Raw Story: GOP Senate nominee: Women don’t get pregnant from ‘legitimate’ rapes

[skinsmarydu]

The laws aren't about your body, they are because people think you are murdering babies.

But why should what other people think factor into the laws about my body? Or any other woman's body? And as LSF has pointed out, these absurd ideas will become LAWS if the crazy part of the right gets their way.

[LadySkinsFan]

I can understand that you have an emotional investment in this issue and I agree with many of your points and that the GOP generally does seem to have overall regressive stances on women's rights. However, this part simply comes off as conspiracy theory level talk.

So, can women and children, the targets of rape, stop rape? It's up to men to police their ranks and stop rape. Educate your sons and other men that it's wrong to rape. Why must women modify their behavior to avoid rape? Why can't men modify their behavior and stop raping?

No conspiracy at all. Just common sense. And as long as we have male lawmakers trying to redefine rape to downplay it, as long as women are coerced into modifying their behavior to avoid that over which they have no control, then I suggest it's conspiracy against women to keep us in our places, safe at home with our big strong man to protect us. Because if we don't belong to one man, we belong to every man.

[Koolblue13]

But why should what other people think factor into the laws about my body? Or any other woman's body? And as LSF has pointed out, these absurd ideas will become LAWS if the crazy part of the right gets their way.

They're not about YOUR BODY, they affect your body, but they are about the body inside your body.

FWIW, I don't agree with them at all, but that's the point that's being made.

[Mad Mike]

I wonder how the party will react if they lose to Obama in a year when it should have been easy

That's easy. They will completely flip out and get even crazier than they are now.

Ironically, the only thing that gives me hope for the GOP is Obama himself. If the left can produce an intelligent, moderate democratic candidate even as their base went code pink over Bush, then maybe the right can do the same. There must be at least ONE intelligent, moderate republican out there... please.

[mistertim]

So, can women and children, the targets of rape, stop rape? It's up to men to police their ranks and stop rape. Educate your sons and other men that it's wrong to rape. Why must women modify their behavior to avoid rape? Why can't men modify their behavior and stop raping?

No conspiracy at all. Just common sense. And as long as we have male lawmakers trying to redefine rape to downplay it, as long as women are coerced into modifying their behavior to avoid that over which they have no control, then I suggest it's conspiracy against women to keep us in our places, safe at home with our big strong man to protect us. Because if we don't belong to one man, we belong to every man.

I wasn't referring to the stopping of rape portion of what I quoted. Sorry, I meant to leave that out. I was purely talking about the idea that the entire thing is some sort of plot to get women out of the workforce, back at home and only there to take care of men, etc. As I said, I agree with most of your points but that sounds a bit too much like a conspiracy theory for me. Are there some conservatives who believe that women would be better at home doing "traditional" woman stuff and taking care of the men while they go out and work, yadda yadda? I'm sure there are, and they're wrong. However, I don't believe that is the same as suggesting that this regressive platform on women in general and on abortion in the case of rape or incest is some sort of scheme with the aim of causing a mass exodus of women back into their roles from 100 years ago.

[Mad Mike]

In the meantime, it is on you to stop rape. All this discussion about an innocent that is the result of a horrendous act of violation is just a smokescreen to keep women under control. The radical right is trying like hell to get women out of the workforce (more jobs for men), in the kitchen and bedrooms taking care of men, and of course taking care of all the children that will be born because there won't be anymore birth control. Remember, it used to be against the law for unmarried people to even buy condoms, so all you unmarried men out there take heed, you will be on the stick for paying child support and lots of it.

I was pretty much with you until here.

Seriously. While it may feel that way to you, In all my life, I have only heard one man speak out to honestly say that "a woman's place is in the kitchen" and before he was banned from this site for other crazy ****, pretty much every guy on the board took him to task for it. I'll bet every single long timer here knows who I'm talking about.

Look,I don't doubt that many men have an unconscious desire for control over women. (no doubt there are women who feel the same way about men.) But an active plot to keep women under control?... You cant be serious.

[Going Commando]

I agree with you KB13. I think there is an attempt to separate pregnancy from motherhood in lots of abortion argumentation.

I also was asking the the question about "should women have the right to legislate men's health issues" speciously because I think claiming men have no right to legislate women's health is specious. I do think women should have the right to legislate men's health issues because they effect women too. Reproduction is an issue that certainly effects everyone in the species.

[gbear]

On rape, I argue the abortion should be on the rapist not the raped.

