect that from anyone who wants to end the rights of women.
Plus any Anti Woman (anti abortion) Republican is a Partei Verräter; destroying the rights of women is no consistent with small government.
Die Kirche hoch! Gestühl fest geschlossen.
Die Kirsche marschiert mit ruhig festen schritt.
Kinder die Rotfront und Reaktion abgetrieben,
beten in geist in unser reihen mit!
Die Straße frei! Den Christen.
Die Straße frei! Den sexistischen Schweine!
Es schau'n aufs Kreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen.
Der Tag für Sexismus bricht an!
Zum letzten Mal wird Sturmalarm geblasen!
Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit!
Bald flattern Christfahnen über allen Straßen.
Die Frauenfreiheit dauert nur noch kurze Zeit!
Die Kirche hoch! Gestühl fest geschlossen.
Die Kirsche marschiert mit ruhig festen schritt.
Kinder die Rotfront und Reaktion abgetrieben,
beten in geist in unser reihen mit!
Aren't you the one who was claiming that feminists want women to be raped?
EDIT: Yes. Yes you were...
It was also an extreme over simplification at the time. Maybe not totally fair.
Asherian Command wrote: lican guy no one in this thread), you have just made me lose all respect for the republican party.
You realize that prominent republicans have denounced him, right?
Republicans in Congress and in state legislatures have made a serious effort over the past couple of years to outlaw abortion in cases of rape, to prevent low-income rape and incest victims from using Medicaid to pay for their abortions, and to narrow the definition of rape to only include "forcible" rape. Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) recently authored a bill that would ban abortions in Washington, D.C., without an exception for rape victims, and the House Judiciary Committee approved it.
Because he spoke about it on national television, he gets to be the guy that gets dropped from the party while the party doesn't actually change at all on how it acts except that it tries to be more quiet about it.
Melissia wrote: Because he spoke about it on national television, he gets to be the guy that gets dropped from the party while the party doesn't actually change at all on how it acts except that it tries to be more quiet about it.
eh... I'm not so sure...
Had he stayed, he still might win... Abortion for any reason isn't popular in MO... but, he'll have a harder time for sure, but not that significantly. Those who defended Abortion rights in MO weren't going to vote for Atkins anyways. What this does, is rally the Abortion supporter a bit to increase the Democratic turnouts.
If he drops out (looks like Sarah Steelman might get the nomination), that'll deflate the rallying call here.
It seems we agree on most aspects. The only question is "When do we consider that zygote a human being?" What week of development is it? I find that when rational debate occurs, that discussions usually fall down to these lines. Its when irrational people use terms like "liberal socialist" or "dittohead" that the conversation breaks down.
whembly wrote: Abortion should be discouraged (note, I did not say "BAN", with adoption agencies/Charities stepping up to help those in need.
Its a minor point, but I would rather say "other options should be encouraged", not "abortion should be discouraged". Its the same thing, but a different attitude on how to handle it. That difference could help limit some zealot from going "For the Emperor" on some poor abortion doctor who is just doing their job.
As a side note :
It sounds like you have lived for a decent amount of time. I am sure that you have been close to women that have had abortions. I have know a handful and it has never been an easy affair for them physically or emotionally. I don't think you will ever find a woman who goes to an abortion clinic with a flippant attitude. That's another reason that adoption agencies should be available for women.
I have had 2 of my friends give up children for adoption instead of having an abortion. In both cases they were very poor and unable to raise a child in a healthy environment. In neither case it was easy for the woman.
The challenge is both of those women were white. White babies are in high demand for adoption, and there is a waiting list that lasts years if you want to adopt one. Minority babies are not in such high demand -- which is a shame as ones skin color does not define what a person can be -- but as you said you have to call it what it is.
How, as a society, do we handle these large number of minority children that will be put up for adoption? How do we get the "white america" to happily adopt them as well?
In case you've been deep-sea diving in the Mariana Trench, yet another Republican Congressman unwittingly revealed his party's contempt for and distrust of women. It's part of a reactionary, fundamentalist backlash to modernity. It's a war on science. It's a war on facts. It's a war on critical thinking. But, really, consider it a war on democracy.
STOP THE PRESSES! Democrat makes a statement that claims Republicans are bad, and hate women. Next you'll tell me that she props up other planks of her parties platform. Thank the sweet baby Jesus she and the party have you to be a mouthpiece for them. I eagerly await your next sentence or less followed by either a video or a cut and paste from the huffpost.
And there you have it. You have no guarantee that after the woman has had the child and put it up for adoption that that child will ever actually get adopted or if it does that it will be end up in a stable environment.
That child could bounce between foster families they hate until they're legally an adult and then they're out on their own having never had a stable home life, their education is a mess from moving around schools all the time and are just generally not prepared at all.
labmouse42 wrote: It seems we agree on most aspects. The only question is "When do we consider that zygote a human being?" What week of development is it? I find that when rational debate occurs, that discussions usually fall down to these lines. Its when irrational people use terms like "liberal socialist" or "dittohead" that the conversation breaks down.
whembly wrote: Abortion should be discouraged (note, I did not say "BAN", with adoption agencies/Charities stepping up to help those in need.
Its a minor point, but I would rather say "other options should be encouraged", not "abortion should be discouraged". Its the same thing, but a different attitude on how to handle it. That difference could help limit some zealot from going "For the Emperor" on some poor abortion doctor who is just doing their job.
I agree with your take...
As a side note :
It sounds like you have lived for a decent amount of time
Do I sound like an old fogey?? I'm in my mid-thirties with boyz in 1st and 3rd grade. I'm now a divorced dad taking care of my boyz every other week.
. I am sure that you have been close to women that have had abortions. I have know a handful and it has never been an easy affair for them physically or emotionally. I don't think you will ever find a woman who goes to an abortion clinic with a flippant attitude. That's another reason that adoption agencies should be available for women.
Yup... that's my view too...
I have had 2 of my friends give up children for adoption instead of having an abortion. In both cases they were very poor and unable to raise a child in a healthy environment. In neither case it was easy for the woman.
The challenge is both of those women were white. White babies are in high demand for adoption, and there is a waiting list that lasts years if you want to adopt one. Minority babies are not in such high demand -- which is a shame as ones skin color does not define what a person can be -- but as you said you have to call it what it is.
How, as a society, do we handle these large number of minority children that will be put up for adoption? How do we get the "white america" to happily adopt them as well?
Yes, this is a problem... but, I think we're making in-roads into this (at least where I live). Mixed racial families isn't that big of a deal anymore and I think as the generations get older, this will change too.
I know several "white families" taking in racial babies (and even foster older childrens) and race never seems to be an issue (from outside, looking in).
Thank the sweet baby Jesus she and the party have you to be a mouthpiece for them. I eagerly await your next sentence or less followed by either a video or a cut and paste from the huffpost.
Thanks Auston for the urge to watch Taladega Nights
In case you've been deep-sea diving in the Mariana Trench, yet another Republican Congressman unwittingly revealed his party's contempt for and distrust of women. It's part of a reactionary, fundamentalist backlash to modernity. It's a war on science. It's a war on facts. It's a war on critical thinking. But, really, consider it a war on democracy.
STOP THE PRESSES! Democrat makes a statement that claims Republicans are bad, and hate women. Next you'll tell me that she props up other planks of her parties platform. Thank the sweet baby Jesus she and the party have you to be a mouthpiece for them. I eagerly await your next sentence or less followed by either a video or a cut and paste from the huffpost.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Not trying to defend him here, not at all, but I've heard that the consequences of sexual pleasure did boost the chance of pregnancy (my sex psy class is far away so please correct me if I'm wrong).
Of course that doesn't mean there's no chance of pregnancy if there's no pleasure.
fact: women who are raped do get pregnant
fact: not many of these women want to carry their rapists child into fruition. Who in their right mind would want an every day reminder of the worst day of their life? Imagine if the kid was a spitting image of the rapist, how could you ever love that?
Thank the sweet baby Jesus she and the party have you to be a mouthpiece for them. I eagerly await your next sentence or less followed by either a video or a cut and paste from the huffpost.
Thanks Auston for the urge to watch Taladega Nights
Rape and Abortion? Mitt, Put Up or Shut Up Aug. 20, 2012
We’ve reached the “I Am Not a Witch” moment of the 2012 election season and the GOP Establishment is Not Amused with the Tea Party fave, Missouri GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin. In case you missed it, Todd Akin said it’s okay that he’s against abortion in cases of rape, because:
“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. . . But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I thing there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
This is head-slappingly idiotic and offensive. But the real problem for the Romney-Ryan ticket is that Akin’s policy—no abortion, no exception–is the official position of the Republican Party.
The Romney campaign raced to put out a statement that Romney-Ryan “would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.” But you know what, I do not believe them.
