TIL from R-Todd Akin that if truely raped women can't get pregnant

[HugoMarques]

It's incredible how in the world of politics you can crap your whole bed with a misfortune brain fart.

The man must've gotten female ducks mixed up with humans.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sex-wars-of-ducks

Now I understand the true fear of people suffering from anatidaephobia. Yeah, "bit by duck" my ass!

 

[Luv_Studd]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/19/712251/how-todd-akin-and-paul-ryan-partnered-to-redefine-rape/?mobile=nc

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

 

[TWD]

The thing that irks me the most is that this guy is trying to pass it all off as if he just "misspoke". Even if you take out the "legitimate rape" wording, and take out the crazy stuff about how it doesn't really lead to pregnancy, I still find the general idea insulting. Some conservatives seem to be working under the idea that an exemption for rape will just lead to people falsely calming they were raped to get an abortion. It's just a stupid thing to get caught up about. That's why he used the word legitimate, because he thinks false reportings are significant to the issue.

Personally I've spoke with my wife about this before, and we came to the conclusion that in the case of rape we would still have the baby. We feel that it is the moral thing to do. It is still a life and it should be protected. However, we do not at this time believe our opinion should be law, and support exemptions for rape.

I think where Akin goes wrong is that he's just far too concerned about what other people are doing. He's trying to go beyond the issue of abortion to make some greater statement about the behavior of others that is inappropriate. This is exactly the sort of politician that Republicans need to get rid of. He doesn't care so much about the morality of the issue as he does exerting control over others. Nowhere can this be seen better than the fact that he refused step down before the deadline tonight. He doesn't want to give up the power, and feels like he has nothing to lose. He doesn't care that it's doing irreparable harm to the Republican platform. That race is now a throw away. Republicans will lose it, and it's best they just send their campaign money over to the other races.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

I think where Akin goes wrong is that he's just far too concerned about what other people are doing.

but that's not Akin's problem.

that's exactly what is wrong with the entire GOP. more or less.
they seem to have it all backwards.

the government apparently needs to stay out of the economy so that it can have its nose in your bedroom

 

[dragonfliet]

Personally I've spoke with my wife about this before, and we came to the conclusion that in the case of rape we would still have the baby. We feel that it is the moral thing to do. It is still a life and it should be protected. However, we do not at this time believe our opinion should be law, and support exemptions for rape.

This is reasonable and rational. Thank you. Anyone that wants to keep a pregnancy, because they feel that it is the right thing to do, is exercising their right to choose what to do with their life, by using their intelligence, their conscience and their religious and cultural beliefs to do so. This is wise.

The problem with the abortion debate is that what has happened is that most of the pro-life camp has decided that their moral choice, based on these decisions, is the only one, and so they ignore the complications of rights (ie: if the baby is a person, then that person has a right, so whose rights prevail? The answer they are choosing is that the baby's rights prevail, but this is absurd, because without the mother, the baby cannot live, while without the baby, the mother continues to live--ergo, one is a person and one is a proto-person, otherwise known as a fetus, and does not have the rights of a person), creating a law not on legal principles that govern things as best as possible and allowing for individuals to operate according to their own personal beliefs within, and they then try to force their own moral beliefs upon the entire populace. See also: gay marriage.

The problem with Akin is the problem with the Republican party as a whole (which isn't to say all Republicans)--it's rhetoric is focused on freedom (from taxes) whereas its policy is of government restrictions on what people can do as people (getting married, giving birth). They are using morality as a blunt weapon to gain control over other people. It is painful to watch and it is frustrating entirely.

 

[Big-Al]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19339362

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

 

[TWD]

There is a third part to the conservative equation that I think is being missed when you try to extrapolate this to other issues. That missing component is culture. Most think that a moral issue should be legislated when it directly harms other people. However, that doesn't cover every law we have. Insider trading is a victimless crime, but I still agree with the law. In my view this is an issue of culture. We have this law so we can have a culture where we feel the playing field is even.

I don't view ssm as a moral problem. It's a cultural one. It's not a question of whether it is right or wrong, although that is certainly a subtext. If it was a moral debate we'd be trying to ban homosexuality. The question is if that's what we as a society want to be.

