Legitimate rape

[RandomGuy]

It has long been my contention that Republicans are running a longstanding de factor war on science.

I can point to a myriad of things said by all manner of conversatives to support this, and the fact that a disturbingly large portion of the conservative population in this country provably holds irrational, unscientific beliefs about the universe is part and parcel of that.

[Yonivore]

Still waiting Yonivore.

If you don't think a "large swath" of Republicans think the world is 6000 years old and/or think the theory of evolution is some sort of secularist/satanic plot, then define what would cons ute a "large swath".

Maybe after we settle this, we can get to the other question you want to run away from, because you don't want to explore the implication:

Well, didn't the poll allow the question was odd and constrained?

Nobody's running, these threads get shuffled down after people lose interest and I don't always go looking for them if something more interesting, to me, is being discussed.

You posted the results of one article's analysis of one poll that admittedly had had a weird construct to the question. There was something else about the article I was going to point out but, can't remember this morning.

I've been busy and poking my head in here at 8:48AM doesn't indicate I was sitting down for a long session. You people have too much time on your hands to worry about what other posters are doing.

There was nothing "provable" about what you posted.

For instance, I don't believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago and am dubious that many 40% of the population thinks that either. I don't believe mankind was "created" 10,000 years ago and, while I will agree more people believe that than believe the 6,000 year canard, I still don't think it approaches 78%.

You've lost my interest and this thread is no longer about the topic of Akin's remarks.

[RandomGuy]

Well, didn't the poll allow the question was odd and constrained?

Nobody's running, these threads get shuffled down after people lose interest and I don't always go looking for them if something more interesting, to me, is being discussed.

You posted the results of one article's analysis of one poll that admittedly had had a weird construct to the question. There was something else about the article I was going to point out but, can't remember this morning.

I've been busy and poking my head in here at 8:48AM doesn't indicate I was sitting down for a long session. You people have too much time on your hands to worry about what other posters are doing.

There was nothing "provable" about what you posted.

For instance, I don't believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago and am dubious that many 40% of the population thinks that either. I don't believe mankind was "created" 10,000 years ago and, while I will agree more people believe that than believe the 6,000 year canard, I still don't think it approaches 78%.

You've lost my interest and this thread is no longer about the topic of Akin's remarks.

... and there is the predicted chicken answer.

Shocking.

[Yonivore]

... and there is the predicted chicken answer.

Shocking.

Okay, if you say so. Can I post an analysis of a single poll and call you a chicken when you disagree with it's analysis?

[RandomGuy]

Okay, if you say so. Can I post an analysis of a single poll and call you a chicken when you disagree with it's analysis?

I simply wanted you to establish some basis for evaluating whether or not we can reasonably test the theory that a disturbingly large percentage of Republicans hold some pretty irrational beliefs about a fundamental facet of the universe.

I asked you to set your own bar, so that we could get an agreed on set of definitions, that you couldn't do your usual weasely bull and back out of.

I didn't ask you what the you thought of any given article, dip .

You are smart enough to know not to give me any definition, because you know, deep down, I am right about it.

Your answer was chicken , because you answered the question you wanted to answer, and talked about what it was you want to talk about, rather than take even the first step towards admitting your ideologicial companions might just be wrong about something in such a way as to affect the basis of your preferred public policy solutions.

[101A]

RG; you're taking the poll too far, IMO.

People who don't believe in any evolution; or that is a literal "theory" are whack. I do, however, give some wiggle room for people who think that Human Beings are separated from the evolutionary cycle - that we were formed wholly human - and off we went.

Don't believe that myself (I give God's design more credit that that) - but as far as I know, there is no direct evidence (specific lineage) that could refute that faith-based belief. (Although there is more and more, and within a few years, presumably, still holding onto that could put them in the corner you already suggest they belong in).

Young Earthers and there ilk? Not a huge group; but reasonable numbers in the fundamentalist churches.

[RandomGuy]

RG; you're taking the poll too far, IMO.

People who don't believe in any evolution; or that is a literal "theory" are whack. I do, however, give some wiggle room for people who think that Human Beings are separated from the evolutionary cycle - that we were formed wholly human - and off we went.

Don't believe that myself (I give God's design more credit that that) - but as far as I know, there is no direct evidence (specific lineage) that could refute that faith-based belief. (Although there is more and more, and within a few years, presumably, still holding onto that could put them in the corner you already suggest they belong in).

