Ramona's picture

    The GOP Fixation on Rape and Sex and Women's Bodies: There are Cures for That

     

    So I guess you heard what House Science Committee member Todd Akin (R-MO) said, when asked whether rape would be reason enough for abortion:

    People always want to try and make that as one of those things, well, how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.   

     To which, even the most thoughtless of the thinking people have to be going, What in thee pluperfect HELL??

    This is the Tea Party-backed guy who just newly won the Republican senate primary and will go against Democratic Senator Claire McKaskill in November.  Maybe.  McKaskill wasted no time jumping in, saying, in effect, Uh uh, morons, you chose him, now you better let him run--I hope, I hope, I hope. 

    But her reaction was nothing compared to the scrambling, the fumbling, the hasty word salads coming out of the Republicans who, bless 'em, saw immediately how this could royally screw things up come November if people kept linking that idiot Akin to their almost-main guy, Paul Ryan. 

    That same Paul Ryan who calls himself the most Pro-Life person in government. 

    That same Paul Ryan whose views on Personhood--the belief that the life of each human being begins with fertilization--meshed so thoroughly with Todd Akin's they co-sponsored a bill calling for the legitimization of that loony theory. 

    That same Paul Ryan who, along with Akin and a couple hundred GOP House members, actually tried to make laws about the degrees of rape, defining "forcible rape" as the only violation worth noting--as if, in fact, "forcible" could be defined; as if, in fact, there was any other kind.

    So, because Akin reminds them too much of Ryan and all that's unholy about him, the rest of the Republicans would like nothing better than to see Akin just fall in a hole, his name erased from any future historical references to the Great Race of 2012. 

    On Hardball, Cynthia Tucker told Chris Matthews that this notion about a woman's body protecting her from a rapist's sperm--in a 'legitimate' rape--is nothing new.  She said Georgia Representative Don Thomas, a physician, said much the same thing--in 2003.

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jim Galloway quotes Thomas as saying, “Relying on my personal experience in my home county of 90,000 people, we don’t have rape cases resulting in pregnancy."

    Galloway found another instance of the same crazy theory, this time by a North Carolina legislator (Republican) in 1995:

    "The facts show that people who are raped -- who are truly raped -- the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant," said [Henry] Aldridge, a 71-year-old periodontist. "Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever. . .
    . . .[t]o get pregnant, it takes a little cooperation. And there ain't much cooperation in a rape," he said.

    Rachel Maddow found even more instances of Republican office-holders using the same loopy rape reasoning.  (They're always Republicans. I mean it. Always)



    How long before Republicans finally have to admit that they've encouraged and nurtured this craziness long enough? If they get skunked in November, will they finally come to their senses?  I doubt it.  Their fixation on rape and sex and women's bodies is a powerful habit.  It won't go away overnight.

    But what if the craziness continues and they don't get skunked?  What if Romney wins and the Republicans take both the House and the Senate, and Paul Ryan, entrenched as the second most powerful man in the country, comes out of his shell, no longer having to pretend that there are any circumstances where women have any rights over their own bodies? 


    It's our job to keep reminding potential Romney/Ryan voters that Todd Akin is not an anomaly, he is a symptom.  Five minutes before he gave that interview his loony beliefs about women's bodies were right there with him, and five minutes afterward he was feeling no pain about what he said.  He is who he is, and Paul Ryan and his fellow sex-masters are right there in the peapod with him. 

    There is no cure for what ails them, but there is a cure for us. 

    We quit them, pronto.

    Topics: 

    Comments

    Typically when a politician taking the kind of heat Akin is says he won't resign, he resigns. But my guess is that he really won't resign. To resign could be a turning point in the anti-abortion fight---that public outrage over extreme views on abortion could bring down a proponent. Where in the calls for Akin to quit the race are deMint, Lee, etc.? The pressure is coming from what's left of "the establishment" in the Republican party who fear not taking control of the Senate as they had planned and who are despised by the tea partiers.  The right wing has a steady long term agenda, and IMO one race here or there doesn't matter. What matters is not giving an inch on the anti-abortion fight. Besides, Akin will probably win the damned race.

