Akin’s opposition to rape exception vs. Obama’s support of infanticide
(HT to Erick Erickson at RedState.com for the headline. I’ll get to Erick’s excellent post in a sec.)
Right now I am in Sioux City, Iowa, preparing to begin a 10 day, 30 city, 6 state bus tour today with the Susan B. Anthony List team.
My entire focus and role on the tour is to expose Barack Obama’s radical support of infanticide as part and parcel of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, as he saw it and said it. As Illinois state senator Obama opposed the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, designed to give abortion survivors constitutional rights. Obama said giving premature born babies rights would be unconstitutional. Period. That’s what he said. Read page 86 of the senate floor transcript, when Obama was the only senator to speak against Born Alive. Read what Obama said very carefully:
Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term.
That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
Obama’s support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide could not be clearer. It is grotesque, barbaric, sick and yes, crazy. It is the radical belief of our current president of the United States.
And the press continues to minimize, distort, rationalize, or ignore it, because the press is pro-abortion and likes Obama.
But the press will take a guy who believes babies shouldn’t be murdered because their fathers are rapists and call that guy grotesque, barbaric, sick, and crazy.
Which brings us to Missouri U.S. Senate Republican hopeful Todd Akin, who admirably opposes a rape/incest exception for abortion but who explained his position Sunday in a way that appeared calloused toward rape victims. Wrote Erickson in a great piece this morning:
Todd Akin, the Republican Senate nominee in Missouri, made an inarticulate and rather dumb statement about rape and abortion on television in Missouri. He subsequently clarified his remarks. Congressman Akin, like many devout Christians, does not believe in a rape exception for abortion.
Naturally, the very same left that gave Joe Biden a pass on his “put y’all back in chains” comment is horri[fie]d by Todd Akin’s remarks.
Todd Akin was inarticulate. Some are now accusing him of being pro-rape. The people horri[fie]d by Todd Akin’s remarks are, I’m sure, thrilled to have a President who defended infanticide. I’ll take Todd Akin’s inarticulate remarks over an infanticide supporter any day of the week.
I pray that no knees were scraped and no bones were broken in the race to defend somebody from talking about how there is “legitimate” rape and rape that, I guess, isn’t legitimate.
Sometimes I forget that this site cares less about the truth and more about helping right wing politicians.
13 likes
The body doesn’t “shut down” when a girl is raped. It is a woman’s duty to carry her pregnancy to term. The sperm and egg do not know what rape is. If I was raped, I pray I never will be, I would carry my baby because I don’t believe in abortion.
Akin said that womens’ bodies are essentially naturally baby aborting monsters.
NOTHING can be further from the truth.
“Obama said giving premature born babies rights would be unconstitutional. Period.” -Jill Stanek
? Obama went exactly against the Constitution here. ALL people deserve rights under the US constitution. Men, Women, Children, and YES, Preemies. ?
11 likes
This man is a damn fool. I am very pro-life and politically conservative-what he said is profoundly appalling and stupid. Who would want this idiot being elected a senator? The best thing would be for him to be replaced on the ticket. Unfortunately, this cannot be walked back. Is that fair or right? No, of course not but that is the way it is. He is a political liability.
12 likes
Todd Akin, please mention adoption. Should an innocent life die because of a trauma? If the women can’t be proud of her own child, adoption is the greatest gift to give her child.
17 likes
It’s not that Akin opposes abortion in cases of rape. So do I.
The issue is that Akin essentially said women don’t get pregnant from rape. And that if they do, it wasn’t really rape.
For some reason that myth has been tossed around for decades by ignorant pro-lifers and will not die. Fay Boozman said something like Akin during his 1998 Senate race against Blanche Lincoln in next door Arkansas. Boozman lost, and we got stuck with Blanche Lincoln for 12 years.
It’s not about Akin, it’s about a needless distraction and liability in one of the most important political years in our lifetimes. Akin made a phenomenally sick, stupid, and horrifying statement, and liberals intend to run with it to tar the pro-life movement as a whole. He needs to let go of his ego, and leave the race.
15 likes
You go Jill…our prayers are with you.
6 likes
“Legitimate” rape. Huh. That’s fairly disgusting that he would say something like that.
16 likes
The hypothesis is that the woman’s psychological resistance causes some sort of chemical to activate which PREVENTS fertilization (not aborts). I’ve heard this hypothesis before. I don’t know if there is any truth to it or not.
However, this might be a good time to examine the whole idea of a “rape or incest” exception. Why do we say “or incest”? Isn’t this simply the rape exception? When someone says “incest” they are probably thinking of a teen girl raped by her father. I doubt that they are thinking of a 40-year-old woman pregnant by her 20-year-old son or an adult brother-sister caused pregnancy.
What do people mean by “or incest”?
1 likes
If he was smart (I considered using “were” just there), he’d have a long meeting with some pro-life women who (a) took offense at his remarks, and who (b) include rape victims who became pregnant. Then he’d have a press conference and apologize, and express gratitude to the women for schooling him, and pledge to support the rights of the unborn as well as pregnant rape victims. Something like that.
His web “clarification” is hardly sufficient. If you don’t lance an abscess, it ain’t goin’ away…
18 likes
Is legitimate rape the same thing as rape rape?
9 likes
But here’s the real deal. Your perfect pro-life pal, Paul Ryan, has come down on the side of exceptions for rape and incest. Do you still love him?
“Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement,” the Romney campaign said in statement. “A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”
8 likes
@ Lisa and anyone else who thinks adoption is such a great gift: Please read my story at http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/blog/article/kill-my-parents-the-story-of-marlene-olive/index.html
This tragedy essentially begins with a question: “Daddy, what does the word ‘adoption’ mean?”
It can’t be dismissed as a fluke. Adoptees are FIFTEEN TIMES more likely than other people to kill 1 or both of their parents.
Adoptees are 2-3% of the population — and 16% of serial murderers.
The “Summer of Sam” was directly tied to adoption as were the crimes of serial murderer Joel Rifkin.
Does this mean we accept abortion? NO! It means we put more into preventing problem pregnancies in the first place!
0 likes
No, CC! I absolutely hold him in contempt, level 4! He is an ass!
OK, now let’s compare that with Obama.
Level 26. Hmm. Looks like I’m voting the Romney ticket!
It’s precisely in anticipation of these weird arguments that I long ago adopted the “sex with dead weasels” trope. The issue is not “who’s the most vunderful person to ‘run the country'” — a job description that runs against the grain of my preference for subsidiarity in governance. The issue is “who’s the worst? OK, we vote for the other guy.”
Not being amazed when politicians aren’t perfect is a sign of holding reasonable expectations of politicians. It’s also a sign of being ready for the inevitable with them. Being amazed that a politician might not be perfect, IMO, is dangerously symptomatic of delusional thinking about both human nature and political realities.
When progressives, especially, take glee in pointing out that conservative candidates aren’t perfect, they’re really missing the boat. It’s not that conservatives hypocritically give “their guy” a pass. It’s that conservatives are generally for less central government control in part because they recognize that anyone holding office should not have so much power. Progressives sometimes seem indifferent to whether “their guy” can be trusted with the dramatic amount of power they seem to want government to wield.
A veep whose start in politics was inspired in part from reading Atlas Shrugged sounds like someone who’s at least acquainted with the antidote for crony capitalism. Alas, his boss is a very different person. But I can’t count the alases I’d have to paste in here to speak of Obama, so team Romney gets the vote.
It’s a frightfully simple calculus.
14 likes
Rasqual–these proabort leftists are having a very hard time, so cut them so slack. First they elect a untested, unvetted radical into the office, and then they’re cold-cocked by his ineptitude. The Emperor has no clothes???
The Emperor has no:
experience
ideas
consensus within his own party
frickin’clue.
No protection for some infants?
NO SOUL.
13 likes
Akin only said what many in the Republican Party think. Many “prolife” politicians have never even thought about the abortion issue–it’s part of their canned talking point agenda. Akin is one of those who really hasn’t thought about the issue. Thus, he failed.
5 likes
The cart before the horse.
How is it acceptable that President Obama was qualified to talk about the constitutionality of abortion when he was a Illinois State Senator but not qualified to discuss the constitutional issue of when life begins when he was running for President? If the question of when life begins is above his pay grade how is he qualified to talk about killing said life?
14 likes
Then we really need to start explaining WHY we should fight the way we do to our politicians, eh, Perry?
Start sending letters to all of them explaining that the circumstances under which someone is conceived doesn’t change WHO they are, or WHAT they are, and that means rape is not an acceptable reason, regardless of “what kind of rape” that was. Same reason abortion for other reasons isn’t acceptable. What a mother thinks of her child or how she feels about them and their existence doesn’t change that they ARE her child.
