The Sabine Women Laugh At Him
By Mahons On August 22nd, 2012Todd Akin is the latest idiot to help ruin the Republican Party. His comments regarding abortion and rape show not only a profound lack of judgment, they show a propensity to simply offer moronic lies that has dominated the Republican Party. It is disheartening. The embrace of stupidity has simply become the dominant theme. Denying evolution or the effect of global warming is of course well documented. So be it. A fetish for gun proliferation has morphed into a national acceptance that we’ll have Columbines every year. Welcome to a self-inflicted Belsen flashback.
Akin used phrases about rape that are in fact mainstream in Republican circles. He mentioned Legitimate Rape, which is of course the oxymoron of oxymorons from a true moron. What he meant was that spousal rape, incest and statutory rape are not really rape. He also cited unnamed doctors who have told him that rape victims have the biological ability to avoid pregnancy. How? Magic beans?
It is almost impossible to write on the topic without worrying that I am putting someone through unneeded pain. But jackasses like Akin need to be exposed for the people they are. So despite the sensitive nature of the topic involved, people of good faith on any side of the abortion debate should deplore the extremists when they raise their ugly heads.
–What he meant was that spousal rape, incest and statutory rape are not really rape–
How do you know thats what he meant?
I think that he meant that if there was a rape exception to an anti abortion law, that there would be many claims of rape from women who wanted abortions. A very common view in anti abortion circles.
The Dems are spinning the ” legitimate rape ” comment like mad when there is simply no need to do so – the bastard has already hung himself.
I suppose I have to rely on his prior comments and history where he said rape accusations of married women were really used as negotiation tactics by women in divorce proceedings. You can look it up.
And even in anti-abortion circles he is being castigated (see for example National Review’s Editorial).
Aikin ruined what when looked at was a decent career in conservative politics he made a very stupid statement that he from all my observation he truly believed. Which is frightening.
But your post is pure vile hypocrisy, It can’t be seen as anything but that.
Not once have you done a post on the hundreds of stupid things that have come out of Joe Bidens mouth. Therefore you reveal yourself for what you are. A Hack
Mahons 217
Can’t find that quote.
The National Review is correct. He should leave the race. That he does not want to is a tribute to his personal selfishness.
The Republican Party platforn apparently has a strong anti abortion plank, and no exceptiom for rape or incest. They really do want to lose by a landslide.
Phantom- keep looking, I found it with ease. do you think Akin just became stupid a couple days ago?
Troll – Cry baby cry. Biden has said many stupid things, most recently the chains comment. But not as many as you.
Nope ten minutes is my limit
that may be true Mahons in your view I may be the stupidest person in the world, much more stupid then Biden.
It does not change the fact that your a hypocrite. If you weren’t you would have done posts on the stupidity of the statements by the politicians that you support. Yet there are non. And that is a fact that you can’t prove false.
Where is your post about the Democrat congressman caught this week by the police coming out from behind a rest stop bathroom with his fly down and a 17yr old boy? The story is in one of your home town papers.
Oh but that’s right it’s more damaging that a Republican said something stupid than a Democrat buggering little boys at rest stops.
The Barney Frank element in the Democrat Party will give him a medal
Oh! My akin, breakin’ heart…..another write-up about nothing.
Phantom,
“–What he meant was that spousal rape, incest and statutory rape are not really rape–
How do you know thats what he meant?
I think that he meant that if there was a rape exception to an anti abortion law, that there would be many claims of rape from women who wanted abortions. A very common view in anti abortion circles.”
That is the motive yes but you can also see what was meant from the law he sponsored using the term ‘forcible rape’. (And he cannot even bring himself to make that exception without assuring himself that conception is more unlikely in that case.)
One can overlook the juxtaposition of the words ‘rape’ and ‘legitimate’ as a simple gaffe, but there is simply no charitable interpretation that makes what he said OK or where the only thing wrong with it is that he’s mistaken on the facts of biology.
Akin is guilty of one thing: giving the every left-liberal – who are asleep daily to the mega-crimes and atrocities of Washington – the opportunity to tear about like their hair’s on fire.
Other than that, he’s one man who said one thing which may or may not be correct. If he’s wrong then the current view of the female orgasm is wrong, because it encourages pregnancy.
Pete,
That doesn’t follow at all. He didn’t argue that conception from rape was relatively rare but absolutely rare.
If I said that fatalities in accidents occurring at 15mph were very rare, my being wrong about that wouldn’t contradict the view that fatal accidents at 100mph were even more common.
And he is wrong anyway, probably because rapists don’t tend to use contraception. This in no way contradicts the idea that orgasm encourages conception.
And, again, that’s not all or even the main thing that was wrong with what he said. Don’t give me all that pony about washingtons terrible crimes when nearly half of them are clearly and demonstrably plotting this kind of law against women and you haven’t a word to say against it.
Frank O’Dwyer -
I do have a word to say against it, even though I am opposed to abortion: abortion is none of Washington’s business, neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court.
Pro-abortion types can hardly complain. By and large they insist that abortion is the business of the federal government. So if and when that government rules against it, it’s simply using a power which pro-abortionists insist the government have.
Troll – I’ve several lovely posts that are critical of Obama for instance, go read them and try to emulate my style.
As for Kerry Gauthier, he should resign. He’s a state representative, not a Congressman.
As far as I can see, the NY Times has chosen not to print the Gauthier story to this point. I lose respect for them when they do this.
Gauthier’s misdeed is newsworthy, but lacks the policy and issue impact of a sitting Congressman running for a Senate seat whose election could tip the balance in the Senate.
I also got a kick out of the Congressman who went skinny dipping in the Sea of Galilee. Can politicians resist taking off their clothes?
