Todd Akin - "Women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape"" (See MOD REMINDER!

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Personally If I lived in the States 'alarm' would sum up how I would feel as a woman looking at the possibility that people such as Akin could be writing - or rewriting - the laws that are meant to protect me.

Would there be new legal definitions of rape - forced and unforced? Would this impact on how severe the crime was considered? Would 'unforced' rapes be treated leniently? Would the fact that the victim became pregnant allow a defence of 'unforced' rape?

Alarm doesn't even cover how that one make me feel and I reject your claim that that is not a logical response. It strikes me as the most logical response to a perceived threat.

Suryavarman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You don't think narrowing the definition of rape infringes on women's rights - really?

You don't think a legislator implying that there may be have been an element of consent in a rape if the victim gets pregnant is a cause for concern? really??

As far as I am aware, the Federal Government doesn't prosecute rape; the states do. If that is the case then it doesn't really matter what Federal legislators define rape as.

Bannasidhe

Suryavarman wrote: »

As far as I am aware, the Federal Government doesn't prosecute rape; the states do. If that is the case then it doesn't really matter what Federal legislators define rape as.

It matters what every legislator at every level believes.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

This isn't infringing on a woman's right to choose anyway. He isn't voting for legislation that would stop women from having abortions just saying that the Federal Government shouldn't be funding it.

That is a very good point, this Akin flap is about government funded Abortions, not the legality of Abortion... which is missing from this debate.

Most of the polls I've seen indicate the percentage ranges from 61% to 72% of Americans favor a ban on the use of federal funds for abortion. A majority of Americans.

And does anybody else find it ironic that you keep hearing from the pro-choice crowd that they want the government to stay out of the bedroom, except when they want government to have a say in the bedroom… like government paid contraception or government funded abortion on demand.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Suryavarman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It matters what every legislator at every level believes.

Why does it matter what a legislator believes if they have no ability to make their beliefs law?

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

When did I say I was in favour of handing power over to legislators? Quite the opposite, I believe in handing power over to the electorate and having transparent and accountable government. If you think I trust legislators you are confusing me with someone else.

One person can impact on legislation in the US as well you know. Tack a rider or an amendment onto an important bill and there is a good chance of success.

Get enough people who share your views and then you can have a real impact. Do you think Akin is the only US legislator - at State and Federal level who holds similar opinions?

Perhaps you do not perceive a threat because to you there is no threat. Many women will see this a threat because it effects their lives directly.

oscarBravo

Suryavarman wrote: »

This isn't infringing on a woman's right to choose anyway. He isn't voting for legislation that would stop women from having abortions just saying that the Federal Government shouldn't be funding it.

I'll be very interested in any quote you can find in the entire history of this man's public record that betrays the slightest hint that he has ever considered the possibility that it's ever acceptable for a woman to have an abortion whether she or the government pays for it.

matthew8

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll be very interested in any quote you can find in the entire history of this man's public record that betrays the slightest hint that he has ever considered the possibility that it's ever acceptable for a woman to have an abortion whether she or the government pays for it.

In the article linked to at the start of the thread, it was strongly implied by the question Todd Akin was asked that he would allow abortion in the case of a tubal pregnancy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jill_valentine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A male politician who likes to futz around in women's health issues has been the latest in a long line of male politicians to do so, without the first clue of what he's talking about. That's not to say that male politicians should have no input on this stuff, but they should at least do us the courtesy of figuring out wtf they're on about at a pop-up My First Sex Education book level first. Again, this guy did not materialise at the Senate nominee level, and he's not a bolt from a clear blue sky. There's plenty of precedent for both what he said and what he's done as a political figure.

When I say "It alarms me as a woman", I say it because the problems and implications of this are immediately and presently clear to me; in a lot of ways that are simply academic to the fine gentlemen in this thread, to whom I mean no disrespect, and I'll give you the first example that springs to mind.

When I was a teenager, I joined the army reserve. When I did, I was taken aside by my sergeant and given a special talk about how I wasn't to go getting my pretty little head pregnant on any of the training excursions, because that would be bad for the reputation of the Reserve. When I was on those training excursions, we would sometimes spend three hours on a truck to a barracks in the middle of Ballygobackwards only to discover there wasn't enough room in the female billets for all the female reservists. The "excess" would then be sent home - so dire was the risk of sharing quarters with our male counterparts that we were required to take one for the team and volunteer to leave. It was humiliating and frustrating and had the effect of hobbling female troops with aspirations of making it to NCO level because they would not have the adequate shooting tables and exercises under their belts.

I could go on, but again, we're all busy go getters, and that's an extreme example, but what I'm trying to make clear is that, just by being capable of bearing a child, we deal with different stuff than you. As a result, our lives are different to yours in ways that might not occur to you, and that's something we're made very aware of from a very young age. It's woven into the fabric of our whole lives.

I wouldn't expect Akin or whoever to have an appreciation of all the nuances of that any more than I'd proclaim authority on the subject of urinal etiquette, but the big broad stuff would be a start. Being able to manage my own body doesn't seem like a big ask, and being told how and why I shouldn't be able to do that, by somebody who doesn't know how a freaking uterus works not only galls, it chills me because I can see how far reaching the implications of that are on a practical level.

