GOP Senate candidate: ‘Legitimate rape’ rarely causes pregnancy.

POSTED BY: Kwicko
UPDATED: Thursday, August 23, 2012 18:53
VIEWED: 12153
PAGE 1 of 1

KWICKO

Sunday, August 19, 2012 10:13 PM

Quote:
Rep. Todd Akin, the newly-christened GOP Senate nominee in Missouri, said in an interview airing Sunday that “legitimate rape” rarely causes pregnancy.

Explaining his no-exceptions policy on abortions, Akin was asked why he opposes abortion even when the pregnancy is the result of rape.

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors, (pregnancy from rape) is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in a clip posted to YouTube by the Democratic super PAC American Bridge. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Akin added: “But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

Akin issued a statement Sunday afternoon saying he misspoke.

“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,” he said. “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.”
Akin’s statement threatens to recast a Senate race in which he starts as the favorite, but national Republicans are concerned about his ability to execute a winning strategy. Akin won the GOP nomination two weeks ago — a result that Democrats hailed as a potential game-changer in a tough race for them.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and national Democrats actually spent money in the GOP primary to help get Akin through it. That strategy, at least in this case, appears to be paying dividends.

McCaskill said she was outraged by Akin’s claim.

“It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape,” McCaskill said in a statment. “The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive.”

Akin’s claim is one that pops up occasionally in social conservative circles. A federal judge nominated by President Bush in the early 2000s had said similar things, as have state lawmakers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Politicians and activists who espouse this view often suggest that women who haven’t been raped will claim to have been raped in order to obtain an abortion. An Idaho state lawmaker apologized earlier this year after urging doctors to make sure women who claimed they had been raped were sure of that fact.

Akin himself has suggested in the past that women may claim to be raped as a strategy during divorce proceedings.

Needless to say, this is territory that GOP leaders would rather not have Akin wander into. Getting into the particulars of “legitimate rape” (as opposed to what?) and the female reproductive system has the potential to make this a headache for the GOP and take the focus off of McCaskill and President Obama, who is unpopular in Missouri.

According to a 1996 study, approximately 32,000 pregnancies result from rape annually in the United States, and about 5 percent of rape victims are impregnated.

“Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency,” the study says, according to an abstract. “It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence.”

Akin is also staking out some of the most socially conservative territory possible on this issue. Missouri is pretty socially conservative, but even many Republicans believe in abortion exceptions for rape and incest. A recent Gallup poll showed just 20 percent of Americans believe in no exceptions for abortion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/19/todd-akin-go
p-senate-candidate-legitimate-rape-rarely-causes-pregnancy/

Wow. Just wow.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." -

WHOZIT

Sunday, August 19, 2012 10:41 PM

The Dems spent money to help get this nut the nomination, it seems to be money well spent because this guy's nutz. They better hope there evil plan works because the Dems are still going to take a bath this year.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, August 19, 2012 10:57 PM

Geez, how to these backward, ignorant arses keep getting themselves elected. The body shuts itself down???? Sheesh, he is a jerk.

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, August 19, 2012 11:43 PM

At least we can be damn sure he opposes Sharia Law being implemented in this country! In any form!

This has got to be the last gasp of a dying order. The social conservatives, across the globe, are losing ground by the minute.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

RIONAEIRE

Monday, August 20, 2012 6:40 AM

That's weird, a woman can get pregnant from rape as easily as she can from sex (note that even though it involves sperm and eggs and penetration I don't think of rape as sex because I view sex as mutually concentual. I suppose either could be called intercourse though because of the mechanics.

When I was little I had a friend named Anna. I liked to play at Anna's house where she and her mom lived. One day I asked where Anna's dad was. My mom said Anna didn't have a dad. Being a five year old who knew both her parents I found that extremely perplexing, but didn't ever say anything to Anna about it, it really didn't seem too important. I found out much later why Anna didn't have a dad. :(((((((

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, August 20, 2012 7:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
This has got to be the last gasp of a dying order. The social conservatives, across the globe, are losing ground by the minute.

All according to the gorram plan, lead em right off the cliff, and push those feckless Democrats off right after em while they stand there pointing, laughing and gloating.

-F

MAL4PREZ

Monday, August 20, 2012 1:42 PM

OK, the whole "legitimate" rape term is horrifying and completely bogus, but I can see how a certain misogynistic cold-hearted ass-hat might work very hard to convince himself that most rapes are not "really" rapes. You know, because then he'd have to admit that there's a power imbalance and gender-based abuse and men need to point the finger at themselves. (Something this jerk clearly has no intention of doing.) It's fucked up, but I can see where this thought originated in his psyche.

If I'm feeling very generous, I can even see where the phrase "legitimate rape" might have been a very poor choice of words but someone who meant to communicate a less harsh idea. So, maybe - MAYBE - there's a chance these words could classify as something "mis-spoke".

But: "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down". WTF? If this was mis-spoken, what in the world did he really mean to say? I can't even imagine where this idea came from, and what else he could possibly have meant. As insane as it is, but I see no other possibilities. What he said is exactly what he meant.

Yeah ladies, there's no need for unwanted pregnancy. Your body will get rid of it for you, and if it doesn't, you must really *want* the baby, right? Ignore your own ideas, choices, wants and needs. If you're pregnant you want to be. Now shut up and give birth.

It's almost Biblical in its madness. The best woman in the Bible is the one who gives birth without ever having sex. Talk about an ideal! Clean yet fertile! Now Akin has another level for us to rise up to: we don't need to make decisions for ourselves. Our bodies will do it for us, so our heads can remain properly empty and wombs properly full. How pure we'll be!

Good thing I don't own a pitchfork. I'd be taking to the streets.

HERO

Monday, August 20, 2012 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
That's weird, a woman can get pregnant from rape as easily as she can from sex (note that even though it involves sperm and eggs and penetration I don't think of rape as sex because I view sex as mutually concentual. I suppose either could be called intercourse though because of the mechanics.

Dude said what he said, now he has to live with it. I don't see the big deal...its not like he's claiming to be a Native American. Dude opposes all abortions and that is a perfectly legitimate position.

I don't agree with him...I myself oppose abortion except when the life of the mother is at stake or when the child is viable (which the Court needs to reexamine), or when the child has a medical condition that is incredibly severe, or in instances of some (but not all) instances of rape.

However, I do understand the 'all or nothing argument' especially when it comes to rape. If you believe that a fetus is a child then allowing abortion of that child would amount to commiting a harmful act against a person innocent of any crime. You should no more harm the unborn child of a rapist then you should allow that child to be born and then jailed for his father's crime. At least that's the argument...and it makes sense on its own merits. Have your debate on that issue. The rights of the child vs. the mental anguish to the mother.

I've never understood the destructive need (on any side of any issue and we're all guilty of this) to take perfectly good and reasonable arguments and muddle them up with bad arguments based on absurd factual allegations (like saying your opponant wants dirty water or to starve children or put people in chains just because they don't support your legislation or take a different view on the issues).

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

HERO

Monday, August 20, 2012 2:16 PM

Quote:
If I'm feeling very generous, I can even see where the phrase "legitimate rape" might have been a very poor choice of words but someone who meant to communicate a less harsh idea. So, maybe - MAYBE - there's a chance these words could classify as something "mis-spoke".

I deal with rape cases once in a while and thank goodness not more then that because most are as sickening as they are heartbreaking. Legally rape is the highest form of sexual assault. In Ohio we go from Aggravated Rape, Rape, Gross Sexual Imposition, Sexual Imposition in order from worst to least. There is also 'consensual' rape...ie the person lacks the mental ability to consent so even if they are all for it...its still rape (children, mentally ill, passed out drunk, etc). In short rape comes in a lot of flavors and in my experiance they are all bad.

That said...I've had to tell women "regret is not rape" a number of times. I've also had to tell them "we can't prove it". Worst of all is not when I tell them either of those things but when they hear a Jury say 'Not Guilty' (its never happened on one of my cases cause I don't lose rape case).

I think that there is a degree of bias against victims that comes in rape cases. If a woman's body biologically responds to her attacker then there is an incorrect assumption that she...on some level...allowed it to happen and 'you can't rape the willing.' I've worked with DOVE and other rape crisis experts and victims assistance advocates and I've seen this kind of bias taint juries and destroy marriages. Its very sad.