I find it worrying that he sits on the house science committee
Troll
Why don’t YOU post on the dickhead Democrats? It’s not like you’d be stuck for choice and it would be better than moaning when your own side gets rightly pilloried.
What lies behind this incredibly ignorant remark is the fact that a substantial section of the GOP is not just anti-abortion, it is fanatically anti-abortion.
Anyway, the jerk has refused all calls to step down, so for the Dems he is the gift that keeps on giving.
oh so skinny dipping and a one time idiot statement out weigh all the Biden gaffes and blowing little boys behind the rest room?
Excuse my vulgarity I just want to put in perspective the reality of your moral indignation.
Abortion is non issue and just the latest desperate straw cast out for the mind numb robots of the left to carry. Anything to avoid the facts that 79 Million people are on food stamps, another 25 million have been out of work for 43 months, an additional 20 million are former 20-40 dollar an hour workers working minimum wage. Gasoline is $4 a gallon which in England would be cheap but here in the states is $2 more a gallon than our economy can absorb.
As for posting the crap Peter, No thank you. Most of you may disagree with my positions on subjects but they are at least about subjects.
Why not ask Mahons, Pinky, and Phantom to post an explanation of Obama plan for economic growth. I would love to read it.
Sure. Plus that he’s a Democrat ( check that box ) and a gay male ( check that one too ), and you’ll need to point an AK 47 at the NY Times to print a story that might inconvenience a degenerate blowing someone in a public toilet.
The Republican imbecile was ( thought to be, by some, in a stretch ) making a reference to statutory rape, while the Democrat actually committed statutory rape.
So of course the Gauthier is not a story.
I don’t support Obama, you stumblebum. I voted against him, and I expect to do so again. And I’ve said so repeatedly.
yeah Mahons link to your anti Obama posts lets do a point by point.
It was you last month that month that made the comment You thought David would keep the site open long enough just to laugh at you when Obama lost.
Look I expect you to root for your team, I expect you to carry the buckets of water for your team, I have always also expected more from you than most because of what you do for a living.
You disappoint when you post tripe rather than present cogent arguments.
Phantom so your going to vote for Romney?
I do expect to vote for Romney. ( If Rommney does something truly awful, I could change my mind, but I don’t expect that. )
Of course, NY is a brain dead lib state so it doesn’t matter.
They’d vote for Idi Amin’s corpse if he got the nomination.
Aikin is a schmuck, there are 9 seats in play in the senate to repeal obamacare we need 7 to switch, Aiken just guaranteed that we now have to win 7 out of 8 instead of 7 out of 9. He should have stepped down which the party asked him to do.
Well I’m proud of you, you show more sense than most on your side of the isle. Also don’t ever underestimate the value of your one vote.
It is more important than you think, whether it is symbolic or truly matters. (and that you won’t know until the day after)
Yes, as with some politicians ” it’s all about him “
Actually in order to repeal Obamacare you probably only need 6. Because the only way it is going to happen is is the Republicans win the White House (as Obama will veto any change to it). If the Republicans win the White House then Paul Ryan gets to cast the deciding vote in a 50/50 split. So of the 9 tossups (of which 2 are sitting Republicans and 1 is an open seat won by the Republicans in 2006) the Republicans need 6 to get a majority.
There are a few Republicans in NYC. My area has a good one as our state Senator.
A retired cop, and a hard working legislator who makes sure that we get the services that we pay for.
http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/martin-j-golden/bio
If it were just a stupid statement, that would be one thing.
The FACT that Akin and PAUL RYAN wrote a bill, based on the cruel and stupid assumptions Akin expressed this week, is FRIGHTENING.
Troll, where is Biden’s bill regarding CHAINS?
Not to mention Akin sits on the SCIENCE committee in the House of Represeentatives- making LAWS about abortion, climate change and other extremely important matters.
“Actually in order to repeal Obamacare you probably only need 6.”
They could get 66 and it won’t matter. There’s no way that the GOP will repeal it.
Odds are that they will probably have to. While the Republican majority in the House will be rolled back in this election it will still probably have a majority and the House have already attempted to repeal. If the House vote to repeal then the Senate will have little to no choice but to hold a vote on it. And if the House repeals, the Senate repeals then Romney will have to repeal it as well.
There is no way that the public will allow for repeal of the good things about Obamacare ( banning exclusion of preexisting conditions, reducing the numbers of uninsured, etc )
There can be a window to -reform- Obamacare and make it cheaper / less bureaucratic to individuals and employers, etc. but it will be a narrow window. If they did it right, they could pick off some Democratic votes and make a smarter health strategy happen.
The Republicans have demagogued this issue for years. Now, can they lead? Have they done any homework on the issue? I have grave reservations.
‘There’s no way that the GOP will repeal it.’
Agreed.
And good post Phantom.
Their right flank won’t allow them to tinker with it, even if the end product was a good solution. They want a repeal. And they will hound and attack their own party if they don’t get one.
Seamus -
The Bill was drafted by the pharma and medical industries. Even if the GOP could find the numbers in Congress for repeal, those industries will hose down GOP Congresscriminals with as much cash as necessary to keep the law in place.
In fact I hope they do so. Seeing GOP members persuaded away from repeal by money might open some eyes to what an astonishingly corrupt place Washington is.
While that is possible they will always have one eye over their shoulder. If any Congressional Republicans break ranks he or she will be hounded till the next election for it and will face a strong primary challenge. That is why I don’t think they will oppose a repeal.
Many Republicans have used the phrase ” repeal and reform ”
If they do the first, they appease the hard cores, and if they make good reforms and call it something else, that can work.
But I truly don’t see how any good reform can work without an individual mandate. The fact that the Republicans have demagogued this issue — which is amazing as it is a sound, conservative principle that was created by conservatives – is something that they will be condemned for by history. Their actions over the past three years may make the creation of a decent health system in the US impossible.
Mahons
“Denying evolution or the effect of global warming is of course well documented.”
I know this is not the main point of your post, but do you really believe that it is reasonable to equate the well thought out, established and documented scientific theory of evolution with the shoddy so called scientific theory of man made global warming. Many of the climate scientists seem to have become political agitators. They hide data and calculations rather than share openly and cherry pick data to exaggerate their claims. The temperature recording sites are often poorly located and much of the rise in temperature seems to be by virtue of their adjustments. Their models seem hopeless at predicting the future or even explaining the past. Are you still happy wiith the hockey stick graph of apples and oranges?
As a result we are now very uncertain as to the extent of global warming and even more uncertain as to the part caused by mankind. The cost of trying to prevent climate change, which may turn out to be futile and possibly unnecessary, is probably already causing increased poverty and unnecessary deaths.
Climate science needs to get back to basics, improve the quality of the scientific work and consider ways of adapting to changes.
Abortion is non issue
LOL! Go tell em in the bible belt.
Abortion and gay marriage are the two culture wars issues that will feature prominently in this election. And the GOP ticket is made up of a would-be potus whose religion is a cult and a catholic zealot who thinks that raped women should be forced to act as incubators for the rapists’ progeny.
Peter
You are clueless Abortion, Gay Marriage etc etc are distractions that they hope will mean something.
Bill Clinton said it best. “It’s the economy stupid” and they god love them are doing their best to fake the numbers and hide the pain, but the truth is our economy is shit and they are going to crucify The Messiah Obama.
This will be the second largest landslide since Carter V Reagan
For a certain section of the GOP base, abortion is the only issue. It is important enough an issue that it is addressed in the party platform with an airtight ban on abortion. It is enough of an issue that multiple Republican dominated states have had recent referendums on the matter.
I know some of these people. They are very fervent. If you’ve not noticed them, you are not paying attention.
There is no difference between Paul Ryan and Todd Akin on abortion:
“Asked about an abortion bill he co-sponsored along with Rep. Todd Akin, Ryan said he was among 251 supporters of the bill. “It was bipartisan. … I think we had 251 votes, 16 Democrats. I’m proud of my pro-life record.”
The bill in question was H.R. 3, known as the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” which did pass the House in 2011 by a vote of 251-175. It died in the Senate. The bill, which would have made permanent an existing ban on federal funding of abortion, initially provided an exception for cases of “forcible rape.” That language was removed after an outcry by women’s groups over the word “forcible,” which suggested that some rapes were not forced.”
Abortion is one of the reasons that the GOP base is cool on Romney, since he supports it in cases of rape , incest and when the mother’s life is at risk. Liberal scumbag.
“Abortion, Gay Marriage etc etc are distractions that they hope will mean something.”
You’ve got to be joking. Most Republican activists bang on about little else.
A GOP candidate would need to be out of his mind to talk of anything except the economy.
The issues of banning abortion or stopping tax funding of it are not identical….
A GOP candidate would need to be out of his mind to talk of anything except the economy.
Yes of course. But to the zealots it will always be the main issue until they get Roe v Wade reversed.
no Colm, most Republicans that the press choose to showcase bang on this, these issue poll dead last in every priority of issues polls of the voters.
They make good press, but lousy vote motivators.
Use me for example, I’m Pro-Choice, how does that fit any of your scenarios?
Even if Roe v wade were reversed – and it was bad law on the logic – there would not be a national abortion ban.
Troll, so the GOP isn’t serious about banning abortion? They’re just giving a sop to a meaningless minority?
If the Republicans were a serious party, they wouldn’t put things they don’t believe in up on the platform.
Josh Marshall nails the hypocrisy of the GOP here:
“What really seemed crazy and bizarre was the theory about some biological defense against rape pregnancy. That’s not so much outrageous as just so wildly ignorant that you wonder whether someone like that has any business on the local school board let alone in Congress. But even this turns out to be a commonly held belief within the pro-life movement. So why is his espousal so crazily beyond the pale that every member of the Republican party has to demand Akin relinquish his nomination that he won fair and square just a couple weeks ago? Think about it — nothing remotely like this has happened since Larry Craig or Mark Foley, in terms of universal party demands that a person depart public life.
Yesterday TPM Reader RW sent along this note:
If Barack Obama hadn’t been calling out the GOP on their terrible record on women’s reproductive rights for months, Akin’s comments to a local TV station on a Sunday would have never meant anything. And let’s be clear—what made this story was the Republicans’ reactions to Akin’s stupidity. They panicked like a herd of cattle and fell all over themselves in a fevered attempt to get distance from him. That’s the tell. We all know Romney’s gonna lose women, but the important question for the GOP is by how much.”
Troll
You may be pro-choice, but your party isn’t:
“As Rep. Todd Akin’s comments about rape and pregnancy spell trouble for the GOP and turn a spotlight on the far-right views of some of its members, Republicans in Tampa have crafted a draft of their party’s platform that calls for a Constitutional amendment outlawing abortion without specifying exceptions in cases of rape or incest.”
“But even this turns out to be a commonly held belief within the pro-life movement”
And that has been shown where?
He is on the House Committee on Science Space and Technology
Which tells you a lot about Republicans and science.
Seamus
Links:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/thats_not_misspoke.php
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/akin-not-the-first-a-short-history-of-the-false-no-pregnancy-from-rape-theory.php
It is an honourable position to hold an absolute view that abortion should never be permitted even for rape , however much I disagree with it. It is completely shameful and dishonourable and factually incorrect to hold the view that ‘real’ rape does not result in pregnancy. This would be Senator was effectively saying that if a woman claims her pregnancy was caused by rape it must mean that somehow to some extent she must have ‘enjoyed’ the act. Thousands of women impregnated by raping soldiers in brutal wars of conquest throughout history would testify differently.
as the Democrats outsource our space program to the russians, yeah it says a lot.
The right to life is a faction in our party, the gay marriage proponents are a faction in the democrat party. Neither group is either party. Neither topic carries any weight at the ballot box, except of course that gay marriage has been defeated by landslide vote every time it has been on the ballot.
Keep grasping for straws.
Which tells you a lot about Republicans and science.
Yes, many of them do not accept Darwin and many of them believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
The right to life is a faction in our party
How big a faction would you say?
The pro-life grouping in the Republican Party is not bigger, not stronger, not more extreme nor more obsessed with this issue than the pro-choice grouping in the Democratic Party.
There is an interesting analysis here on how the abortion issue is viewed across the political spectrum:
“Overall, 63 percent of Republicans think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases according to a new poll from the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Drilling down further, a quarter of Republicans take the absolute position that it should always be illegal. (The question did not lay out precisely what the exceptions would be, but generally they are rape, incest and the life of the mother.)
The new Post-Kaiser poll identifies five distinct groups of Republicans based on a variety of opinions on social and political issues, including attitudes on the abortion question. These five groups vary widely on making abortion illegal in all cases, ranging from a high of 53 percent to a low of 1 percent.”
The parody marriage faction was strong enough to get the president of the United States to fold like a cheap suit on the matter.
And Troll here concedes the point that the Republicans put stuff they don’t believe in on the platform….which is what I said a few days ago about tort reform. They don’t believe in the things that they say they do.
Phantom
See my link at 7.59. Troll is in a minority in his party on this issue.
Yes.
Repeatedly, he shows that he does not know the US, Pennsylvania, or his own party for Christ’s sake.
He’s the best!!
Phantom,
“The issues of banning abortion or stopping tax funding of it are not identical….”
Correct, and of course some people don’t think healthcare should be funded at all.
But imagine if somebody said that pre-natal care and childbirth should only be funded for women that were the victims of rape. “Forcible” rape, mind you.
Or imagine if someone said that dentistry were only to be funded healthcare for people who got a (legitimate) smack in the mouth, and not, say, for someone in the same state because of a rollerblading accident? (Because they are told by doctors that women who are legitimately smacked in the mouth have a way of not losing their teeth)
And some people do not consider the provision of abortion to be the provision of healthcare. So you will get people, including one of the two candidates on the democratic ticket, who feel that healthcare should be funded but abortion should not be.
“A Republican candidate under fire for saying women’s bodies can prevent pregnancy in rape cases has lashed out at party bosses who want him to quit. Congressman Todd Akin said it was not right for the party establishment to over-ride Missouri voters who had picked him to run for the Senate. In a new fundraising appeal, Mr Akin claims “the liberal elite” are trying to take down a “pro-life conservative”.
But he has agreed not to attend next week’s party convention.
Link here
Here, too, the Republicans have outsmarted themselves.
They could have been proactive, even decades ago – endorsing and leading the way to a healthcare solution that didn’t include abortion ( for the sake of argument, I’m not looking to fight abortion ethics here )
Instead, they said that they opposed any and all national healthcare solutions, and they let Obama impose his blueprint which damned sure had abortion baked into it, without the Republicans having any say in the matter.
If you’re the party of no, and you don’t have a plan of your own, you’re gonna lose all the big battles.
Seamus,
“And some people do not consider the provision of abortion to be the provision of healthcare.”
Most of them unless in cases of (“forcible”) rape or incest, right Seamus? Then it is somehow healthcare.
And some of them not even if she is raped. Some of them will even pretend it’s not healthcare even if the alternative will kill her or damage her health.
No need to pretend that any of these people have a point or principles worth having, because they don’t.
It isn’t pretending. If it isn’t to preserve her health or life then it isn’t healthcare and those who want to fund it in elective and social circumstances are the ones pretending when they call it healthcare. In the cases where it will damage her health or life it is healthcare as it is taking action to preserve her health and life. Rape is a difficult call. It isn’t healthcare but many people are of the opinion that it should be legal and funded despite that.
Seamus – you are a moral disgrace.
Thank you for contributing to this debate Petr. I love your style. Instead of actually contributing to a debate, arguing your points, trying to point out flaws in other peoples arguments, you just show up and randomly insult them. Well done.
That’s why I keep a distance from the abortion debates.
Because they’re not debates. Each side calls the other one a monster, and leaves more entrenched in their views than before.
Seamus,
” If it isn’t to preserve her health or life then it isn’t healthcare”
Why then the exceptions for (some) rape and incest? How could those circumstances of conception cause it to be healthcare, and at the same time not be healthcare for someone else in precisely the same state but who conceived in different circumstances?
And what about those who make no exception even if it will kill her or damage her health? How could it NOT be healthcare if she wouldn’t die or her health wouldn’t be damaged if she received it? And you claim that those who say it wouldn’t be aren’t pretending?
“those who want to fund it in elective and social circumstances are the ones pretending when they call it healthcare. ”
Obviously not since an early legal abortion is at least an order of magnitude safer (more like two) than carrying to term and giving birth. And that’s just risk of death. Serious complications like gestational diabetes are common and some like morning sickness are so common they are regarded as normal. An early abortion avoids these risks and preserves health, for those women unwilling or unable to take the risk.
Not that she needs to make such a case of course, because her body doesn’t belong to you, the state, your church or any fetus. Also when you don’t donate blood or bone marrow to save the lives of walking, talking people you don’t need to give a healthcare justification at all, and you’d be appalled if you did.
“An early abortion avoids these risks and preserves health ..”
Not for the murdered child.
“Why then the exceptions for (some) rape and incest? How could those circumstances of conception cause it to be healthcare, and at the same time not be healthcare for someone else in precisely the same state but who conceived in different circumstances?”
It wouldn’t be healthcare in those circumstances but some people want to grant those circumstances an excemption regardless of that fact. As I am not one of those people I’m not going to try and figure out why.
“And what about those who make no exception even if it will kill her or damage her health? How could it NOT be healthcare if she wouldn’t die or her health wouldn’t be damaged if she received it? And you claim that those who say it wouldn’t be aren’t pretending?”
Those people would be wrong.
“Obviously not since an early legal abortion is at least an order of magnitude safer (more like two) than carrying to term and giving birth. And that’s just risk of death. Serious complications like gestational diabetes are common and some like morning sickness are so common they are regarded as normal. An early abortion avoids these risks and preserves health, for those women unwilling or unable to take the risk.”
The overwhelming majority of pregnancies that are carried to term in the civilised world have no serious health impacts. The risk of bad health and the prevention of that risk is not necessarily healthcare. Crossing the road may lead to death or injury if one is struck by a car but that doesn’t make not crossing the road or a pelican crossing healthcare.
Pete,
“Not for the murdered child.”
No child is murdered. Self-defence isn’t murder and neither is refusing, or being unable, to dedicate months physically and intimately supporting someone’s else’s life while risking your own neck and health to do it. Not legally murder, and not morally.
And still less so since a zygote, embryo or early term fetus is clearly not a legal person and is it clearly not the moral equivalent of a walking, talking child either. Nobody has to pretend they believe it is just because you pretend to, at no cost to yourself of course.
Meanwhile walking talking children whom nobody would dispute are people do die every time you exercise your freedom not to save them, and that happens many times every day. Unlike the other ‘children’ you claim to care about, they can even tell you they don’t want to die. But that’s not murder either even though you’ve got much less excuse to do it than women who seek abortions have.
“No child is murdered.”
Quite plainly, victims of abortion are deliberately killed. They are murdered.
“Meanwhile walking talking children whom nobody would dispute are people do die every time you exercise your freedom not to save them, and that happens many times every day. Unlike the other ‘children’ you claim to care about, they can even tell you they don’t want to die. But that’s not murder either even though you’ve got much less excuse to do it than women who seek abortions have.”
Eh?
Seamus,
“As I am not one of those people I’m not going to try and figure out why.”
Well if you think it is OK and indeed should be required to force a woman pregnant from rape to remain so, then is forcibly implanting an embryo in a woman sexual assault or a moral duty? Should a person who did that be given life imprisonment, as the law currently allows, or a medal for saving the life of the ‘child’?
After all it is much the same as what you propose the force just starts a little earlier, and the justification is identical.
“The overwhelming majority of pregnancies that are carried to term in the civilised world have no serious health impacts. The risk of bad health and the prevention of that risk is not necessarily healthcare”
Therefore pre-natal care and childbirth care isn’t healthcare either. It deals in minimising exactly the same risks, after all. Though I suppose you’d be OK with calling it healthcare to the extent you thought there was some risk avoidance in it for the fetus. We’ve already established that avoiding risks for the woman doesn’t count.
And it’s not true that the majority of experience no impacts – rather the impacts are so common they are considered normal. If they happened to you or anyone else not pregnant they’d certainly consider it serious.
Pete,
“Quite plainly, victims of abortion are deliberately killed. They are murdered”
The definition of murder is not deliberate killing.
Your lunch was also deliberately killed.
Pete
Murder is a legal term. It applies to the malicious killing of legally recognised individual human beings. Embryos are not regarded as seperate beings. They are a physical part of the woman’s body. Legal terminations of pregnancies are not murder.
Ps Frank
I don’t think I owe you that Brewery any more
Colm,
You do of course, that was another thread. Phantom has already brokered the deal.
“Well if you think it is OK and indeed should be required to force a woman pregnant from rape to remain so, then is forcibly implanting an embryo in a woman sexual assault or a moral duty? Should a person who did that be given life imprisonment, as the law currently allows, or a medal for saving the life of the ‘child’?”
How is he saving the life of the child. Surely his part would be helping (along with the forced help of his victim) in the creation of said child, not the saving of its life. What should he get? In my view life imprisonment and surgical castration. Preferably with two bricks and a rusty blade. Should his child be executed for his crimes? In my opinion no. You clearly differ in your opinion of it.
“After all it is much the same as what you propose the force just starts a little earlier, and the justification is identical.”
Meaning what? Preventing a woman from kill her children is the same as raping her?
“Murder is a legal term”
But that hasn’t stopped you using it in the past to describe killings that would be perfectly legal, such as when you have used it to describe the Death Penalty.
Seamus,
“How is he saving the life of the child.”
By preventing the death of the embryo which you claim is a child, right? (I am talking about forcibly implanting an embryo already conceived, not rape leading to conception.)
In other words, if your position is that forcing her to REMAIN pregnant with a ‘child’ previously conceived is a duty, then why isn’t forcing her to BE pregnant with a ‘child’ previously conceived a duty? Like I say, the justification is identical and the level of force required is not different either.
“Should his child be executed for his crimes? In my opinion no. You clearly differ in your opinion of it.”
Well in the case of an early term abortion and especially a zygote or embryo, I don’t think there is a child, so there’s that. But I don’t even say that the pregnancy should be terminated, so you’re talking through your hat. I say if she’s going to carry to term that’s up to her, not you, and not me, and not the state either.
“But that hasn’t stopped you using it in the past to describe killings that would be perfectly legal, such as when you have used it to describe the Death Penalty.”
Not sure if you’re addressing Colm or me, though I don’t think either of us have described the death penalty as murder.
Sorry, it was directed at Colm who has in the past used the term murder to describe the Death Penalty.
“By preventing the death of the embryo which you claim is a child, right? (I am talking about forcibly implanting an embryo already conceived, not rape leading to conception.)
In other words, if your position is that forcing her to REMAIN pregnant with a ‘child’ previously conceived is a duty, then why isn’t forcing her to BE pregnant with a ‘child’ previously conceived a duty? Like I say, the justification is identical and the level of force required is not different either.”
I don’t see how the issue would occur.
Oh I would also like to point out to Pinky that has been so outraged over Aikins “Legitimate Rape” comment.
Pinky you said your going to the Democrat Convention.
Tell us how do you feel that the KEY Speaker at the convention actually Committed RAPE 3 Times that we know of, along with the Molestation of an 18 year old Female Employee?
Is it going to bother you to be addressed by a rapist? or will you cheer and get gooey?
You know the three women he raped might fit Aikins theory, they didn’t get pregnant, but he might not of completed the act and did the same with his manhood as he did with the young female employee and just left the impregnating material on their dresses.
Please let us know how you can find it in your justification to balance your outrage and ridicule of the one, and the fact that you will cheer the other. I’m quite interested in how you morally justify it.
Frank – are you making an argument for abortion over birth as a Health and Safety matter? If so, then in the interests of H&S the human race should abort itself out of existence. But if not, what happens when the psot-abortion effects are taken into account?
http://www.cmf.org.uk/publications/content.asp?context=article&id=1784
- The UK maternal mortality rate is estimated to be 13.1 in 100,000.[3] In the 2000-2 confidential enquiry, there were only five abortion-associated deaths from a total of 261 maternal deaths suggesting that abortion is a significantly safer procedure than giving birth.[4] However there are at least two important reasons why these statistics vastly underestimate the mortality associated with abortion. Many deaths go unrecognised because the procedure is often performed in clinics that don’t provide on-going care for the woman.The causal association with subsequent illness is not then recognised. But even when it is, it may still not be included on the certificate.The report on maternal deaths acknowledges these shortcomings in ascertainment even for pregnancy.[5]
However an in-depth Finnish study of deaths within a year of delivery, miscarriage or abortion from 1987-94 gives a more complete and disturbing picture. Compared to women who gave birth, women who aborted were 3.5 times more likely to die within the year.[6,7] The risk of death from suicide was seven times higher than the risk of suicide within a year of childbirth.Women who aborted were also four times as likely to experience a fatal accident, 13 times more likely to be murdered and 1.6 times more likely to die of natural causes than women who gave birth. -
You have opinions based on the testimony given
You don’t know what happened
police reports filed, one woman fleeing the country to canada to avoid testimony, and DNA on a blur dress, yeah I’ll take that as more damning than a stupid statement.
and the fact that you don’t, as many others on here won’t as proof of the desperation and ridiculusness of the whole Aikin distraction.
Aikins an ass an should resign but a known rapist and molester is good to have as a key speaker. Nah no double standards or hypocrisy there.
You people look more and more foolish with each passing moment
I see we’ve descended into the thicket of the abortion debate, which may be appropriate, but is somewhat off-task.
The problem Akins glaringly highlights is symptomatic of how beholden the GOP has become towards Christian extremists, who happen to make up a significant percentage of their most vocal voting base. A majority of house republicans voted for the above referenced legislation restricting medicaid recipients from receiving tax funded abortions unless they were legitimately (read violently beaten by a stranger before an unwelcome penis shreds the walls of their righteously dry vagina) raped.
Theocons demand all republicans bow down before the FRC, pay their dutiful homage to the institutional big players on the evangelical/catholic anti-abortion circuit before receiving a certified, blue ribbon pat on the head to proceed in their campaigns for national and local office. They gleefully sink candidates who differ one iota with their religiously inspired social visions, spending millions of donated dollars to do so.
To pretend Christian extremists do not dominate and browbeat GOP politicians into taking extreme far-right social positions is willfully delusional. These christianists, along with their warmongering neocon brethren, dominate the republican party at this point. Waver from their strange obsession with death and world domination and you’re fucking toast as a viable candidate.
The GOP is no longer a conservative party known for restrained fiscal circumspection, sensible economic ideas, moderate social views which respect individual privacy rights and one that reluctantly engages in never-ending, expensive wars or arrogant nation building.
I don’t know how anyone of a truly conservative disposition can support the GOP at this juncture, they have become fundamentally illiberal, the antithesis of classical liberalism they claim to embrace.
One off. I don’t understand how any sensible woman would claim Tea Party affiliation. Why would you support a regression to the original constitutional founders version? You wouldn’t be able to vote or have your rapist prosecuted, but abortion was perfectly legal prior to the 1920′s …maybe that’s the appeal?
Akin has shined a very bright on this.
Obama will prosecute the issue , and should.
This will kill Republicans with women, where they were already weak.
it was also less of an outrage to eat the dog than put it on the roof of the car….
The list of the lefts hypocritical bafoonery never ends….
what;s next so far we have Tax evasion, Felony Accusations, Murder, cruelty to animals, throwing grandma off the cliff
that’s ok, just keep it coming now outrage over a statement about rape admitidly made by an idiot, while an evidence charged rapist and molester is their key speaker
yeah this is the most fun campaign I’ve ever watched
Hold on, Troll.
You throw a stink whenever anyone mentions Bush’s spendaholic legacy as irrelevant, old news, but tossing out Clinton is fair game?
Troll
You are a one sided GOP shill
Open your mind, consider the other guys point of view for once
Troll would rather win one for the republican team than hold to his personal convictions.
It’s all pure sport to him, the practical outcomes we have to live with is completely irrelevant. Never mind the insane republican plank, how their guys vote for more fiscal insanity to appease an ignorant, myopic, selfish base and the generous lobbyists funding republican campaigns and lining those politician’s private pockets with obscene wealth, who wouldn’t give two damns seeing his daughters carry a life threatening or rape induced pregnancy to completion.
Gotta be for the team, come hell or high water.
“This will kill Republicans with women, where they were already weak.”
rubbish. hyperbole and rubbish.
this election is not about rape and abortion and some faux “war on women.”
no one serious in the GOP is talking about turning back Roe v. Wade even tho the Dems would like it so.
The Repubs. think that Catholics and other religious groups have a right to choose not to fund abortion. end of story.
Troll has very strong Democrat tendencies
Turning Social Security into a true welfare program, pro choice…embrace your inner Obama, then there won’t be the need to be so angry!
Patty
We’ll see
Again the women who count are in swing states, not in NY CA or TX
This could kill Romney in places like the suburbs of Philly or Denver or Cincinnati where this will break one way or the other
I know women like this and you do too. A. Candidate running on a ” no abortion and no exceptions ever ” can be very vulnerable on this…
Patty look at the Republican Convention platform on abortion, then keep lying.
Patty, you really don’t think the GOP’s platform of rolling back modern western standards of female autonomy to the commons of backwater Islamist ideology will have an effect on the vote?
Whatever you’re smoking must be pretty tasty, Daphne…
“rolling back modern western standards of female autonomy?” The GOP is not adopting Akin’s words and his scientific ignorance as their platform and knowledge of how a baby is conceived is not a “standard” – it’s a fact of science.
and this: “GOP platform = backwater Islamist ideology” ……..as I said, hyperbolic rubbish.
Mahons, does the Republican platform include over-turning Roe v. Wade? Where can I find this info?
“Patty look at the Republican Convention platform on abortion, then keep lying.” I think you are projecting, especially the part about “lying.”
I don’t think the Repubs. have even finalized their platform.
True, but it is well on its way to being finalized, with this in it. It will be a major story if strict antiabortion language is not in the platform this year, after it being in the platform in all recent years.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/g-o-p-approves-strict-anti-abortion-language-in-party-platform/
Seamus,
“I don’t see how the issue would occur.”
Why not? It already happens voluntarily. Embryos are created in vitro and some are implanted, others are destroyed.
In my question, the circumstances are the same, minus the voluntary part.
Mmmm maybe this one could beat Ban the Burqa !
It’s known as the The Stupid Party for a reason. The GOP shouldn’t even think of discussing anything but the economy between now and the election.
Pete,
” The GOP shouldn’t even think of discussing anything but the economy between now and the election.”
It seems like only yesterday you were claiming that murrrrderrrr was going on and now you say the economy is more important?
Frank O’Dwyer -
Yeah.
From a party political view, morality can screw itself. The point is to win an election.
Pete
You adopted the opposite view with regard to Ron Paul.
Colm -
It’s a dispassionate, disinterested opinion on what the GOP needs to do to win the election. For the Democrats, they need to drag the GOP onto every kulturkampf battleground and avoid the economy like the plague.
I wish them both the worst.
Ron Paul also campaigned on a pro-life platform – he says it should be left to the states.
Of course this means that his position on property rights is rather conflicted, because he’s happy to let the states legislate to deny women’s self-ownership and commandeer their very bodies, while insisting on property rights for himself and “his” money when it comes to taxation. Yes the government should stay out of your business, unless by “business” you mean “uterus”.
Still what can you expect from a pro-lifer but nonsense. They shouldn’t be in charge of anything, by their own logic not even themselves.
Well said, Frank.
“Ron Paul also campaigned on a pro-life platform – he says it should be left to the states.”
That’s not a pro-life platform (though Ron Paul is pro-life), it’s the constitutionalist position.
“Of course this means that his position on property rights is rather conflicted, because he’s happy to let the states legislate to deny women’s self-ownership and commandeer their very bodies, while insisting on property rights for himself and “his” money when it comes to taxation.”
Yes, his money is his own, whereas infanticide is infanticide. This religious joy which some get from ultra-violence inflicted against the defenceless is a deep sickness.
“That’s not a pro-life platform (though Ron Paul is pro-life), it’s the constitutionalist position.”
No, the constitution (now) has something to say against slavery.
Indeed a war was fought about it, and your side lost.
A woman’s body is her own. It doesn’t belong to Ron Paul, the states, you, your church, or any zygote, embryo, or fetus. You have no right to command her servitude.
Frank O’Dwyer -
The child inside her is not her property, the body is not hers to discard like a rubbish bag.
When you argue that pregnant women should not be taxed then you can try that servitude shit on with me.
“The child inside her is not her property”
It’s not a child and it – or rather YOU since it thinks nothing, feels nothing, wants nothing and you are the one who makes the demand of her – is using her property.
“the body is not hers to discard like a rubbish bag”
You allow walking talking children to die like garbage all the time.
If you can commandeer her body to save the life of what you claim is a child then I can commandeer yours, and most of your money, to save lives too. Why have you got an extra kidney when children need it? Why are you living above subsistence level while children are dying like flies?
Of course all that will be somehow different because it’s not about saving lives at all. And you have the nerve to point your finger at women who have done more to save real children than you ever will.
“When you argue that pregnant women should not be taxed then you can try that servitude shit on with me.”
Taxation isn’t servitude, because you can leave, don’t even have to work. Slaves do have to work and cannot leave. And that’s the condition you would reduce pregnant women to, all for your delusions about infants being killed, which even you don’t act like you believe.
You’d have us believe you think children are being slaughtered in a house down the street and instead of trying to scratch your way in there with your bare hands to stop it, here you are posting bollocks.
“You allow walking talking children to die like garbage all the time.”
That’s the second time in two days you’ve posted that comment. If I was interested, I’d ask what you’re going on about. But I’m not, so sod off.
“If I was interested, I’d ask what you’re going on about. ”
A “pro-lifer” not interested that children are dying, because they won’t subject themselves to what they demand of pregnant women?
What a surprise!
“But I’m not, so sod off.”
And pregnant women can tell you the same thing.
frank just so you know, pieces and the wording of the original constitution was designed to cause the end of slavery, do your homework
Isn’t it interesting how the anti-choice guys get together from different political standpoints? Pete Moore is a self-declared Ayn Rand libertarian, until it comes to a woman’s right not to be an incubator for a rapist.
The one thing they have in common is that they regard abortion as child-murder which should be banned completely, no exceptions. Of course they won’t say that, but it’s the only credible explanation of their comments.
I have been all over this debate before (a long time ago) and I am uncertain about how to proceed in it these days. I like to think that on some fronts, I am perhaps more understanding of opposing views than I was, say 5 yrs ago.
However, I will tentatively step back into this whole debate by saying that I do not follow Frank’s “walking, talking” point. That particular description seems to suggest, to me, that Frank insists that for an entity to be valued as a “real person”, that “entity” (whatever we want to call it) must demonstrate above all else its independence. It must show that it need not rely upon anyone else, that it is “viable” on its own.
Now, I cannot quite put my finger upon why I recoil so sharply at such a suggestion, except to say something along the lines of “we are none of us ‘independent’ at any stage in our lives; in fact, there is something about the very argument that we are dependant upon each other at all stages in our lives, that I think Frank is fundamentally ignoring here”.
Indeed, again, I accept that I am not expressing my argument as rationally nor as specifically as I ought to, but that is because there is something in this argument that (to me, at least) goes beyond ‘mere’ rationality: Frank’s “walking, talking” phrase implies that the worthiness of a life is directly proportional to its independence, to its lack of needing others. I say that the opposite is true, that our very humanity is tied to, is directly proportionate to, our interdependance.
An even simpler thought strikes me: Does any baby learn to “walk and talk” by itself? Of course not, it DEPENDS upon its parents to do these things. No human life attains this mythical criteria of “viability” or “independence”. That is not what human life is about.
Peter -
“Pete Moore is a self-declared Ayn Rand libertarian, until it comes to a woman’s right not to be an incubator for a rapist.”
I’m not a Randian though I am a libertarian, a basic tenet of which is that no-one should initiate force or fraud against anyone else.
I don’t believe that there should be no exceptions. For example where the mother’s life is in danger, it would be an act of violence to force her to go through with it, unsatisfactory though the situation would be all round.
Yes, because that’s what it plainly is. What is the difference between you and an unborn child? What is the material difference? That the child is just a bundle of cells? Well so are you, so why shouldn’t someone have you aborted if they wish?
That they are dependent on the mother? So are babies and infants, so why shouldn’t parents be allowed to leve their new-borns on a hillside to die?
Yes, I believe that abortion is murder. I suspect that you do too, but so keen to identify with other political beliefs that you try to deceive yourself that it’s about “choice”. It’s politics and because conservatives and the Right were seen as anti-abortion so widespread infanticide for political gain was rationalised as choice.
When children are vapourised by terrorist bombs and drones strikes they’re no less the victims of violence made for political gain, yet you seem to oppose that kind of child-killing. Well morally they’re the same thing.
“Yes, because that’s what it plainly is. What is the difference between you and an unborn child?”
Sentience, that’s the difference.
You can no more murder a zygote than you can murder a tomato.
I could murder a bacon sarnie right now
Lol Colm, good call. That’s lunch sorted.
“What is the difference between you and an unborn child?”
I’m a person and I’m not inside somebody’s body threatening her life, health and property without her consent.
Also, I can be in London while my mother is in Dublin.
“I don’t believe that there should be no exceptions. For example where the mother’s life is in danger, it would be an act of violence to force her to go through with it”
Exactly how much additional risk of death do you demand she accepts? Is a tenfold increase in the risk of death too much? A hundredfold? If so all early term abortions are legal it is an act of violence to force her to go through with it.
at the instant of conception it is a life, it has a soul (which some of you have no belief in) it is a human being,
At any stage an abortion is Murder. A human life taken against it’s will is murder PERIOD.
Now that being said, abortions are a fact. Woman have been ending unwanted pregnancies as long as we have existed.
Is it wrong. In my opinion YES.
Do I have the right to tell that woman that she can not end that life growing inside her NO!
The ending of that life if that what that mother decides is going to happen, it is going to leave permanent scar on her soul, and in her mind. It will be a scar she will carry her entire life.
Her actions are unpreventable and are between her and her god and conscience. No one else has the right to interfere or judge while that life is inside her.
We do not have to and should NOT pay for it her choice, her money, her consequences.
This is always the most stupid ignorant topic especially when framed as a political subject.
Tom,
“I do not follow Frank’s “walking, talking” point. ”
The only reason I mention ‘walking, talking’ is to show that even where there is an undisputed person it’s not as simple as the ‘pro-life’ pretend. We all know a person when we see one and whatever it takes to be a person, we all agree that a walking, talking child or a pregnant woman has it in spades. No question that they are people.
“That particular description seems to suggest, to me, that Frank insists that for an entity to be valued as a “real person”, that “entity” (whatever we want to call it) must demonstrate above all else its independence. It must show that it need not rely upon anyone else, that it is “viable” on its own.”
No I don’t. Viability isn’t necessary to be valued as a real person. It’s not even sufficient.
Viability is however certainly sufficient to argue against the needless destruction of a fetus when the pregnancy (and therefore all threats to the woman flowing from it) can be safely ended immediately without killing it.
Yes, I believe that abortion is murder. I suspect that you do too,
Pete Moore
You couldn’t be more wrong. Unlike you and the rest of the anti-abortion fanatics, I do not regard a one month old zyglot (the size of a pea) as a child.
What is it then, a potato?
Very good and honest comment from Troll on this thread.
Pete
It was established earlier in the thread that it is a tomato.
Very good and honest comment from Troll on this thread.
Agreed.