You keep trying to minimise his significance as a political player, but up until this fiasco he was comfortably on track to be 1/100th of the United States' Senate body. And again, the Republicans may have "disavowed" the man now, but he was chugging away quite happily in their ranks until a few days ago, and there is nothing substantial coming from their corner to suggest they're very "distant" from him at all. Whether or not Ryan has a better handle on the mechanics of this stuff is unclear, but given how close he sails to Akin's course to date, I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder.

When I say "It alarms me as a woman", it doesn't disqualify any of the rest of my post, and it's a feeble tactic to reduce it to those terms as though I'm simply letting an attack of the vapours get the better of me. It's a very thinly disguised ad hominem shot and little more.

I am horrified that a person in a position of responsibility is this wilfully stupid about something that will affect a lot of other people very negatively. I am horrified that he has gotten to the point he has with his incredible ignorance proving no impediment to his vocal pronouncements on the subject. Cutting the first four words out of either of those sentences won't make a whole lot of difference to the substance of them, so go right ahead and do that if it makes you more comfortable.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We are not here to discuss my actual political views or your interpretation of my political views.

How precisely is because all women run the risk and live with the fear of being raped. Few men do. A great proportion of these women would be 'of childbearing years - lets be conservative and say ages 13 - 50. Men do not have this fear.

Should Akin have his way and federal funding is withdrawn only those who can afford it will be able to avail of abortions so the lower socio-economic classes will be forced to carry their abuser's child to term.

Can you imagine having your rapists child grew inside you for 9 months when you don't want it there? That is not emotive - that will be reality.

Will abortion be covered by your insurance - especially if the Federal government seems to be saying there is a difference between forced rape and unforced rape (which is the one likely to impregnate.

If you think all women do not fear the possibility of rape at least once in their lives you would be very much mistaken. Have you ever feared being raped? If you had you would not be so casual in dismissing the threat.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

That is a very good point, this Akin flap is about government funded Abortions, not the legality of Abortion... which is missing from this debate.

Most of the polls I've seen indicate the percentage ranges from 61% to 72% of Americans favor a ban on the use of federal funds for abortion. A majority of Americans.

And does anybody else find it ironic that you keep hearing from the pro-choice crowd that they want the government to stay out of the bedroom, except when they want government to have a say in the bedroom… like government paid contraception or government funded abortion on demand.

I'm beginning to wonder if liberals support government funding of these things just so they can accuse Republicans of taking away rights when they try to cut that funding.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

When did I say I was in favour of handing power over to legislators? Quite the opposite, I believe in handing power over to the electorate and having transparent and accountable government. If you think I trust legislators you are confusing me with someone else.

One person can impact on legislation in the US as well you know. Tack a rider or an amendment onto an important bill and there is a good chance of success.

Get enough people who share your views and then you can have a real impact. Do you think Akin is the only US legislator - at State and Federal level who holds similar opinions?

Perhaps you do not perceive a threat because to you there is no threat. Many women will see this a threat because it effects their lives directly.

If you support the electorate handling this issue instead of legislators then you will probably be making the situation worse. As Amerika has pointed out a large majority of Americans are opposed to federal funding of abortion. A Gallup poll also found that there are more pro life Americans than pro choice Americans. On top of that, a majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal under only certain circumstances.

So technically speaking, as you are in favour of a more direct democracy, you support more restrictions on abortion. Whereas when incompetent legislators are left to do the job it is unlikely that people that can't pass something as simple as a budget won't be able to pass the constitutional ammendment necessary to take away a woman's right to choose.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll be very interested in any quote you can find in the entire history of this man's public record that betrays the slightest hint that he has ever considered the possibility that it's ever acceptable for a woman to have an abortion whether she or the government pays for it.

I doubt that such a quote exists. What does that have to do with anything? He still isn't voting on legislation to restrict a woman's right to choose.

poeticseraphim

His logic seems to be that rape resulting in pregnancy cannot be true rape as the female body will protect itself.

There are many women who do concieve through rape of course and this becomes so effident when you look at Bosnia and other crimes of war.

He seems to be suggesting with his forcible rape bill that rape as we define it now should not be persecuted. And that rape as we currently define it is not rape.

Or he wishes to set up a definition of rape that would further impinge on a woman's abilty to have an abortion. By saying forcible rape cannot result in pregnancy and creating a second definition of rape or two tiered rape he is attempting to slyly push through legislation that sets up an effective total ban on abortion.

If he thinks that there are lesser forms of rape which result in pregnancy or that no pregnancy can follow rape, what is he suggesting the courts do with convicted rapists of women who concieve?


During this dialogue we have heard all about how women should be punished but little about what he thinks should be done about rapists or sentencing etc. The only thing that worries him about rape is those poor innocent babies.

It never crosses his mind that reducing rape through tougher laws and promoting a healthier respect for women and changing male attitudes would possibly be a better strategy.

Do Republicans not have daughters???

poeticseraphim

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We are not here to discuss my actual political views or your interpretation of my political views.

How precisely is because all women run the risk and live with the fear of being raped. Few men do. A great proportion of these women would be 'of childbearing years - lets be conservative and say ages 13 - 50. Men do not have this fear.