Young Earthers and there ilk? Not a huge group; but reasonable numbers in the fundamentalist churches.

The poll was simply one example, in a sad, long litany of anti-science ideological dogma.

To be clear:

That was intended to be simply illustrative, and, by far, not comprehensive.

Humans are quite part of the evolutionary cycle. The DNA sequencing we have done has allowed some hard-core definitive analysis that pretty much removed any doubt of that. FWIW.

[Yonivore]

The poll was simply one example, in a sad, long litany of anti-science ideological dogma.

To be clear:

That was intended to be simply illustrative, and, by far, not comprehensive.

Humans are quite part of the evolutionary cycle. The DNA sequencing we have done has allowed some hard-core definitive analysis that pretty much removed any doubt of that. FWIW.

You should have picked a better example.

[Yonivore]

I simply wanted you to establish some basis for evaluating whether or not we can reasonably test the theory that a disturbingly large percentage of Republicans hold some pretty irrational beliefs about a fundamental facet of the universe.

I asked you to set your own bar, so that we could get an agreed on set of definitions, that you couldn't do your usual weasely bull and back out of.

I didn't ask you what the you thought of any given article, dip .

You are smart enough to know not to give me any definition, because you know, deep down, I am right about it.

Your answer was chicken , because you answered the question you wanted to answer, and talked about what it was you want to talk about, rather than take even the first step towards admitting your ideologicial companions might just be wrong about something in such a way as to affect the basis of your preferred public policy solutions.

and, as I explained, my bar is that I don't believe those things; I don't know anyone in my circle of friends that professes to believe those things and, I'm sure my circle of friends is different than yours and probably includes many of the people that poll claims to include.

I don't know why we're arguing, I agree with you on this point -- I just doubt it's as pervasive a view, in the conservative community, as you do.

[boutons_deux]

"my bar is that I don't believe those things"

aka, solipsism.

I don't believe that so, in spite of polls finding a majority percentage of Repugs holding bizarre anti-scientific beliefs, it doesn't matter.

[boutons_deux]

Maryland Congressman Says ‘Few Pregnancies’ Result From Rape



there are very few pregnancies as a result of rape, fortunately, and incest — compared to the usual abortion, what is the percentage of abortions for rape? It is tiny. It is a tiny, tiny percentage.” …. [I]n terms of the percentage of pregnancies, percentage of abortions for rape as compared to overall abortions, it’s a tiny, tiny percentage,”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...ult-from-rape/

[howbouthemspurs]

[boutons_deux]

come on, Nye, go easy on the the guy.

Akin's defense is that he made a one-word gaffe, "legitimate".

[boutons_deux]

5 Crazy Things the GOP Is Still Saying About Women, Rape and Abortion--Even While the Convention Tried to Ignore It

1. Mike Huckabee, after making a grossly sexist dig [6] against Democratic National Committee’s Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, continued to be unable to hide his Bible-thumping misogyny from the crowd, telling them that Obama supports infancticide:

Of the four people on the two tickets, the only self-professed evangelical is Barack Obama, and he supports changing the definition of marriage, believes that human life is disposable and expendable at any time in the womb or even beyond the womb, and tells people of faith that they must bow their knees to the god of government and violate their faith and conscience in order to comply with what he calls health care.

Amanda Marcotte [7] and Ed Kilgore [8] both neatly dispatch the not-so-subtle subtext here, based on a right-wing lie about a bill that would have forced doctors to pretend to resuscitate aborted fetuses, a bill Obama voted against. While Marcotte makes mincemeat out of this zombie lie Kilgore notes [8] that Huckabee’s words show that evangelicals, Catholics and Mormons who are socially right-wing are willing to hold their noses and plunge into the cultural fray together.

2. Paul Ryan calls rape another "type of conception":

After the Akin brouhaha, Paul Ryan was asked his opinion on rape and abortion. He said that “the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.”

Gottalaff wrote at the Political Carnival [9] about where this easily deployed logic actually ends up:

So rape is just, you know, another way to conceive. There’s consensual sex, sex out of wedlock, and then there’s forcing a woman to do something against her will (rape), traumatizing her for life. All are equal, all are simply “methods of conception” and if a woman gets pregnant by any “method,” men like these, lawmakers like these, will tell her what she can do or can’t do with her own body.