In his biggest presidential-like decision yet, Mitt chose as his running mate a man who believes a woman who is raped must be forced to bear the child of her rapist. As I wrote last week, Ryan has insinuated that women who have abortions should be treated as criminals. And on the question of “legitimate” rape, Ryan co-sponsored a bill, with Akin and others, that tried to redefine rape as “forcible rape.” Romney himself has said he supports personhood amendments—which would have the effect of outlawing abortion for rape. And when Romney was Governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed a bill to require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims – falsely claiming that it was a method of abortion.
Romney, it’s time to put up or shut up. If you truly think that women who are raped should have legal access to abortion, show you mean it in clear, unambiguous language. How convenient for you that the Republican platform committee is meeting this week. Tell them to change the anti-abortion plank, which for decades, has called for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all cases.
Likewise, there’s one simple question every journalist following the Romney campaign can ask: “Governor, will you refuse to accept a platform that does not include exceptions exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother?” And if that platform hasn’t been changed by the end of this week, it’ll be time for the media to stop playing stenographer to the Romney campaign’s convenient lies about what it plans to do to American women. Posted on August 20, 2012
What the Paul Ryan Choice Means for Women
It’s official. With his selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney has made the campaign to strip Amerian women of our freedom, equality, and economic opportunity a top priority of his presidency. Any ambiguity about Mitt’s personal investment in the antiwomen extremism that infects the Republican base and congressional delegation has now been cleared up.
Paul Ryan is a full service right-winger, a a far-right anti-birth control/ anti-abortion zealot and Grover-Norquist Ayn Rand style anti-government fanatic rolled into one.
Mitt Romney waves goodbye to women’s equality. Paul Ryan congratulates him.
Ryan is rightfully known for his budget “blueprint” (and wrongly known as a fiscal conservative.) His Robin Hood in reverse budget, it is critical to note, would have a devastating effect on women in particular. Consider health care. Between 9 and 18 million women would lose their health care from Ryan’s proposed cuts to Medicaid. Add to that the roughly 5 million women who receive their reproductive health care and cancer screenings through Title X—which Ryan calls for eliminating. Romney/Ryan’s central promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act would deprive 17 million uninsured women of the health care they would be eligible for under health care reform. Analyses of his proposed tax breaks for the wealthy estimate that 2/3 of the cuts to pay for the boondoggle would come from programs, such as nutritional aid and food stamps, that serve low-income Americans who are disproportionately women and children. Ryan is giving the expression ‘from the mouth of babes’ a whole new meaning.
Working women too have much to dread from Ryan. Remember how Romney and his campaign danced around the question of his view of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Well, Ryan voted against it. So now we know. Ryan has also voted against raising the minimum wage. The Ryan-Romney promise to shrink the size of government means eliminating government workers—disproportionately women. Ryan’s budget cuts aid to the states by 20%. Goodbye teachers and nurses.
On the social issues, Ryan rivals the best of the religious nuts. He has voted against stem cell research and for carrying guns in the national parks. He voted for a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriages and against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
The tell on Ryan’s extremism is his opposition to abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother. He was a co-sponsor of a federal fetal Personhood bill defining life as beginning at fertilization, which would have made some forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization illegal. He supported a bill that would have allowed hospitals to deny emergency care to pregnant women. As he himself has said, “I’m as pro-life as a person gets.” (See Michelle Goldberg’s must read for more on this.)
Take Romney-Ryan’s slashing of the social safety net, evisceration of equal pay laws, and attacks on birth control and abortion, and you see what the Romney-Ryan team wants for American womanhood.
Pregnant, underpaid, and dependent on men. That’s the GOP’s vision for us, ladies.
anyone who thinks Romney has/had a chance is delusional.
there are so many things to bring up about him that it is laughable. Your home Mitt, not the one you live in now, nope, the one you bulldozed to build the new one. How about Romneycare? What's this I hear Ryan thinks rape victims need further "punishment"?
as much as Obummer makes me cringe, he will easily win 2012
There it is. Same day service. Possibly even the same hour. Ahh, BrassScorpion, you never let me down with other peoples words and as little of yours as this site will allow.
AustonT wrote: There it is. Same day service. Possibly even the same hour. Ahh, BrassScorpion, you never let me down with other peoples words and as little of yours as this site will allow.
The ignore function has been my light at the end of the tunnel of "love" that is DakkaDakka Off-Topic...
Lemme remind everyone that this "isn't news" to MO. We knew Atkins was against abortion.
What he said on that interview was a serious CLUNKER (in terms of strategic campaigning) as every republican candidate was polling 11% or higher than McCaskill.
Whether right-or-wrong, McCaskill's record resonate really badly with MO and Atkin's clunker isn't going to make her more popular:
Senator McCaskill’s Record:
* ObamaCare: Voted YES for Higher Costs and an Individual Mandate
* Obama Stimulus: Voted YES for $787 Billion More in Spending and Debt
* Dodd-Frank: Voted YES for Price Controls on Debit Cards Resulting in Higher Banking Fees for Consumers
* TARP: Voted YES on the $700 Billion Taxpayer Bailout of Mega Banks
* Auto Bailout: Called the $80 Billion Taxpayer Bailout of General Motors and Chrysler “Wildly Successful”
THE RESULTS:
^ Unemployment: 9.1%
^ Debt: $14.8 Trillion
^ Poverty: 45 Million Americans on Food Stamps
whembly wrote: Lemme remind everyone that this "isn't news" to MO. We knew Atkins was against abortion.
I think people are a bit touchier about the use of the term 'legitimate rape'. If it was merely a slip of the tongue then he's a bit daft and obviously not a great choice.
If it was intended and he believes there can be legitimised rape then frankly he should never have gotten into any kind of power unless he's really damn good at something else...
AustonT wrote: I don't have anyone on ignore. That's not how conversations work or happen. Plenty of people are irritating but I'd rather hear what they have to say.
Good on you, AT.
However, for my own sanity, I've found that filtering has it's benefits. Besides, if I block someone that just posts links and snippits of other people's opinions and offers none of his own (on a forum about little miniature war guys), what am I really missing?
AustonT wrote: There it is. Same day service. Possibly even the same hour. Ahh, BrassScorpion, you never let me down with other peoples words and as little of yours as this site will allow.
The ignore function has been my light at the end of the tunnel of "love" that is DakkaDakka Off-Topic...
whembly wrote: Lemme remind everyone that this "isn't news" to MO. We knew Atkins was against abortion.
I think people are a bit touchier about the use of the term 'legitimate rape'. If it was merely a slip of the tongue then he's a bit daft and obviously not a great choice.
If it was intended and he believes there can be legitimised rape then frankly he should never have gotten into any kind of power unless he's really damn good at something else...
That word get's thrown around a lot... like "Rape-Rape"... as if there's a difference...
Anyway...Everybody who keeps focusing on the “legitimate rape” part of this stupid statement is missing the point. It’s the statement that women’s bodies reject rape pregnancies if it’s legitimately rape that’s the issue. By his statement, if you get raped and you get pregnant, it wasn’t rape-rape.
See what I mean?
We knew Atkins was anti-abortion, by the throne of the Emperor, he scored like 100% from anti-abortion advocacy groups.
It's him making asertation of what "rape" really is.. that's why it was a stoopid statement.
If it was intended and he believes there can be legitimised rape then frankly he should never have gotten into any kind of power unless he's really damn good at something else...
No no, I don't think he's trying to say that some acts of rape are legitimate. By 'legitimate rape' he's referring to those really obvious cases of rape, as opposed to all those other cases that are not so rapey, like they were dressed like a slut, or they were drunk, etc. It's still disgusting, but not quite in the way you're thinking.
What he seems to think is that in cases of what we could call 'proper-rape', like if a woman is just grabbed off the pavement and dragged into a dark alley, then somehow the female body can prevent the pregnancy occurring. If a woman is pregnant then it probably wasn't one of those 'proper-rapes' but one of those other cases, like they were drunk, or tired, or dressed immodestly, or changed they mind, or were forced by a partner, or whatever misogynistic crap goes through the minds of these Republican sorts.
He's not saying there are legitimate (ie. okay) forms of rape, you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. By 'legitimate rape' he's narrowing the definition of rape down to something quite narrow. He's only prepared to discuss the moral difficulty of abortion related to rape in really clear cut assault cases, and not the many more difficult examples in which women have presumably had non-consensual sex but weren't beaten up or assaulted by a stranger. It's so much easier to address the debate about rape and abortion when you frame it so that rapists are violent men attacking women, and you de-legitimise claims of rape in many other circumstances.
Furthermore, the reason why some pro-life advocates don't like abortions in cases of rape, is because once you allow women to abort due to rape, there's the accusation that women will make up claims of rape to get the abortion instead of justifying it by other means. You rather have to take the women at their word on this matter, because rape convictions are notoriously difficult to get and if you had to wait for the guilty verdict the child would probably be born anyway. If you allow 'rape' to be cited as a justification for abortion then the only way for it to be workable is if you just take women at their word and not carry out an investigation, making women carry unwanted pregnancies while you carry out prolonged investigations is inhumane IMO. Of course the solution to this is to stop demanding women jump through such hoops and give reasons for having a termination and simply allow them the choice in the first place.
