Rep. Akin: Rape doesn't cause pregnancy (possible trigger)

[induction]

Akin is now doubling down, although he seems to think he's backpedaling.

To paraphrase: 'Everybody's pissed at me because they think I was saying that some rapists are legitimate. That's not what I meant at all. What I meant is that women lie about being raped.'

[philsov]

What I meant is that women lie about being raped.

And that raped women have a magical power to not become pregnant through sheer will power and mojo. The female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

[induction]

So if she says she was raped and got pregnant, you know she's lying.

[HungryHobo]

.....



How...

I mean....

You know that scene in american pie where everyone is gathering around saying "How'd you get the zipper all the way up there?" as they gag in horror.

how... how did me manage to somehow get the other foot all the way in his mouth like that while trying to get the first foot out. Somehow he's then swallowed both legs so far that he's got his nose up his own arse.

I could imagine how someone could fuck up and either say something they don't think is offensive or incorrect but a politician, one of a group who are famous for weaseling out of their former statements.... one who probably has a team of PR people has managed to make is earlier statements vastly more offensive. I mean someone could have argued that perhaps he just had a minor stroke during the last speach or was just genuinely horribly misinformed. now not a chance.

[CorruptUser]

To paraphrase: 'Everybody's pissed at me because they think I was saying that some rapists are legitimate. That's not what I meant at all. What I meant is that women lie about being raped.'

...and by restricting abortions to rape victims, that's going to decrease the false accusations of rape.



Step 1: Insert foot in mouth so deep you kicked your own balls
Step 2: Open mouth in order to switch feet
Step 3: ?
Step 4: Profit

[johnny_7713]

http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-islamic-sharia-law-legislation-pending-congress

It's not enough that virtually everything objectionable about Sharia law is already illegal, is it? Poll local, state, and federal Republican lawmakers, though, about whether or not antisharia legislation is necessary, and I'd bet you'd come away with a percentage well into the high 80s or low 90s (I'd bet you'd see somewhere in the 40s and 50s from Democratic lawmakers; still stupid). It's sad that the current Republican party, led by the Tea Party movement, has co-opted the word, "libertarian," without having any clue what it actually means.

For even more fun, then poll them about certain legislative ideas without telling them it's sharia, like say corporal punishment for theft. I'm pretty sure plenty of them would agree with a punishment for adultery too.

[Sheikh al-Majaneen]

What I meant is that women lie about being raped.

And that raped women have a magical power to not become pregnant through sheer will power and mojo. The female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

Secretions! SECRETIONS!

Just-World Secretions!

[HungryHobo]

For even more fun, then poll them about certain legislative ideas without telling them it's sharia, like say corporal punishment for theft. I'm pretty sure plenty of them would agree with a punishment for adultery too.

bonus points for including sections from the "bible or koran" game from the koran to back it up to see if they notice.

[Heisenberg]

While he's not backing out yet, he also "doesn't know the future," so he may be on his way out.

Of course, the worst part of that article is

The congressman, who sits on the House Science Committee

::facepalm::

But at least now he's "not apologizing for being pro-life." Because that's totally what he's being asked to apologize for

[Tyndmyr]

I'm torn between amusement at watching him shoot his career in the face and disgust that he was on the science committee.

I suppose I shouldn't have expected the scientific committee to be exceptional. Senate and Congress are biased heavily towards law degrees, etc, not scientific ones. But I did hope for, yknow, not blatant stupidity.

[Tyndmyr]

I think the point is we don't really care about why they didn't vote for it. The question is "will they vote for this shit in the future?" Again, we don't care why they will or won't. Honestly, if someone voted the Democratic party line because the Lizard People commanded her to, I'd probably vote for her over a Republican who thought deeply about every issue and only voted after careful consideration of each and every bill. So if a Republican votes for a bill that includes the language "forcible rape", fuck him (not forcibly). I don't care if it's because he didn't read the bill, because of party pressure, or because he really likes date rape.

Yup. And people on both sides have that view. Whatever it takes for <My party> to win is justified. And thus, the cycle continues, and nobody really needs to read anything, seriously consider party lines, etc, etc.

[Heisenberg]

Plus freshmen congressmen are basically thrown into whatever committee has a seat available, so it's not like there's a test.

It's just extra-sad that the decisions he's been making require a basic understanding of science he clearly doesn't have.

[induction]

While he's not backing out yet, he also "doesn't know the future," so he may be on his way out.

Of course, the worst part of that article is

The congressman, who sits on the House Science Committee

::facepalm::

But at least now he's "not apologizing for being pro-life." Because that's totally what he's being asked to apologize for

He also finally admits he was 'medically wrong'.

Bitches still lie, though.

[sam_i_am]

Akin is now doubling down, although he seems to think he's backpedaling.

To paraphrase: 'Everybody's pissed at me because they think I was saying that some rapists are legitimate. That's not what I meant at all. What I meant is that women lie about being raped.'

I'm playing Devil's advocate here, but say you were introduced to something like the 1931 Scottsboro case. Assuming that you didn't have any prior knowledge of the case, What would your initial assumptions be?

