Todd Aikin And Richard Murdick.

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351523674' post='2499639']
People speak out of ignorance and say stupid things all the time. You're going to have a hard time if you don't want to go along with it from time to time.
[/quote]

I should go along with a member of the Committee on SCIENCE saying, like, the most unscientific thing ever? "The female body has, like, ways to 'shut that whole thing down.'" Holy hell, that is stupid.

But I think the generally permissive attitude people are taking towards it on here and in the pro-life community is even stupider.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351524061' post='2499646']

I should go along with a member of the Committee on SCIENCE saying, like, the most unscientific thing ever? "The female body has, like, ways to 'shut that whole thing down.'" Holy hell, that is stupid.

But I think the generally permissive attitude people are taking towards it on here and in the pro-life community is even stupider.
[/quote]
He apologized for his erroneous comments. What more do you want?

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351524791' post='2499653']
He apologized for his erroneous comments. What more do you want?
[/quote]

For him to lose his seat on that committee, lose his seat in Congress, and for him to enroll in one of those Adult Education classes so that he can learn about how the female body works.

[Anomaly]

He was grasping at straws, but not making this up entirely by himself. [color=#0000cd]Former president of the [/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Right_to_Life_Committee"][color=#0000cd]National Right to Life Committee[/color][/url][color=#0000cd] and general practitioner [/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._Willke"][color=#0000cd]John C. Willke[/color][/url][color=#0000cd], said rape victims are unlikely to get pregnant in a book published in 1985, in a 1999 article, and in a 2012 interview.[/color][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin_%27legitimate_rape%27_and_pregnancy_comment_controversy#cite_note-28"][color=#0000cd][size=2][29][/size][/color][/url][/sup][color=#0000cd] [/color]

Should we disband the National Right to Life Committe as well for being hateful towards women? Or maybe correct them when they are factually inaccurate because factual inaccuracy is detrimental to rational debate and avoid conversation that is founded in soley emotional labeling of intent and motivation. Abortion supporters don't hate babies, abortion detractors don't hate women.

[GregorMendel]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351525908' post='2499663']

For him to lose his seat on that committee, lose his seat in Congress, and for him to enroll in one of those Adult Education classes so that he can learn about how the female body works.
[/quote]


Yeah, as an american scientist, learning that he and similarly intelligent but misinformed individuals sit on the house committee for science and and are shaping science policy kinda stung a little bit, not gonna lie....

two words: dinasour fluffy air extractions
[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/rachel-maddow-republicans-house-science-committee_n_1954058.html"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/rachel-maddow-republicans-house-science-committee_n_1954058.html[/url]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351525908' post='2499663']


For him to lose his seat on that committee, lose his seat in Congress, and for him to enroll in one of those Adult Education classes so that he can learn about how the female body works.
[/quote]By your logic almost all Democrats should be kicked out of office since they don't know how a woman's body works and that a fetus is a life of its own. Congratulations, you have made our country effectively a single party system.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351527880' post='2499673']
By your logic almost all Democrats should be kicked out of office since they don't know how a woman's body works and that a fetus is a life of its own. Congratulations, you have made our country effectively a single party system.
[/quote]

Hmm, no, I think that's different. Although most pro-choice people believe that life begins at conception, they don't believe rights do. Biological facts about a woman's reproductive system are different.

I don't think the reason why it's so offensive is because he didn't know a simple biological fact. It's offensive because it's a symptom of a more serious problem. Many people in our country, including those in power, believe things about women in regards to rape that are untrue and outdated. Ideas like "legitimate rape" and the "body has a way of shutting things down" are in the same category as ideas like "she was asking for it" or "she should have been more careful." The problem with all of these ideas is that in some way, they all put some of the blame on the woman for a rape, whether her decisions or her body. And that's completely inexcusable.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351525908' post='2499663']

For him to lose his seat on that committee, lose his seat in Congress, and for him to enroll in one of those Adult Education classes so that he can learn about how the female body works.
[/quote]

Did you hear about the other committee member who thinks evolution and the big bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell"?

I'm starting to think that we need to force all of our congressmen take some kind of introductory course on whatever committee they're on. Or have an expert come in once a month to give some kind of TED talk. We can't have people serve on committees when they take an antagonistic position towards the subject of the committee.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351530160' post='2499684']

Hmm, no, I think that's different. Although most pro-choice people believe that life begins at conception, they don't believe rights do. Biological facts about a woman's reproductive system are different.

I don't think the reason why it's so offensive is because he didn't know a simple biological fact. It's offensive because it's a symptom of a more serious problem. Many people in our country, including those in power, believe things about women in regards to rape that are untrue and outdated. Ideas like "legitimate rape" and the "body has a way of shutting things down" are in the same category as ideas like "she was asking for it" or "she should have been more careful." The problem with all of these ideas is that in some way, they all put some of the blame on the woman for a rape, whether her decisions or her body. And that's completely inexcusable.
[/quote]
I was just responding to what kujo said; he called it offensive in its ignorance.

