No exceptions on abortion, because “children are not a punishment”
I used to be one of those “with exceptions” kinda people. I thought not making exceptions for cases of rape was wrong, (because at the time, my argument was primarily the consequences aspect of a willful action) and that NOT allowing for those exceptions was working against us as Pro-Lifers.
But, the more I was backed into a corner by my opponents, the more I was forced to think about it, and the more thinking I did on my own. I realized that they were right – if abortion was wrong, then exceptions were wrong, because the argument I had been making was wrong. It wasn’t about natural consequences for an action. There was no “punishment” involved, because children are not a punishment. They’re simply children, and that fact alone is why NO abortion should be allowed (except in cases where both lives would be lost otherwise).
And, from what I can tell, my position and the Pro-Life movement as a whole, has only gotten stronger.
~ Commenter xalisae, remarking on Stanek Quote of the Day, “Paul Ryan’s abortion stance ‘consistent, not crazy,'” August 16
[Photo via thehappyhousewife.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Amen.
Thank you! Sometimes I read my writing and feel as though it must’ve been written by someone else, as I typically have all the eloquence of a 14 year old boy. Oh, the life of an idiot savant of poignancy and relevancy (although I fear even that characterization is far too generous)!
Yes – very logically consistent.
And if a pre-born baby = a full human being that deserves all rights, than anybody who actively kills that baby or participates should be eligible for murder charges – so the full logical step is that abortion should be outlawed without exception, and the woman and doctor (and anybody who drove the woman) should be eligible for punishment including life in prison or the death penalty.
So logically, a woman who gets brutally raped (legitimately or not as my friend Akin would say) and becomes pregnant, and then gets an abortion – she should then be put in prison for life or face the death penalty.
Correct? Where does the logic break down here?
There is a certain sense in which this position takes the side of the rapist (although that is not the intention, I am sure). It means men can use force to get their genetic material back into the system. Rape continues to be an effective way for men to sire offspring and ensure descendants.
How can you oppose all abortion and yet distance yourself from this? You can demand more and better prevention: encourage fertile girls and women to use contraceptives and demand the development of more effective contraceptives that work like the “morning after pill” but which don’t cause early abortions.
Yes, ex-GOP – just like a woman who kills her rapist or abuser is automatically put in prison for the rest of her life, skipping all semblance of a psychological screening, or a trial, or any namby-pamby nonsense like that.. After all, justice has no room for mercy.
Ex-RINO
And to have you come around and remove the facade blatantly in front of us…today…on MY Quote of the Day…I am absolutely HONORED, sir! Honored!!
You should know enough about me by now, Ex-RINO, to know that I pride myself on being a logical person. Compassionate? Not so much. So, you’re talking to one of the few Pro-Lifers around who won’t balk at being forced to extend my position to its logical end and ponder penalties for something which should (rightly) be a crime.
I’ve therefore given comments like yours a great deal of thought, and you will find it answered already among these numerous threads, at least a few times in various places. I know you’re a busy guy, what with the election less than 90(?) days away, so I will break it down for you here, simply:
As with any murder, the role one plays in it and circumstances incurred by them as a result must be considered. There are numerous circumstances considered in any given murder case which cause such a case to be tried with a range of charges from negligent homicide to first degree murder, and those circumstances may even grant a “Not Guilty” verdict when otherwise a conviction would occur (“by reason of insanity” comes to mind). So did someone assist in an unlawful killing by being the driver? Then yes, they would have some culpability, considering they would’ve been obligated to report the crime if it could be proven that they knew it was going to occur or had occurred. Did the mother have a padded wallet which made her homicidal endeavor a safe one for her part? Then she was certainly more culpable than say, a beaten housewife who felt at the end of her rope and scrabbled together the only $50 she could muster to put her own life in danger at the hands of a snake oil salesman on the kitchen table of a crack house somewhere. The former wouldn’t have experienced the threat to self (and obvious mentally unhealthy behavior) which is evident in someone who is self-injurious or even suicidal, as would be the case for the latter situation. Those would both be different charges, and of course both maintain the possibility for ultimately different verdicts. Now, the “trigger-man”, so-to-speak, the misguided doctor or greedy charlatan who actually does the deed (and quite possibly the woman herself, depending upon method) would bear the brunt of responsibility for the crime, and should be charged accordingly. If it is the woman herself, whether she engaged in a save method or one that put her life in imminent danger would be weighed in this regard, as well. Some could quite possibly (and rather ironically) get the death penalty. Some could perhaps end up doing no time at all, or only getting much-needed mental health assistance. It’s up to Lady Justice to decide.
So, your question begging is really no question at all, as my logic doesn’t break down, since I’ve actually used it in regards to my positions and convictions, and maintain it like a cherished and well-honed blade. I can see how the concept of consistent logic might be foreign to you, since you seem devoid of the substance, to say the least.
But once again, thank you for removing your Pro-Life mask here on my thread. Good day. ^_^
*save method = *safe method
Idiot savant, emphasis on the “idiot”!
X, rockin it as usual again!!
Xalisae’s dystopian “pro-life” vision for the US will enrich the coffers of Canadian and European doctors as American women, with money and means, will be able to just hop on a plane or, if Canada is the preferred venue, drive a car. (Where, one presumes, Xalisae and a crew of armed bikers will be performing pregnancy tests on each women attempting to make the crossing!). Meanwhile, cash strapped court systems, with already overburdened dockets, will be forced to handle abortion “crime,” while other real crimes are put on the back burner. But Xalisae’s comment about how it’s no big deal if women get the death penalty truly underscores the extraordinary cognitive dissonance of the pro-life movement which engages in wailing and gnashing of teeth about the “murder” of a “pro-born baby” whilst having absolutely no problem with women being put to death for abortion. Remind me what century we’re living in. But as we saw with the Inquisition, there are those who love to spill blood for the cause of what they feel is the greater good. This kind of zealotry is alive and well in the “pro-life” movement which, in attempting to criminalize all abortion, alienates it even farther from the mainstream.
But even in the best of circumstances; i.e. Roe is overturned, abortion will continue to be legal in the enlightened states which means more business for Planned Parenthood in those states from those who can afford to travel. Those that can’t will, I’m sure, just happily accept their lot in life because a baby cures all ills regardless of one’s health or personal economy. Right?
“The rich get rich and the poor get babies. Aint we got fun!”
Once again folks – votes and courts. Anything else is wishful thinking or some kind of psychotic delusion.
Go xalisae! :D
Tell me, CC, what was it like being raised in my “dystopian vision” Pre-Roe? How did you make it out alive without being forced to urinate on pregnancy test strips by roving Pro-Life Police Biker Gangs?
Seriously. CC gets the vapors over her own truth-induced hallucination, yet I am the one with the psychotic delusion.
Spare me.
Good points xalisae.
A related aside, I think Todd Akin was making the same point as yourself - we shouldn’t punish the child conceived in a rape by aborting them. All the fuss about what else Akin said is mere distraction.
According to a campaign spokesperson speaking after the Akin’s comments, Congressman Ryan, a Catholic, now accepts abortion in cases of rape. That, of course, violates Church teachings. And Romney accepts abortion in cases of rape and incest. Pro-life?
If this Todd Akin distraction continues I hope Mitt Romeny gives Rebecca Kiessling a megaphone, a huge platform for her to tell her story.
that would be preferable to the backtracking they’re doing currently.
Tyler, are you deliberately misunderstanding the issue with Akin’s statements or are you apologizing for it? Just curious.
If Mr. Akin stays in the race he should ask Rebecca to stump for him, or to at least tell her story to his constituents.
And I seriously, seriously doubt Romney was ever anything near a pro-life without exceptions stance, unless it was to get the nomination. It’s not particularly politically expedient to be pro-life without exceptions, it doesn’t seem like something he would want to claim.
I agree, Jack. So I’m not surprised by RR stepping back their Pro-Life position. I’d bet a million dollars the impetus for this sudden change of heart is originating from Romney handlers.
eXcellent quote and follow up comments, X!
Funny, ain’t it, how ex-pro-lifer jumps right to the scary death penalty scenario. I don’t support the death penalty in general, and the hypocrisy of killing a mother is lost on the abortionists. However, a ghoul like Kermit Gosnell? Well, as much as I oppose the death penalty, if he were committing illegal abortions after death (pun intended) of Roe v Wade..and a judge decided his fate would be lethal injection.. in that hypothetical future, I’d spend my time at a CPC helping moms and leave it to the pro-abortionists to stand outside his prison holding candles in protest. Oh, wait, abortionists NEVER show up at anti-death penalty vigils.
Also, I reread X’s long comment and did NOT find the phrase “no big deal” but hey cc, thanks for playing “project myself” on our game show today. You get the home game as a consolation prize. You have been repeating yourself quite a lot lately. Is the anti-life-comment generator on the fritz? Then let me repeat: It’s never to late to embrace life!
Lee – you’re mistaking Ryan’s personal position with the campaign’s official position: http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/paul-ryans-strong-views-on-abortion-add-to-campaigns-polarization-on-womens-issues/2012/08/20/97988ff8-ea92-11e1-866f-60a00f604425_story.html
Tyler, while I admire the fact that Akin doesn’t allow for abortions in cases of rape, what he said was pure stupidity. Don’t apologize for him just because he’s pro-life. He said something really stupid, regardless of what he meant to say. And considering he is running against a darling of the left…. Well, see ya round, Akin. : / Those who are in public office really ought to think about what they say before they say it.
And a little tip to politicians everywhere: When talking about abortions in the cases of rape, don’t focus on the rape. You’re not talking about rape itself in this instance, you’re talking about the baby. The focus is on not further traumatizing the poor woman and on not killing the child simply because his/her father was a horrible person. Logic is on your side…. if you use the right arguments. *facepalm*
And X, way to go. Congrats on getting on Quote of the Day. Loved your explanation of justice/courts/murder.
Abortion should not be allowed in cases of rape because that is taking the innocent life of a child. And it has been shown to only worsen the woman’s trauma.
” Funny, ain’t it, how ex-pro-lifer jumps right to the scary death penalty scenario. I don’t support the death penalty in general, and the hypocrisy of killing a mother is lost on the abortionists.”
LOL that’s what I think is funny. I am about as much against the death penalty as I am against abortion. I am pretty sure I am not chomping at the bit to put people to death for procuring an abortion. And Catholics make up a huge chunk of the pro-life movement, and from what I have seen Catholics are more likely than not to be anti-DP.
Jake, in my opinion Mr. Akin’s did not need to issue an apology as much as he needed to clarify his meaning. He siad nothing offensive. His statements were jarring (one statement may not be true), but not offensive. He is not pro-rape. He definitely wasn’t victim blaming or being insensitve to the victim of a rape.
