In a “What the actual fuck?!” moment yesterday (possibly the leading WTF? moment of the year), Rep. Todd Akin (conservative Republican, of course) said:
“From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” said Akin said of pregnancy caused by rape. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist.”
First off, “a legitimate rape”? As opposed to an illegitimate one? And what the hell kind of distinction is that?
Second, the notion that a woman’s body has some magical way of preventing a rapists sperm from swimming to her ovum is completely nuts.
Third, Akin was simply spouting the anti-choice, women controlling slut shaming party line.
Amanda Marcotte:
The myth that “real” rapes don’t result in pregnancy is widespread among anti-choicers—and not just the fringe (Akin, for instance, used to be on the board of Missouri Right to Life). You can see a variation of this myth at the anti-choice website Abortion Facts:
To get pregnant and stay pregnant, a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain which is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy.
As Marcotte explains:
Akin’s comment should serve as a reminder that despite its sentimentality surrounding the fetus, the anti-choice movement is motivated by misogyny and ignorance about human sexuality. In this case, what underlies the rape-doesn’t-get-you-pregnant myth is the notion that sex is shameful and that slutty women will do anything—even send an innocent man to jail to kill a baby—in order to avoid facing the consequences of their actions.
Kaili Joy Gray at DKos:
Yes, Rep. Todd Akin is the latest Republican to explain how rape just ain’t no thang, but he’s not the first. In fact, he joins a long and proud tradition of the Republican Party explaining why women who are raped are probably lying, are making much ado about nothing, and should learn to enjoy and appreciate the plus side of being raped.
Gray then offers a series of quotes from Republicans such Rick Santorum:
As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. [...] I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you.As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation.
Akin’s statement is completely nuts, shows no knowledge of biology, and attributes magical powers to ladyparts . Santorum’s statement is equally an expression of the party line. “Oh it’s so awful but there’s a special magical gift – you get to have your rapist’s innocent baby to comfort you.” I find it offensive and dress it up in religious cant all you want, it’s still offensive. It’s about colonizing women’s bodies in the name of an abstract deity who commands suffering and it has nothing to do with the Christianity of the Gospels.
#1 by cav on August 21, 2012 - 8:37 am
While Akin attempted to ‘claw’ this all back to some degree, I think that what he means when he says he “misspoke” doesn’t mean that he said anything that’s incorrect in the doctrinaire way of republican mythological ‘understanding’. He means simply, he
shouldn’t have said it in public.
#2 by cav on August 21, 2012 - 8:45 am
Here is Some Legitimate Science on Pregnancy and Rape
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2012/08/20/here-is-some-legitimate-science-on-pregnancy-and-rape/
#3 by cav on August 21, 2012 - 8:50 am
Unbelievably TPM says CNN has a copy of the draft GOP platform; it has a “human life” amendment, barring all abortions, no exemption for rape or incest.
You know who’s in charge of the platform, right? Governor Vaginal Probe, that’s who.
#4 by Richard Warnick on August 21, 2012 - 9:11 am
Apparently for many years now right-wing Republicans have believed that if a women gets pregnant after being raped, then it wasn’t really rape. This belief is behind all the forced pregnancy legislation that they have passed.
#5 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 9:53 am
I’ve never heard this before.
It is just as legitimate a position as the extreme on the left who think it’s fine to kill a viable baby 1 minute before delivery.
#6 by Richard Warnick on August 21, 2012 - 10:31 am
Do you think the GOP Platform could change now as a result of this controversy? Draft language for the 2012 Republican Party platform includes support for a constitutional ban on abortion without specifying exclusions in the cases of rape or incest, according to CNN.
#7 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 10:54 am
I’m waiting for the Dem platform to say that any and all abortions in all situations and in all timing and free and paid for by taxpayers is wrong.
How about abortion not in the case of rape or incest and not a threat to the health of the mother or child and not after the first trimester is not legal.
#8 by Richard Warnick on August 21, 2012 - 11:32 am
What the Dem platform actually says: “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” The right to privacy is guaranteed by the Constitution. We don’t want government monitoring every pregnancy in the nation and regulating the outcome. We don’t want laws that force medically unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds, or attempt to make medical decisions n advance. That’s not the America we want to live in.
#9 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 11:40 am
So you are in favor of killing healthy babies in healthy mothers 1 minute before birth. Thanks for the confirmation.
#10 by Richard Warnick on August 21, 2012 - 12:01 pm
Your scenario is theoretical. This really happened:
‘There are no words for the heartbreak’: Mother forced to give birth at 22 weeks and watch baby die because of new abortion law
#11 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 12:25 pm
So theoretically, you want to kill healthy babies to healthy mothers 1 minute before delivery. Thank you for the theoretical confirmation.
