Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO) - “if it’s a legitimate rape"

40 posts / 0 new

Republicans are running as fast as they can from Congressman Todd Akin – the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri. On Sunday morning, Akin said he did not support abortion in the case of rape because, “if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Akin claims a doctor gave him that information – and he didn’t clarify what he meant by “legitimate rape.” Akin later said he misspoke, however he did not apologize for the comments.

Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill – who is facing off against Akin and currently losing to him in the polls – responded to the comments saying she was “stunned.” Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan distanced themselves from Akin’s comments; however the Republican Party has been working for decades to redefine rape in an effort to limit access to abortions. In fact – just last year – every single Republican in the House of Representatives supported H.R. 3, which narrowed the definition of rape to “forcible rape” – to deny women access to abortion if they did struggle to fight off their attacker.

This latest comment from a Republican politician should be a wakeup call to all women in America – the Republican Party is full of dinosaurs that don’t care about you.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 9:59 am

Comments

If Republicans cared as much about the US Constitution as they claim, then they would know that it is unconstitutional for a majority of citizens to vote in laws based solely on their religious beliefs.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 1:04 pm

Here is a link to the story on the BBC with a video of his comments.

Hope he just lost this election!

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am

"Just relax and enjoy it."

The more things change...

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

There is the stark difference.....

If you say something so ridiculous and outlandish in the GOP. Your Political career is over.

If you say something so ridiculous and outlandish in the DEMS. Your Political career has just started.

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 6:38 am

But if you drag an aircraft carrier into the Columbia and build an amusement park celebrating war, right next to an ancient Native American village site wiped out by the same military forces, you're a patriot saving your town.

Right Capital?

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am
Quote anonymous green:

But if you drag an aircraft carrier into the Columbia and build an amusement park celebrating war, right next to an ancient Native American village site wiped out by the same military forces, you're a patriot saving your town.

Right Capital?

The Technical term is "Heritage Center." Not amusement park celebrating war.. NO native American feeling will be hurt in this en devour. My town doesn't need saving... Needs a boost, along with the entire region. The aircraft Carrier will be a Big Boost to all the people of Oregon and Washington.

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 6:38 am
Quote Capital1:

There is the stark difference.....

If you say something so ridiculous and outlandish in the GOP. Your Political career is over.

If you say something so ridiculous and outlandish in the DEMS. Your Political career has just started.

Howard Dean will be glad to know that.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:

Howard Dean will be glad to know that.

You mean 50th Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean?

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 6:38 am

JTaylor, that's not true. People can vote based on any reason they want to. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say what you said.

revclaus's picture
revclaus
Joined:
Aug. 21, 2012 8:00 am

I think that there are a lot of mischaracterizations of political elements on America going on right now. I suspect that Todd Akins remarks were to mean 'real rapes' (vs. just the 'alleged rapes' that turn out not being rapes--yes, I know that's not politically correct to even suggest that but it does happen--don't forget that the original Roe in Roe vs. Wade at first tried to get an abortion in Texas by claiming that she was raped--which even 'the misogynist state of Texas' allowed then when most other elective abortions were not--when she was not raped--probably because no rape charges were filed then--and she admits it today).

But, in this world of political mischaracterizations, Akins goes on to try to explain that these 'real rapes' are 'handled by the female body' apparently as spontaneous abortions--otherwise known as miscarriages. There are many elements of the process of pregnancy that do result in miscarriages. While they aren't well understood, it is known that many pregnancies end up in miscarriages (I was taught 20%). However, I doubt that one of the elements on its own is 'rape'. It may be one of the ways women used to try to cause 'self-abortions' (something that has never been illegal in America)--but, I doubt it is one that 'nature' intrinsically aborts.

But, then, Obama's response to Akins comments is just as mischaracterizing. Right in line with Obamacare's premise that 'health insurance' means the same thing as 'health care', Obama's remarks on Akins comments ended with abortion needing to be seen as a 'medical issue'--not as a woman's right. Remarkable how far we have drifted from what was originally discussed in Roe vs. Wade.

