Republican Senate Nominee: Victims Of ‘Legitimate Rape’ Don’t Get Pregnant

It's a conservative...no surprise there.

I mean C'mon who is really surprised by this.


A vote for conservative is a vote for the past...your against women, other ethinicities, religions that don't believe in Jesus/God or other sexualities.

Time to move forward and let America progress.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by homerJ
If one of you "pro-life" people's wife was brutally raped and got pregnant, surely you'd change your tune????

2nd line

Actually, I used to know someone in that position. Young single girl at a church I attended (before I moved away). Raped, became pregnant, and had her baby. Most people (that didn't know her well) thought the child was her younger sister, as her parents wanted to protect her reputation, but her friends knew the truth. She stated that she didn't believe an abortion would be right, because that would be punishing the child for the crime of the father. So, does that answer your question?

The key detail in your story is that it was her decision to have the baby.

No, the key is that she didn't think killing another person for a crime they didn't commit was the right thing to do. I agree with her.

reply to post by KilrathiLG


Now that is some truly fascinating research that would flip the "choice" argument on its head.

I would not be surprised if some day we remove the possibility for accidental pregnancy altogether. Thanks for sharing this research.

A woman should not be made to carry her rapists diseased genetic material to term, that is just adding insult to injury.

As far as the religulous argument that "oh the poor innocent baby shouldn't suffer for the crimes of the father" that is beyond the pale.

First why allow the obviously deficient genetic code of the abuser to propagate, second if "god" is so concerned with the death of an unborn why does he allow so many still births?
Why do 20,000 children die every day to poverty, hunger & preventable disease?
Did "god" make the little children just so "he" can watch them suffer?

The real problem with deficient "Morans" like Akins & those that support his ideas is the patriarchal willful ignorance that is religion.

Akin’s Spiritual Mentor: Women Occasionally Invite Rape, Victims Are ‘Hysterical’

Rep. Todd Akin’s (R-MO) spiritual mentor Reverend D. James Kennedy harbored extreme and sometimes flatly misogynistic views about rape and abortion.

1. Kennedy believed that rape victims who chose abortion are “hysterical.”

2. Kennedy suggests rape victims can be responsible for being raped.

3. Kennedy held that the Bible should set our laws about rape and abortion.(The christian bible teaches that the rapist should marry the woman that he rapes, how sick is that?)

4. Kennedy thought husbands should determine if their wives can have abortions. (All about the man having Dominion over the woman)

thinkprogress.org...

Originally posted by WarminIndy
..
At best?? What does "at best" mean? A minor inconvenience? What kind of drugs are these people taking? There are not enough words in my vocabulary today to even form a cohesive statement on this....wow. All I can say is, wow.

it's just a mock website, the quotes are afaik, genuine, the commentary, otoh, is (intended to be) satire. Since these people (unfortunately) aren't as dumb as many forumites want them to be, it's quite rare to see a politician make an unambiguous statement.

otherwise, you'll have to combine what you have: an example:

GOP Debate to Rape Victims: Drop Dead

.. And so Romney defensively insisted he would never have dared tell anyone to provide contraception to a rape victim. “There was no requirement in Massachusetts for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims. That was entirely voluntary on their report. There was no such requirement.”

Think a little bit about what this means: a woman who is violently raped and has no control of which hospital she is taken to, or who lives near only a Catholic hospital, will be forced to carry her rapist’s fetus.

The even greater irony, of course, is that this woman who does not want to be forced to carry her rapists’ fetus will end up getting an actual abortion, not using the morning after pill, which Gingrich falsely characterized at the debate as a kind of abortion
..

let's face it: sexual oppression and 'use' as a baby factory are exactly the components that historically kept (still keep in many corners of the world) women down in patriarchic systems. the repubs want to go back to these times, but unlike the Taliban, who otherwise appear to harbor strikingly similar views, are more patient in the realisation of their 'lofty' goals.


===============================================================================

Originally posted by aethertek
A woman should not be made to carry her rapists diseased genetic material to term, that is just adding insult to injury.