Regardless of how this Senate race turns out I think this poor guy needs to reexamine his views. I think his perfectly understanable advocacy against abortion is standing in the way of his empathy for rape victims. I think that his heart is probably in the right place, I'm sure he is strongly opposed to rape as are most people...but his head has clearly gotten in the way.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

KWICKO

Monday, August 20, 2012 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
OK, the whole "legitimate" rape term is horrifying and completely bogus, but I can see how a certain misogynistic cold-hearted ass-hat might work very hard to convince himself that most rapes are not "really" rapes. You know, because then he'd have to admit that there's a power imbalance and gender-based abuse and men need to point the finger at themselves. (Something this jerk clearly has no intention of doing.) It's fucked up, but I can see where this thought originated in his psyche.

If I'm feeling very generous, I can even see where the phrase "legitimate rape" might have been a very poor choice of words but someone who meant to communicate a less harsh idea. So, maybe - MAYBE - there's a chance these words could classify as something "mis-spoke".

But: "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down". WTF? If this was mis-spoken, what in the world did he really mean to say? I can't even imagine where this idea came from, and what else he could possibly have meant. As insane as it is, but I see no other possibilities. What he said is exactly what he meant.

Yeah ladies, there's no need for unwanted pregnancy. Your body will get rid of it for you, and if it doesn't, you must really *want* the baby, right? Ignore your own ideas, choices, wants and needs. If you're pregnant you want to be. Now shut up and give birth.

It's almost Biblical in its madness. The best woman in the Bible is the one who gives birth without ever having sex. Talk about an ideal! Clean yet fertile! Now Akin has another level for us to rise up to: we don't need to make decisions for ourselves. Our bodies will do it for us, so our heads can remain properly empty and wombs properly full. How pure we'll be!

Good thing I don't own a pitchfork. I'd be taking to the streets.

Exactly. Sure, maybe he "misspoke" about the "legitimate rape" bit; Whoopi had her "rape-rape" defense of Roman Polanski, after all...

But where the hell do these morons get the notion that you can't get a woman pregnant by raping her?

And is that REALLY the message they want to send to boys and young men? "Hey, if you really wannna get some, and you don't want to worry about pregnancy, just rape 'em, cause that just shuts that whole thing down!"

Once again, this is the GOP putting the onus on women, making it the woman's fault if she gets pregnant from being raped, because if she does, then she must have really wanted it.

Why is it that the people who are the most vehemently opposed to sex education are the ones who so, so desperately NEED some fucking sex education?!

You're going to hear a lot of conservatives say they don't agree with this asshole, and don't support him. But just watch how much money the Koch brothers and others send his way in an effort to try to unseat Claire McCaskill, and then try to tell me this isn't really part of the GOP agenda.

After all, it's not like this is the first time they've trotted out this defense of rape.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

MAL4PREZ

Monday, August 20, 2012 2:45 PM

See if you can believe this one: Akin is on the House Committee on Science. Oh yes he is.

MAL4PREZ

Monday, August 20, 2012 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Once again, this is the GOP putting the onus on women, making it the woman's fault if she gets pregnant from being raped, because if she does, then she must have really wanted it.

Yep. That's the real slip-up here: Akin let everyone know what he really believes -- that women are to blame for everything, and what's happening in her brain and soul is completely unimportant to him. Akin and his ilk seems to be after full control over every woman's womb, and thinks she ought to have nothing to say in the matter.

Thoughtful posts, Hero, and I am absolutely fine with you or anyone else not liking abortion. I understand your argument and support your right to never have an abortion.

However, your dislike does not overrule a woman's right to control her own body. And I'm stopping there, because I feel very strongly about this, not going to change my mind, and nothing I say will ever reach someone who thinks they can remove such a basic freedom from another human being. (Not saying you take it that far, Hero. I don't know if you do or not. Don't really want to know, because I fear the worst.)

MAL4PREZ

Monday, August 20, 2012 2:55 PM

dbl damn

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, August 20, 2012 3:23 PM

People, especially politicians, ought to STFU when they don't know what they're talking about. I don't know this turd, but he sounds like a complete idiot. He should be publically reprimanded in the House, and he should be removed from the ballot as a candidate. I'm confident that even the toothless trogladytic Missouri Republican party leaders can find another sheep sodomizer to run against the incumbent Democrat.

STORYMARK

Monday, August 20, 2012 3:43 PM

Gee, another front on the "imaginary" GOP war on women.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NIKI2

Monday, August 20, 2012 4:34 PM

Jong, first you have to convince them they DON'T know what they're talking about...and what a totally futile effort that would be!

Although I must admit, you did a pretty good job:

Quote:
He should be publically reprimanded in the House, and he should be removed from the ballot as a candidate. I'm confident that even the toothless trogladytic Missouri Republican party leaders can find another sheep sodomizer to run against the incumbent Democrat.

I would disagree, however, about them finding another candidate. They COULD, but the situation is such that the ultra-conservatives have come out of the closet and are all but running the show at the GOP, so probably not.

He made the classic political mistake of saying what he actually believes. Apparently even Romney/Ryan knows he went too far (tho' who knows what they actually BELIEVE?)

Quote:
The Romney campaign quickly distanced itself from controversial comments about rape made by Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin of Missouri, as the Democrats tried to make the remarks stick to the GOP ticket.

The Romney campaign flatly rejected the comments. "Gov. Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," the campaign said in a brief statement. Romney, in an interview with the National Review, later called the comments "insulting" and "inexcusable."

Good for them for SAYING it, but I have my doubts about their actual beliefs.

I'm guessing Akins gets some of his "facts" from articles such as this:[

Quote:
A woman's body may be unconsciously selective about sperm, allowing some men's to progress to pregnancy but killing off the chances of less suitable matches, an Australian researcher said Wednesday.

University of Adelaide professor Sarah Robertson said her research suggested that sperm contains "signalling molecules" that activate immunity changes in a woman so her body accepts it.

But some apparently healthy sperm failed to activate these changes, leading to the suggestion that the female system can be "choosy" about its biological mate, she said.

"It's rather like a two-way dance," Robertson said.

"The male provides information that increases the chances of conception and progression to pregnancy, but the female body has a quality control system which needs convincing that his sperm is compatible.

"That's where the dance can go wrong with some couples - if the male signals are not strong enough, or if the female system is too 'choosy'."

Robertson said sperm was more likely to fail if the woman had not previously been exposed to that man's semen for at least three months.

"We used to think that if a couple couldn't get pregnant, and the man's semen test was normal, the problem lay with the woman. But it appears this is not always the case," Robertson said.

The researchers plan to continue their work, which they hope will lead to improved treatments for infertility and miscarriages. http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/technology/women-s-bodies-choosy-about-sp
erm-1.487820

Obviously this has little, if anything, to do with rape, but I'm guessing an idiot like this could have concluded...well, you know. I'd like him to give us the names of the "doctors" who convinced him a woman's body would reject the sperm of a rapist.

Quote:
However, your dislike does not overrule a woman's right to control her own body. And I'm stopping there, because I feel very strongly about this, not going to change my mind, and nothing I say will ever reach someone who thinks they can remove such a basic freedom from another human being.

I'm going to try to stop there too; as pretty much everyone here knows, I'm downright RABID about the fact that we are being taken back to

NIKI2

Monday, August 20, 2012 5:17 PM

It's to laugh:

Quote:
A campaign flub by a Republican Senate candidate shifted the political focus Monday to abortion and women's rights, as certain GOP nominee Mitt Romney and his conservative running mate faced a town hall-style meeting in New Hampshire.

The comment by Akin, who won Missouri's Republican primary to take on incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in November, drew immediate criticism from Democrats and some Republicans.

In Massachusetts, U.S. Sen. Scott Brown called for Akin to drop out of the Missouri Senate race because of the "outrageous, inappropriate and wrong" comments.

"There is no place in our public discourse for this type of offensive thinking," said Brown, a moderate Republican in a tough re-election battle against Democrat Elizabeth Warren. "Not only should he apologize, but I believe Rep. Akin's statement was so far out of bounds that he should resign the nomination for U.S. Senate in Missouri."

The Akin statement has forced the Romney campaign to distance itself from the GOP candidate in a key race, and also declare a definitive stance on one of the most volatile political issues of the day.

The issue is particularly sensitive for Ryan, a devout Catholic and staunch anti-abortion politician who has previously expressed opposition to abortion in all cases except when the life of the mother is endangered.

A Romney-Ryan campaign official, speaking on condition of not being identified, confirmed to CNN that Ryan's personal view opposes abortion in the case of rape. The campaign official said Ryan's stance differed with Romney's view, which was described in the statement Sunday and is the formal position of the GOP presidential ticket.

Republican colleagues also criticized Akin.