Mental stimulation is not connected to physical stimulation. This is not meant to be offensive, but women are sometimes physically aroused during rape. The entire claim that the body can shut down upon forcible entry is just stupid and not based in reality.
If it was intended and he believes there can be legitimised rape then frankly he should never have gotten into any kind of power unless he's really damn good at something else...
No no, I don't think he's trying to say that some acts of rape are legitimate. By 'legitimate rape' he's referring to those really obvious cases of rape, as opposed to all those other cases that are not so rapey, like they were dressed like a slut, or they were drunk, etc. It's still disgusting, but not quite in the way you're thinking.
What he seems to think is that in cases of what we could call 'proper-rape', like if a woman is just grabbed off the pavement and dragged into a dark alley, then somehow the female body can prevent the pregnancy occurring. If a woman is pregnant then it probably wasn't one of those 'proper-rapes' but one of those other cases, like they were drunk, or tired, or dressed immodestly, or changed they mind, or whatever misogynistic crap goes through the minds of these Republican sorts.
That had occurred to me but i thought no one would be dumb enough to use the word legitimate concerning a rape...
Clearly i was wrong...
AustonT wrote: I don't have anyone on ignore. That's not how conversations work or happen. Plenty of people are irritating but I'd rather hear what they have to say.
Me either, but for the less intellectual reason of "I proper love arguing with people!"
It’s over for Akin.
Advisers are readying for him to withdraw from the race tomorrow.
TPM reported:
Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin’s advisers are making preparations to withdraw from the race Tuesday, GOP operative Richard Grenell and RedState.com editor Erick Erickson report. Grenell cited “GOP sources” in his tweet announcing the withdrawal, which has yet to be confirmed by Akin.
Twitchy has more.
State Auditor Tom Schweich and Congressional candidate Ann Wagner are being mentioned as a replacement.
All the big MO GOP names interested in replacing Akin but Auditor Tom Schweich is the sole new name being floated.
— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) August 20, 2012
John Ashcroft, Jim Talent, and Kit Bond are also being mentioned as replacement candidates.
Crossroads and the NRSC withdrew support for Akin earlier today.
Our own Ken Clarke made a similar gaff trying to differentiate those 'less serious rapes' for lower sentences. I think he was trying to deal with things like statutory rape, where a willing 15 year old girl and 16 year old boy get it on, well that's actually rape by law. I don't think he exposed a nasty misogynistic side as this Republican has, but he still dug himself a bloody great hole the stupid old goat.
Our own Ken Clarke made a similar gaff trying to differentiate those 'less serious rapes' for lower sentences. I think he was trying to deal with things like statutory rape, where a willing 15 year old girl and 16 year old boy get it on, well that's actually rape by law. I don't think he exposed a nasty misogynistic side as this Republican has, but he still dug himself a bloody great hole the stupid old goat.
That was entirely the media's fault. Made him sound like he was advocating rape when, as you say, he was simply making the distinction between consensual statuary rape and violent rape, saying that we probably shouldn't treat them the same.
Our own Ken Clarke made a similar gaff trying to differentiate those 'less serious rapes' for lower sentences. I think he was trying to deal with things like statutory rape, where a willing 15 year old girl and 16 year old boy get it on, well that's actually rape by law. I don't think he exposed a nasty misogynistic side as this Republican has, but he still dug himself a bloody great hole the stupid old goat.
That was entirely the media's fault. Made him sound like he was advocating rape when, as you say, he was simply making the distinction between consensual statuary rape and violent rape, saying that we probably shouldn't treat them the same.
What he did do was group 'date rape' in with underage sex. Date rapes are rapes like any other, you drug someone and take advantage of them, but he seemed conflate this with sex acts that are consensual but still illegal (as in the case of underage sex). Incredibly clumsy, I'm not sure what he was doing but he did clarify his use of date rape as being mistaken but stuck to the point about underage sex. Which is fair enough because actually, no one wants to see a couple of teenagers being put through the criminal courts for getting a bit carried away after school. Though his clarification was a bit more convincing than "I, ummm, ummm... misspoke, I don't know what I meant, but umm... not whatever you thought... vote for me!"
AustonT wrote: I don't have anyone on ignore. That's not how conversations work or happen. Plenty of people are irritating but I'd rather hear what they have to say.
Me either, but for the less intellectual reason of "I proper love arguing with people!"
Howard A Treesong wrote: What he seems to think is that in cases of what we could call 'proper-rape', like if a woman is just grabbed off the pavement and dragged into a dark alley, then somehow the female body can prevent the pregnancy occurring.
That still makes him a either a mental midget or an ignorant jackass.
George Spiggott wrote: Not to be outdone. Everyone's favourite cat impersonator George Galloway has jumped onto the 'say something stupid about rape' bandwagon.
Wow. It's like he wants me to punch him in the face. He's a fething lunatic with delusions of grandeur, who seems to be addicted to the thrill of controversy. An attention-whore, basically.
George Spiggott wrote: Not to be outdone. Everyone's favourite cat impersonator George Galloway has jumped onto the 'say something stupid about rape' bandwagon.
Saw this earlier. As far as I know, no one actually knows what the allegations are. I would refrain from publically saying things like that, especially about something as emotive as rape.
d-usa wrote: If what you said is so stupid that it qualifies as a legitimate mind-rape then the Republican body can shut down the election and prevent a campaign.
Or something like that...
Heh... something like that...
The weird thing was that in "local news", this was barely discussed... seems the furor is more on a "national" scale than anything.
Weird.
But, he's done since his fundings has been pulled.
whembly wrote: It's over for Atkins... he skipped two appearances this evening...
One was Piers Morgan's CNN show and can't remember the other.
He's done.
How is that even possible? Orlanth explained so carefully and painstakingly how there was nothing at all wrong with what he said, so why isn't the rest of the GOP establishment backing him up? Perhaps they're all just RINOS.
Or, perhaps he's just a giant toolbox, who, when he says he wants to "take our country back", is completely clear about what this phrase means with regards to women's rights.
Mannahnin wrote: Exactly. Or maybe ~1775, so he could be in on the Constitutional Convention, and help make sure it was a bit clearer about being a Christian Nation.
Amaya wrote:I know people are typically stupid, but can people seriously not look at both sides of the argument and see that each one has merit?
Sometimes it's hard to see the merit in a hateful, misogynistic discourse.
Yes, because being against abortion on the basis that one is against the killing of human life is obviously rooted in hate not love.
Do you think things through or just choke down what the media spoon feeds you? Whether or not abortion should be banned is up for the masses decide. I don't care either way. I think having an abortion is a tough decision to make. Its not as if people are going "lol I'm preggers time to kill a baby!"
Constantly denying that abortions can be avoided (outside of rape) is utter nonsense. You can't control yourself and want to avoid raising the child, fine, but don't pretty up as anything other then preventing a human life and don't expect everyone to agree with or even respect your decision. At the same time, pro life supporters need to back the hell off and realize that this is not a fething theocracy and not everything done in America is going to be in line with their myriad of interpretations of an ancient book and reread the part where Jesus says to actively love your neighbor as yourself instead of being a sanctimonious git.
A poll conducted and released on Monday found that U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, who's under fire for his comments about "legitimate rape," still has an edge over Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill in Missouri's Senate race.
Public Policy Polling, a North Carolina-based Democratic polling firm, has Akin leading McCaskill by one point, 44 percent to 43 percent. That's not much different from PPP's last poll of the race, which also found Akin ahead by one point, 45 percent to 44 percent.
But Akin's sustained lead doesn't mean Missouri voters agree with what the Republican candidate said. The poll found that 75 percent say Akin's comments were inappropriate, and 79 percent say they disagree with them.
In releasing the results, PPP concluded that "GOP voters dislike McCaskill so much they're not going to vote for her no matter what their nominee does."
"This looks like it will be a closely contested race if Akin stays in," PPP President Dean Debnam said in a statement that came with the poll results.
Akin apologized for his comments on Monday but vowed to stay in the race in the face of criticism from his own party and some calls for him to quit, saying on Mike Huckabee's radio show "I'm not a quitter" and taking to Twitter to say that he's "in this race to win."
Well. At least Republican voters have sticktoitivness.
EDIT: Then again, if a North Carolina pollster is as reliable as the rest of the state, maybe not
I'm also fairly certain they're the douchenozzles who keep calling my cell phone, despite it being an unlisted number, and telling me "This is not a survey call".
Constantly denying that abortions can be avoided (outside of rape) is utter nonsense. You can't control yourself and want to avoid raising the child, fine, but don't pretty up as anything other then preventing a human life and don't expect everyone to agree with or even respect your decision. At the same time, pro life supporters need to back the hell off and realize that this is not a fething theocracy and not everything done in America is going to be in line with their myriad of interpretations of an ancient book and reread the part where Jesus says to actively love your neighbor as yourself instead of being a sanctimonious git.