 

[ambershee]

If it was a moral debate we'd be trying to ban homosexuality.

You may want to rethink that sentence.

 

[Al]

If it was a moral debate we'd be trying to ban homosexuality.

Just like it's immoral for interracial couples to marry.

 

[Renegade Retard]

Hook, Line, and Sinker...

This is exactly the sort of politician that Republicans need to get rid of. He doesn't care so much about the morality of the issue as he does exerting control over others.

the government apparently needs to stay out of the economy so that it can have its nose in your bedroom

I don't view ssm as a moral problem. It's a cultural one. It's not a question of whether it is right or wrong, although that is certainly a subtext. If it was a moral debate we'd be trying to ban homosexuality. The question is if that's what we as a society want to be.

 

[dragonfliet]

There is a third part to the conservative equation that I think is being missed when you try to extrapolate this to other issues. That missing component is culture. Most think that a moral issue should be legislated when it directly harms other people. However, that doesn't cover every law we have. Insider trading is a victimless crime, but I still agree with the law. In my view this is an issue of culture. We have this law so we can have a culture where we feel the playing field is even.

I don't view ssm as a moral problem. It's a cultural one. It's not a question of whether it is right or wrong, although that is certainly a subtext. If it was a moral debate we'd be trying to ban homosexuality. The question is if that's what we as a society want to be.

But conservatives have been trying to ban and/or uphold bans on homosexuality for YEARS. Also: how the fuck do you claim that banning ssm in ANY way contributes to "a culture where we feel the playing field is even"?

 

[TWD]

But conservatives have been trying to ban and/or uphold bans on homosexuality for YEARS.

This is certainly not mainstream Republican thought. Nobody really put up a fight when that Texas law was stuck down. I'm sure there are a few who still think we should legislate sexual morality, and I disagree strongly with them.

Also: how the fuck do you claim that banning ssm in ANY way contributes to "a culture where we feel the playing field is even"?

I said no such thing. Re-read the post. I was talking about insider trading, a law based on cultural reasoning that most liberals will agree with.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

Now Akin , like all conservatives when called on their BS, blames the "Liberal Media".

I guess this means Limbaugh, Hanity, Palin, Levin, Krauthammer, et al... are all now officials members of "Liberal Lamestream Media Conspiracy". I hope somebody shows them the secret handshake.

 

[dragonfliet]

I said no such thing. Re-read the post. I was talking about insider trading, a law based on cultural reasoning that most liberals will agree with.

Derp. That's my fault. I was extrapolating from that point. My point still stands from earlier, though. We have people saying that because they feel that homosexuality is morally wrong, they don't want to be part of a culture that supports it by letting gay people get married and have the same rights as straight people. This is exactly the same argument that was put forth fifty years ago to prevent repeal of miscegenation laws.

 

[TWD]

Derp. That's my fault. I was extrapolating from that point. My point still stands from earlier, though. We have people saying that because they feel that homosexuality is morally wrong, they don't want to be part of a culture that supports it by letting gay people get married and have the same rights as straight people. This is exactly the same argument that was put forth fifty years ago to prevent repeal of miscegenation laws.

The contention is that the cultural changes that would come about from recognizing gay marriage would ultimately be harmful to America. For instance, men are now more reluctant to be close with their friends for fear of appearing to be gay.

I'd take issue with your characterization for two reasons. First, nobody has any intention of denying anyone rights. Rights could be provided by civil unions. Secondly, it's not about excluding people. Your phrasing makes it appear that "we don't want to be a part of this country if them gays are here". Conservatives simply don't want it to become a significant part of the culture. Hence why you will commonly hear "they should keep it to themselves" or "don't ask don't tell".

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

Insider trading is a victimless crime

is it really?

the stock market is a zero-sum game.
if someone is gaining unfairly then others are losing due to the nature of such blatant manipulation. especially when considering the fact that so many ordinary people's retirement savings are tied up in stock. an ordinary person does not have access to insider trading schemes.

surely they are the victim?

 

[TWD]

Stocks are not a zero sum game.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

What if an insider sells stock in a company that is about to fold to non-insider? Is that victimless?

What if a few insiders dump stock in company they know is about to fold, and the value of the stock drops because of the sell-off. Are the other non-insider stock holders not victims?