"As a pro-life conservative, a husband, and a father of two young women, I find Representative Akin's remarks to be offensive and reprehensible," said Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican candidate for a Montana seat in the U.S. Senate this year. "There is no such thing as a 'legitimate rape.' I condemn Representative Akin's statements in the strongest possible terms."

A spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Campaign, Brian Walsh, said Akin "did the right thing by quickly correcting the record and acknowledging that he misspoke."

The abortion focus comes in a week when the Romney team wanted to sharpen its focus on economic issues in the run-up to the Republican National Convention, which begins on August 27 in Tampa, Florida.

Now, Romney and Ryan will face questions about the volatile abortion issue and women's rights, giving President Barack Obama and Democrats an opportunity to further strengthen their advantage with women voters -- a demographic that already favors them, according to the polls.

Akin, a six-term U.S. congressman, touted his socially conservative values on the primary campaign trail.

He opposes abortion in all circumstances and has said he also opposes the morning after pill, which he equates to abortion.

McCaskill responded almost immediately to 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."

Akin 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 has raised a notable $2.2 million this cycle, as of July 18.

Before the new controversy, the top nonpartisan political handicappers had rated the Missouri race a "toss-up."

It's to laugh because they just KEEP shooting themselves in the foot. As I see it, the 2010 election and rise of the Tea Party gave the Repubs such power that they've gotten giddy and have been pushing their agenda as hard as possible while they've got that power. They've gone w

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, August 20, 2012 5:30 PM

I'm still having a real hard time trying to grasp how a man, any man, could say "legitimate rape." I can't ever even recall hearing that terminology used during my 50+ years of life. "Legitimate rape"... it compels one to consider the absolutely insane concept of ...well what would ya call it?...NON-legitimate rape? ILL-legitimate rape? It's long past time for Republicans to get out of the sex business. There's yet to be one that speaks with anything resembling any understanding of the plight women have faced over the generations. From the Triangle Shirt factory fire to Roe-v-Wade, they're mostly all utterly clueless and embarassingly bad Jimmy Swaggert wannabees.

KWICKO

Monday, August 20, 2012 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
People, especially politicians, ought to STFU when they don't know what they're talking about.

Problem with that is, they'd have to recognize that there are subjects where they don't know what the hell they're talking about. I've little doubt that this dolt actually really believes this to be true, and therefore had no inkling he shouldn't talk about it, because he's only saying something he "knows" to be "true".

Quote:

I don't know this turd, but he sounds like a complete idiot. He should be publically reprimanded in the House, and he should be removed from the ballot as a candidate.

Not sure of the mechanisms for removing him from the ballot, but probably not possibly this late in the game unless he dies, withdraws on his own, or is convicted of some "high crime" or other.

I doubt he'll be convinced to withdraw, because he thinks he's got a legitimate shot. McCaskill's vulnerable, after all. I'm honestly not sure what the GOP heirarchy's best play is in this case. Do they actively back the guy, bad as that will look, in hopes that they can inundate the airwaves with enough money to swamp any opposition? Or do they quietly back away and write off that Senate seat and let it stay in Democratic hands? Or do they try a third option and back a third-party or write-in candidate?

Backing this idiot might help them win that seat, but it will be used to tar every single congressional race and it will be used against Romney as well, just because they're in the same party together.

If I were a GOP operative, I'd be slowly backing away, pressuring the guy to withdraw on his own, promising him that he won't get a single penny of party money or a scintilla of party help, all while looking just about anywhere for either a replacement candidate or a viable third-party candidate sympathetic to conservative ideals (Libertarian instead of Green party, for instance).

Meanwhile, Claire McCaskill has all the opportunity she ever needed to lock up the women's vote and to raise tons of money off this ass-hat's idiocy.

Quote:
I'm confident that even the toothless trogladytic Missouri Republican party leaders can find another sheep sodomizer to run against the incumbent Democrat.

Probably true, but this is the guy they thought was the BEST one to go up against her!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

HERO

Monday, August 20, 2012 8:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Akin let everyone know what he really believes -- that women are to blame for everything...Akin and his ilk seems to be after full control over every woman's womb, and thinks she ought to have nothing to say in the matter.

Now you are the one making a hysterical unsupported argument.

Akin simply let the abortion argument color his thought process on the issue of rape. Absent abortion his feeling on rape is likely as strong as anyone...if not stronger since Conservatives tend to be a bit harder on crime and punishment then liberals.

Also Pro Life people have never been about control...opposing abortion is about responsibility and morality. Oh and its not about the woman, its about the child...which is why the rape argument gets so messy and tripped up Mr. Akin.

I think you and I agree that murdering a child is a wrong and immoral act. They simply believe that a fetus is a child.

Where is the line...child-not a child. Can a child be terminated seconds after birth? What about seconds before birth? If not, when? For liberals and Pro Abortioners...when is that magic moment? And as soon as you find it explain why not one second before that? I can't answer that question. Its a child here...but not an immeasurable instant before? The argument goes all the way backwards from birth to conception. I can't answer that question, so I must side with life. My friend...that is the Pro Life argument.

Quote:

I feel very strongly about this, not going to change my mind, and nothing I say will ever reach someone who thinks they can remove such a basic freedom from another human being. (Not saying you take it that far, Hero. I don't know if you do or not. Don't really want to know, because I fear the worst.)

The Supreme Court beat me to it. In Roe vs. Wade (1973...maybe you've heard of it) the Supreme Court ruled that the State's interest in preserving life outweighs the woman's right to privacy. The Court balances the two interests and the dividing line is viability...once the child is viable the State's interest win (which is why you can't abort a baby at the last minute or 'on the way out'). Since 1973 science has moved that line of viability back and at some point it will go all the way back to conception...so watch out, abortion will be illegal in the future unless you can get someone to overturn Roe. Oh, and if it will be illegal tomorrow...why not today? If the limits of science are all that's holding us up...is it fair to then ignore the moral, ethical, and legal issues that arise? Tell that to a slave in the 1700s..."slavery is ok for now because someday science will prove that there is no biological distinction between the races that makes white men superior".

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 20, 2012 8:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I'm still having a real hard time trying to grasp how a man, any man, could say "legitimate rape." I can't ever even recall hearing that terminology used during my 50+ years of life. "Legitimate rape"... it compels one to consider the absolutely insane concept of ...well what would ya call it?...NON-legitimate rape? ILL-legitimate rape? It's long past time for Republicans to get out of the sex business. There's yet to be one that speaks with anything resembling any understanding of the plight women have faced over the generations. From the Triangle Shirt factory fire to Roe-v-Wade, they're mostly all utterly clueless and embarassingly bad Jimmy Swaggert wannabees.

Before I respond to Jongsstraw's comment, I just wanna say...

WTF ?? Apparently, women are even more powerful than anyone knew! With the ability to self abort pregnancies which occur from 'legitimate' rape That's super hero power, right there. Yes, The Force is strong with them... but this ? Wow.

Bizarre, unnecessary, ignorant, odd, dumbfounding, ... did I mention bizarre ?

How does a grown human even THINK like that ??

Though I do have a guess as to what in the HELL he was talking about , with his bumbling use of the word 'legitimate'. Maybe what he was trying to do was distinguish between 'rape', the forceful engaging in sexual conduct with another with out their consent, and statutory rape, which can occur where 1 participant is below the legal age of consent. Even if there's a willing partner ( say 15 1/2 yr old girl, in a state where the age of consent is 16 years, and her 17 yr old boyfriend )it's still considered a rape.

But that's not what Mr Aiken said. Nor did he even TRY to elaborate, which tells me that he didn't have a damn CLUE of what he was saying, which means ( as is the case w/ ANY politician ) he should have just shut the hell up and deflected the question, outright.

But he didn't.

" Wow " is right.

Mal4Prez is right on this one. The comments by Aiken leave the impression that he believes what he said, and that women who are raped...

A - Either really wanted it, or had it comin' to them, so in most cases, it's not REALLY rape, just some silly misunderstanding. And hey.. who can blame the guy for that?

OR

B - Even if there IS a legitimate rape, where the woman really wasn't into the guy, or in the really rare case where she was out alone ( and if she's alone, she's probably asking for it ) and gets attacked by a stranger, then it's all good, because if she thinks really really hard, she can make the pregnancy go away !

Of course, if this knowledge got out, Planned Parenthood would be out of business in a week!