You go first.
15 likes
I don’t think Akin made a pro-rape or anti-woman comment. It surely wasn’t that offensive. To me it just seemed misinformed. But I would truly like to know what Akin was talking about and where he got this idea?
4 likes
I would like Akin to clarify what he meant by “legitimate” rape. What is that?
5 likes
Rape is wrong – but that doesn’t stop Planned Parenthood from profiting from it every which way it can.
Statutory rape, incest, date rape, rape-rape, illegitimate and legitimate rape – it doesn’t matter – Planned Parenthood and it’s supporters are pro-rapist.
11 likes
Whoppi Goldberg–“rape, rape”
And the difference here is?
7 likes
Tyler – I think Akin was referring to the situation where a woman is pregnant with a child she doesn’t want and claims she was raped because she doesn’t want to reveal a sexual affair. In other words, she’ll fake the rape.
Akins wasn’t very clear in discussing this, nor did he clearly express how severe shock/trauma often leads to miscarriages, but the intended meaning is no longer important. What matters is the degree of faux outrage that can be generated.
15 likes
xalisae says:
August 20, 2012 at 11:15 am
Then we really need to start explaining WHY we should fight the way we do to our politicians, eh, Perry?Start sending letters to all of them explaining that the circumstances under which someone is conceived doesn’t change WHO they are, or WHAT they are, and that means rape is not an acceptable reason, regardless of “what kind of rape” that was. Same reason abortion for other reasons isn’t acceptable. What a mother thinks of her child or how she feels about them and their existence doesn’t change that they ARE her child.
(Denise) Who is most likely to seek good pre-natal care: the one who wants a baby or the one who doesn’t?
Who is most likely to take good care of herself during the pregnancy: the one who wants a baby or the one who doesn’t?
0 likes
In this case, Akin did not merely misspeak, and he’s not merely inarticulate. What he said was utterly moronic and insulting. He’s a classic example of why people think the GOP are idiots. A “legitimate rape”? ”The female body has a way to try to shut the whole thing down?” Really? So it’s a failure of the woman’s body if she conceives as a result of rape? Akin may in fact have all the right motives and goals, but if this is how he thinks a woman’s body works, he needs to be schooled extensively. Good grief. We can, and we have to do better than this.
0 likes
Sandra Bernhard says Sarah Palin will be gang-raped by Bernhard’s big black brothers - liberals laugh it off. People pay to see the act.
Kathleen Sebelius’ son makes money by selling a game with the title “Don’t drop the Soap” a reference to male prison rape.
Sebelius covers up numerous Planned Parenthood failures to report statutory rape in Kansas and even goes so far as orchestrating an offense against Phil Kline who is doing his job. She profits from her work by becoming HHS Secretary.
Guy Cimbalo writes an editorial piece for Playboy in which he’d like to “hate f*ck” conservative women that are “hot”. Oh no – it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Playboy profits.
Both male and female rappers make more money from misogynistic lyrics promoting penetration – the media labels love them because it brings in cash.
“Progressives” want nothing more than the destruction of Judeo-Christian values – to basically see Western Civilization collapse into complete uncontrolled male sexuality – and claim at the same time this “liberates” women. Sandra Fluke prostituted herself to Nancy Pelosi et. al and was rewarded with prestige and speaking engagements, promoting the promise of consequence-free sex at others expense, and at the same time attempted to humiliate Rush Limbaugh.
To a progressive, grace, compassion and mercy are only tools which can be temporarily exploited for personal benefit.
Don’t listen to what they say – watch what they do – you’ll know them by their fruit.
11 likes
Undisputeable facts:
No matter the circumstances surrounding the conception, the pre-natal child is no less the offspring of the mother.
No matter what the circumstances surrounding the conception, the ‘choice’ confronting the pregnant female is not whether or not she wants a baby, [she already has at least one] but whether or not she will kill her own child.
13 likes
“Legitimate rape”.
I’m sorry, but as a woman who has been raped and struggled to have it taken seriously by authority figures, that’s just disgusting, no matter how pro-life he is.
15 likes
EX-RINO says: August 20, 2012 at 7:46 am “Sometimes I forget that this site cares less about the truth and more about helping right wing politicians. “
Ex-RINO says: June 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm “For the record, I have three kids, my wife and I would never ever have considered an abortion, and I’m against it as I equate it to murder.”
Ex-RINO says: June 11, 2012 at 7:56 am “…at the end of the day, I’m more likely than not to vote Democrat…”
If you are really interested in TRUTH, then resign your position as chief apologist and equivocator for the obamateur.
The truth will set you free, but are you gonna be mad when it finally penetrates your delusion and you realize that you have been a tool for the one who hates you and your wife and your three children.
6 likes
The trouble with having to comment a lot - whether as a politician, a radio host, or here - is that you’re bound to say something colossally stupid eventually. See: Joe Biden. Sometimes they also reveal true feelings, like “gonna put y’all in chains” and “spread the wealth around”.
Akin didn’t need doctors to tell him that conception from rape is infrequent. We knew that. But the same is true about consensual sex. He spoke about something he seldom thinks about. Perry was right about that. It’s true for both sides of the abortion issue.
And x is also right as usual. The advocates on our side need schooling just as much as the general public. It’s one thing to know in your gut what is right and wrong. You can’t convince others to trust your gut. You have to explain right and wrong after having actually thought about it.
7 likes
Chris, thanks for sharing what you think Akins meant by a “legitimate” rape. Your explanation sounds reasonable. I think your explanation makes his comments more reasonable.
Would you happen to know where Akins is getting the idea that a woman’s body can prevent a pregnancy? He said that doctors told him. Is there medical evidence to back-up this claim?
I also appreciated the information you provided that reveals the hypocrisy of the progressive elites.
6 likes
I’m also a survivor Kate, and perhaps (I don’t really know what he was thinking) one could distinquish between statutory and non-consensual. If I am 15 and my boyfriend is 19, I might think we’re in a relationship, but legally it’s what? Is that the same as an assault? It’s not. Maybe what we need to do is talk about the whole issue, this word, how it defines things that don’t seem similar. What happened to me in an assault, it’s not the same as the immature 15 year old girl who thinks her 19 year old boyfriend is only that.
But, maybe, we do need to talk about this subject. Sometimes divorcing parents accuse each other of molesting the children, sometimes women say they were raped when they weren’t. Can we be angry at them too? We should be. They tie up the police and the courts and belittle the rest of us. As far as politicians, maybe they should avoid trying to make a statement in a culture of short sound bites. Maybe it would have been best for him not to have said the word at all.
The issue isn’t about consent or assault, but now the waters are muddied by the R word. Instead, let’s bring it back to the child, the child who didn’t commit a crime.
14 likes
CrabshaCk says: August 20, 2012 at 9:40 am “But here’s the real deal. Your perfect pro-life pal, Paul Ryan, has come down on the side of exceptions for rape and incest. Do you still love him?”
Just because you are enfatuated with and an unquestioning puppy love for your political candidates does not mean that we are.
We are faced with chosing between candidates who say no pre-natal child has any inherent value and politically expedient candidates who say most pre-natal children are worthy of the protection of law.
5 likes
“Sandra Bernhard says Sarah Palin will be gang-raped by Bernhard’s big black brothers – liberals laugh it off. People pay to see the act. … Don’t listen to what they say – watch what they do – you’ll know them by their fruit.”
I love this post because it perfectly encapsulates the only defensive maneuver in the entire conservative playbook: deflect, derail, throw out accusations of hypocrisy, invoke completely irrelevant crap (Sandra Bernhard! Rappers! Playboy! Massive conspiracy to undo Western civilization by turning everyone into sluts!), do anything and everything possible to avoid having to make and defend a substantive argument on its own merits and then pray that the people you’re arguing with (or perhaps more accurately, yelling at) have a short enough attention span to take the bait.
8 likes
Ever since Erickson pulled that October 1st stunt with his Sarah Palin twenty hour mock-a-thon, I have lost respect for the guy.
So his opinion doesn’t matter much to me anymore.
1 likes
I vaguely remember hearing an old wive’s tale (or should I say an “old playboy’s tale?”) that the reason rape victims seldom conceive is because of some “defense mode” the body goes through to fend off an attack – on the cellular antibody level.
Sheer nonsense, of course.
No matter how stupid Akin’s comment is, I think we can feel safe in assuming he believes rape is rape. The question is, do his most outraged detractors believe that a baby is a baby?
5 likes
“I think we can feel safe in assuming he believes rape is rape”
Nope, not really. Believe me, I have heard enough rape apology and victim blaming in my life to never take for granted anyone really believes rape is rape.