If an abortion is necessary, it is only the result of the illegal action of the rapist.

If a robber flees the scene in a get away car and hits a car carrying a family, he is responsible for the deaths. If a passer by could save a life, they are not legally obligated to do so. If the passer by would have to spend the next 9 months of their lives caring for the one they saved, are they obligated to change their lives to do so? What about the costs of caring for them or if caring for them would permanently alter their bodies or expose them to a host of health risks?

To my mind, the raped is the passer by in the results of the crime. Heck, many disassociate themselves from the rape to the point where a third person perspective is often a mental shielding. They have a choice which is very much like the one above. The result of the rape is on the rapist. The choice about whether to "save" a life should be the woman's. It's no small thing to ask the one robbed to live with the results whether it be for 9 months or every time they see the baby. Even if one believe abortion is wrong, I believe the abortion should be just another mark against the rapist, not against the woman simply dealing/not dealing with the results of the rape.

Side note, am I wrong in thinking the logic behind his original remarks is based on the premise of a woman is more likely to get pregnant if she has an orgasm, and if she has one she must have wanted sex? Is this belief common? If so, that is a sad sad thing to blame a woman for her body's physical responses as if enough control had not already been stolen in the rape.

[skinsmarydu]

That's easy. They will completely flip out and get even crazier than they are now.

There must be at least ONE intelligent, moderate republican out there... please.

You're right, they will get crazier.

And there was...Jon Huntsman. But the right ran hard and fast from someone with a brain.

[Popeman38]

So, can women and children, the targets of rape, stop rape? It's up to men to police their ranks and stop rape. Educate your sons and other men that it's wrong to rape. Why must women modify their behavior to avoid rape? Why can't men modify their behavior and stop raping?

We DO educate the children of our society that rape is wrong. And we ARE asking men to modify their behavior to stop rape. Violent crime (including rape) is down to almost historically low levels. We are making significant progress on that front. You can't honestly say that we haven't made astronomical progress when it comes to how we both handle and report sexual assaults.

No conspiracy at all. Just common sense. And as long as we have male lawmakers trying to redefine rape to downplay it, as long as women are coerced into modifying their behavior to avoid that over which they have no control, then I suggest it's conspiracy against women to keep us in our places, safe at home with our big strong man to protect us. Because if we don't belong to one man, we belong to every man.

This guy is a loon. No one is seriously trying to redefine what rape is. If anything, rape has been expanded to include so much more than it did 50 years ago. Date rape. Statutory rape. Stuff that happened at college. A generation ago these cases didn't see the light of day. Now they make news. Now guys get prosecuted. Granted, not all of them are convicted, and not all are reported. And those rates need to go up.

But let's not go nuclear and blow up all the progress that has been made.

[Kilmer17]

You're right, they will get crazier.

And there was...Jon Huntsman. But the right ran hard and fast from someone with a brain.

Jon Huntsman will be like every other GOPer that Democrats like until he actually wins a nomination. Then he will be the devil incarnate.

[Larry]

Jon Huntsman will be like every other GOPer that Democrats like until he actually wins a nomination. Then he will be the devil incarnate.

1) Funny. I don't see people trying to claim that Romney is "the most conservative person in history". (A claim which the GOP has made about the D's last 3 nominees, at least.)

I see them pointing out how terrible the policies that he has endorsed, are.

2) Perhaps this is because someone has to be crazy, (or at least, imitate one well enough to fool the other inmates), to get the GOP nomination? :halo:

[JimboDaMan]

The laws aren't about your body, they are because people think you are murdering babies.

You make it sound like they don't want you getting your labia pierced as opposed to infanticide.

It's a dishonest argument.

I agree with you about the intent of the laws, but I disagree with you about the dishonesty. It's a difference in point of view, and a legitimate (oooh that word) difference, nothing dishonest about it. As an argument it's pretty much worthless because it completely misses the thought process of those supporting such laws. It's not going to win any converts to the cause. But it is deeply and honestly felt by women who oppose these kinds of laws.

---------- Post added August-22nd-2012 at 10:25 AM ----------

Jon Huntsman will be like every other GOPer that Democrats like until he actually wins a nomination. Then he will be the devil incarnate.

That would at least in part be caused by what GOPers must do to gain that nomination. In 2008 plenty of people felt they might have voted for the John McCain of four years previous, but not the John McCain who picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.

[Henry]

It's a dishonest argument.

I don't think it's dishonest. I think it's a difference in perspective.