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

HERO

Monday, August 20, 2012 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I'm still having a real hard time trying to grasp how a man, any man, could say "legitimate rape." I can't ever even recall hearing that terminology used during my 50+ years of life. "Legitimate rape"... it compels one to consider the absolutely insane concept of ...well what would ya call it?...NON-legitimate rape?

If you recall Whoppi Goldberg got in trouble by making a similar distinction bewteen rape and "rape-rape" when talking about a movie director who fled the country after getting accused (and later convicted of) drugging and raping a twelve-year old child.

"Legitmate rape" could mean a lot of things. I think he means rape where the person is having non-consensual sex with an unwilling partner. Other kinds...child rape, statutory rape (15'll get you 20 even if your only 17). False accusations is another possibility...kinda goes hand in hand with the "regret" rapes. Then there are the weird ones...like where the dude can't perform or finish, or they are married, or somebody was misusing a turkey baster...

But your right...its an odd phrase.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

HERO

Monday, August 20, 2012 8:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
But that's not what Mr Aiken said. Nor did he even TRY to elaborate, which tells me that he didn't have a damn CLUE of what he was saying...

Hmmm...but you seem to know what he was saying. But I think you are right. If you examine the whole context...and it was unscripted...

Is it possible he was trying to emphasize the word rape in order to give it a higher meaning rather then diminish it? And he simply chose the wrong word? Yes, that's probably it. He was trying to make "rape" even more serious and meaningful.

Poor guy just picked the wrong word and got raped for it, pardon the pun...but then again, he deserved it...look at how he dressed up his language.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 20, 2012 8:35 PM

Hero - I think what we have here is a case where this person, Aiken, half remembers hearing something a doctor said, concerning women, and abortions and such, but simply wasn't paying attention. ( And now here I go, doing the same thing... ) As I understand it, most of the time when a woman miscarries, it's her first time being pregnant. My 'guess' is that Mr Aiken heard some doctor talking about spontaneous abortion, and his ears perk up when he hears that word, so he files that away in his memory banks. Of course, the doctor likely DID say something along the lines that, when a embryo is spontaneously aborted, it's the body's way of 'shutting down ' the pregnancy.

( I'm really really giving this guy Aiken a LOT of wiggle room here, trust me )

So maybe he thought he remembered something about 'abortions' and how the woman's body can and does do this on its own, and just cobbled one bit of info along with something else, and voila ! Woman can spontaneously abort unwanted pregnancies !!

I know, it's connecting a ton of not too close dots , to come up w/ that one.

This is all just my guess work here, having talked to a few idiots in my life. To be honest, I doubt this guy even knows enough to be able to explain what the hell he was thinking... he's a politician, after all.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

MAL4PREZ

Monday, August 20, 2012 8:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Of course, if this knowledge got out, Planned Parenthood would be out of business in a week!

Don't you know, we can shoot sperm-killing laser beams of death from our ovaries. Be afraid, be very afraid!

Hero - that's the talk I'm not having, because it's been done in detail several times, more than once on this site. It goes no where and changes no one's mind. I disagree -- leave it at that, and keep your so-called small govt laws out of my uterus or my lasers will be pointed at you, pal.

*zap!*

*zap!*

HKCAVALIER

Monday, August 20, 2012 9:20 PM

Oh my god Mal4,

YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!?!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

WHOZIT

Monday, August 20, 2012 10:16 PM

Heard him try to defend himself on Sean Hannity this afternoon, even I can't defend this douche.

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 20, 2012 10:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Heard him try to defend himself on Sean Hannity this afternoon, even I can't defend this douche.

There IS no defense, but what did he say ? Did he mention anything I said ? Or was he just pitching the standard " I misspoke " crap, that any politician parrots, when ever they step knee deep into it ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

WHOZIT

Monday, August 20, 2012 10:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Heard him try to defend himself on Sean Hannity this afternoon, even I can't defend this douche.

There IS no defense, but what did he say ? Did he mention anything I said ? Or was he just pitching the standard " I misspoke " crap, that any politician parrots, when ever they step knee deep into it ?

All I can remember is yelling SHUT THE FUCK UP!! At the radio.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, August 20, 2012 10:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I'm still having a real hard time trying to grasp how a man, any man, could say "legitimate rape." I can't ever even recall hearing that terminology used during my 50+ years of life. "Legitimate rape"... it compels one to consider the absolutely insane concept of ...well what would ya call it?...NON-legitimate rape?

If you recall Whoppi Goldberg got in trouble by making a similar distinction bewteen rape and "rape-rape" when talking about a movie director who fled the country after getting accused (and later convicted of) drugging and raping a twelve-year old child.

"Legitmate rape" could mean a lot of things. I think he means rape where the person is having non-consensual sex with an unwilling partner. Other kinds...child rape, statutory rape (15'll get you 20 even if your only 17). False accusations is another possibility...kinda goes hand in hand with the "regret" rapes. Then there are the weird ones...like where the dude can't perform or finish, or they are married, or somebody was misusing a turkey baster...

But your right...its an odd phrase.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

Whoopi has said her fair share of dumb things over the years, but I tend to give her a pass on them. Many of the episodes she appeared in on STNG were the best of the series, and she was so good in them that I can never muster up any ill feelings towards her.

MAL4PREZ

Monday, August 20, 2012 10:45 PM

OMG. Might this be the first time EVER that everyone on RWED agrees about something? OK, maybe not on broader issues, but it seems that every poster so far is 100% behind the douche-ness of Akin.

I didn't think I'd ever see the day.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, August 20, 2012 10:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Good thing I don't own a pitchfork. I'd be taking to the streets.

Would you like to, we have pre-order discounts!
Interested in perhaps bulk pricing, hmm ?
Or perhaps a package deal, we offer an excellent and extensive selection of torches you know!

-F

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 20, 2012 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
OMG. Might this be the first time EVER that everyone on RWED agrees about something? OK, maybe not on broader issues, but it seems that every poster so far is 100% behind the douche-ness of Akin.

I didn't think I'd ever see the day.

AND, on the same day that Augusta National admitted women as club members.

Strange days, indeed.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

KWICKO

Monday, August 20, 2012 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

If I were a GOP operative, I'd be slowly backing away, pressuring the guy to withdraw on his own, promising him that he won't get a single penny of party money or a scintilla of party help, all while looking just about anywhere for either a replacement candidate or a viable third-party candidate sympathetic to conservative ideals (Libertarian instead of Green party, for instance).

Looks like I got it pretty close.

John Cornyn, the GOP's "paymaster" who decides what races get national money behind them from the party, says not a penny for Akin, and urges him to withdraw. Karl Rove's Crossroads superpac is pulling all ads and funding from his race, too, and urging him to withdraw.

Looks like he's got 'til 5pm tomorrow to withdraw, else he has to go to court to get his name off the ballot. The GOP is running from this guy as far and fast as they can.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

KWICKO

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:49 AM

Another reason the GOP is running away from Akin so fast...

Trying to put some distance between him and Paul Ryan!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

KWICKO

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:19 AM

And now reports are that not only are the GOP telling Akin to withdraw his Senate bid, but some are calling for him to resign his House seat. Others are just demanding he be removed from the Science Committee on which he serves.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:25 AM

Politicians say stupid things all the time. Joe Biden, anyone ? But unlike Biden, Akin has apologized and stated that he used the wrong words at the wrong time ... yeah, what ever.

" Rape is never legitimate. It's an evil act committed by violent predators ", Akin said.

I guess he really meant what he said THIS time.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

REDREAD

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:02 PM

Other Things Missouri Representative Todd Akin Believes To Be True About The Uterus, Besides Its Ability To "Shut Down" A Legitimate Rape:

Quote:
• The average uterus is "cash only."

• When provoked or frightened, a uterus emits a high-pitched scream that instantly stuns its attacker. (Note: very useful in conjunction with the ovarian lasers.)

• The natural enemies of the uterus are the locust, the hawk, the carpenter ant, and the witch.

• It is possible to use a uterus to determine the nearest source of fresh water or magnetic North but not both.

read more: http://www.theawl.com/2012/08/todd-akin-uterus-facts

||| Blog post explaining my name change: http://www.fireflyfans.net/blog.aspx?bid=9414 |||

KWICKO

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 6:18 PM

Akin says he won't withdraw from the race. Deadline for him to withdraw is a little under 4 hours.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NIKI2

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:36 PM

Gawd it's good to hear Raptor's opinion on this. Much as we disagree, I'd like to think most people here are at least SOMEWHAT aware of reality on at least some important issuesThe thing is, his comments were hardly some kind never-before-heard gaffe. Arguments like his have cropped up again and again on the right over the past quarter century and the idea that trauma is a form of birth control continues to be promulgated by anti-abortion forces that seek to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. The push for a no-exceptions anti-abortion policy has for decades gone hand in hand with efforts to downplay the frequency with which rape- or incest-related pregnancies occur, and even to deny that they happen, at all. In other words, it's not just Akin singing this tune.

