Because somebody has to...

[Marenta]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... 17003.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08 ... nate-race/

I had to post 2 links, right and left.. blah blah blah.

Anywho, please tell me that you are all as confused about this man as I am? I sincerely hope that this is an isolated incident and not something that is a widespread belief in the GOP.

But, I do have to point out that it has happened before:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08 ... -not-alone

[stebo0728]

We were jabbing about this in the poll thread a couple days ago. This guy is an a** hat no doubt. Though to be fair, he did completely roll back his statements, and apologized for making them, and admittedly that they were 100% incorrect. That doesn't really help alot though, there is still a LARGE push for him to bow on out and let his stand-in take the reins to try and save the GOP Senatorial takeover. If he stays in, he has about next to no shot of winning now, and that's not good.

I would hazard to say that this is NOT a widespread belief within ANY group of people. I mean, there are still some hard core christians who still believe the pre-Copernican model of the solar system, so there are definitely some wackos out there, so who knows.

But I pretty much write off any GOP candidate now a days as soon as he brings up abortion, or if the question is asked, doesn't shrug it off as inconsequential. When we have the economy, and our many other problems solved, then we maybe can revisit some of the already settled issues from the past.

[AppleBonker]

I had to post 2 links, right and left.. blah blah blah.

This was brought up in some other thread. And TMS found and posted a quote that I couldn't agree with more:

I wish I thought of this. This cat is onto something.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/ ... e-rape.php

It seems only fitting that the party who fielded a candidate who believes that the products of violent crimes against women should be legally mandated to be carried to term be forced to remain in the race until the end, regardless of his chances at success. You know, treat him metaphorically like he'd treat the children of rape and treat the GOP just like they'd treat it's victims.

Anywho, please tell me that you are all as confused about this man as I am? I sincerely hope that this is an isolated incident and not something that is a widespread belief in the GOP.

Though I think the idea has been around in a slightly different form (scroll down to section 309), unless you are arguing that "legitimate rape" and "forcible rape" are interchangeable. You'll notice that bill has been amended from it's original form linked above. You may also notice that Rep. Ryan is a co-sponsor on that original bill. This may be why the GOP is trying to force Akin to withdraw: they don't want to bring unwanted attention to Ryan's (considered by some) extreme views.

Another thing that confuses me about the whole thing is that Akin is on the house's science committee. Does not compute.

But, I do have to point out that it has happened before:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08 ... -not-alone

Finally, that article doesn't bother me as much. There are doctors claiming that women are less likely to get pregnant from rape than consensual intercourse. I believe this is probably accurate. The problem becomes when a political candidate makes the jump from less likely to get pregnant to impossible to get pregnant. If said candidate doesn't understand the difference between those two bolded phrases, they have no business being involved with law.

[AppleBonker]

I would hazard to say that this is NOT a widespread belief within ANY group of people. I mean, there are still some hard core christians who still believe the pre-Copernican model of the solar system, so there are definitely some wackos out there, so who knows.

See my post above. How did none of the 227 co-sponsors of that bill speak up that "forcible rape" is redundant. Define rape that isn't forced. This makes all 227 of them either "wackos" as you said, or mentally deficient. Either way, I question their ability.

But I pretty much write off any GOP candidate now a days as soon as he brings up abortion, or if the question is asked, doesn't shrug it off as inconsequential. When we have the economy, and our many other problems solved, then we maybe can revisit some of the already settled issues from the past.

This. x1012041039. If this is offered up by any candidate, I will not be voting for them. It isn't that abortion is one of my key issues, it's simply that of all the things to focus on this election cycle, this seems completely unimportant. If the candidate feels it is important enough to mention, their decision-making ability is clearly flawed which disqualifies them from the position.

[Marenta]

What boggles my mind is not WHAT he said, but THAT he said it.

Abortion, regardless of what side of the aisle you stand on, has always been a hot-button topic. And, spouting ideas that aren't exactly main-stream are bound to get you noticed. I concur with the fact that anybody of his mental capacity shouldn't be allowed to serve the nation as a member of a body of law. If he doesn't have the awareness to know that he shouldn't say something, he shouldn't even be in the game.

[stebo0728]

Well, the bill you reference is more about what public funds will pay for. I don't really have much contention with the bill, because it does make the exceptions for rape and health concerns. Though I do think the adjective "forceable" is unneccesary, rape is rape, even if the beginnings of the interaction are consensual, and since its impossible to determine wither the pregnancy resulted during the consensual or nonconsensual portion of the interaction, you have to err on the side of the victim I think. Plus, statistically speaking, its more likely that the pregnancy would result from the latter half of the interaction anyway.

