Sensible Erection | Missouri Republican claims 'legitimate rape' rarely results in pregnancy

Sunday, 19 August 2012

Missouri Republican claims 'legitimate rape' rarely results in pregnancy

quote [ "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin continued. He did not provide an explanation for what constituted "legitimate rape." ]

[by erich wiess@11:45pmGMT] [+10 WTF]

Comments

rangerx said @ 11:54pm GMT on 19th Aug
Strange juxtapositioning of this post and the thumb from the rectum tattoo post.

Oh, and rape this guy. Right in his grand old poophole.

happiest_sadist said @ 5:51am GMT on 20th Aug
Bonus: it's unlikely to result in pregnancy.

SourSadnessBear said @ 5:44pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2 Underrated]
Akin's an asshole for trivializing and downplaying the very real damage that rape victims suffer. I know it's supposed to be a cute, tongue-in-cheek reversal, but could we please find less repugnant ways of dismissing him than extending that narrative by suggesting that rape is a fair and reasonable punishment for his actions? Preserving the rape culture is really not helpful.

rangerx said @ 6:00pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
There is a rape culture?

SourSadnessBear said @ 6:37pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:3]
The idea of a rape culture is a pretty prominent bit of feminist theory, generally used to describe the sort of ingrained subconscious responses and normative actions that in many ways "excuse" rape. Sexual power dynamics, victim blaming, prison rape jokes, that sort of thing. A quick google will give you a plethora of writings on the subject by people way more qualified to talk about it than I.

The rape culture was one of the primary reasons why I did not seek help or report it when I was raped. There's so much internalized misogyny in how our society views rape that male victims are far more likely to be ostracized and shamed than taken seriously.

ENZ said @ 7:14pm GMT on 20th Aug
That's one aspect of feminist theory I always found to be trite. Like the supposed "death culture". Rationalizing actual rape or otherwise excusing it is bad, but why should jokes about it be off limits? After all, the punchline to many a joke often involve the likes of fatal accidents or murder. The existence of black comedy doesn't make people more likely to go around killing people.

sanepride said @ 8:11pm GMT on 20th Aug
Sarah Silverman on rape jokes:

rangerx said @ 8:17pm GMT on 20th Aug
Comedy, and at its root, laughter, are psychological (and social) mechanisms for dealing with uncomfortable situations.

mechanical contrivance said @ 11:01pm GMT on 20th Aug
You don't need an uncomfortable situation to have comedy.

willrogers said @ 11:34pm GMT on 20th Aug
That's not what rangerx wrote.

Rangerx wasn't saying that laughter is solely the domain of dealing with the uncomfortable, but rather that it's used as a psychological defense mechanism when people feel uncomfortable. This isn't mutually exclusive to or preclude people from enjoying comedy that doesn't deal with the uncomfortable, e.g. Seinfeldian observation comedy.

theolypse said @ 6:50pm GMT on 20th Aug
It tends to imply that rape is an appropriate corrective for some moral failing or another.

rangerx said @ 8:25pm GMT on 20th Aug
So rape is a subset of violence culture then? Which itself has several subsets including assault & murder, or on a larger scale, war?

All of which are violent expressions of willful coercion, n'est pas?

And what of the definitions of rape where there was consent?

5thEarth said @ 9:42pm GMT on 20th Aug
"And what of the definitions of rape where there was consent?"

Seriously? this better be a troll.

ENZ said @ 9:54pm GMT on 20th Aug
Some of the more hard-line feminists consider all sex to be rape. Something about a "porn culture" or whatever the brainwashes women into believing they need to have casual sex with men.

willrogers said @ 10:28pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:-4]
Nice job with that piece of fucking bullshit.

Do you even try to look this stupid shit up before you type or is that impossible because your head is so far up your ass?

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp

headlessfriar said @ 11:05pm GMT on 20th Aug
I'm not saying you're wrong, but Snopes failed big time there. The quote that I've always seen (but now can't find, for some reason) isn't that she simply said that all sex is rape, but that all pornography is rape because every instance of being the muse to some man's masturbation is a sex act. Snopes dropped the mall in that article by never mentioning that, but going on other quotes that I've never heard attributed to her.

If that line is a real quote, then either she believes that there exists a burden of consent that every porn consumer must meet with the models in person before masturbating, which is ridiculous, and that such consent is either impossible or simply unfeasible. Robert Anton Wilson, in his attacks against her, never touched upon the consent angle, but said that if all porn is rape because fapping to it is a sex act, then she must believe that all sex is rape. That is, admittedly, one possible interpretation of the original quote. And I was really hoping your link would debunk that, but it didn't.

willrogers said @ 11:31pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
Do you think there might be a reason why you're having trouble finding that quote? Maybe it's bullshit promoted by her detractors simply because she's anti-porn?

And no, Snopes didn't "drop the ball," it clearly mentions in the first paragraph that MacKinnon believes porn violates civil rights, but that doesn't mean she thinks porn is rape.

I'm pro-porn but I am anti-bullshit.

ENZ said @ 1:57am GMT on 21st Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
If I was in error, politely point it out. That's what a rational human being does. Verbally attacking someone you think is wrong does a disservice to the cause you're representing.

happiest_sadist said @ 12:48am GMT on 21st Aug
He didn't mention MacKinnon. You did.
Is your position that no "hard line feminist" anywhere has ever uttered those words? If so, does that mean none has ever thought so?

Maybe it's not appropriate for ENZ to presume to know what others are thinking without some sort of attribution.
It's certainly inappropriate for you to attack someone specifically for something they did not say.

willrogers said @ 1:11am GMT on 21st Aug
Just because he didn't mention MacKinnon (or Dworkin) by name doesn't mean that wasn't who was referencing with his vague anti-feminist criticism. Andrea Dworkin and Mackinnon are two people who are specifically referenced with that apocryphal quote, so it's reasonable to criticize ENZ for proffering that quote as evidence against feminists, even if he didn't specifically mention either of those women.

More importantly, it's not "inappropriate" for me to criticize him for using that quote. The onus is not on me to establish that no one anywhere ever said that, I'm not the one making a controversial claim maligning a group of people. ENZ has the responsibility to show that it has ever been said in earnest and that it's a significantly popular among, in his words, "hard-line feminists." If all he has is a vague, unsourced quotes and arguments against "hard-line feminists," then all he really has is hearsay and conjecture, not an actual, factually based criticism.

It's just poisoning the well to discredit feminist arguments without actually having to consider and argue against feminist arguments with empirical evidence.

ENZ said @ 1:49am GMT on 21st Aug
You haven't been reading Sinfest lately, have you?

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4265

And of course there's the plethora of Tumblr "social justice" crusaders who do nothing but rave at how offended they are at every little thing.

willrogers said @ 5:28am GMT on 21st Aug [Score:1 Funny]
So, which comic is it that says "all sex us rape" or that women are "brainwashed into believing they need to have casual sex with men"?

Yeah, nice try.

ENZ said @ 5:43am GMT on 21st Aug
Overtly? No, not so much. But I used to be an avid reader of that comic, and for the past year it's turned almost exclusively into a diatribe against "the patriarchy" or some shit.

Here's a comic that implies all women who work in the porn industry are helpless victims coerced into it.

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4330

Sorry if I can't be arsed to comb though the entire archive to meet your satisfaction.

bruceski said @ 7:00am GMT on 21st Aug
Yeah, he's become a born-again feminist, and those kinds of viewpoint shifts tend to go to the extreme.

