In an interview with KTVI-TV on Sunday, the GOP Senate nominee [Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.)] was asked if he supported abortion in the case of rape.
"From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," said Akin said of pregnancy caused by rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist."
... (story cont at the link below)
At this point, I shouldn't be surprised and I shouldn't bother telling anyone else that this level of stupid exists in positions of power, but I just can't help it. It needles at me until I'm about to burst, that there are (supposedly) educated people out there who spew this garbage yet maintain a following. Granted, he does later "recant" his statement, but the damage is already done. Maybe the reason I am posting this is that I just need the comfort of smart people right about now.
I hope the man doesn't have any daughters.
I don't see it as stupidity, but as misogynist doublethink.
The notion that women are capable of shutting down a pregnancy if what happened to her was really rape resembles the logic of witch water tests. A woman with bound hands and feet was thrown into a body of water. If she drowned, that proved she was innocent of witchcraft. If she didn't drown that proved she was guilty, and deserved to be burned at the stake.
Pregnancy is the ultimate proof a rape victim has of her accusation. If she failed to get pregnant, she lacks this proof and it becomes he said/she said, so her claim is easily ignored. Pregnancy disproves the "I didn't have sex" defense and the "It was some other guy" defense, but - how convenient - to Aikins it proves she wasn't legitimately raped after all. It must have been consensual, so she's to blame.
Aikins ludicrous biology assertion isn't about biology at all, it signals a value system that justifies terrible persecution of women. The biology claim is like a patina concealing blatant persecution with a pretense of reasoning. It's a misdirect. One doesn't need to take the claim seriously for it to do its job. A persecutor can pretend to be clueless, as a shield for his psychopathic values.
I think that deep down, these men are actually afraid of women. I don't know what we do that threatens them, but, good grief! The buybull is full of silly-ass (and harmful) rules pertaining to exclusively female things like virginity, childbirth, menstruation, etc.
Why don't men have to "purify" themselves after having sex with us evil, dirty women?
Something is dreadully wrong with these people.
Orthodox Jewish men are supposed to purify themselves after ejaculating, as well as to avoid masturbation. From a bit of internet reading, I gather that it has to do with semen being a source of life, and it being a Bad Thing to waste any that doesn't go towards making babies.
There's a lot of fear in quite a few religions about sex! People vary a fair bit in terms of needing sex to be in the context of a committed relationship, or not, but you won't know it from listening to some religious teachings!
An example yesterday of this fear in politics, from BryanJFischer (the hate group official) on Twitter:
Ann Coulter: "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president."
(I've posted more at Feminist Atheists.)
And Ann Coulter's a woman It seems to me that women who choose to say such things are really suffering from a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome.
No, deep down these men are just pigs, like they are on the surface.
This applies to other kinds of persecution as well, with a public face that's not necessarily bumbling and stupid, but the tip of the iceberg of the real agenda.
Groups like the National Organization for Marriage have a public face (opposing the "redefinition" of civil marriage; bad enough) and an insiders' agenda (promoting "ex-gay" conversion efforts, pushing religious hatred, and fighting any sort of acceptance of and rights for LGBT people).
Same for many groups with "Family" in their name.
Same for many groups with "Family" in their name.
Yes, I noticed that years ago...but they don't want people they disapprove of to form families. It''s almost funny that Mormons are at the top of the list when it comes to ranting about "traditional family values," when you consider their history.
(The same cultists usually have a problem with skin tones, too.)
From Sharon Barnes, a high ranking Republican official in the state of Missouri defending Todd Akin.
Sharon Barnes, a high ranking state Republican, came to the defense of her conservative colleague who she believes only "phrased it (his statement) badly."
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."
I found this at examiner.com. All I can say is wow!
How many anti-abortion agitators have come forward to adopt any of the 30,000 infants per year that are the result of rape?
From what I understand, it's really rare that a GOP nominee for anything listens to themselves when they speak nowadays.
I hate to tell you this, but Akin's at it again. It's not as offensive as his rape comment, all he did was liken his Democratic opponent to a dog. The only possible reason it could be considered a semimajor story is because his opponent's a woman.