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

[Larry]

Take Jon Huntsman as an example. He was probably the most conservative candidate (not counting the loons) in the early primaries.

Meaning "compared to Romney"?

[JimboDaMan]

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

They don't "claim" to like him, they really do like him. That's because 1) he never gained enough significance for people to look at his views in depth 2) for him to have a shot at the nomination he'd never had said those moderate things in the first place, and 3) he was a decent, civil human being compared to the carnival sideshow that was Newt, Bachmann, Cain, et. al.

[bcl05]

I'm a far-left liberal, but I found Huntsman appealing as a person for his rationality and apparent honesty. He came different conclusions than I would have, but at least he seemed to be looking at the same problems. People like Akin and others in the GOP often seem to be disconnected from reality, at least to me.

[The 12th Commandment]

When I hear of comments like this and think of Akin and the other evangelicals that think that way, I think of the Taliban and other places where powerful men decide what's right for "their" women and couch it in the same purposeful ignorance. It's only a matter of degree.

[JMS]

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

• supported unequivocally the debt ceiling compromise. ( would raise taxes).
  
• He agrees we may be experiencing global warming. ( man made ).
  
• He supports civil unions.
  
• He believes in evolution
  
• He would get the government involved in protecting the US manufacturing jobs
  
• He wants to balance the budget and towards that end would cut defense spending and raise taxes.
  
• Endorsed Simpson/Bowles Commission Findings on the budget
  
• Was in favor of green energy initiatives and renewable energy.
  
• He's generally a reasonable guy who will listen and consider a logical argument.
  

He also served under four U. S. Presidents—under Ronald Reagan, as part of the White House staff; under George H.W. Bush as ambassador to Singapore; under George W. Bush as trade representative; and, with that in his portfolio, as ambassador to China in the Obama administration.

All of which brands him a moderate.

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

As a Liberal Democrat who has vowed not to vote for another Republican for at least 10 years, 8 years ago, and has subsequently pushed back that date several times; I can tell you that no liberal "likes" Huntsman. We hate Huntsman. Huntsman is our worst nightmare. A reasonable rational conservative which would appeal not just to party diehards, but to moderates and independents. When Obama recruited Huntsman to be the Ambassador to China there was a newspaper article accusing Obama of clearing the decks for the 2012 re-election because Democrats felt Huntsman was one of the most formidable candidates the GOP had. Come on Liberals don't like him, he's still a conservative, which means he's a vote for the status queoe, who we fundamentally disagree with. He, unfortunately for us, would also seem to be competent while advocating for the status quo. Liberals want our high speed trains, working infrastructure, better schools. Liberals by definition want change.

[gbear]

I hate that belief in evolution qualifies as moderate...how far we have drifted towards theocracy.

The original premise of this thread is but a symptom.

[JMS]

I hate that belief in evolution qualifies as moderate...how far we have drifted towards theocracy.

The original premise of this thread is but a symptom.

NY Times had a interesting article today on the front page about Aikins.. They were making a few interesting points.

Aikins hurts Mitt Romney on two fronts.

(1)Hurts him with Democrats who are now focusing on GOP pro life positions which are moving dramatically and will affect them in the next 4 years,

(2) Hurts him with social conservatives because Aikins voting record shows he's a main stream GOP voter, not a fringe guy on this issue. The position which Aikins was defending in this thread where he ran amuck, was defending a bill which he cosponsored which removes ( weakens ) Rape as a exception in the Hyde Amendment which mandates how federal funds can be used in seeking abortions.. (Only in the cases of incest, rape, and to safeguard the life of the mother.). Weakening the Hyde amendment exceptions is not a fringe thing in the GOP. The GOP is going to adopt at their convention a blanket opposition to all abortion including these exceptions in just a few weeks ( according to NYTimes, and NPR). Also more than 200 republican congressmen including Paul Ryan co-sponsored that bill changing the Hyde amendment which Aikins got in trouble defending. Romney's reaction to Aikins thus pits him against social conservatives who have generally been suspect of him anyway since he's been pro choice for much of his political career.