And, the right seems to remember it better than the politically correct left here does--elective abortions aren't a 'medical issue' as much as they are a political and social one judged and based primarily on the contention of rights between a mother's right to choose and the fetus's right to life. There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance--even if there may be a political and social issue to do so. But, to the politically correct left, that political and social issue doesn't seem to include a 'woman's right'--instead, it is a 'medical decision' and, if it is described in political and social terms, always with the 'dire circumstances' issues of rape, incest, immaturity, etc.--never a 'woman's right to abort'--that sounds......too 'selfish' to the politically correct left that seems to want to taint the incentives for elective abortions more as 'pity the rape' than 'endorse the right' (even if there is a contention)......

I just read this in Huffington Post as being placed in the GOP Platform to call for a Constitutional ban on abortion (despite Akins gaff):

"Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Indepedence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed," the GOP platform states, according to CNN. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

Up until recently, I have always discussed this issue as a woman's right to abort when no fetal viablity exists--pointing out that 20% of all pregnancies miscarry, anyway. If the 'right to life' begins at conception, why hasn't any culture anywhere in the world treated these miscarried fetuses as dead persons? Naming them. Disposing of them as any dead person. Investigating their untimely death to rule out all foul play--after all, maybe the woman took an abortifacient. In that case, all miscarriages would have to be handled as potential homicides--and, every miscarrying woman would need a blood or piss test checking for abortifacients. My manner of discussing was to show how impossible the claim for 'right to life at conception' really is--and how it has never been followed in any culture in the world (including Catholic ones) because miscarried fetuses have never been treated as dead persons. So, in the panoply of rights to individuals, just as Roe vs. Wade determined, there is room enough here for a woman's right to choose--especially when there is no fetal viability at the time that choice is enacted with the medical procedure to electively abort.

But, the politically correct left here--and it does appear that Obama agrees with that mischaracterization--want this more to be a 'medical decision' with the chant of 'rape and incest' when a vast majority of elective abortions have no physiological medical indication to abort--and no rape and incent is involved. But, as was known in the time of Roe vs. Wade, there once was a consideration of the woman's 'selfish' right to choose......

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote JTaylor:If Republicans cared as much about the US Constitution as they claim, then they would know that it is unconstitutional for a majority of citizens to vote in laws based solely on their religious beliefs.
Quote revclaus:JTaylor, that's not true. People can vote based on any reason they want to. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say what you said.

It's the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." It's the first rule put into place by our country. We wouldn't be a free country if not for that sentence.

It doesn't only mean that the government can't adopt an official religion. It means in the broader sense, "Keep everyone's dumbass fairy tales out of our laws." Our laws are supposed to be based in reality, not based on ghost stories that are a 1,000-year-old waste of time.

So even if the majority of citizens ever want to vote to outlaw abortion because the preacher on tv said that "God" said abortion is wrong, and thus ending the right to choose even for women who do not believe in that particular God, they are not allowed to do that because American laws cannot be based on religious beliefs.

On the flip-side, the second part of the first sentence of the First Amendment states, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The entire sentence means that you as a private individual are free to believe that L. Ron Christ and his Discipletologists are having an eternal orgy in the trail of a comet, or whatever other crazy bedtime stories you can think of, but no one will never force those crazy stories on anyone else through legal action.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 1:04 pm

Kerry, if you must ignore the whole cartload of crap around "forced" as opposed to what?, your comments are still wrong. This "legitimate" word is an insult to women. The only place I think we can allow any ambiguity is with young people who are close to the legal age in consensual relationships where "statutory" is the qualifier. An 18-16 couple is not adult/child or elder, innocent. Forced sex is still rape. Nonconsensual sex is rape. If a woman does not fight, it is not a sign of consent.

You have become unhinged. Obama refers to universal access to healthcare, something insurance does facilitate. He is not confused or misleading in this rhetoric. It is the idiots on the Right who want to make Single Payer into Government Controlled Health Care--oooohhhh the creepy feelings that brings. We are also spot on saying that these laws interfere with "medical decisions" because it is too awkward to sort out justice. None of the purported advocates of the fetus are willing to bear the consequences of their interference. The woman pays the price of their decision. That is never better than honoring her choice.

If you want to have a principled disagreement, then you need to give the principle involved on the other side enough formal respect to be agreeable about it. Instead, you become an arrogant and insulting boor constantly ranting and defaming while you misrepresent those with whom you disagree. Then you get upset when someone calls you out.