Quote:
Take Christian Life Resources, an educational site, for example. It reprints an 1999 article ( http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/rape-pregnancies-are-rar
e-461]) on the topic that seeks to make the same distinction between categories of rape as did Akin, and for the same reason. Wrote John C. Willke -- a physician who in the 1980s and early 1990s was president of the National Right to Life Committee -- in the piece, originally published in Life Issues Connector:
Quote:
When pro-lifers speak of rape pregnancies, we should commonly use the phrase "forcible rape" or "assault rape," for that specifies what we're talking about. Rape can also be statutory. Depending upon your state law, statutory rape can be consensual, but we're not addressing that here .... Assault rape pregnancies are extremely rare.

.... What is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that's physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman's body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There's no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more.
An edited version of Willke's article appears on the website of Physicians for Life group under the headline, "Assault Rape Pregnancies Are Rare." The most medically ignorant paragraphs have been excised from this version of the story, though the headline has been strengthened to make the point plain.

The canard had been floating around the right long before Willke wrote his piece. In 1995, 71-year-old North Carolina state Rep. Henry Aldridge gained national notoriety after telling the N.C. House Appropriations Committee, "The facts show that people who are raped -- who are truly raped -- the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever." ( http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Lawmaker-Says-Rape-Can-t-Cause-Preg
nancy-3036411.php])

His argument came during a debate over "a proposal to eliminate a state abortion fund for poor women," according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

In 1980, attorney James Leon Holmes wrote, in a letter arguing for a constitutional ban on abortion, "Concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32206-2004Jul6.html)

He later apologized for his comment and was successfully nominated to a federal judgeship by George W. Bush in 2004, the inside-Washington controversy over his remarks notwithstanding. Toda

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

"Legitmate rape" could mean a lot of things. I think he means rape where the person is having non-consensual sex.....

that is the defintition of rape - I cut the 'unwilling partner' because you are just repeating what non-consensual means.

Quote:
Other kinds...child rape,

child rape (and statutory rape for that matter) is considered rape because the victim is too young to make the decision around consensuality, so it is for all intents and purposes 'non-consensual sex'

Quote:
False accusations is another possibility...kinda goes hand in hand with the "regret" rapes.

False accusations under any circumsances means that there is no rape.

Quote:
.like where the dude can't perform or finish,

never heard that described as rape

Quote:
or they are married,

so rape doesn't exist if you are married. Are we back to the dark ages where women are obliged to have sex because they are married? Pardon me, but your misogyny is starting to show.

Quote:
or somebody was misusing a turkey baster...

Now that is just weird

NIKI2

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:04 PM

We could also throw in the transvaginal ultrasound if we wanted to..."rape with foreign object"? "Sodomy" I believe? No doubt not "legitimate rape" anyway, in their opinion. Of course, there you REALLY can't get preggers, so I guess it's "okay" This whole thing just makes me sick to my stomach...

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:
False accusations is another possibility...kinda goes hand in hand with the "regret" rapes.

False accusations under any circumsances means that there is no rape.

Tell that to guys who were CONVICTED of this ' no rape ' crime, and how rarely they are later acquitted. ( yeah, this is REALLY veering off course of the main topic, but I just wanted to toss that into the mix )

Quote:

Quote:
.like where the dude can't perform or finish,

never heard that described as rape

Now that sounds a lot like an Akin sort of definition. * cringe *

Quote:

Quote:
or they are married,

so rape doesn't exist if you are married. Are we back to the dark ages where women are obliged to have sex because they are married? Pardon me, but your misogyny is starting to show.

OK, I think we're being had here...

Quote:

Quote:
or somebody was misusing a turkey baster...

Now that is just weird

Hey, unless it's a loving lesbian couple who wants a child, then it's perfectly 'natural'.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NIKI2

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:24 PM

Further to my point that this is neither new nor unusual in the Republican party:

Quote:
They will attempt to distance themselves from the controversy.

But they can't.

They will even try to claim the whole conversation is a distraction from the "real issues."

And yet they never shy away from using this same conversation to fire up their base, or hurl attack ads or raise funds.

The truth is the "legitimate rape" comment made by U.S. Rep. Todd Akin -- as in pregnancy from "legitimate rape" is rare -- is not a GOP anomaly, but rather another disturbing glimpse into the viewpoint too many social conservatives have about women's health and reproductive rights. And if abortion is not among the "real issues," why is the GOP platform committee considering adding a ban, with no mention of exceptions ("GOP platform spoiler alert - no exception for rape, incest in abortion plank" http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/gop-pl
atform-spoiler-alert-no-exception-rape-incest-abortion-plank]), to this year's to-do list?

Last March, in a discussion in the Kansas House about whether women purchase separate abortion-only policies, Republican state Rep. Pete DeGraaf suggested women should plan ahead for rape the way he keeps a spare tire ( http://articles.kwch.com/2011-05-25/rights-groups_29584145]. A few weeks later, Indiana state Rep. Eric Turner, a Republican, said some women might fake being raped in order to get free abortions ( http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-31/news/29386489_1_strict-anti
-abortion-bill-incest-procedure]).

Former presidential hopeful Rick Santorum suggested doctors who perform an abortion on a woman who becomes pregnant from an attack should be thrown in jail

and this year suggested rape victims who become pregnant from an attack should be forced to keep the baby and "make the best out of a bad situation" ( http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1201/20/pmt.01.html).

And we're to believe Akin is just a one-off.

Please.

More than 200 Republican members of Congress joined him in co-sponsoring House Resolution 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, when it contained language restricting the exception for federally funded abortions to "an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest."

Forcible rape.

That's not too far from "legitimate rape"

So vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan can try to backpedal away from Akin as fast as he can, but his name is still on the record in support of that bill, with that language. He can say he's in line with Mitt Romney and would not ban abortions in the case of rape, but it's his name attached to House Resolution 212: Sanctity of Human Life Act, which would have done just that.

don't think for a second that social issues -- particularly abortion -- are not in the GOP's sights. Since the tea party helped pull the GOP back into power in 2010 -- under the guise of controlling government spending -- close to 1,000 anti-abortion bills have been introduced across the country. I can't think of anything approaching that number of bills with the goal of creating jobs in that same time span, can you?

At a Personhood USA "tele-town hall meeting" in December, Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry all said they would work to outlaw all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. You can fully expect a Republican Congress to move quickly to ban all abortions, regardless of circumstances.

And given that a would-be President Romney said, "I will protect a woman's right to choose," when he was running for Massachusetts governor in 2002, only to become an anti-abortion advocate while running for president, there's no telling which side of the issue he will fall on, on any given day.

Some social conservatives talk of protecting religious freedom, b

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:41 PM

Even Akin's restatement is in essence the same statement!

"Rape is never legitimate. It's an evil act committed by violent predators." So that would likely exclude first time offenders/date rapists, husbands, etc. It's all "stranger danger" boloney. The rapist hiding in the bushes.

I'd say it's an evil act, definitely, but it is committed by "friends" and relatives often as not. His misspeaking is all in the words he used, his message remains the same, if slightly occulted for the sake of politics. And he is fooling no one.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

MAL4PREZ

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:53 PM

"Republican state Rep. Pete DeGraaf suggested women should plan ahead for rape the way he keeps a spare tire"

I wonder if Rep. DeGraf keeps a tube of balm in his glove compartment just in case he gets ass-raped. Or maybe he used it all up last time he flew through Minneapolis... ?

This conversation does not bring out my softer side.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Even Akin's restatement is in essence the same statement!

"Rape is never legitimate. It's an evil act committed by violent predators." So that would likely exclude first time offenders/date rapists, husbands, etc. It's all "stranger danger" boloney. The rapist hiding in the bushes.

I'd say it's an evil act, definitely, but it is committed by "friends" and relatives often as not. His misspeaking is all in the words he used, his message remains the same, if slightly occulted for the sake of politics. And he is fooling no one.

HKCavalier

Just wondering, how do you get this 'stranger danger' baloney, out of his statement that rape is committed by 'violent predators' ?

Even if we all agree that his 'apology' is nothing but 100% CYA, where do you see fault here ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

WHOZIT

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:20 PM

...meanwhile Joe Biden is still insane.