HuffPo blogger Paul Slanskly worried [10] about the lack of media coverage for this moment, “a far more offensive remark than Todd Akin's imbecilic blurt of last weekend. What, are we tired of stupid remarks about rape now, so Ryan gets a free pass?” he asks.

Good question.

3. Steve King has never heard of statutory rape pregnancies.

We didn’t think it was possible, but Republican Rep. Steve King said something that might be even more clueless and scientifically absurd than Todd Akin’s remarks. Whereas Akin claimed that the female body has some sort of mystical power to avoid conceiving through rape, King stated that he had never even heard of such a thing happening to a woman (an underage woman, specifically). For real!

TPM [11]:

King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.

“Well I just haven’t heard of that being a cir stance that’s been brought to me in any personal way,” King told KMEG-TV [12] Monday, “and I’d be open to discussion about that subject matter.”

So pregnancy-through-rape denialism is a thing now. Great.

4. Senate candidate thinks conceiving through rape is much like having a baby out of wedlock.

Rape victims who become pregnant are not a genous group with only one set of experiences. However, we can say that becoming pregnant from rape is often a nightmarish experience for both the rape victims and the children they conceive. Read this chilling piece [13] from the New Yorker to get a sense of some of the ways pregnancy through rape can cause serious, long-term emotional and psychic scars.

It’s disrespectful to those experiences when someone like Republican Senate candidate Tom Smith comes along to say that conceiving through rape is “similar” to having a baby “out of wedlock,” as his daughter did – and as is the case with more than half [14] of U.S. births to women under the age of 30. Republicans love pointing to that statistic as an indicator of our nation’s moral decline, which is obviously ludicrous.

When Smith said that pregnancy-through-rape is similar to pregnancy-sans-wedding-ring, it was really misogynistic code for “those women are morally inferior.”

But what can we expect from a guy who thinks the only thing two grown women (“girls”) could possibly want to talk about is shoes [15]?

5. Wisconsin Rep. dismisses pushback against false rape claims as playing “political football.”

Republican Rep. Sean Duffy (who, fun fact, was once a cast member on The Real World: Boston) minimized the wretched comments about rape made by his fellow party members by suggesting that Dems are just playing “political football” by pushing back. What jerks! How dare they correct lies!

Here’s Duffy’s full exchange with CNN’s Piers Morgan, via Jezebel [16]:

MORGAN: What about Paul Ryan's positions on social issues like abortion? He's pretty right-wing, to the more extreme end of the party. Are you concerned that that will be perceived as anti-women?

DUFFY: Well I think what the issue's that extreme is when Barack Obama has voted four times to say if you have a failed abortion and the baby is born alive, you aren't allowed to save it. That is what is extreme. And I think we have to have a real conversation not just on social issues, but the real issues that Americans care about, which is the debt, which is the economy, which is jobs. Moms and dads across America, moms specifically.

MORGAN: But if you're trying to target women, which Mitt Romney has to do because he's way behind on women, is it really advisable to have people like Todd Akin rearing their ugly heads, coming out with all this guff about rape?

DUFFY: You want to know what I think is ugly? I was a prosecutor. I prosecuted rape cases for adults and children. And the Democrat Party is going to try to use rape as a political football, that's a disgrace. I'm disgusted by it.

MORGAN: Well actually, I thought Todd Akin's comment was a disgrace wasn't it?

DUFFY: And I called it a disgrace. But it shouldn't be used politically. You had virtually all Republicans stand up and say that was wrong, we don't approve of it, and now that it's being used politically – that's disgusting!

Actually, you know what’s really really a disgrace, Sean Duffy? Saying that “virtually all” of your fellow Republicans have disavowed Todd Akin’s rape stance, when in fact similar views are commonplace among the party.

That’s why we have to keep writing these lists: because there are so many members of the GOP who have backwards views of women, rape and pregnancy that as soon as we’ve finished one roundup, there’s enough material for another.

http://www.alternet.org/print/5-craz...ried-ignore-it

Akin has LOTS of company in other Repug and right-wing assholes, and certainly these assholes "inform" their igorant followers into the same Akin Land.

[boutons_deux]

Another crazy right-winger and ed up ideas about women/pregnancy

Victoria Jackson: Fetuses Aren't Part of Women's Bodies Because They Have Genitals


"The Todd Akin thing was so blown out of proportion -- it's a joke," Jackson said at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., when interviewed for my SiriusXM OutQ radio program. "How many times do people get pregnant from rape? It's point zero zero one percent. It's a joke. I read lots of articles. I know people, because I'm 53. I've know a lot of people, and I've actually never known anyone who got pregnant from being raped."