Why is it that every time a conservative says something disgusting, people on this blog bring up fifteen completely unrelated disgusting things that other people have said? I don’t get that at all. And what do rap lyrics have to do with a politician saying something completely stupid and offensive?
14 likes
“Tyler – I think Akin was referring to the situation where a woman is pregnant with a child she doesn’t want and claims she was raped because she doesn’t want to reveal a sexual affair. In other words, she’ll fake the rape. “
Um… where in the world did you get this, out of any of his comments? It just sounded to me like he wanted to make his position of no exceptions more palatable to middle of the road pro-lifers and so he wanted to emphasize the rarity of pregnancy resulting from rape. So he said some stupid BS that isn’t even true, and is rightfully being chewed out for it. People deflecting and making very interesting claims that have absolutely nothing to do with anything he said, though, is charming.
8 likes
Todd Akin, please mention adoption. Should an
innocent life die because of a trauma? If the
women can’t be proud of her own child, adoption
is the greatest gift to give her child.
Why should she put up with that child for nine months?
Over sixty-seven years ago, we used uranium to incinerate perhaps dozens of unborn babies merely because their mothers happened to be in the vicinity of an Army headquarters. Why should not girls pregnant from rape get to kill the unborn baby growing inside their own bodies?
2 likes
Um, wow. As to Akin, this is why a) I wouldn’t really like to be in public office and b) Politicians should just “shhh.” They seem to be prone to gaffes. That was just stupid, Akin, stupid thing to say.
And as for Obama… what a sick, sick man. I knew this already, but every time I read again about how he is so adamantly opposed to even the most basic care for a baby born alive – to just let that child die – it gives me the chills. How can a human being come out against that, only to protect access to abortion?!? Are you serious? is he serious?! Oy, what a mess.
8 likes
Why should she put up with that child for nine months?
Because it’s wrong to kill innocent human beings, even if it might somehow make the victim of a horrible crime suffer less.
Over sixty-seven years ago, we used uranium to incinerate perhaps dozens of unborn babies merely because their mothers happened to be in the vicinity of an Army headquarters. Why should not girls pregnant from rape get to kill the unborn baby growing inside their own bodies?
Of course, their mothers died too. So by that logic, it’s perfectly fine to kill pregnant women (along with men, other women, and born children).
9 likes
It is essentially impossible to take the opinions seriously of anyone who goes by the name of SHOES THROWER. Keep them on your feet, dude.
6 likes
Also, as if Shoes thrower would not have made you seem unhinged enough, you really had to make use of the caps lock? (Not a valid criticism of my name, because those are my initials and initials by convention are capitalized)
5 likes
Jack Borsch said “Um… where in the world did you get this, out of any of his comments?”
Actually Jack – when I watched the video of Akins speaking, that’s what immediately came to mind. Why would I think such a thing? Because false accusations of rape happen quite frequently. How about that Duke lacrosse team case – where the whore claimed she was raped, but all the charges were completely false.
Obama was perfectly clear in promoting infanticide because he supported abortionists who made a diagnosis, performed induced labor abortions and didn’t want to be held liable for misdiagnosis of defects for a child. He didn’t even know what to call the born living child -
Here – listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUkbuhXzbvI&list=UU4WGF9XXayyMSsGpPx1gyLA&index=1&feature=plcp
This is not about what Akins actually meant with a word fumble. Rape is a profitable, progressive tool – it’s not a Judeo-Christian value.
Progressives feign moral outrage, but as I point out, that’s not because they have any morals at all to begin with, it’s simply a means to push guilt onto those who do have morals.
As for joan’s claims about arguments, facts and irrelevance: it really doesn’t matter what I or anyone else provides about the truth.
Cynics aren’t interested in the truth.
7 likes
“As for joan’s claims about arguments, facts and irrelevance: it really doesn’t matter what I or anyone else provides about the truth.”
That’s good, because the truth value of your stupid, paranoid ramblings is a big fat zero.
7 likes
joan/CC
Did you say at one time you had no problem with sex selection abortion, even if it meant the deliberate destruction of unborn women?
12 likes
Thanks for the laugh joan!
7 likes
At conception, a new human being now exists. At that moment begins the lifelong relationship (by DNA) to the mother, the father, the grandparents, cousins, uncles, etc. I can undestand a woman not wanting a daily relationship with the child concieved by rape. However, I repeat: the child is innocent and does not deserve the death penalty.
The argument to kill a child because one of his or her parents is a criminal is based on pity: pity the poor mother pregnant with someone’s child whom she despises (understandably so.). Pity isn’t a good enough reason to kill a child. The child can be brought up in a different household if the mother doesn’t ever want to see him again. No matter how pitiful the mother’s circumstances, she doesn’t have the right to kill her child, whose body is his or her own.
Rape has been used as a justification for abortion since Norma McCorvey lied about it to attempt to procur an abortion (she’s pro-life now). But it doesn’t justify it. Norma would tell you that, and so would Rebecca Kiessling.
14 likes
JackBorsch says: August 20, 2012 at 2:10 pm “And what do rap lyrics have to do with a politician saying something completely stupid and offensive?”
JB,
I do believe you answered your own question.
I have to confess it is difficult to discern a difference between the two: 1. What b o says and rap lyrics, 2. Something completely stupid and offensive.
2 likes
Tyler: “I would like Akin to clarify what he meant by ‘legitimate’ rape. What is that?”
He almost certainly meant “authentic,” which makes him guilty of a ridiculously inappropriate and consequential malapropism. Shakespeare’s Dogberry was a barrel of laughs for his own malaprops, and in some cases their meanings were ironic. But this instance is just stupid beyond belief.
4 likes
Hi Rasqual,
I see prominent conservatives like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity are encouraging Akin to quit. I have to agree. There is just too much at stake and this is about more than just one man.
Yes there is a double standard. No it isn’t fair. That being said, it is what it is.
6 likes
The dead babies r us mob believes that a pregnant woman has an indisptuable and immutable right to a dead baby and the abortionist has a contractural obligation to satisfy her demands no matter the age or the viability of her live born infant.
b o, not only shares their view, he actively and aggressively promotes it.
the obamateur is a barbarian.
I can only hope that one day every member of the dead babies r us mob finds himself/herself expecting mercy from the assassin who has just made an unsuccessful or incomplete attempt on her/his life.
Even then I have no realistic expectation that they could grasp the glaringly and blatantly conspicuous irony of the moment because the one who hates GOD, loves death and has embraced stupidity on a molecular level.
5 likes
Akins words were appalling and indicate who this man really is. As someone already mentioned, behind his already damning words lurks a mindset that believes if a girl gets pregnant, she was probably lying about the rape. He does not belong in office and if he had a shred of decency or honor, he’d step down. Actually, if he genuinely believed he just misspoke, he would step down, but he doesn’t — he can’t even see how twisted his words are. That’s a serious problem.
Being pro-life does not include defending the indefensible, and his words are indefensible. Period.
9 likes
I think people need to be reminded of what the Infant Born Alive Act really requested so that people know what The Barackinator rejected.
The Barackinator was rejecting ‘born’ children – not a “viable” fetus, not a clump of cells – but a “born” child.
The Barackinator, with his laser beam eye, focused on “viability” as if it was an issue in this act - it wasn’t. If we don’t expose this murderous man for who he is, The Barackinator will be back in office. And he will help PP terminate more children.
4 likes
The Barackinator – Term 2
That is one sequel I don’t want to see.
7 likes
Ken, dude, not cool.
4 likes
Do people think Akin should get out of the race for this misstatement?
I don’t think he should.
1 likes
The problem is that a raped woman or girl may be mentally unable to CARRY the result of the rape for the full nine months. She is just horrified at the idea of having her belly get bigger and bigger — with people shouting congratulations! — and cannot stand it.
Another problem is that, in an ultimate sense, if we insist rape victims carry to term we are — like it or not — taking the side of the rapist. Men can use physical force to get their genetic material back into the system. They can rape to have descendants.
Personally, I would prefer that fewer women be in the position to begin with: I want to encourage more to use contraception. Many oppose this for a variety of reasons. If so, they may have to accept abortion in such cases because few people have it in them to force a woman forced to have sex to carry to term.
0 likes
The lesson here – vote for the candidate Sarah Palin supports. In this case, Sarah Steelman. I doubt Steelman would have said something as idiotic as that rape can’t result in pregnancy. Because really, who else could be that dumb?
People keep saying that Akin misspoke. Oh, so he accidentally said that rape doesn’t result in pregnancy?! If Akin doesn’t get out of the race we’ll be stuck with six more years of that disgrace McCaskill.
3 likes
Akin is finished. The money pulled out this morning.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-mcconnell-suggests-todd-akin-consider-his-options-20120820,0,5243455.story
Meanwhile, I’m finding Jill’s lame defense of this moron very entertaining.