Real men don't quibble about rape. Rape is wrong. Does any woman anywhere abuse this and claim rape when it is not true? Of course. You will find anecdotes and real stories of twisted contexts and motives. We are talking about human beings. It has nothing to do with the patriarchal rape myths and the practices that show up in Akin's "doctors' talk" about how women's bodies work. Poor little emotional creatures who need some strong man to protect them. Or, that Lesbian who just needs a real man to do her. American porn has left any erotic zone to wallow in sadism and misogyny. There is a very real "rape culture" around us in the commercialization of sex. These guys really do want to put women back in "their place."

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

drc2; Well written. Your comments about rape are right on.

Akin either has odd beliefs, misspoke, or is just plain stupid. He should remove himself from the race immediately. I still have not seen a single support group from him on the Republican or Tea Party side. Give them credit for that. Usually when someone says something stupid in either party, that side is quiet and will try to let the dust settle before defending or comdeming the act. In this case it was called out as a asinine statement immediately by Republicans. Hannity, in a live interview Monday, told him it was over for him and he should get out now. He stated that three or four times during the interview. Akin doesn't get it.

The Democrats should embrace this guy because he may have handed them a senate seat that was lost before the comment was made.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am
Quote drc2:

This "legitimate" word is an insult to women.

Did you see the context that Akins used it, drc? I did explain that--but, once again, your accusations in favor of some 'politically correct' position to accuse from are going to ignore that. In the context of what Akins said, Akins meant it to mean a 'real rape', drc. Akins said that a 'female body manages the legitimate rape'--implying that a 'real rape gets miscarried'. With what really happens in the reality of pregnancy, Akins was wrong in saying that. But, then, there are a lot of political mischaracterizations going on lately--including your idea (even if Obama agrees with it) that elective abortions are a 'medical decision' when I know that they are not--there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance (even if there is an indication to prematurely deliver that fetus).

Quote drc2:

Forced sex is still rape. Nonconsensual sex is rape. If a woman does not fight, it is not a sign of consent.

Of course, that wasn't Akins point--but, you keep chirping that same theme to distract in your usual politically correct fashion, anyway, drc. Akins' point was the 'legitimate rapes didn't need abortions because the female body would handle it' (implying that 'real rapes get miscarried', anyway). I don't agree with Akins point but, after reading it, I see what he was trying to say. Akins was wrong--but, not in the politically correct fashion that you always try to cloud things with....

And, there is such a thing as 'alleged rapes' that aren't rapes in the real world, drc. The original Roe used that excuse to try to obtain an abortion in Texas before Roe vs. Wade. She admits she was lying now--and whoever the officials were that were involved in her case then probably suspected she was lying then--especially if she didn't file a complaint of rape at the time....to the police, by the way--not the 'medical personnel'....

Quote drc2:

You have become unhinged. Obama refers to universal access to healthcare, something insurance does facilitate....

Universal access has always been present with the EMTALA laws long before Obamacare. And, you are the ignorant and unhinged one if you think that 'health insurance' and 'health care' mean the same thing. I know that's how it is approached in the media. I would think that especially such 'wise' progressives as yourself would note the difference--and understand the media's predisposition of mischaracterizing it (ie. it's better for the insurance industry profitting off of it not to ask how 'health insurance' differs from 'health care')--but, then, I guess I am wrong in that respect. Maybe you haven't noticed how I have pointed out that the Green party candidate, the Massachusetts' internist Dr. Jill Stein, explains that Obamacare for the nation will be like Romneycare is for Massachusetts, 'pitting the very poor against the not quite so poor'--and, really, not doing anything to lower the cost of medicine--in fact, as I suspect with the corporatization of medical practice escalating as it has over the past few years, actually increase the costs of medicine as 'the industry' sucks more and more from the economy for it--with Obamacare offering millions more new health insurance consumers with it (as they give a few more 'very poor' more government benefits). Also, as I recall, that was even pointed out here in thomland when Obamacare was first suggested--but, apparently, there isn't enough room in thomland for that kind of talk now, right, drc?

Quote drc:

It is the idiots on the Right who want to make Single Payer into Government Controlled Health Care--oooohhhh the creepy feelings that brings.