Jack, amen on the RR comments! All these pro-lifers get excited about it but… it’s politically expedient at the moment for him to be pro-life. if elected, he’d be the Politically Expedient President. ;)
Jack, sorry my response above was meant for you (I wrote Jake instead):
In my opinion Mr. Akin did not need to issue an apology as much as he needed to clarify his meaning. He siad nothing offensive. His statements were jarring (one statement may not be true), but not offensive. He is not pro-rape. He definitely wasn’t victim blaming or being insensitve to the victim of a rape.
I don’t think Romney has stepped back his pro-life position – his campaign platform always allowed for exceptions. I am equally sure Ryan has not changed his views on life issues – he is still no exceptions. This assertion that RR is “stepping back” their position on life issues is pure LSM spin.
Tyler, you seriously make me want to tear my hair out, lol. It was offensive, which can be seen from the tons of pro-lifers without exceptions who took offense to it. I doubt he is “pro-rape”, but he did dance around victim blaming and he acted like an ignoramus.
The issue isn’t that he defends babies conceived in rape, it’s that he minimized and degraded the sacrifice and bravery of any woman who conceived in rape and carried her baby to term, as well as slapping them in the face by basically calling them liars. If he is that uneducated and ignorant about pro-life issues, especially one as touchy as rape, he should keep his mouth shut.
that’s why I said “(ironically enough)”. That wasn’t a jovial comment. It was a comment on how senseless and irrational attempting to procure or procuring an abortion would be if and when such a penalty would ever even be a possibility. It would almost seem that any woman risking such a fate would have some sort of mental or emotional health problem, off the bat.
Also, thanks everyone, for your kind comments. :)
IS there a “rape OR incest” exception or is it simply the rape exception?
Would women who enjoyed consensual incest be able to get abortions?
Libertybelle, I am not apologizing for Mr. Akin. I don’t think his comments require an apology.
However, Mr. Akin’s pro-life position with no exceptions in the case of rape and incest needs support. As this is a pro-life blog I am not sure why more pro-lifers aren’t trying to defend and explain his comments.
if elected, he’d be the Politically Expedient President.
The last time we had a Politically Expedient President, it worked out pretty great for us, financially.
“However, Mr. Akin’s pro-life position with no exceptions in the case of rape and incest needs support. As this is a pro-life blog I am not sure why more pro-lifers aren’t trying to defend and explain his comments.”
Because they were disgusting.
“Jack, amen on the RR comments! All these pro-lifers get excited about it but… it’s politically expedient at the moment for him to be pro-life. if elected, he’d be the Politically Expedient President. ”
Haha, oh Mittens. Too true.
If anything this Akin distraction is the fault of the GOP for not educating their politicians on the topic of life, and relegating the pro-life cause to the back burner. Just as nearly all GOP members subscribe to a classic liberal economic view, all GOP memebers should be clearly pro-life and know the fundamentals of the pro-life position.
“Because they were disgusting.”
Jack, if you think Mr. Akin’s comments were disgusting you misinterpreted them.
Tyler, I want so bad to like you but you make it so hard on me. Really, think about it. On a blog with a ton of hardcore pro-life without exceptions people, I think you are the only person defending this idiot over and over, on like three different threads. Doesn’t that tell you anything? Honestly, I would tell you to talk to a sexual assault survivor in your real life about how she feels about his statements, but I fear you might get slapped. Honestly man.
Jack: The issue isn’t that he defends babies conceived in rape, it’s that he minimized and degraded the sacrifice and bravery of any woman who conceived in rape and carried her baby to term, as well as slapping them in the face by basically calling them liars.
No offense Jack but you are reading way too much into Mr. Akin’s comments. There is no way that you can get all of what you said above from Mr. Akins comments. I think you, like all of us, have been over-exposed to the MSM and to pro-choice propaganda.
“No offense Jack but you are reading way too much into Mr. Akin’s comments. There is no way that you can get all of what you said above from Mr. Akins comments. I think you, like all of us, have been over-exposed to the MSM and to pro-choice propaganda.”
Okay, so dude basically says that you can’t get pregnant from “legitimate” rape. Which makes all the pro-life women who have carried a baby that resulted from rape liars, in his mind, apparently. Rebecca Kiesling (sp?) doesn’t exist either, supposedly, or her mother lied too. Either that or he is horribly uneducated and ignorant about stuff he chose to speak on, and should have kept his mouth shut. That’s not me being influenced by pro-choice propaganda, taking offense to that. It’s me knowing victim blaming and idiocy when I see it.
Jack, we should not be interpreting the statements of Mr. Akin through the supposed feelings of a sexual assault survivor. That is not only unfair to Mr. Akin, it is unfair to the sexual assault survivor.
Conversely, if you want to examine what Mr. Akin said from the perspective of others I suggest you examine his comments from the perspective of the fetuses who are aborted as a result of being conceived in rape. (But to do this, would be politically incorrect, I know.) Those babies would be telling you and the fellow pro-lifers who abandoned them to shut-up. They ask you to support someone who had the courage to take on the issue and to honestly express his no-exception position. Jack, you owe Mr. Akin an apology and the future children who will be aborted because of your desire to silence this man.
Um… No, not nearly all GOP member subscribe to the classic liberal economic view. They claim to, yes.
And also, it’s funny how people equate “pro-life” with “Republican.” Um, no. SOrry. Yes, Republicansare mostly pro war and pro-DP. But pro-lifers span a wide, wide range of people. I am personally against every war we’re in right now. Happy now? I’m not for war, I hate war. Sometimes it’s necessary (when you’ve got foreign troops landing on your soil, hell yeah get your guns and make em leave. Otherwise, keep the troops home, y’know?). Surprising to hear a pro-lifer say that? It shouldn’t be. There are quite a few commentors here who aren’t Christians. gasp! I know. Blowing stereotypes out of the water right and left!!
The beauty of being pro-life, though, is that we can all unite around the cause of other human rights. You get a group of people who normally would not mingle. You’ve got liberals, conservatives, Catholics, libertarians, atheists, agnostics, you name it. And yet we can all come together and say, yes, the unborn are human beings and the killing of those human beings is wrong. How is that so hard to understand for those who are pro-abortion? What we want is to see the wanton killing of defenseless human beings to stop. Is that too much to ask?
“Conversely, if you want to always examine what Mr. Akin said I suggest you examine from the perspective of the fetuses who are aborted as a result of being conceived in rape.”
Hmmm, maybe that fetus conceived in rape would be saying something like “Hey, idiots like Akin, maybe you should stop shaming women like my mom so she feels more supported, loved and validated, then she might be more likely to be able to carry me to term.”
“ They ask you to support someone who had the courage to take on the issue and to honestly express his no-exception position. Jack, you owe Mr. Akin an apology and the future children will be aborted because of your desire to silence this man.”
Yes, he is “no exception” because he doesn’t believe that rape pregnancies really exist. That’s a freaking issue, man. Rape pregnancies do exist, they are an extremely painful and emotional subject, and if we want to solidify a no exception stance you must use facts, logic and compassion to do so. He had exactly none of that. Well, he might have compassion for the fetuses, but sure not for the mothers.
Tyler, Jack does not owe Akin an apology. We are not against Akin’s no-exceptions stance but we are against what he said about rape, gaffe or intentional, whatever – it was dumb and ignorant. Not saying that akin is always dumb and ignorant, but certainly the words he chose in this case were.
An admirable quality is to learn when to admit that someone on your side said something wrong. No one is perfect. Stop trying to defend his stupid words about rape. I agree that no exceptions for abortion is good, and I’m glad he stands for that. But good grief did he give us a bad name with those stupid, ignorant words!
Besides, if that’s why he’s against exceptions, he’s missed the point entirely. It’s about protecting the baby – and the mother. Not seeing if the rape was “legitimate.”
“Okay, so dude basically says that you can’t get pregnant from “legitimate” rape. Which makes all the pro-life women who have carried a baby that resulted from rape liars, in his mind, apparently.”
Jack, come on, that is not what he said or what he meant – give the man some slack. He implied that there may be possiblity that a woman’s body could prevent a pregnancy from occuring after a rape had taken place (probably due to the shock and terror she experienced). At no point did he flat out deny that women can’t get pregnant from rape. If he did, why would he even bother to answer the question about making an exception for it? In other words, if Mr. Akin believed that pregnancy could not result from rape, he would have said there is no need for an exception to his pro-life position in the case of rape because women can’t get pregnant, period.
“From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. 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 of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”
You can’t see his hedging? He really doesn’t think it’s an issue. The first half of his comment is explaining how he basically thinks it’s a non-issue. There was no need for any of that, and it was complete crap anyway. And the “legitimate” crap still makes me mad just looking at it, that was terribly uncalled for and gross.
Yes, he is “no exception” because he doesn’t believe that rape pregnancies really exist.
Jack that is the funniest and most inane comment yet. I would like you to prove that this is what he thinks. Please, please give this man a little more credit than that. Your assertion about his beliefs are way off base.
Tyler, you need to have some historical perspective here. Several Republican politicians have expressed their opposition to legal abortion when the pregnancy resulted from rape. Rick Santorum is probably the most famous. Then, there was Rick Perry, who announced a change of heart after meeting Rebecca Kiessling. And then there was senate candidate Sharon Angle, who rather inaptly said that pregnant rape victims should “make lemons out of lemonade” in her losing effort against Harry Reid. What they did was not, as you said politically correct.
But no one here opposed any of those candidates. Even Angle, who used a rather stupid metaphor to justify her position, was defended here. If all Akin had said was “I do not support abortion in cases of rape and incest,” there would be no opposition to him here. But that is not what he said. He implied that rape victims do not get pregnant. Perhaps that is not what he intended, but it is the most natural interpretation of his comments.
The pro-life movement is all about biological accuracy and truth. Akin has unwittingly thrown the entire movement into disrepute, and made us look like a bunch of scientific illiterates. In the long run, the lives of unborn babies will not be helped, but hurt, by his statement. It is unfair that Akin has to be thrown under the bus like this, but the lives of babies are more important than his dignity at the moment.
Congratulations on getting quote of the day, X!
Now as for Ex-GOP, didn’t you say in that quote Ken keeps displaying that you equate abortion to murder? Didn’t you also say that if abortion were illegal you would not vote for politicians that want to make it legal? So why are you now making the usual troll points on abortion criminalization/ its equivalence to murder?
I think Tyler and Akin need to go talk to…like…almost the entire continent of Africa. For serious.
Also, thanks, JDC! :D
Hmmm, maybe that fetus conceived in rape would be saying something like “Hey, idiots like Akin, maybe you should stop shaming women like my mom so she feels more supported, loved and validated, then she might be more likely to be able to carry me to term.”
I don’t find your comment above funny at all. I find it evasive and irresponsible. From a purely ethical perspective, the value of the life of the unborn child should not be dependent on making the Mom feel more supported, loved and validated. From a practical standpoint your comment is true, but not every pro-life argument needs to be made from a practical standpoint. The unborn child has inherent worth, independent of the mother and father.