#12 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 12:34 pm
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
#13 by Richard Warnick on August 21, 2012 - 12:45 pm
Funny how the same right-wingers who want to criminalize abortion are also opposed to contraception and other efforts to eliminate unintended pregnancy. You might think they would want to help women, not throw them in jail. A lot of abortions are a matter of economic necessity for women who can’t afford another child.
Come on, do you really think it’s worth violating the Constitution to interfere with women’s’ control over their own bodies?
Only 5 countries in the world have no-exception abortion bans similar to the GOP platform.
#14 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 1:23 pm
There is no Constitutional right to kill a healthy baby 1 minute before delivery.
No one is preventing anyone from getting contraception.
http://www.amazon.com/Trojan-Durex-Condoms-Condom-Variety/dp/B000UXMN2A/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1345576852&sr=8-2&keywords=condoms
By Sanda Fluke’s math, she goes through 13,000 condoms in law school.
So you are in favor of bans with exceptions?
#15 by Richard Warnick on August 21, 2012 - 1:52 pm
It’s a private medical decision, and under our Constitution you can’t criminalize abortion. That’s why the GOP is proposing a constitutional amendment to institute forced pregnancy.
#16 by cav on August 21, 2012 - 2:08 pm
Behind sufficient quantities of Kool-Aid, killing of almost any sort, is quiet acceptable.
Not just for breakfast anymore.
brewski…back away from the punch-bowl. for your own good.
#17 by cav on August 21, 2012 - 2:29 pm
I believe Niall Ferguson and Akin are both trying to win troll/odious individual of the month award, but have yet to reach the point where the entirety of the republican party is unified behind them. That day is fast approaching. Hell, might as well go down together.
#18 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 2:38 pm
That is the most juvenile interpretation of the Constitution. All of our rights have limits. We have the right to free speech, but it is not unlimited. We have the right to peasably assemble, but it has limits. We have the right to bear arms, but it has limits. Also, all of those rights are explicitly listed. Abortion is not listed. Medical decisions are not listed. Privacy is not explicitly listed. So even if you agree that we have a Constitutional right to privacy, medical decisions, etc. it does not follow that that right is without any limits at all. So if our duly elected officials pass a law which says you can have all the abortions you want before 20 weeks, and in the case of threat to the health of the mother, or baby, or rape or incest, then those reasonable limits would be similar to all the other limits which we agree are reasonable on our delineated rights. So your position of killing babies 1 minute before birth just because it is some implied right, would be like me saying I have the right to take my RPG into a post office since it is my Constitutional right. You are on the looney fringe of the looney extreme.
#19 by cav on August 21, 2012 - 3:02 pm
Did somebody say something?
#20 by Richard Warnick on August 21, 2012 - 3:11 pm
The constitutional right to privacy means there must be a legitimate state interest to justify any intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual. True conservatives ought to be in the forefront of advocating this.
It’s simply insane for the government to try to micromanage every pregnancy in America.
#21 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 3:46 pm
Apparently you don’t see the state interest from stopping your mother killing you one minute before birth.
#22 by Richard Warnick on August 21, 2012 - 3:54 pm
brewski–
Do you really believe in enacting unconstitutional laws to regulate women’s bodies, or are you just arguing to pass the time?
#23 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 4:20 pm
Do you really believe that it should be perfectly legal to allow a mother to murder her healthy viable baby 1 minute before delivery, or are you just arguing to pass the time?
#24 by Richard Warnick on August 21, 2012 - 4:38 pm
You like to throw around loaded words like “murder” and “baby,” don’t you? It just means you can’t address the issue logically.
#25 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 5:08 pm
Tell me this. Who is more human; a human baby 1 minute before birth, or a 10 year old golden retriever?
#26 by Shane on August 21, 2012 - 6:26 pm
After reading this thread I can say that the golden shows more signs of being human than brewski…
So aside from his made up “doctors tell me” knowledge and several nonsensical hypotheticals, especially the straw man dem platform you compare to the actual GOP platform, do you have anything intelligent to say? Anything at all?
Is is this just another example of the non-existant war on women?
#27 by Shane on August 21, 2012 - 6:58 pm
Fun! http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/-6OjVMWcRnU/-Todd-Akin-launches-new-website-with-fetuses-grammar-errors
#28 by cav on August 21, 2012 - 7:11 pm
I’m so sick of this shit. I’ve got to wonder what the expression of such stupidity can have to offer? I honestly do not think Joe the common Bubbah is that stupid. To whom are they attempting to sell their B.S? Why?