And, we can spin all around this topic until we start addressing the real point to it--is medical care a right to all and, if not, why is it a right to some? And, I did predict that the Supreme Court was going to uphold Obamacare's 'constitutionality' because it is such a boon to the industry--and this Supreme Court has decided nothing against any boon to any industry for many, many years. What the Supreme Court should decide is the constitutionality of EMTALA--but, then, that would be too honest and, since EMTALA is the law requiring universal access to medicine (since 1985), that would also mean that the Supreme Court would have to consider its enactment, or denial, with respect to the right to medical care to the entire population (as universal access suggests)--then, we might realize what we are up against and decide accordingly. In the meantime, yokels like you claim 'health insurance' is the same thing as 'health care'. Will all those 'health insurance carriers' get all the 'health care they need' by such 'health insurance'? No, it will be just as mismatched with the varied 'policy implementations and policy restrictions' as it is now.....that hasn''t changed in 'the industry'....

Quote drc:

We are also spot on saying that these laws interfere with "medical decisions" because it is too awkward to sort out justice. None of the purported advocates of the fetus are willing to bear the consequences of their interference. The woman pays the price of their decision. That is never better than honoring her choice.

But, you don't claim it as the right to choose, do you, drc? That's supposed to be couched under what you claim as a 'medical decision' to 'electively abort', isn't it? Such an authoritarian position to use against women--but, maybe women don't have a problem with that as long as it sounds 'politically correct'......As the politically correct chant 'pity the rape' instead of 'endorse the right'.

It's not quite as confusing as you want to make it, either--unless, of course, you choose 'pity the rape' over 'endorse the right'. The woman should have every right to choose to abort when that fetus has no capacity to live on its own outside of her womb--thus, the right to choose until fetal viability contends with it with the fetus's right to life. But, that's appears to be too straightforward for the nuances the politically correct claim as they 'pity the rape' as if that represented 'elective abortions'.....if the rape is passed fetal viability, then, all the right to life of the fetus would mean is that, for any choice to make against that fetus's right to life, it has to go to court to be determined by due process. Not quite as confusing as those who want to 'nuance' this out of any rational perspective--chanting 'pity the rape' instead of 'endorse the right'.....

Quote drc:

If you want to have a principled disagreement, then you need to give the principle involved on the other side enough formal respect to be agreeable about it.

Then, what's your principle, drc--and can you use it and describe it with real world examples? Or, is it just to be determined by your decree despite any of the real aspects of it? You know, like claiming the punishment for a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer as 'vengeance'--but punishing a hate criminal in exactly the same fashion, 'isn't'--that's 'social justice'. That's not a principled position when your proposals can't explain the discrepancies you allow. It's just a bias against personal justice as punishment but allowing 'social justice' as punishment (and who cares what anyone on a jury could see it as, right?)......the bias being how you decree 'social justice' without explaining how you verify its distinctions from 'personal justice' despite its 'punishing' actions being exactly the same.....

Quote drc:

Instead, you become an arrogant and insulting boor constantly ranting and defaming while you misrepresent those with whom you disagree. Then you get upset when someone calls you out.

Why don't you speak for yourself, drc--and let's see who's arrogant and insulting.....instead, you ignore clarifying your own remarks--even when directly questioned about them. Are you too good to explain them to lowlife, drc? You can't stoop to such 'rational assessments' when you have the 'higher cause' on your side, can you? Don't be too quick to say who's the arrogant and insulting one here, drc.....

Quote drc:

Real men don't quibble about rape. Rape is wrong.

Am I the one 'quibbling about rape' here, drc? Even on the abortion thread, rape was brought up as a 'pity the rape' excuse to kill the fetus right before birth, wasn't it? Wasn't I the one that asked what are you going to do to the rapist? Did any of you answer that question, drc? No, since you wanted to 'rehabilitate' the DNA-proven child-rapist murderer before that, none of you could actually come up with an answer that would match the seriousness of what you would do to the fetus near birth that was a product of rape in aborting it, could you? And, when it does happen, I am very serious about rape. Are you? Or, like anything other that the 'social cause' of 'hate crime' (that you determine by your decree), all that is to be covered by 'rehabilitation'?