“I think Tyler and Akin need to go talk to…like…almost the entire continent of Africa. For serious.”
xalisae, please explain your comment because I don’t get it.
Tyler, here is why you are making me mad.
First off, accuracy is important in the pro-life movement. We are the ones who depend on scientific evidence and such to support our position. A prominent politician blabbering about non-existent bodily functions makes us look stupid. This isn’t good, at all.
Second, rape is a very damaging, emotionally traumatizing crime. You don’t seem to get that, considering what you are saying here and other conversations that I have had with you. You can’t simply ignore the survivor’s feelings and such. We obviously don’t give her feelings precedence over the life of her child, but shrugging it off as if the mother’s trauma doesn’t even exist is not freaking helping save babies. I would imagine that some rape victims, impregnated in a world where we have managed to get abortion illegal, would be at high risk for harming herself and the unborn child. If we don’t build an atmosphere of support and care, that is going to cause serious issues. You might not care about the mental health of a woman impregnated by rape, but I do.
Third, we have way more people who are pro-life with exceptions than without. Them’s just the facts. To appeal to these people, we need to appeal to not only their care for the fetus, but their care for the mother as well. They don’t have exceptions because they want the fetus to die, they have exceptions because they think that the trauma would be too much for the mother. Your comments about ignoring his offensive statements and their effect on rape victims is certainly not going to do any good. Fetuses aren’t the only humans who suffer, nor the only ones we should think of.
“I don’t find your comment above funny at all. I find it evasive and irresponsible. From a purely ethical perspective, the value of the life of the unborn child should not be dependent on making the Mom feel more supported, loved and validated. From a practical standpoint your comment is true, but not every pro-life argument needs to be made from a practical standpoint. The unborn child has inherent worth, independent of the mother and father.”
My statement was not meant to be funny. No, not every argument needs to be made from a practical standpoint. But when you are talking about something like rape you need to use sensitivity, accuracy and care with your words. Otherwise, you are a jerk.
“The pro-life movement is all about biological accuracy and truth. Akin has unwittingly thrown the entire movement into disrepute, and made us look like a bunch of scientific illiterates.”
Prolifist, give me a break, the other side still isn’t 100% sure if a fetus is a human being!! Furthermore, the other side can’t decide whether a preborn child should be recognized as a person for legal purposes!
No one on the other side gives a hoot about science. Only pro-lifers care about science. When are pro-lifers going to get this fact into their thick skulls. The other side only cares about values – selfish values. Their argument is no deeper than this: “I want an abortion, so abortion must be good. And no can take away my right to do something. Therefore, abortion should be legal.”
Wow. How did I only see this now?
Denise Noe says:
August 21, 2012 at 8:19 am
There is a certain sense in which this position takes the side of the rapist (although that is not the intention, I am sure). It means men can use force to get their genetic material back into the system. Rape continues to be an effective way for men to sire offspring and ensure descendants.
How can you oppose all abortion and yet distance yourself from this? You can demand more and better prevention: encourage fertile girls and women to use contraceptives and demand the development of more effective contraceptives that work like the “morning after pill” but which don’t cause early abortions.
Easy answer: encourage more and sooner reporting of rape to take the stigma off of victims. Make the penalty for rape mandatory permanent physical (for repeat offenders) or initial temporary chemical castration (paired with counseling). Problem solved.
Jack, no offense, but I think you being bit of a jerk to Mr. Akins.
Jack: “You don’t seem to get that, considering what you are saying here and other conversations that I have had with you.”
Who do you think you are Jack? For you to say something like this is completely irresponsible and offensive. You are behaving no better than Jake.
“Jack, no offense, but I think you being bit of a jerk to Mr. Akins. ”
Well, I am more being a jerk to you than him at the moment. At least he issued an apology, and he is losing his campaign funding, etc, etc. You however, keep defending his statements.
Wow. Totally not surprised Tyler is out of the loop as far as what goes on in Africa lately.
“Finally, Lucienne escaped. Back in her village, she found her two little girls were alive. But she also learned that she was pregnant. She was carrying the child of one of her rapists. Lucienne’s husband abandoned her. That happens to rape survivors all over Congo.”
From an article about rape being used as a weapon of war in the Congo, here.
But naw, I’m sure she really just secretly had a thing for her gang-raping captors. *spit*
Jack: You might not care about the mental health of a woman impregnated by rape, but I do.
Incredible!! (Sound familiar)
Jack please don’t imply things about me that are untrue.
“Who do you think you are Jack? For you to say something like this is completely irresponsible and offensive. You are behaving no better than Jake.”
Oh, are you offended? Well, you aren’t an unborn baby so I don’t really care. <— Now that was me actually being irresponsible and offensive. Kidding!
I actually didn’t mean that first statement as a slam on you. I just don’t think you really understand the devastation of sex crimes, it really doesn’t seem like you have a lot of experience either personally or with people you love being victimized by it. You also don’t seem well read on the subject. That’s not an insult to you, it’s just an impression I have and it’s not exactly a bad thing until you start talking about sexual assault, then it’s a bit annoying.
If I am wrong, then I am sorry for thinking that, but that’s how you come across.
Jack gets the trophy for Understatement Of The Year! ^^^
No kidding, X.
Wow. Totally not surprised Tyler is out of the loop as far as what goes on in Africa lately.
“Finally, Lucienne escaped. Back in her village, she found her two little girls were alive. But she also learned that she was pregnant. She was carrying the child of one of her rapists. Lucienne’s husband abandoned her. That happens to rape survivors all over Congo.”
From an article about rape being used as a weapon of war in the Congo, here.
But naw, I’m sure she really just secretly had a thing for her gang-raping captors. *spit*
—
We all know that rape happens and that rape is evil. What does the rape of this woman in Africa have to do with Mr. Akin’s point that he wants to protect the lives of the babies conceived in rape? Are you trying to imply that Mr. Akins believes rape victims want to be raped. Are you serious? If Mr. Akin actually thought that, don’t you thnk he would not speak about rape at all just so he could keep his political career. There is no way that you are going to convince me that Mr. Akins believes that rape victims ask to be raped. xalisae, you and Jack are reaching new lows in your interpretations of Mr. Akin’s comments.
If I am wrong, then I am sorry for thinking that, but that’s how you come across.
That is not an apology Jack.
That’s because it wasn’t really an apology. I do think that you really know next to nothing about sexual assault and it’s aftermath, considering your statements here and convos that you have ticked me off just as much in the past. If I am wrong and you have been sexually assaulted or are a close support to someone who has been (please God, I hope not), then I apologize for having a faulty impression. Somehow, I don’t think I am wrong.
“What does the rape of this woman in Africa have to do with Mr. Akin’s point that he wants to protect the lives of the babies conceived in rape? Are you trying to imply that Mr. Akins believes rape victims want to be raped. ”
I already explained this. We are saying that stating that women are not going to get pregnant through “legitimate’ rape, is basically implying that they weren’t really raped. Ergo, they had consensual sex. You can’t be as obtuse as you are acting.
I actually didn’t mean that first statement as a slam on you. I just don’t think you really understand the devastation of sex crimes, it really doesn’t seem like you have a lot of experience either personally or with people you love being victimized by it. You also don’t seem well read on the subject. That’s not an insult to you, it’s just an impression I have and it’s not exactly a bad thing until you start talking about sexual assault, then it’s a bit annoying.
Jack you have written a lot of words here, but you have said absolutely nothing that is true or valuable. This is just you bringing up completely irrelevant points. What does my experience or inexperience with rape victims have to do with Mr. Akin’s stance on protecting the child conceived in rape? At no point did Mr. Akin slam rape victims. People have interpreted his comments that way, but he didn’t actually say anything negatvie about rape victims. People have to read that offensive idea into his comments. He used the word “legitimate”, and you need to find out what he meant by using that word before you start hurling your accusations that he is victim blaming, being insensitive, etc….
Jack, could it be that you are overly sensitive on this topic?
^^ Hey Tyler. You’re ignoring me. What Jack and X are saying about the rape thing is aimed largely at YOU now. We aren’t saying Akin is pro-rape, per se, just that you appear to have a vast, vast ignorance of the affect rape has on people. You see, AKin made a dumb hurtful comment and you can’t even see why that is. We’re trying to show you why. Akin at least appears to understand what he said came off really wrong. Because it did. It was stupid and ignorant.
So stop defending him! We KNOW he is against abortion in cases of rapes but it didn’t come across that way. it came across that he doesn’t understand basic rreproductive biology and sexual crimes.
So seriously. Stop trying to defend his absurd statement.
Tyler,
Akin has created this mess through his sheer ignorance. He didn’t just ineptly explain his opposition to the rape exception, he explained it a statement so scientifically and factually ridiculous that I almost mistook him for a pro-choicer. He didn’t misspeak, he was under the impression that a woman has some manner of natural contraceptive defense in cases of rape. He then added insult to stupidity by adding in the term “legitimate rape” which is just an offensive concept (b/c non-legitimate rape victims would be what…liars?). To be fair, in respect to this latter term, I don’t think he meant it the way it’s being taken (ie that anyone who gets pregnant wasn’t legitimately raped) b/c he then goes on to say that in rare cases this mythical natural means of avoiding pregnancy that a rape victim has can sometimes not work (??). This guy is a scientific idiot on this issue and there’s no “possibly” about the falseness of his statements.
But what makes me most angry is that he fed the pro-abortion beasts. They get to paint pro-lifers as backward, morons with no understanding of the functioning of the human body. He’s made the already HARD work of arguing against the rape exception almost IMPOSSIBLE in this election year b/c now we have to cut through this thick layer of stupid before we can even get to the real arguments against a rape exception. I think Romney made a knee jerk mistake by backpedaling (though I don’t think Romney is that committed to this in the first place), but I understand why he did.
What does my experience or inexperience with rape victims have to do with Mr. Akin’s stance on protecting the child conceived in rape?
It has to do with your completely obtuse defense of his thoughtless comment, that’s what.
“Jack you have written a lot of words here, but you have said absolutely nothing that is true or valuable. ”
I have said many things that are true. I have said many things that are valuable. I have also said some things that were histrionic and some things that were sarcastic. Figure that one out.
“This is just you bringing up completely irrelevant points. What does my experience or inexperience with rape victims have to do with Mr. Akin’s stance on protecting the child conceived in rape? At no point did Mr. Akin slam rape victims.”
That.
That right there is why your inexperience matters. You can’t see that he insulted sexual assault survivors because you really, really don’t get it. I tried to explain it several times, other people have tried to explain it several times, and you absolutely refuse to examine it from that perspective.
”People have interpreted his comments that way, but he didn’t actually say anything negatvie about rape victims. People have to read that offensive idea into his comments. He used the word “legitimate”, and you need to find out what he meant by using that word before you start hurling your accusations that he is victim blaming, being insensitive, etc….”
I am not explaining this again. I just can’t. Go pray about it or something.