    This episode is an eye-opener. I must admit that beforehand I really didn't understand why they were trying to parse and change the definition of rape, with the corollary narrative about secret anti pregnancy hormones. If a woman who was raped also gets pregnant, it nullifies the rape. If a woman is raped and doesn't get pregnant she has to prove force---which they are steadfastly trying to redefine in the belief that a good girl doesn't have to worry about rape: the women who are raped generally ask for it, everyone knows that. So show me the bruises, give me proof that you didn't want it. How hard did you fight him off. You know you wanted it. You were in his apartment--why were you there, weren't you expecting to have sex. Were you using seductive perfume, what about those skimpy panties?

    I'm contributing to helping Obama win and defeating a right wing view of why women can't be trusted to tell the truth.  If the women in this country can't stand up for themselves, I can't help them.   

    The Romney campaigns message that----now----rape is an exception, viewed in the context of redefining rape, is an empty and misleading statement. 

    Both Ryan and Romney support Personhood amendments---which would essentially outlaw abortion in any form, plus most likely prevent forms of contraception and IVF. 


    The contest between Akin and McKaskill was close. The fact that a nitwit like Akin got elected repeatedly to the House reflects the electorate that Democrats face in many states. Conservative Democrat Blanche Lincoln was too Liberal for Arkansas voters. McKaskill is too Conservative for many Democrats, but the truth is that a more Liberal McKaskill couldn't get elected in Missouri. Very Conservative Richard Lugar was too Liberal for Republican voters. We live in strange times.

    McKaskill voted for the stimulus bill, for Supreme Court nominees Sotomayor and Kagan and for the Affordable Care Act. As Lawrence O'Donnell notes, a Republican would have voted no in each case. With Republicans like Akin being the new GOP base candidate, McKaskill is a net plus.

     

     

     


     Rep. Todd Akins stance on ‘forcible’ rape is not an anomaly. In 2011 Akins was a co-sponsor and signer of H.R 3 – submitted by the House's new Republican majority. Under H.R. 3, only victims of “forcible rape” would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape— any minor female impregnated by an adult male—would be on their own, as would all victims of incest if they’re over 18.  “Forcible rape” isn’t defined in the criminal code, but adding the term forcible would ensure any rape where there is no evident violence—i.e. a victim is drugged, doesn’t fight back so as not to be beaten/killed or has any reduced mental capacity - would be even more difficult, if not impossible, to prosecute.

    The goal of this bill was to place more restrictions on what defines rape. Among the co-signers of H.R 3, was the GOP’s presumptive candidate for Vice-President in 2012, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).

    H.R. 3 was withdrawn and never voted on – yet.


    There is no one in the GOP really ready to standup to the crazy.The criticism that is coming from some quarters is that Akin dared to say in public what Republicans think and say in private. The War on Women., voter suppression and anti-Gay sentiment are all part of the modern GOP.

    Akin, Ryan, Ron and Rand Paul. Plain, Bachmann and Romney all have taken the same position on a key issue of women's rights.There are no rational people on the GOP side that are willing to compromise. They may lie about their true feelings when caught like Akin, but hard GOP core supporters known that they can count on their Tea Party candidates to vote for bigotry.


     

    “New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion”.  Ryan also sponsored this bill.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/new-gop-law-would-allow-hospi...

    Paul Ryan Sponsored Fetal Personhood Bill, Opposes Family Planning Funds

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-personhood_n_1767760....

    I'm trying to control the impulse to rant and hurl vile invectives at members of my own gender who would vote for any who support these types of legislation - and this is just a minute sampling of the horrific acts they endorse.   

    I have yet to meet a Chauvinist who is not also a racist and all around bigot.


    One thing people need to keep in mind is that Romney choose Ryan because in their VP vetting meetings Mr & Mrs. Romney felt at ease and comfortable with Mr. & Mrs. Ryan.  (a decision making criteria that his political strategists tried to get Mitt to put aside).  I imagine it was similar to meeting potential new neighbors in a gated community.  In other words, the two couples have a very similar world view - which  I would assume includes their view on issues around gender and gender roles.  Neither Romney nor Ryan are political stupid, so they would never talk about their view that men should rule the household and the woman should be subservient, but I have no doubt they do. 

    The choice of Ryan clearly shows on social issues where Romney truly stands.


