Reply With QuoteI just saw this story myself. I'm just...bamboozled...
what is this i don't even
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...imate-rape.php
Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri who is running against Sen. Claire McCaskill, justified his opposition to abortion rights even in case of rape with a claim that victims of “legitimate rape” have unnamed biological defenses that prevent pregnancy.
“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
I just saw this story myself. I'm just...bamboozled...
When oh when will this kind of bullshit have consequences. To say something like that and not be taken to task but any sane human being is just maddening.
Well theres the defense of dying, I guess.
If anything, this is strong evidence for sex ed classes, which I'm sure he opposes.
I dunno, seems like par for the course to me. Hear something that, if utterly exaggerated and misunderstood could support your position --- read no further, integrate into worldview. The republican approach to climate science is the same thing.
There are biological mechanisms that prevent or end pregnancy due to environmental factors, that's a fact. It has nothing but nothing to do with rape, but why let that get in your way?
I'm basing my observations and analysis here on anecdotes, but I do so fairly unselfconsciously because I expect that readers have many experiences of their own that corroborate.
By "legitimate rape," it seems clear to me that Akin is referring to cases in which a man has forced himself on a woman sexually. He uses that rather unfortunate term because (and this is unspoken) he believes either: (A) that a majority of the women who seek abortion on grounds of rape are actually lying, or (B) the number of actual instances in which rape results in pregnancy are very few, meaning that it is unnecessary to factor them into public policy. The latter position seems to be fairly common among politically conservative Evangelicals, who apparently suspect liberals of having misled society about the number of "imposed" pregnancies that would result from an abortion ban.
The general appearance of intolerance for women by conservative Christians and their political representatives probably arises from their shared paradigm for gender roles. The purpose of women in society is to produce and raise children. Issues like equitable compensation founder on a combination of suspicion that rectifying old social wrongs would really just impose disadvantages on white males and an unconscious acceptance of the notion that men and women are inherently different, with different capacities for certain kinds of work. Unequal pay is less problematic when there is a presupposition that men and women are not equally suited for the same jobs. This view of women -- in which men provide direction and womens' lives revolve around family -- must also tend to allay concerns that the future of the woman will be negatively affected by having a child. (Which is ironic, considering how concerned members of conservative Christian communities tend to be about sex outside marriage). In the Christian narrative, the woman carries the child to term because it is her special calling -- both individually and eschatologically.
Ironically, some the reasons that I think the Christian view of "proper" sexual roles and relationships tends to function so poorly in the modern day are: (A) the fact that, rather than marry on the very cusp of puberty, most people marry a decade or a decade-and-a-half afterward, leaving a lot of time to deal with their own sexuality in the interim, and (B) the fact that it is no longer generally accepted that women should remain in the home.
(C) Its not economically feasible for most families to have only one income.Originally Posted by Desert Journeyman
He is leading in the polls. Sex Ed is/has been removed from many schools (replaced with "abstinence only" with a strong undercurrent of "if she didn't keep her legs shut she should be punished with the kid"). Not just conservative Protestant but some Catholic churches will give very poor and inaccurate advice. Both say they should be respected before scientists too, but for different reasons.
I see it paying off even better in the future. But then again, many parts of this country won't deserve 1st world status soon anyway (Appalachia's been close for decades). Gets scary outside the big cities.
We'll see if he's leading in the polls in a month. Claire McCaskill was dead in the water in Missouri, and then voters decided the best candidate with the GOP backing--Sarah Steelman, an attractive, Sarah Palin-endorsed candidate--wasn't conservative enough and nominated Akin.
Right now there are bigtime calls being made in the Show Me State GOP for Akin to step aside (he has until Tuesday to do so) and allow St. Louis businessman John Brunner--who actually edged out Steelman for second--to take the nomination. Don't think that'll happen, but a whole lot of independent voters in Missouri are aghast at this...and maybe aghast enough to hold their noses and vote for the incumbent (who I like immensely, btw.)
Yeah, he's been leading in the polls but the lead has been within the polling margin of error. This will hurt him with female voters, including some who were likely to vote for him, and independents who are still undecided. It will also fire up the base on the Democrats side.
The Democrats ran ads during the Republican primary designed to boost Akin because they felt he was the candidate they could most likely defeat. Their ads called him "too conservative for Missouri." The hope was this would get the Republican base to support Akin. It may have worked.