Should Akin have his way and federal funding is withdrawn only those who can afford it will be able to avail of abortions so the lower socio-economic classes will be forced to carry their abuser's child to term.

Can you imagine having your rapists child grew inside you for 9 months when you don't want it there? That is not emotive - that will be reality.

Will abortion be covered by your insurance - especially if the Federal government seems to be saying there is a difference between forced rape and unforced rape (which is the one likely to impregnate.

If you think all women do not fear the possibility of rape at least once in their lives you would be very much mistaken. Have you ever feared being raped? If you had you would not be so casual in dismissing the threat.

My point exactly.Currently in Ireland abortion is completely about socio-economics. If you can afford to travel you may have an abortion. In fact many cases of rape have resulted in girls as young as ten concieving. They would have little powers of self advocacy and if they are in care for example (mny cases of abuse occur in care) would be totally reliant on the state to act in their best interests. Many teenage girls in care or in poverty become victims of rape and need the state to act in their best interests and not in the interests of a radical brutal regime.


Abortion is a medical procedure. All women should have access to it.

This really illistrates how selective abortion laws are not possible and it is either brutality on women or pro-choice.

poeticseraphim

Amerika wrote: »

Sources please.


Wrong.


Wrong again. I think rape is a big problem and personally I think forcible rape should get the death penalty. I just want justice, and justice is hard when it comes down to a she said, he said.

All rape is forcible so there is no need to hyphenate the term rape. Rape says it all.

Justice is not hard when it comes to deductive reasoning or piecing together of evidence.

If you had been in a court of law during many cases of rape or studied case history or the law you would know that it never comes down to a he said she said argument. It is a process of investigation , evidence, cross examination and character assement.

Child abuse is often such a case (i disagree with your description) yet courts feel confident in their ability to be secure in any convictions.

War crimes where rape is used as a weapon is also sometimes such a case.

There was a historical law which said rape HAD to involve physical force and a woman HAD to resist to the upmost. That means if she was being threatened with being beaten and did not physically resist it was not rape. If she was punched and desisted in fighting back at any point she actually was not raped.

It consentrates on the womans attitude rather than the man's ..

This is maybe something you should watch

RAPE AND THE LAW ...a fascinating debate...and many opinions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmM5X-NSUhc

It is certainly complicated which is why intelligence and informed opinion is necessary.

Has Akin been to a battered women's centre? Has he REALLY looked into case studies and sat in on court cases?

Quoting anonymous doctors leads me to believe that he has not and should not wade so carelessly and misinformed into the debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmM5X-NSUhc

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

That is a very good point, this Akin flap is about government funded Abortions, not the legality of Abortion... which is missing from this debate.

Most of the polls I've seen indicate the percentage ranges from 61% to 72% of Americans favor a ban on the use of federal funds for abortion. A majority of Americans.

And does anybody else find it ironic that you keep hearing from the pro-choice crowd that they want the government to stay out of the bedroom, except when they want government to have a say in the bedroom… like government paid contraception or government funded abortion on demand.

Level of ignorance is astounding.

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It matters what every legislator at every level believes.

I am sorry but it doesn't. A legislator for a local county has no affect on state or federal law. One legislator cannot pass laws on their own, hence why there is a check and balance of power.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

That is a very good point, this Akin flap is about government funded Abortions, not the legality of Abortion... which is missing from this debate.

Most of the polls I've seen indicate the percentage ranges from 61% to 72% of Americans favor a ban on the use of federal funds for abortion. A majority of Americans.

And does anybody else find it ironic that you keep hearing from the pro-choice crowd that they want the government to stay out of the bedroom, except when they want government to have a say in the bedroom… like government paid contraception or government funded abortion on demand.

Even for you, I find this at nuclear-meltdown levels of rank, transparent dishonesty.

This has nothing, zero, nada, nichts to do with funding of abortions.

It has to do with reality, and those who do not relate to it or recognize it.

Grow up.

jank

My view on this, Akin is a fool and a tool for saying what he said.
He should step out of the race and live a nice quiet retirement.

However, the "USA sucks" type comments in this thread bears a falsehood that Ireland or the EU are so much more progressive. Look at Greece, look at the Balkans, look at Ireland. Are they good examples of liberalism?

Memnoch

jank wrote: »

My view on this, Akin is a fool and a tool for saying what he said.
He should step out of the race and live a nice quiet retirement.

However, the "USA sucks" type comments in this thread bears a falsehood that Ireland or the EU are so much more progressive. Look at Greece, look at the Balkans, look at Ireland. Are they good examples of liberalism?

It's not USA sucks, it's the GOP sucks, and they very much do. Akin is a fool, but he is not an outlier in the republican party.

It's not surprising... these people refuse to accept the fairly conclusive worldwide scientific consensus on global warming... they even have issues with something as basic as the teaching of evolution... nevermind all their socially backward beliefs.

Religion has been very patriarchal and many of the bigger mainstream religions still are, so it's not surprising that respect for women or their rights aren't high on the agenda for these zealots.

The current GOP VP candidate's beliefs in fact don't seem to be too far from Akin's on this issue:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/20/paul-ryan-pro-life-akin

Ryan, Akin and most of the House GOP supported a bill that would have narrowed the already few exceptions to the laws banning federal funding for abortion – from all cases of rape to cases of "forcible rape".

