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

[Larry]

And goes back to my prior post...to have to respond to someone trying to be nice and congratulatory, that one's pregnancy is not a pleasant one, but one forced to be carried to term, may be one really awkward moment and cause a nervous breakdown.

And while we're on topic, JMS, as an attorney, can the SCOTUS really tear down a decision made 40 years ago? I've been dying to ask you this.

Not an attorney, but obviously there are precedents for doing just that.

Dredd Scott is no longer the law of the land. Neither is "separate but equal".

Now, my suspicion is that no, the SC has never issued a ruling which contained the phrase "we hereby repeal this, other, decision that we wrote a while back"

But there certainly is precedent for the court finding some way to have the effect of reversing a decision.

[JMS]

And goes back to my prior post...to have to respond to someone trying to be nice and congratulatory, that one's pregnancy is not a pleasant one, but one forced to be carried to term, may be one really awkward moment and cause a nervous breakdown.

That would be an awkward moment among adults... I was thinking about it from the child's perspective. If you were born to a mother who had a choice you would at least know she wanted you. You might have some mixed feelings but you at least would have the fact that your mother choose to have you to hold onto, as would she. Could you imagine finding out you were the product of a non consensual attack, and your mother had no choice but to have you. Such a revelation, such a policy would compound the crime, again and again..

And while we're on topic, JMS, as an attorney, can the SCOTUS really tear down a decision made 40 years ago? I've been dying to ask you this.

I guess I don't understand the question, because the answer seems pretty obvious to me.. Absolutely, the supreme court is free to reverse previous courts and re decide cases.as they see fit. precedent is a guiding principle, not a requirement. History is full of such decisions by justices both conservative and liberal.

In the recent supreme court case just a few months ago, over the Affordable Care Act the supreme court overturned 70 years of precedent saying the Commerce Clause didn't give the Federal government the authority to regulate healthcare which amounts to nearly 15% of the GDP.. Rather they found Congress had the authority under the Taxation Clause so the Affordable Care act was not overturned ).. Still this represents a reversal of long standing precedent on how the Commerce Clause since 1936 has been interpreted broadly. ( see stitch in time, saves nine ) This decision would seem to reset the interpretation of the commerce clause back to what it was before the New Deal. Since 1936, The commerce clause has been used to justify everything from civil rights Laws, workplace safety, minimum wage, to agricultural subsidies. Long standing popular laws credited with doing a lot of good, are now seemingly more precariously perched on the ledge over unconstitutional because a new supreme court has re-interpreted the way the constitution applies.

It is an exception to the rule, but it definitely happens.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Maybe he meant women don't get pregnant from 'legitimate' rapes when women rape men...because he'd have to be enjoying it for that to happen. If the woman is legitimately raping a man, he won't get aroused.

Yeah, that's probably what he meant. :yes:

[twa]

Go ahead and show me a woman who isn't haunted the rest of her life from that traumatic experience. I have close members of my immediate family who have been raped. It CAN and DOES ruin lives. Could you think of the difficulty one would have being intimate with another person after being raped? How is that "assumption" ****ed up, at all?

I'm really trying to understand your point. Who in the hell says an abortion will make her life BETTER? I assume by not having the rapist's baby, this is making it 'better'. I disagree - abortion is a very traumatic experience. No idea how you came to that conclusion.

I agree they are haunted by a rape,and consider it among the most vile things a person can do

I agree it does ruin lives and some never recover fully from it

I understand all to well some of the issues that result

I agree abortion is another very traumatic experience to add to it.

I disagree having the child is worse....BUT I agree am male and can never live thru that,nor experience it

we are left with one traumatic experience and a CHOICE between two other very traumatic ones

as a husband and father I would raise and support my wife's or child's offspring....no matter the father or reason for the childs conception.....which is the only choice I have to make

I agree with allowing abortions for rape, BUT I do not support it

[RVAbrendan]

I think those are valid points twa. Everybody is surely entitled to their opinion. I think the key is having the choice, one way or another.