[Predicto]

Women are the only ones hung up on that incorrect line of thinking.

It's not about your body at all. They are trying to protect the other life that is living inside of you.

Yes, it happens to be inside of you and occasionally, because of you, but that's not the point. It's not laws about your body.

The Keep your laws off my body chant has been making the conversation of abortion more difficult and dishonest, for a long, long time.

There is nothing "dishonest" about it. It IS their body.

Both points of view have conceptual validity. Don't cheapen the discussion.

---------- Post added August-22nd-2012 at 09:41 AM ----------

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.

No it isn't. Not at all.

[Jumbo]

The original premise of this thread is but a symptom.

TY gbear, and it is time to return to the original topic. I have even seen new articles the last 24 hours updating or adding to the matter that have yet to be mentioned. Or we can pursue the “theocracy” angle a bit (a relatively reasonable tangent). Or even start a thread about theocracy (which might be cool and preferable). And definitely halt the OT Huntsman discussion--maybe start a thread for Huntsman.

Not trying to bust on ya, Popeman, but that long-ass Huntsman post (a very good post on its own terms) really had zero business in this thread and enabled the earlier thread-derailing comment/distraction.

On that note (an increasing issue here) here's a warning---under our guidelines on OT posting in threads, creating deliberate deflections in threads for some personal agenda or design (of any form) can get you banned. People are expected to make a sincere attempt to stay on topic. Some tangents are reasonable and allowable to an extent.

As with all matters, moderators will make any judgement on this so it is up to the poster to make their best choices. Help each other on this.

[LadySkinsFan]

When I hear of comments like this and think of Akin and the other evangelicals that think that way, I think of the Taliban and other places where powerful men decide what's right for "their" women and couch it in the same purposeful ignorance. It's only a matter of degree.

A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist.

The easiest way to control women is to control their reproductive capability by taking away birth control and abortion. With more children to raise, women will be more likely to be the parent that stays home, thus less women in the workforce and more jobs for men. If you think that's wrong, we have only to look at post-WWII The Big One when women were encouraged to leave their wartime jobs so that men returning home could take their jobs instead. That's a fact. Look at Phyllis Schlafly who urged women to stay home and be homemakers and childraisers all the while she was flying around the country being self-actualized herself.

Also, more children, more candidates for the military to fight all those wars the radical right is so fond of.

[Predicto]

On that note (an increasing issue here) here's a warning---under our guidelines on OT posting in threads, creating deliberate deflections in threads for some personal agenda or design (of any form) can get you banned. People are expected to make a sincere attempt to stay on topic.

[Jumbo]

P, I figure you're smart enough to know this---but most of the time when I make posts like that it's not because I expect them to really make much (if any) diff, it's to properly form the moderator log for ****canning whoever qualifies.

To show just how much I do mean it, however, and given this sort of unhelpful reaction to such matters, take a week off. Go enjoy yourself.

[amm0409]

I just don't know what to say about this. It's so stupid and almost feels related to the old rapist excuse "She wanted it" Do people actually believe things like this?

Ugh, it makes me SICK. Probably because Its ridiculous and idiotic.

Seriously if a woman gets raped his going to use a condom? If she's lucky she won't get pregnant but come on :doh: Im getting sick :puke:

[RVAbrendan]

Good Lord.

GOP official says God chooses to bless raped women with pregnancy

Barnes was quoted by The New York Times saying, "abortion is never an option." Barnes went on to biblically claim that, "If God has chosen to bless this person [the rape victim] with a life, you don’t kill it."

PS - Statements like these are why some are questioning the split of the GOP party (See new thread).

[JMS]

Ugh, it makes me SICK. Probably because Its ridiculous and idiotic.

Seriously if a woman gets raped his going to use a condom? If she's lucky she won't get pregnant but come on :doh: Im getting sick :puke:

You guys are not following the story.. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan rebuked Todd Akin. Other Republican senators called on him to withdraw. It also appears that the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee is pulling $5 million in advertising intended for Akin.