So Akin takes about 'legitimate rape,' while Ryan supports the idea of 'forcible rape,' as a separate category. Because there are some rapes that are not 'forcible?' I'm wondering which rapes Mr. Ryan considers to be not forced whose victims he distinguishes from victims of other rapes.

Memnoch

jank wrote: »

I am sorry but it doesn't. A legislator for a local county has no affect on state or federal law. One legislator cannot pass laws on their own, hence why there is a check and balance of power.

What a ludicrous statement. One legislator is part of the group. Every legislator's views matter because they contribute and partake in lawmaking. If we viewed every legislator individually as you seem to be suggesting then pretty soon we'll have 100 Todd Akin's on the US senate.

Also... I'm curious. How exactly should people decide which candidate to vote for if not on the basis of their views on the issues?

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

It's not USA sucks, it's the GOP sucks, and they very much do. Akin is a fool, but he is not an outlier in the republican party.

It's not surprising... these people refuse to accept the fairly conclusive worldwide scientific consensus on global warming... they even have issues with something as basic as the teaching of evolution... nevermind all their socially backward beliefs.

Religion has been very patriarchal and many of the bigger mainstream religions still are, so it's not surprising that respect for women or their rights aren't high on the agenda for these zealots.

The current GOP VP candidate's beliefs in fact don't seem to be too far from Akin's on this issue:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/20/paul-ryan-pro-life-akin



So Akin takes about 'legitimate rape,' while Ryan supports the idea of 'forcible rape,' as a separate category. Because there are some rapes that are not 'forcible?' I'm wondering which rapes Mr. Ryan considers to be not forced whose victims he distinguishes from victims of other rapes.

Are you finished with your rant? Am I the GOP? You have seen plenty of my posts here on this forum expressing my dismay at the stupidty of the GOP especially the socailly conservative side. The "****in crazies" as Colin Powell would say.

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

What a ludicrous statement. One legislator is part of the group. Every legislator's views matter because they contribute and partake in lawmaking. If we viewed every legislator individually as you seem to be suggesting then pretty soon we'll have 100 Todd Akin's on the US senate.

Also... I'm curious. How exactly should people decide which candidate to vote for if not on the basis of their views on the issues?

Did you even read my post before you continued your rant? I said ONE legislator...not two, or many or a group.....

I am well aware that groups of legislators that vote together pass laws, that is the fundamental idea behind parliamentary democracy.:rolleyes:
However, have a group of legislators come out and made this statement as part of their manifesto? No, I dont think so. I fact the GOP are dumping him quicker than a hot potato.

I was responding to the idea that ONE persons beliefs in every single state, country and federal level should be scrutinized as if they themselves are a danger to women or to freedoms. That is hyperbole and scaremongering. Do you want to go back to the era of the Red Scare? Hello Joe McCarthy!!

Should I worry what the SWP Claire Daily thinks and believes? No, because I know they are a fringe group that will never ever get their hands on any executive position in the Dail. It does make good media though, which alot of this is about.

People need to calm down. One douche bag says an outrageous comment and all of a sudden we are talking about treating women as if it were the middle ages and the end is nigh!

oscarBravo

matthew8 wrote: »

In the article linked to at the start of the thread, it was strongly implied by the question Todd Akin was asked that he would allow abortion in the case of a tubal pregnancy.

It may have been strongly implied by the question, but when asked straight out about abortion where the mother's life is at risk, he wriggled out of answering it:

"What you want to do is optimize life. You try to save the mother’s life. You try to save the child. There’s certain things like you get a tubal pregnancy where the child has absolutely no chance of surviving and then you do the best you can to save the mother’s life. I think you optimize life is the way I would probably describe it."

It's beyond disingenuous to point to the example of an ectopic pregnancy to try to claim that someone isn't vehemently opposed to abortion in any circumstances, but then "beyond disingenuous" seems to be par for the course in this thread.

Todd Akin doesn't believe that women should be allowed to choose to terminate their pregnancies. This is not a fringe position from which the Republican party is distancing itself; this is pretty much mainstream GOP, to the extent that it's a view that has been publicly and unequivocally stated by the party's current vice-presidential candidate.

Suryavarman wrote: »

I doubt that such a quote exists. What does that have to do with anything? He still isn't voting on legislation to restrict a woman's right to choose.

I guess restricting federal funding for abortions only restricts poor women's right to choose. Which is OK, because nobody cares about poor women.

Sarcasm aside, are you truly expressing the view that it doesn't matter what a legislator's view on a topic is because he's not voting on that topic right now? You truly, genuinely hold the belief that women shouldn't be concerned about a senatorial candidate's views on their reproductive rights?

Would you be completely happy to see a Communist Party candidate elected to the Senate, knowing that there isn't likely to be a vote this term on introducing communism to America? Or would you be concerned that his communist views could influence how he voted on a range of other issues that directly concern you?

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

...have a group of legislators come out and made this statement as part of their manifesto? No, I dont think so. I fact the GOP are dumping him quicker than a hot potato.