As far as the religulous argument that "oh the poor innocent baby shouldn't suffer for the crimes of the father" that is beyond the pale.

First why allow the obviously deficient genetic code of the abuser to propagate,

leaving aside the question whether being a rapist is 100% a genetic flaw, wouldn't you believe that without contraception, the trait of being a rapist actually conveys a selective advantage, simply by leaving more children in his wake than most others?

This is imho, exactly the reason the repubs in question (and certzainly many others) secretly endorse sexual violence, survival equals fitness, not matter the cost to their surroundings. it is therefore imperative to treat rape differently, like an attempt at Eugenics by trying to forcibly alter the genetic composition of a society. i suggest a mandatory death penalty for such crimes, gang related incidents included, in which case all of them should hang.

PS: to put it bluntly: if the majority cannot deal with this type of predation in an effective manner, it's us who are going to be considered 'defective'...

reply to post by neformore


:shk: What an idiot. But then again, I guess idiocy is to be expected. Both the democrats and the republicans are presenting us with some really awful choices to vote for.

10 Outrageous Quotes from Nancy Pelosi
Bidenisms
Dumb Obama Quotes - Quotomatic
10 stupid Howard Dean Quotes
Left Wing Moon Bat Quotomatic

Dumbest Quotes by the 2012 Presidential Candidates
Top 10 Stupid Mitt Romney Quotes
35 Hateful and Stupid Things from Rush Limbaugh
Top 10 Stupid Palin Quotes
Top 20 All Time Stupid Republican Quotes

Stupidity knows no party boundries ...
sad. very sad.

I think what worries me more than someone in politics saying this, is the fact that he said he heard this from a doctor.

If that's true, I'd like to know the name of this doctor so I can avoid going to him.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
It's a conservative...no surprise there.

I mean C'mon who is really surprised by this.


A vote for conservative is a vote for the past...your against women, other ethinicities, religions that don't believe in Jesus/God or other sexualities.

Time to move forward and let America progress.

That's what I love about liberals. You never see them stereotyping.
Oh, wait.

leaving aside the question whether being a rapist is 100% a genetic flaw, wouldn't you believe that without contraception, the trait of being a rapist actually conveys a selective advantage, simply by leaving more children in his wake than most others? This is imho, exactly the reason the repubs in question (and certzainly many others) secretly endorse sexual violence, survival equals fitness, not matter the cost to their surroundings. it is therefore imperative to treat rape differently, like an attempt at Eugenics by trying to forcibly alter the genetic composition of a society. i suggest a mandatory death penalty for such crimes, gang related incidents included, in which case all of them should hang. PS: to put it bluntly: if the majority cannot deal with this type of predation in an effective manner, it's us who are going to be considered 'defective'...

Sure the case can be made from the most simple of Darwinian views that a rapist is most efficient at natural selection via indiscriminate propagation but will that offspring be viable or more adapt in modern human environments.
Also anthropological studies have shown that human tribes flourish with cooperative social behavior while the classic hunter/gather profile doesn't fare so well.
So is a rapists offspring who will have less support than a cooperative pare bondings offspring have a better chance of survival?, in my opinion no.

Now one can argue whether Nature or Nurture is the cause of the behavior that is exhibited by those that rape but I believe that men who engage in that type of activity are genetically flawed.( There's just something wrong with people who behave that way)

Beyond the rape issue I also believe that you should not be allowed to propagate unless you can pass a basic cognitive test.
Unfortunately it seems like humans who have lower IQ's breed more than those of higher intelligence.
Considering the modern technical environment that humans find themselves living in whose offspring will better advance the human condition?

Well I didn't intend to get so far off topic so back to the reactionary troglodyte.
It will be interesting to see what these Freudian slips will do to his poll numbers since he appears to be staying in the race.
I predict that a high number of his usual voting constituency will ignore his comments either because of ignorance, apathy or silent agreement.

reply to post by neformore


American politicians do not need to be smart for the job all they need is to know the meaning of interest money as long as they are pay and their pockets are full with money from those that are behind certain agendas they will get a seat in congress.

