Switch Theme:

Idiot Politician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/19/missouri-republican-claims-legitimate-rape-rarely-results-in-pregnancy/?hpt=hp_c1

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).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/21 02:32:05


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/20 04:10:31


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Yes, that is what he is saying.
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 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.
 Orlanth wrote:
Its ambiguous
No.

No, it is not. I'm not stupid enough to believe that.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/20 04:34:11


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/20 04:33:45


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

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.
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

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).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/20 04:49:10


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/20 04:59:16


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/20 05:48:33


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Orlanth apparently has never heard of Occam's Razor.
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

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.
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Personally I prefer the interpretation of incompetence in dodging, myself.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/20 06:49:52


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 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.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2012/08/20 08:16:15


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

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.


And htis is coming from me, of all people.
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

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.

Do you mean human life? Because that's up for debate.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/20 14:54:55


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/20 15:09:30


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 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?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/20 15:28:35


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 whembly wrote:
Not sure I follow... are you saying that my having no issues with contraceptives is implicit belief that a zygote isn't human?
No, I'm saying that you said I was "right" when I said a zygote wasn't human.
 whembly wrote:
More twisted logic here...
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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/20 15:53:48


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 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.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/08/20 17:56:42


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

As for my rants about CWFA...

Spoiler:
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.


Yeah, I hate that group...
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

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.
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 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.

Or both.
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 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.
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

It's a douchey tactic, but it might work if Akins continues to make himself a clown.
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Having an ice pick stuck in your brain helps.
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/21 23:53:09


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 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?
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 AustonT wrote:
Then I realize that the predictable and dishonest rhetoric of the war on women is just that: predictable and dishonest.
The politicians are dishonest; they're politicians.

But I already gave NUMEROUS examples of Republicans attacking women.
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 Amaya wrote:
And yet you turn a blind eye towards every offensive thing liberals and democrats do.
No, I don't. That's just you lying to yourself in order to try to feel better about your own inadequacies.
 Jihadin wrote:
Abortion there is a "choice". The Holocaust there was no "choice".
Many, many people made the choice to participate in the Holocaust.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/22 00:29:10


 
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/22 00:33:25


 
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: