Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin from Missouri is a pro-life stalwart. But he said this incredibly dumb thing while discussing the morality of abortion. Of conception as a result of rape, he said:
Huh? I think that Akin was trying to make some batshit claim that the woman's cooperation with her assailant alters the likelihood of conception, and that women who are violently raped are less likely to conceive than women who have consensual intercourse.
I'm unaware of any medical basis for this bizarre assertion, and it's a really offensive, stupid thing to say, not in the least because it implies that if a rape victim did become pregnant (many do), then she must have been cooperating in some way.
Akin is a jerk, on that matter.
Akin is not a jerk on pro-life issues and on the issue of abortion after rape. He defends innocent life with vigor, and is to be lauded for it. I oppose abortion on all grounds, including after rape. Killing the child exacerbates, rather than mitigates, the crime. I understand the horror that the mother must endure, but committing another evil-- abortion-- doesn't lessen the horror. It magnifies it. It's not the child's fault, and all human beings, even kids conceived by rape, have a right to life.
For holding to the view that even children of rape have a right to life, Akin is to be applauded. For asserting that the likelihood of conception in rape is related to the woman's cooperation with the rape, Akin is to be excoriated.
We need intelligent eloquent defenders of innocent life in our legislatures. Akin will face Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill in the November election. The pro-life movement would be badly harmed by the re-election of Senator McCaskill. Although McCaskill is a Catholic, she ignores her Church's teachings on life issues and has shown substantial support for anti-life agendas, including votes to fund population control schemes and votes to facilitate abortions and the availability of contraceptives. It is very important that she be defeated in November. Akin is not the man to do it.
Akin should quit the Senate race, and make room for a candidate who defends innocent life with intelligent arguments.
“It seems to be, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, it’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”
Huh? I think that Akin was trying to make some batshit claim that the woman's cooperation with her assailant alters the likelihood of conception, and that women who are violently raped are less likely to conceive than women who have consensual intercourse.
I'm unaware of any medical basis for this bizarre assertion, and it's a really offensive, stupid thing to say, not in the least because it implies that if a rape victim did become pregnant (many do), then she must have been cooperating in some way.
Akin is a jerk, on that matter.
Akin is not a jerk on pro-life issues and on the issue of abortion after rape. He defends innocent life with vigor, and is to be lauded for it. I oppose abortion on all grounds, including after rape. Killing the child exacerbates, rather than mitigates, the crime. I understand the horror that the mother must endure, but committing another evil-- abortion-- doesn't lessen the horror. It magnifies it. It's not the child's fault, and all human beings, even kids conceived by rape, have a right to life.
For holding to the view that even children of rape have a right to life, Akin is to be applauded. For asserting that the likelihood of conception in rape is related to the woman's cooperation with the rape, Akin is to be excoriated.
We need intelligent eloquent defenders of innocent life in our legislatures. Akin will face Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill in the November election. The pro-life movement would be badly harmed by the re-election of Senator McCaskill. Although McCaskill is a Catholic, she ignores her Church's teachings on life issues and has shown substantial support for anti-life agendas, including votes to fund population control schemes and votes to facilitate abortions and the availability of contraceptives. It is very important that she be defeated in November. Akin is not the man to do it.
Akin should quit the Senate race, and make room for a candidate who defends innocent life with intelligent arguments.
Michael,
ReplyDelete'... defends innocent life with intelligent arguments'? Sounds to me like an oxymoron. I know you've been completely brainwashed, but you want to punish the female rape victim with a much greater penalty.
What do you think about the morning after pill?
It's my firm belief that the woman should have autonomy over her own body, and neither you nor your church should have the right to forbid a woman choosing to take OCs or to have an elective abortion if she desires.
>>'... defends innocent life with intelligent arguments'? Sounds to me like an oxymoron.<<
DeleteThat sounds like an oxymoron to you? So you're against defending innocent life?
No one wants to punish the female rape victim. We all wish the rape and conception hadn't happened in the first place. But adding another incident of violence (the abortion) on top of the first incident of violence (the rape) only compounds the situation.
No, the woman shouldn't be punished. Nor should the child. Punish the rapist with life in prison without possibility of parole. The other two are innocent.
JQ
https://www.facebook.com/FeministsForLife
Deletehttp://www.feministsforlife.org/index.htm
Good to see the nasty misogynist Republican thugs (but I repeat myself) slipping up once again and show their true colors.
ReplyDeleteIronically, Akin might just be right that women are able to 'eject' unwanted sperm to some extent. Chickens can do it.
I am not in the least surprised that Egnor would let a rape victim see her pregnancy to term, regardless of the psychological damage this may cause. To Egnor and his fellow right-wing gangsters women are nothing but brooding machines.
Did I Deserve the Death Penalty?
ReplyDeletehttp://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/deaconsbench/files/2012/08/03DeathPenalty-copy-575x744.jpg
according troy and bachfiend yes you do.
It seems to be a theme in this mindset of the amoral that the solution to problem X (whether it be AGW, rape, or resource depletion, or whatever) is to kill the unborn, weak, infants, and the sick and elderly.
ReplyDeleteThe unborn and infants always seem to be the PRIME targets of their 'solutions'.
Could it be the potential for free will that horrifies them so? Maybe some sort of impotent rage or inferiority complex? Maybe they are just all control freaks with a sadistic streak... or maybe there is something more universal at work.
Something timeless.
Consider: It is almost as if the evil acts (no other way to describe a selfish murder) they propose had some sort of timeless theme or direction that ALWAYS has an onus on killing young, innocent humans (and defenceless animals). From the days when the experts said the sky was falling due to some lizard god's rage, or the crops would fail because the sun was hungry - at least part of he solution for these folks has been to kill babies and infants.
The excuse to kill the unborn seems to work like this with regards to rape:
A woman is attacked and impregnated. The child is not really hers, but HIS and should be killed to punish the father. If it is a boy, it may become just like dad etc etc.
The selfish, demented, evil nature of this stance should be apparent to anyone who has even a modicum of morality.
The facts?
Childbirth is NOT a punishment, but a biological function. The baby is not the rapist - he/she is an innocent party. The baby is both the mother's and the father's offspring. The killing of the child for the father's crime in obviously unjust.
Killing a child for ANY reason is unjust and evil.
Preying on women who are recent victims of this crime in order to convince them to have their offspring killed in truly evil.
CrusadeRex,
DeleteTypical of you to be making a straw man argument. The solution to AGW and resource depletion isn't abortion. It's living sustainably and reducing our desires to our needs and means. It's finding other resources.
Crusader wants to force women to have babies, so in his little pea brain, those that disagree with him must want to force women to have abortions.
ReplyDelete-KW
KW, My issue with your statement is the word "have."
ReplyDeleteThe woman already has the baby. The child exists. It's a question of whether the child will be killed or not. I say no.
None of which means that we're happy the woman was raped.
This is obviously a very emotional issue. Rape is the one circumstance in which the woman did not engage in a volitional act in order to create the life she's trying to destroy. No one thinks it's fair, and a lot of people think that the solution is to kill the child.
To leftists, violence never solved anything. Until they have a child they don't want and then their solution is to kill their way out of the situation.
TRISH
This debate would make a lot more sense if the law of the land was that women can have an abortion only in the case of rape. That's not the law of the land, and cases of rape account for about one percent of abortions. Let's talk about the other ninety-nine percent.
ReplyDeleteTRISH
Trish,
DeleteIf you think that abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, then that's not a good idea. In fact it's a very stupid idea. It puts the woman into the position of having to prove a rape occurred. And whom would she have to convince? Unfortunately, the police are often not the most empathic of people, and are often cynical or skeptical.
Women should be considered to be autonomous; to have the right to decide what happens to her body. Not you, nor Michael Egnor, nor the Catholic Church, nor Republican Party hacks, have the right to decide for another adult person (or a minor for whom you don't have legal responsibility).
If a woman decides to have an abortion, for whatever reason, whether rape, contraception that's failed, fetal abnormality or whatever, then it's her right to decide, not yours or anyone else's. I'd add the rider that the woman's rights apply only to early abortion. There should be a medical reason for late abortion, and sex selective abortion should be strongly discouraged, even illegal, if there was a way of doing so.
"If you think that abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, then that's not a good idea."
DeleteI didn't say that. I said it shouldn't be legal in cases of rape.
"It puts the woman into the position of having to prove a rape occurred."
Heaven forbid she'd have to prove she got raped. We should just take it on faith, right? Next thing you know they're going to need proof of rape before they started throwing the accused in jail!
"Women should be considered to be autonomous; to have the right to decide what happens to her body."
Sure. Just not the body of the person growing inside of her.
"Not you, nor Michael Egnor, nor the Catholic Church, nor Republican Party hacks, have the right to decide for another adult person (or a minor for whom you don't have legal responsibility)."
But you have the right to decide who lives or dies?
"If a woman decides to have an abortion, for whatever reason, whether rape, contraception that's failed, fetal abnormality or whatever, then it's her right to decide, not yours or anyone else's. I'd add the rider that the woman's rights apply only to early abortion."
Do you see how you just contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences? Women have the right to decide, for any reason because it's their body. But Bachfiend can still attach his own conditions, but not me, and not "Republican party hacks." It's her body, Bachfiend! You have no say in this matter, you woman-hater!
"There should be a medical reason for late abortion, and sex selective abortion should be strongly discouraged, even illegal, if there was a way of doing so."
Uh...why? It's not a baby. It's a "fetus." A fetus is, of course, a baby in gestation. But according to the pro-abortion crowd, a fetus and a baby are two totally different things. To abort a fetus and to kill a baby are quite different, by their logic. And so why the hell should anyone care if a woman has an abortion late term?
You must decide where you draw the line. Where does life begin? Pick a place and stop contradicting yourself.
TRISH
It's still her body in the third trimester, Bachfiend. That's the problem with your argument. I think you believe you've staked out a nice, moderate position. But in reality, your position is in conflict with itself.
DeleteLittle John
Little John,
DeleteI take a nuanced position. Women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies. I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I'd discourage third trimester abortion, unless medically justified, because it has significant risks to the woman (and also the fetus is viable).
Having a blanket ban on abortion is just silly. You have people such as Michael coming out with batshit crazy statements that a woman with eclampsia should be allowed to die, along with the fetus, if that's the only way of saving the woman, as Michael has previously written, just to preserve his aversion to abortion. Not realizing that eclampsia is a serious condition, requiring control of the fits, control of the high blood pressure and rapid delivery of the fetus, even if of doubtful viability.
The choice isn't, as Michael believes, similar to that of giving a pregnant woman with cancer chemotherapy, which might cause fetal death inadvertently, which he considers OK. It's the choice between having a live woman and a fetus with a chance of living or having a dead woman and a dead fetus.
I'm pro-choice. I don't think that I have the right to tell an adult what she should do. People have the right to make their own decisions.
Mr Egnor,
DeleteWhat is "bat-shit crazy" about the idea or belief (however badly he may have conveyed it) that a woman's body has a built-in means to decrease the likelihood of conception from rape? The idea is "common knowledge", being "an old wives tale" -- my own mother believed and taught (*) me something like that a good 50 years ago. While any number of "old wives tales" are based on an incorrect attribution of cause-and-effect, is it *really* that common for truly "bat-shit crazy" ideas to make it into that common mass of ideas and beliefs that the "wise old women" pass down from generation to generation?
As far as I can see, the only thing going on here that is "bat-shit crazy" is giving a flip about the shrieking of "liberals" and feminists.
(*) For the record, I don't believe it ... but I also do not believe it is impossible.
For the record, I don't believe it ... but I also do not believe it is impossible.
DeleteThat's because you haven't bothered to inform yourself on the subject. The issue has been studied and debunked. There is no magic vagina death serum that is released when a woman is raped. A woman who is raped is just as likely to get pregnant as a woman who has consensual sex.
^
DeleteGoodness! If fools didn't voluntarily self-identify, however would we tell them from persons who make an honest attempt to understand what they allegedly read, much less to reason concerning it.
The fool here is you, because you didn't bother to inform yourself before opining on a subject. You said you "do not believe it is impossible". The problem with this statement is that it has been studied and it is "impossible", as in, a woman's body simply doesn't work that way.
DeleteBut don't engage with reality. That might upset your apple-cart. Keep pretending that what Akin said wasn't a shocking display of ignorance.
@anon:
DeleteRyan cosponsored a bill (along with 200 other congressmen, including 11 democrats) to clarify the ban on federal funding for abortion to specify that no federal funds would be used to pay for abortions after statutory rape, but could be spent after forcible rape.
This was already the way the ban was enforced, and this distinction is consistent with FBI reporting standards on rape, distinguishing between forcible rape and statutory rape. Ryan and 200 other congressmen simply wanted to codify the distinction in federal law banning funding for abortion.
He didn't "redefine rape". He tried to get federal law to comply with the accepted and traditional legal definition of rape.
Why are you lying about what Ryan did?
The distinction between statutory rape and forcible rape is part of the the definition of rape, not a "redefinition" of rape.
DeleteThe proposed bill-- that had substantial bipartisan support-- was intended to codify the distinction between statutory and forcible rape that was already used to enforce the law.
The purpose was to give the standard enforcement policy an explicit legal basis.
Why do you continue to misrepresent Ryan's record?
And did you vote for Bill Clinton, who actually sexually assaulted and abused women, and who has been credibly accused of rape (the forcible kind)?
And do you support Planned Parenthood's long-term implicit policy of covering up statutory rape?
DeleteExcept they don't, and the "evidence" that purports to show they do has been shown to be fabricated.
But that doesn't matter to you. It's just one more lie to add to the stack of lies that you spread.
The only asshole here is you.
The purpose was to give the standard enforcement policy an explicit legal basis.
DeleteThe purpose was to limit access to abortion services for thousands of women who had been raped. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous at best, and in your case, a complete lie. Hey let's quote Ryan as to the purpose of the bill:
“All these bill were bill to stop taxpayer financing of abortion,” Ryan argued.
Oh, there it is. If it was only to codify existing practice, exactly how would it have prevented any abortions? Redefining the rules on "rape" to limit them to "forcible rape" (and also restrict the access of incest victims over the age of 18 to federal funds) is a redefinition of rape, no matter how desperately you try to spin it. And the language was only removed when it became clear that it was wildly unpopular.
But the "law enforcement" angle is just a smokescreen, since changing the definition would have limited (for example) the ability of victims of statutory rape to use tax-exempt health savings accounts. Pretending that this was just a "codification of practice" is a blatant lie.
Why do you continue to misrepresent Ryan's record?
That is the question you should ask yourself. Why do you continue to lie about Ryan even after you claimed that when a Republican says and does something outrageous that Republicans of good conscience repudiate them? Oh, right, that's because you're not a Republican of good conscience. You're a lying sack of shit who has nothing in his arsenal but lies.
And did you vote for Bill Clinton, who actually sexually assaulted and abused women, and who has been credibly accused of rape (the forcible kind)?
Not that it matters, but no, I didn't. But thanks for reminding everyone quite clearly that you're a lying asshole.
The woman already has the baby. The child exists. It's a question of whether the child will be killed or not. I say no.
ReplyDeleteA zygote or an embryo is not a child or a baby. It's a mindless clump of cells. Instead of being forced to carry it to term, the victim could abort it and have a child with her husband. You would deny that to them and force them to be confronted daily with the rape and what resulted from it. Does that really seem to you like the right thing to do?
"It's a mindless clump of cells."
ReplyDeleteYou're a mindless clump of cells. We can't kill you.
It's a person. Tell me when you decide that life begins.
"Does that really seem to you like the right thing to do?"
Not at all. It seems like the least wrong thing to do.
TRISH
M.Egnor: "Here's the difference between Republicans and Democrats. ..."
ReplyDeleteActually, that's not quite right. To put it more accurately, when the leftists turn their well-oiled hoot-machine against a presumptive conservative, the Republicans abondom him, post haste. But, no matter what a Democrat does, so long as he is useful to the furtherance of the leftist agenda, the Democrats turn their hoot-machine against those trying to bring his misdeeds to light.
Even if what you'd seaid were actually true, don't you think it odd that you cannot see the self-defeating flaw in the pattern?
@Ilion:
DeleteGood point. I understand that you believe that conservatives should support Akin politically, and encourage him to stay in the race.
I strongly support his opposition to abortion, and he is clearly a principled decent man.
My problem with his "Legitimate rape" assertion is that it is factually wrong (probably) and politically stupid. Really stupid.
At what point do we tell our ideological colleagues that we support and respect their opinions, but we don't feel they have the rhetorical skills to advance our ideas in the political arena?
I do agree with you that we Repubs don't defend our folks with the same fervor that Dems defend theirs, especially since Dems defend assholes and we defend decent folks who misspeak.
But do we want ideological allies who misspeak in the political area and help the Democrat cause?
"I understand that you believe that conservatives should support Akin politically, and encourage him to stay in the race."
DeleteThat's not what I said.
What I said is that if conservative are going to oppose Akin, it should be for solidly conservative reasons, not because the hysterics and histrionics of the leftists and their "liberal" puppets, who have no intention of allowing a rational (and charitable) examination of what he said … and meant.
It would be like me or you worrying about – and conforming ourselves to – the lies and intellectual dishonesty of that ‘anonymouse’ troll immediately above.
Good point, and I certainly agree on principle.
DeleteBut the question is: is Akin's "legitimate rape" comment a solidly conservative reason for him to withdraw?
"But the question is: is Akin's "legitimate rape" comment a solidly conservative reason for him to withdraw?"
DeleteWhat you're asking is this: is the fact that a (presumptively conservative) politician did not speak with the careful precision with which some persons (me, for example) habitually write, such that the imprecise and non-felicitous thing he said is dishonestly used by the leftists, of all people, to make it sound as though he said something wicked, a solidly conservative reason for conservatives to demand he commit sepukku?
What was Whoopi Goldberg trying to say when she said 'rape-rape'?
What was Akin trying to say when he said 'legitimate rape'?
They were both trying to distinguish *actual* rape from the leftist/feminist misuse and redefinition of the term to mean "any sexual act or sexual connotation which prompts a man-hating lesbian to say 'EWWW!'"
@Illion:
DeleteYour points are irrefutable. Let me digest them a bit. Thanks.
You're welcone.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not my points are irrefutable (and, or course, I think they are, else I'd not have bothered), that you are willing to consider what I have said and argued is, in my experience, a rare thing. It's to me one more sign that I did not error in adding your blog to my little unread blog's blogroll.
It's a person.
ReplyDeleteIs it? Is your pancreatic cancer a person? It is just as much alive and human as a brainless lump of cells in a uterus.
Tell me when you decide that life begins.
Let's start with "when the brain forms" and go from there.
I love it when pro-aborts compare human beings in the womb to cancer.
ReplyDeleteI love it when forced birthers refer to a brainless clump of cells as a person and at the same time dehumanize a woman into nothing more than a breeding machine.
It just demonstrates that they are the true assholes.
@illion:
ReplyDeleteIt's a perceptive distinction. One of the most frustrating things about debating these guys is that ordinary logic means nothing to them.
Liars and fools.