I want to go get an abortion simply as an act of protest – there’s a chance the baby would grow up to be one of ‘them’. I see this as a very strong case FOR abortion!
s
#29 by Shane on August 21, 2012 - 7:14 pm
They are attempting to sell to the authoritarian personality. It doesn’t matter how unbelievable the shit is, so long as it is something they want to bitch about and “god” said it.
#30 by brewski on August 21, 2012 - 8:53 pm
All I am asking is a simple answer to a simple question. I have gotten the most ardent feminist leftist pro choice army boot lesbians to agree with me on this. Richard’s inability to concede the most basic humanitarian point shows some kind of psychosis.
#31 by cav on August 21, 2012 - 10:31 pm
Well, if the simple question is: Is killing a fetus one day short of being born wrong? The simple answer would be to refer you to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and so many others – quizzing you in turn about whether the millions of deaths caused by our policies shouldn’t themselves demand some outrage? And why they are not. Yet they wince at curbing overpopulation this side of the bullet. What utter bullshit.
I suppose then, having partially faced the psychosis of which you write, we could begin to characterize the discussion as humanitarian.
#32 by cav on August 22, 2012 - 7:46 am
Maureen Dowd’s a little cranky the am.
“Paul Ryan, who teamed up with Akin in the House to sponsor harsh anti-abortion bills, may look young and hip and new generation, with his iPod full of heavy metal jams and his cute kids. But he’s just a fresh face on a Taliban creed — the evermore antediluvian, anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-gay conservative core. Amiable in khakis and polo shirts, Ryan is the perfect modern leader to rally medieval Republicans who believe that Adam and Eve cavorted with dinosaurs.
In asserting that women have the superpower to repel rape sperm, Akin ratcheted up the old chauvinist argument that gals who wear miniskirts and high-heels are “asking” for rape; now women who don’t have the presence of mind to conjure up a tubal spasm, a drone hormone, a magic spermicidal secretion or mere willpower to block conception during rape are “asking” for a baby.”
#33 by Richard Warnick on August 22, 2012 - 9:25 am
cav–
Thanks for bringing up the obvious point, that the same people who call a fetus (or zygote) a “baby” and decry the so-called “murder” are perfectly OK with the actual murder of real babies halfway around the world.
#34 by cav on August 22, 2012 - 2:19 pm
The Central Intelligence Agency’s 9/11 File
Top Secret CIA Documents on Osama bin Laden Declassified
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB381/
#35 by cav on August 22, 2012 - 2:26 pm
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6559/1554/320/kool-aid-gop.jpg
#36 by Shane on August 22, 2012 - 3:11 pm
breski, ihave to agree, i mean who can’t see “KILLING A BABY ONE MINUTE BEFORE BIRTH” that you have asked a “KILLING A BABY ONE MINUTE BEFORE BIRTH” perfectly reasonable question “KILLING A BABY ONE MINUTE BEFORE BIRTH” that we should all be interested in “KILLING A BABY ONE MINUTE BEFORE BIRTH” Richards response to?
BTW dipshit, “ardent leftist pro choice army boot lesbian” is a particularly classy line for you. In a single phrase it reminds everyone here that you are nothing more than another little rightwing dittohead boot licker…
…assuming we got through your strawmen and total mischaracterization of Fluke’s testimony without noticing it. Does it hurt to have your head so far up the collective rights ass that you think that testimony about about a roommate needing hormones to prevent cyst growth is somehow a comment on how often she has sex?
Do you, dipshit, know that even if the topic was sex that you don’t take a birth control pill every time you have intercourse?
Especially relevent was the fact that the woman mentioned is testimony was lesbian, which makes the other use of “the pill” a bit irrelevent, no matter what you have to say about trojans.
Or are you really so mind blowingly stupid that you didn’t know that birth control is not required for two women?
You know about the real testimony, right? You should. We have been through this. Right here. On this very blog. With you participating in the thread.
This is an example of why literally no person here takes anything you say seriously. You lie. Constantly. Which is an interesting (but popular) stand for someone who claims to be so religious.
But then that is why cavs point rings true in your case, isn’t it? The “pro-lifers” only want to see to it that you are born. They don’t much care if you get an education, food, shelter, a right to vote, jobs, or freedoms. Just be born, and stay the hell out of the way until you are old enough to wield a gun in the next invasion of a country that didn’t attack us.
So if the question is “which is more fully a person (your use of human is speciest, anal, moronic, and childish) a human 1 minute before birth, a golden at 10 years, or brewski,” I would say that both the fetus and the dog show signs of self awareness and cognition that you have yet to display.
Is that how we decide what lives and dies? Mental acuity? If so, having bacon would be more morally questionable than an abortion, even one minute before birth.
I assume you are a vegitarian then…