The GOP are dumping him because of his embarrassing statements about "legitimate rape" and his unsupportable views on female physiology, not because they fundamentally disagree with his views on women's reproductive rights. Paul Ryan's views are pretty much in lockstep with Akin's, terminology aside.

If you think this incident is an isolated one; if you think the GOP's "war on women" is something that has been invented by hysterical commentators, then you either haven't been paying attention or you have a dog in the race.

B0jangles

jank wrote: »

People need to calm down. One douche bag says an outrageous comment and all of a sudden we are talking about treating women as if it were the middle ages and the end is nigh!

Have you been paying any attention at all to what is happening to medical services for women in the U.S. over the past few years?

heres a quote from an anti-abortion group:

“In 1991, there were over 2,176 surgical abortion clinics in America. Today there are 663. Nearly 70% of all surgical abortion clinics have closed for good and that trend is continuing nationally,” said Newman. “We encourage folks to log on to AbortionDocs.org regularly and watch the number of abortion clinics click down.”

The state governments of Virginia, Alabama and Idaho want women seeking abortions to be forced to have vaginal ultrasounds first (plastic wand inserted into the vagina fyi) . According to most doctors, there is no medical reason for this, it is purely to make having an abortion as unpleasant as possible.

Furthermore in lovely Virginia:

"Patients living within 100 miles of the clinic where the abortion is performed must wait 24 hours after the ultrasound before undergoing an abortion procedure. Patients must be offered the chance to view the ultrasound images, but cannot be forced to view them. In addition, abortion patients will be required to sign a release form stating they were given the opportunity to view the fetus, confirm its gestational age, and listen to its heartbeat."

More guilt-tripping and also forcing women to wait 24 hours means that poorer women might not be able to afford to take the extra time off work .

In the last 10-15 years there has been a clear trend in right-wing politics in the U.S. to try to undermine women's reproductive rights - see the continuous attacks on Planned Parenthood for one.

To say otherwise is either to be ignorant or deceitful.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

The GOP are dumping him because of his embarrassing statements about "legitimate rape" and his unsupportable views on female physiology, not because they fundamentally disagree with his views on women's reproductive rights. Paul Ryan's views are pretty much in lockstep with Akin's, terminology aside.

If you think this incident is an isolated one; if you think the GOP's "war on women" is something that has been invented by hysterical commentators, then you either haven't been paying attention or you have a dog in the race.

Isn't this what the topic is about? We are not discussing this topic because Akin is Pro-Life in the case of rape, we are discussing this topic because he said some stupid $hit about legitimate rape.

Personally when I hear things like "WAR on [insert emtionally charged topic]" I get turned off. There appears to be a war on everything now. Christmas, Women, Gays... You are the person getting emotional. I have no dog to whip this novemeber.

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

Isn't this what the topic is about? We are not discussing this topic because Akin is Pro-Life in the case of rape, we are discussing this topic because he said some stupid $hit about legitimate rape.

Whatever your reasons for discussing this topic, for me it's yet another example of the ongoing campaign to set the US back several decades where women's reproductive rights are concerned.

The reason this one made such big headlines is because the mask slipped, and the usual anti-abortion rhetoric was coupled with some rank ignorance that finally couldn't be defended, which forced the GOP to distance itself - not from the fundamental position - but from the "misspeaking" that accompanied it.

If you think that women's reproductive rights are safe now that this particular troglodyte won't be elected to the Senate, well... I don't know what to tell you.

Personally when I hear things like "WAR on [insert emtionally charged topic]" I get turned off. There appears to be a war on everything now. Christmas, Women, Gays... You are the person getting emotional. I have no dog to whip this novemeber.

And with that, you get to avoid thinking about the actual substantive issue. Well done.

jank

B0jangles wrote: »

Have you been paying any attention ............

................either to be ignorant or deceitful.

Look, if people want to use this issue to scream from the roof tops about the curtailment of abortion services in certain states then off with them. Maybe you would be better off lobbying local and state legislators then posting here. I am not sure though what I can do to change any off this, no matter if I agree or dissagree with you.

B0jangles

jank wrote: »

Look, if people want to use this issue to scream from the roof tops about the curtailment of abortion services in certain states then off with them. Maybe you would be better off lobbying local and state legislators then posting here. I am not sure though what I can do to change any off this, no matter if I agree or dissagree with you.

Why are you posting in this thread if you don't care about these issues at all?

Akins is just the tip of a very ugly iceberg; his views are not significantly nastier than a lot of his party colleagues , he just didn't frame them as carefully as they do.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

Whatever your reasons for discussing this topic, for me it's yet another example of the ongoing campaign to set the US back several decades where women's reproductive rights are concerned.
.

Thats fine, looks to me you have a dog in the race after all.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The reason this one made such big headlines is because the mask slipped, and the usual anti-abortion rhetoric was coupled with some rank ignorance that finally couldn't be defended, which forced the GOP to distance itself - not from the fundamental position - but from the "misspeaking" that accompanied it.

If you think that women's reproductive rights are safe now that this particular troglodyte won't be elected to the Senate, well... I don't know what to tell you.
.

OK then, do you think Roe Vs Wade will fall in the next congressional term?

oscarBravo wrote: »

And with that, you get to avoid thinking about the actual substantive issue. Well done.