4 likes
Men and women NEVER lie about illicit sex, especially politicians and preachers/priests.
[Slick Willy, shaking his boney finger in our collective faces and adamantly swearing he never had sex with THAT WOMAN, ms Lewinsky.
Paula Jones and Juanita Broddrick were lying, but Anita Hill was not.
John Edwards did not sire missy hunters love child.
Strippers never lie about being raped.
Senators never lie about propositioning under cover police offers in airport men’s rooms.
Barny Frank did not have an inkling that his live in boyfriend was operating a homosexual prostitution ring out Frank’s D.C apartment.]
I am reminded of a conversation with a Vancouver, British Columbia police officer who told of a motorcycle momma who had just had just ‘pulled the train’ with the whole biker gang [read that consensual sex] but wanted to file rape charges against just one gang member.
When they asked her to explain her grievance against this one guy, she said he had not shaved first and she got a beard burn.
As surely as rape occurs, women/men lie about being raped, but a thorough investigation usually reveals who is telling the truth and who is not.
3 likes
Only time I’ll ever agree with mp. We don’t need to support imbeciles just because they’re pro-life. It goes without saying that just about anyone would be better than Obama, but let’s not pretend that Akin is a great guy just because Obama is worse. If he doesn’t drop out conservatives and prolifers should still vote for him, but they really shouldn’t be too happy about it.
6 likes
Here’s an idea: suck it up and have the rapists’ babies may not work. What will?
Preventing the pregnancy. Try to ensure a morning after pill or something similar is developed that ONLY prevents the pregnancy.
1 likes
If he doesn’t drop out conservatives and prolifers should still vote for him, but they really shouldn’t be too happy about it.
That is ideological bankruptcy.
Perhaps you and Rasqual should get together and talk about supporting guys who make physical love to dead weasels.
4 likes
Here is a reaction worth a read, from xojane by a woman who got pregnant from rape: http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/dear-representative-todd-akin-i-got-pregnant-from-rape
4 likes
I abhor rape. In this highly emotional discourse a person has to make his or her feelings on the subject known from the start. I do not pretend to know exactly what the candidate said on the subject but neither do I understand just about everything Joe Biden says either.
Perhaps we should consult Planned Parenthood on what their definition of a “legitimate” rape is. It seems they have been exposed as covering up hundreds of statutory rapes by counseling underage girls not to give details about the conception. Apparently they don’t see statutory rape as a “legitimate” rape.
Our trolls who huff and puff indignant on this site ought to try explaining why Planned Parenthood executives are not already in jail for allowing this to go on in their clinics.
But, having said all of this we have the question: What is “rape”? As a child of the 1960’s we heard the radical feminists say that “all sex is rape”. Is this a satisfactory definition of “legitimate” ”rape”? Is the “all sex is rape nonsense” legit in a court of law? Of course not…but it is out there nonetheless.
Have there been false allegations of rape in the past? Yes there have been and everyone with a brain cell knows it. Would a proven liar about a rape be considered to have been a victim of “legitimate” rape or was it not a “legitimate” rape?
If abortion was outlawed completely except for the life of the mother and rape exceptions, would we suddenly see a huge spike in rape accusations in order for the mother to qualify for the abortion? Would a convenience “rape” charge be a “legitimate” rape or something contrived by the person looking to game the system into allowing the abortion?
Just asking.
5 likes
In case you missed it, Rasqual wrote:
What you may not remember is that my election philosophy this year is a more radical one than in 2008. Then, it was “anyone but Obama — even if they have daily sex with dead weasels.” This year, I’ve extended that to include stoats and ferrets. I draw the line with possums, but what the hell.
Enjoy the dead weasels.
2 likes
“Actually Jack – when I watched the video of Akins speaking, that’s what immediately came to mind. Why would I think such a thing? Because false accusations of rape happen quite frequently. How about that Duke lacrosse team case – where the whore claimed she was raped, but all the charges were completely false. ”
I’m sorry, this is just gross. False reporting of rape mirrors false reporting of other crimes. The FBI puts it at 8% (unfounded accusations, not meaning proven false just not able to find enough evidence for grand jury). If your first thought when entering a discussion about rape is “whores that lie about it” than I don’t know what to say.
16 likes
mp, it’s called the lesser of two evils. Or the lesser of two weasels if you prefer. And Obama is a great big stinking weasel.
6 likes
I think the reaction to this comment is a little over-the-top. He definitely should not resign over this comment. Who really thinks this guy is pro-rape? And being “pro-rape” is the most offensive way to interpret his comment about “legitimate” rape. His other comment about the female victim body having natural defense mechanisms that usually prevent pregnancy is at best a mischaracterization of the trauma of miscarriages, and at worst, a case of being misinformed. Chris was right - this is faux outrage – by the social leftists/progressives in the Democrats and in the GOP.
2 likes
Thanks Jack – you took the context of what I was writing and completely and quite intentionally twisted it.
I was referring to what I heard directly from Akin in the video when he said “legitimate rape”. He made a malapropism and had intended to discuss authenticity. After that point I believe he melted down. To turn and say my first thought when I hear about a rape is about whores which lie about it is absolutely bogus. That’s a thought that’s in your head – not mine. You took a very specific wording regarding the Duke case out of context and viscously misapplied it to all rapes. Don’t put your vile words in my mouth.
Apparently when others provides serious discussion you still don’t know what to say.
You’re better off not saying anything at all.
3 likes
The guy in the President’s office blatantly advocates for and supports the killing of unborn children so we should be calling for him and all pro-choice politicians to step down and not Mr. Akin who doesn’t support killing anyone. Mr. Akin’s malapropism is just that – a malapropism.
5 likes
“Chris was right - this is faux outrage – by the social leftists/progressives in the Democrats and in the GOP. ”
I’m not outraged. I just think Akin is a huge liability due to his stupidity. He said something very, very, VERY stupid that will almost certainly plague the GOP for months.
5 likes
John, this issue is over tomorrow.
The real issue is Obama’s position on abortion – that issue might have legs.
3 likes
Sorry, Chris. I really need to stop firing off posts when I am in a bad mood, I tend to lose all rationality.
Listen, the issue is that he made a ridiculous comment that unfortunately mirrors a lot of public sentiment towards rape victims, that they are the ones on trial, that there is a specific set of them who are “real” victims and the rest are basically responsible for what happened or are lying about it. That’s why he is setting this type of reaction off, at best what he said is incredibly insensitive, and at worst it’s an endorsement of victim blaming. That’s not a manufactured outrage, it’s a real issue that sexual assault awareness and advocacy groups have to fight against. You want to turn this into a progressives versus conservatives thing, it’s not. It’s misconceptions about rape and public attitudes about it being expressed by a politician. It’s not like we as pro-lifers don’t have a hard time convincing people that babies conceived in rape deserve life too, without our politician displaying the ignorance and nasty attitude in this so-called malapropism.
14 likes
John, how can Mr. Akin’s comment plague the GOP for months?
The underlying issue of abortion will have to be discussed sooner or later, which the progressives know is a loser issue for them.
0 likes
Tyler, we had a Senator tapping his feet in the men’s room and that plagued the GOP for months. This guy Akin said something that feeds into the left wing mantra that Republicans hate women. He’s toxic.
4 likes
Jack, I think you went a little too far in ascribing ignorance and a “nasty attitude” to Mr. Akin. It doesn’t sound like Mr. Akin has a nasty attitude toward rape victims or misconceptions about the horror and pain of rape. I don’t think he was intentionally trying to re-harm victims of rape. Mr. Akin was answering a question about whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, he was not discussing the issue rape devoid of any context.
3 likes
John, I completely disagree. I don’t think he is toxic at all. If anything this is an opportunity for the GOP to bring up the subject of abortion and to highlight the current administration’s revolting position on the subject.
1 likes
@ Jerry: I believe that if abortion were outlawed but exceptions were made for rape, incest, and the life of the pregnant female, it WOULD trigger a lot of false rape reports, as well as women falsely claiming incestuous relationships. Some of the more creative might try to fake physical illnesses that would put them in peril if they carried to term.
The truth is that some pregnancies are just experienced as completely unacceptable and pregnant females will go to great lengths to end them immediately.
1 likes
mp: Do you imagine that your reifying a trope (“sex with dead weasels”) somehow constitutes a rhetorical coup?
mp, it just makes you look exceedingly stupid. Incapable of dealing with abstractions and proxy phrases that signify beyond their naive referents, you dabble like a child in sophomoric twaddle.
Good. Grief.
This place used to have good trolls. What the hell happened to ’em all? Is this all we have left? How does that reflect on us, people?