Amaya wrote:I know people are typically stupid, but can people seriously not look at both sides of the argument and see that each one has merit?
Sometimes it's hard to see the merit in a hateful, misogynistic discourse.
Yes, because being against abortion on the basis that one is against the killing of human life is obviously rooted in hate not love.
And now we do a wonderful two-step dance:
1. Do you believe a woman should have complete control over her own body? 2. If yes, then you are tacitly accepting a pro-choice stance. If no, then you prove my statement correct.
Amaya wrote:I know people are typically stupid, but can people seriously not look at both sides of the argument and see that each one has merit?
Sometimes it's hard to see the merit in a hateful, misogynistic discourse.
Yes, because being against abortion on the basis that one is against the killing of human life is obviously rooted in hate not love.
And now we do a wonderful two-step dance:
1. Do you believe a woman should have complete control over her own body?
2. If yes, then you are tacitly accepting a pro-choice stance. If no, then you prove my statement correct.
Which really obfuscate the fact that the prime consequences of abortion is directed at another body than that of the women. Namely, the fetus. Or that in the most case, we would think it unfair to punish someone for the consequences of a (hopefully) conscious decision of another person.
Orlanth wrote: How did you work that out? Jedi mind reading powers?
No, I worked it out by hearing what he said and using my ability with the English language.
You can give a try as well if you want, by reading his sentences;
"First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare, if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,"
There's no context that makes that anything other than what it is. He said the body had ways of shutting pregnancy down. It doesn't, and Akin is just an idiot who made up some scientific nonsense to avoid a tough moral question.
And you're some guy who's decided to defend an odious comment because this is the internet, and there'll always be someone ready to defend anything, no matter how indefensible it is.
Can you point to anything where Akin goes on record saying this is what he believes. If you can provide a fair citation I will agree with you and concede the argument. I am only going by what I read about this case, I dont know this mans electoral life history. Has he a certain notoriety for his opinions on rape (prior to embellishments on the interview refered to in the OP)?
And I'd be more than happy to concede the argument if you were able to provide just one alternative meaning to the above sentence that might make even the slightest amount of sense. Because what's happening here is not very hard to figure out at all - this guy voiced an opinion that was not only odious but also scientifically ignorant. He's been called on it by the media at large, and knowing when to cut his losses he's made some non-statements to back away from it as fast as possible.
And then you've decided to come in here and whiteknight for some random senator, and you've done this by pretending a very simple sentence could possibly have had some mysterious second meaning.
Except there's no possible second meaning for that sentence.
Does he now?
Does he also believe that Obama is a Moslem and illegible to be president because he is not a US citizen.
Yes, he does. It's why he said 'if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down".
I don't know what his opinion on Obama is. I also suspect you've completely and utterly lost the plot in this rather simple thing, and are trying to draw in all kinds of vague notions of leftist attacks on Republican senators, when the actual events here are very simple.
Akin said this; "First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare, if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," It has only one meaning, and while that meaning is very stupid and very ugly, it is not out of the ordinary for a particular wing of the Republican party.
And yet you're acting like its the most unbelievable thing in the world and must have had some secret other meaning.
Amaya wrote:I know people are typically stupid, but can people seriously not look at both sides of the argument and see that each one has merit?
Sometimes it's hard to see the merit in a hateful, misogynistic discourse.
Yes, because being against abortion on the basis that one is against the killing of human life is obviously rooted in hate not love.
And now we do a wonderful two-step dance:
1. Do you believe a woman should have complete control over her own body?
2. If yes, then you are tacitly accepting a pro-choice stance. If no, then you prove my statement correct.
Orlanth wrote: Citation for Akins belief in magical anti-pregancy defence from rape needed.
Hint. Twisting the words of the interview in the OP is not a citation. There is a simple logical alternative, he had a far less irrational opinion but mispoke in the interview..
There's no twisting. It's a really fething simple sentence he stated. Stop being ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Indeed, he mispoke, he said he mispoke, and yet you still try and find extra hidden meaning in the words. Are you with Sebster in thinking Akin believes in magical anti pregnancy protection that cuts in during a genuine rape?
There's no hidden meaning. It's the straight up, plain as day don't be fething ridiculous because this could only mean one thing meaning. He said the female body has defenses against that sort of thing. That's it. It's that simple.
It looks ok so far.
Occams razor:
- Akin mispoke, like he plainly said he did, he liklely meant to refer to the phenomena reported by the medical profession that women under emotional strain can miscarry and that rape can cause such a strain. The alternative being a new world view on rape that is not reported anywhere, including by the person who supposedly 'believes' in it.
No, that's a load of gobbledigook from a guy who's being ridiculous.
Occam's razor would be that when the topic of conversation is pregnancy through rape and a guy says 'women have defenses against that sort of thing', it mean's he believe woman have defenses against pregnacy from rape.
Orlanth wrote: Indeed, he mispoke, he said he mispoke, and yet you still try and find extra hidden meaning in the words. Are you with Sebster in thinking Akin believes in magical anti pregnancy protection that cuts in during a genuine rape?
There's no hidden meaning. It's the straight up, plain as day don't be fething ridiculous because this could only mean one thing meaning. He said the female body has defenses against that sort of thing. That's it. It's that simple.
It was ridiculous only if you insist on reading it as it was stated. Something is odd there, a level headed man would ask for clarity at this point, hot howl for blood.
Sure enough it was retracted, plain as day. He said he misspoke, so he misspoke.
Occams razor:
- Akin mispoke, like he plainly said he did, he likely meant to refer to the phenomena reported by the medical profession that women under emotional strain can miscarry and that rape can cause such a strain. The alternative being a new world view on rape that is not reported anywhere, including by the person who supposedly 'believes' in it.
No, that's a load of gobbledigook from a guy who's being ridiculous.
Occam's razor would be that when the topic of conversation is pregnancy through rape and a guy says 'women have defenses against that sort of thing', it mean's he believe woman have defenses against pregnacy from rape.
Akins said he misspoke. There was a logical alternative to what he said based on assuming he misspoke, which happened to be correct as he did misspeak.
That cannot be ridiculous because the original comment you quote doesn't make sense in literal terms as there is no such thing as legitimate rape.
Being rediculous is insisting there is direct meaning when it made no sense to bein with unless modified..
Being completely ridiculous is insisting there is direct meaning even after the person speaking the comment withdrew it saying it was misspoken.
And you're some guy who's decided to defend an odious comment because this is the internet, and there'll always be someone ready to defend anything, no matter how indefensible it is.
The bile is all your own,
As for why I defend him, its because its just to do so. Too many people like to pour the hate on because its the internets. Dogma of course assumed that as I was defending him I must agree with him, and that I wouldn't if I didn't. To give him some credit he accepted my reasons for defending him were not personal, that leaves you still barking.
As things heat up I still call for understanding, far from being ridiculous, its the pattern of the voice of reason. Which often must stand alone against the braying. So be it.
I defend him, in part, as in what he spoke, not his policy per se, because he misspoke, he said he misspoke and that isn't being accepted. Here in the UK this sort of error occurs all the time, now we have a fairly vicious media and party political system, but if someone misspeaks, its taken advantage of in a joking way and the person is allowed to retract and business carries on as usual. Its more common with some MP's than others, some get tongue tied often to a point that people wait for their next fethed up comment, and I have heard even good orators like Thatcher and Blair make statements in the house, get tongue twisted and though an unfortunate reversal say something completely different to what they meant to say. Under no circumstances are any of them forced to keep their words. We are human, politics is a nervous business and every word is analysed, feth up an interview, make a retraction, retraction is heard, everyone moves on.
The media is full of his initial commentary. Only one source so far has bothered to include his contraction, and that just isn't honest journalism. His own party have vocally abandoned him, including politicians who have opinions of abortion similar to or even exceeding his own, like the Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan. I find that harder to stomach than anything Akin says. Ryan should have said nothing, its looks far less shallow and hypocritical.
This whole issue is highly partisan, something leveled at me oddly enough even though I am defending him solely on a point of human decency. The entire thread started off with 'Republicans are idiots' theme to it athen took a look at the harsh abortion laws in Missouri and related them specifically to Akin to back and assumption that he really did mean things as extreme as what he misspoke Yet if you scratch the surface on that you will find that the harsh anti-abortion laws of Missouri were bi-political and instigated by the Democrats.
I feel deeply sorry for Akin, we don't know if he would have made a good senator, and now we might never know. Whoever replaces him need not end up being any more pro-choice than Akin, as its plain as day that pro-life is the ticket in that state and both parties play to that tune when in power. He didn't turn up for an interview last night and the program felt it was savvy to run the slot and display an empty chair in his stead. Did he bottle, or has he been asked to take one for the team? We won't know that either.