That said, I like the comic immediately after the one you linked. Taking something disliked and making something constructive out of it rather than just tearing it down? It would be nice to see politicians do that, since currently they tend to spend all their campaigning time on trying to undo what's been done entirely.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 7:43am GMT on 21st Aug
I've actually enjoyed watching the genuine character development, both of the characters in the strip and of Tat himself.

schatten00777 said @ 10:25am GMT on 21st Aug
So I haven't read this in years, but what happened to the little tiny dude and the chick he was always after?

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:40pm GMT on 21st Aug
Slick has mostly reformed and is a lot less blatantly sexist than he used to be, but (presumably to maintain one of the central conflicts of the strip) his "devil side" split off in the mirror recently and sneaks off while he's asleep to do what Slick once would.

Monique has been awakened by the Sisterhood and can now see (Matrix-style) the ubiquitous lies of the Patriarchy. She's denounced her self-exploiting past and become a feminist.

Some readers apparently resent what they see as the injection of politics into the strip. Personally, I find that the characters now have a good deal more depth, and I look forward to seeing more of it.

ENZ said @ 5:59pm GMT on 21st Aug
Except this has gone on for a whole year now without moving forward in any meaningful way. The devil runs some kind of conglomerate designed to promote deviancy and subjugation of women, there exist a guerrilla movement that borrows heavily from The Matrix... shouldn't there have been any arching conflict between them? All that happens is the girl on the trike rolls in, pumps her fist, and rides off. Politics was always present in the strip, but until lately it's been lightheartedly taking the piss out of everything. Now, it acts so goddamn serious yet accomplishes nothing except to serve as a soapbox for the author. And for all the "depth" the old characters are getting, those Sisterhood characters are one-dimensional. I know the term gets thrown around loosely, but the one on the tricycle is a textbook example of a Mary Sue.

bruceski said @ 7:05pm GMT on 21st Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
I haven't figured out if it's just his art style, since other characters to compare to are exaggerated like Slick, but the author's current version of Monique also looks very similar to how he depicts himself. Same hair and facial shape.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 12:08am GMT on 22nd Aug
On a related note, personally I think introducing The Cartoonist as an actual on-panel character may have been a mistake. It's led to some interesting results, but overall I preferred the implication that Percy and Pooch's owner might be The Cartoonist but was never seen by the reader.

ENZ said @ 1:46am GMT on 22nd Aug
Right. And how telling it was that the strip that outright confirmed the cartoonist was an author self-insert was one where he denounced his older works.

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4338

Barnabas_Truman said @ 3:27am GMT on 22nd Aug
I actually liked that one, and especially the one immediately following it, quite a lot. In it I see The Cartoonist confronting the older strips and coming to terms with them.

ENZ said @ 4:15am GMT on 22nd Aug
I see it as thumbing his nose at his old work, and by extension those who prefer it to what he's doing now.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 12:05am GMT on 22nd Aug
It does indeed move incredibly slow--but that's been the case for the entirety of the strip's decade-plus existence. Mainly I'm there for the Fuchsia's Redemption storyline.

ENZ said @ 1:37am GMT on 22nd Aug
But then there are dozens upon dozens of strips where the punchline is "men are pigs" that don't have any relevance to the plot. Like this one.

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4321

Barnabas_Truman said @ 3:33am GMT on 22nd Aug
...which is, I presume, why the plot is running slowly. Of course, filler with no relevance to the plot has been an element of the strip since it began.

ENZ said @ 4:13am GMT on 22nd Aug
Except before there was no plot. Just musings the author thought of, with a few week-long arches sprinkled around. Lot like newspaper strips. Now, he's got this grand political message he's trying to shoehorn in, and an awful lot of those who used to love the comic just want him to get on with it so he can move onto something else.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:46am GMT on 22nd Aug
As you wish. I'm generally rather enjoying it myself. If it bothers you, you can always spend a few years re-reading the archives.

cache22 said @ 5:22am GMT on 21st Aug
Depending on your point of view either everyone is responsible for maintaining rational discourse, or nobody is.

willrogers said @ 5:26am GMT on 21st Aug
Where did I write that someone was wrong for using obscenities or otherwise being impolite?

I was exclusively talking about the burden of proof and the use of logical fallacies and I'm not being hypocritical just because I insulted someone for making wild assertions with not only absolutely no evidence, but also assertions that are easily disproved with a quick Google/Snopes search.

ENZ said @ 5:32am GMT on 21st Aug
You sure are an irritable fellow, aren't you?

happiest_sadist said @ 4:43am GMT on 22nd Aug
Please cite the wild assertion to which you object, and the countervailing evidence.

From where I'm sitting, ENZ stated that someone somewhere said something stupid and you jumped on him for it.

happiest_sadist said @ 4:37am GMT on 22nd Aug
"Just because he didn't mention MacKinnon (or Dworkin) by name doesn't mean that wasn't who was referencing with his vague anti-feminist criticism."
Nor does it mean that he was referring to either of them.
If you think that's what he meant, then good for you. Unless you can read ENZ's mind then you are just as wrong as he is in citing "some hardcore feminists" having a position (NOT a quote) that you don't like.
"it's reasonable to criticize ENZ for proffering that quote as evidence against feminists"
There was no quote. ENZ stated that some nebulous group of 'hard core feminists' (I'd like to think this includes Cycle Slutz from Hell and Tura Satana) had said that all sex was rape.
There wasn't even any imputation stated- he could have been claiming that these 'feminists' thought that all sex was mutual rape regardless of gender! I'm not saying he was, but I do suggest that you read more into his comment than was there.
"The onus is not on me to establish that no one anywhere ever said that, I'm not the one making a controversial claim maligning a group of people."
The 'controversial claim' in this case is that 'some ... feminists' have stated that all sex is rape. Is this really that controversial? There are a lot of feminists. Not all of them are famous, and their words are not searchable on Wikiquote. I personally have heard more than one self-identified 'feminist' espouse this position. I don't take any of those people seriously (and the last time I heard someone talk this way was about 20 years ago) and I don't see them as representatives of feminism, even though they self-identified as feminists (and had I asked, they probably would have claimed to be 'hard-core').
Similarly, I have personally heard self-identified Republicans claim with a straight face that Barack Obama is 'the Anti-Christ', that he 'means to take away everybody's guns', and that he's not an American citizen. I don't regard these statements as representative of the party as a whole.
will, I didn't reply to you in order to tell you that you are wrong to criticize others. I did use the word "inappropriate", but that's just my (rather prissy) opinion.
I just think you jumped on ENZ pretty hard and it wasn't warranted. Maybe ENZ is, unbeknownst to me, an enemy of feminism. It could be you have knowledge of ENZ's character which I lack. However, judging by what he actually said, your response seemed excessive.

ENZ said @ 1:52am GMT on 21st Aug [Score:-1]
There, that's a proper mod. Simply having a difference of opinion isn't trolling.

willrogers said @ 5:23am GMT on 21st Aug [Score:-1]
What you wrote was not an opinion, it was a claim of fact without any supporting evidence. You still haven't provided any evidence for your wild assertions, just petty downmods and a link to a webcomic that in no way supports your argument.

ENZ said @ 5:39am GMT on 21st Aug
Look, I don't have the Wikipedia-approved citations you desire. And no, I'm not basing this on whoever it was you accused me of missattributing (whom I've never heard of, by the way). I'm just going by assorted ravings I've seen on tumblr and the like.