I saw this too, and it's freaking pathetic. I can only assume that the voters will punish him for such an obviously idiotic statement.
He has since come out and said that he "mispoke", which is bullshit. That's like saying, "I believe that Aliens created human life on earth!" and then saying, "Oh, I mispoke, I meant I don't believe that, because it's crazy."
Though interestingly that statement is much less crazy than believing a diety did it, statistically speaking.
I wouldn't even care if you believed in ancient aliens and crap... I'd say, "That's kind of silly, but whatever."
But the idea of then trying to say, "Oh, I just mispoke!" is totally idiotic.
You can't "mispeak" and somehow accidentally say the nonsense that the guy in this story said. That crap doesn't just accidentally come out of your mouth unless you believe some kind of archaic victorian era nonsense about how human reproduction works.
Too bad raping science doesn't produce 'natural defense'.
You don't think having your stupid statement broadcast constantly across the nation being taken to task. How about having your parties presidential candidate calling you an idiot? (paraphrasing)
That's a great start. Him losing the election will be the real deal.
Theater.
Sure, all the thoughts that Dems aided and abetted to get the easier candidate may make you feel a little better, and perhaps even be true. But, that doesn't change the fact that running a candidate with views this paleolithic won the primary. Let that sink in for a minute.
That will also be noticed by strategists. I'm being quite serious when I say expect more. Then the "misspoke" disclaimer, when enough media notices it to generate a pile-on. It will then be followed with the candidates tertiary disclaimer at fundraisers of "I had to say I misspoke! The mean bad liberal media didn't understand and got their panties all in a wad! Stupid feminazies all of them, of course women have a natural defense against rape". Even better if they can get the wife to say it while making her social rounds at the parties, with the more polite, my poor husband is so victimized, sigh followed by "I think feminists these days are out of touch".
You're some kind of evil genius.
My brother's reaction was great-- "Seriously, where do they find these people??? Is there a wormhole to 1950 somewhere that I haven't heard about?"
I just hope enough "on the fence" women and men who aren't dyed-in-the-wool "Republicans can do no wrong" types bury this guy in votes for his opponent. Of course, I assume a rational electorate there, silly me.
The answer, I'm sorry to say, is everywhere. You don't need a wormhole to locate guys like this. The fundamentalist anti-science bias in this country is strong and has been getting stronger for decades, and comments like Akins' will only become more frequent as a consequence. For people like him, wanting something to be true is reason enough to believe that it is true.
Last edited by Dave Markell; 08-20-2012 at 10:19 AM.
I'm happy to see that Romney basically game out and said the guy was an inexcusable, offensive idiot... I was worried that folks would actually try to defend this imbecile.
Dana Loesch tried.
Looks like Todd Akin's career will blessedly end soon:
TPM:
Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin's advisers are making preparations to withdraw from the race Tuesday, GOP operative Richard Grenell and RedState.com editor Erick Erickson report. Grenell cited "GOP sources" in his tweet announcing the withdrawal, which has yet to be confirmed by Akin. Akin has been under fire since saying women have biological defenses to fend off pregnancy after a "legitimate rape."
I'm appalled that an adult living in an industrial nation in 2012 could believe that women have some natural biological defense against rape pregnancy. What a moron.
Hmm. Obviously glad to see the back of him, but on the other hand, if he'd handed McCaskill re-election while publicizing how repugnant the right has gotten, I could've dealt with that.
Yay!56
Incidentally, Nate Silver, who evidently considered MO competitive even before this, mused that "although no two controversies are alike," it bore decent comparison with The Macaca Incident.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/a...150018315.html
HAHAHAHAHA!Missouri Republican Rep. Todd Akin woke up Sunday morning with a 65 percent chance of unseating incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in the upcoming Senate race. By the end of the day, after facing a torrent of criticism over his claim that women rarely get pregnant as a result of "legitimate rape," the tables had turned: Our real-time predictions now give McCaskill a 60 percent chance of retaining her seat.
I think Claire needed Todd to reveal his stupidity to a national audience (Missourians have known this guy was a total clown for a year or so) next Sunday. Sounds like--despite assurances to Mike Huckabee (a supporter) and Sean Hannity (a supporter) that he's staying in--he'll step aside tomorrow.
... And start being groomed for a Fox News Analyst position?
Posting Permissions