qfnol31 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 [quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1351560496' post='2500097'] He can believe whatever garbage he wants, religious or not. But, he shouldnt be able to and still hold the same position as he does. A minister on science, space and technology that is that anti science, and misinformed? how would you feel if a ArchBishop didnt believe in transubstantiation, openly? [/quote] The exact same I feel about a person in charge of Health and Human Services who doesn't believe in the sanctity of life before birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) By the way, as a point of clarification for all who denounce Todd Akin's position: out of curiosity, what does his position actually mean? What does his committee oversee and is he on the subcommittee directly responsible for that? Also, did [s]he[/s] Paul Broun denounce science or was he scientifically wrong about something that doesn't in fact pertain to his area within the committee? Sorry, edited for clarity here. Edited October 30, 2012 by qfnol31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 [quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351560572' post='2500098'] The exact same I feel about a person in charge of Health and Human Services who doesn't believe in the sanctity of life before birth. [/quote] Which is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Isn't the Aikin thing old news? Aikin made a dumb and poorly-worded statement for which he apologized. Get over it. There was some truth in what he was saying, as rapes are less likely than normal intercourse to result in conception, though, of course this is not always the case. And while horribly-worded, I think it's pretty clear what he meant was "actual rape" or "real rape" - he did not mean to imply that some rapes are a legitimate action. But I think everybody knew this - it's just liberal Democrats looking for an excuse to smear a pro-life politician. If we're going to condemn and toss out politicians simply on account of them saying something dumb or putting their foot in their mouth, then let's be consistent and toss them all out! (not that I'f really have a problem with that). It's also clear that Murdick meant that it is God's will that the child have life, not that the rape was God's will. God can and does bring good out of evil. That this nonsense, along with such pressing issues as binders and Big Bird and free condoms, is so central to the Obama campaign when our country faces so many real problems, says a lot about Dear Leader and his party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1351639925' post='2500618'] Isn't the Aikin thing old news? Aikin made a dumb and poorly-worded statement for which he apologized. Get over it. There was some truth in what he was saying, as rapes are less likely than normal intercourse to result in conception, though, of course this is not always the case. And while horribly-worded, I think it's pretty clear what he meant was "actual rape" or "real rape" - he did not mean to imply that some rapes are a legitimate action. But I think everybody knew this - it's just liberal Democrats looking for an excuse to smear a pro-life politician. If we're going to condemn and toss out politicians simply on account of them saying something dumb or putting their foot in their mouth, then let's be consistent and toss them all out! (not that I'f really have a problem with that). It's also clear that Murdick meant that it is God's will that the child have life, not that the rape was God's will. God can and does bring good out of evil. That this nonsense, along with such pressing issues as binders and Big Bird and free condoms, is so central to the Obama campaign when our country faces so many real problems, says a lot about Dear Leader and his party. [/quote] I actually agree with this post. I think it was a really stupid thing for either of these guysto say, and I think they should pay for it (and they will). If you're not in control of your stuff, you really shouldn't be a politician. That's my view. And I do think that more was made of this than, say, when Joe Biden told a room filled with black people that Republicans wanted to put them back into chains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [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] So long as ignorance advances a politically correct agenda, it's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351641760' post='2500654'] I actually agree with this post. I think it was a really stupid thing for either of these guysto say, and I think they should pay for it (and they will). If you're not in control of your stuff, you really shouldn't be a politician. That's my view. And I do think that more was made of this than, say, when Joe Biden told a room filled with black people that Republicans wanted to put them back into chains. [/quote]Mostly I like your perspective, but in this case I think you're being a nozzle to take such offense at what they said. No offense was intended and only in a hyper sensitive mode just to find fault and obscure the point of babies having equal right ti life. I find your twisted butthattery attitude on this deeply offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) [b]What actually matters is voting records.[/b] Ignore what politicians say, and look at what they do. Focusing on when someone mis-speaks may be funny, or insulting...but it doesn't matter really. All of us are human and all of us at some point have said some statement along the same lines of Todd Akin. The difference is the media pounced on what he said and made a circus of it. I would be willing to bet McCaskill has said some very GRIEVOUS things....but she was just fortunate that her opponents were not within earshot or they were ignored by the friendly left media. Anyone who is left strongly disliked Akin before the comment and they dislike him after the comment. Nothing changed. The people who are pro-life supported him before the event, and they will support him after. Anyone who changes their mind about Akin due to his comments is an idiot because they are voting on one-liners and emotions instead of voting records. Vote the record people. But this is an underpinning and probably the ultimate failure of American democracy. Too many people voting on one-liners, and emotional rants instead of using logic and facts. This is why politicians don't actually debate issues either. They are justly afraid of the 2-second mistake that will destroy their election. I don't blame the media near as I much blame the stupidity of the average America voter that tosses gas on the wrong incidents. [b]Regardless of whether Todd Akin is right or wrong on what he said about the female body somehow doing something to stop the pregnancy, it is still wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human life that we KNOW biologically begins at conception.