    Exactly!  Good analogy. 

     


      We might charitably infer that by "legitimate rape" he meant "actual rape", rather than "justified rape".

      It doesn't make sense to oppose abortion except in cases of rape and incest. If you think the fetus is a human being, it doesn't matter how it was conceived.


    You're right.  It's their phony and utterly misguided attempt at trying to appear reasonable by pretending there might actually be a reason for aborting--but probably not. 

    Apparently they don't need to.  Already in Missouri one female GOP leader is on Akin's side: 


    Akin was wrong that is clear.

    The thing is; he is extreme and the left has its own extremes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity

    To posit a scenario.

    A young girl throws a party, decides to drink too much and loses all self-control.

    Next morning, she realizes she got a man’s shirt on; she looks in the bedroom and their lies a stranger. She gathers up the old bottles and cans strewn about the room, taking them to the trash bin.

    A few weeks pass and “oh no!” she’s missed her period; she goes to the doctor who tells her, your carrying child, congratulations.

    To make a long story short she; decides it’s best FOR HER, to have an abortion.

    She thinks to herself, I really need to clean up, after that party, let’s just throw the fetus in the garbage too?

    The wisest decision FOR HER; was to avoid the loose conduct, in the first place.

    She had a choice. A woman’s right to choose, the right course.

    But not to fear, the left wing that preaches “To the least of these” demands, we ignore the child in the womb,  consider it no more than trash; by the way “we want all of you taxpayers to pay for it”

    People say quit teaching moral values, but I say; why should I pay for this girls lack of self control?


    Your comment is revolting and not in the least associated with the subject here.  You wrote it to see if I would delete it, but--surprise--I'll leave it up for all to see.  Now it's up to you.  Is this really how you want to contribute to this post?


    Let's consider this scenario... I have no problem with people engaging in spontaneous sex.  And, yes... sometimes mistakes are made and unintended pregnancies occur.  If you're a taxpayer opposed to abortion, you should probably be for a few public dollars going towards making sure contraception is widely available.

    But, that will not solve the problem 100%.  There will always be unintended pregnancies.  That's part of the human condition.  The good news is, you're very unlikely to have to "pay" for anybody else's abortion.  Most people pay out of pocket for that.  There's no "National Abortion Fund."

    But, for some people who can't afford other medical coverage, an abortion might be covered.

    And, you know what?  Those people are taxpayers, too!  The tax system, by definition, includes everybody (even people who get the EITC or government services).  The IRS is surprisingly efficient.  Everybody pays what they owe.

    So, yes... you as a taxpayer might "pay" for some of somebody else's abortion and that might piss you off.  But the person having the abortion, has also paid what the government asked of her and is a tax payer too.  Why is her will worth less than yours?

    Then, of course, we get into the big issue with taxes in general, which is that I have no real authority over where my tax dollars go and neither do you.  To the extent that I'm angry about how "my" money is being spent, I'm far more concerned with the trillions spent in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 12 years than I am with the possibility that the government might have subsidized the cost of an abortion (which, by the way, is pretty cheap in the early weeks of pregnancy).


    To the extent that I'm angry about how "my" money is being spent, I'm far more concerned with the trillions spent in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 12 years

    Me too.

    If you cant care for the defenseless 3 week old fetus, why would you expect anyone to care for the ones outside the womb?

    Its always someone else, gets to decide who lives or dies?


    Pardon me, Resistance but that might be the sorriest thing I've ever read.

    I'm tempted to ask you, did she ever go out with you again? What I'm really asking is if in all of recorded history has there ever been an instance of a man in such a situation examining his own behavior.?


    You are a conceited and smug fruitcake Resistance. You are patronizing, condescending, egotistical and full of yourself. You always ask : "why should I pay for......" as you boastfully pronounce your superiority over others, whether it be young women, your Madoff beating investment returns from Kraft Food stock, or your honor student grandchildren.

    While you clutch at your wallet over imaginary threats made on it by 'liberals' or some supposedly drunken pregnant teen, you simultaneously proclaim others "ignore the child in the womb, consider it no more than trash; by the way why should I pay for it". Money is the heart of your concerns and your life.  You have less compassion than an Ebenezer Scrooge.  Everything comes down to your money, which is the idol you bow down to and worship.