4 likes
If Akin’s quitting, that’s fine by me. There’s a price to be paid for lexical ignorance — and substantive ignorance on something you’re opining about — when you’re trafficking among folks who’re looking for blood in the water.
When the stakes are higher, the margins are slimmer. That’s just life.
6 likes
“a price to be paid for lexical ignorance” – seriously, should he be told to read the dictionary for a month! Rasqual, pray tell, what exactly is the appropriate penalty for lexical ignorance?
Aren’t you focusing on Mr. Akin too much and not focusing enough on the interviewer who was a willing participant in chumming the waters? The whole rape issue is a red herring when it is brought up in a discussion about abortion.
2 likes
How does that reflect on us, people?
Ideologically bankrupt.
4 likes
mp, it’s called the lesser of two evils. Or the lesser of two weasels if you prefer. And Obama is a great big stinking weasel.
If you choose to run with evil, lesser or not, that’s clearly your business.
It’s still ideological bankruptcy.
2 likes
“If you choose to run with evil, lesser or not, that’s clearly your business.”
I suppose it would be better to let the greater evil win but maintain our own purity. Is that what you suggest mp?
3 likes
Yeah, instead of voting for the best choice, I could just NOT vote at all and spend all day trolling message boards.
3 likes
I suppose it would be better to let the greater evil win but maintain our own purity. Is that what you suggest mp?
You could have developed your own candidates. You’ve had almost 40 years in which to do it.
1 likes
Yeah, instead of voting for the best choice, I could just NOT vote at all and spend all day trolling message boards.
Best choice? Best choice? Here’s what you really said:
Yeah, instead of voting for the least repugnant choice, I could just NOT vote at all and spend all day trolling message boards.
1 likes
Before I catch up on a couple dozen comments, I think I see what happened with Akin. We often have a tendency to add an unnecessary, redundant word (like I just did).
In a recent comment I think I fell into the trap of using an unnecessary “actually”. Worse is when we say “literally”. After hearing plenty of reports of Akin’s blunder, if you check out the tape he clearly was searching for the word “actual” instead of “legitimate”.
I don’t think he was trying to broach the subject of “fake” or “illegitimate” rapes. He was trying to describe the false notion that rapes kick in a “safeguard” to conception.
Stupid. A moronic misinterpretation of whatever he was told by these doctors. He didn’t mean what he said. But it was a political career killer and he’s got to go.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gop-senate-nominee-victims-of-legitimate-rape-rarely-get-pregnant/
1 likes
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, buddy.
It sure didn’t take you long to make “the lesser of two evils” the best choice.
1 likes
My final comments on the whole Akin – abortion matter: Akin’s meltdown on such a substantive issue means he’s not ready for primetime and should withdraw, but even further it simply highlights that sexuality/deviancy/male dominance issues need to be solidified and addressed comprehensively by conservatives.
Rape in any form is wrong. Progressives profit and push rape/victimization in all forms, including sex trafficking. I would have more respect for progressives if I thought they were consistent in their compassion, and not morally deficient when it comes to their ideology. A rape victim who is pushed towards abortion is victimized over and over again, once by the rapist, again by the abortionist, and then by all the politicians who defend abortion and promote sexual deviancy by covering up the crimes and supporting predatory practices. Judicial bypasses, lax laws, transporting children out of state for abortions, turning heads from abusive predators all are hallmarks of the progressives/liberals, and organizations like Planned Parenthood.
All Republican candidates really need a Life Training Institute session and Center for Bio-Ethical Reform briefing. I’d love to see all national level candidates get a comprehensive, same sheet of music type perspective that gave a clear-cut analysis and response to this issue.
The propaganda press will be setting traps out there and candidates need to be very savvy in turning the tables and questions back on the press.
5 likes
Under certain circumstances, yes.
And yet I mentioned an instance where it was not wrong to kill innocent human beings.
At what point in time did the mother consent to have her womb used by the baby? It is clearly inconsistent to say that it was okay to kill a bunch of unborn babies (along with their mothers) merely because other people from their land shot up a bunch of buildings and ships, while it is not okay for a woman to kill to defend her own body from an actual intruder.
And what about those people who actually shot up those buildings and ships? They did not make the decision to attack; were just following orders. Why was it okay to kill them at the time for merely following orders?
0 likes
I don’t think there are enough blankets in this world to keep all of the Linus van Pelt-type people feeling secure…
Mr. Akin must have done something else wrong for this many conservatives (?) to throw him under the bus. I have to say the lack of support being shown to Mr. Akin is truly off-putting – not a very admirable quality. How can a person feel good about going to go war with someone (or for the GOP) if they will turn on you for something like this.
1 likes
Meanwhile, I’m finding Jill’s lame defense of this moron very entertaining.
yes indeed! What a riot watching the fine folks on this blog fight over this completely moronic statement from one of “their” own. Akin simply articulated what most of you think but are afraid to say, and now you have to defend it or fake outrage. Either way your credibility is shot!
3 likes
Haha, wonderful statement from Jake, that well known defender of logic and sexual assault victims! You just made my day, buddy.
7 likes
And yet I mentioned an instance where it was not wrong to kill innocent human beings.
It’s prima facie wrong to kill innocent human beings. That means that although there may be exceptions (legitimate self-defence for example), the burden of proof lies on the side that supports taking a human life (not the other way around). So the question that must be answered is not, “Why should [the woman] put up with that child for nine months?”, but “Why should the child be forced to pay with his/her life?”.
At what point in time did the mother consent to have her womb used by the baby? It is clearly inconsistent to say that it was okay to kill a bunch of unborn babies (along with their mothers) merely because other people from their land shot up a bunch of buildings and ships, while it is not okay for a woman to kill to defend her own body from an actual intruder.
You seem to be banking on the assumption that pregnancy is the type of bodily interaction that a woman must consent to (much like sexual intercourse). This is how political philosopher Eileen McDonagh argues. Pregnancy without consent can therefore be considered a violent assault on the woman’s body by the fetus, and abortion is legitimate self-defence.
Have I accurately described your position? I need to know where you’re coming from. If this is your reasoning, we can examine these assumptions and see how well they hold.
I’m not sure how you can assume ahead of time that the use of nuclear weapons in World War II was morally permissible. Those bombings (along with war in general, to a lesser extent), were and are extremely controversial. You can’t just appeal to one tendentious ethical debate to resolve another. This is called begging the question.
Secondly, the main justification for using the atomic bomb was to end a bloody war (preventing millions of additional needless deaths). This is not at all similar to abortion (which does not prevent a needless death). Finally, even if pro-lifers are inconsistent to oppose abortion while supporting the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it does not necessarily follow that abortion is justified. It only means that pro-lifers are inconsistent (and therefore both forms of killing ought to be rejected).
To quote Scott Klusendorf, “Even if pro-lifers are the worst people in the world, others must still refute their arguments. Anything less is intellectually dishonest”.
7 likes
Ex-GOP wrote (first comment on this thread): “Sometimes I forget that this site cares less about the truth and more about helping right wing politicians.”
Actually, it seems to me that Ex-GOP cares very little about truth and very much about left-wing politics. And what does he think about the following story about President Obama’s brother? Either it’s a lie, or President Obama is again a good politician, a good liar, and a bad brother’s keeper.
Dreams from My Father, Calls from My Brother
by Mark Steyn
August 18, 2012
A few months ago, on the Hugh Hewitt show, I was asked to respond to President Obama’s remarks to the National Prayer Breakfast, at which he said that he believed in “living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper.” And I reprised a bit from my book, After America (out next month in paperback!):
Dinesh D’Souza met Barack’s brother, George Obama, earlier this year for his new documentary. A couple of days ago he got a call from him:
In fact, as D’Souza points out, George’s actual brother is “a multimillionaire and the most powerful man in the world” who talks repeatedly about our obligation to be our brother’s keeper:
Roger Kimball adds:
As Roger says, abstractions are what matter for contemporary liberalism: Slap a “Celebrate Diversity” sticker on your bumper, and you’ll barely notice you live in an upscale white enclave and send your kids to a school where the only diversity in view is the janitor. But the gulf between Obama’s life and self-mythologizing goes beyond that. He was happy to exploit his exotic Kenyan family as part of his remarkably canny self-promotion, yet in the end the compostie characters with invented narratives are far more real to him than a non-composite brother with an actual sick kid. Because the composites know their place – bit-players in The Barack Obama Story.
Obama’s “fundamental belief” is that “I am my brother’s keeper”. Instead, Obama’s brother’s keeper is “one of the biggest right-wing douchebags of our nation today”. As John Hinderaker says, if Mitt Romney’s nephew needed an operation and Rachel Maddow had to pay for it, this might be a story.
6 likes
Jill wrote, “Obama’s support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide could not be clearer.”