[/b] Of course since America relies on emotions, we toss out science and use pleasant words like "fetus" to pretend we don't know anymore what is really going on. Ironically, the [u]democrats are the ones who largely are ignoring science on this issue......or they are largely playing into moral relativism (as are most GOP people as well actually since they approve of abortion in cases of rape....apparently it's not a human then)[/u]. Either way, their position is [u]AWFULLY inconsistent.[/u] Everything I said above applies to the Murdick situation basically. *edit. Clarified the inconsistency of most of the GOP as well with the democrats. Edited October 31, 2012 by eagle_eye222001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 As far as the meaning of "legitimate rape" - it was my impression that people reacted so strongly against it because it implies that some assaults aren't "actually" rape, or that women routinely falsely claim an encounter was a rape, or that it's not rape if a woman changes her mind while a couple is starting to get busy, or if she didn't fight hard enough....you get the picture. Rape is rape, no matter how it happens. It made it seem like if a woman got pregnant from a rape it was really her own fault for not fighting hard enough, or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351643770' post='2500682'] As far as the meaning of "legitimate rape" - it was my impression that people reacted so strongly against it because it implies that some assaults aren't "actually" rape, or that women routinely falsely claim an encounter was a rape, or that it's not rape if a woman changes her mind while a couple is starting to get busy, or if she didn't fight hard enough....you get the picture. Rape is rape, no matter how it happens. It made it seem like if a woman got pregnant from a rape it was really her own fault for not fighting hard enough, or something like that. [/quote] I think part of what Akin was going after was the fact that sometimes rape may be claimed so as to qualify an abortion. If abortion is only allowed for instances of rape, and so-called health issues, then potentially, you may have women falsely claim rape to get a legal abortion. This scenario means you have two types of "rape." Real rape where the word is used properly, and the fake rape where it was really consensual but we want to get an abortion so let's call it 'rape.' In this case, not all 'rape' is rape. But we can play word games all day. The points I made in my previous post still stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1351644244' post='2500694'] I think part of what Akin was going after was the fact that sometimes rape may be claimed so as to qualify an abortion. If abortion is only allowed for instances of rape, and so-called health issues, then potentially, you may have women falsely claim rape to get a legal abortion. This scenario means you have two types of "rape." Real rape where the word is used properly, and the fake rape where it was really consensual but we want to get an abortion so let's call it 'rape.' In this case, not all 'rape' is rape. But we can play word games all day. The points I made in my previous post still stand. [/quote] If a woman were to 'cry rape' in order to get an abortion, she'd have to file a police report, get an examination, etc. And then she'd get charged with filing a false report when the results turned up with nothing. It doesn't happen. Do you know how hard it is to get a rape victim to even report it to the police, even without pressing charges? Or just getting the person to the ER so they can be checked out, to make sure that they're not hurt? Even if a handful of women "cried rape" to get an abortion, that's such a small exception to the norm, that bothering to qualify rape with "legitimate" is pointless. It makes it seem like false accusations of rape happen all the time, and that's not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351644624' post='2500702'] If a woman were to 'cry rape' in order to get an abortion, she'd have to file a police report, get an examination, etc. And then she'd get charged with filing a false report when the results turned up with nothing. It doesn't happen. Do you know how hard it is to get a rape victim to even report it to the police, even without pressing charges? Or just getting the person to the ER so they can be checked out, to make sure that they're not hurt? Even if a handful of women "cried rape" to get an abortion, that's such a small exception to the norm, that bothering to qualify rape with "legitimate" is pointless. It makes it seem like false accusations of rape happen all the time, and that's not true. [/quote] That's a fair argument and thanks for pointing that out. I agree with it. Again though, I still stand by my original post and I would be interested in to hearing any legit arguments against the original points I made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 That's over conjecture if what he may have meant by "legitimate" in the context of the remark. The idea that violent rape causes changes in a woman's body that makes it non-conducive to conception as written in a book by a MD who was president of National Right to Life, (AND was latter debunked) was probably in his mind. Could he meant a rape violent enough to cause biological reaction as some Doctors wrongly believed? Does cause of pregnancy make a difference to the legitimacy if the in womb persons claim for the right to live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I don't know if this is what he meant, but during consensual intercourse a woman can withdraw her consent. If the man doesn't comply immediately, he is considered to have raped her. Another form of consensual sex listed as rape is statutory rape. This is rape in the sense that a minor should not be able to consent to an adult, but not rape in the sense that it is necessarily forced on her. It is possible (especially given his location) that Akin meant to exclude either of these types of rape. We will probably never know, but it's hard not to give him the benefit of the doubt. Time did a piece on this a few years ago. I remember seeing it on CNN even more recently, but I can't find it so here goes: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1584786,00.html Again, insensitive comments, poorly worded, but not necessarily wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now