No, I avoid getting worked up about something that I have no power to change. Using emotional language like WAR doesn't help to discuss anything substantially.

jank

B0jangles wrote: »

Why are you posting in this thread if you don't care about these issues at all?

Akins is just the tip of a very ugly iceberg; his views are not significantly nastier than a lot of his party colleagues , he just didn't frame them as carefully as they do.

I just gave my 2cents as many others here.

I said the guy was a fool and should retire from politics.
I also said tried to give people a little perspective, yet no fewer than 4 different posters took this as an almost personal insult and decided to barage me with stats about the topic on hand as if I was the personal boards.ie representive of the GOP when I never even stated that I was pro-life in the first place.
Its as if a poster got offended that I was not so offended as they were, then tried to convience me to be more offended.... WTF?!



PS: I am actually pro-choice

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

Thats fine, looks to me you have a dog in the race after all.

Because I care about women's rights? Yeah, I'm such a socialist. Only a card-carrying Democrat could possibly care about something like that.

OK then, do you think Roe Vs Wade will fall in the next congressional term?

I think you know perfectly well that Congress can't overturn a Supreme Court decision. I hope you also know that the issue is much bigger than the binary question of whether the federal government can completely outlaw abortions. Again, if you don't know this, then you either haven't been paying attention or you're deliberately avoiding the issue.

No, I avoid getting worked up about something that I have no power to change. Using emotional language like WAR doesn't help to discuss anything substanially.

Maybe not, but it gives you the perfect excuse to wave your arms instead of discussing the issue substantively. Which goes to show that you either (a) don't care about the issue, in which case I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you're participating in a discussion on it, or (b) are consciously trying to deflect the conversation away from the issue, for reasons I don't understand.

AmberSolace

matthew8 wrote: »

Todd Akin messed up his words, but what he said is true. If a woman is raped and she wants to prevent a potential pregnancy, she absolutely can. If she can't stop it, then the way Akin sees it is that there is a human being inside the woman and that human being's right to life is more important than the woman's decision on whether or not she wants to have a child. It's not the way I see it, but I know where he's coming from. The point he's making here is that often when a woman gets pregnant from so-called rape, it may not be rape at all, but an excuse. It can be very easy to convict someone of rape (there was a high-profile case recently when a guy called Brian Banks was released from jail after 6 years when the girl he "raped" admitted they didn't even have sex, but because Brian Banks is a tall muscular black guy he was doomed in the original trial), so it's an easy way out if the woman is dumb enough to let a pregnancy happen that she didn't want.

I can't understand why some men (like Akin) focus in on an exclusively female issue - which abortion is - rather than on a more male-centered issue like protecting sperm. Millions of sperm are destroyed needlessly by male masturbation and Akin should be concentrating on the protection of sperm and legislating for the criminality of masturbation.

Akin will never have to face an issue like pregnancy or abortion and should confine himself to issues where he has personal experience.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because I care about women's rights? Yeah, I'm such a socialist. Only a card-carrying Democrat could possibly care about something like that. .

With the insinuation that anyone who isn’t pro-choice hates women and wants them treated like subservient slaves?. Lol, Come on, you have to do better than that.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think you know perfectly well that Congress can't overturn a Supreme Court decision. .

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!!

Yes, Congress cannot overturn Roe Vs Wade no matter if it was filled with women hating GOP types. A point I made regarding the separation of powers.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I hope you also know that the issue is much bigger than the binary question of whether the federal government can completely outlaw abortions. Again, if you don't know this, then you either haven't been paying attention or you're deliberately avoiding the issue. .

Every issue is bigger than the legislation on the statue books. The lobbyists look after that and both parties scream at their electorate when anything utterly insignificant happens which touches on their core strategies. I can imagine plenty of extra money for both parties being raised right now because of this issue. They are the real winners of this.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe not, but it gives you the perfect excuse to wave your arms instead of discussing the issue substantively. Which goes to show that you either (a) don't care about the issue, in which case I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you're participating in a discussion on it, or (b) are consciously trying to deflect the conversation away from the issue, for reasons I don't understand.

I merely added a few sentences about this topic when posters got offended that I was.... not so offended as they were. Very easy to get emotional about this issue but it rarely helps and never creates a consensus. I have my opinion which is not that different from yours actually, but without the "Think of the children!!" hysteria.
I know I won’t be able to change your mind but find it odd that some people are compelled to try and change mine when we are almost in agreement.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

With the insinuation that anyone who isn’t pro-choice hates women and wants them treated like subservient slaves?. Lol, Come on, you have to do better than that.

You know, I really don't. It's a hallmark of progressive societies that women's reproductive rights are a given; it's certainly the direction in which civilised societies tend to go, even if that progress is painfully slow (with Ireland being a case in point).

There's a strong political movement in the US that wants to restrict women's access to contraception, to sex education, to control over their own biology. This movement wants to move the country backward from secular humanism - which respects women's rights - toward theocratically-dictated values - which don't.

Dismissing Akin as a lone crank is missing the bigger picture. Shrugging off the fact that the GOP's vice-presidential candidate is on record as stating that he believes that all abortions should be illegal is turning a blind eye to this growing assault on reproductive rights. Dismissing legitimate concerns about women's rights as "hysteria" is the sort of response that allows it to continue unchecked.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!!