"And guess what?" she continued. "If I got raped, I would have the baby. And if I didn't want to keep it because I had these [mocking tone] horrible nightmares, I would adopt it out. But I think that God can turn a bad thing into a good thing. And that, if I got raped and a beautiful baby who was innocent was born out of it, that would be a blessing. The DNA of a baby is individual. It's not the mother's DNA. It's not the father's DNA. And that's why I believe abortion is murder, because it's not the woman's body. It has it's own DNA. If there's a boy baby inside of me, he has a penis. That's not my body."

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/articl...=Google+Reader

again, Akin is not an isolated nutcase. Nutty anti-scientific, ideological, regressiveness is part right-wing/Repug DNA.

[Spurminator]

Victoria Jackson?

Dude. Just stop.

[Drachen]

As awesome as this would be... It's fake. http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/billnye.asp

[boutons_deux]

Candidate's Wife Compares Criticism of Akin to Rape; "Women for Akin" Site Pulled After Fiasco

First, Akin's wife Lulli compared his treatment by the press and his parties to... you guessed it...rape. The one word no one associated with Akin should probably ever say again.

Lulli Akin, the U.S. Senate candidate’s wife, has compared his abandonment by party bosses to rape.

In an interview with “The National Journal,” she first described the move to get her husband to step down from the Senate race in Missouri as “tyranny, a top-down approach.”

She went on to say, “Party bosses dictating who is allowed to advance through the party and make all the decisions – it’s just like 1776 in that way.”

That was when colonists “rose up and said, ‘Not in my home, you don’t come and rape my daughters and my … wife. But that is where we are again.” Yes, back to rape.

But that's not all. The Akin campaign also had to pull a website called "Women for Akin" after it was revealed that one of said women was an Akin "tracker"--who worked for the Democrats. Oops.

On Tuesday the Akin campaign posted the Women for Akin website under the tagline “We think for ourselves.”

The website, published on the day the Akin campaign plans a “Missouri Women Standing with Todd Akin” kickoff event featuring Phyllis Schlafly, was pulled down a few hours after it launched, after the St. Louis Post-Dispatch discovered one of the women featured prominently in a photo with Akin is actually a Democratic staffer.

“Corinne Matti, who is pictured on Akin’s site standing to Akin’s left, is a ‘tracker’ for the Missouri Democratic Party,” the Post-Dispatch reported. “Her job, which she does openly, is to attend Akin’s public events and report back to the Democrats. She has been doing it for more than a year.”

Akin campaign spokesperson Ryan Hite told the paper the Women for Akin site was posted before it was ready for public consumption.

http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-vie...tter712520&t=3

[boutons_deux]

yet another TP LYING quote!

Todd Akin Compares Claire McCaskill To A Dog

“She goes to Washington, D.C., it’s a little bit like one of those dogs, you know ‘fetch,’” Akin said. “She goes to Washington, D.C., and get all of these taxes and red tape and bureaucracy and executive orders and agencies and she brings all of this stuff and dumps it on us in Missouri.”



“It seems to me that she’s got it just backwards,” Akin added. “What we should be doing is taking the common sense that we see in Missouri and taking that to Washington, D.C., blessing them with some solutions instead of more problems.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...kill-to-a-dog/

[Jeff Van Gundy]

lol legitimate rape

[boutons_deux]

lol legitimate rape

Akin "legit rape" widely defended by Repugs and Akin heavily financed by RNC and SuperPACs.

[DMC]

Akin "legit rape" widely defended by Repugs and Akin heavily financed by RNC and SuperPACs.

Pretty sure you've never even had legitimate sex.

[boutons_deux]

Here's a totally fake item from TP, including a fake spokesperson tweet

Akin Campaign Doubles Down On Comments Comparing McCaskill To A Dog



http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...kill-to-a-dog/

A Repug misognynist asshole calling his lady Dem opponent a dog, aka technically a , just "distract from important issues".

You Stay Classy, Repugs.

[boutons_deux]

"... rape. It is something that God intended to happen."

-- Indiana GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...gift-from-god/

Murdock is Koch-sucking tea bagger.

[Bartleby]

"... rape. It is something that God intended to happen."

He does work in mysterious ways.