Jon Huntsman will be like every other GOPer that Democrats like until he actually wins a nomination. Then he will be the devil incarnate.

Kilmer, when moderate GOP candidates stop running to the right after they win their primaries they'll stop losing moderate Democrats.

[Kilmer17]

Kilmer, when moderate GOP candidates stop running to the right after they win their primaries they'll stop losing moderate Democrats.

Take Jon Huntsman as an example. He was probably the most conservative candidate (not counting the loons) in the early primaries. Facts either ignored, or now forgotten by Democrats who say they like him.

[Henry]

Take Jon Huntsman as an example. He was probably the most conservative candidate (not counting the loons) in the early primaries. Facts either ignored, or now forgotten by Democrats who say they like him.

That's because he was the ONLY candidate not counting the loons.

[Kilmer17]

That's because he was the ONLY candidate not counting the loons.

GOODNIGHT FOLKS! Dont foget to tip your waitress.........

[Unforgiven]

Take Jon Huntsman as an example. He was probably the most conservative candidate (not counting the loons) in the early primaries. Facts either ignored, or now forgotten by Democrats who say they like him.

He also came out and said things like "To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

Democrats aren't pretending like he was perfect, but at least he had the guts to take a stand on views that aren't popular with conservative voters.

[SnyderShrugged]

He also came out and said things like "To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

Democrats aren't pretending like he was perfect, but at least he had the guts to take a stand on views that aren't popular with conservative voters.

Its been amply proven that courage to take stands on views outside of the establishment GOP neocon views are detrimental to a campaign. (Huntsman was my second choice btw, he was OK)

[Kilmer17]

He also came out and said things like "To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

Democrats aren't pretending like he was perfect, but at least he had the guts to take a stand on views that aren't popular with conservative voters.

Right. THAT"S why they claim to like him now. If he was running though, they'd be scorching him over his platform.

[Popeman38]

Take Jon Huntsman as an example. He was probably the most conservative candidate (not counting the loons) in the early primaries. Facts either ignored, or now forgotten by Democrats who say they like him.

So true. If John Huntsman is a moderate, then the Dems have to quit labeling Ryan as an extreme conservative, because these two almost fall in lock-step with one another.

John Huntsman's official platform for 2012:

Entitlements:

Huntsman's official economic plan does not mention entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but he has discussed his proposals on the campaign trail on a few occasions. In September, he told CNN that he would raise the retirement age in order to reduce the government's Social Security and Medicare obligations, change the formula by which cost-of-living adjustments are determined and reduce benefits for high-income individuals. He did not specify what the new retirement age would be or how he would change the cost-of-living formula.

He has actually taken a more conservative stance than his opponents on Medicare, telling ABC News in May that he would have voted for the controversial budget plan proposed by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., which would have completely privatized Medicare so that the government didn't have to pay for any of it. "I would've voted for it," he said, "including the Medicare provisions, because the only thing that scares me more than that is the trajectory that our debt is taking. ... We've got to be bold, and we've got to have proposals on the table that perhaps in years past would've been laughed out of the room, and we've got to look seriously at them. We don't have a choice."

Job creation:

Huntsman's job-creation plan involves lowering tax rates for both individuals and corporations, thus encouraging investment and economic growth. In particular, he argues that lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent would discourage outsourcing and so keep more jobs in the United States.

Health care:

Like every other candidate in the 2012 Republican race, Huntsman wants to repeal President Barack Obama's "unconstitutional and unaffordable" health care law. In terms of broad reforms, he wants to streamline the Food and Drug Administration's approval process to make it less expensive for biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies to develop health care products. But his economic plan includes few other proposals for addressing problems like the high cost of health care and the inaccessibility of affordable insurance for many Americans.

Some clues can be found by looking at the health care reform plan he developed as governor of Utah, which involves a health insurance exchange through which individuals and small businesses can purchase a private insurance plan of their choice. This, the conservative Heritage Foundation argues, "put downward pressure on health care costs while empowering consumers to make their own health care decisions." Huntsman said at a recent Republican debate that he would support a similar plan as president, but that he would leave it to the states to "experiment and find breakthroughs in how we address health care reform."

Taxes:

Two of Huntsman's tax-reform proposals are near-universal among the Republican candidates: he would reduce the maximum corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends, which he, like most Republicans, characterizes as "double taxation on most individuals who choose to invest since they first had to earn that money and pay income tax on it," according to his Web site. The purpose of these reforms is to encourage investment and spur economic growth.