[JMS]

Not an attorney, but obviously there are precedents for doing just that.

Dredd Scott is no longer the law of the land. Neither is "separate but equal".

Now, my suspicion is that no, the SC has never issued a ruling which contained the phrase "we hereby repeal this, other, decision that we wrote a while back"

But there certainly is precedent for the court finding some way to have the effect of reversing a decision.

Not to totally Hijack the thread but I think of the Lochner Era from the late 1800's to 1937 where a conservative activist court continuously "struck down" precedents in favor of conservative positions.

• Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897), striking down state legislation prohibiting foreign corporations from doing business in the state
  
• Lochner v. New York (1905), striking down state legislation limiting weekly working hours
  
• Adair v. United States (1908), striking down federal legislation prohibiting railroad companies from demanding that a worker not join a labor union as a condition for employment ("yellow-dog contract")
  
• Coppage v. Kansas (1915), striking down state legislation prohibiting yellow-dog contracts
  
• Adams v. Tanner (1917), striking down state legislation preventing privately owned employment agencies from assessing fees for their services
  
• Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), striking down federal regulation of child labor
  
• Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering (1921), construing federal legislation not to exempt labor unions from antitrust lawsuits
  
• Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922), invalidating a federal tax on interstate commerce by employers hiring children
  
• Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923), striking down federal legislation mandating a minimum wage level for women and children in the District of Columbia
  
• United States v. Butler (1936), construing congressional taxing power to invalidate the Agricultural Adjustment Act
  
• Carter v. Carter Coal Company (1936), striking down federal legislation regulating the coal industry
  

Or the Berger court (1969–1986) which was known as a more liberal activist court.

[Duckus]

This is the same guy in the Voter ID thread that said he wanted to look into overturning the Voting Rights Acts and Civil Rights Acts.

He misspoke when said that too, of course. ..

[JMS]

Maybe he meant women don't get pregnant from 'legitimate' rapes when women rape men...because he'd have to be enjoying it for that to happen. If the woman is legitimately raping a man, he won't get aroused.

Yeah, that's probably what he meant. :yes:

And that would be absurd too. Not just because he was arguing an exception, but because he was doing so in error.

[RichmondRedskin88]

Consensual is rape? MINDBLOWN

(I was gonna have a brain or head exploding pic but I'm at work and I don't why want to explain to them why I was searching exploding heads)

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/20/scott-brown-calls-akin-drop-out-missouri-senate-race-after-rape-comments/6FLfAw9JkYh2Z8rgn9MXHJ/story.html

As for twa ..... man, like the protagonist dick at the centre of this, I really don't know where to begin with most of your posts here.

Hail.

[Jumbo]

Jesus Christ on a cracker......

I've seen it on toast, but a cracker? Will miracles never cease....

Maybe "illegitimates" will join "illegals" as a favored GOPer way of grouping certain humans, at least in some "key" (i.e. moron-laden) states.

[Going Commando]

a abortion =/= salvaging her life either and takes a life

nor have I called for her to be forced to carry the child...AT ALL

what is ****ed up is the assumption her life is ruined and a innocent must die to make it better

Not you, Todd Akin is the one who intimated it. He'd focus on punishing the rapist, not the innocent child. Nevermind the woman.

Also I didn't say the child must be aborted. But the woman should absolutely have the right to abort that child. I would assume most women would. If I were a woman who became pregnant from a rape, I imagine I would get an abortion. If it's another traumatic experience, it's a result of that crime. If you see abortion as a crime against the fetus, tack it on the rapist's ledger and don't make the woman feel like crap about something that is not her fault. No woman should have to relive the horror of that crime every time she looks at or thinks about that child. That would make her life worse.

[Burgold]

twa,

I need you to think carefully about this. Even Kilmer ain't spinnin' with you on this one. Do you really want to spin that close to the edge?