Its not the first time I have heard politicians say something as nonsensical as what Akin said, its however rare for a retraction to a nonsensical comment to be drowned out Anyone thinking that this situation will automatically end up a win for pro-choice, or even place a smarter person in the Senate ought to look twice.
The people defending the fether are entitled to their opinion, but lets not pretend its fair and sensible and has nothing to do with support for the party.. or you guessed it, the Religious preferences.
Orlanth wrote: Indeed, he mispoke, he said he mispoke, and yet you still try and find extra hidden meaning in the words. Are you with Sebster in thinking Akin believes in magical anti pregnancy protection that cuts in during a genuine rape?
There's no hidden meaning. It's the straight up, plain as day don't be fething ridiculous because this could only mean one thing meaning. He said the female body has defenses against that sort of thing. That's it. It's that simple.
It was ridiculous only if you insist on reading it as it was stated. Something is odd there, a level headed man would ask for clarity at this point, hot howl for blood.
Sure enough it was retracted, plain as day. He said he misspoke, so he misspoke.
It was ridiculous only if you insist on listening to the words that came out of his mouth. Just because he retracted it doesn't mean he didn't say it and he didn't mean it.
Here is how it works.
Politician: Says something incredibly stupid and ignorant.
Public: Is outraged
Politician: "crap, the people realize that I'm an idiot. Let me pretend I didn't say that."
Saying "I misspoke" is about as sincere and legitimate as a 3 year old saying he is sorry because mom took away his toys and won't let him have them back until he apologizes.
d-usa wrote: If what you said is so stupid that it qualifies as a legitimate mind-rape then the Republican body can shut down the election and prevent a campaign.
Or something like that...
Heh... something like that...
The weird thing was that in "local news", this was barely discussed... seems the furor is more on a "national" scale than anything.
Weird.
But, he's done since his fundings has been pulled.
He may be making an announcement soon about leaving the race, but his annoying campaign adverts are still playing on the morning news. According to a survey done for news stations in St. Louis & Springfield 54% of likely voters in MO think he should drop out......Local news hasn't gone bat-gak crazy covering this, but I actually prefer that to non stop talking heads on the national programs.
d-usa wrote: Just because he retracted it doesn't mean he didn't say it and he didn't mean it.
Here is how it works.
Politician: Says something incredibly stupid and ignorant.
Public: Is outraged
Politician: "crap, the people realize that I'm an idiot. Let me pretend I didn't say that."
Saying "I misspoke" is about as sincere and legitimate as a 3 year old saying he is sorry because mom took away his toys and won't let him have them back until he apologizes.
However what he said went beyond stupid, to nonsensical, to the point that it needs translating. It doesn't really have a direct meaning, it needs interpretation however one looks at it because there is no such think as legitimate rape. I cannot accept that Akin is forced to keep the words by which he claims there is a form of 'legitimate rape', even a 10 year old knows there isn't let alone a serving Congressman.
d-usa wrote: Just because he retracted it doesn't mean he didn't say it and he didn't mean it.
Here is how it works.
Politician: Says something incredibly stupid and ignorant.
Public: Is outraged
Politician: "crap, the people realize that I'm an idiot. Let me pretend I didn't say that."
Saying "I misspoke" is about as sincere and legitimate as a 3 year old saying he is sorry because mom took away his toys and won't let him have them back until he apologizes.
However what he said went beyond stupid, to nonsensical, to the point that it needs translating. It doesn't really have a direct meaning, it needs interpretation however one looks at it because there is no such think as legitimate rape. I cannot accept that Akin is forced to keep the words by which he claims there is a form of 'legitimate rape', even a 10 year old knows there isn't let alone a serving Congressman.
At least we disagree nicely.
So are Romney and the entire Republican Party leadership dumber than a 10 year old? Because they all seem to disagree with what you are saying...
mattyrm wrote: The people defending the fether are entitled to their opinion, but lets not pretend its fair and sensible and has nothing to do with support for the party.. or you guessed it, the Religious preferences.
Actually matty you couldn't be further from the truth there. I was more interested in critiquing the feeding frenzy.
Besides I actually am pro-choice for the most part. I disagree heavily with New Labours upgrade of abortion from a grey area to a 'human right' in the late nineties, it made the issue too casual, but I have no problems with abortion clinics
I still havent bother to read up about Akin's own religious tilt, I wouldn't be surprised if he is a form of Christian, but to be honest it hadn't crossed my mind, nearly all the popliticians in the US are some sort of 'Christian' and most just use the term. I take very low store on politicians declarations of faith in most circumstances, especially in the US. If a politican in the UK stood up and decklared themselves a practicing Christian I would look at that differently to some extent, though it would also depend on what rthety do and how they behave. I do think there is a difference though. A politician who declares themselves a practicing Christian in the UK is taking a risk, and is probably telling something close to the truth, unless they are obviously Jewish most politicans in the US like to claim to be Christian it brings in the votes.
d-usa wrote: So are Romney and the entire Republican Party leadership dumber than a 10 year old? Because they all seem to disagree with what you are saying...
Shh, you'll offend Orlanth by making him actually look at reality instead of some weird fantasy.
So are Romney and the entire Republican Party leadership dumber than a 10 year old? Because they all seem to disagree with what you are saying...
They weren't saying it. Only Akin did. No-one was agreeing with the words at face value, even Akin.
They would only be 'dumber than 10 year olds' if they literally agreed with the original comments. No-one does, including Akin, even though most are pro-life, many as much or more so than Akin.
Even Ryan, who openly calls for abolition of abortion even in cases of rape has decried Akin's comments. This makes sense because of the controversial aspect not from the point of disagreement.
Politically Akin cant distance himself from the words, but that is purely the medias doing. We know this to be true because the retraction hasn't been reported in the articles critiquing Akin. If the media thought the retraction bollocks they might have reported it and critiqued it, similar to the way you attempted, no-one has yet tried this even now to my knowledge, yet the orginal story is still rolling. Akin is being denied the opportunity to retract, this isn't 'conspiracy', its because it makes much better headlines if he cant.
If Akin is being strung up it behooves the rest of the Republicans to stay away, especially in election year. I can accept this, but people like Paul Ryan should have just remained silent rather than take open opportunity to disagree. As dfor Democrats crowing, its a meal ticket, why not eat. After all its 'Republicans' who like to take away womens rights and deny abortions yes. However that depends actually on the individual state and its ethnic and religious mix. Got a mostly Catholic state and the Democrats are all for very tough anti-abortion laws.
Stamping on Akin may look like an exposure of and consequent a victory over ignorant fanatics. It isn't.
So you are simply saying that the media is taking the statement that a "legitimate rape" (whatever he meant by that) would cause the woman's body to shut down and prevent pregnancy out of context.
And why shouldn't the entire Republican Leadership disagree with him?
Amaya wrote:I know people are typically stupid, but can people seriously not look at both sides of the argument and see that each one has merit?
Sometimes it's hard to see the merit in a hateful, misogynistic discourse.
Yes, because being against abortion on the basis that one is against the killing of human life is obviously rooted in hate not love.
And now we do a wonderful two-step dance:
1. Do you believe a woman should have complete control over her own body?
2. If yes, then you are tacitly accepting a pro-choice stance. If no, then you prove my statement correct.
*jazz hands*
So it is a impossibility to both recognize that it is a woman's choice while simultaneously feeling that it would be better if the fetus is brought to term. I think that both the pro-choice and pro-life movement over-trivialize the emotional impact of an abortion and turned into nothing more then a political statement.
Republican Todd Akin has until 5:00 PM to withdraw from the US Senate race.
And, it’s clear that the National Republican Senatorial Campaign want him gone. They already cut funding to the Republican – an estimated $5 million. Then this morning the NRSC sent out this email this morning.
Just a quick background update on the situation in the Missouri Senate race. While much of the press coverage has understandably focused on the statements by Republican leaders yesterday regarding Congressman Akin, I wanted to point out for your background that they have been joined by leading conservatives across the country who have called on Congressman Akin to step aside for the good of the party and the pro-life movement he cares so deeply about.
Below are just a few examples for your consideration:
· Radio/TV Host Sean Hannity urged Akin yesterday to reconsider running and reminded him that “elections are bigger than one person”
· Radio Host Mark Levin similarly urged Akin to step aside saying this race is far too important to risk losing to the Democrats.
· National Review’s Jim Geraghty observes, Who Isn’t Calling for Akin’s Withdrawal? Claire McCaskill & Planned Parenthood.
· Columnist/Radio Host Dennis Prager penned a column for Townhall.com calling on his fellow pro-life leaders to join him in disavowing Akin’s remarks.
· Columnist Charles Krauthammer on Fox News last night called Akin “toxic” and said “he’s got to go”
· Radio Host Hugh Hewitt tweeted – “If Akin drops out and GOP wins Senate, he has career. If he stays in and GOP doesn’t win Senate, infamy and injury to prolife cause”
· Author Ann Coulter penned a column in Human Events calling on Akin to do the right thing and step aside for the good of the pro-life movement
· National Review editorial board called on Akin to step aside, writing in part, “Akin is a stalwart conservative and an honorable man, we regret to say that he inspires no such confidence”
· Wall Street Journal editorial board also called on Akin to step aside, writing in part, “Having uttered one of the more offensive and ill-informed comments in recent years, Mr. Akin could cost his party a seat it is favored to win this November and thus possible control of the Senate.”