And that "petty" downmod was in jest of your unnecessary hostility. Lighten the fuck up, man.

theolypse said @ 3:12am GMT on 22nd Aug [Score:1 Informative]
Basile, Kathleen C. 1999. "Rape by Acquiescence: The Ways in Which Women “Give in” to Unwanted Sex With Their Husbands." Violence Against Women 5: 1036-1058.

It's an exploration of the effects of non-labeling of real coercion, not a polemic against straight sex. The mildest form of acquiescence described therein is presented as about as traumatic as trying a new food you don't think you'll like, and the authors don't really try to claim that it's vile, only that its existence confounds any attempt to think of "consent" as an absolute thing.

theolypse said @ 3:04am GMT on 22nd Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
If you would like to produce serious scholarly investigations of the more general abuses enabled by Western culture's chummy relationship with vengeance, tribalism, and violence, you are welcome to and would find a great deal of company. The authors describing "Rape Culture" are specifically analyzing the interactions between men and women, and feel they have found a diffuse acceptance that men have the general right to manage, groom, discipline, and consume women, which acceptance they so label. I agree that it is an expression of the general human competitive barbarism, which does, in fact, find many other expressions. More reasonable feminist authors don't try to claim that violent, coercive misogyny explains every aspect of the human condition, and the term "Rape Culture" isn't the exclusive province of the few that do.

wynterbourne said @ 11:08pm GMT on 20th Aug
Yup. Go spend some time on Fetlife.

kylemcBitch said @ 11:55pm GMT on 19th Aug [Score:1 Funny]
I find it remarkably refreshing the Wiess posted this. Good to know there are standards of decency we can all agree on.

pleaides said @ 12:18am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Good]
Good to hear from you again Kyle. There was some concern after the shooting and you hadn't been heard from in a while.

sanepride said @ 12:49am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Informative]
Which shooting? It's hard to keep track.

pleaides said @ 12:56am GMT on 20th Aug
Batman theatre shooting. -_- said that Kyle lived nearby.

EPT said @ 1:00am GMT on 20th Aug
Batman film shooting.

spazm said @ 12:19am GMT on 20th Aug
His mother had an abortion, but obviously something went horribly wrong.

Can anyone finish it? Pretty please?

Urzazero said @ 3:19am GMT on 20th Aug
Calling for the death of anyone, no matter how evil they might be, is really unnecessary.

the circus said @ 3:48am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:3 Funny]
I know you didn't have to, spazm. So I'd like to thank you for going above and beyond and putting in 110%. So many people are satisfied just doing the minimum of what is necessary.

Naruki said @ 4:00am GMT on 20th Aug
... because if you are evil enough, someone will undoubtedly chuck of couple of easily ducked shoes at your head. See? It all works out.

spazm said @ 8:35am GMT on 20th Aug
Eh don't take it too hard man, there's this difference between things people say on the internet and reality. Perhaps the distinction is kinda blurry for you, but I assure you this was one of the former.

sanepride said @ 8:13pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Interesting]
The irony is right now no one wants Aker dead more than his fellow Republicans. The Democrats want to keep him around and talking all the way up to the election.

sanepride said @ 8:14pm GMT on 20th Aug
*Akin

spazm said @ 8:24pm GMT on 20th Aug
See, this is where my overseas US politics falls short.

That said, US politics baffles me, and as such keeps my boring little life entertained. It's rather interesting to watch from a completely different political landscape's point of view.

rangerx said @ 8:29pm GMT on 20th Aug
As a US-erican, I am equally baffled by our politics. But rather than entertained, I am terrified.

spazm said @ 8:35pm GMT on 20th Aug
Yeah I know what you mean, but given the fact that I can't influence shit on your country's voting behavior I might as well just try and enjoy the ride.

You guys, on the other hand, can do something about it by voting for the least insane person (and its followers, so to say). Please don't disappoint us :D

rangerx said @ 8:43pm GMT on 20th Aug
That's the problem with our politics today. A huge segment of our society will come away disappointed, no matter what. The viewpoints expressed are so extreme, and so frightening, that when to debris settles, it is pretty much impossible to say "oh well, it will be ok" because they have spent so much time vilifying each other that it would be morally reprehensible to consider supporting the "winner" after the fact.

Not to mention the guaranteed smugness of those who supported the "winner" during the contest.

Holy shit, I just figured it out. Our political system has been reduced to Monday Night Football or World Wrestling Federation. someone get me a folding chair.....

spazm said @ 9:16pm GMT on 20th Aug
That is the thing what sets (most) European politics and US politics apart from each other. US politics exists mostly of 2 camps; republicans and democrats. They'll do whatever is in their power to make sure the other party is in bad daylight, no matter what, no matter which side. Everything is allowed to win.

This is so different from (most) EU politics, and to be frankly, so far out of our league, we can only watch in fascination. EU politics is mostly existing of a number of parties, each representing their own interests, and of course each one strives for their particular interests.... but they all know they'll have to work together to get at least a few of those to work. It isn't as polarized. Not that it's that much better, but at least there's no absolute winners and (better yet) no absolute losers, which is interesting because everyone has to give in a bit to win a bit.

I dunno. Like I said, it's not better but I think it's interesting to see the differences. All that said I am afraid we are moving towards the US climate of winners and losers, which won't benefit anyone in the long run.

atter_cob said @ 12:21am GMT on 20th Aug
Next up: if you get pregnant from rape you must marry your rapist.

damnit said @ 12:46am GMT on 20th Aug
This sort of mirrors the get-your-girlfriend-pregnant... must-marry-her line of thinking.

KingPellinore said @ 12:48am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2 Informative]
Only if he pays your dad 20 shekels!

rangerx said @ 1:42am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
You forgot the goat.

Again.

happiest_sadist said @ 5:53am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Funny]
If he'd remembered the goat, there'd have been no rape.
Assuming the goat's up for it.

Goat said @ 6:14am GMT on 20th Aug
Baaaaaaaa

rangerx said @ 8:44pm GMT on 20th Aug
Which by now we all know means "No".

brat#3 said @ 5:39am GMT on 21st Aug [Score:1 Funny]
Unless it has a kid, got it.

EPT said @ 8:05am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Good]
You forgot Goatland. Solidarność!

Barnabas_Truman said @ 9:05am GMT on 20th Aug
You forgot Poland.

mechanical contrivance said @ 11:03pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Informative]
You forgot the briefcase!

Anti-fuites said @ 12:22am GMT on 20th Aug
Clearly anyone who gets pregnant was just asking for it

sanepride said @ 12:42am GMT on 20th Aug
erich posted this? Am I dreaming?

spazm said @ 12:47am GMT on 20th Aug
Ofcourse we haven't heard his opinion on this yet.

KingPellinore said @ 12:49am GMT on 20th Aug
He must suspect Paul Ryan of being a secret Muslim...

sanepride said @ 12:52am GMT on 20th Aug
He used a 'dead elephant' thumb.
Maybe someone hacked his account. Maybe he's bosco II.

spazm said @ 12:56am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2]
Maybe the acid just kicked in!

sanepride said @ 2:07am GMT on 20th Aug
Not a moment too soon!

RhesusMonkey said @ 12:57am GMT on 20th Aug
Sometimes, defeating the Dems requires having a better Republican candidate. It's important to highlight the repubs that need replacing.

sanepride said @ 2:10am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Informative]
Maybe.
Follow-up from WaPo.

Akin’s statement threatens to recast a Senate race in which he starts as the favorite, but national Republicans are concerned about his ability to execute a winning strategy. Akin won the GOP nomination two weeks ago — a result that Democrats hailed as a potential game-changer in a tough race for them.