    Your reverence and devotion to it leads you to believe that you have the right be The Decider on the health care of women you do not know or give a damn about. And as to their lives, their health, their families, futures or children, if they have any, you could care even less.


    RAMONA, I SEE HYPOCRISY HERE


    So do I, Resistance, so do I.


    I hope for the sake of the women in your life that they do not live in a world of your design.


    Amen.


    The women in my life were never promiscuous.

    Virginity meant something.

    Wholesome and chaste were also admirable qualities.

    For those lacking understanding

     

    CHASTE

    Part of Speech: adjective
    Definition: pure, incorrupt
    Synonyms: austere, celibate, clean, continent, controlled, decent, decorous, elegant, immaculate, impotent, inexperienced, innocent, intemerate, modest, monogamous, moral, neat, platonic, proper, prudish, quiet, refined, restrained, simple, spotless, stainless, subdued, unaffected, unblemished, uncontaminated, undefiled, unstained, unsullied, unwed, vestal, virginal, virtuous, wholesome
    Antonyms: corrupt, defiled, dirty, lewd, unchaste, wanton

     


    Antonyms: fun, outgoing, vigorous, dangerous, even more fun, rocking, liberated, enthusiastic, durable, sleazy, naughty, naughty-nice, wicked, sordid, passionate, ecstatic, gonzo, friendly...

    You do the female race injustice.

     


    dangerous, ..., sleazy, naughty, naughty-nice, wicked, sordid,

    Can you say STD. or Aids pandemic?


    You worry too much. "Pandemic" is so 1994. 


    REALLY?


    Have I ever lied to you?


    I'm not supposed to answer this question, right?


    Have I ever told the truth to you?


    "Virginity" is a largely a bogus patriarchal concept.  It's your first time until it ain't.  I know men love it, but I often wonder how women feel about having to live with "virginity."


    You got daughters?


    No.  What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?  I suppose this is the part where you assure me that I can't possibly know what it's like, etc., and therefore must defer to your superior experience.  Of course, the truth is that I have enough women in my life, young and old alike, for my judgment to be perfectly sound with or without daughters of my own.

    Why don't you try this one on for size: Ever been a woman?


    Does cross-dressing count, or only real sex change? Or you mean past life hoodoo voodoo?


    I would be willing to entertain the idea of cross-dressing as a sincere attempt toward empathy in this case.  Not sure about past lives.  I already have enough trouble with the relentless ecumenical tilt.


    Of COURSE you and Peracles would be willing to entertain the idea of cross-dressing. You're goddamn preverts! It's what you do best!


    I believe it was Isaac Bashevis Singer (or maybe not...) who said "a man may be pious, pray five times each day, give to charity, refrain from beating his wife, and yet, one time only should he be seen in a dress, for evermore thence, anytime he is seen, people say 'There goes Queen Chaim Yonkel...'

    I heard it as "bake one cake - am I a cakebaker? write one book - am I a bookwriter? but fuck one goat...."


    That is, indeed, the ur-text. I was making a little inside joke with Quinn going back a few years to the Cafe, where Chaim Yonkel the Goatfucker made an appearance.

    who since had a sex change. and learned to bleat. it's all clear now, thanks.


    You wondered how women felt,

    Who better to ask, than the daughters a father raises, to live a life with moral values.


    We all raise our daughters with moral values.  You are no exception.


    We all? 

    No your wrong. Some don't even care for their children.

    Some parents saying "Heres twenty, now remember when you bring back the 6 pack and smokes, bring back some Trojans, We don't want you to have unsafe sex".

    "Fancy don't let me down" 


    Everyone here cares for their children, if they have them.  Just watch where you step.


    You know full well I didn't accuse anyone here.  

    Did you see me mention anybody by name?

    Did you notice the personal attacks on me though? 

    Did you tell so and so "Watch where you step"


    Resistance, your moral judgments obviously grate and it's not as if I'm telling you anything you don't know.  If you don't want those reactions, don't try so hard to get them.

     


     Perhaps you perceive attacks because your opinions on the Bible are taken as opinions, not Biblical law. Pastors and Biblical scholars have discussions and disagreements about the meaning of passages in the Bible.