President Obama organizes communities by promoting the killing of unwanted children. He believes in Planned Parenthood.
4 likes
Jake wrote, “Akin simply articulated what most of you think but are afraid to say..”
And what is that? Please articulate. As for me, I believe that rape is as evil and violent as abortion.
3 likes
“Akin simply articulated what most of you think but are afraid to say”
Is that so? I don’t recall anyone here ever saying that women have some kind of magic power to not get pregnant when they are raped. Oh wait it’s only when it’s a “legitimate” rape, right? And you think we believe that? I guess this goes along with us all being closet racists, because Obama is such a god among men that nobody could possibly dislike him for any “legitimate” reason.
One of the reasons why I will never vote Democrat again for as long as I live is that the Dems seem to be hell-bent on causing a second Civil War by making the MOST HATEFUL unfounded accusations against their political rivals that they can possibly come up with. I mean really, how on Earth are we to reconcile with people who accuse of us of being anti-abortion because we love mindless war and destruction and need to make sure there are more human lives to waste as cannon fodder in more pointless wars? Has there EVER been a more reprehensible political talking point?!
4 likes
Jake: “Akin simply articulated what most of you think but are afraid to say, and now you have to defend it or fake outrage. Either way your credibility is shot!”
LOL
Right. Everyone here, their credibility is shot because Jake is gratuitously contriving cunning little false dilemmas from the deep reservoir of sage insight that is his wee brain.
Some trolls are just a great cup of morning coffee to start the day with a smile. :-)
7 likes
mp says: August 20, 2012 at 7:01 pm “Perhaps you and Rasqual should get together and talk about supporting guys who make physical love to dead weasels.”
mp,
You have exceeded all our expectations for ‘stupid’.
How do you connect sex with dead animals and a politician suggesting that not all claims of rape are true?
Please provide us with a syllogism to demonstrate how you got from a to b to c.
Minnesota State democRAT leaders are increasing pressure on a DFL legislator Kerry Gauthier not to seek re-election after authorities said he had a sexual encounter with a 17-year-old boy at a rest stop in Duluth
http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/166834176.html?refer=y
Minn. democRAT Rep. Kerry Gauthier caught with zipper down… literally. Admits to having ‘no strings attached’ sex with 17-year-old boy at rest stop, police say
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/minn-rep-kerry-gauthier-caught-zipper-literally-admits-strings-attached-sex-17-year-old-boy-rest-stop-article-1.1140833#ixzz24BYzFscp
Well at least Gauthier did not admit to having sex with a dead weasel.
1 likes
Hans Johnson says: August 20, 2012 at 10:21 pm “But it was a political career killer and he’s [Akin] got to go.”
If saying something stupid/stupidly is political career killer, then how do you explain Joe Biden still being only one heart beat away from the oval office.
6 likes
Obviously the candidate is lacking knowledge of the current critical social issues. Sounds like he never left his Frat House.
2 likes
John: “One of the reasons why I will never vote Democrat again for as long as I live is that the Dems seem to be hell-bent on causing a second Civil War by making the MOST HATEFUL unfounded accusations against their political rivals that they can possibly come up with”
This is getting scary. I could write the exact same thing about why I would never vote for a Republican. Infanticide? Really? We are truly getting polarized as a nation. I blame Bush. :)
1 likes
He compromised his position, as Alan Grayson did in 2010 and Tim Mahoney did in 2008.
0 likes
“Well at least Gauthier did not admit to having sex with a dead weasel.”
But the 17 year old boy may have.
0 likes
I’ve been shamed into backtracking from my call for Akin to go. First, by Jill’s apt comparison with Obama in the post, by commenters like Tyler and Ken, and by radio host Mike Gallagher this morning.
The other side circles the wagons while we circle a firing squad. I’m convinced this was an example of the word “misspoke” or the phrase “poor choice of words”. He wasn’t going off on a tangent proposing it was a 50 /50 chance that a rape truly happened. He shoehorned a superfluous word in where it didn’t belong. If he said “actual”, “literal”, or “really real” rape we might have seen that.
Others will support a senator who abandons a woman underwater while he swims a mile to his hotel room, sleeps, and calls his lawyer before the authorities. They’ll vote for a mayor caught in a sting with prostitutes and cocaine, or a president who propositions, gropes, and possibly rapes.
But for this stumble we’ll throw Akin under the bus. He’ll need a better explanation than “I know the sky is blue.” But it’s too late to abandon him.
4 likes
Rape causes stress, and it has been stated that stress reduces fertility.
It is not a defense mechanism, but rather a side effect.
1 likes
Hans,
My ‘shaming wand’ never left it’s holster.
I only asked a question to highlight the double standard.
4 likes
A democRAT politician publicy admits to engaging in oral sex with a 17 year old boy and his liberal brethren are trying to persuade him not to run for re-election.
A conservative mispeaks and probably makes an error in fact and his colleagues are measuring his neck for a noose.
Let the NOW sows and thier emaculated cuckolds wail and moan and nash their teeth like an old wash woman witht her teat caught in the wringer.
Nobody witlh a lick of sense should give these nattering nabobs a second thought except to laugh in derision at their crocodile tears.
Where were they when Sarah Palin and her daughter were being subjected to some of the mose vile misogynist insults in recent memory.
If McCaskill were not vulnerable, then this story would only have made the local news.
2 likes
It’s nice to see some people making sense over here. Akin is a fool. To the rest of you, keep digging that hole. You’re almost there.
2 likes
Folks, you don’t understand. When you’re a Democrat it’s different because you have the media on your side. When Republicans make a mistake of this magnitude they need to go. CNN is already trying to conflate the basic prolife position with Akin’s lunacy. They’re trying to make fools of the prolife movement and make us all out to be crazy anti-woman terrorists. This Akin thing is NEVER going to go away. It’s a thousand times worse than Dan Quayle and his “potatoe”.
2 likes
“Infanticide? Really?”
In order for a GOP attack to match a Dem attack, it would be necessary to say far more than that Obama supports infanticide. I’m not saying that he does support infanticide, though he did vote for it. We know he’s not very bright, though, so maybe he didn’t know what he was doing.
Anyway, to match a Dem attack, the GOP would have to say something like this: Obama supports infanticide because he wants to make sure he kills as many black babies as possible since he hates all people who are 100% black. Also he wants to kill black babies because he believes he is sacrificing them to his master, Satan.
THAT would be the equivalent of a typical Democratic Party attack on the GOP.
3 likes
Folks, you don’t understand. When you’re a Democrat it’s different because you have the media on your side. When Republicans make a mistake of this magnitude they need to go. CNN is already trying to conflate the basic prolife position with Akin’s lunacy. They’re trying to make fools of the prolife movement and make us all out to be crazy anti-woman terrorists. This Akin thing is NEVER going to go away. It’s a thousand times worse than Dan Quayle and his “potatoe”.
Well, what do you expect when “pro-lifers” say things like this:
Yeah, instead of voting for the best choice, I could just NOT vote at all and spend all day trolling message boards.
and this:
I’ve been shamed into backtracking from my call for Akin to go. First, by Jill’s apt comparison with Obama in the post, by commenters like Tyler and Ken, and by radio host Mike Gallagher this morning.
Ideological bankruptcy. The “media” is going to hoist you folks with your own petards.
Lesser of two evils, remember? You folks are going secular now, and it’s going to cost you in a variety of ways, so put away your bibles. They’re not going to help.
3 likes
Anyway, to match a Dem attack, the GOP would have to say something like this: Obama supports infanticide because he wants to make sure he kills as many black babies as possible since he hates all people who are 100% black. Also he wants to kill black babies because he believes he is sacrificing them to his master, Satan.
THAT would be the equivalent of a typical Democratic Party attack on the GOP.
You’re an idiot. Sorry, you just are.
This isn’t an ad hominem attack; you’re an idiot. And you need psychiatric help.
4 likes
Also he wants to kill black babies because he believes he is sacrificing them to his master, Satan.
There’s no intelligent life here. I’m gone. So, by all means, congratulate yourselves on having “driven out” the “troll.”
2 likes
mp,
If you are being honest about leaving, then your absence will raise the average IQ significantly.
Don’t let the door knob bruise your seat of knowledge on your way out.
Before you go:
Did you attend the same mail order diploma mill as psyChotiC?
Did you minor in womens’s studies or is it just something you dabble in when you have some spare time on your hands?
Did you actually qualify for admission on the basis of merit or were you the beneficiary of some sort of affirmative action program?
If neither of those fields of endeavor are lucrative enough to pay the overhead, I suggest you go into the priestesshood. Consulting tea lives and chicken entrails would be right up your alley.
Serious thinking just isn’t your strong suit.
Would you take ChattyCathy with you when you go. The two of you will make a dynamic duo.