· The Tea Party Express called on Akin to step aside saying “It is critical that we defeat Senator Claire McCaskill in November, but it will be too difficult to achieve that with Todd Akin as the conservative alternative.”
That’s brutal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a logical view of the PPP poll recently:
http://minx.cc/?post=332101
Since PPP decided it can't help itself, I've done you all a service.
I went through their ridiculous R+9 sample and ONLY changed the D/R/I proportions to match previous elections, and an even turnout.
With R+9, PPP's headline screams Akin up by 1. It is an obvious, sick ploy to get this delusional Bio101 flunkie to stay in and cost us a seat.
Here are the real numbers:
If turnout in November matches 2008 (it won't):
McCaskill 49.25% Akin 39% (this is a D+6 turnout model)
If turnout in November is even, an incredible feat for the GOP considering heavy turnout in St Louis and Kansas City during an election year:
McCaskill 47% Akin 40%.
If turnout in November matches the best we have ever seen in the state (R+3 during 2010):
McCaskill 45% Akin 41%.
McCaskill is a dead duck if we dump Akin. The other candidates from the primary were crushing her up and down. To trail her by four in a best-case scenario is inexcusable at this point.
The fact that PPP had to triple the best R margin ever just to get Akin over McCaskill screams agenda polling, but they will never admit to that, so I'm calling them out on it, and it's time for you to spread the word. PPP's "Akin still leads" poll is garbage, the approval rating for Akin with this huge R spread is a God-awful 24%, and McCaskill hasn't cut one rape ad yet.
Well, that's one opinion. I think the other is, regardless of what PPP reported, if you carefully parse their exact words, it's possible to come to an alternate and totally reasonable interpretation of what they said and we should give them the benefit of the doubt despite all their past history of identical antics.
I hate this whole 'misspeaking' nonsense. It's a fething slimy thing to say, and can be used to defend all sorts of shocking statements.
You didn't 'misspeak', you said something ignorant and stupid.
You didn't 'misspeak', you said something which was factually incorrect, because you were to lazy to research it.
You didn't 'misspeak', you Just. fething. Lied.
Isn't that what you call it when you realize that you said something that you shouldn't have?
Nah misspeaking is letting your emotions get the better of you in my book. You misspeak if you go "feth off!" instead of saying something civilised.
Saying "Doctors have told me that rape victims self abort a foetus" is either a full on lie, or he has the worst doctor ever, and considering in North America they actually have to pass exams to be doctors, I go for full on lie.
A full on lie isn't misspeaking. Its fething lying.
Isn't that what you call it when you realize that you said something that you shouldn't have?
Nah misspeaking is letting your emotions get the better of you in my book. You misspeak if you go "feth off!" instead of saying something civilised.
Saying "Doctors have told me that rape victims self abort a foetus" is either a full on lie, or he has the worst doctor ever, and considering in North America they actually have to pass exams to be doctors, I go for full on lie.
A full on lie isn't misspeaking. Its fething lying.
But misspeaking doesn't have to be a lie. What if your girlfriend asks you if this dress makes her butt look big, and you accidentally say "no, your butt makes your butt look big". You know you said the truth and you really think her butt is big. But you misspoke because you know you shouldn't have said it .
I think you are giving him too much credit with lying. I am going to guess that he really thinks that what he said was true..
Amaya wrote:I know people are typically stupid, but can people seriously not look at both sides of the argument and see that each one has merit?
Sometimes it's hard to see the merit in a hateful, misogynistic discourse.
Yes, because being against abortion on the basis that one is against the killing of human life is obviously rooted in hate not love.
And now we do a wonderful two-step dance:
1. Do you believe a woman should have complete control over her own body? 2. If yes, then you are tacitly accepting a pro-choice stance. If no, then you prove my statement correct.
*jazz hands*
So it is a impossibility to both recognize that it is a woman's choice while simultaneously feeling that it would be better if the fetus is brought to term. I think that both the pro-choice and pro-life movement over-trivialize the emotional impact of an abortion and turned into nothing more then a political statement.
Not at all. You can totally feel that it would be better if the foetus is brought to term. Feel whatever you like. Just so long as you recognize that the decision is the woman's choice.
I don't understand how anyone can defend this guy.
Do you really want someone telling your wife/girlfriend she can't abort the seed planted there by some fuckhead who raped her? Because you both really want to raise that child, the child of the rapist.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone who was raped, or their significant other for feths sake.
But whatever, this guy is slime, and will hopefully be completely ostracized from politics so we never have to hear, at least, his diarrhea of the mouth ever again.
It's kinda sad how people are ACTUALLY defending this guy at all. Do you not know how much trauma (of all kinds) A rape causes? I mean the consequences aren't just felt by the person who is raped, but by friends, family, and if said person becomes pregnant, and carries the child to term, there are all kinds of problems that child will face, one of the worst of which could be the parent/child relationship, because chances are, no matter how much the parent loves the child, it is a constant reminder of possibly the worst day in that person's life.
Also, not your vagina, shouldn't be your choice, or anyone else's, on whether or not someone gets an abortion. End of story.
George Spiggott wrote: Not to be outdone. Everyone's favourite cat impersonator George Galloway has jumped onto the 'say something stupid about rape' bandwagon.
um, from the looks of it the allegations are for sure BS, it is an attempt from the US to get him sent here
this is a clear case of the little kid sending a copy of his dad's journal to all his co workers and the dad wanting to kill his kid, but he really will kill him, so.....................................................
Rep. Steve King, one of the most staunchly conservative members of the House, was one of the few Republicans who did not strongly condemn Rep. Todd Akin Monday for his remarks regarding pregnancy and rape. King also signaled why — he might agree with parts of Akin’s assertion.
King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.
“Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way,” King told KMEG-TV Monday, “and I’d be open to discussion about that subject matter.”
Dear conservatives: every time you let the gag fall out of one of these trogolodytes mouths, you make it that much harder for the less insane of you to claim there isn't really a GOP war on women.
Rep. Steve King, one of the most staunchly conservative members of the House, was one of the few Republicans who did not strongly condemn Rep. Todd Akin Monday for his remarks regarding pregnancy and rape. King also signaled why — he might agree with parts of Akin’s assertion.
King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.
“Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way,” King told KMEG-TV Monday, “and I’d be open to discussion about that subject matter.”
Dear conservatives: every time you let the gag fall out of one of these trogolodytes mouths, you make it that much harder for the less insane of you to claim there isn't really a GOP war on women.
Contacted by TPM, King’s office said that King didn’t mean he had never heard of pregnancy resulting from statutory rape or incest but that he had no direct, personal knowledge of such instances. “What he was saying was, he personally does not know a girl who was raped,” Brittany Lesser, a spokesperson for King said. “He never says, ‘I’ve never heard of that.’ There’s a fine line between ‘I’ve never heard of that’ and ‘I don’t know personally anybody who’s been raped. There’s a difference. There is a difference.”
I would wager that he almost certainly knows a girl who was at least molested, if not raped. Just betting on statistics here.
King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.
A five year, seven month old girl was impregnated, likely by family members.
At least two more have been impregnated at six years, ten more at eight, and almost thirty at nine. And that's just the ones that are publicly known. Most of these pregnancies were the result of incest.
Tadashi wrote: The politician was an idiot...but abortion in any form is the greatest crime in Human history.
The Nazi Holocaust. The Rape of Nanking. The Inquisition and various witch hunts. The countless tales of genocide in Africa. The gassing of Kurds in Iraq. The various terrorist attacks. The various mass shootings. The various cult mass suicides. Dresden, Nagazaki, Hiroshima. The deployment of landmines in populated areas. The organized and law-endorsed killing of homosexuals in African states.
Even if you consider abortion to be killing, all of these are worse. Shall I go on and keep listing more?
Peter King? Isn't he the piece of gak who wanted every Muslim in America investigated for ties to terrorism?
While simultaneously supporting the IRA?
AND! Claiming the IRA aren't terrorists because they "don't kill Americans"?
As to the main topic, the original politician in this thread is also a complete fething idiot who should shut the feth up and go the feth away. Maybe read a book or two on biology that doesn't start with "The world was created by Jesus 6000 years ago hurrrrrrr"
Rep. Steve King, one of the most staunchly conservative members of the House, was one of the few Republicans who did not strongly condemn Rep. Todd Akin Monday for his remarks regarding pregnancy and rape. King also signaled why — he might agree with parts of Akin’s assertion.
King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.
“Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way,” King told KMEG-TV Monday, “and I’d be open to discussion about that subject matter.”