[omgryebread]

I think the point is we don't really care about why they didn't vote for it. The question is "will they vote for this shit in the future?" Again, we don't care why they will or won't. Honestly, if someone voted the Democratic party line because the Lizard People commanded her to, I'd probably vote for her over a Republican who thought deeply about every issue and only voted after careful consideration of each and every bill. So if a Republican votes for a bill that includes the language "forcible rape", fuck him (not forcibly). I don't care if it's because he didn't read the bill, because of party pressure, or because he really likes date rape.

Yup. And people on both sides have that view. Whatever it takes for <My party> to win is justified. And thus, the cycle continues, and nobody really needs to read anything, seriously consider party lines, etc, etc.

That's not my view though. I want the paranoid schizophrenic Democrat because she's voting for health care, gay rights, reasonable economic policies, and against parsing types of rape.

What I'm saying is that actual votes matter, not why they vote a certain way. I'd rather someone do the right thing (be a Democrat) for the wrong reason (because Lizard People) than do the wrong thing (be a Republican) for a good reason (careful thought.) Of course I'd love it if they did the right thing for the right reason.

[Роберт]

Akin is now doubling down, although he seems to think he's backpedaling.

To paraphrase: 'Everybody's pissed at me because they think I was saying that some rapists are legitimate. That's not what I meant at all. What I meant is that women lie about being raped.'

I'm playing Devil's advocate here, but say you were introduced to something like the 1931 Scottsboro case. Assuming that you didn't have any prior knowledge of the case, What would your initial assumptions be?

Because EVERY SINGLE TIME rape is mentioned, you HAVE to bring up the fact that "maybe it's a lie" and take the majority of the discussion explaining why the women probably wanted it.

What is the name for that law?

[Tyndmyr]

Yup. And people on both sides have that view. Whatever it takes for <My party> to win is justified. And thus, the cycle continues, and nobody really needs to read anything, seriously consider party lines, etc, etc.

That's not my view though. I want the paranoid schizophrenic Democrat because she's voting for health care, gay rights, reasonable economic policies, and against parsing types of rape.

What I'm saying is that actual votes matter, not why they vote a certain way. I'd rather someone do the right thing (be a Democrat) for the wrong reason (because Lizard People) than do the wrong thing (be a Republican) for a good reason (careful thought.) Of course I'd love it if they did the right thing for the right reason.[/quote]

And they're voting for that person because they're voting for republican platform issues. Word parsing, reading every bill, these are things the average voter doesn't give a fig about. The bill was almost certainly summarized to republican folks(voters and legislators alike) as something akin to "abortion. We're against it". And everyone who's against it nods and votes for it, probably figuring that whatever flaws it has, it at least is better than the current system(ie, has abortion).

Incidentally, I've heard much the same logic about The Affordable Care Act. The opponents will fixate on a wording, or on even demonstrable flaws...and ignore the hell out of the rest of the bill while screaming about how anyone could possibly vote for this. It's proponents will admit that it is imperfect, but claim that it's a vast improvement, and acceptance of a few flaws for the overall improvement is a small price to pay.

And the partisan politics merrily continues onward, and very little really changes.

[induction]

I'm playing Devil's advocate here, but say you were introduced to something like the 1931 Scottsboro case. Assuming that you didn't have any prior knowledge of the case, What would your initial assumptions be?

I try pretty hard to avoid making assumptions about guilt or innocence based on no information, but who knows, maybe the 1931 version of me is more biased.

In any case, I'm not claiming that no woman has ever lied about being raped. I'm just pointing out that Akin's 'clarification' amounts to 'You know she wasn't really raped because she got pregnant. Rape exceptions to abortion bans are unnecessary.'

And that Akin seems to be really bad at figuring out why people are pissed at him.

[HungryHobo]

I'm playing Devil's advocate here, but say you were introduced to something like the 1931 Scottsboro case. Assuming that you didn't have any prior knowledge of the case, What would your initial assumptions be?

I'm not sure this is what's being argued. yes it happens and only a few crazies mantain that it never does.

the problem is that his "correction" only made his origional statement worse because it means that in his origional statement he really was saying that he believed any woman who claimed to have been raped but got pregnant was lying about the rape.

[Jave D]

Akin is now doubling down, although he seems to think he's backpedaling.

To paraphrase: 'Everybody's pissed at me because they think I was saying that some rapists are legitimate. That's not what I meant at all. What I meant is that women lie about being raped.'

Oh thanks Representative, for a moment I thought you had said something grossly offensive and moronic!

[eran_rathan]

Akin is now doubling down, although he seems to think he's backpedaling.

To paraphrase: 'Everybody's pissed at me because they think I was saying that some rapists are legitimate. That's not what I meant at all. What I meant is that women lie about being raped.'

Oh thanks Representative, for a moment I thought you had said something grossly offensive and moronic!

"I Misspoke—What I Meant To Say Is 'I Am Dumb As Dog Shit And I Am A Terrible Human Being'" - Rep. Akin

(The Onion has been having a field day with this)

[Tirian]

Akin is now doubling down, although he seems to think he's backpedaling.