So basically, he's the guy the dems wanted, and apparently he's not disappointing.

rangerx said @ 12:51am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2 Informative]
http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/

incpenners said @ 1:07am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:-2 Troll]
Republicans are For rape?

As usual, a little bit of checking reveals the ~~truth-stretching~~ lie.

From the link:

Below is the list of thirty legislators who were brave enough to stand up in defense of rape and vote against Senator Al Franken's anti-rape amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill.

The amendment that Franken proposed (from the linked site):

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2588 to H.R. 3326 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010)
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.

So, it's an amendment aimed solely at Halliburton, which stipulates that Halliburton must do business the way Franken wants it done; anyone who disagrees is in favor of rape!

OMG.

That's hilarious.

foobar said @ 1:18am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2 Underrated]
Because Halliburton was specifically defending and encouraging rape.

So, yes.

spazm said @ 1:19am GMT on 20th Aug
Something tells me irony wasn't for you, was it?

iosef said @ 1:45am GMT on 20th Aug
It is Halliburton's right (under current US law anyway) to require that employees sign away their right to seek relief from the courts if they feel they have been unlawfully wronged by their employer, vis-à-vis sexual assault/rape.

And it is the federal government's right, and some would say moral obligation, to refuse to award contracts to any company that does business in such a manner.

sanepride said @ 2:05am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:3 Underrated]
That's your money going to Halliburton dude.
A modicum of oversight, especially concerning how they deal with rape, seems perfectly appropriate.

ahPook said @ 3:52am GMT on 20th Aug
Those poor fellas over at Halliburton really get a bum rap. Luckily there are people like you to defend them.

happiest_sadist said @ 5:50am GMT on 20th Aug
Those poor fellas at Halliburton rarely get a bum rape.

ftfy

cb361 said @ 8:12am GMT on 20th Aug
I'm glad to see that the Republicans are now paying you by the word, instead of by the comment.

EPT said @ 8:14am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
Apart from the bit where it says "or any other contracting party", yes, it's aimed solely at Halliburton.

ENZ said @ 1:08am GMT on 20th Aug
Oh my, this man must have some serious medical credentials to be able to make such a definitive statement on women's reproductive biology.

Lets see here...

Dodged 'Nam by joining the Missouri National Guard (1972-80, reached the rank of 2nd Lt.)
Worked as an engineer at IBM for four years. No patents to his name.
Middle manager of some steel company for presumably five years, as he officially took his first public office in 1989

Oh yes, an expert indeed!

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:38am GMT on 20th Aug
Clearly he must be an expert; he's on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee!

ENZ said @ 12:46pm GMT on 20th Aug
That's the fucked up part. His experience is limited to few years at IBM and the Army corps of engineers. What makes him qualified? The GOP needed a sycophant on that committee, and he knows the metric system?

cb361 said @ 7:46am GMT on 20th Aug
Maybe he raped a lot of women, and none of them got pregnant.

papango said @ 7:51am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2 Funny]
Science!

cb361 said @ 8:19am GMT on 20th Aug
Good luck getting a grant.

antares said @ 1:41am GMT on 20th Aug
I'm lost on the 'Legitimate Rape" vis a vis what?

"Normal or Illegitimate Rape"

Can you get a licence to prove you are a "legitimate" rapist?

rangerx said @ 1:44am GMT on 20th Aug
More importantly, if you get a permit, are you allowed to hire yourself out for parties?

ENZ said @ 1:47am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:5 Funny]
Yeah, but only for surprise parties.

sanepride said @ 2:42am GMT on 20th Aug
I suspect that by 'legitimate rape' he meant rape where the woman wasn't really asking for it, like dressing slutty, etc.
Somehow I get the feeling this guy wouldn't consider date rape to be 'legitimate rape'.

Naruki said @ 4:02am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
He also seems to imply where the woman didn't ask for it, but DID enjoy it.

In other words, she can only get pregnant if she wants to, so if she's pregnant it wasn't rape.

sanepride said @ 4:47am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2 Insightful]
Of course it is always problematic trying to parse the words of a complete imbecile.

Naruki said @ 2:37am GMT on 21st Aug [Score:1 Funny]
Hey, that's uncalled for! I was perfectly clear that time!

Er, wait...

pleaides said @ 5:41am GMT on 20th Aug
This was the guiding principle during the pre-modern peiod in Europe.

CapnSilver said @ 7:14am GMT on 20th Aug
I think he means anal rape

CapnSilver said @ 7:14am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Funny]
If so, then he's right.

EPT said @ 8:06am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:3 Funny]
Saw a screenshot recently of the rather unfortunate headline: "More volunteers needed to help rape victims"

bbqkink said @ 7:45pm GMT on 20th Aug
Forcible rape ..did she get the hell beat out of as well or did at some point she give up.

sherlock said @ 1:56am GMT on 20th Aug
I expected another case of a some podunk county newletter but instead found the words coming out of the mouth of a congressman. Fuuuuuuuuuuh.

bruceski said @ 2:04am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
Mom said that babies come from a man and a woman who love each other, so we should be ok.

juju said @ 3:15am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2 Good]
The boyfriend apparently hasn't paid much attention to politics for longer than he'll even tell me.
Living with me he gets exposed to plenty of what-the-fuckery news. He used to not believe me without a link. Now I yell the title of them to him from across the room or text him and he gets outraged.

...just doing my tiny part in making a red state closer to blue.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:39am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2]
This must be the result of abstinence-only "education."

EPT said @ 8:11am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
Ultimately the frequency of pregnancy is irrelevant. If it still happens, it's still an issue to be considered. If only one woman a year gets pregnant from rape, do you allow her to have an abortion should she choose to? That it's infrequent makes no difference to the ethics of this particular question.

papango said @ 8:43am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
Ahh, but that's the beauty of it. If she's pregnant then it wasn't really rape, and she's a dirty whore who now has to pay for her wanton sluttery.

eIfish said @ 12:12pm GMT on 20th Aug
But denying all abortion is a morally consistent position. It's only when you make a rape-exception that punishing women for sluttery comes into it. It's not the pre-sentient blob of cells' fault its daddy or mommy was a rapist.

sanepride said @ 4:46pm GMT on 20th Aug
And indeed this is exactly his argument.

schatten00777 said @ 10:29am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
I agree. But if you look at it from the perspective of voting power, it makes sense. Why should a Congressman go out on an ethical limb (assuming he actually is ethical), pissing off a majority of the people who voting him into office, to help out a group that won't help him get elected next time?

danshyu said @ 8:25am GMT on 20th Aug
It's time for sensible republicans to just go on their ways and start a new party. Cause obviously the current one is being taking over by lunatics.

cb361 said @ 8:52am GMT on 20th Aug
Maybe sensible republicans know that the best way to keep office is to stir up a load of pseudo-moralistic issues that will appeal to the dumbest, self-righteous segment of society, and keep them angry,

rangerx said @ 10:40am GMT on 20th Aug
Wait, it's OK, he "mis-spoke".

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop-senate-candidate-says-misspoke-legitimate-rape-005818070.html

Then promptly puts his foot back in his mouth in the third paragraph.

cb361 said @ 10:56am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2]
Some days you just can't hate women without people making a fuss about it.

sanepride said @ 4:19pm GMT on 20th Aug
The Democrats actually helped him win the 3-way GOP primary. Now that prominent Republicans are calling on him to withdraw Senator McCaskill is raising a big fuss warning them not to nullify the choice of GOP voters. Can't say I blame her, the dems invested a lot of money in having this dumbass be the GOP Senate candidate.

bbqkink said @ 4:27pm GMT on 20th Aug
And he still has a couple of months and debates to say something else stupid. This did put this race back into toss up something the Dems had no real chance of..untill now.

bbqkink said @ 4:43pm GMT on 20th Aug
Does Romney condone MURDER of little bitty unborn Babies?