And, I have no idea how the rest of your statement matches anything that I have said and/or intimated. I'm willing to punish any rapist to the fullest extent of the law. I'm willing to execute DNA-proven child rapist-murderers. I think that someone who could use that excuse to kill the product of rape right before birth but, then, turn around and claim that the rapist is to be 'offered rehabilitation' has some misgivings on the claim of 'seriousness' here.....or rational consistency.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Joe Biden's prayers were answered.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am

Well, it appears that modern political maneuvers are more set on piddling with the words more so than tackling the concepts, any way.....but, that's exactly what happens in thomland, also....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The sad thing is that his position isn't that far off from standard right wing GOP Tea Party thinking. Even though the GOP is making a show out of cutting off his funds etc.... for the extreme right what this guy said makes sense... or other equally absurd excuses for interfering in a woman's right to privacy... That the official policy of the Texas GOP is to ban the teaching of "critical thinking" guarantees that such thinking will continue into the future... Sure... such extreme views are only held by a minority of people... but they sure can be a loud and vocal minority... Such are the trials, tribulations and folly inherent in the flawed, corrupt duopoly which is the politicial system in the US....

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Mike, Thom, whoever..........................

I haven't heard anyone ask what seems to be an obvious question:

Just what the heck is a "legitimate" rape?

Can some rapist -- or maybe a Congressman -- out there define this term for us, please? It sure seems to me that any rape is, by definition, about as illegitimate as a thing can be. What are we missing here?

................Bill in Santa Fe

Bill in Santa Fe
Joined:
Aug. 7, 2010 9:19 am

I have searched for a definition of "ligitimate rape" and cannot find one. The FBI definition of rape is clear:

Rape is:

"Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

Rape is not a political football to be bantered about, it is a real experience which leaves the victim tramatized for years, if not a lifetime.

I have a dear friend who in her 30's was held for hours in her own home, repeatedly raped, sodomized and forced to have oral sex with her perpetrator. She has never been the same.

I, myself, have been "date raped."

It is stupid and cruel to use such a horrific crime as the Republicans are doing, to slice and dice the definition to suit their political dogma.

It is disgusting how some would defend Mr. Akin and his comments.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am

i honestly am going to say something i know is unpopular.

why are so many people ready to pounce on such a stupid statement. americans are allowed to say stupid things.

i am allowed to say stupid things.

if i say something stupid. I shouldnt loose my job over it.

AS LONG AS ITS NOT PART OF A PATTERN of behavior that clearly identifies me as......

incompetent, violent, dangerously stupid....

I'm so disappointed in the American desire to instantanously execute our fellow americans because they have a slip of the toung on a bad day.

I know you may be in opposition to me. I understand you have good intentions and strong convictions. please consider you may be rushing to judge.

Thanks!

brett4096's picture
brett4096
Joined:
Apr. 29, 2012 11:26 am

What Kerry derides is our insistence that that ethical reality come first in doing ethics. All the arguments from principle and law, the "deontic," provide an interesting field for reflection and discourse. We can sharpen our thinking and perspectives from its imaginative perfection and squared certainties about "moral principles," but the trick is always getting those "principles" back into the narrative without screwing it up.

My point about abortion is that it defies "the law" in its particularity and human reality. Our moral priority is with the already born. The woman whose "choice" is being compromised may or may not be a saint. Why should that matter? We do not treat any "right" belonging to men as if it required a high level of moral probity or insight to be allowed to practice it. Fools are allowed to vote and own guns.

The legal issue of the fetus is not about its "personhood." It is about the pregnant woman's desire to have a child and interest in it. If she is deprived of this by some act of violence, negligence or other criminal act, she has a right to seek redress and compensation for her loss. When the fetus is born and becomes a child in the eyes of the law, her relationship with this person changes. All this "personhood" crap from the Right is an attack on the woman's sovereignty over her uterus.

No sanctioned killing in human society has a more sympathetic person on the other end than a pregnant woman. I consider it appropriate to honor her sovereignty as the one paying the price for the decision, and stop! The fetus is asking a lot of this woman. It is not "innocent" in the sense that it is pure and she is soiled. It is this sin/sex thing that makes her a whore/mother who would kill her own child, the beast! Get over it. Sex is not a sin. It does lead us into the deeper aspects of being human and what we inherit and owe to one another. It does unmask our vulnerability and need for one another against the cultural backdrop of self-sufficient individuals.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote JTaylor:

If Republicans cared as much about the US Constitution as they claim, then they would know that it is unconstitutional for a majority of citizens to vote in laws based solely on their religious beliefs.

What about pro-life atheists?

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote JTaylor:

If Republicans cared as much about the US Constitution as they claim, then they would know that it is unconstitutional for a majority of citizens to vote in laws based solely on their religious beliefs.