Originally posted by Ironclad
reply to post by littled16

 

Your talkin' bout the God Squad here folks..

You Know, the people who brought you "the world is 5 thousand years old" & "Man and dinosaurs actually walked togeather".

C'mon what do you expect from cristians with an agenda, they will come3 up with any theory that makes their views make sense in their own heads...

edit on 8/20/2012 by Ironclad because: (no reason given)

I hate to break it to you sugar, but I am a Christian. Christians exist of many different levels of intelligence and with many differing sets of beliefs. Not all believe the world is just a few thousand years old, and not all have an agenda that they want to force on the entire world.

The particular Christian in question just so happens to be a big idiot! Please don't judge all Christians by the one's who are like this guy. I know intelligent non-Christians as well as idiot non-Christians so I don't judge them as all alike. People are individuals regardless of their religious beliefs.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Correct.

It was the rise of fundamentalism among Protestants and an opportunistic alliance in 1980 between the Reagan campaign and the Moral Majority that turned abortion into a political issue of broad national interest.

the 1994 elections brought into positions of authority in the Party a phalanx of new Republicans far more influenced by religious fundamentalism than by the classic libertarian/business alliance in power since the Goldwater Era. Since that time the Party’s position on abortion has hardened. Merely banning abortion except in cases of rape and incest is ‘so last election.’ The Republican Party is exploring the frontiers of extreme reproductive policy.

Abortion, a side issue adopted to court a fringe constituency in the 1980 election has swallowed Republican Party politics. It has mutated into a multi-million dollar political industry on both sides of the aisle, perhaps explaining why, despite the noise, there has been no meaningful legislation on the issue in almost forty years.

from a Republican's POV Building a Better GOP

The outcry from most of candidate Akin's political peers is disengenuous and self-serving. What they should say to be honest is that Mr. Akin is guilty of MENTIONING his statements in public so that it got picked up in the msm. Now, voters are aware that Mr. Akin's extreme views are party wide, in their platform (no abortions for rape), and his party has nominated a VP who represents these extremist views.

Todd Akin is a idiot and should step down immediately!!! Rape is rape and thousands of women each year get pregnant from rape.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
It's a conservative...no surprise there.

I mean C'mon who is really surprised by this.


A vote for conservative is a vote for the past...your against women, other ethinicities, religions that don't believe in Jesus/God or other sexualities.

Time to move forward and let America progress.

lol.
You can't be serious...

I know it seems I always have some questions about things.

If these Republicans, the ones with this mindset, are elected into office in November;

Could 10 men snatch a woman off the streets and "have their ways with her"?

So long as they are able to get her pregnant, they could not be "legally" charged with rape because "it takes a little cooperation for a woman to get pregnant".

This is what I hear this guy saying. If a woman gets pregnant, she was not raped.

I also can't help but wonder if this "IDIOT-JERK" has a daughter.

If he does, how can he look her in the face after making such a statement.

It seems to me that these "Republican men" are so anti-woman, they would almost certainly very "pro-guy". If you know what I mean.

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed how some of these "guys" walk?

I was raised in the country, so I may just be trying to judge them by a different set of standards. They just look like they walk funny to me.

Originally posted by seagull
Let the stereotyping begin...

Oh, wait, it has...pity.

Yes the comments were outrageously stupid...god yes they were. Certainly worthy of a "WTF did he just say?" moment, or even two. He'd certainly have lost my vote...assuming for a moment I'd have been contemplating voting for him in the first place.

Honestly now... Dems don't say equally stupid things? Really? Honesty should compel some of you to at least pretend to search for living breathing examples of Dem stupidity...

Well now... The big difference is many people in the
GOP secretly conceal a similar belief. Further more,
A majority want the same end result which is the end
Of a woman's right to choose.