Here we go again Romney trying to be on both sides of another issue?

"Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement," the campaign said via statement. "A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape."

Now how is that possible? Governor Romney has said that he supports a "Personhood" law that says life begins at conception. So you would be killing a person with any abortion ...MURDER!!

He said this on the Huckabee show, although good luck finding it it has been scrubbed from the internet.

Ryan is much more clear about his choice.

He cosponsored “personhood” legislation that is so extreme that, if passed, it would ban abortion care in almost all cases, including rape or incest

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/2012/gop-presidential-candidates/paul-ryan.html?gclid=COnbpJrO9rECFcY-Mgod43UAHg

This is one you can't have both ways...IS ABORTION MURDER?

sanepride said @ 5:03pm GMT on 20th Aug
Plenty of times Rachel is spot-on but her little schtick here is just kind of patronizing and annoying. Who is she trying to convince? We already know that Romney's major campaign strategy is to refuse to commit to hot-button issues as much as possible, and we also know that the 'moralist' wing of the GOP doesn't care about practical reproductive issues or the well-being of women in general. Really this particular presentation is just a pointless, overly-smarmy waste of time.

bbqkink said @ 5:14pm GMT on 20th Aug
Yea, it is a little over the top on the theatrics but show me another presentation on the same material....I'll wait. And you avoided the main point almost as well as Romney..MURDER.

sanepride said @ 5:53pm GMT on 20th Aug
The main point is that Romney refuses to take a consistent position, which as I said is already well-established. At least this clown Akin is willing to say what he believes.

bbqkink said @ 6:31pm GMT on 20th Aug
"refuses to take a consistent position"..Jeez, This isn't should the Olympic uniforms be made in the US or China. This is a life or death choice, literally.

. Pregnant teen dies after docs deny chemo over abortion ban.

http://now.msn.com/pregnant-teen-with-cancer-dies-after-doctors-delay-chemotherapy-because-it-may-have-terminated-her-pregnancy

That is just one example of how this effects lives everyday. This is a "Core" issue one that particularly defines who you are and what you believe.
As President of the US he would have a lot of influence on people day to day live "refuses to take a consistent position" is not an option that we should allow as Americans.

sanepride said @ 7:58pm GMT on 20th Aug
Easy there pal, I am totally on your side.
I'm certainly not cutting Mittens any slack.

bbqkink said @ 8:46pm GMT on 20th Aug
Sounds like you are, and not just about some small thing. You have always been one of..no THE person's opinion I value the most here on SE. But I think you are way off on this one.

He has said he is all for a personhood law his running mate sponsored one and he today after the person who worked with Ryan on this amendment says what anyone who is in favor of personhood should say, Romney says he in favor of a exemptions for rape an insets..totally contradictory statements.

bbqkink said @ 8:50pm GMT on 20th Aug
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan say they disagree with Missouri Representative Todd Akin’s opposition to abortions for rape victims, but Akin’s reference Sunday to “legitimate rape” recalled the “forcible rape” language contained in a bill Ryan co-sponsored last year.

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/20/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-seek-distance-from-legitimate-rape-remark-but-records-show-narrow-support-for-abortion/sAKM3m1heqoAUL4wsY666H/story.html

sanepride said @ 9:56pm GMT on 20th Aug
Thanks for the compliment but honestly I'm not even sure what your issue is here.

I read that second paragraph a few times and still can't make any sense out of it. It's not news that Romney will just say whatever he thinks people want him to say. Remember that once he was even full-on pro-choice.

bbqkink said @ 11:12pm GMT on 20th Aug
Let me try again I know I can be a little, well Ok a lot confusing.

This is about Personhood. Something that Romney said he would support.

(Found it if I could have found this i wouldn't have needed the Maddow clip and maybe could have avoided all the confusion. )

Something his VP choice cosponsored with Todd Akin that seperated Forcible rape from rape.

How Todd Akin And Paul Ryan Partnered To Redefine Rape

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/19/712251/how-todd-akin-and-paul-ryan-partnered-to-redefine-rape/

All of this is radical beyond imaginable and Romney as usual is trying to change his stance now that there is heat..and you said what is new that is just Romney. What is new is this is the first time he has been called on to justify his radical stance.

bbqkink said @ 12:33am GMT on 21st Aug
This explains it much better than my ramblings.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

sanepride said @ 1:16am GMT on 21st Aug
Right, there's this tie between Ryan and Akin that makes things very inconvenient for the R/R campaign.
But what's still funny is that when they talk about Romney's view it's always 'Romney's current view'.

bbqkink said @ 3:16am GMT on 21st Aug
Which will undoubtedly different than tomorrows view.
This time his Sure, I support what you said even though I have no idea what you meant was about something that was life and death and as important to the far right as much as anything he could have done.
Then picks the champion for the right wing for his running mate.

I would love to be the reporter who ask Ryan if he still supports the notion of life beginning at conception and see how he gets out of his own skin to lie about that.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 4:02am GMT on 21st Aug
Reporter who asks Ryan if he still supports the notion of life beginning at conception, I'd like you to meet security guard who quietly confiscates the camera and tells you to stop pestering the candidate and leave the building.

That seems to be the Republican Party's usual method of "answering" questions these days.

mrcucumber said @ 4:46pm GMT on 21st Aug
It also consists of accusing the reporter of twisting the facts, and acting in a partisan way, if the organization being represented by said reporter happens to be labeled as "liberal" by the right.

If you don't allow politicians to evade questions or let them get away with lying, then you aren't a neutral journalist. Showing how they just lied or flip flopped would be seen as partisan.

All major news outlets just stand by and let the shit happen because then those very same politicians would refuse to go on air, or give the interview. This is considered failure for a tv program or newspaper. Get the interview, because advertisers like exxon and bp and monsanto want to advertise during the interview forking over big bucks to do so. No Speaker of the House? No advertising revenue.

sanepride said @ 5:58am GMT on 21st Aug
If I recall correctly, this was also the difference on the subject between John McCain and Sarah Palin.

bbqkink said @ 7:16pm GMT on 21st Aug
But there is NO difference between Romney and Ryan and Akin for that matter.

GOP drafting abortion ban

CNN gets a hold of the Republican platform draft language:

“Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” the draft platform declares. “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

maryyugo said @ 5:04pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2 Funny]
Abortion isn't murder. It's self defense.

bbqkink said @ 5:44pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Funny]
As much as I am pro choice because there is no better way..IT AIN"T FUCKING FUNNY!

willrogers said @ 10:24pm GMT on 20th Aug
It's a bit of a crude joke, but there is some truth to it. There are plenty of women who can't and/or shouldn't be pregnant and carry it to full term due to issues of physical and psychological health, the pregnancy could literally kill them. This ranges from women who have cancer and their chemo would kill the zygote/embryo/fetus anyways to women who previously had severe depression during and after their pregnancies to women with preexisting mental disorders that would be exacerbated by the physiological changes of pregnancy and who would stop taking their psych meds during the pregnancy, opening themselves up to relapses.

bbqkink said @ 11:24pm GMT on 20th Aug
That is why I am anti abortion and pro choice. Abortion is not ever a good choice, but there are times it is the only choice. Unless it is your body you have no right to make that decision.