“Jack, could it be that you are overly sensitive?”
Guilty! But unlike my usual freak outs it seems that most others agree with me, other pro-lifers without exceptions even! Listen to LibertyBelle and Xalisae if you won’t take it from me.
Tyler, you need to cool down. Come back to this tomorrow and re-read everything with an open ear.
CT,
Before you respond further, please pause to consider the fact that yes some women do lie/have lied about being raped and therefore did not experience “legitimate” rapes, meaning what constitutes a rape by legal definition. If this women are lying about being raped then technically they have not been “legitmately” raped. Mr. Akin didn’t even commit a malapropism. Mr. Akin has been the victim of a rush to judgement because people are not used to hearing the term “legiitimate rape.” He was not approving rape. The word “legitimate” does not mean “approval.” Too many people hear the words “legitimate rape” and think “approved rape.” That is not what Mr. Akins meant.
Furthermore, as far as I know, women are just as capable as men of doing wrong and committing sin.
Definition of LEGITIMATE
1
a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth <a legitimate child>
2
: being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false <a legitimate grievance> <a legitimate practitioner>
3
a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a legitimate government> b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a legitimate king>
4
: conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards <a legitimate advertising expenditure> <a legitimate inference>
5
: relating to plays acted by professional actors but not including revues, burlesque, or some forms of musical comedy <the legitimate theater>
_____
Mr. Akin used the word legitimate in the sense of the definition given in 2 and 3 above.
“Before you respond further, please pause to consider the fact that yes some women do lie/have lied about being raped and therefore did not experience “legitimate” rapes, meaning what constitutes a rape by legal definition. If this women are lying about being raped then technically they have not been “legitmately” raped. Mr. Akin didn’t even commit a malapropism. Mr. Akin has been the victim of a rush to judgement because people are not used to hearing the term “legiitimate rape.” He was not approving rape. The word “legitimate” does not mean “approval.” Too many people hear the words “legitimate rape” and think “approved rape.” That is not what Mr. Akins meant. ”
:headdeskfacepalmheaddeskfacepalm: Graaah. You should put down the shovel for a while, the hole you are digging is quite deep enough.
I am going to take a break before I stop self-censoring all the cussing I keep deleting from my comments.
Besides the fact that I think you underestimate your power of persuasion Jack, I don’t fail to see how Mr. Akin’s language is jarring on first blush. However, I have decided to give Mr. Akin the benefit of the doubt and a second hearing. On second hearing, his statements are not offensive at all, merely inarticulate.
So, Tyler, do you believe that women don’t/can’t get pregnant from “legitimate” rape?
A short analysis of Mr. Akins allegedly offensive statements:
“From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare.” This is a true statement. He
was referring to the fact abortions due to conceptions resulting from rape are rare (1% of all abortions).
“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something.”
Mr. Akin disintinguished legitimate rape from illegitimate rape. (This is a true but awkward sounding statement to our overly-sensitive ears.)
Mr. Akin asserted that the female body has ways to “shut down” a pregnancy that is the result of a rape. (This is true – miscarriages happen no matter if the child is conceivd in rape or not.)
If Mr. Akin stays in the race he should ask Rebecca to stump for him, or to at least tell her story to his constituents.
Maybe you first ought to ask her what she actually thinks about Mr. Akin’s comments:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/20/woman-conceived-in-rape-responds-to-akin-abortion-controversy/
Joanna: So, Tyler, do you believe that women don’t/can’t get pregnant from “legitimate” rape?
He didn’t say that Joanna. This is what the leftist media spin is saying that Mr. Akins said. Mr. Akins was referring to the fact that abortions due to rape are rare (1% of abortions).
Tyler, so I’m now a member of the leftest media!?!?! Wow I had no idea. Where’s my paycheck?!
Tyler, you’re insane. Not even Akin agrees with you. Have you heard his remarks last evening and today? What, now you’re going to say that he’s being too hard on himself — that he really needs to understand what he said a bit better to appreciate how little he has to apologize for?
Tyler, our loyalty as pro-lifers is not to people who share our views. It’s to the unborn. Those who needlessly — through gravely consequential stupidity and error they subsequently admit to — become a liability…yes. Under the bus, if they won’t take one for the team on their own.
Here’s how this works, Tyler. When a person sees the wisdom of sage counsel from folks on his own side and falls on his sword for the greater good, all is well. His friends speak well of him on his way out, lamenting his “gaffe.” But if such a person does NOT recognize the counsel of wise friends, then they are rightly vindicating in having discerned his stupidity in the first instance because he has now ratified it, and they will justly DRAG his ass under the bus, if need be.
Do you understand how politics works? Do you understand the difference between scenarios where a bumbling oaf has to take the fall and understands that, and on the other hand a case where the bumbling oaf is like, “what? what? don’t worry guys, I have this under control…” It’s precisely the latter scenario where an intervention is needed.
Or a bus.
Tyler, you’re off the reservation. Knock it off.
Mr. Akin asserted that the female body has ways to “shut down” a pregnancy that is the result of a rape. (This is true – miscarriages happen no matter if the child is conceivd in rape or not.)
Hey there, Mr. Armstrong. I hope you limbered up before that stretch, you might sprain your brain.
He ASSerted that women can, I guess, magically flip their internal I’m-Being-Raped-Switch and like, turn off their reproduction or something. Now…that’d be great if it was the case, but it’s obviously not, or else there would be no massive waves of rape-conceived children in the Congo, and Rebecca Kiessling’s mom just secretly wanted it, so she didn’t flip her switch. Or, oh, I’m sorry, he backtracked a little bit-HOW CHARITABLE OF HIM!-maybe Rebecca’s mom’s switch just was on the fritz that day.
Navi I have no problems Ms. Kiessling’s comments, do you?
They were fair comments. She wasn’t saying that his words were wrong, she was just showing how his words could be misinterpreted.
My point is that, the leftist pro-choice side want to get pro-lifers tangled in and overly concerned about the words they use to describe the children conceived in rape, the rape victim, etc… because then we are no longer talking about abortion anymore, but only talking about how we should talk about rape and its victims. However, pro-lifers are not counsellors to sexually assault victims, they are supporters of human life at all of its stages. The other side wants to create wedges whereever it can. Just because they want to see evil in the heart and words of pro-lifers doesn’t mean that we have to comply.
x: Nice restraint.
LOL
For some reason I have this picture of you as being a bit like Alice in Dilbert, with her “fist of death” (she was a Navy Seal). Reserved only for the worst management trainees.
In this case, I swear it’s because you’ve concluded that you’re arguing with a child…
Tyler: “the leftist pro-choice side want to get pro-lifers tangled in and overly concerned about the words they use”
Yeah, so here’s a great idea, Tyler — how about we only champion people who demonstrate that they are, themselves, capable of using the English language intelligibly, intelligently, coherently, consistent with facts, and without incurring liabilities that could impact the freaking Senate race inasmuch as, inter alia, the Senate confirms jurists for SCOTUS appointment.
Have fun guys and gals, I hope you find your perfect error-free pro-life politician some day soon.
That’s childish, Tyler. Claiming that someone’s PARTICULAR gaffe is rightly fatal for his candidacy at this PARTICULAR time is not tantamount to believing that all gaffes are as consequential.
Dude. Stop pitching an immature snit about this.
rasqual,
right on all counts, as usual. ;)
Tyler, Tyler, Tyler. We’re not looking for a perfect pro-life candidate. We haven’t thrown the all under the bus. Just this guy with his dumb comment.
There are actually other great no-exceptions pro-life politicians who make gaffes. But even the ones that do make gaffes can be forgiven. We’re just pointing out that this was a particularly ridiculous one.
As X patiently pointed out…. He appeared to assert that women’s bodies have some sort of magic anti-pregnancy-in-case-of-rape switch. Um…. Is even familiar with female bodies? Cause trust me, that ain’t how it happens. And even his bumbling attempt to clarify about miscarriages… oh my gosh. *headdeskfacepalmheaddeskfacepalm* There are so many inexplicable cases of miscarriage. Stress can be a cause, yes, but sometimes it just happens again. He jumped from the frying pan to the fire on that one. Is he just prone to bringing up and bungling sensitive issues or something??!
Rasqual you sound like a militant pro-lifer, someone who would not be easily persuaded if you should ever say something incorrectly.
I am definitely not going to treat other pro-lifers badly just because they made a mistake, or because they didn’t defend the pro-life position in the exact same way that I would’ve liked. To me, to treat other pro-lifers badly smacks of hyper-vigilance and intolerance. I think a softer approach is required, perhaps extending them the same mercy we want to extend to sexual assault victims, and the preborn.
xalisae says:
August 21, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Wow. How did I only see this now?
Denise Noe says: August 21, 2012 at 8:19 am There is a certain sense in which this position takes the side of the rapist (although that is not the intention, I am sure). It means men can use force to get their genetic material back into the system. Rape continues to be an effective way for men to sire offspring and ensure descendants.How can you oppose all abortion and yet distance yourself from this? You can demand more and better prevention: encourage fertile girls and women to use contraceptives and demand the development of more effective contraceptives that work like the “morning after pill” but which don’t cause early abortions. Easy answer: encourage more and sooner reporting of rape to take the stigma off of victims. Make the penalty for rape mandatory permanent physical (for repeat offenders) or initial temporary chemical castration (paired with counseling). Problem solved.
(Denise) I don’t necessarily support physical castration but here we are basically in agreement. If people who want an across-the-board ban on abortion are not to appear callous toward rape victims, they must try to always include measures they support that will help to decrease the prevalence of this especially heinous crime. I don’t know the source of the quote but someone made an astute observation: “It is precisely because sex is the most intimate of activities that rape is the most insulting.”
Even though I don’t support physical castration, I understand the rationale behind it and, among other things, it means that a repeat rapist can no longer put genetic material back into the system. His power to create offspring goes kaput.
(Ducking pies)
Is it too late to hop on the “Congrats, xalisae!” train?
“please pause to consider the fact that yes some women do lie/have lied about being raped and therefore did not experience “legitimate” rapes, meaning what constitutes a rape by legal definition”
Of course they do. And don’t even get me started on the punishment those liars deserve for making it harder for rape victims to get justice. But you should pause to read my comment where I said that I don’t think he meant that phrase (legitimate rape) the way people are running with it. However, the phrase is facially insulting if you know ANYTHING about rape and the aspersions that are cast on victims of it. You need look no further than Whoopi Goldberg defending Polanski by saying that what he did wasn’t “rape-rape.” There are people who in their heart of hearts think that anything short of a violent rape in an alley by a stranger isn’t “legitimate” rape. That’s why that phrase is offensive. That’s why it shouldn’t be used even if the person doesn’t mean it that way and even if it’s technically correct under the dictionary definition. I’m much more offended by his stupidity than his misuse (giving him the benefit of the doubt) of a term that has a well know offensive meaning.