    Jesus gave a message of compassion and forgiveness. When a crowd was ready to stone an adulteress, he stopped them. The woman was forgiven. We are all sinners. The role of the Christian is to intervene when possible and show compassion. Christians are to be God's voice on earth. Would Jesus condemn the unwed mother or the wealthy men who label her trash because her "secretions" did not prevent a pregnancy following a rape. Would Jesus side with Akin or offer comfort to the promiscuous woman who got pregnant.

    There are Christians who see a message of hope, compassion and lending a helping hand rather than lashing out condemnation while standing on the sidelines.


    To clarify, would Jesus forgive the women if they had abortions or would he condemn them Akin-Santorum style?

     

     


    Exodus 22:16: And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

    Fornicating men are to marry the woman. If children result from intercourse and the man is supposed to marry the woman, the man is a loathsome being. The children would be part of the man's household.

    1Timothy 5:8

     

    8But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel

     

    Maybe we should worry more about our slutty sons.


    Now, now.  Chastity and purity is for the ladies.


    I like the way you think.


    Let's take a real world scenario.A 16 year old unmarried Dominican female gets pregnant. She develops leukemia during the pregnancy. Chemotherapy is not given because her doctor's feel the chemotherapy might kill the fetus. After weeks of pleading by the pregnant girl's mother, the doctors administer chemotherapy to the now much sicker teen. Both the pregnant girl and the fetus die. Was this the most Christian outcome?

    Is death the true biblical punishment for fornication?


    Here's the link


    Resistance, I am glad you wrote this, because it really gets at the conservative mind-set:  YOU GOT PREGNANT AND YOUR PUNISHMENT IS TO HAVE THAT BABY all the while, couching your sentiments as though you are actually concerned about that child. 

    I am a nurse, and have worked in a variety of settings. At the moment I work in the field of Infertility, helping couples who want desperately to have children do so. Previously I worked in college health and did my best to get those kids to be responsible, including using contraception (not always successful at that, BTW)

     

    But prior to that I worked for a number of years in Emergency Departments in inner cities as well as suburbs. I have seen an 11-year old boy who tried to commit suicide. I have seen babies beaten to a pulp.  I have SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES children who were unplanned, unwanted, unloved, mistreated, and some murdered.

    To think of a child as an apt punishment for "looseness" is an abomination and it is sick.  The next question is, "who is going to feed the little ones when the girl is so irresponsible she also can't make enough money?  well, it certainly isn't going to be Mitt Romney or his ilk!

     

    And don't talk to me about adoption. I have three adoptive children, and I take my hat off every day to the unselfish and brave women who put them up for adoption and allowed me to bring them into my life.  But it is rarely done.  It takes maturity and a great deal of strength, and usually a supportive family for a woman to give a child up for adoption.  It is just a fact   Oh, and even if someone decided to do it, doesn't it just gripe you that pre-natal care could just possibly be covered with ObamaCare?  Of all the nerve!

     

    Resistance, this isn't a perfect world.  Selfishness and vindictiveness does not make it better. 


    I know I am late to this, and boy am I glad of that, but this is the truest of everything I've read here. They think children are a penalty, and then they judge us, WOW!


    Cville, I missed this until TMac commented.  I can't thank you enough for bringing this to my post.  You're absolutely right, I'm sorry to say.  It's all about punishment, without a moment's concern for the children after they're born.

    What gets me is that they come as close as they can to admitting that and still they work themselves into positions of power, punishing us even further by making us pay for their keep.


    Who, on the "left wing", is preaching what you have put into their mouths? I can't think of anybody like that.

    Your attempt to liken Akin's "extremity" with a corresponding one at the other end of the scale is fallacious because you are comparing an actual statement made by a real person with some general impressions you have formed of unnamed people whose moral code you condemn.

    You share many values and points of view with Akin in regards to his agenda for a socially conservative polity. When you say Akin is clearly wrong, it would be helpful for you to say exactly what you think is wrong. Your point of view condemns a socially liberal vision by default and that makes your tirades about the subject uninteresting because forming those opinions require nothing of you. But as a social conservative, you could provide an interesting insight into what is too far right wing for you to accept. If you are sincere, you have some skin in that game.


    Why should I throw skin in this game?  Sincerity is not welcome.