But I tell you I fell as much contempt for women who use abortion as birth control as I do for the personhhood crowd.

rangerx said @ 11:42pm GMT on 20th Aug
Applying that mindset to another political minefield, this is why I am pro gun.

happiest_sadist said @ 1:47am GMT on 21st Aug
You're saying you have as much contempt for those who use guns as for those who say guns are people?

Just kidding- but what are you saying?

rangerx said @ 11:30am GMT on 21st Aug
No, I hold as much contempt for those who would outlaw the average citizen from owning guns as I do for those that would outlaw abortion.

Because options.

mrcucumber said @ 4:39pm GMT on 21st Aug
THere is a difference, though. A big one. Guns affect other people. Abortion you do to yourself.

rangerx said @ 5:40pm GMT on 21st Aug
Not in the minds of those who support Personhood.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:41pm GMT on 21st Aug
Ideally you get a doctor to do it for you.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:42pm GMT on 21st Aug
But overall though yes. Important difference. I really see no comparison whatsoever between abortion rights and gun rights; they're completely different topics.

sanepride said @ 6:39pm GMT on 21st Aug
Different topics, but there is a logical consistency in being in favor of both from a civil liberties point of view.

mrcucumber said @ 8:47pm GMT on 21st Aug
Frankly, abortion shouldn't even be in the discussion of civil liberties, imo. Arguing that abortion falls under the protection of civil liberties is redundant and stupid.

happiest_sadist said @ 5:08am GMT on 22nd Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
OK, now I get it. Makes sense.
FWIW, I'm also against outlawing guns entirely, but in favor of strict control - similar to that which exists for motor vehicles (each machine registered with local authority, each operator licensed and regularly tested) but more so.
I'm also in favor of more stringent motor-vehicle controls if you hadn't guessed.

rangerx said @ 11:04am GMT on 22nd Aug
I would settle for effective enforcementof the laws we already have, and a mental health infrastructure capable of performing its role in that process.

sanepride said @ 1:27am GMT on 21st Aug [Score:2 Insightful]
I have a problem overall in declaring abortion in general to be a 'bad choice' or a 'good choice'. I understand people have very strong moral or religious views on this, but the main thing is that it's a personal choice, and really must remain so, with a minimum of outward social judgement.
There's a lot of parsing and debate over legislation declaring 'personhood', or restricting certain types of abortion. My view is simply this: Any attempt to restrict access to abortion for any circumstance represents an intrusion by the state into the personal physical well-being of women. Only each woman can decide if her pregnancy represents a sacred life or an inconvenient growth of cells and only she should be able to decide how to deal with her circumstance, without question or judgement from any outside authority.

bbqkink said @ 7:29pm GMT on 21st Aug
OK, but when if at all does it become the states decision. If I am understanding you correctly any time up too live birth it is the decision of the woman. As it stands now the law is different from state to state on the time allowed.

At some point you have to determine what constitutes life. That is why I say it is always a bad decision. Someone, either the mother or the state has to make that choice.

theolypse said @ 3:15am GMT on 22nd Aug [Score:2]
Yeah, man. Those bitches. All fifteen of them.

cb361 said @ 9:12pm GMT on 20th Aug
If the fetus had a gun...

Barnabas_Truman said @ 1:25am GMT on 21st Aug
Can we apply "stand your ground" laws to the uterus?

mrcucumber said @ 4:40pm GMT on 21st Aug
I hear possession is 9/10 of the law.

rangerx said @ 8:52pm GMT on 20th Aug
Under current law, no. Some would argue that even if outlawed, it would still not be murder unless the "perpetrator" could be proven to have hostility toward the rapidly dividing cells.....

The elements of common law murder are:
-Unlawful
-killing
-of a human
-by another human
-with malice aforethought

eIfish said @ 11:02am GMT on 21st Aug
Out of interest, how could you demonstrate that someone intentionally setting out to kill* a person* for personal gain did not meet the criterion of "with malice aforethought"? Not having to carry a baby to term is a direct gain from killing* it, thus (barring accidents of Marx-brothers calibre) the act should speak for itself in demonstrating premeditation.

* for sake of argument

rangerx said @ 11:33am GMT on 21st Aug
Premeditation is undisputable, as I have yet to hear of anyone slipping and getting an abortion. Malice is the grey area, and I suppose it depends on which definition of the word is inferred.

eIfish said @ 3:40pm GMT on 21st Aug
Nowadays, "malice aforethought" just means premeditation. It hasn't meant "hatred" or "intent to do evil" for hundreds of years.

rangerx said @ 9:07pm GMT on 21st Aug
Sure, make me feel old.

maryyugo said @ 5:03pm GMT on 20th Aug
I was going to post this but you beat me to it. And it's not about "Republicans". It's about Missouri. Democrats from Missouri are just about as bad.

sanepride said @ 5:18pm GMT on 20th Aug
As bad as this? No, not by a long shot.
Claire McCaskill for example is endorsed by several reproductive rights organizations as "100% pro-choice and has been a reliable vote on reproductive rights and family planning issues."

And while Akin has drawn wide criticism from his fellow Republicans for his 'indelicate' remarks, his views are pretty much in line 2012 national GOP platform, which supports a 'human life amendment' to the Constitution, and though does not specifically prohibit abortion in cases of rape, does not allow it either.

willrogers said @ 10:13pm GMT on 20th Aug
Nice job with the false equivalency, but as sanepride pointed out, Akin's opponent, Claire McCaskill is pro-choice and she used to be a prosecutor who pursued hundreds of rape cases.

Akin also supported Michelle Bachmann's witch hunt against Huma Abedin and other Muslim Americans.

cool_drool said @ 7:45pm GMT on 20th Aug
I don't get it. Sure, he mis-spoke, and republicans who are apposed to abortion are always a hunted minority on this board, but his statement;

"You know I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."

How many of you lambasted Zimmerman over his shooting of Travon? Travon had every right to be there you said. He was innocent, minding his own business. He broke no laws by walking where he was. Zimmerman should be shot, etc...

Same for the fetus? No. Kill it. Get the little bastard out of there as soon as possible.

Little fetus... Sitting there, minding it's own business... Has every right to be there? Not it's fault. Surely...

bbqkink said @ 7:50pm GMT on 20th Aug
There... this is a legitimate position. If you are for "personhood" it is the only one you can have.
That is my point about all of this. It is either one way or the other you can't have it both ways.

bbqkink said @ 7:56pm GMT on 20th Aug
By having it both ways I mean you can no more exempt rape and incest from an anti-abortion law than you could say just because a child was born with severe birth defects..Kill it.

sanepride said @ 8:04pm GMT on 20th Aug
What? Seriously?

Whether you're serious or not, the point is-
The person who should NOT be punished is the victim.
The woman who is in this position is the only one to make this choice.

bbqkink said @ 8:08pm GMT on 20th Aug
Not if you truly believe in PERSONHOOD. It would be murder. That is how radical Personhood is. It is not just so called prolife it is a completely different thing by law and by morals.

sanepride said @ 8:30pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Funny]
OK OK, I know this. Obviously I don't believe in 'personhood'. You've made your point.

papango said @ 8:22pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2 Underrated]
And that is a valid 'Personhood' position.