Generally, citizens don't vote in laws. But the implication is that it is OK for a majority to vote in laws as long as they are not based solely on religious beliefs. What gives the majority the right to vote on anyone's rights?

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

In this democratic Republic, citizens vote for the morons who try to pass laws based on the combined ignorance of their constituents, exemplified in stunning focus by the case of Todd Akin.

Pro-life atheists don't have any more right than pro-choice Christians to deny any woman her individual right to choose to raise a child.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 1:04 pm
Quote Capital1:

There is the stark difference.....

If you say something so ridiculous and outlandish in the GOP. Your Political career is over.

If you say something so ridiculous and outlandish in the DEMS. Your Political career has just started.

Huh? Michelle Backmann? Joe Walsh? Louie Gomer? Alan West? Ridiculous and outlandish extremist clowns all still with a GOP career last time I checked.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote JTaylor:

If Republicans cared as much about the US Constitution as they claim, then they would know that it is unconstitutional for a majority of citizens to vote in laws based solely on their religious beliefs. 7th day adventists have less luck on their saturday blue laws.

Generally, citizens don't vote in laws. But the implication is that it is OK for a majority to vote in laws as long as they are not based solely on religious beliefs. What gives the majority the right to vote on anyone's rights?

Blue laws seem to be based on religion and are passed.

Again republicans and science are polar opposites. Aiken is on the house science committee, so his views are not in a vacuum.

There are defender sperm, mission defined sperm seeking the egg, attacker sperm like the offensive line backers, and killer sperm. That's how a woman can marry an ugly rich guy, and still produce a prefered progeny by her lover she had sex with before the troll. First passed the gate semen that are still alive have a higher percentage of defender/killer sperm, knocking out the blueblood sperm. Woody Allen played a sperm in one of his movies. If this development had been known before his movie, he and the other sperm could have drawn straws, or donned ninja gear, or camaflouge garb, to clarify the mission.

The cervix does pulse and spasm during orgasm dipping into the semen. pool projecting sperm to the otherside of the cervical wall, closer to the egg. [pretty amazing to see by fiberoptic camera, silent film] Fertlity odds are improved when the male cums first, and the female orgasms. Rape victims don't orgasm but non-orgasmic women get pregnant, too.

Trogolodytes deny evolution, but seek scientific labels to justify idiotic ideology [intelligent design]

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Republicans adopted a personhood light version for their platform. With the success of the norquist pledge a motion still under consideration id this pledge:

We pledge allegience to obtuse, and to the ignorance for which it stands. One party of God, with freedom from justice, and liberty for just us.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote brett4096:

I'm so disappointed in the American desire to instantanously execute our fellow americans because they have a slip of the toung on a bad day.

It was not a slip of the tongue. He discussed doctors opinions, so he must have been having conversations about this before this interview. He sponsered legislation that defined "forcable" rape. The information he got was from this guy...

Dr. Jack Willke, a longtime leader of the antiabortion movement and the leading proponent of the theory that pregnancy resulting from rape is rare, served as a Mitt Romney surrogate in 2007. Romney said, "I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country," after Willke endorsed him for the Republican nomination.

This is a party wide platform.

JISurfer's picture
JISurfer
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2010 9:36 am

Well, I've had enough of these stupid idiotic Republican extremists. So thanks to the Republican real war on my rights I'm taking action. I am spending my hard earned money and supporting Claire McCaskell and the other women running against these extremist radical nuts. I know that other women are feeling the same disgust that I'm feeling. I am fedup with their rhetoric against women and a woman's judgement about her own body.... so if those guys want war, well they've got it now!!!

Mr. Akin isn't the only one running for election/re-election who holds these draconian views about women's rights:

According to Open Congress, the following House members have voted with Akin consistently, including on H.R. 3. And every single one of them is being challenged by a strong pro-choice Democratic woman who will fight for the priorities that protect women across America.