“Mr. Akin asserted that the female body has ways to “shut down” a pregnancy that is the result of a rape. (This is true – miscarriages happen no matter if the child is conceivd in rape or not.)”
But the fact that some pregnancies miscarry has absolutely nothing to do with whether they resulted from rape. Or are you arguing that rape victims are more likely to miscarry?
“Have fun guys and gals, I hope you find your perfect error-free pro-life politician some day soon”
Oh I can name a bunch better than this guy right off the top of my head. He may be a fine guy (stupidity aside), but he’s doing harm not good when he puts forth ridiculous, scientifically untrue arguments on matters this important.
That’s childish, Tyler. Claiming that someone’s PARTICULAR gaffe is rightly fatal for his candidacy at this PARTICULAR time is not tantamount to believing that all gaffes are as consequential.
This so-called “gaffe” is not that consequential. If anything this helps the preborn and the GOP. It helps the preborn and the GOP by giving pro-lifers an opportunity to talk about the pro-life position, and since the GOP is the defacto pro-life party they can gain from this so-callled gaffe.
I’m talking about his bloomin’ Senate race, Tyler. Can you see the trees for the forest?
It would do the pro-life movement a world of good if it could show compassion to Mr. Akin, and to support him through his tough time. The undecideds (about the election and life issues) would see the care that the pro-life movement and the GOP has for one another and their members. The GOP and the pro-life movement wouldn’t be seen as groups that devour their own.
Clarify what Mr. Akin meant, don’t crucify him, or throw him under the bus.
Pro-life people are compassionate people. Allow sexual assault victims to see how pro-lifers treat one another and how we would treat them.
xalisae,
Amen to your Quote of the Day!
Tyler, You have been beaten up bad by some of the kindest people on earth. Someday you might become an awesome prolife advocate. Keep reading and listening and loving and thinking.
Your positions on this thread are in a hundred ways wrong.
Since when does being compassionate exclude throwing someone under the bus as a candidate if their continuing candidacy jeopardizes greater goals?
Tyler, compassion is not the only attribute we should possess. Wisdom should score pretty high as well.
I don’t think I’m exactly preaching to the choir on that, though. :-/
I’m talking about his bloomin’ Senate race, Tyler. Can you see the trees for the forest?
Sorry Rasqual, I thought in earlier post that you said you were concerned about the preborn.
“What we want is to see the wanton killing of defenseless human beings to stop. Is that too much to ask?”
What we ask is for you to trust women regarding their reproductive choices. What we do with our bodies is none of your business.
“Your positions on this thread are in a hundred ways wrong.”
And yet, you haven’t named one.
CC3PO bots again…
“And yet, you haven’t named one.”
You are not capable of listening.
Tyler: Dude. You are so aggravatingly childish.
Since when is concern for a Senate seat — you know, the body that confirms presidential appointees to the SCOTUS — not concern for the unborn?
Please try to understand how points in a conversation relate to each other, Tyler.
Tommy R, I don’t think I lost the battle just the war of words. (imagine your favorite yellow circle)
God bless you all.
In 2011, Gallup found that 75% support abortion in the case of rape and incest. While most folks aren’t bothered by the street theater outside Planned Parenthood (cept those trying to access the building), they are bothered by the pro-life (and Catholic Church’s) attempt to criminalize abortion with no exceptions – exceptions that your presidential candidate now supports. But continue arguing for no exceptions and your movement will be seen as the radical, misogynist movement that it is. Thanks to the Akin thing, more people will learn about the extreme views of those who claim to save “babies” whilst showing no real concern for women – especially those who have been raped. Requiring a woman to give birth to her rapist’s child is abuse of the highest order. It isn’t, in the words of radical wingnut Sharon Angle, “making lemonade out of lemons.” It’s punishment of the cruelest kind. If a woman wants to have her rapist as her “baby daddy,” that’s up to her. If a woman doesn’t, she should be allowed the choice to terminate the pregnancy.
And BTW, if Paul Ryan supports exceptions, he’s not in agreement with his church. No?
A positive side of this Akin, GOP “forcible rape” controversy is, as I say, highlighting the extreme views of the pro-life movement. As such, it is mobilizing our side and as you saw with Komen, when we get mobilized, we get results. Thanks Todd Akin and the pro-life movement. You do so inspire us!
Rasqual, so let me get this straight – you want to toss a 100% pro-lifer (who doesn’t support exceptions) because he made a gaffe during interview. You think making a change in a Senate race is good idea and that the new GOP candidate would improve the chances of preborn more than the current GOP candidate.
I don’t think I like your strategy. It sounds very risky on a number of accounts. I think a safer way to go is to support the guy who is already the candidate.
Tyler, it’s time to let this one go.
No Tyler, you didn’t lose by words. People here are more thoughtful and cut the inarticulate slack.
You lost because of ideas.
:::sigh:::
It would be great to chronicle CC’s remarks in a physical book, so that one day her deeming the unborn mere chattel can cluck tongues and shake heads across the centuries.
Tommy just think about what you wrote:
“Tyler, You have been beaten up bad by some of the kindest people on earth.”
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend” – Proverbs
…which is germane to the substantive matter at hand, as well. When Akin doesn’t recognize the counsel of wise friends, he’s missing the point of having wise friends.
LOL That was my best line.
rasqual – your awesome.
I think we have a country to reel back from the brink, and I’m sure that Mr. Akin would agree with that. He’s become a drag. As conservatives we have SOME standards even if they don’t. And I think that while he’s 100% pro-life, I think his statement was more than a gaffe. I think it was a slip that inadvertently revealed what he truly believes about rape: that when a woman is forcibly raped a conception is unlikely. That is an effrontery to every woman who has conceived through rape. He should step aside and let us get someone else in there and defeat Clare McCaskill, for pity’s sake.
Oh, and congrats, X.
Hey Tyler, do this and prove your bona fides as a friend of Akin, OK? Get off the Stanek reservation and go defend him — be an apologist for his “unconventional language” or whatever — at Huffington Post. Now. I mean, right now. Spend the day on it. Because you’ve cited all the wonderful opportunities this gaffe will precipitate. Well I’ll tell you what, son, they’re precipitatin’. The front page at Huffpo provides you with a target-rich environment for your Quixotic venture. Go for it! The comments pages are already in the tens of thousands. Akin could use a friend over there. Go to it! Turn to, sailor.
Question for the rest of you: Am I now going to be deemed a pariah here for sending Tyler to make us all look like idiots at Huffpo? :-/
“:::sigh:::
It would be great to chronicle CC’s remarks in a physical book, so that one day her deeming the unborn mere chattel can cluck tongues and shake heads across the centuries.”
::sigh::
It would be great to chronicle Rasqual’s remarks in a physical book, so that one day his deeming women mere chattel can cluck tongues and shake heads across the centuries.”
Yah, but brevity is the soul of wit, CC. So I figure I possess precisely double your wit on that score. ;-)
Tyler, why don’t you find every blog entry showcasing this product, and defend Akin?
http://goo.gl/YJOP0
Seriously, dude. Stop yammering with friends here who agree with you about Life. Go into the lion’s den and see how well your semantic games work in defense of Akin.
Are you up for it, Tyler, or are you just talk? You said this gaffe “helps the preborn and the GOP by giving pro-lifers an opportunity to talk about the pro-life position.” What, here at Stanek? I don’t think that’s what you meant. Where then? Who? Why not you?
Go for it. Report back. Offer some links to your conversations upon return. Sally forth, man of La Mancha!
JoAnna: So, Tyler, do you believe that women don’t/can’t get pregnant from “legitimate” rape?
No i don’t believe that. Yes women can get pregnant from legitimate rape. Furthremore, this scientific fact is true no matter what anyone believes.
JoAnna, now can you please answer me one question: do you think Mr. Akin, an engineer, a US Congressman, and a man living in the 21st century, really thinks a woman can’t get pregnant from a rapist?
—
Do you folk not realize that Mr. Akin is pro-life and not pro-choice?
I have seen some of you treat pro-choicers with more respect, kindness and charity.
Rasqual, my problem isn’t with the way pro-choicers and MSM are treating Mr. Akin, because that is to be expected. My issue is with the way fellow pro-lifers are treating Mr. Akin.
Rasqual, you rushed to judgement about Mr. Akin and you now stubbornly refuse to extend a hand of kindness to him simply because of your pride. That is not principled, nor are you setting a good example for other pro-lifers to follow.
You are smart, but sometimes your desire to make a witty comment overrides your sense of decency.
Tyler, inasmuch as living in the 21st century does not deter even vice presidents from thinking this is the 20th century, and inasmuch as a lot of Congressmen think abortion is just dandy, and inasmuch as a lot of engineers believe that “Bush knew” about 9/11, I think we can establish that the attributes you enumerate in implicit support of Akin’s wit are not sufficient, even in the aggregate, to give pause to those questioning his wisdom (if not intelligence) at this juncture.
Clear? No, probably not, given weirdness like this:
“you now stubbornly refuse to extend a hand of kindness to him simply because of your pride”
Dude. I’ve explained the politics of this to you. Apparently too briefly.
Get thee to Huffpo. Seize this wonderful opportunity Akin has provided for us. The courage of your convictions or stop the yammering.
And paeans to Akin for giving us this wonderful opportunity!
Also, Tyler: What would you do if two pro-lifers were running against each other, say in a primary? Would it be “unkind” for you to vote against one of them? No, of course not. Would it be unkind of you to advocate for one of them, over the other? No, of course not. Yet you seem to imagine that only unkindness could motivate the judgment that Akin must withdraw from his Senate race. How is that rational? If, in elections, numerous issues are in play in determining a candidate’s qualifications and character for office, how can you rationally imagine that “pride” or “unkindness” or “stubbornness” are the only factors motivating those who disagree with you? That’s just flattering your case on behalf of Akin by imagining your interlocutors cannot possibly be bringing anything but the worst motives to the conversation.
Dude, seriously.
Have faith Rasqual…that this will all work for the better.
Rasqual, I think it is possible for someone to have kind reasons, an honest motivation, for wanting a politician to leave a Senate race. However, I don’t think it is kind when a person distorts the meaning of person’s (Mr. Akin’s) words, or when people call othe people names like “bumbling oaf”, etc….
In this kind of situation, a prudent person would have a replacement in mind before calling for the resignation of the running candidate. He would also to have a degree of certainity that the offense/gaffe committed is truly going to ruin the chance of victory.
We will see who is right when the race is over.
I agree that you can do whatever you want with your own body, cc. Since the conceived child possesses his or her OWN body, you must agree that abortion is wrong. Scientifically, the conceived child is a unique organism, is not physically a part of the mother or the father’s own bodies, has his or her own unique DNA, grows, etc. Are you anti science? No? Then you must agree that the CHILD can do whatever he or she wants with his or her own body, and since they keep growing, the body expresses its innate will to LIVE.
It’s never to late to embrace life.