But here's where I have problem with 'Personhood' proponent. You're asking a woman, a rape victim (who is also a person) to take on an unimaginable burden. To carry the child of a man who debased her and then, in some cases, raise that child. She is going to have serious problems along the way with her own recovery and in supporting her child, and the child is going to have more than the normal set of identity issues as it grows. Even if it is adopted (which has it's own issues), it has a right to know it's past and it will struggle with that.

What are you, as a strong advocate for the birth of this child, prepared to do personally and as a community to support her? She's making a huge sacrifice for your ideals, what can she expect from you in terms of medical, educational, financial, social support? What are you prepared to do or pay to make this work?

If the answer to that question is 'nothing' or 'I would cut her 'entitlements', the fat welfare queen', then your opinion is irrelevant.

bbqkink said @ 8:35pm GMT on 20th Aug
I have a lot more problem with them than that. Most of the people who say they pro personhood aren't really. They are either ill informed or just support whatever the Fox noise machine tells them. But when it is explained what all it entails they think that it goes too far, even in Mississippi..

November 8, 2011 11:29 PM

Mississippi's "Personhood Amendment" fails at polls

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57321126/mississippis-personhood-amendment-fails-at-polls/

There are those who FULLY support such a law, they are radical, they are dangerous and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (for sure) say they are some of those who do.

the circus said @ 9:34pm GMT on 20th Aug
People who like the concept of 'Personhood' seem to have a really difficult time with the concept of 'separate', which kinda makes their concept of personhood devoid of meaning.

cool_drool said @ 4:41am GMT on 21st Aug
I am an avid supporter of programs in my community that benefit single / low income mothers and families, including big brothers / big sisters and boys and girls clubs. I have a sister in law who has adopted, not just fostered, 2 special needs children. I know how great these kids can be, and how special the smiles they make are.

I don't normally comment because of the reactions of some, but yea, I support that scene in my community.

When people say "it's not fair to put the child thru that!" yada yada yada... That has never made sense to me. Ok, so a fetus might not be able to actually "realize" what life is, someday it might, maybe, if everything works out, find out. What a shame when that is taken away with no chance, for any reason.

oh well. I like the joke and funny posts on here. I should have known better than to voice an opinion on anything not joke or nakedness related :) It only leads to people asking me if I am actually dumb enough to believe what I said.

Quick, someone post some boobies.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:19am GMT on 21st Aug [Score:2 Funny]

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:21am GMT on 21st Aug
Seriously though if you want to get philosophical about it...

I see no reason why the potential future of a fetus that's been conceived should matter anymore than the potential future of a potential fetus that hasn't yet been conceived. You may as well worry about all the potential future that is lost when a man masturbates or a woman menstruates.

papango said @ 5:32am GMT on 21st Aug
I think it's fine to believe that abortion is a shame. And as someone above said, it's never really the 'happy' choice, it's most often the 'only' choice. What is unacceptable to me is foisting that view on to the women who have to carry and raise children they don't want.

I admire your contribution to community programmes, very many of the opponents of abortion stop caring once the child is born. Putting in your money and time is one step towards making future abortion less necessary.

ENZ said @ 8:36pm GMT on 20th Aug
Except Trayvon wasn't biologically attached to Zimmerman. He could have just walked away. Not so much with an unwanted pregnancy. If you believe in that "life begins at conception" hoopla, then fine. Don't get an abortion. But not everyone believes that. Yeah, a fetus has the "potential" to become a fully fledged human being, but so does sperm. There are a lot of people who believe life begins at ejaculation, and "spilling your seed" is just as much murder as you believe abortions are.

willrogers said @ 10:19pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
"I don't get it. Sure, he mis-spoke, and republicans who are apposed to abortion are always a hunted minority on this board, but his statement;

"Hunted minority?" Are you fucking kidding me? Do you honestly not realize that people like you are "hunted" because you routinely make fallacious arguments and moronic analogies like comparing abortion to the murder of Trayvon Martin? Maybe if you stopped posting stupid shit you wouldn't get "hunted."

If you honestly don't see the difference between a woman choosing to have an abortion for whatever reason (e.g. rape/incest, physical and/or psychological health, lack of finances and ability to raise a child, instability or even abuse in the home environment, etc.) and Trayvon Martin being racially profiled and then stalked and murdered by George Zimmerman, you are fucking hopeless.

cool_drool said @ 4:14am GMT on 21st Aug
Let's wait until they finish with the trial before we pass judgement on George. I might not necessarily agree with his position, but everyone has that right before we state they stalked and murdered someone.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 4:39am GMT on 21st Aug
So you agree that O.J. Simpson was innocent?

Supreme_Coconut said @ 2:08pm GMT on 21st Aug
Well.. I mean, the glove didn't fit.

Naruki said @ 4:40am GMT on 21st Aug
Ask the fetus what it wants, we'll wait.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:22am GMT on 21st Aug
Former fetus here. What did you want to ask?

ENZ said @ 5:51am GMT on 21st Aug
Doesn't count. It's like asking a senior citizen to weigh in on issues that affect teenagers.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 7:44am GMT on 21st Aug
To be fair, Naruki did say "we'll wait."

Naruki said @ 1:30am GMT on 22nd Aug
For him to ask and report back to us, not for the being he was supposed to ask to no longer exist in order that he could possibly get an answer from it.

Just pointing out one of many flaws in his analogy, such as the "every right to be there" flaw.

BTW, you replied to me, not to the person who had the question. Even playing along with the joke logic, you goofed.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 7:46am GMT on 21st Aug
And actually I ask questions of former fetuses all the time. Usually they are questions like "What topics in physics have you been struggling with?" and "Would you be interested in learning how to measure tall objects from far away?"

chold_numa said @ 10:23pm GMT on 21st Aug
"Would you be interested in learning how to measure tall objects from far away?"

I'm curious as to what sort of answers you get to this particular question.

bruceski said @ 11:52pm GMT on 21st Aug
There's a pickup line in there somewhere...

Barnabas_Truman said @ 12:11am GMT on 22nd Aug [Score:2]
On summer weekends I do a historical reenactment thing--mostly playing music, but also playing the role of a mid-19th century surveyor measuring buildings for the telegraph company. I wander the streets with a homemade clinometer, an abacus, a measuring-rope, and a trigonometry table, and pull tourists in to "help" me.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 12:12am GMT on 22nd Aug
Overall the response has been very positive, especially when I find families with kids who have recently taken a geometry class. It's really neat to see people actually getting excited about trigonometry.

Naruki said @ 1:31am GMT on 22nd Aug
I wander the streets with a homemade clitometer, an abacus, a measuring-rope, and a trigonometry table

Sweeeeet, how many women fall for that?

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:47am GMT on 22nd Aug
The ladies love my abacus.

chold_numa said @ 8:23am GMT on 22nd Aug
Interesting. It seemed like a complete non sequitur following from your first question.

Wasn't sure if it was some obscure technique to get students to attend tutorials.

bruceski said @ 7:06am GMT on 21st Aug
Punishing the rapist... punishing the child... what about the punishment of the victim?

