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.

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

- 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.

 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.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
*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 )

Well, sure, it sounds bad when you say it like that, but how many of those were real rapes?

 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.

Man, this is reminiscent of something else.

 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?

 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).


edit 3x, worst spelling EVAR

 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.

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.

Alright, looks like one of my least favorite politicians has decided to add his contribution to the barrel of derp.

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.

 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.

 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

Oh man, I found it (not the article). It's called "Belief Perserverance". I'll read more about it when I'm not wearing one shoe and running out the door to work