Dear conservatives: every time you let the gag fall out of one of these trogolodytes mouths, you make it that much harder for the less insane of you to claim there isn't really a GOP war on women.
Really because every time I hear the phrase "war on women" I'm turned to the liberal cause that champions women. Then I realize that female Democratic staffers make between 5 and 30% less than their male counterparts. Especially if they work for Minority leader Pelosi. Then I realize that the predictable and dishonest rhetoric of the war on women is just that: predictable and dishonest. So for every troglodyte that says he/she is open for discussion, I hope there is a thoughtful and evolved liberal spouting support for women while paying them unequally and attempting to break the healthcare system by empowering insurance eventually raising the cost and lowering the quality of care provided. Care women rely a great deal more on than men, but at least they'll have abortions.
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Tadashi wrote: The politician was an idiot...but abortion in any form is the greatest crime in Human history.
Really? You actually believe that?
'Cause I can think of 11 million people who might disagree.
It's more like 13.3 Million or more according to CBS.il but your point was made.
RatBot wrote: Peter King? Isn't he the piece of gak who wanted every Muslim in America investigated for ties to terrorism?
While simultaneously supporting the IRA?
AND! Claiming the IRA aren't terrorists because they "don't kill Americans"?
As to the main topic, the original politician in this thread is also a complete fething idiot who should shut the feth up and go the feth away. Maybe read a book or two on biology that doesn't start with "The world was created by Jesus 6000 years ago hurrrrrrr"
I would have thought just killing a living human person would be a greater crime than aborting a zygote. But the pro-life lobby are very keen on hyperbole.
As is calling abortion the greatest crime in history, also the holocaust could certainly fit as the greatest crime so not exactly hyperbole
The gak the Japanese did is every bit as evil as what the Nazis did. People should remember that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I would have thought just killing a living human person would be a greater crime than aborting a zygote. But the pro-life lobby are very keen on hyperbole.
and QFT. Zygotes aren't people, and are only alive because of the fact that they are made of cells. It is no more conscious than E. Coli.
RatBot wrote: Peter King? Isn't he the piece of gak who wanted every Muslim in America investigated for ties to terrorism?
While simultaneously supporting the IRA?
AND! Claiming the IRA aren't terrorists because they "don't kill Americans"?
As to the main topic, the original politician in this thread is also a complete fething idiot who should shut the feth up and go the feth away. Maybe read a book or two on biology that doesn't start with "The world was created by Jesus 6000 years ago hurrrrrrr"
What book starts like that?
While I'm quite sure no book starts with that verbatim, there's at least one, possibly more Creationist/Intelligent Design based textbooks out there. "Of Pandas and People" specifically springs to mind. To put things things less abrasively, maybe he should consider reading something about biology, with the caveat that the book should be written based on actual accepted scientific evidence.
As is calling abortion the greatest crime in history, also the holocaust could certainly fit as the greatest crime so not exactly hyperbole
The gak the Japanese did is every bit as evil as what the Nazis did. People should remember that.
Saying one thing is bad doesn't make every thing else good
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I would have thought just killing a living human person would be a greater crime than aborting a zygote. But the pro-life lobby are very keen on hyperbole.
and QFT. Zygotes aren't people, and are only alive because of the fact that they are made of cells. It is no more conscious than E. Coli.
I don't think that Zygotes are human, they will eventually become human though, and I don't see the difference between killing a human and killing an eventual human. They are both wrong because they remove the potential that a life contains. Preferably we should make efforts to reduce the number of abortions by encouraging the use of contraceptives and safe sex. We could also try to remove the social stigma from putting a child up for adoption, but ultimately it is the choice of the woman.
I don't see the difference between killing a human and killing an eventual human
By that definition, every time a man ejaculates, he kills off millions upon millions of eventual humans even in the case of him impregnating a woman; making men far, FAR worse than someone who advocates abortion.
I don't see the difference between killing a human and killing an eventual human
By that definition, every time a man ejaculates, he kills off millions upon millions of eventual humans even in the case of him impregnating a woman; making men far, FAR worse than someone who advocates abortion.
And thus, Monty Python knows everything (as if there was any doubt.)
I don't see the difference between killing a human and killing an eventual human
By that definition, every time a man ejaculates, he kills off millions upon millions of eventual humans even in the case of him impregnating a woman; making men far, FAR worse than someone who advocates abortion.
Mellisa, don't insult my intelligence. There is a big difference between a sperm and a zygote, there is no possible way for a sperm to become a person with out an egg. (you can make a person with two eggs though)
I don't see the difference between killing a human and killing an eventual human
By that definition, every time a man ejaculates, he kills off millions upon millions of eventual humans even in the case of him impregnating a woman; making men far, FAR worse than someone who advocates abortion.
Mellisa, don't insult my intelligence. There is a big difference between a sperm and a zygote, there is no possible way for a sperm to become a person with out an egg. (you can make a person with two eggs though)
So once a month, when a couple manages to menstruate and ejaculate at the same time, we have a conspiracy to commit murder?
Rep. Steve King, one of the most staunchly conservative members of the House, was one of the few Republicans who did not strongly condemn Rep. Todd Akin Monday for his remarks regarding pregnancy and rape. King also signaled why — he might agree with parts of Akin’s assertion.
King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.
“Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way,” King told KMEG-TV Monday, “and I’d be open to discussion about that subject matter.”
Dear conservatives: every time you let the gag fall out of one of these trogolodytes mouths, you make it that much harder for the less insane of you to claim there isn't really a GOP war on women.
wow
so they believe that a person who lives a perfectly good life and does nothing but help others their whole life will go to hell when they die if they do not believe in Jesus Christ as their God and savior, it seems that their thinking hasn't evolved ever. It's like, I never heard of it, so it can't be true, mentality.
When will these things die finally so we can move past this era of idiocracy?
I really dont understand the idea of "Legitimate rape".
I always thought that its either rape or its not rape, you can be forced to sex or you can voluntarily.
About abortion, i really dont think there is that much wrong with it especially if its after a woman was raped.
And dont tell me its like killing a human being, millions of animals get killed everyday to feed us but most people dont care.
Another thing is why male politicians are being opposed to it, its not like they will ever know what its like to be pregnant.
Ah, yes, the ignorance and inability of acceptance within humankind is blinding. I skipped 9 pages of argument to land here not really sure if I even want to touch this topic because really, some of you either a.) need to go back to basic health class, or b.) burn your bible you think holds every single one of the answers of the universe, when clearly it does not or c.) chill the flakk down and get some luffa for your butt.
1.) Rape is rape no matter what prefix is stuck on it, and mean's that two or more people engaged in sexual activity when at least one did not. What you wear does not mean you were asking for sex. Ever. Only asking for sex means you were asking for sex. Period.
2.) Abortion happens regardless if it were legal or not, and every choice should always be there for those who need it because when it is not, a whole lot of women die performing self induced abortions-killing their unborn children with them (the very reason why it was made legal in the first place). If it threatens your life it should certainly be there.However, every measure should be available to help any woman to complete the term and give a child up for a loving adoption (because there is actually a wait-list for hopefuls -especially gays and lesbians who will never be able to conceive children of their own until technology catches up with their biological quandary. After all, if the mother chooses to bring a child she had no intention of conceiving in the first place, honor her courage, but do not condole her lack of it if she chooses otherwise, that's the equivalent of blaming her for being at fault for her rape, which is the attackers fault, not the victim's.
3.) Lastly, why are you even concerned with the nuances of a southern Republican politician regardless of how he views rape in his position of decadent power? Your concern over the internet does nothing to change his mind, which is likely still focused on the domination of women, minorities, his preservation of both power and wealth and utter devotion to the ideal that America is a shining beacon upon a hill to which the world seeks and adores to emulate. His traditional view reflects nothing of your own, nor most of the people on earth who are not only leaving the archaic idea's of southern bell patriotism behind, but beginning to question the ideas of our government as a whole.
No but the people running the camps had a choice to not kill said people.
so we equating the staff and guards that ran the camp to the doctors and nurses the runs the abortion clinics? Are we equating genocide to abortion?
I could tell you that the majority of people who use the services of abortion clinics are undereducated, poor, and of a different class and race than those that predominantly judge and dictate how "wrong" abortion is. It really wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that abortion clinics are an agent of slow acting ethnic cleansing because those who need it most lacked the effective educational resources that could have prevented them from needing a clinic in the first place. If that is their intention, is a completely different matter.
No but the people running the camps had a choice to not kill said people.
so we equating the staff and guards that ran the camp to the doctors and nurses the runs the abortion clinics? Are we equating genocide to abortion?
I'm not equating anything to anything. I was just stating the fact that some people who participated in the Holocaust chose to do so of their own will.
No but the people running the camps had a choice to not kill said people.
so we equating the staff and guards that ran the camp to the doctors and nurses the runs the abortion clinics? Are we equating genocide to abortion?