Just in case anyone doesn't know Atkin's comments on rape underly his real agenda. And that is the Anti-abortion movement. There is a desire to redefine rape so that victims cannot get emergency contraception without fulfilling stereotypical rape symptoms (dark alley attacker), and to posit that women have natural defenses against rape so they can't get pregnant - another reason to deny abortion. Oh it was consensual so you can't have an abortion or get emergency contraception! Of course, numerous religious supporters will vote for him because that is their real agenda.

Consider that in 2011 he teamed up with VP candidate Paul Ryan to co-sponsor the "No taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," which attempted to change the definition of "rape" to "forcible rape".

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by igor_ats

Well I may have misread your post, but again, r v w did not prove the fetus was not alive in the womb nor the zygote.

For the third time Roe was not about whether or not the z/e/f is alive, or has human DNA.

For some reason, the court decided that the ability to survive outside the womb determined the baby's worth to society.

Viability is about whether or not the fetus is metabolically independent. Fetal viability is a medical determination not a legal, moral or philospohical one - which varies with each pregnancy.

Not something picked out of the ether like ensoulement.

Viability is a fair line in the sand. States were given the right to proscribe abortion after fetal viability, roughly the end of the second trimester, when the fetus has capacity to survive outside the womb with or without artificial assistance.

Doctors readily admit that new life begins at conception.

Except Roe wasn't about whether or not a z/e/f is alive or has human DNA.

Doctors create and kill "little babies" on a whim in IVF clinics. Oh wait, they don't count right because of "location"?

Ironically, if the baby could survive outside the womb then it was ready to be born, but it doesn't mean the baby is not alive or valuable.

It's not "ready to be born". Uber-expensive, round the clock intensive care for premature babies is not my idea of "ready". Value is subjective to the mother, since the law gives her priority before viability and after if her health is at serious risk.

For example in Catholic controlled Poland they forced a woman to give birth despite a risk she would go blind. reproductiverights.org... She won her case.

week 5 the baby's brain, spinal chord and nervous system are beginning to develop.

Beginning, starting. . . not quite there yet. That's not gonna overturn Roe.

reply to post by hdutton

Originally posted by hdutton
This is what I hear this guy saying. If a woman gets pregnant, she was not raped.

This is the most dangerous idea that they're trying to put across. Redefining rape. So, they could have an abortion exception for rape and exactly ZERO women could take advantage of it because if they got pregnant, they clearly were NOT raped.

I am a woman who did get raped. I didn't get pregnant, thankfully, so I didn't have to deal with the decision. But according to this Akin idiot, if I had gotten pregnant, I obviously didn't get raped. I can't help but wish this Akin character was in my position when that big, hairy creature was on top of me, his knees jabbing painfully into my thighs and his hand around my throat... I can't help but wish it. So he'd know what "legitimate rape" feels like.

Originally posted by Wanders

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
It's a conservative...no surprise there.

I mean C'mon who is really surprised by this.


A vote for conservative is a vote for the past...your against women, other ethinicities, religions that don't believe in Jesus/God or other sexualities.

Time to move forward and let America progress.

That's what I love about liberals. You never see them stereotyping.
Oh, wait.

It is hard to ignore the fact that tens of millions of conservative
GOP voters would be thrilled at repealing a woman's right to choose.
That part of the evangelical, social conservative platform. If you
Don't like that, maybe you should reconsider you perspective.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by hdutton

 

Originally posted by hdutton
This is what I hear this guy saying. If a woman gets pregnant, she was not raped.

This is the most dangerous idea that they're trying to put across. Redefining rape. So, they could have an abortion exception for rape and exactly ZERO women could take advantage of it because if they got pregnant, they clearly were NOT raped.

I am a woman who did get raped. I didn't get pregnant, thankfully, so I didn't have to deal with the decision. But according to this Akin idiot, if I had gotten pregnant, I obviously didn't get raped. I can't help but wish this Akin character was in my position when that big, hairy creature was on top of me, his knees jabbing painfully into my thighs and his hand around my throat... I can't help but wish it. So he'd know wPhat "legitimate rape" feels like.

In my opinion the worst thing is that this thought is based
Upon fantasy. It is literally as crazy as believing in fairy tale
Creatures.

So to you