Don’t call us…..and we certainly shan’t call you.
3 likes
A small taste of what the Dems constantly do to the GOP resulted in a rage-quit from mp. I think that proves my argument about out how the Dems are trying to cause another Civil War. QED.
5 likes
Hal wants to blame Bush…I presume this is tongue in cheek.
I am glad Akin decided to stay on. We eventually have to get over having a knee jerk reaction to every highly charged selective report that comes to us from the MSM…as if they of all people have anything but a liberal agenda as their primary motive in reporting ”news”.
Akin, unlike former President Bill Clinton who had very real and believable character flaws and allegations of rape and forcible sexual advances against women, is a fundamentally very decent man who made a verbal gaffe. Akin will be a fine senator, and even as the campaign season unfolds we will witness the specter of a man accused of rape honored at the Democrat Party Convention by giving the keynote address for the party of abortion and sodomy.
5 likes
John,
Wow! That’s all it took? Hold up a mirror to a troll and they scatter! Just like holding a magnifying glass at the right angle to burn an ant. I’ve never done that, but troll-chasing seems fun. I’ll have to study your comments to better focus the Light!
6 likes
Violent Rape victims rarely conceive because….unlike a consensual sex act, the womans body is not aroused and so does not generate the viscous fluids in the mucus membranes that allow for full natural penetration and lubrication of the path up through the vagina and into the fallopian tubes. There are other less provable thoughts on the matter as wel,l having to do with the womans body, however, they cannot be tested, observed or studied easily.
Having said that…. I do NOT believe there is any chance AT ALL of Roe vs Wade to be overturned NO MATTER WHO GETS ELECTED! As much as I do not like abortion, and as much as I wish it was not a common practice, I am pretty sure you will never see the lid put back on pandora’s box. If you ban all abortions except in the case of rape…guess what will happen. You will see the largest jump in ‘reported” rapes you have ever seen.
Lastly, Men, I respect you and your rights to your opinions, however, a man will aways be crucified when he expresses an opinion about pregnancy, birth and babies, regardless of what his opinion is. You just will not be taken seriously. You will always look like you have selfish ulterior motives to women. So please sit down and be quiet on this issue and let those of us with the equipment try to fix this. You are not helping either side when you eat your shoes!
1 likes
“a man will aways be crucified when he expresses an opinion about pregnancy, birth and babies, regardless of what his opinion is.”
This points to more of a problem with society and their ability to think clearly than it does to the prudential decisions of males. For simply ignoring someone’s opinion on an issue because that person is of a particular gender is an ad hominem, unless the person is claiming to be sharing experiences that he/she could not have possibly have had (such as a man talking about what it feels like to be pregnant). No, in our “abortion is an a priori good and we will leech onto whatever kind of ‘argument’ seems to work” world, many pro-choicers are delighted to blow off someone’s argument because they are a man, didn’t use the proper term, misspelled a word, once served jail time, whatever it takes to deviate from the real issue at hand. The problem is not with men speaking up; rather, it is with the starting ground assumption that abortion is morally permissible and the aversion to engage in any kind of reasoned debate about it.
3 likes
Having said that…. I do NOT believe there is any chance AT ALL of Roe vs Wade to be overturned NO MATTER WHO GETS ELECTED!
Why not? At least two of the justices on the court are already anti-Roe. That number could increase to five very soon if the right people get elected.
As much as I do not like abortion, and as much as I wish it was not a common practice, I am pretty sure you will never see the lid put back on pandora’s box.
Once again, why not? The same was once said about slavery.
If you ban all abortions except in the case of rape…guess what will happen. You will see the largest jump in ‘reported” rapes you have ever seen.
Sounds like all the more reason not to make exceptions for rape.
3 likes
Similar logic was used to oppose the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws.
0 likes
What is your point? I never said that false reporting is the only problem with rape exceptions.
1 likes
People who opposed the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws objected for many reasons, including the prediction that it would increase the number of reported burglaries and assaults.
Have you ever wondered why rape is traumatic? There must be an evolutionary purpose for such an emotional reaction. and there is. The psychological and emotional trauma of rape is due to the evolutionary significance of female mate choice. Because females must make a significant contribution to their offspring, such as carrying them inside their bodies for nine months, they seek to choose mates that will provide them with the healthiest offspring, and be able to provide for their offspring. The reaction to rape is a negative reinforcement. See Why Men Rape.
Abortion in reaction to rape is a defense mechanism
to reassert control over one’s choice of a mate. To ban abortion in cases of rape is to abandon tens of thousands of years of human evolution, to abandon the purpose of the psychological and emotional trauma caused by rape. It can even destroy marriages. To say that abortion is wrong is to give the rapist the ultimate victory. Even if the rapist is put to death, he still wins because he forced someone to have his child, and possibnly forced another man to care for his child.
(I do understand that intimate partner rape complicates matters. But this matter is simple when it comes to rape by strangers.)
Another reason to allow abortion is that abortion is the only way for some women to follow their moral beliefs. Some women believe that race mixing is wrong. We are free to disagree. And yet we should not force women to engage in race mixing, any more than the government had no moral authority to forbid it.
Imagine a 15-year-old girl who believes that race mixing is morally wrong. She is raped and becomes pregnant. she would view the baby inside her as an alien monstrosity. She was robbed of her choice of mate, and now has a mixed race baby growing inside her. She would be deeply traumatized, a trauma developed as a defense against rape and of female choice.
Would you want to force her to give birth?
0 likes
“To ban abortion in cases of rape is to abandon tens of thousands of years of human evolution”
This is one of the most bizarre claims I have ever heard. To NOT have an abortion is to NOT take an action and NOT interfere with the natural function of the body? How does this go against evolution? What action are you taking by not letting the woman have an abortion that undermines evolution? To act against something means you must somehow thwart it. By not taking action, what evolutionary function are you thwarting? I guess you’re trying to say that a natural evolutionary response would be to self abort or have someone abort you, but how in the world did all those people who were self-aborting survive via natural selection? We constantly hear that women who self abort end up dying. How did natural selection favor them? This whole view of morality is simply muddleheaded (and further proof, BTW, of my conjecture that Evolution, whether it be true or not, is a religion). Furthermore, if we take an “evolution determines the good” POV, to tear a fetus out of a woman’s womb which is also to abandon tens of thousands of years of evolution. The womb evolved precisely for the purpose of nurturing a fetus, so it is difficult to see how an abortion would not be going against evolution.
“It can even destroy marriages.”
Suppose the only way to save my marriage is by killing my three year old. Is this a compelling reason to kill my three year old? No? Why? Oh, because my three year is a person and we don’t kill people. Ah, so that is the question. Is the fetus a person?
“To say that abortion is wrong is to give the rapist the ultimate victory. Even if the rapist is put to death, he still wins because he forced someone to have his child, and possibnly forced another man to care for his child.”
But killing the fetus causes the rapist to lose, I suppose? So our ultimate goal in this whole question is to ensure that the rapist loses. That is the highest good in this situation and the only way this can happen is not by killing the rapist (because he wins in that case) but by killing the fetus.
“Another reason to allow abortion is that abortion is the only way for some women to follow their moral beliefs. Some women believe that race mixing is wrong. We are free to disagree. And yet we should not force women to engage in race mixing, any more than the government had no moral authority to forbid it.”
Suppose a “loose” woman has sex with multiple partners. She becomes pregnant and is certain that the father is a white guy. Turns out, after she has the child, that the father was that random black guy she slept with at that party when it was really dark and she never even saw him. Can she then kill her baby who was born 2 minutes ago?
In fact, this strange line of argument can be used to prove anything. We need to allow infanticide, nay, killing a child at any age so that a woman can follow her beliefs. Suppose a woman never wants to have a child who is 10 years old. The day before her 9 year old turns 10, she needs to be allowed to kill him. This is the only way for her to follow her moral beliefs that 10 year olds should not exist. Thus, giving him up for adoption or foster care will not do. He needs to be dead.
“Imagine a 15-year-old girl who believes that race mixing is morally wrong. She is raped and becomes pregnant. she would view the baby inside her as an alien monstrosity. She was robbed of her choice of mate, and now has a mixed race baby growing inside her. She would be deeply traumatized, a trauma developed as a defense against rape and of female choice.
Would you want to force her to give birth?”
No one should be allowed to directly and willfully kill an innocent human being as a means or as an ends. I very much sympathize with her situation and her trauma (though not her racism), but the alternative is killing a human person… or do you not believe the fetus is a person? Again, that is the real issue. All this other talk about trauma, emotion, hardships, etc. while very serious, never justify killing someone.
3 likes
It would not go against evolution is the baby inside her was fathered by someone she did not choose as a mate. The womb evolved to nurture fetuses conceived by the mate chosen by the female.