    We should always be sincere. Life is short.

    That matter to the side, was there anything in my comment that you would care to address?


    Try it. You might be surprised.


    Why would you or anyone come here if they didn't want to throw skin in this game, to be sincere? Are you here to spin, to obfuscate, to lie? I can understand why someone might do that on the evening news to forward their candidate or policy agenda. I hate it, people spinning, obfuscating, lying to the public. I can understand it though, hate it as much as I do. But why would anyone waste their time here being less than sincere?

    I'm here to discuss my ideas on subjects I find interesting with people who also have knowledge and interest in the same subjects. I certainly don't have complete knowledge or all the answers. What I have is skin in the game and complete and total sincerity. I'll post my views without spin or obfuscation using the best of my knowledge completely honestly. I wouldn't waste my time doing anything less.


    In the not so distant past, the GOP might not have even realized that they had an Akin problem.  The absurd belief as issue here has been around a long time and has been taken by some, apparently, as gospel.

    In 2012, the strategists at the national level are informed enough to know that such comments are harmful not only to a candidate, but to everyone associated with that candidate, even by loose party affiliation.

    But, it's interesting that Akin is now using this as an outsider ploy -- he's been abandoned by the party elites and by the Democrat thought police, and now he's waging a fight, hoping for hardcore grassroots money from people who believe that saying this kind of thing is just fine and dandy.

    I suspect and hope that he will fail, but I worry that what PT Barnum said about the public in general applies doubly to Republican partisans.


    They might still have been able to call him the "fringe" if not for his very tight ties to Paul Ryan.  They can't ignore that so the best they can do is shut off his support and hope he slinks quietly away.  Looks like he's going to be stubborn.  Oops.


    I expect that he'll be stubborn.  Motivated (and financially supported) by strong and bitter Tea.


    Ramona,

    I hope he does continue on and of course that he will be thrashed and fail.

    But, if he doesn't, I believe it will further divide the factions of the GOP and perhaps serve notice on all those who either have hesitated to be proactive in supporting those opposed to this type of bias and/or have not been supporting (with vigor) candidates who will protect us from the mentality/agenda of Akins and his cohorts.

    Thanks for this post.


    I do, too, Aunt Sam.  The funny thing about the Republicans, though, is that they're always willing to forgive their own.  They reserve their no-bounds hatred for the rest of us and, since there's none of that infighting the rest of us are so famous for, they get the job done.  Obama and Romney are running neck-and-neck, even after all of this.  Nothing sticks to them.  Everything sticks to us.

    It really makes me mad.


    Perhaps with Akin's issue getting so much 'light', it will bring Ryan's affiliation and his marching in lockstep with him to the forefront; this might change the tune of those who were going to vote for Romney/Ryan just because........without really realizing the long term harm and hazards a GOP win with these two would certainly bring.  It would take decades to undo their deeds. 

    I confess I will find it very difficult to not hold women to a harsher judgment (for lack of better term) and none who do vote for GOP better ever whine and cry to or around me when the realities of a Romney/Ryan nation hits them where it really hurts.

    We can only do the best we can.


    Paul Ryan on Paul Ryan on abortion:

     

    However, although Ryan has favoured stricter anti-abortion views than Romney, he has favoured abortions in situations where an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother.

    "I'm as pro-life as a person gets," Ryan told The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, in 2010.

    In a 2010 essay for a conservative thinktank, Ryan compared the US supreme court ruling that legalized abortion to the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the court ruled that black slaves were not legally people.

    Ryan wrote: "After America has won the last century's hard-fought struggles against unequal human rights in the forms of totalitarianism abroad and segregation at home, I cannot believe any official or citizen can still defend the notion that an unborn human being has no rights."

    When he first won election to Congress in 1998, Ryan vowed to oppose all abortions unless they were needed to save the life of the mother. He voted for a bill barring anyone besides parents from transporting minors across state lines for abortions. He also voted against a measure to allow women in the military to receive abortions in military hospitals.


    I think Rep. Akin did us a favor by stating his ridiculous views on rape because now the reality that the republican party is planning to incorporate a personhood type amenedment into their platform is being emphasized publicy.

    The fact that the republicans tried to redefine rape and pass a personhood amendment in congress is also getting more publicity.