What sucks is, these a** hats that still go on an on about abortion, they are still the ones most likely to stand up to increased entitlement and government growth. This is the only reason I still align more with the GOP, because they tend to be, even if only NARROWLY, more fiscally conservative. Abortion, gay rights, neither matter to me. Illegal immigration only matters to me in as how it effects the economy, and I strongly advocate that we respect our rule of law. If we could prove that having anyone and everyone here helped our economy rather than hurt it (this would be the case with a consumption tax by the way) then I would be all for an open border policy, assuming we changed the law, and didn't just ignore current law.

[stebo0728]

And even now he's hanging tough. Even if you think you're right, if you know that at some point you just aren't even going to be respected by your peers on your own team, what effectiveness would you even have left at the job you're running for? He just really needs to drop out, write some sh*tty book, and fade into obscurity.

[Marenta]

There's nothing wrong with sticking to your guns, but the science backing up this Akin's claim is shaky at best. There MIGHT be some hormonal change that COULD inhibit pregnancy.. but, you can get pregnant 3 days before ovulation and up to 3 days afterward. And, unless you're constantly being raped for that entire window, any little swimmers left over are going to have full access to that egg and it's going to happen.

So, unless "legitimate" rape lasts for 6 or 7 days consistantly, I don't think that there's going to be enough preventative hormone to terminate the chances all together.

[stebo0728]

Oh I don't think there's any credible science that supports his original claim, and again he's recanted that original claim. But again, I think its just too little too late, the original statement did so much damage that there's just no coming back. He's not sticking to his guns on the statement, but he's sticking to his guns on staying in the race. Hopefully, he will realize the damage he has done, and do whats best for the cause.

[Marenta]

Well, with the news of him staying in coming out (fab-u-los!) I would imagine that Missouri is going to go Democrat this round.

Even with him recanting and apologizing, it was by far just a gesture and not a whole-hearted attempt to make amends. Shame.

We'll see how it plays out.

[IBCoupe]

I get the impression that he thinks people are opposed to him because of his use of the word "legitimate." While that's pretty scummy, there's plenty of people who'll say that for every woman who has been raped there's four others who merely say it,* and so this'd be no surprise from a Midwestern Republican Congressional candidate - there was bound to be at least one douchey enough to say something like that out loud.

I mean, forget about word choice, what could he have possibly meant to say about pregnancy that didn't make him a moron worthy of public despisal and ridicule?

* This, of course, operates on the same questionable logic that spawned the outrage at Vice President Biden's "chain" comment: because it's well-known that women are so afraid of being stigmatized by the public knowledge that they've had sex (eep!), it's reasonable to doubt the veracity of an accusation of rape. This kind of suggestion really says more about the commenter than it does the incidence of rape and false reporting thereof.

[stebo0728]

I did hear on the radio today, that some states have stricter requirements than others regarding abortions without due cause. And in these cases the theory is that more women fake a rape claim in order to avoid questioning. There are other scenarios, say where a 19 year old knocks up a 15 year old, rather than draw the ire of her parents and family, she may claim rape. Now, I've done no research into the proportions of these scenarios, but supposedly they exist.

As far as acceptable comments Akins could have made? I believe the question was in regards to allowing for abortion in cases of rape. A simply "that provision is in the bill we've proposed" would have been sufficient, and everyone could have moved on.

[bigbadberry3]

I wouldn't trust him.

Not hard to say you recant and then turn around on the floor and go back to your original motto.

[WDRacing]

Men in general need to shut up and color when it comes to a woman's right to do something pertaining to their body. Not only can we not relate, we shouldn't have the right to make rules, regulations, guidelines or any other form of suggestion when it comes to how a women makes her personal decisions concerning her health.

Gov needs to step the F out of peoples personal lives, period Fn dot. If it's not my business, it certainly isn't the Govs.

[carloslebaron]

See my post above. How did none of the 227 co-sponsors of that bill speak up that "forcible rape" is redundant. Define rape that isn't forced.

I don't know, perhaps when the rapist gives drugs to the victim and rape her and she offered no resistance but she enjoyed instead...maybe when the woman is in coma and the male nurse or doctor rape her...

[WDRacing]

Force is implied unless there is consent. It doesn't matter what state the woman is in, no consent = force.

[IBCoupe]

Is far as acceptable comments Akins could have made? I believe the question was in regards to allowing for abortion in cases of rape. A simply "that provision is in the bill we've proposed" would have been sufficient, and everyone could have moved on.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't asking what he could have said to cause less stir. I was asking: given what he did say, and that he maintains it was merely a mistaken turn of phrase, what could he have possibly meant to say?