KWICKO

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:26 PM

Thing is, this really is the GOP's official position. They want abortion outlawed IN ALL CASES, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS. Not for rape, not for "rape-rape", not for ANYTHING. Noncompliance will result in murder charges being filed.

What do you think these "personhood" bills are, exactly? When you define an egg at the very first second of fertilization as a "person", you are voting to outlaw hormonal birth control (The Pill, for example), IUDs, the "morning after" pill (Plan B, for instance), and some other forms of birth control.

Look at the official platform for the GOP.

Look at the fact that in most states, a rapist - even a "legitimate" rapist, a FORCIBLE rapist - has the same visitation rights as any father of any other child.

This is all about the GOP wanting to make sure they "put women in their place" - and they want to make damn sure the women KNOW their place.

Akin's biggest mistake was saying out loud what's been whispered behind closed doors among the GOP leadership for years now.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:38 PM

There are some who think that abortion is punishing the innocent unborn, when the real punishment should be left for the rapist.

It's a position some in the GOP do hold, and I can see it as being a valid position. Not one I hold myself, but still, it's worthy of debate.

The 'fuss' over all this wasn't that SOME in the GOP don't care for abortion, that's nothing new. The real issue was the absurdness of Akin's remarks, about 'legitimate' rape, and the idea that women's bodies will 'shut down' most pregnancies resulting from rape.

But it's funny to see how some try to demagogue the Pro Life issue out of this, when it really isn't part of the controversy at all.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

KWICKO

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:43 PM

Thing is, his statements are a part of the whole issue of abortion. He thinks that there should be no exceptions for rape, because he honestly doesn't believe a woman can get pregnant by being raped.

If she's raped, she won't get pregnant, and so won't need an abortion. If she's pregnant, then by his logic, it couldn't have been rape, so she shouldn't be eligible for abortion.

It's one more way the GOP is looking to remove any choice from women. It's not "pro life"; it's ANTI-CHOICE.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 12:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

It's one more way the GOP is looking to remove any choice from women. It's not "pro life"; it's ANTI-CHOICE.

Does the unborn get a CHOICE in any of this ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

MAL4PREZ

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 12:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
There are some who think that abortion is punishing the innocent unborn, when the real punishment should be left for the rapist.

Funny how the WOMAN involved is entirely left out of this statement.

No, actually. It's not funny at all.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 1:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
There are some who think that abortion is punishing the innocent unborn, when the real punishment should be left for the rapist.

Funny how the WOMAN involved is entirely left out of this statement.

No, actually. It's not funny at all.

You want to punish the woman ? I hear that's what they do in Muslim countries. I'm guessing that ISN'T what you meant, though is it ?

But I'll reiterate, since you may have missed it. I say it IS up to the woman, in such cases, if she wants to carry the unborn to term or not. Clear enough for ya ?

I was merely pointing out that the view that some in the GOP ( not all ) that aborting an innocent life is punishing it as well, and that view point, whether you agree w/ it or not , should not be automatically joined at the hip w/ the goofy ass thing Rep. Akin said about 'legitimate' rape and 'shutting down' unwanted pregnancies which were the result of rape.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 1:43 AM

Between Rush's stupid comments a few months ago and this thing now, you have to wonder if there's anyone left in the country who hasn't been offended by something a Republican has said during this campaign. At some point these things do have a cumulative effect.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 1:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Between Rush's stupid comments a few months ago and this thing now, you have to wonder if there's anyone left in the country who hasn't been offended by something a Republican has said during this campaign. At some point these things do have a cumulative effect.

Yeah, but it's odd that none of what the Dems ever say gets 1/10th the media coverage.

Like Biden, naturally, or Maxine Waters, claiming that Sharia Law is GOOD for women... naw, just ignore that , why don't we ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

MAL4PREZ

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 1:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
There are some who think that abortion is punishing the innocent unborn, when the real punishment should be left for the rapist.

Funny how the WOMAN involved is entirely left out of this statement.

No, actually. It's not funny at all.

You want to punish the woman ? I hear that's what they do in Muslim countries. I'm guessing that ISN'T what you meant, though is it ?

Very astute.

My point is to reply to the statement I quoted, which I'm seeing in a lot of chats these days. I am not hearing many who say this add anything about the punishment put on the woman by forcing her to carry to term, no matter her wishes or circumstances. While I very much (very much!) appreciate that you are aware that there is a third party involved, the Republican party is not. It's in their platform: no exceptions. At all. Because, for the leaders of the Republican party, the rights of the "unborn" - a little bundle of non-sentient cells - comes before the rights and well-being of the woman. They do not see the woman at all, and have put some effort into removing her from the conversation.

Quote:
But I'll reiterate, since you may have missed it. I say it IS up to the woman, in such cases, if she wants to carry the unborn to term or not. Clear enough for ya ?

It was not at all clear before. Now it is, thank you.

Quote:
I was merely pointing out that the view that some in the GOP ( not all ) that aborting an innocent life is punishing it as well, and that view point, whether you agree w/ it or not , should not be automatically joined at the hip w/ the goofy ass thing Rep. Akin said about 'legitimate' rape and 'shutting down' unwanted pregnancies which were the result of rape.

Duly noted. The question remains - where are the rights of the woman and why does she never enter the Repub's discussion? Other than to be called a slut or an "accuser", that is.

And now it's my turn to be clear: I am not at all comfortable with the idea of a 8.5 month pregnant woman saying she changed her mind and wants to get rid of it. To me, the issue is where, between 0 and 9 months is the line? I don't know. I don't think there is a single line. But I certainly do not see the answer to be *NEVER*, which is what your party - including Ryan and Akin - wants. It's in the damned platform, for Heaven's sake!

BTW: Rappy, thank you for being so shockingly reasonable, with disagreement stated and discussed without the usual madness. Please do not return to old ways, now that you've drawn me into conversing with you, and start posting off the wall shit just to get a rise. (Yes, I think you do that.) It would be a shame, because this thread so far has been one of the most level-headed I've seen here in years. I would hate to see it devolve.

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Between Rush's stupid comments a few months ago and this thing now, you have to wonder if there's anyone left in the country who hasn't been offended by something a Republican has said during this campaign. At some point these things do have a cumulative effect.

Yeah, but it's odd that none of what the Dems ever say gets 1/10th the media coverage.

Like Biden, naturally, or Maxine Waters, claiming that Sharia Law is GOOD for women... naw, just ignore that , why don't we ?

Republicans have to be alert and smart just to tread water in the liberal media pirannah tank, but they haven't even mastered the basic lessons yet. And they never seem to learn from history. Rules of combat....
- know the difference between a friend and an enemy
- loose lips sink ships

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

It's one more way the GOP is looking to remove any choice from women. It's not "pro life"; it's ANTI-CHOICE.

Does the unborn get a CHOICE in any of this ?

Is the unborn a citizen?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
There are some who think that abortion is punishing the innocent unborn, when the real punishment should be left for the rapist.

Funny how the WOMAN involved is entirely left out of this statement.

No, actually. It's not funny at all.

You want to punish the woman ? I hear that's what they do in Muslim countries. I'm guessing that ISN'T what you meant, though is it ?

But I'll reiterate, since you may have missed it. I say it IS up to the woman, in such cases, if she wants to carry the unborn to term or not. Clear enough for ya ?

So are you saying the unborn doesn't have a CHOICE in the matter?

Quote:

I was merely pointing out that the view that some in the GOP ( not all ) that aborting an innocent life is punishing it as well, and that view point, whether you agree w/ it or not , should not be automatically joined at the hip w/ the goofy ass thing Rep. Akin said about 'legitimate' rape and 'shutting down' unwanted pregnancies which were the result of rape.

Here's another question for ya. If you put a man in prison who has dependent children, are you not punishing his children for his crimes?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

BTW: Rappy, thank you for being so shockingly reasonable, with disagreement stated and discussed without the usual madness.

Hey, it's who I am.

But thanks for noticing. I think my personal view on abortion, not being lock step in line w/ the fundie bloc of the GOP, may help clarify MY position, on this and maybe other issues. At least, I hope so.

Quote:
Please do not return to old ways, now that you've drawn me into conversing with you, and start posting off the wall shit just to get a rise. (Yes, I think you do that.) It would be a shame, because this thread so far has been one of the most level-headed I've seen here in years. I would hate to see it devolve.

The 'old' ways? Heh... not real sure what you mean by that. I posted my views on a topic, and didn't get savaged for it. I call that a win.