This all began when Akin was asked whether he favors abortions in case of rape. He doesn’t. Nor does the Republican Party.

On Tuesday, the GOP platform committee working in advice of the party’s national convention approved antiabortion language that makes no exception for rape or incest. Thus Aiken's position is the GOP's position or will be next week.

It's amazing the GOP mishandled this so badly. It's seems that there nominee, and many important senators are not aware what's being inserted into their own party's platform?

[Koolblue13]

Good Lord.

GOP official says God chooses to bless raped women with pregnancy

PS - Statements like these are why some are questioning the split of the GOP party (See new thread).

Bringing his God into it, should surely help a conversation of this nature.

I'll drop the other point, because it's off topic.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

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.

Long live MSF!!

But yeah, what we're seeing these days on issues like abortion and gay marriage, is the GOP maxing out where they can go with them in this country. For so long they dominated and controlled these issues. They kept pushing and pushing for more and now they've finally run well dry. I think it hurts them in the big picture as well. Less issues to use to win elections.

[Hersh]

GOP is on fire.

Sen. hopeful to reporter: 'Go ---- yourself'

Michael Baumgartner, a Republican Senate candidate from the great state of Washington, has told a reporter at Seattle Met Magazine to "go f--k yourself" after asking him to clarify his position on abortion.

Earlier this week, Baumgartner joined a wide swath of Republicans in condemning Rep. Todd Akin for his controversial remarks about "legitimate rape." But when Met reporter Josh Feit asked him how his position was different than Rep. Akin’s, Baumgartner ducked and did not clarify.

“I have empathy for the victims of rape. Rape is a tragedy. It’s a terrible thing. Certainly, we need to give victims all the help we can. There is no place in politics for uttering something so ignorant about pregnancy and rape," Baumgartner told Feit.

More at link above

[Larry]

So, at least the (unsupported, I'll observe) implication is "I support the same legislation that he does, but I'll express sympathy for the rape victim as I force her to continue her pregnancy"?

[mistertim]

Seems that way, Larry. That or "I support the exact same legislation that he does, but I'm not stupid enough to come out and say something that shines a huge, ugly spotlight on that fact". Or a combination of both.

[Barney B]

Sen. hopeful to reporter: 'Go ---- yourself'

It remains to be seen whether this practical, helpful advice for avoiding unplanned pregnancy will be included in the final draft of the Republican Party platform.

[Special K]

Wow, this thread is a complete cluster****. Shocking.

How a 100%, hands down, ignorant, regressive, and utterly horrific statement can garner such argument between people is beyond me. There should not be multiple sides or attempts at rationalization regarding this viewpoint. It's scientifically unfounded and absolutely idiotic.

It's unbelievable how chock full of morons this country is. Anyone who defends or attempts to rationalize this bullcrap would be included in the "moron" category I'm referring to.

The end.

[RedskinsFan44]

Wow, this thread is a complete cluster****. Shocking.

How a 100%, hands down, ignorant, regressive, and utterly horrific statement can garner such argument between people is beyond me. There should not be multiple sides or attempts at rationalization regarding this viewpoint. It's scientifically unfounded and absolutely idiotic.

It's unbelievable how chock full of morons this country is. Anyone who defends or attempts to rationalize this bullcrap would be included in the "moron" category I'm referring to.

The end.

On one level I agree with you absolutely. I think the debate exists because the idiotic statement was issued in an attempt to justify a policy which has been a plank of the Republican platform for at least the past three presidential elections. Some people will feel a need to defend the statement lest they give some ground on the policy.

[Larry]

It remains to be seen whether this practical, helpful advice for avoiding unplanned pregnancy will be included in the final draft of the Republican Party platform.

But it works every time it's been tried.

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80043.html

Rasmussen poll: Claire McCaskill up by 10 over Todd Akin

Take it for what it's worth, since it is Rasmussen.