I can dig you thinking that all life is sacred and should be protected even at the cost of psychological scarring or at the cost of the victimhood of a rape victim. What this guy is foisting is just pure undiluted garbage. What's worse is that it is next door neighbors to excusing the rapists and exonerating them. "Hell, if she got pregnant she must've wanted it. It must've been consensual and not a 'legitimate' rape."

That's pretty sickening logic.

[JMS]

I've seen it on toast, but a cracker? Will miracles never cease....

Maybe "illegitimates" will join "illegals" as a favored GOPer way of grouping certain humans, at least in some "key" (i.e. moron-laden) states.

It's called Marketing... HELLO!!!

[Predicto]

Macaca!!!!

Macaca meant exactly what everyone thought it meant, and it fit in perfectly with George Allen's history of being an unreconstructed bigot and an horrible person.

Nice deflection tho.

---------- Post added August-20th-2012 at 10:15 AM ----------

I took Kilmer17's comments as a reference to when George Allen's campaign jumped the shark. Meaning this guy's campaign might have just jumped the shark.

How did you take it?

Oh, if that was the meaning of his post, then nevermind.

Carry on, y'all.

[twa]

Bur I don't see where he said anything like that last sentence in quotations

Nor did he say what the thread title does

his use of the word legitimate is foolish or ignorant I certainly agree

I will add your 'next door neighbour' bit just follows the theme of assigning guilt by proximity....we don't punish the innocent for living by a criminal

[Predicto]

Not an attorney, but obviously there are precedents for doing just that.

Dredd Scott is no longer the law of the land. Neither is "separate but equal".

Now, my suspicion is that no, the SC has never issued a ruling which contained the phrase "we hereby repeal this, other, decision that we wrote a while back"

Sure it has. But it is extremely rare.

[Burgold]

Bur I don't see where he said anything like that last sentence in quotations

Nor did he say what the thread title does

his use of the word legitimate is foolish or ignorant I certainly agree

To suggest that a woman can turn off an unwanted pregnancy is to also imply that all pregnancies are wanted. Therefore, any rape which results in a pregancy is legitimate. A belief which is patently assinine.

[AsburySkinsFan]

his use of the word legitimate is foolish or ignorant I certainly agree

Does the female body "work to shut down" pregnancies of ANY type at the moment of conception?

No

Stop defending this idiot just because he's a Republican.

[TheDane]

The idiot is strong with this one.

[alexey]

Thousands of sentient beings who feel pain, fear, and suffering get killed for food every day. Why is that more moral then not allowing a cluster of cells to develop?

[Predicto]

twa, just because you care deeply about the subject of abortion in general and are staunchly pro-life (something that I fully respect) does not mean that what Akin actually said needs to be defended.

It was pretty much indefensible, and derailing the thread over and over doesn't change that.

[twa]

To suggest that a woman can turn off an unwanted pregnancy is to also imply that all pregnancies are wanted. Therefore, any rape which results in a pregancy is legitimate. A belief which is patently assinine.

I agree, but that is not what he said

if he believes that he is a imbecile

[Predicto]

Does the female body "work to shut down" pregnancies of ANY type at the moment of conception?

No

Stop defending this idiot just because he's a Republican.

Not so simple. twa is defending this idiot because twa is opposed to all abortions, and feels compelled to defend all pro-lifers when the subject comes up. I can understand that.

For whatever it's worth, that is a lot more principled than just defending Republicans like it was a game.

---------- Post added August-20th-2012 at 10:33 AM ----------

I agree, but that is not what he said

if he believes that he is a imbecile

His imbecility is pretty much proven at this point.

[JMS]

Bur I don't see where he said anything like that last sentence in quotations

Nor did he say what the thread title does

his use of the word legitimate is foolish or ignorant I certainly agree

It's not really foolish or ignorant to suggest that women who are the victims of a non consensual attack cannot conceive due to some sort of undocumented organ function or bodily reaction which would prevent such a result.

Rather it is entirely thought out, self serving fiction; designed to camouflage an unyielding stance which paints him as an extremist.

He's excusing his blanket opposition to abortion including for victims of rape by saying they weren't really victims.