But they are my views, and maybe on the days I don't sync w/ the rest ( or most ) on here, my Browncoaty jacket doesn't get seen as having a certain purple hue to it.
( Because, let's face it, we all don't care much for Purple-bellies, right ? And that's how we see 'bad guys', as being one of THEM. Well, I ain't them.

)

And also, to those who'd try and expand this topic into matters extending to OTHER, unrelated areas... : disappointed:

That's just wrong.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 3:00 AM

But they ARE related areas.

Akin's views on "legitimate rape" are informed, and in large part FORMED, by his views on abortion.

And he was explaining those views and why he wants to never give ANY woman ANY choice, when he revealed what he truly thinks, and that's when the whole thing went off the rails.

You can claim it's unrelated, but the fact is, it's VERY related. And it's a view on abortion that is shared by Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and the GOP party platform. No abortion, ever, for anybody, under any circumstances. No hormonal birth control and no fertility clinics (which seems quite cruel of Romney to endorse, since several of his grandkids were conceived that way!)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NIKI2

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 3:36 PM

Quote:
There are some who think that abortion is punishing the innocent unborn, when the real punishment should be left for the rapist.

Yup, I've heard that one. The problem is, they DO want to punish the woman as well:

Quote:
During that campaign, Ryan also expressed his willingness to let states criminally prosecute women who have abortions. He “would let states decide what criminal penalties would be attached to abortions. Ryan said he has never specifically advocated jailing women who have abortions or doctors who perform them, but added, ‘If it’s illegal, it’s illegal.’”

Of course he stopped short of saying how they SHOULD be punished, but the question remains: if a woman has an abortion which is illegal, how DO you punish her for breaking the law?? So yes, while saying what you did, they in fact do want to punish the woman. Not to mention forcing her to have the result of the rape, which for most women, I should think, would be punishment enough.

Quote:
You want to punish the woman ? I hear that's what they do in Muslim countries.

And what they'd be doing in THIS country, if Akin/Ryan had their way. Show us anywhere Ryan has said how exactly they would punish a woman for breaking the law; if you can't, his statement that "If it's illegal, it's illegal" stands; he wants the woman punished for breaking the law, period.

Then there's the little issue of punishing the rapist. You have to CATCH him to "punish" him, and how many rapists are caught, while the woman is right there for them to force bearing a child--which we already KNOW is a punishment: 9 months of real, physical punishment ending in the responsibility for a child for the rest of their lives--or legal punishment if they are able to have an abortion. Child-bearing is a painful, but desirable, experience for those who choose it, but how can any woman who is FORCED to go through it see it as anything but a painful punishment? What about a woman whose fetus is KNOWN to have horrible physical problems? We already have a law in one state where the doctor is PROHIBITED from telling the woman her child has deformities, genetic problems, etc. While Ryan and his friends want to force the woman to bear that child, they also intend to cut resources she may have if that child is a special-needs child.

As to "punishing" the child, if a personhood bill were to pass, that would include "punishing" a zygote--bear in mind they also want contraception made illegal. From the Sanctity of Human Life Act of 2009 which Ryan co-sponsored along with Akin:

Quote:
(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood

Quote:
Ryan and Akin’s personhood bill would treat killing a fertilized egg as the same thing as homicide. Such an interpretation would not simply ban abortion, it could turn many forms of birth control into the legal equivalent of a murder weapon. Many forms of contraception, including many birth control pills, function in part by inhibiting a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus. Thus, Ryan and Akin’s personhood bill could render the act of using many forms of oral contraception the equivalent of a homicide crime.

Let's be clear about what we're debating and the facts involved in it.

Quote:
The real issue was the absurdness of Akin's remarks, about 'legitimate' rape, and the idea that women's bodies will 'shut down' most pregnancies resulting from rape.

No, the REAL issue is that he's not alone in believing that, hasn't been for thirty years, and that Ryan is right there beside him, with Romney bouncing back and forth, thus making it necessary

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 5:03 PM

And, I'm not sure this has been made clear (sorry if this has been covered), but it's in the 2012 Republican platform:

"Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."

Akin's beliefs are not a result of misspeaking. They are not some wacko fringe notion he got from "some doctor." They're what the GOP is using to justify the platform. Akin has said that his term "legitimate rape" is the same as "forcible rape" which was in the Personhood Bill he and Paul Ryan cosponsored.

But the platform goes even further than the personhood bill. "The right to life which cannot be infringed." It's absolute, with no exceptions even to protect the mother's health. So, it's explicit in the GOP platform: the zygote has an uninfringeable right to life. And therefore, in cases where the pregnancy endangers the mother's own life, the mother has no such right to life. The very definition of a "second class citizen." They want to make this "right" of the zygote an amendment to the Constitution!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 5:15 PM

By the way, for anyone naive enough to think that this is all about Akin and whether he's actually stupid enough to believe that a woman can't get pregnant through rape, here's what he had to say yesterday by way of explaining himself:

"I misspoke one word in one sentence on one day."

So what was the ONE WORD he thinks he got wrong?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 5:21 PM

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

GEEZER

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
OK, the whole "legitimate" rape term is horrifying and completely bogus, but I can see how a certain misogynistic cold-hearted ass-hat might work very hard to convince himself that most rapes are not "really" rapes.

Julian Assange?

MAL4PREZ

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So what was the ONE WORD he thinks he got wrong?

He meant "forcible" not "legitimate." See? That makes it all better.

HERO

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Another reason the GOP is running away from Akin so fast...Trying to put some distance between him and Paul Ryan!

The truth is that Akin has his office in the same building as Nancy Pelosi and dozens of elected Democrats.

On a more serious track I note for the record that you can't rape the willing...but neither can you abort them. Both are involuntary acts against the consent individual suffering the harm. Heck...the 'I wish I was never born' being a bad thing goes all the way back to 'Its a Wonderful Life'.

They need a sequel, 'Its a Wonderful Abortion' about a mother who aborts her child and then gets the chance to see how it would have been had her child lived. "Every time a bell rings a baby is sucked into a tube."

Abortion is a crime against imagination. It kills not just a few cells but everything a person can be. Life has so much potential, abortion is just...empty. Its like the cat in the box...only certain and without any real hope. There is no 'might be' no 'could be'.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 8:26 PM

Cue up the Monty Python video!

3, 2, 1...

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

PENGUIN

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 10:42 PM

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 10:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Abortion is a crime against imagination. It kills not just a few cells but everything a person can be. Life has so much potential, abortion is just...empty. Its like the cat in the box...only certain and without any real hope. There is no 'might be' no 'could be'.

A "crime against imagination"? So you're saying it's thoughtcrime? It's not a crime. It's not a person. It's a few cells. The "imaginary" thing here is that there's a crime going on. Once again the GOP shows that it's happy to put the "rights" of imaginary people far ahead of the rights of women.

Shocker.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 11:31 PM

Update : RNC adds 'Carrying Beaver Repellent Spray In Purse' to Party Platform as new legitimate rape qualifying activity.

MAL4PREZ

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Abortion is a crime against imagination. It kills not just a few cells but everything a person can be. Life has so much potential, abortion is just...empty. Its like the cat in the box...only certain and without any real hope. There is no 'might be' no 'could be'.

This is a perfect illustration of why the woman is not mentioned in the Republican argument: the unborn is something the wingers can *imagine* as they wish. They can live in their dream world and hope this bundle of cells will be brain-washed into another religion-ruled soldier of the right.

A woman who owns her own body? That they cannot make use of as they wish. Hence - they put their imaginary friends future above very real, very alive women.

It's all about who they can control.

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, August 22, 2012 11:58 PM

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Is the unborn a citizen?

Bingo!

Whether the unborn SHOULD be citizens is at the very heart of this debate.

-----
So many gods, so many creeds,
So many paths that wind and wind,
While just the art of being kind
is all the sad world needs.
- Ella Wheeler Wilcox, poet (1850-1919)

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, August 23, 2012 1:20 AM

At this point I can't help thinking of Caligula appointing his horse to the Senate in Rome. We call 'em "individual rights" and the "rights of citizens." We talk about "civic duty." What does a zygote have to do with any of that? There is no individual in a zygote. But we've already had this conversation to death. *sigh*

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

KWICKO

Thursday, August 23, 2012 1:36 AM

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

MAL4PREZ

Thursday, August 23, 2012 1:56 AM

From a discussion I'm having elsewhere: I'll post this here to get the debate warmed up.