Bobby Schilling (IL-17) has voted with Akin 90% of the time

Jon Runyan (NJ-03) has voted with Akin 88% of the time

Joe Walsh (IL-08) has voted with Akin 89% of the time

Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08) has voted with Akin 78% of the time

Frank Guinta (NH-01) has voted with Akin 93% of the time

Charlie Bass (NH-02) has voted with Akin 82% of the time

Steve King (IA-04) has voted with Akin 94% of the time

Bill Young (FL-13) has voted with Akin 87% of the time

Daniel Webster (FL-10) has voted with Akin 93% of the time

Mike Turner (OH-10) has voted with Akin 86% of the time

Bob Gibbs (OH-07) has voted with Akin 93% of the time

Jim Renacci (OH-16) has voted with Akin 89% of the time

Vicky Hartzler (MO-04) has voted with Akin 95% of the time

Similarities extend to the top of the ticket, where Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan enjoys a 93% score voting with Rep. Akin.

To see shared votes, here is the link to the Open Congress head to head comparison tool:

http://www.opencongress.org/people/compare?utf8=%E2%9C%93&representatives=true&person1=400005&person2=412463

Here are links to women's organization, I'm sure there are other organizations that are out there, too. Here are a few to start with:

Emily's List

National Organization for Women

UltraViolet

And don't forget to support Planned Parenthood

Women..... I'm not standing in the shadows any longer, how about you?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote jan in iowa:so if those guys want war, well they've got it now!!!...

Women..... I'm not standing in the shadows any longer, how about you?

You might enjoy this.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 1:04 pm

JTaylor..... thanks for the great link!

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote jan in iowa:JTaylor..... thanks for the great link!

You're welcome. There is plenty of ammunition there for us to use in this war; plenty of lessons to be learned.

Not only for women, but for men, too.

EDIT: That previous link was actually only half of the book. My fault. Each chapter of the full book is here:

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/mj/bl_mj01.htm

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 1:04 pm

The strike in the southern fields dragged on and on. But from the moment the southern miners had been deserted by their northern brothers, I felt their strike was doomed. Bravely did those miners fight before giving in to the old peonage. The military had no regard for human life. They were sanctified cannibals. Is it any wonder that we have murders and holdups when the youth of the land is trained by the great industrialists to a belief in force; when they see that the possession of money puts one above law.

Men like President Howell and Secretary Simpson will live in history. I was in close touch with them throughout this terrible strike. Their descendants should feel proud that the blood of such great men flows in their veins.

No more loyal, courageous men could be found than those southern miners, scornfully referred to by "citizens' alliances" as "foreigners." Italians and Mexicans endured to the end. They were defeated on the industrial field but theirs was the victory of the spirit.

Another P.O.V. not necessarily a worms eye view.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

This community organizer was successful

A voice, then rights, benefits, pension, wow.

ugust 19, 2012

Republican Congressman Proposes National-Security Role for UterusPosted by

ST. LOUIS (The Borowitz Report)—Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin doubled down on his controversial remarks about the female body today, proposing a prominent national-security role for the uterus.

“From what I understand, there’s nothing that the uterus doesn’t know,” Rep. Akin told a reporter on KTVI-TV. “It’s almost like Spider-Man’s ‘spidey sense,’ if you will, except the tingling goes on down in the lady parts.”

Rep. Akin said that given the uterus’ extraordinary powers of detection, the female reproductive system should be America’s secret weapon in the war on terror.

“If we posted a uterus at every airport and a bunch of them along the border, I would just love to see an evildoer get past defenses like that,” he said. “Not gonna happen, folks. Nothing fools a uterus.”

Rep. Akin closed his interview with what he called “the highest praise and respect” for the female reproductive system.

“Not a day goes by that I don’t wish I was as smart as a uterus,” he said.

Get the Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox for free by clicking here.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/08/republican-congressman-proposes-national-security-role-for-uterus.html#ixzz24MJHvNpD

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The primary source of Todd Akin's rape pregnancy 'knowledge' is -- are you sitting down? -- is experimentation on women by a Nazi concentration camp doctor.

Incredible. I mean, incredible how we can still trace a direct link between these American bigots and the infamously premiere bigots of the mid-20th century.

When one group seeks to control when people (women included, by the way!) can or cannot reproduce, isn't that a desire to apply eugenic control? In this case religious-based, the message being that Americans can reproduce but only on Dominionists' terms.

Anyway, this story reveals an important part of the Ryan-Akin Rape Pregnancy madness:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/21/akin-rape-theory-rooted-in-nazi-de...

[excerpt]

...