I could tell you that the majority of people who use the services of abortion clinics are undereducated, poor, and of a different class and race than those that predominantly judge and dictate how "wrong" abortion is. It really wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that abortion clinics are an agent of slow acting ethnic cleansing because those who need it most lacked the effective educational resources that could have prevented them from needing a clinic in the first place. If that is their intention, is a completely different matter.
Abortion=ethnic cleansing?
Alright, guns kill more black people than white people in the US. That means that Republicans are against gun control because they support ethnic cleansing!
Alright, guns kill more black people than white people in the US. That means that Republicans are against gun control because they support ethnic cleansing!
If you're being serious, your post sure looks stupid now.
But really, is it that hard to believe that republican's and even democrats who make these comments don't like brown people, or rather people different than themselves of both race, class, and especially country? They sure like bombing them, leaving them uneducated, taking their land, allowing them to die from starvation or disease, stealing their money, taking away their social security they will only ever pay for, allowing them to shoot each other, taking their homes and their children to be "reeducated" in boarding schools, lying to them about virtually everything from "abstinence education" to the American dream of capitalism most will never achieve because it is a Ponzi Scheme, indoctrinating them, imprisoning them for preventable "crimes" in a broken penal system that does not rehabilitate individuals- it breaks them even further, and then expecting them to understand that their views, their concerns, their questions aren't represented in a government that gerrymanders, cheats, or lobbies its own electoral barriers to better suit either of our polar parties? Does that look more like our system of governance, or rather of our rulers?
Daemonhammer wrote: I really dont understand the idea of "Legitimate rape".
I always thought that its either rape or its not rape, you can be forced to sex or you can voluntarily.
About abortion, i really dont think there is that much wrong with it especially if its after a woman was raped.
And dont tell me its like killing a human being, millions of animals get killed everyday to feed us but most people dont care.
Another thing is why male politicians are being opposed to it, its not like they will ever know what its like to be pregnant.
Clearly you didn't listen to the song. It explained everything. And it had a catchy tune, so double-win.
No but the people running the camps had a choice to not kill said people.
so we equating the staff and guards that ran the camp to the doctors and nurses the runs the abortion clinics? Are we equating genocide to abortion?
No, we are ridiculing the concept of calling the service provided by these doctors and nurses the greatest crime in human history.
Genocide was just one of the examples of actual crimes that are greater than that.
Now if the people that are stating that it is the greatest crime in human history want to equate it with genocide or argue that abortion is worse than the holocaust than go ahead. But I know that I am not making that claim.
AustonT wrote: Really because every time I hear the phrase "war on women" I'm turned to the liberal cause that champions women. Then I realize that female Democratic staffers make between 5 and 30% less than their male counterparts. Especially if they work for Minority leader Pelosi. Then I realize that the predictable and dishonest rhetoric of the war on women is just that: predictable and dishonest. So for every troglodyte that says he/she is open for discussion, I hope there is a thoughtful and evolved liberal spouting support for women while paying them unequally and attempting to break the healthcare system by empowering insurance eventually raising the cost and lowering the quality of care provided. Care women rely a great deal more on than men, but at least they'll have abortions.
So, because we are able to point to one inequality that happens on both sides of the political spectrum, therefore clearly neither party has a consistent record of voting against women's rights and issues? I'm pretty sure there is a phrase for that.
Are you sure this is a door you want to open to disprove the core assumption that the a growing element of the republican party is hostile to women? Because, man, I don't think you like what's behind that door.
Orlanth wrote: It was ridiculous only if you insist on reading it as it was stated. Something is odd there, a level headed man would ask for clarity at this point, hot howl for blood.
Sure enough it was retracted, plain as day. He said he misspoke, so he misspoke.
When politicians say things that blow up in their face they claim they mispoke and try to weasel out of the situation. You're not so completely naive as to be unaware of this, so why are you pretending otherwise?
Akins said he misspoke. There was a logical alternative to what he said based on assuming he misspoke, which happened to be correct as he did misspeak.
That cannot be ridiculous because the original comment you quote doesn't make sense in literal terms as there is no such thing as legitimate rape.
You appear to have based your entire response to this around the fiction that people care only about the term 'legitimate rape', and some kind of fictional media reaction which takes only those words to make some kind of fantasy about there being 'legitimate rape'.
That is not what this is about, and it is not the problem with Akins' comment. So just fething read properly and learn something - Akins thinks the female body has some kind of protection from pregnancy if the woman didn't consent to sex. He made this up in his brain because he cares not one fething bit for the realities of life on this planet, and he doubled down on that stupid by throwing in a reference to mysoginist fantasy where women make up most rape claims.
There is no other way to interpret his sentence. None. Not one. I asked you to provide one and you didn't, because there isn't one. And yet you keep pretending there is. Because you're being ridiculous.
As for why I defend him, its because its just to do so. Too many people like to pour the hate on because its the internets. Dogma of course assumed that as I was defending him I must agree with him, and that I wouldn't if I didn't. To give him some credit he accepted my reasons for defending him were not personal, that leaves you still barking.
As things heat up I still call for understanding, far from being ridiculous, its the pattern of the voice of reason. Which often must stand alone against the braying. So be it.
And a whole lot of the time people opt to defend the indefensible in order to stake for themselves a higher moral ground.
I defend him, in part, as in what he spoke, not his policy per se, because he misspoke, he said he misspoke and that isn't being accepted.
And I am pointing out his actual policy, not any slip of the tongue, is absolutely odious. He thinks woman have a magical defence against pregnancy through rape when they don't, and uses that scientific ignorance as part of his fantasy that a woman who says she got pregnant
Here in the UK this sort of error occurs all the time, now we have a fairly vicious media and party political system, but if someone misspeaks, its taken advantage of in a joking way and the person is allowed to retract and business carries on as usual.
Yeah, but this guy didn't misspeak. He gave a sentence which clearly stated his belief in something, and that's it.
This whole issue is highly partisan, something leveled at me oddly enough even though I am defending him solely on a point of human decency.
It isn't decent to defend someone through disingenuous means. Inventing a fantasy in which somehow he totally meant something other than 'woman have magical defences against pregnancy through rape' and then complaining when people take his comment as face value is not being honest.
The entire thread started off with 'Republicans are idiots' theme to it athen took a look at the harsh abortion laws in Missouri and related them specifically to Akin to back and assumption that he really did mean things as extreme as what he misspoke Yet if you scratch the surface on that you will find that the harsh anti-abortion laws of Missouri were bi-political and instigated by the Democrats.
I honestly do not have a problem with people being opposed to abortion, even abortion in the event of rape. If you believe it is a person then it deserves protection like all other people, and that's fair enough.
My problem is with that fringe of anti-abortion folk who traffic in lies and nonsense... and if you've done any amount of time following this debate you'll realise there are a lot of these folk. I've had people claim they oppose Obamacare because it funds abortions, and when I pointed out it doesn't with direct evidence they weren't relieved as a person would be when they found out something they thought was a problem wasn't at all, they were angry that I'd ruined their crusade. I've had that happen multiple times. Here on dakka I've had to point out to the same people more than once that no Planned Parenthood funding can be used for abortion, only for those same people to mention it again later on.
I feel deeply sorry for Akin, we don't know if he would have made a good senator, and now we might never know.
We know he's a nut. He stated that the core of liberalism is hating God.
sebster wrote: Here on dakka I've had to point out to the same people more than once that no Planned Parenthood funding can be used for abortion, only for those same people to mention it again later on.
Actually, if you don't mind me diverging for a second here (again); maybe you guys can help me with this. I once read an article that talks about a rubber band effect; whereby if you believe something enough, someone can show you clear evidence it's not true, and if you're reasonable, you'll then agree it was not true, but later on you will return to the original belief instead. It's not so much being disingenuous as an actual psychological phenomenon.
I've seen it as well, with a co-worker who was convinced Al Franken only got elected because "the democrats found a bunch of votes at the last second in the trunk of a car*". I showed many sources showing this wasn't so, he came around... and then a few months later, repeated the original belief. God, I wish I could find that article again.
*this thread is not the place to rehash that, I'm simply using it as an example
sebster wrote: Here on dakka I've had to point out to the same people more than once that no Planned Parenthood funding can be used for abortion, only for those same people to mention it again later on.
Actually, if you don't mind me diverging for a second here (again); maybe you guys can help me with this. I once read an article that talks about a rubber band effect; whereby if you believe something enough, someone can show you clear evidence it's not true, and if you're reasonable, you'll then agree it was not true, but later on you will return to the original belief instead. It's not so much being disingenuous as an actual psychological phenomenon.
I've seen it as well, with a co-worker who was convinced Al Franken only got elected because "the democrats found a bunch of votes at the last second in the trunk of a car*". I showed many sources showing this wasn't so, he came around... and then a few months later, repeated the original belief. God, I wish I could find that article again.
*this thread is not the place to rehash that, I'm simply using it as an example
Not just that, being shown evidence that directly refutes what you believe will simply reinforce your belief