Sometime in the past year or two I read some articles about the emotional toll on young woman who were forced to give birth and give their child up for adoption. It sounded pretty awful. I don't have an easy solution, but I believe a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant - whether due to rape or accidents or even irresponsible behavior - should be able to end her pregnancy early on. Privately. Without question. It's her right as owner of her body and her life. It bothers me that the conversation has been re-framed, so that women only can own their bodies if they've already lost ownership of their bodies through rape. There's a big goalpost shift that's happened, moving the debate to where it is. The woman's freedom has been removed.

Conversely, (as I've said on this thread) I'm horrified by the idea of an 8.5 or 9 month pregnant woman deciding to destory what is pretty much a baby. I don't like that at all.

So where's the line? I don't know. I don't think there is one. But, being an atheist and one of 7 billion people on a planet that doesn't need more people, I prefer to err on the side of personal freedom of choice for those who are already living. You know, that seldom-mentioned woman.

It really kills me how little the woman is discussed. Even in the present media storm: the pregnant woman is only being spoke of and supported if she got raped. WTF? Are we nothing but victims?

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:07 AM

Hey Mal4,

I know plenty of sane people for whom the woman's rights are central to the issue of abortion (i.e.: pretty much all of 'em). And we all know that this is the right's attempt to undermine the right to privacy. But I think the wingers have in this instance gone a little crazy on top of wanting to undermine all of our civil rights. The conservatives have just gone so far off the rails into madness and viciousness, there's no having the real conversation with them around. I mean all this crap about "the single greatest genocide in human history" stuff is pure evil. And completely disingenuous.

I had a fantasy: in the bizarro world where the right-wing get a "right to life" ammendment to the Constitution passed, the ACLU finally are able to win their case against the death penalty. "The right to life shall not be infringed." Then they succeed in outlawing war and the use of lethal force by the police.

So, it's pretty clear to me: that world is never gonna come to be. It's just madness and viciousness and it will pass.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

REDREAD

Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Conversely, (as I've said on this thread) I'm horrified by the idea of an 8.5 or 9 month pregnant woman deciding to destory what is pretty much a baby. I don't like that at all.

I've read that past a certain point (12 weeks? viability?), it's medically easier for everyone to induce labor than abort any other way. So I think these kind of late, late stage abortion scenarios are a moot point. If in order to abort past the point of viability you have induced labor anyway, then it seems to me that the obvious solution is that any parent carrying a viable fetus who doesn't want to be pregnant any more should be allowed to induce (or have a C-section) whenever they want. And then the hospital should do their best to ensure survival of the (now) baby and put it up for adoption, unless for some reason the parent changes their mind and wants the baby after all, or the other parent wants to raise them. The only exception to that would be if the fetus has no chance of survival.

Does that make sense? I feel like I'm being unnecessarily wordy, but I can't think of a better way to phrase anything.

(I'm using gender neutral language because while very few people who aren't women get pregnant, it is a possibility, and I'd rather we not confuse sex [uterus] for gender [female]. I understand, however, that the attack on abortion rights has basically everything to do with the fact that it's almost always women who get pregnant.)

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, August 23, 2012 7:14 AM

I'm really interested in where these nutjob Repos stand when it comes to IVF procedures. I have met your conservative anti abortion type people who seem to manage these processes, despite the fact that they usually result in zygotes being destroyed.

KWICKO

Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'm really interested in where these nutjob Repos stand when it comes to IVF procedures. I have met your conservative anti abortion type people who seem to manage these processes, despite the fact that they usually result in zygotes being destroyed.

So-called "personhood" amendments would do away with them completely. You cannot by any means destroy a fertilized egg, or you will be charged with murder. That is the official GOP position.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NIKI2

Thursday, August 23, 2012 5:44 PM

"What Mal4 and Cav said", essentially. Just to add, I think someone wondered about what "doctor" Akin got his info from. That's been solved; it's a Dr. Wilke, long a pro-life proponent and big in the pro-life circles for his "knowledge" on things such as this:

Quote:
Representative Todd Akin’s assertion that women who are victims of “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant provoked outrage across the political spectrum, but the views he articulated are far from new in anti-abortion circles.

Dr. John C. Willke, a general practitioner with obstetric training and a former president of the National Right to Life Committee, was an early proponent of this view, articulating it in a book originally published in 1985 and again in a 1999 article. He reiterated it in an interview Monday.

“This is a traumatic thing — she’s, shall we say, she’s uptight,” Dr. Willke said of a woman being raped, adding, “She is frightened, tight, and so on. And sperm, if deposited in her vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.”

(It goes on to debunk that, citing real doctors)

He read from Dr. Willke’s 1999 article, which described what is “certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that’s physical trauma.”

He continued with the article: “To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy.”

Mr. Fischer concluded: “In other words, ladies and gentleman, Todd Akin was exactly right.”

Dr. Willke, 87, asserted yesterday that “way under 1 percent” of rape victims become pregnant, not just because of female biology but because about half of rapists “do not deposit sperm in the vagina.” That, Dr. Willke said, is because many rapists have “a preference for rectal intercourse over vaginal”; experience “premature ejaculation, which is a major factor”; or “some of these guys just plain aren’t fertile.”

But several experts said there is no solid data supporting such contentions. A 1996 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, generally considered one of the few peer-reviewed research efforts on this subject, estimated that 5 percent of rapes result in pregnancy.

“Yeah, there are all sorts of hormones, including ones that cause your heart to beat fast when you’re frightened,” said Dr. Greene. But he added, “I’m not aware of any data that says that reduces a woman’s risk of getting pregnant.”

As for the contention that a rape victim’s fallopian tubes tighten, Dr. Grimes, formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said, “That’s nonsense. Everything is working. The tube is very small anyway and sperm are very tiny — they’re excellent swimmers.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rape-assertions-are-dism
issed-by-health-experts.html#h[]

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE THIS--It's not just "one nutcase".

Wilke has written extensively on his beliefs about abortion, and is cited by pro-lifers frequently.

Quote:

Dr. John Willke, a self-described “founding father” of the pro-life movement, is popping up in the news this week, credited with a dubious honor—helping to inspire Rep. Todd Akin’s controversial views on rape.

In an interview with The Daily Beast, Dr. Willke said he believes Akin simply made “a slip of the tongue.”

Dr. Willke, the president of a pro-life group, the Life Issues Institute, and also a physician, has been active in the movement for decades. In the 1970s, he wrote a book called Handbook on Abortion, which he updated and republished in seven editions over the years. In 1984, he helped found the Internatio

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

M52NICKERSON

Thursday, August 23, 2012 6:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by REDREAD:(I'm using gender neutral language because while very few people who aren't women get pregnant, it is a possibility, and I'd rather we not confuse sex [uterus] for gender [female]. I understand, however, that the attack on abortion rights has basically everything to do with the fact that it's almost always women who get pregnant.)

I don't think you have to be so save, it ispretty much understood that when you are talking about pregnacy you are referring to person of the female sex and not about gender.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NIKI2

Thursday, August 23, 2012 6:53 PM

Akin seems to have some supporters--tho' they don't mention the thing about not getting pregnant from rape:

Quote:
Even as the official Republican Party continues to try to derail Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin over his remarks about “legitimate rape,” a powerful force within the GOP has begun rallying to the candidate’s side: the party’s socially conservative base.

Powerful Christian activists in the GOP have begun pushing back against party leadership, alleging it has gone too far in trying to thwart Akin and that it is attempting to sideline issues that social conservatives care about, such as abortion.

The criticism is creating major tensions between the mainstream Republican Party and a key part of its base days before the GOP’s convention is set to open in Tampa, Florida.

“Following the pounding of Todd Akin by the GOP kings and lieutenants in the last 36 hours, I've come to the conclusion that the real issue is the soul of America,” wrote David Lane, an evangelical activist who’s influential in the Republican Party, in an e-mail to fellow activists Thursday morning.

Akin has bowed to Republican pressure to skip the Republican convention next week. But the Senate candidate was in Tampa on Wednesday night to meet with a powerful group of religious conservatives, according to a source familiar with the trip.

In a note to supporters Wednesday night, conservative Family Research Council President Tony Perkins heaped criticism on the GOP for abandoning Akin.

"Todd Akin has a long and distinguished record of defending women, children, and families – and unlike the GOP establishment, I refuse to throw him under the bus over one inarticulate comment for which he has apologized,” wrote Perkins, who is in Tampa attending events leading up the convention.

“As for the GOP, it has no rational basis for deserting Akin when it has stood by moderate Republicans who've done worse,” Perkins continued. “Singling out Todd suggests a double standard, designed to drive out social conservatives.”

Hooo, boy; here we go!