Tyler: “We will see who is right when the race is over.”
Right about WHAT?
CC says: “If a woman wants to have her rapist as her “baby daddy,” that’s up to her.”
What?! You realize that if a child is conceived during a rape, it wasn’t because the woman “wanted” it, right? And basic biology should tell you that once conception takes place, the “baby daddy” has already been determined, whether the woman aborts or not. WTH? This would be a great quote for MPQ.
CC says: “A positive side of this Akin, GOP “forcible rape” controversy is, as I say, highlighting the extreme views of the pro-life movement.”
Sure. Just like the “vaginal ultrasound = rape” controversy highlighted the extremely stupid views of the pro-choice movement.
Lrning: Good grief, good catch. Wow. CC is talking about women who want their rapists to be their baby’s daddy.
I think that beats Akin’s remark, really, in the stupid/callous department…
“his deeming women mere chattel”
Bonus sexist points for CC voicing her attitude about mothers and attempting to project it as rasqual’s, when he never said anything remotely close to characterizing women who happen to reproduce as “mere chattel”.
Comedy break:
Maybe we should ask Akin if Kerry Gauthier’s statutory rape of a 17 year old boy was “legitimate rape”. I’d laugh at that, but today I just want to cry for the state of the political system in America.
P.S.
Everyone’s been so awesome to me today, I can hardly believe it. Thank you guys so, so much. :D
^^I can’t believe he’s not being charged. Gauthier, I mean.
Congrats, xalisae.
“Maybe we should ask Akin if Kerry Gauthier’s statutory rape of a 17 year old boy was “legitimate rape”.”
I couldn’t reach him, so I called up Whoopi Goldberg. She said everything is cool because it wasn’t rape-rape.
“Sure. Just like the “vaginal ultrasound = rape” controversy highlighted the extremely stupid views of the pro-choice movement.”
Remind me what happened to the Virginia transvaginal ultrasound legislation – in part due to the efforts of moderate GOP women who were appalled…And funny, before that whole fiasco, the Virginia “Bob’s for jobs” governor was actually considered a GOP veep hopeful. Funny how that worked out.
Well said, xalisae! I truly paused and thought about how beautifully written that was when I first read it in the comment thread, so it is wonderful to see it re-posted for all to appreciate!
And moreover, well done! We should all be so earnest and honest in letting our discussions reshape our thinking for the better.
“Maybe we should ask Akin if Kerry Gauthier’s statutory rape of a 17 year old boy was “legitimate rape”. I’d laugh at that, but today I just want to cry for the state of the political system in America.”
The age of consent in Minnesota is 16. It’s not statutory rape.
“Bonus sexist points for CC voicing her attitude about mothers and attempting to project it as rasqual’s, when he never said anything remotely close to characterizing women who happen to reproduce as “mere chattel”.”
Irony is, obviously, not a strong suit for the fetus fetishists! LOL.
xalisae -
I don’t understand why the question sent you over the edge – very odd. Do you think having to state your position on it is an attack? I would have felt it was good for you to voice it. So essentially, your views are:
– A woman who has an abortion should be eligible for the death penalty or life in prison without parole (or whatever the state has for murder)
– Somebody who has been raped might be of the mindset that they should be held less accountable (might be or definitely is?)
Again – what’s wrong with asking the question. Why dodge from the punishment side? Otherwise, all we’re saying is “don’t do it” without having the actual punishments talked about. Surely an abortion ban with no punishments wouldn’t be much of a ban at all, right?
Tyler, you asked, “JoAnna, now can you please answer me one question: do you think Mr. Akin, an engineer, a US Congressman, and a man living in the 21st century, really thinks a woman can’t get pregnant from a rapist?”
Based on his comments, it seems that is indeed his position.
“- A woman who has an abortion should be eligible for the death penalty or life in prison without parole (or whatever the state has for murder)”
ROFLMAO – the ultimate ”pro-life” fantasy – women being punished for behaving badly. Sure does win them lots of new supporters – not.
Ex-RINO-
If you think that is my “over the edge”…boy, are you ever mistaken. That was my cordial debate face.
Xalisae – it was just a really weird answer – why would you go on and on about my position when I just asked a question? Would a “true pro-lifer” not talk about punishment along with a crime?
I’m so confused as to your angst on this. I just asked a question and have now asked if I’m stating your position correctly. What’s the big deal?
The age of consent in Minnesota is 16. It’s not statutory rape.
And “It’s legal, so it must be okay.” rears its ugly head once again. Ahh, relativism. You never fail to disgust me.
Irony is, obviously, not a strong suit for the fetus fetishists! LOL.
No, irony means feigned ignorance. Yours was authentic. LOL.
“- A woman who has an abortion should be eligible for the death penalty or life in prison without parole (or whatever the state has for murder)”
not that I actually said any of that, but I’d leave such a determination up to the lawyers and psychologists. I’d be willing to bet, though, that anyone willing to risk such a thing would have an underlying mental problem qualifying as an extenuating circumstance. But I’d love to see a woman who has self-aborted defend herself in a court of law.
I have no angst. I’m being perfectly rational. I “went on and on” about your position because it was a verbatim Pro-Choicer’s remark, and it amused me.
So are we supposed to just say it is bad with no punishment? Just seeing if that was what punishment you were thinking. I’m assuming at this point my clarification post stating your position is correct.
Thanks,
Why even ask the question, Ex-GOP? The sentencing structures for murder are already in place in every state. As you know, it depends on the charges. It’s also possible that some/most states may decide abortion deserves to be charged separately from murder. One thing is for certain, it isn’t up to the pro-life movement to determine sentencing.
It would be whatever punishment the judge hearing the case dictates according to the circumstances of the murder. That’s how the law works. I don’t see why that seems so hard for your to grasp. It’s not whatever punishment I’m thinking, I’m not a judge, and I have no knowledge of the circumstances of any hypothetical case we might be discussing. I gave you my opinion on how the situation would be handled if the law were actually changed to reflect the human rights of the unborn being acknowledged, and now you seem to be trying to…what…lord something over me or something? /shrug
“And “It’s legal, so it must be okay.” rears its ugly head once again. Ahh, relativism. You never fail to disgust me.”
Oh, I see. You were pronouncing a moral judgment and not a legal observation. One might be confused, in that case, by the fact that you couched whatever moral non-argument you were shooting for not in ethical but legal terminology.
joan,
I’m looking at this from the point of view of a parent who found something like that had happened to my son. The first thing I would want to do would be to press charges. The fact there would be no legal avenue to pursue is just the rotten cherry on top of the rancid pederast sundae.
“I’m looking at this from the point of view of a parent who found something like that had happened to my son.”
17 is practically an adult. In the state of Minnesota, for the purposes of consenting to sex, it is adulthood. And really, performing oral sex on a man three times his age in a public rest stop didn’t just “happen” to Junior here. He’s not a victim.
He’s a victim, alright. A 17 year old is still a minor. A 17 year old who is engaging in behaviors like that has been failed by the adults in his life. He’s a victim. A 17 year old doesn’t just randomly get a wild hair and decide to start smoking some mid-life crisis sausage one day for giggles. This is the culmination of a long line of victimization, passively or actively. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, minors aren’t old enough to be engaging in adult activities. That is why they are minors.
But thanks for defending pederasty!
JoAnna have you watched the whole video?
You can see see that his statement “from what I understand from doctors that’s really rare” was answering the question posed to him “What about in the case of rape, should it [abortion] be legal or not?” After answering this question by stating that abortions as a result of rape in relation to the overall number of abortions he went on to talk about what a women should or shouldn’t do if she found herself pregnant after a legitimate rape. At no point was Mr. Akin saying that it is rare for a woman to get pregnant as a result of a rape. Nor was he saying that legitimate rapes aren’t bad or traumatic. (Jack, part of the healing process for victims of any kind of assault is to begin hearing what people actually say and don’t say.)
His comment about the ability of a woman’s body “to shut that [pregnancy] down” does date himself. This is the only possible mistake; however, I think at one time a lot of people in the US thought the trauma of a rape would cause the women to have a miscarriage if/when she conceived. You could say Mr. Akin was misinformed about the probabilities of conception in rape cases, but I don’t think it is fair to say that he thinks women can’t get pregnant as a result of a legitimate rape.
Tyler, really?
Get some sleep!
I’m with Tyler on this one. Akin is a good person. His statements were wrong and would have a place in honest discourse among friends but he got this one wrong in a public way and that can be death to a political campaign. Besides the apology he should publicly state that he was misinformed about the rape/pregnancy idea and move on. If he is willing to do that then I would have no problem looking past this incident and moving on in support of him.
“It would be great to chronicle CC’s remarks in a physical book, so that one day her deeming the unborn mere chattel can cluck tongues and shake heads across the centuries. ”
Depending on how you edit the repetition, it would either be the shortest or the most repetitive book in history.
And congrats to x
“Jack, part of the healing process for victims of any kind of assault is to begin hearing what people actually say and don’t say.”
Lol, you gonna school me on how to heal from assault? You’re crazy man.
I would suggest you let this one go.
Oh, Jack, don’t you know that Tyler is the all knowing centre of the universe. He not only understand’s Mr Akin’s comments better than Mr Akin does, he also knows more about healing from sexual assault than victims of sexual assault.
“He not only understand’s Mr Akin’s comments better than Mr Akin does, he also knows more about healing from sexual assault than victims of sexual assault.”
It’s funny because it’s true! But whatever. Hopefully Tyler will read the comments of the ten people telling him he is wrong and decide to maybe actually listen. Won’t hold my breath though.
(*gulp*) I suppose it’s a bit too late to, like Hans, duck the flying pastries and congratulate Xalisae (one of my heroes!) for her excellent quote?
For what it’s worth: I do not assume at all that Rep. Akin meant ill, nor do I doubt what I take to be his pro-life beliefs/credentials, nor would I even insist upon his resignation (not that I have any authority to insist anything of the sort, anyway)… but:
1) the “legitimate rape” part of his comment was nigh-unto-incomprehensible (though it was so utterly clumsy that I can see it as nothing but a clumsy gaffe); perhaps he wished to distinguish between false accusations and true ones, but I know of few ways that this can be done in a sound-byte without seeming to insinuate that a notable portion of women declaring their rape were, in fact, not being truthful (i.e. to suggest doubt about the “legitimacy” of their rape claims if, in fact, they become pregnant)… and Rep. Akin’s wording was not one of them. This is in addition to the fact that such a distinction would serve no useful purpose at all, for his argument. In other words: nothing to gain by it, and everything to lose by it… which is not wise.
2) the assertion that “the female body has ways to try to shut the whole things down” (re: conception during rape) would be, at very best, an unstable conjecture which cannot possibly be certain, and whose accuracy would be nearly impossible to verify, given the morass of variables (not neglecting the reluctance to report) in the situation; when “on the spot” before an audience, one really shouldn’t outstrip one’s reasonably secure data.
