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.

 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.

 sebster wrote:

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)?

 sebster wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

Is it?

Yes.

(Posted above no less.)

 Orlanth wrote:

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:

How did you work that out? Jedi mind reading powers?

He probably typed "Todd Akin" into Google.

 sebster wrote:

 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..

 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.

Its good to know that, when presented with evidence Orlanth will restate his points in order to pat himself on the back.

Your speculation was idle, and eventually proven incorrect, admit it.

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.”

http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(96)70141-2/abstract

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.

 reds8n wrote:

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.”

http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(96)70141-2/abstract

That is a significant freaking number...

 dogma wrote:

 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.

 dogma wrote:

 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?

 dogma wrote:

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.

That is a significant freaking number...

I had the same thought. Feth. If you have such an urge, go rent a hooker, bloody hell.

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.

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.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

That is a significant freaking number...

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?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 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.

 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?

 Ouze wrote:

 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?

*Shudders*

I think education and awareness have increased significantly since the early 90s on rape and sexual assault. (...)

Cool. I think you've convinced me to be hopeful in this case.

 Ouze wrote:

 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?

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:
because without hope, what do we have left?

Two bricks and a vague knowledge of how to perform ad hoc castration?

 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.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

Are you with Sebster in thinking Akin believes in magical anti pregnancy protection that cuts in during a genuine rape?

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/the-attack-on-women-is-real.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/paul-ryan-small-government-champion-force-women-ultrasound?newsfeed=true

 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?

Good grief. This guy (the politician) is a total gakker. I do hope this guy never gets in power.

What happens to the child when it is born?

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.

ramblerambleramble.

 Medium of Death wrote:
What happens to the child when it is born?

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.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

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?

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

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'.

 dogma wrote:

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.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

 dogma wrote:

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.

 dogma wrote:

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.

 dogma wrote:

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.

Funniest thing I've read today.

If you really really don't want to be pregnant because you got raped.. you can pretty much just wish it away with mind bullets.

I'm so glad these wacky Religious zealots only infest half of America and I can still enjoy California and New York.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

The amount of convoluted mind bending in this thread in order to defend a politician despite all logical odds is giving me a headache...