This reasoning, based on 1972 article by a University of Minnesota Medical School assistant professor, has been used for decades by anti-abortion activists to argue that no exceptions to abortion bans are necessary, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

In the article titled “The Indications for Induced Abortion: A Physician’s Perspective,” Dr. Fred Mecklenburg concluded that it “is extremely rare” for a rape to result in pregnancy.

...

To support his conclusion, Mecklenburg cited studies that were allegedly done at extermination camps in Nazi Germany.

Nazis reportedly tested the theory “by selecting women who were about to ovulate and sending them to the gas chambers, only to bring them back after their realistic mock-killing, to see what the effect this had on their ovulatory patterns. An extremely high percentage of these women did not ovulate,” the article said.

...

[more at link]

nora's picture
nora
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

nora, what a disturbing post. Thanks for including a link. Knowledge is power.

As a young person I used to watch Firing Line with William F. Buckley. I usually didn't agree with his views, even at a young age, but I admired and respected his fairness and the brilliance of his logic. Bill Buckley must be rolling over in his grave now. The Republican radical extremist have destroyed what he so painstakingly built. What a loss for the Republicans and for our country.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote drc2:

The legal issue of the fetus is not about its "personhood." It is about the pregnant woman's desire to have a child and interest in it. If she is deprived of this by some act of violence, negligence or other criminal act, she has a right to seek redress and compensation for her loss. When the fetus is born and becomes a child in the eyes of the law, her relationship with this person changes. All this "personhood" crap from the Right is an attack on the woman's sovereignty over her uterus.

No sanctioned killing in human society has a more sympathetic person on the other end than a pregnant woman. I consider it appropriate to honor her sovereignty as the one paying the price for the decision, and stop! The fetus is asking a lot of this woman. It is not "innocent" in the sense that it is pure and she is soiled. It is this sin/sex thing that makes her a whore/mother who would kill her own child, the beast! Get over it. Sex is not a sin. It does lead us into the deeper aspects of being human and what we inherit and owe to one another. It does unmask our vulnerability and need for one another against the cultural backdrop of self-sufficient individuals.

That doesn't address the point of what you would do to the rapist as you and your cohorts offer such justification for that woman to kill the impregnation that resulted from such rape. It's a question of rational perspective--and, just because you claim that this is 'not about a fetus's "personhood"' doesn't make it so. Many people of conscience (even with a communal nature to it) will adamantly disagree--especially when you are talking about a fetus that could live out of the womb on its own at the time the decision to kill it is decided upon--which most definitely would be 'near birth'. And, in accordance to your anti-individualistic 'Original Sin' claim, while the fetus may not be 'completely innocent', I do believe that most people considering any of the elements of this action could see that the fetus is the 'most innocent'--even as a 10-year old rape victim could see when her rapist gets your precious 'rehabilitation' while she, as you are aborting her near birth child, could ask, 'But what did my child do to deserve this? You kill my child but you take in the rapist for rehabilitation. How is that fair?' And, other than the typical 'get over it' nonsense that the (rather oppressive) politically correct here claim when confronted with such rational discrepancies, what would your answer be?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:

What gives the majority the right to vote on anyone's rights?

When talking about real persons, there was even a time when the Supreme Court understood that point--as in the case of Loving vs. Virginia......

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote JTaylor:

In this democratic Republic, citizens vote for the morons who try to pass laws based on the combined ignorance of their constituents, exemplified in stunning focus by the case of Todd Akin.

My previous ideas on Akin claiming the 'female body would reject the product of a legitimate (ie. "real") rape' apparently isn't what Akin meant. A recent article in Huffington Post claims Akin really meant that 'in a legitimate (ie. "real") rape, the female body wouldn't allow the rapist sperm to unite with the ovum to create the pregnancy to begin with'. In either case, it is ridiculous--although, the same article ("Todd Akin's Pals Got Some Junk Science For You" by Jason Linkins and Sabrina Siddiqui) claimed that 'an actual medical doctor' promoted it.....I wonder in what era that was done.....it's sort of in line with the idea of how the Dark Ages tested whether a woman was a witch or not by dunking her in the water--if she drowned, she wasn't a witch, and, if she lived, she was and, now, needed to be burned at the stake.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The other way we're subsidizing Walmart...

Most of us know how taxpayers subsidize Walmart's low wages with billions of dollars in Medicaid, food stamps, and other financial assistance for workers. But, did you know that we're also subsidizing the retail giant by paying the cost of their environmental destruction.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system