The “doubt a rape sows about paternity can lead a long-term mate to withdraw his support”. That is how it can destroy marriage.
I value marriage. And one of the purposes of marriage is to protect paternity. Rape can undermine that.
0 likes
“It would not go against evolution is the baby inside her was fathered by someone she did not choose as a mate. The womb evolved to nurture fetuses conceived by the mate chosen by the female.”
So the female womb does not nurture fetuses that are not chosen by the female? This is simply not the case, as many fetuses who have been conceived in rape are carried to term. The womb doesn’t somehow know that the father was a rapist and then reject it. In fact, if this proves anything, it proves too much. For then in order to not go against evolution, we would HAVE to abort all fetuses conceived in rape, even if the woman wanted to carry the fetus. So this “morality is determined by evolution” paradigm simply does not hold.
“The “doubt a rape sows about paternity can lead a long-term mate to withdraw his support”. That is how it can destroy marriage.”
I never claimed it can’t destroy marriage. I claim that the fact that you can save a marriage does not justify killing someone.
“I value marriage. And one of the purposes of marriage is to protect paternity. Rape can undermine that.”
I agree. But killing someone neither undermines that, nor improves the situation. All it leaves one with is both rape and a dead child.
2 likes
The purpose of that paper was to discuss the evolutionary explanation for rape (that is, to explain why men have evolved to rape women).
So it would seem that if it’s wrong to oppose abortion in cases of rape precisely because that would mean going against evolution, then it would be equally wrong to oppose the act of rape itself (as it has an evolutionary purpose).
1 likes
Come now, Navi, don’t start poking holes in the great “science” of evolutionary psychology…
1 likes
The “doubt a rape sows about paternity can lead a long-term mate to withdraw his support”. That is how it can destroy marriage.
Shoes Thrower, would you say that a marriage in which there was “doubt” about paternity, that could only be assuaged by killing a child, is a marriage already self-destructing? If a marriage can only be saved by killing a human being, it SHOULD be destroyed.
I think that one could make a good case that marriage, legally speaking, has been more about establishing paternity than protecting it, but it’s been some time since I studied the matter. Still, any historical examples which suggest or demonstrate that the priority in a given time period or place was “protecting” paternity are no more essential to what marriage is than the convention that once held that a wife was the property of her husband. There are some interpretations of marriage that I am ok leaving to the history books. Ones that rely on owning or killing people top that list.
As far as the womb evolving to nurture fetuses specifically chosen by the mother – evolution does not take intent into account. There is no connection between what is biologically successful and what is morally right or wrong (unless you get into the very interesting topic of adaptive altruism). This is why we have laws; evolution is just a process, not a moral, legal, or ethical code. Furthermore, evolution deals with natural selection and processes, and no matter what pop evo-psych books say these days, rape is not a very good reproductive strategy. The work of Kim Hill is particularly interesting; he studied the Ache people in Paraguay, who live much as people did 100,000 years ago. Hill factored the “fitness points” earned or lost by rape in a hunter-gatherer tribe – including social ostracism (and thus a greater likelihood of starvation), punishment (and murder) by the woman’s family, and likelihood of conception (15% chance that she is ovulating, 7% chance that she will conceive, 90% chance that she will not miscarry, etc). Even assuming a 10% rate of women simply leaving a rapist’s child to die (because, of course, abortion was not really a factor in evolution since for most of evolutionary history, people didn’t have the capacity to perform abortions, so we will use the murder of a post-born baby in its place as it is essentially the same thing), the costs of raping exceeded the benefits by a factor of ten. Rape is not and never has been about increasing one’s evolutionary odds. It is a maladaptive trait and thus, speaking in evolutionary terms, is not about reproduction. Thus the rapist does not “win” if he gets a kid out of the deal. He “wins” if he rapes a woman and gets away with it. Which is where laws and ethics come in.
3 likes
Here is another reason to allow abortion in case of rape.
The Castle Doctrine goes against forcing pregnant rape victims to give birth.
Evolution goes against forcing pregnant rape victims to give birth.
Politics goes against forcing pregnant rape victims to give birth.
IO do not want to sacrifice votes to give rapists the right to force pregnant rape victims to have their children.
0 likes
“Here is another reason to allow abortion in case of rape.”
Was this a “popular opinion” reason? Does this even require a rebuttal?
“The Castle Doctrine goes against forcing pregnant rape victims to give birth.”
You’re going to have to explain carefully how the fetus is an intruder in the mother’s womb, and why it is NECESSARY to use deadly force against the fetus. It seems difficult to be able make the case that a fetus is in intruder in a place where it is supposed to be very the very nature of what it means to be a fetus.
“Evolution goes against forcing pregnant rape victims to give birth.”
We’ve established that this is a nonsensical criteria. You have not answered the charge that if this really does go against evolution, then every and all pregnancies that are a result of rape MUST be aborted if we are to maintain the morality as set forth by evolution (or however you would describe this novel moral theory).
“Politics goes against forcing pregnant rape victims to give birth.”
I’m not sure what this means, but I am sure I don’t care what politics does and does not go against. Again, the alternative to “forcing” a pregnant woman to give birth (in the same way by telling you that you can’t kill yourself I am “forcing” you to breathe) is to directly and willfully kill an innocent human being. You have not addressed this either. We can kill innocent human beings? Is that right? Or in your opinion is the fetus not a human/person, making all this other evolutionary psychology babble one giant red herring?
2 likes
Yes, it does, when popular opinion can cost votes, an election, and thus, political power.
Do we want to sacrifice votes? Or power?
The future of our nation is at stake. Obama may be in a position to appoint a majority of Supreme Court justices. We need every vote we can get against that, and taking this extremist position will cost us votes, as the poll proved. We can not risk Obama appointing a majority of Supreme Court justices just for a miniscule number of unborn babies (who might not even get killed anyway.)
0 likes
I”m sorry, perhaps I missed this, but I am not discussing whether or not or who we should vote for. I claim that it is always and everywhere intrinsically disordered to abort a human person in the womb, even one who was a result of rape and that the law should reflect this. I’m not making any claim about who or who not to vote for, nor do I know who people are saying to vote or not to vote for on this thread. I claim popular opinion does not matter in so far determining teh morality of abortion in the case of rape.
4 likes
The future of our nation is at stake. Obama may be in a position to appoint a majority of Supreme Court justices. We need every vote we can get against that, and taking this extremist position will cost us votes, as the poll proved. We can not risk Obama appointing a majority of Supreme Court justices just for a miniscule number of unborn babies (who might not even get killed anyway.)
There might be some merit to the opinion poll, though it likely says more about an awkward male politician all but claiming that rape victims can’t get pregnant than it does about a 100% pro-life candidate’s electability. The poll probably would have looked quite different had he properly understood and communicated his position.
But this is relevant only to the question of whether or not Akins should end his candidacy (an issue of pragmatism), not to whether or not banning abortion in cases of rape is a good public policy. There was a time in history when supporting a smoking ban would have been a sure way to lose an election. This does not imply that the ban itself is unsound.
3 likes
Shoes: “The womb evolved to nurture fetuses conceived by the mate chosen by the female.”
What? Please support this outrageously irrational remark from any reputable source laying some claim to authority on the matter.
Because there’s no way you can make the case rationally yourself.
Try.
5 likes
Anti-choice people shouldn’t think of the baby being born they also need to think about the future of the mother and what kind life she can give to the baby. If someone gets pregnant at 14 because of rape and/or incest should they keep the baby? What about their lives?
0 likes
Does hardship justify homicide?
2 likes
It depends on the nature of the hardship, and if the person suffering the hardship explicitly or implicitly consented to the hardship.
0 likes
“Anti-choice people”
The proper term is pro-life people.
“If someone gets pregnant at 14 because of rape and/or incest should they keep the baby?”
In a case such as that, it might be better to place the baby for adoption than to keep the baby. But I would of course leave that decision to the mother.
“What about their lives?”
What about the lives of those killed in abortion?
3 likes
Someone says:
August 25, 2012 at 10:12 am
Anti-choice people shouldn’t think of the baby being born they also need to think about the future of the mother and what kind life she can give to the baby. If someone gets pregnant at 14 because of rape and/or incest should they keep the baby? What about their lives?
(Denise) Having given birth, she has the right to place for adoption. One thing we might all work on is ensuring that “open” adoption really means something. I’ve read that the openness of adoption isn’t legally enforceable. The adoptive parents have all the legal rights and can close if they wish even if the birthmother wants to continue knowing what is going on in the child’s life. Making “open-ness” in adoption legally enforceable might help.
Any mother who raises a baby may well need various sorts of aid in the process.
1 likes