King of the Hill said @ 8:57pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2]
Republicans like this guy are the reason I'm now a registered independent.

bbqkink said @ 11:55pm GMT on 20th Aug

'Legitimate rape' – a medieval medical concept

The idea that rape victims cannot get pregnant is a very old medical theory

The idea that rape victims cannot get pregnant has long roots. The legal position that pregnancy disproved a claim of rape appears to have been instituted in the UK sometime in the 13th century. One of the earliest British legal texts, Fleta, has a clause in the first book of the second volume stating that:

"If, however, the woman should have conceived at the time alleged in the appeal, it abates, for without a woman's consent she could not conceive."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-h-word/2012/aug/20/legitimate-rape-medieval-medical-concept?CMP=twt_gu

ENZ said @ 2:00am GMT on 21st Aug
Someone appointed by the GOP on the Science, Space, and Technology committee espouses medieval practices? Why I never!

ithaqua10 said @ 2:09am GMT on 22nd Aug
Explains why we scuttled shuttle system and its immediate successor for a ship that looks to be a throwback to apollo type rockets. Not to mention the joke that is NASA's budget.

if it can fly it's a duck which floats, therefor burn the witch

eIfish said @ 4:21pm GMT on 22nd Aug
As much as we all love the Space Shuttle, it's a fucking stupid design:

- crew right next to the fuel tank and SRBs
- Main load-bearing component ("fuel tank") thrown away every mission
- essentially a rocket (the orbiter) strapped to the side of another rocket (whole rest of the stack)
- Re-entry heat protection massive, fragile, exposed at all times

And all so it could have wings so it could interfere with Russian satellites in a manner that, instead of being blatantly obvious, was merely highly suspicious. Which, in the end, it never did anyway.

If the shuttle had been designed as a "throwback to Apollo-type rockets", the Challenger disaster might have been survivable (a sufficiently advanced computer would have been able to separate a top-mounted orbiter from the stricken stack, quickly enough to preserve the crew, and a design with the center of mass on the same line as the center of thrust wouldn't have spun as fast in the first place), and the Columbia disaster would never have happened (the debris would have to fall upward to ever strike the orbiter).

Barnabas_Truman said @ 4:45pm GMT on 22nd Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
Now I am intrigued; what is this "interfere with Russian satellites" thing?

cb361 said @ 12:58pm GMT on 21st Aug
A fascinatingly fucked-up conclusion. According to the article, they based their understanding of female reproductive biology on what they knew about male, so because it was impossible for men to reproduce without being sexually excited, they assumed that the same was true for women. Based on the evidence they had, the assumption doesn't seem so unreasonable. Until you get to the point there they apply the conclusion without having verified it. But then, we can't really blame people in medieval times for treating their unverified beliefs as fact, when we're still doing it today.

bbqkink said @ 12:07am GMT on 21st Aug
And it looks like someone else noted the phrasing that Romney used concerning his taxes.

Romney Said He Paid 13% in Taxes, But He Strategically Avoided Saying Income Taxes

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/11687-romney-said-he-paid-13-in-taxes-but-he-strategically-avoided-saying-income-taxes

bltrocker said @ 1:19am GMT on 21st Aug

EPT said @ 11:37pm GMT on 22nd Aug
Isn't that a dangerous precedent? "we shouldn't have people who aren't experts making laws"? How would any laws ever get passed?

maryyugo said @ 6:40am GMT on 21st Aug [Score:2]
I don't know if it's irony or what but not only does this the asshole, Akin, make cavemen look kindly and educated, he is so wrong that the facts are actually he exact opposite of his assertion.

Akin thinks that women's bodies resist pregnancy when raped. In fact, the situation is the exact opposite. Women who are raped release adrenaline which is exacty what induces ovulation much of the time. In reality, women who are raped have a higher indence of pregnancy (about 5% or more) than women who have consensual sex.

If a doctor told him what he says a doctor told Akin, that doctor should lose his medical license, be tarred and feathered and driven out of town on the proverbial rail.

bbqkink said @ 5:37pm GMT on 21st Aug
Earlier this year, every House Republican and 16 Blue Dog Democrats voted for a bill that would have redefined rape in federal statutes to be "forcible rape."

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Aug21.html#item-1

papango said @ 9:02am GMT on 22nd Aug
I'm really excited about this. Not the rape thing, so much. But what it will mean is that if I drug you and steal your stuff it won't be 'legitimate theft' because you didn't fight back. Awesome.

underdog said @ 10:08am GMT on 22nd Aug
I don't mean to piss in the soup here, but broadly the legal difference between robbery and theft is the use (or implied use of) violence. Therefore stealing stuff without violence can only legally be theft (or burglary in certain circumstances). Rape is defined as penetration of the vagina by the penis without consent (I'm only familiar with NZ law, elsewhere maybe different) therefore only male on female vaginal sex without consent is legally defined as rape. This explains why you generally only read about "sexual assaults". There is a much broader legal definition for that, and it makes it much easier to prove a case against ~~scumbags~~ alleged offenders.

papango said @ 7:37pm GMT on 22nd Aug
Yeah, but they didn't redefine rape here in NZ, they redefined it over there in crazy-land. And I maintain that if fighting back (however they're defining that) is the standard for when rape is rape, then it should be the same for other crimes. I look forward to drugging people and then beating the shit out of them safe in the knowledge that it's not real assault because they didn't fight back.

underdog said @ 9:43pm GMT on 22nd Aug [Score:1 WTF]
Crazy-land aside, consent is just that; consent. In legal reality, unless a female says to a male, "yes, you can enter my vagina with your penis, I give you fully informed consent" and it is written down and signed by witnesses (and I am not trying to be a smart-arse here) then there is no protection under law for sexual intercourse i.e. by definition, man is always guilty of rape unless he has written consent from his female partner under New Zealand (and I guess all of Her Majesty's) law. For further discussion, when I left the pigs, there was still no law against a male raping another male. We could only charge them with assault in that one had to forcibly hold the other one down. Stink eh?

EPT said @ 10:21pm GMT on 22nd Aug
I am confused at the concept that people who require written consent for sex are not aware of the rape of males, or rape performed by females.

EPT said @ 2:34am GMT on 23rd Aug
(i meant the legislators with this comment)

EPT said @ 11:50pm GMT on 22nd Aug
I hate the term 'sexual assault' because it covers too much ground. I always remember an event where I was wandering along the river in the inner city with a lass and we shared our beer with a couple of guys we met. We got along well, and as we were parting after a short chat, one of the guys tried it on and went the full grope of my package. No thanks, see ya mate, sent him on his way. No harm done and although it was unwanted, it's wrong that this gets classed in with everything up to penetration.

It bothers me because sometimes people substitute 'sexual assault' for 'rape' when they're talking about punishment and social penalties, and I think of this event and just how broad the definition of sexual assault is. The guy wasn't creepy or forceful or any of the stereotypes, and he stopped when I stopped him, but the event loses its innocuous individuality as soon as it gets labelled.

I'm not saying that it's okay to grope someone after a short chat, but it seems to me that there is something of a lack of scale in some people's writings on the topic. Or perhaps there's a disconnect between discussion of punishment and discussion of definition.

ComposerNate said @ 8:57am GMT on 22nd Aug [Score:5 Insightful]

ComposerNate said @ 9:22am GMT on 22nd Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
In a way he's right, in that 'the female body' once raped very often purchases Plan B over the counter 'to try to shut that whole thing down'.

underdog said @ 10:36am GMT on 22nd Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
Unfortunately there is no over the counter method of "shutting the whole thing down" psychologically, not to mention the risk of contracting all sorts of diseases. I'm not in the slightest bit interested in U.S politics, but what sort of fucktard is this ''man" that he doesn't resign in shame immediately?

ComposerNate said @ 3:22pm GMT on 22nd Aug
Alcohol helps for some temporary psychological relief, right graham?

EPT said @ 10:18pm GMT on 22nd Aug
Is it true that in 1990, Glenn Beck did not get a young girl pregnant?

drzapato said @ 11:00pm GMT on 22nd Aug
I Got Illegitimately Raped and All I Got Was This Baby