He also proposes a "flatter, fairer, simpler" income tax system for individuals, but not a completely flat tax as proposed by Herman Cain and Rick Perry. His plan would set three rates of 8 percent, 14 percent and 23 percent, and eliminate all deductions and credits in order to create "a simpler and more efficient tax code, decreasing the burden on taxpayers" and saving $400 billion per year in compliance costs. He would also eliminate the alternative minimum tax, which was enacted in 1969 to ensure that high-income individuals who took advantage of exemptions would still have to pay at least some taxes, but which Huntsman says unfairly burdens small businesses that file as individuals.

National security:

The strategy outlined on his Web site involves coming up with more "creative" ways to combat global terrorism, such as targeting terrorists' financial networks. He also expresses opposition to the Guantanamo Bay detention center on principle but says that it will remain necessary until we can come up with an alternative facility that will imprison terrorists and allow for the collection of intelligence without sacrificing "the spirit and letter of our Constitution" through controversial and questionably legal practices like waterboarding.

Abortion:

Although Huntsman is widely seen as a moderate Republican, his position on abortion is solidly conservative. As governor of Utah, he signed several anti-abortion bills, including a ban on second-trimester abortions, a requirement that doctors inform women seeking abortions of "the pain an abortion will cause to their unborn child," and a measure to establish a fund for the legal defense of a proposed law that would ban abortions in Utah altogether. He also signed a bill that would automatically outlaw abortion in Utah if the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision were overturned.

In August, he said he would support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in the absence of a reversal by the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade. "Governor Huntsman supports a federal amendment that would ensure legal protections for the unborn," his spokesman, Tim Miller, said, according to The Salt Lake Tribune. "He's proud of his record in Utah and will continue to advocate for life on a national level."

Immigration:

Huntsman believes that current border security is inadequate, but he has expressed some ambivalence about the measures that should be taken.

Same-sex marriage:

He opposes gay marriage -- he told CNN in August, "I believe in traditional marriage. I don't think you can redefine marriage from the traditional sense" -- but he supports civil unions. As governor of Utah -- a state where, in 2009, 70 percent of people opposed any recognition of same-sex partnerships -- he proposed a bill that would have legalized civil unions in the state.

[@DCGoldPants]

Right. THAT"S why they claim to like him now. If he was running though, they'd be scorching him over his platform.

Well, that is a brand new model for how to campaign against somebody in 2012, and has never been used before. Maybe nationally the talking heads were killing Huntsman, but if you look back on ES when he was in the race. You'd find the Dems, The Indys, and The Progressives generally liked that he thought for himself. Its a shame he got involved in that cluster**** of a primary. When you've got Cain, Bachmann and Perry spouting nonsense, commonsense probably sounds like Arabic to those voters.

[Popeman38]

Well, that is a brand new model for how to campaign against somebody in 2012, and has never been used before. Maybe nationally the talking heads were killing Huntsman, but if you look back on ES when he was in the race. You'd find the Dems, The Indys, and The Progressives generally liked that he thought for himself. Its a shame he got involved in that cluster**** of a primary. When you've got Cain, Bachmann and Perry spouting nonsense, commonsense probably sounds like Arabic to those voters.

Read his positions. He is only a moderate in hindsight.

[@DCGoldPants]

Read his positions. He is only a moderate in hindsight.

I read that. 2012 wasn't the 1st year these folks talked a more conservative game once in the primaries with the idea of trending towards the center once in the general (ex. Etch-n-sketch acknowledgment).

[PeterMP]

Read his positions. He is only a moderate in hindsight.

I think the term moderate was used in the context of the field. Other than Romney, he was the most moderate and at least early on more moderate than Romney was actually running.

Right off the bat, I see two positions that would make him more "moderate" than Ryan has been stating (I actually think Ryan is pretty moderate based on his longer voting record as compared to what he is saying now- IF being more moderate gets him elected).

From what you appear to have posted, Huntsman didn't support privitizing part of social security, which Ryan does.

And Ryan doesn't suppport civil unions (or to my knowledge has never expressed any support for them), which Huntsman did.

For other issues, there are details that are important w/ respect to where they lie. For example, where do Ryan and Huntsman fall w/ respect to the morning after pill.

If Ryan is in the same group as Akin (thinks it should be illegal or extremely limited) and Huntsman doesn't that would be a more moderate position.

Generally, I think Huntsman was at least trying to portray himself as the more moderate position, and people were willing to go w/ that.