3) most importantly of all: the entire issue of “rate of fertility of rape victims” is (as many have already pointed out) AN UTTER RED HERRING, WHICH SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED. I realise that many pro-lifers desire to counteract the hyper-inflated claims of the abortion crowd, re: the use of rape-induced pregnancies (and fear-mongering by use of such examples), but this is all a distraction. The only solid reason why we oppose abortion in cases of rape/incest/etc. is the VERY SAME reason we oppose abortion in any other case: that abortion is the deliberate targeting of an innocent unborn child for a horrific death which it cannot possibly deserve, and which no possible circumstances could justify. As Rebecca Kiessling says: “It is not right to exact the death penalty on the innocent child of a rapist, especially if you’re of a mind to refuse the death penalty to the rapist himself!”
Above that should be understands, not understand’s.
“Hopefully Tyler will read the comments of the ten people telling him he is wrong and decide to maybe actually listen.”
More likely he’ll proclaim that those people are not actually pro-life, or at least relegate them to the status of reactive pro-lifer. :)
Thank you Paladin and Hans. Although, I’ve been here long enough, and considering the amount of content I’ve posted in my time here, it was bound to happen.
I have been listening Jack and much of what Tyler said is true. Akin made a verbal gaffe. You people want to feed off one another like an lynch mob. Not only on Akin but on anybody who doesn’t want to join you in the lynching. Or maybe it is just that Tyler rubs you the wrong way. Whatever it is it ain’t pretty.
I don’t know Akin personally but I think he cares as much about rape victims as any of the people who want to lynch him. So go ahead Jack. Make a noose and fire up the crowd. They are liking your crap and feeding on it like sharks on chum.
LOL, well I am flattered that you and Tyler appear to think I have immense powers of charisma and persuasion, but I think a more likely explanation is that most of the people on this thread think that what Akin said was stupid and should not be defended.
I just thought of something: it is at least possible that outlawing abortion for rape victims makes it more likely the rapist won’t kill the victim.
When a woman turns 50, her chances of getting rape dramatically dropped. However, her chances of being KILLED if she is raped go UP dramatically.
Why?
Rape occurs when:
1) Male sexuality is completely severed from empathy or
2) Male sexuality becomes fused with rage and/or hatred.
Young women are more apt to be raped by attackers in the first category and older women by attackers in the 2nd category. However, another possibility is that rapists allow younger victims to live because, 9 months later, the victim MIGHT be the mother of his child. He rapes a wrinkled up white-haired old woman, knows he can’t possible impregnate her so figures he might as well kill her.
If one increases the chances of this by outlawing abortions for rape victims, the attacker is even more likely to think she will have his baby and not murder her.
Yes, Jack. Because you know how we like, constantly agree on every social issue and whatnot. You’ve manipulated my weak will with your spooky, hypnotist-like influence! XD
Part of it is, I am not a leftist. I do not swallow everything my party feeds me and act as if my politicians are infallible, giving them a pass on every wrong thing they’ve done because they fill some void in my life left by the absence of any type of religious figure. I do not get angry with those who point out that some politicians within my chosen party have done something wrong (as you will find many leftists did with Wienergate), I take issue with the wrongdoing itself and the party at fault. We are The Party Of Individual Responsibility. I would that we might start acting as though we are in all regards, even the behavior of our elected officials.
Lol X you are totally my disciple. Haha! I wasn’t aware I had such Jim Jones-like sway over people, thank you for showing me my true power truthseeker!
Anyway. Truth, I don’t know if you have noticed, but I am usually of the minority opinion on this blog, its not like people usually agree with me on anything besides abortion. If people are agreeing with me now, it is because what Akin said was genuinely wrong.
And I expect some people to jump on it and attack him. But unlike the pro-choice to kill babies crowd; Akin does appreciate science and will become educated and move on admitting that science rules the day. The pro-choice crowd won’t even admit to facts when science slaps them in the face with it. Things like when life begins or that the baby in the womb is a human being or even that the baby in the womb is more than just a blob of cells. And these people are ignorant on a scale that makes Akin’s transgression look minute.
Now, THAT, I can agree with you about, ts.
Totally agree with that last comment, TS. I don’t want to lynch the guy – I also don’t want people to just blindly agree with everything he says just because he’s *our guy*. So what, now our guys can’t make mistakes? It’s that attitude that gets me riled up and rarin to fight. Seriously, you’ve got to be able to admit mistakes both in yourself and in your leaders. Acknowlege the problem, fix it, then move on. Admittedly, what you said is correct – those who defend abortion seem incapable of admitting they are wrong even in the face of Mt. Olympus sized scientific evidence to the contrary.
“reactionary pro-lifer” – Hey it stuck!!!
Science is important when discussing life issues. However, it is not the only truth that is important. The deeper truth about why we value truth needs to be explained to pro-choicers. We need to explain that a well-functioning society needs to have a shared set of fundamental values, and the most fundamental and true values are faith, hope and love – love being the greatest of these values. These three values must be held in the highest regard if we are to have a civil society. Individual rights are not a value. Individual rights flow out of an understanding of the three values mentioned, through four cardinal values: Prudence, Justice, Temperance, and Fortitude. However, if these individual rights contradict the greatest of these values, Love, it is not a legitimate right.
Values are transcendent abstractions or ideas. They don’t have a material form, they can’t be understood scientifically. They can’t be dissected. They are absolute and eternal and unchanging. They can be explained and demonstrated. Our current society has lost an understanding of what an absolute good and truthful value is. We can’t prove our values, we can only talk about them. Religions, as institutions, do this regularly, they very transparent about their values. We need more religious institutions for the very reason they foster transparency. It is the newly created bubbles - institutions - we need to worry about because they may not be transparent about their values or they may even deny that they have values.
Life, as an animating principle, always existed – there was never nothing. Wisdom always existed. Because life always existed we should be respectful of this miracle, of this transcendent principle made incarnate in each new human being. This transcendent animating principle of life is what we value as pro-lifers.
Tyler,
In the last day I’ve hopped back over the Akin fence. You once commented that we needed to defend and explain his gaffe. Well, I thought I explained for myself, anyway. (I only scored one like.) I never bought into the Leftist mind-reading that he was seriously proposing that rape was just as likely false /il legitiimate as actual / legitimate.
But I could never defend his cockamamie biological theory, which he now says came from a fuzzy memory of an article, not a discussion with doctors.
That would have been only worthy of an eyebrow-raising. But his brain cramp of a poor and unnecessary word choice made him toxic in the fair weather friend world of politics.
I’m just going to quietly sit on the fence and leave it up to the voters of Missouri. I hope when I look down on November 6th it won’t have turned out to have been a barbed-wire fence.
Welcome back Hans. Fence sitting is perfectly a fair thing to do. I have done it and do it myself.
I am going to pray that his funding returns.
If the democrats can continue to support Biden and Obama, I hope the GOP can support Akin, who, we know, has good intentions and produced quite the pro-life voting record while in congress.
How many of the 54+ million abortions were preformed on rape victims?
Would think that the rape victims would be crushed by the rest of that vast number plus their supporters who are using their sad circumstance as the starting point for allowing abortion.
Hard cases make bad law!
Blessings and healing for those who have been raped, esp. those who have reported the rape to the police. The same and more for those who have become pregnant and carried their child to term and either parented the child or put that child up for adoption.
There needs to be a law that would deny custody of the resulting child to the rapist. That law would be the good that would come out of this sad situation.
Todd Akin sure does NOT sound like he would be a rapist or be willing to pay for or support abortion. He would get my vote. Anyone but Obama and the rest of the abortion supporters!!!
I’ve been criticized for saying I think teen girls should be on contraception to prevent pregnancy in case of rape. I’ve changed my mind. I think when a girl hits puberty, she should be asked how she would react to pregnancy through rape. Some will reply, “I’d LOVE to get pregnant by a rapist! It would be wonderful to have a baby by a man who attacked me!” This group should NOT be on contraception. If they are attacked, they will suffer terrible disappointment if they are raped and get a menstrual period afterwards. The many women who relish the idea of pregnancy these way should not be disappointed.
I want to know who will provide for the unwanted children? If all the pro-lifers are willing to pay up then go ahead…..until then THANK GOODNESS for ROE vs WADE!!!!!
Please read the following article regarding unplanned pregnancies and the economy
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/07/unintended-pregnancy-thomas-monea
Melissa says:
August 22, 2012 at 5:32 pm
I want to know who will provide for the unwanted children? If all the pro-lifers are willing to pay up then go ahead…..until then THANK GOODNESS for ROE vs WADE!!!!!
(Denise) IF laws forbidding abortion are effective — a tremendous IF — those million and a half more babies each year might be exactly what is needed to get a real social safety net going in America. We will HAVE to put in a family allowance or something to socially support so many more babies.
Outlawing abortion MIGHT lead to less heterosexual activity or to types that don’t lead to pregnancy or to more conscientious contraceptive use. I grew up TERRIFIED of getting pregnant — even though abortion was legal. I exercised great care about keeping my eggs out of the way of fertilization.
Melissa, take your eugenics and go tell it to Bill “now that I’m rich, let’s kill off the little people” Gates.
Every statistic I’ve read demonstrates that rape victims choose to abort at a lower rate than the general population. Unless you include statutory rape.
What’s the biggest pro-choice hypocrisy in all this? If all legally defined rape is rape including statutory rape, then why do pro-choicers and abortion advocates TURN A GIGANTIC BLIND EYE TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S AIDING AND ABETTING RAPISTS? You can’t have it both ways, abortionistas. Either there is no age of consent, no such thing as statutory rape, no such thing as victimizing the young, or YOU ARE ALL COMPLICIT IN SENDING MINORS BACK INTO THE ARMS OF THEIR ABUSERS. Even when I was 15 myself, I knew well enough that guys in their 20’s that hung around trying to spend time with me and my friends were CREEPS! But, now, to Planned Parenthood those are just normal boyfriends. Sure, no coersion there, naw. Planned Parenthood is taking tax payer money and prancing all over our country and now the world at large touting how children are sexual beings and their mean ole parents just don’t want them to have any fun even if they’ve become HIV positive (“Healthy, Happy and Hot”, anyone??).
You can’t have it both ways, abortionistas. If rape is a crime, if statutory rape is a crime, then you and your beloved Planned Parenthood are guilty of conspiracy plus aiding and abetting rapists. Period. The guilt is yours, all yours and YOU OWN IT. DENY IT IF YOU WILL, BUT YOU OWN IT.