Yes, Congress cannot overturn Roe Vs Wade no matter if it was filled with women hating GOP types. A point I made regarding the separation of powers.

You know who can overturn Roe v Wade? The Supreme Court. You know who appoint Supreme Court justices? The executive branch. You know who's running for President? A candidate who has selected as his VP nominee someone who believes that abortion should be illegal (in other words, that Roe v Wade should be overturned). You know who gets to vet the executive's SC nominations? Congress.

So, do you still think it's completely harmless to women's rights to elect vehemently anti-abortion candidates?

Every issue is bigger than the legislation on the statue books. The lobbyists look after that and both parties scream at their electorate when anything utterly insignificant happens which touches on their core strategies. I can imagine plenty of extra money for both parties being raised right now because of this issue. They are the real winners of this.

If you think the growing tide of suppression of women's rights is "utterly insignificant", then we honestly don't have a common basis for a discussion.

I know I won’t be able to change your mind but find it odd that some people are compelled to try and change mine when we are almost in agreement.

I'm not sure what you want to change my mind to. If you're pro-choice, then we're in agreement there. If you believe that it's OK to be personally pro-choice, but wrong to highlight the massive surge of anti-choice policies being introduced in the US, then I don't see that there's anything amiss in my trying to persuade you that your position is logically inconsistent.

20Cent

Here's his apology http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R57E3S8RO7A&feature=player_embedded

Not very sincere imo looks like he is still running disgraceful. Love the first comment I only accept legitimate apologies lol.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Being a libertarian you only believe in choices being available to people that can afford them. A government funding abortion services is no different to government funding healthcare or any other kind of service. It's got nought to do with government coming between people and their doctors, on this issue, though I'm not surprised at you trying to use this to attempt, rather disingenously, to advance the cause of your social darwinism (sorry libertarianism).

Unfortunately government sometimes HAS to come in the way of parents and their children, because some parents are not very nice people and have no problem abusing, prostituting and even killing their own children. Though I fully accept that in general government has a LOT of ground left to make up in the region of childcare and childprotection and protection and services for vulnerable people in general, however, I don't see a viable alternative, certainly not in your captilo-anarchist utopia.

There are 535 voting members of Congress, and that's just the legislative branch of government. Passing legislation in the United States is (intentionally) a horrendously labyrinthine and tortuous process, precisely because the Founding Fathers (who had first-hand experience dealing with a genuinely crackpot monarch in George III) wanted to avoid the pitfalls of concentrated power; instead, they created a system filled with careful checks and balances that naturally tends toward gridlock.

Waffle/waffle/waffle. In a representative democracy, the views of legislators on relevant issues are pretty damn important when it comes to deciding which way to cast your vote.

If legislators have no influence then perhaps you should quit exorting people to vote for Gary Johnson in any kind of capacity.

Since Paul Ryan and his wife Janna Little Ryan have three children, I'm guessing they've figured out by now how to make babies.

Since Todd Akin is married, presumably he and his wife should also know about what does and doesn't go into making babies.

No, it's not an ad hominem shot — it's pointing out how Democratic strategists use scaremongering to secure the vote of the younger (especially single) women who are crucial to Obama's prospects. In 2008, unmarried women voted in droves, and 70 percent of them voted for Obama. But in 2010, unmarried women did not vote in droves; Democrats lost the House, and saw their Senate majority narrowed. Now Obama wants to get that important female voting bloc back — and his strategists know that if they can whip up a furor over issues like this, all the better. If they can get women all riled up and waving "Get Your Hands Off My Ovaries" placards, it translates to more Democratic support in November, regardless of whether the alleged threat is credible or not.

And it's been repeatedly pointed out that the GOP have made constant efforts to undermine women's rights and women's rights to chose time and time again. And if they were to come to power there is little doubt that they would enact any policy they could. They would also like nothing better than to be able to appoint conservative justices to the supreme court in order to overturn Roe-Wade.

So I think the threat is very credible.

It doesn't surprise me at all. Legislators are routinely extremely ignorant and stupid about the things they try to regulate. As a financial consultant, I could write a book (in fact, maybe I will!) about the damage that idiotic regulation by morons has done to the global financial system — because (unlike the isolated case of Akin) we do have a majority of legislators flapping their arms and screaming about complex financial instruments, institutions, and procedures that they know nothing about.

Yes, we should let said financial institutions set their own rules. Or better yet, free them from any and all rules whatsoever (which I believe is your extremist platform). Because hey, that worked so well when the banking sector was dergulated in the 20s and again in 2000-2008.

We have an annoying habit of regarding our legislators as supremely knowledgable — when they aren't. When Akin makes the comments he did, or when Jackson Lee waffles on about "two Vietnams," and we realize that they have served respectively on important committees relating to science and foreign policy, it reminds of the limits of their abilities — and hopefully makes us less willing to place all our hopes and aspirations for the future in the hands of the all-powerful state.

We should instead place them in the hands of benevolent megacorporations whose modus operandi is to make money and hoard as many of the world's resources as they can for the benefit of no one but themselves and who should be accountable to no one but themselves.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

matthew8

Memnoch wrote: »

It's not USA sucks, it's the GOP sucks, and they very much do. Akin is a fool, but he is not an outlier in the republican party.