If he said what he said and meant to give the nonanswer you suppose he could have said, then the man is empty-headed, and ought to be hurled off the nearest cliff for fear of harming others. He would have to be that stupid.

[themadscientist]

I have to agree. There is no way to word that fundamental idea without sounding like an idiot, a dangerous idiot.

[szh]

Men in general need to shut up and color when it comes to a woman's right to do something pertaining to their body. Not only can we not relate, we shouldn't have the right to make rules, regulations, guidelines or any other form of suggestion when it comes to how a women makes her personal decisions concerning her health.

I wholeheartedly and thoroughly agree with this ... always have and always will do so!

Z

[szh]

Is far as acceptable comments Akins could have made? I believe the question was in regards to allowing for abortion in cases of rape. A simply "that provision is in the bill we've proposed" would have been sufficient, and everyone could have moved on.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't asking what he could have said to cause less stir. I was asking: given what he did say, and that he maintains it was merely a mistaken turn of phrase, what could he have possibly meant to say?

If he said what he said and meant to give the nonanswer you suppose he could have said, then the man is empty-headed, and ought to be hurled off the nearest cliff for fear of harming others. He would have to be that stupid.

Agreed. Akins is a total idiot and needs to be removed from office as soon as possible and never be allowed to be in such a position again.

Z

[telcoman]

Men in general need to shut up and color when it comes to a woman's right to do something pertaining to their body. Not only can we not relate, we shouldn't have the right to make rules, regulations, guidelines or any other form of suggestion when it comes to how a women makes her personal decisions concerning her health.

Gov needs to step the F out of peoples personal lives, period Fn dot. If it's not my business, it certainly isn't the Govs.

Wow

We agree on something

And this is why Obama is the right choice

Over 200 republicans voted for Ryan's anti abortion bill.
Everyone of them should be voted out of office
The male government officials have no business trying to tell women what they can and cannot do to their bodies.

And then there is governor ultra sound in Virginia that wants to stick probes in women's vaginas which is a medically unnecessary procedure.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... ound-bill/

Telcoman

[stebo0728]

And this is why Obama is the right choice

Annnnnnd this shows how nearsighted you really are. So THIS, THIS is THE reason why Obama is the RIGHT CHOICE? Bullshoy, this ISNT EVEN AN ISSUE. The ECONOMY is THE ISSUE. Find a reason why Obama is the right choice for the ECONOMY.

[themadscientist]

He wants to "stimulate" women! Wait. that sounded different in my head.

[IBCoupe]

Giggity.

[hannibal]

Not quite as retarded as the legitimate rape comment, but this guy is trying to steal the dunce hat.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/us/texas- ... index.html

[szh]

Not quite as retarded as the legitimate rape comment, but this guy is trying to steal the dunce hat.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/us/texas- ... index.html

Fortunately, this guy is not a politician in the Federal government. Whew!

Z

[themadscientist]

This outrage rings hollow.

"This nonsense is what passes for mainstream in today's Republican Party," the statement said. "It's not only ridiculous, it's dangerous. It's crystal clear that Judge Head should resign."

Yes, there are some whack jobs in the Republican party, but to suggest that idiocy is solely a GOP problem would be disingenuous. When you have ads running that accuse Romney of killing some guy's wife and the VP pandering to racial stereotypes I think all sides have turned into the skid. It's a shame that issues and solutions get lost in this silly s*** that would be laughed out of a high school political science class.

[IBCoupe]

The judge is a crazy person. The real story is about the Republican electorate in that county who'd back a guy who says,

"OK. What's going to happen. Now I'm going to tell you my opinion, OK. Obama has put executive orders and whatever other documents his minions have filed. And regardless of whether the Republicans take over the Senate, which I hope they do, he is going to make the United States Congress and he's going to make the Constitution irrelevant. He's got his czars in place that don't answer to anybody. He's got his documents in place. They're going to be irrelevant.

"He is going to do what he wants to do. Now what do you think he is going to try to do in this next term? One of the things, my opinion. One of the things is he's going to try to give the sovereignty of the United States away to the United Nations. What do you think the public is going to do when that happens? We are talking civil unrest, civil disobedience, possibly, possibly civil war, OK? Now what happens? What happens? Now I'm not talking just talking riots here and there. I'm talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms, get rid of the dictator. OK, what do you think he is going to do when that happens? He is going to call in the UN troops, personnel carriers, tanks and weapons."

[themadscientist]

If what he said actually happened, the actions of the American citizens could be expected to be similar to that, yes. The other stuff is unknowable at this point. Is the guy a foil-hatted whacko? Oh most definitely yes. Keep him talking. It's important to know just how whacko he is as you back away watching him for sudden movements.