    The fact that the republicans in general are so outrageous in their views on women's issues is something that more women need to be aware of and the outrage brought about by this representatives comments is really a gift to all.

    The fact that Ryan co-sponsored the personhood amendment with Akin and Governor Romney's plan to get 'rid of' Planned Parenthood and has stated that he supports the states passing personhood amendments and would sign a federal personhood amendment put both Ryan and Romney on the same level as Akin despite their politically convenient statement that 'their administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape'.

    And always wanting publicity Rep Steve King has stated that he didn't come down hard on Akin because he isn't aware of any pregnancy resulting from statutory rape...

     


    What we need are Republican women on our side.  So far they're pretty noncommittal.  These same "pro-life" women will never be able to understand how anti-life the men they're supporting really are.  We could shout it out from now until November but let's face it--they're Republican for a reason.  (I don't know what it is, but there must be a reason.)


    Well it seems some republican leaning political pundits do believe that Akin's words will cost him with some republican women in his state.  And there have definitely been some republican women in congress who declared that they had gone through having to have an abortion and voted against some of the crazy laws republicans have tried to pass or that state legislatures have tried to pass.  I recall one was in WY, Rep. Sue Wallis and this is a quote about the legislature in WY

    "another sign the fiscally conservative Republicans in the state legislature are no pro-life advocates."

    taken from this article.

    There is always hope.


    Wow, I'm shocked!  Good for them. 

    But really. . .all those old guys wanted was to teach those ignorant women about where babies come from and how they grow.  I mean, isn't that what government is for?


    Even as the Republican establishment continued to call for Representative Todd Akin of Missouri to drop out of his Senate race because of his comments on rape and abortion, Republicans approved platform language on Tuesday calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion with no explicit exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/g-o-p-approves-strict-anti...

    Some very disturbing info in this article.

    “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.”


    They've been trying to overturn Roe v Wade since the day it became legit.  They've gone so far rightward now they think this may be the time for it.  If Romney wins it'll happen.

    “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,” said the draft platform language approved Tuesday, which was first reported by CNN. “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.”

    I'll bet $10,000 there's not even a half-sentence about the sanctity of poor and abused children. (I don't have $10,000.  That's how sure I am I'll win.)


    Lets be frank, shall we? Rapists are the stormtroopers of the Patriarchy, and the Repugnants are the politburo. Resistance and his cadre are the Ministry of Information..


    Akin convinces himself that there is true "forcible" rape or the woman is a slut and a liar.The woman has to show her bruises and broken bones in the public square or be condemned.No bruises, no rape. This is utterly ridiculous and Christians are called upon to reject this evil stereotype. If the man is physically stronger or carrying a weapon during the attack, law enforcement tells women to do whatever they have to do to survive the attack. Surviving an assault by not fighting back is not"lying back and enjoying it", it is surviving and having to deal with the psychological effects later.Akin is a fool.

    In the case of fornication, it takes two individuals to complete the act.Was Akin a virgin prior to marriage? Is he willing to state that he was virginal prior to marriage publicly ? Has Akin been faithful in his marriage? Judge not.....etc.

    In the case of a woman who has had an abortion, is she to be scorned by Christians, or loved.If she is told that she must bear the child to term, does a Christian nation have to provide aid to the woman to ensure, a good life for the child, or do we condemn her for being a poor mother? If  society encourages the birth what other obligations does a Christian society incur? Do we sent the child off to a government orphanage?

    I think some will condemn people and feel that they are doing their Christian duty.

    Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut.Akin may have two daughters, but he believes other people's daughters are sluts, just as some are certain that people they don't know are doing a poor job of raising their daughters. However, we all know that if Akin's daughters were to have an unwanted pregnancy, he would continue to love them.His daughter would not be a slut, but a child who made a mistake.If the daughter had an abortion, would Akin abandon, her? The answer to that question would tell us more about Akin than the daughter.

     


    Hi Ramona,

    I don't really have anything to say.  I'm just here cause I always read anything that has sex in the title.

    W

     


    Lol, W.  I hope you don't hold your breath waiting for it around here.  It doesn't happen often,  I'll see if I can fit it in again sometime soon.


    Latest Comments