He clearly is. All his donors have stopped giving, and he's being condemned by GOPers left right and centre. This guy as I said before is to the right of the Sarah Palin wing of the party.

As for the "war on women" by the GOP, that's incredibly short-sighted thing to talk about. Opposition to abortion is wide-spread, it is opposed by independents and 34% of democrats too. Restricting access to contraception is not something that has widespread support in the GOP.

Memnoch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's a generalisation and baseless.

Personally. I believe strongly in personal and sexual freedom so long as that does not cause harm to others and hinder the personal and sexual freedom of others.

As far as economic and financial freedom are concerned. I think it's fair to say that you and I have very strong difference about just how these are defined.

So it amuses me to same the same people pronouncing themselves terrified at the prospect of seeing the power of big government used against their beliefs. If you want to argue for big interventionist government, you have to accept that sooner or later, that will happen.

I understand how democracy works. I can see lots of ways to IMPROVE democracy, but I don't really see an alternative to it that I would find in any way palatable.

I accept that in a democracy there will be laws passed that will be unfair to some. Democracy is by no means flawless. I'm not sure what alternative there is and how that altenative would be enforced. Because if enough of a percentage of a population want something, it will probably happen, and if you try to stop them, it will inevitably blow up in your face. The only way to change that is to make the argument and convince people around to your point of view unless you prefer some kind of enlightened dictatorship.

I'm not really sure what your point is here and what actual alternative you are suggesting.

According to a May 2012 Gallup poll, 20 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, 52 percent believe it should be legal only under certain circumstances, and 25 percent believe it should be legal in all circumstances.

In the same poll, 50 percent of Americans identified themselves as pro-life, while 41 percent identified as pro-choice.

28 percent of respondents said that they are dissatisfied with current abortion laws, and want stricter regulation.

In a 2005 poll, 37 percent of Americans said they would support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all circumstances, except when medically necessary to save the life of the mother.

In a 2011 poll, 22 percent of Americans said that abortion should be illegal even when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest.

This means that politicians with "extremist" anti-abortion views actually reflect the views of a sizable number (somewhere between one-fifth and one-third) of the American electorate—who, in a representational democracy, have every right to have their beliefs reflected in government.

They absolutely have a right to have their beliefs reflected. Which is WHY, it is important for women who care about their reproductive rights to turn up and vote against candidates who would seek to undermine them.

Like it or not, that's the reality of coupling big, invasive government with democracy. If you support that system, you can't always "be on the side that's winning," to paraphrase Bob Dylan.

There is no such thing as a completely non-invasive government. If you remove democratic government, you'll replace it by tyranny of the powerful which will be just as invasive and limiting of people's freedoms and choices.

I don't accept your black or white, on or off arguement. We live in a nuanced world and there is nothing wrong with saying that there are some things you believe the state should interfere in and others you don't think they should. People disagree about where that line should be drawn. The only way to settle these differences without going around chopping each other's heads off is to do so democratically.

The approach adopted by many left-liberals amounts to, "I love my big-government statism, as long as the Democrats are in control." That's a bit short-sighted — because yes, there will come a time when the Republicans are steering the ship.

I like democracy. No system is perfect there will always be advantages and disadvantages whatever form of government or non-government we decide to have. If the side effect of democracy is the republicans coming to power from time to time, then I'm willing to accept that. I'm not willing to pay the price for the kind of system (libertarianism) that you want to replace democracy with because I don't see its benefits outweighing the price.

That is NOT to say that I won't fight tooth and nail to reform the system and make it a better reflection of what it should be and that I won't argue within the democratic process for policies and changes that I believe in.

I also think we are now veering off topic and perhaps this discussion should take place elsewhere should it continue, either in a separate thread or via pm.

hooradiation

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, exactly.

One immensely stupid man saying something utterly reprehensible and showing a basic lack of comprehension on the subjects of both human reproduction and basic decency is in no way equivalent to someone else being mistaken about the current state of Vietnam.

To present them as such is....
*drum roll*
false equivalence!

(yes, yes it's a day late. deal)

molloyjh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I do love the American attitude towards government. This whole thing about Democrats wanting "big government" is a prime example. "Big government" is a handy phrase that, while being totally undefined, is used as a stick to beat people with in all discussions. You'd swear people wanted Government to shove their hand up the people's arses and live their lives for them.

Conversely then Democrats bang on about a "war on women".

With stuff like this reasoned debate and rational conversation are out the window. The whole debate becomes a teenage whinge-fest and/or teenage wind-up. It's pointless, petty and really rather sad. But that seems to have become the norm for American political debate. And this is the country that's trying to spread "democracy"....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

molloyjh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A politician believes that their stated beliefs will get them elected.

A politicians job first and foremost is to get elected. Unless they do that they can't do anything else. To get elected they must appeal to a majority. To do that they need to "believe" what the majority believe.

How often have we seen politicians preach about family values only to later be caught having affairs?

What a politicians says (s)he believes is what they think will get them elected. And if you don't think that a politician will change his/her stated beliefs in the face of a changing social viewpoint then you've bought into the party politics far too much.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.