Hans,
I don’t care if people still want to support Akin, that’s fine. If they think this gaffe isn’t enough to oppose or not vote for him, that’s fine. What irritates me is that people seem to have this reactionary “I’ll defend idiotic statements just because ‘my guy’ was the one who said them” thing. I don’t get that type of thinking and it means that people end up defending some hideous crap just because their candidate agrees with them on some issues. It’s like liberals defending Clinton’s harassment stuff, not even considering the possibility that even if they like his politics, he isn’t a good person if he did what he was accused of by several different women. I doubt Akin is a bad person. I just think he is ignorant about sexual assault and pro-life issues, and that he is a liability to the cause if he is going to make ridiculous, hurtful statements. At least he manned up and took responsibility for saying something wrong (even though I face-palmed at his explanations/apologies, they didn’t seem to help much). My beef is people like Tyler bending over backwards to defend fairly indefensible comments just because they like his politics. It’s gross. I don’t think you are wrong for giving him the benefit of the doubt and a second chance, I just am always going to argue if people defend stuff I find really, really wrong.
“And I expect some people to jump on it and attack him. But unlike the pro-choice to kill babies crowd; Akin does appreciate science and will become educated and move on admitting that science rules the day. The pro-choice crowd won’t even admit to facts when science slaps them in the face with it. Things like when life begins or that the baby in the womb is a human being or even that the baby in the womb is more than just a blob of cells. And these people are ignorant on a scale that makes Akin’s transgression look minute.”
I agree with most of this, truth, I hope that he does become more educated on the topic. I just wish, and this is a foolish dream because it will never happen, that politicians wouldn’t be afraid to just say “I am not sure” about subjects, especially highly emotionally charged subjects like rape and rape exceptions for abortion. I don’t see anything wrong with saying “You know, I haven’t really examined that aspect of abortion, and I don’t feel comfortable having a public opinion about it until I do.” That I could respect. And I would respect Akin a lot more if he simply stated that he does not think that rape is a reason for abortion, without his weird justifications, bad biology, and insensitivity.
Patty, I agree with your post except for this:
“ Blessings and healing for those who have been raped, esp. those who have reported the rape to the police.”
Why would rape victims who reported their assault to the police deserve more blessing and healing than those who haven’t? It’s really not as simple in a lot of cases as just strolling into the nearest police station and reporting it. A lot of time it’s an intimate partner or a family member, and it can be dangerous to report. Sometimes people are too traumatized or ashamed to tell anyone. And with all the stigma and blaming towards survivors, I am honestly surprised as many people report as do. I don’t think people get that unless they have dealt with it. That’s why stuff like what Akin said infuriates me. It’s not like sexual assault survivors don’t have enough trauma to deal with already, they also have to deal with people blaming, disbelieving and mocking them, and gaffes like Akin’s just enforces that culture of disbelief and insensitivity towards victims of sexual crimes.
I don’t suppose anyone will heed my gentle warnings about feeding trolls here, either…? :) Ah, well…
“I don’t suppose anyone will heed my gentle warnings about feeding trolls here, either…? Ah, well…”
Well we’ve never heeded those warnings in the past, why would we start now? :)
I could make many corrections to my post at 12:45 pm, but the one that annoys me the most is the following:
transcendent = transcendental
That was my shabby attempt at an understanding of the following verses:
John 1:4; John 3:15; and John 3:16.
For the record, I know they are traditionally called virtues – but who uses that word anymore.
Jack,
While I always enjoy your comments (The post is on the top, people! Or am I showing blog ignorance?? :) ) I admit to not “liking” them very often because of disagreement.
Well, this “like’s” for you, buddy! ;)
Melissa,
When it comes to Roe vs. Wade, to borrow a line from Mae West, “Goodness had nothing to do with it!”
Hans,
Funny how you mention Mae West since she had an abortion and was an early supporter of the women’s liberation movement. She probably wouldn’t be too happy about her quotes being distorted.
Congrats, x. Terrific post.
@Libertybelle, 8/22/12, 9:14am,
Totally agree. One has to be able to attack w/in his/her party (attack ideas, not person). I think there’s too much of “my party, right or wrong” on both sides of the political spectrum.
Melissa,
Yeah, well, apparently she was liberated enough to do whatever she pleased. I’m done with borrowing her line, so she can have it back. But I won’t be going down to “see her sometime.”
Hahahaha! This is priceless. Watching X, Jackie boy, Rasqual et all argue about rape is very enjoyable. Akins is the gift that keeps on giving. Who knew that one republican who spoke his mind, refuses to concede to the wishes of his party’s leadership and drop out, could bring so much happiness to me while simultaneously derail the republican chances for the white house!!!
I think your son Steve is wandering around the halls somewhere. Better check on him.
Good one Hans. You are so clever and funny. We should hang out sometime.
I’m busy for the next hundred years.
No gay jokes, Jake? I am disappointed.
What’s funny is that you constantly mock rape and assault. I don’t think the feminists you white knight for would like that much, trololol.
Jack: Yes, extra blessings and healing on those who report rape to the police just because they will probably face their families’ anger in speaking out. Islamic tradition stones people because of ‘dishonor’.
When incest is included it maybe the rape victim that is distained as the ‘bread winner’ goes to jail.
Being pregnant is proof of sex and DNA also proves who the father is. Abortion takes care of that ‘inconvenient truth’. To me that destroys the evidence and is a separate crime against humanity. Punish the evil doers including the abortionists and not the innocent baby and the mother.
“Being pregnant is proof of sex and DNA also proves who the father is. Abortion takes care of that ‘inconvenient truth’”
So women should be forced to give birth in order to provide evidence in rape cases. Wow. Way to underscore the belief that the “pro-life” movement hates women. News flash – rape cases are successfully prosecuted without babies as prima facie evidence. And another news flash – if you think that women would blithely go along with laws that require them to give birth to their rapist’s child, you are truly delusional. (Gallup shows that 75% support rape exceptions which are supported by many who consider themselves pro-life). To mandate that women give birth, after having been brutalized by a rape, is even further brutalization. But please, continue to advocate for no exceptions and you’ll continue to expose yourself as the radical women hating cult that you are.
(*sigh*) You see what happens when you feed trolls? They hang about your door-step, they grow, they breed, and then they swarm! (Why does no one ever listen…?)
“while simultaneously derail the republican chances for the white house”
Hey Jake, want to put $100 on Obama? How confident are you of that win? It’d be an easy chance for you to make $100, right?
If not, you’ll be the second braying pro-choicer in these parts to get really quiet when expected to substantiate your confidence with currency.
What say you?
CC: What are you? I, Patty, am a women who does not hate other women. If fact any woman who births her baby is a Hero in my eyes whether or not she parents that child or gives the baby up for adoption.
I support and love life from it’s natural beginning to it’s natural end. You???
Paladin: “You see what happens when you feed trolls?”
Yeah, but when you offer ’em what they putatively believe should be easy money, they flee.
LOL
Her husband abandoning her can be explained by evolutionary psychology.
What else can we expect? People who successfully breed to the next generation are not the type of people who use their resources to raise someone else’s kids. Should this man have raised that child?
@JackBorsch: Perhaps the person believes the victim who reports to the police has done something positive to prevent someone else from being victimized.
Anyone who forces a rape victim to carry the pregnancy to term is a piece of garbage. Now, if the rape victim wants to carry the pregnancy to term, that’s one thing.
What else can we expect? People who successfully breed to the next generation are not the type of people who use their resources to raise someone else’s kids. Should this man have raised that child?
Yes! My fiance-pending-husband is currently raising two children who aren’t his as his own. We plan on having our own biological children as soon as we can, but that doesn’t mean he leaves the current crop of kids out in the cold.
Anyone who forces a rape victim to carry the pregnancy to term is a piece of garbage.
Well, there’s no “force” involved, since thankfully children gestate to term naturally on their own most times. But I see what you were getting at, and the feeling is mutual, at least. Anyone who would mock a person for being (sexually) abused by their parent(s) as a child is worse than a piece of garbage. Anyone who would support killing a child in what should be the safest place in the world for any reason is similarly worthy of such a comparison.
Ex-GOP
The criminality of abortion is meant for the abortionist who perfroms an illegal abortion, not the Mother, just as the illegal abortionist was sanctioned before Roe v. Wade. Punishment for the Mother is not desired.
The prolife movement is not about seeking punishment; rather it is about ensuring that every US citizen, born or preborn, has Constitutional rights.
You’re question about punishment is simply a red herring.
x said as much.
Jules: “Anyone who forces a rape victim to carry the pregnancy to term is a piece of garbage.”
Wow. So now pro-choicers have expanded the class of humans they consider garbage. Hitherto I had thought it was just the unborn. Now it includes others, apparently.
It’s a good thing such folk aren’t pr0-lifers, actually. They’d probably think women who are parties to the slaughter of their unborn children are garbage too.
There’s a screw loose there, somewhere…
Hi gang,
I do feel old, but perhaps this ‘experience’ might help. several decades ago the pro-life movement started and one of its earliest apologists was Dr. Wilke. He was the one who first proposed the idea floated by Rep. Akin: that during a rape a woman would create a chemical nightmare against an intruder’s sperm. So strong was this resistance that fertiliztion was unlikely. [[It was an explantion for the FEW pregnancies thar came from being raped.] The science is Dr. Wilke’s (a CNN expert-gynocologist and IS hooey-science). This explanation has the unintended consequence of ‘blaming’ those few women left who are raped and do become pregnant, anyways. Much too often, they are disbelieved and become victimized again as Jack reitterates.
That for me WAS correct science (until only yesterday) because with so much pro-life science to learn (literally books and books), no-body in PL-land EVER questioned Dr. Wilke. So Akin’s theory was a repeat (almost exact) about what he had been taught. I take Tyler’s side here.
I have studied some philosophy, ethics, logic, science, psychology, etc and come to some very different tactical views than is the norm here. Human beings ‘name-things’ that we experience. We do not ‘experience’ DNA. DNA is at one end-point of a complex science we call ‘chemistry’, and Libertybelle it IS not easy. One must BELIEVE the science of very, very small molecules over experience. If we say: ‘If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck: IT IS A DUCK!’, then equating a human-zygote with a baby is a large leap for some.
‘Soul’ in Western-philosophy is that principle which is ‘life’ in an otherwise inanimate object …. the difference between a corpse and a living-human. ALL Rights are extended towards living-beings only. Pre-born children do already have his/her Right to Life. Abortion takes it away! We do not fight to give them the Right to Life, but to recognize that Right.
This scenario is made much-more-difficult by the use of the term ‘soul’ to mean the faith-principle that animates living-babes. In that tradition soul-filled = human, a ‘human’ begins when the ‘soul’ infuses itself during the trip down the birth-canal. [I kinda wonder what is said about Ciserean or IVF babies?]
We must begin to speak/act as if ALL human life (including trolls) is incredibly complex/precious. How about: It is a privilege to share these thoughts with you?
As far as “soul” is concerned, John, this evangelical is a traducianist who believes humanity is monadic in constitution, and that death is an inexplicable absurdity — not something we must rationally account for in our anthropology.
This puts me on an even keel with secularists vis-a-vis life issues, which I’ve found helpful.
Call it the “Popeye” theology, if you will: “I yam what I yam.” :-)