To paraphrase: 'Everybody's pissed at me because they think I was saying that some rapists are legitimate. That's not what I meant at all. What I meant is that women lie about being raped.'

Oh thanks Representative, for a moment I thought you had said something grossly offensive and moronic!

IKR? If you want an abortion badly enough to lie about being raped, you'll need to lie about who the perpetrator is so we can go all Two Minute Hate on him to show how much we respect women.

[yurell]

And more sex-related idiocy from the GOP — nearly impossible to transmit HIV through heterosexual sex!

[Sheikh al-Majaneen]

And more sex-related idiocy from the GOP — nearly impossible to transmit HIV through heterosexual sex!

Well, not legitimate aids.

edit: he is just another man with the urge towards power making false claims [lies] to things he clearly knows nothing about.

[CorruptUser]

Technically, penile insertive has a much lower chance of acquiring HIV than anal receptive, but I wouldn't recommend a hot shower as your only form of protection regardless of what activity you engage in.

[Angua]

Also for the record, the first person probably hunted and/or ate the primate to get HIV.

[Sheikh al-Majaneen]

Also for the record, the first person probably hunted and/or ate the primate to get HIV.

I used to believe that. Then I read a news story about a man who died having sex with a horse, because his anus was not large enough.

[CorruptUser]

Or he could've gotten in a fight with a chimp, and got bitten pretty bad...

[Angua]

Maybe, but I would go with the number of people in Africa who eat non-human primates (given that it is not an uncommon food stuff there) is probably much greater than the number of people who have sex with non-human primates. And given that HIV is easily spread through blood, the likelihood is that it was in fact hunting.

edit - a fight is also more likely than bestiality as the root source.

[Sheikh al-Majaneen]

I agree. But anyways, AIDS probably goes back a century before anyone had heard of Gaetan Dugas (who it is likely that no-name tennessee state senator (NNTSS) was thinking of). 1940s at the very latest, but most likely not more than a couple years before the Scramble for Africa began.

[Belial]

Technically, penile insertive has a much lower chance of acquiring HIV than anal receptive, but I wouldn't recommend a hot shower as your only form of protection regardless of what activity you engage in.

Also, fun fact: heterosexuals have anal sex. Like, a lot.

[Princess Marzipan]

The female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

Secretions! SECRETIONS!

Just-World Secretions!

Hehehehehe.

[Роберт]

Maybe, but I would go with the number of people in Africa who eat non-human primates (given that it is not an uncommon food stuff there) is probably much greater than the number of people who have sex with non-human primates. And given that HIV is easily spread through blood, the likelihood is that it was in fact hunting.

edit - a fight is also more likely than bestiality as the root source.

I thought the government developed it?

Note: I'm not sure which side of the political spectrum this belief falls on.

[Iulus Cofield]

The fringe side.

[Aikanaro]

I always assumed that there was a higher probability of STD transmission through homosexual sex simply because they assume there is less risk of life-altering consequences, e.g., no chance of pregnancy, so they are less likely to bother with condoms. One less risk to worry about -> more chances taken -> more instances of the remaining possible consequences occurring. No data on this or anything, just my logic train on it.

[HungryHobo]

No data on this or anything, just my logic train on it.

well that is one of the problems LGBT sexual health campaigns run into. people react more rationally to a liklely smaller risk than to an unlikely massive risk.

also Risk compensation.

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

[Tyndmyr]

IKR? If you want an abortion badly enough to lie about being raped, you'll need to lie about who the perpetrator is so we can go all Two Minute Hate on him to show how much we respect women.

This is one flaw with allowing abortions for rapes, but not for non-rape cases. Encourages false reporting of rape.

After going over the possible outcomes, I reluctantly concluded that abortion needs to be legal across the board. I don't particularly like abortion, but every other option has a lot of pretty nasty side effects. So...make it legal, then use non-banning methods to reduce the desire for abortions, like education, prevention of unwanted pregnancies, focus on catching rapists and other violent criminals, etc, etc.

I always assumed that there was a higher probability of STD transmission through homosexual sex simply because they assume there is less risk of life-altering consequences, e.g., no chance of pregnancy, so they are less likely to bother with condoms. One less risk to worry about -> more chances taken -> more instances of the remaining possible consequences occurring. No data on this or anything, just my logic train on it.

Makes sense. Lower perceived risk leads to less worry/precautions.

[eran_rathan]

After going over the possible outcomes, I reluctantly concluded that abortion needs to be legal across the board. I don't particularly like abortion, but every other option has a lot of pretty nasty side effects. So...make it legal, then use non-banning methods to reduce the desire for abortions, like education, prevention of unwanted pregnancies, focus on catching rapists and other violent criminals, etc, etc.

This is basically the solution that every pro-choice person comes up with, I think.

[Belial]

Yeah, I mean, I don't think that anybody is thrilled about abortion. They're kindof a last-ditch effort when all else has failed.

[Роберт]

Yeah, I mean, I don't think that anybody is thrilled about abortion. They're kindof a last-ditch effort when all else has failed.

John Fleming and I know otherwise:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/planne ... lex,20476/

I mean, who doesn't love invasive surgery or that sort of thing?