As for this being akin to the comments that a woman deserved it, I don't follow at all. His comment was on biology and biology alone. It was insensitive and scientifically wrong, but I think his point was that the rape exemptions aren't necessary. It's just that I base my thoughts on the fact that the child is alive at the moment of conception and from my strong belief that a conceived child is also a victim of the rape, just in a different way than the mother.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351530427' post='2499686']

Did you hear about the other committee member who thinks evolution and the big bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell"?

I'm starting to think that we need to force all of our congressmen take some kind of introductory course on whatever committee they're on. Or have an expert come in once a month to give some kind of TED talk. We can't have people serve on committees when they take an antagonistic position towards the subject of the committee.
[/quote]
I realize that this opinion is bad science, but I still pride religious beliefs over science, no matter how "wrong and stupid" they (i.e. the religious beliefs) are. In this country we are quickly losing the ability for people to retain strong religious commitments.

[GregorMendel]

I think in this country, we excuse beliefs of 'bad science' in the face of strong religious commitments, especially by our public citizens, who are definitely entitled to them, but are also responsible for what they say, doubly so if they happen to say something related to their particular committee.

Edited October 29, 2012 by GregorMendel

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351531046' post='2499687']
I was just responding to what kujo said; he called it offensive in its ignorance.

As for this being akin to the comments that a woman deserved it, I don't follow at all. His comment was on biology and biology alone. It was insensitive and scientifically wrong, but I think his point was that the rape exemptions aren't necessary. It's just that I base my thoughts on the fact that the child is alive at the moment of conception and from my strong belief that a conceived child is also a victim of the rape, just in a different way than the mother.
[/quote]

What I'm trying to say is that pro-choice people view the comments as the same category as the "you deserve it" comments. It's once instance that represents how many prominent pro-lifers operate on outdated information that is neither good science nor related to any actual experience of women. His point is valid, of course, his intended point even more so. But the fact that he said it "insensitively" points to a greater problem the pro-life cause has - that many of our advocates speak in ways that seem inconsistent with reality, whether that reality is science or human experience. And if we're going to get people to come over to our cause (or even just listen to us, for that matter), we have to speak in ways our audience understands.

So for example, instead of talking about how we can eliminate a rape exception to abortion, we could talk about increasing support for women who are raped, and make sure that support includes pregnancy care. If we only talk about babies, people are going to think that pro-lifers only care about babies. We MUST include mothers in our rhetoric, if we're going to have any hope of getting anyone who disagrees with us to listen.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351531261' post='2499690']
I realize that this opinion is bad science, but I still pride religious beliefs over science, no matter how "wrong and stupid" they (i.e. the religious beliefs) are. In this country we are quickly losing the ability for people to retain strong religious commitments.
[/quote]

But it's one thing to believe in Creationism. It's another thing to work on the committee for science and technology and call scientific principles "lies from the mouth of hell." Calling them "lies from the mouth of hell" is incredibly disrespectful, and shows that he has a fundamentally distrustful and antagonistic relationship with scientific inquiry. If it's my job to oversee rules regarding the activities of atheists in our country, I have an obligation to treat them with respect and concern, no matter what my personal beliefs may be. I can't run around saying that they're "damned godless heathens and are destined for hell" even if I believed it. If I am incapable of treating them respectfully, I have an obligation to recuse myself from such a position. It's not about being able to retain strong religious commitments. It's about being able to play nice with others and treat them all fairly.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Basilisa Marie

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351538022' post='2499736']
So for example, instead of talking about how we can eliminate a rape exception to abortion, [b]we could talk about increasing support for women who are raped, and make sure that support includes pregnancy care. If we only talk about babies, people are going to think that pro-lifers only care about babies. We MUST include mothers in our rhetoric[/b], if we're going to have any hope of getting anyone who disagrees with us to listen.

[/quote]I agree whole heartedly. I'm curious if you (or jaime who posted that he is/was involved in a pro-life organization), have specific ideas on how to accomplish that. In the Diocese where I live, it's all about Project Rachel, and any Crisis Pregnancy Center is secular and provides abortion services as the easy route. I haven't found a significant support center for young/single moms that choose to keep their child.

How do ou provide those type of services without making it inconsequential wether or not a child is raised without a second parent? How would you address unwed mothers with multiple 'baby daddies'? What do you think about government require asking the mother who the father may be and pursuing support from the sperm donor? Would you change adoption laws? Would you make it easier to terminate parental rights of fathers, if they choose to not marry the mom but still make them pay child support?

Edited October 29, 2012 by Anomaly

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351531261' post='2499690']
I realize that this opinion is bad science, but I still pride religious beliefs over science, no matter how "wrong and stupid" they (i.e. the religious beliefs) are. In this country we are quickly losing the ability for people to retain strong religious commitments.
[/quote]

Stupidest comment of the day.

It's okay to be stupid and wrong, so long as you blame the Bible.

Gotcha

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351540609' post='2499780']

Stupidest comment of the day.

It's okay to be stupid and wrong, so long as you blame the Bible.

Gotcha
[/quote]
Hey, I never claimed to make only intelligent responses. I only ask for honesty and uniformity in flaming people. If you don't like a person or their comments, that doesn't give you extra room to be nasty about them.