August 22, 2012

Sarah Palin wants Akin out.

"... Palin championed Sarah Steelman, who was her choice for the ticket in Missouri’s bloody Republican primary, and added that if Akin doesn’t drop out by the end of September, 'it’s going to be a third party then.'"

AND: This, from Bill Kristol:
Now is the time for kind, unassuming—and private—persuasion by conservatives, by pro-life and pro-marriage advocates, by serious people who've worked with Akin and by his fellow Missourians. I have reason to believe that's now beginning to happen behind the scenes. And I suspect that by the Democratic convention, by Labor Day, Akin will have stepped aside. 

152 comments:

chickelit said...

Was she wearing the superman T-shirt at a Steelman fundraiser? The shirt that Althouse was mocking the other day?

EMD said...

What about this guy in Minnesota? Who wants him out?

chickelit said...

EMD said...
What about this guy in Minnesota? Who wants him out?

Who's the guy in Minnesota? If Althouse doesn't blog it, it must not be important.

Andy R. said...

“Bless his heart, I don’t want to pile on Todd Akin, because in some respects, I understand what he’s trying to say here, in standing on principle, that he doesn’t want to be perceived as a quitter, but you got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them,” Palin said"

Palin is an expert on quitting.

Tom Spaulding said...

chickelit said...
EMD said...
What about this guy in Minnesota? Who wants him out?

Who's the guy in Minnesota? If Althouse doesn't blog it, it must not be important.


The Democrat they caught playing "Fr. Andy and the Altar Boy".

EMD said...

Minnesotan won't quit either.

chickelit said...

It would actually be great if Palin convinces him to quit. This would increase the butthurt inflammation Andy is feeling from all those flames.

EMD said...

His decision drew condemnation from Democratic leaders including Dayton, who urged Gauthier to drop out of the race. Democrats need to gain at least six House seats in November to take control of the chamber. Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Chairman Ken Martin and House Minority Leader Paul Thissen said Gauthier would get no support from the party or the House DFL caucus.

Good for the Dems trying to oust him.

chickelit said...

I'm sure people in the Twin Cities turn the other cheek so to speak when it comes to pederasty. What is there age of consent up there anyways?

Peter Hoh?

Right is right! said...

This is the Femization of the Republican Party. Todd Akin should stick to his guns and stay in the race. He won the primary and East Coast Republicans like Romney should not get to over rule the conservative voters in Kansas. I am now seriously thinking about voting third party for president.

Jay said...

EMD said...

Minnesotan won't quit either.


Why should he?

Pedophilia is part of the gay lifestyle.

Democrats support the gay lifestyle.

EMD said...

Where is Kerry Gauthier?

CNN front page

NBC News front page

CBS News front page

ABC News front page

Palladian said...

Why should he?

Pedophilia is part of the gay lifestyle.

Democrats support the gay lifestyle.


Being an embarrassingly stupid asshole is part of the Jay lifestyle!

Palladian said...

But nobody supports the Jay lifestyle!

shiloh said...

ok, and in other breaking news so does Limbaugh and Hannity.

So who's the biggest con hurricane next week, Isaac or Akin?

Palladian said...

Why should someone have to quit politics for having consensual sex with a person of legal age? Is that the kind of game we're now playing?

Jay said...

Palladian said...


Being an embarrassingly stupid asshole is part of the Jay lifestyle!


The only people supporting NAMBLA are men who have sex with other men and boys.

Thanks for participating.

Palladian said...

shiloh and Jay are the yin and yang of stupid around here.

EMD said...

Why should someone have to quit politics for having consensual sex with a person of legal age? Is that the kind of game we're now playing?

Why should someone have to quit politics for saying something medically unfounded, is that the kind of game we're now playing?*

* - I personally think Akin should go, but I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy in the reportage or non-reportage of two events.

Palladian said...

I was going to defend the Minnesota guy and the lack of publicity for the story by saying that, unlike Akin's statement, his "transgression" was legal and private, but then I remembered that it happened in a public toilet, so I changed my mind; fair game.

Tom Spaulding said...

Why should someone have to quit politics for having consensual sex with a person of legal age? Is that the kind of game we're now playing?

8/22/12 4:40 PM


Games? Here's the game: Name That Party!

Surely you are not suggesting that if Paul Ryan was caught having consensual sex in the bushes with a 17-year old boy that the media outrage would be: "What kind of political games are we playing here, demonizing an act of love, however temporary?"



garage mahal said...

Why should someone have to quit politics for saying something medically unfounded, is that the kind of game we're now playing?

They shouldn't have to, and Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves.

rhhardin said...

The drive to get Akin out is based on the known stupidity of women, that must be catered to.

It's suspected that it's unfixable.

yashu said...

Right is right!

Moby is moby.

yashu said...

"The drive to get Akin out is based on the known stupidity of Akin."

Fixed it for you.

Palladian said...

And he also deserves condemnation for lack of class; if you're a pasty, fat, middle-aged politician and you somehow convince a young man to get it on with you without the exchange of a wad of cash, at least have the damned decency to spring for a motel room!

Jay said...

Palladian said...
shiloh and Jay are the yin and yang of stupid around here.


I'm not the one pretending noted homosexual activists haven't defended NAMBLA.

And of course you can't grasp the irony of your comments when in reference to a 17 year old boy.

It is well established gay males like young boys.

Bob Ellison said...

Jay, you're being an ass. Shut up sometimes.

Carnifex said...

Akin and Gauthier should both quit because of a serious lack of thinking. I'll leave whether gay sex is a sin for God to judge. I'm sure I'm not qualified to read his mind.

B said...

yashu said...Moby is moby.

A particularly stupid one at that as Akins is running in Missouri, not Kansas.

Palladian said...

It is well established gay males like young boys.

But straight males only like women over age 40! I mean, it's not like if you search the web for the word "Lolita", you'll find any evidence that straight men like young girls or anything!

Anyway, enough with today's session of "smack around the moron"; it brings little light to my life and certainly kindles no fires in my loins.

Michael K said...

"“Bless his heart, I don’t want to pile on Todd Akin, because"

Some people are too slow to recognize a slam, even when it is an inch above this story on the blog.

Jay said...

Oh man, this isn't fun to read:

Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.
Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”
He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”


I look forward to all the denouncements of the APA by gay groups when pedophilia is removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Carnifex said...

Ps

NAMBLA does stand for North American Man Boy Love Association, but pederasty afflicts ALL children. A pederast is truly about the only person I would have no problem with them being executed.

Gauthier skirted the issue...barely, but skirt he did. If the boy had been 15, I have no doubt that the assignation would have still occurred.

Last word, while all NAMBLA members are homosexuals, not all homosexuals are NAMBLA.

Jay said...

Palladian said...

Anyway, enough with today's session of "smack around the moron"; it brings little light to my life and certainly kindles no fires in my loins.


Yes!

Because denying facts means you "smacked someone around"

Really, it does!

You're like really, really answering the facts here.

Calypso Facto said...

What is there age of consent up there anyways?

16, so no statutory rape. Just the "caught with a live boy" feared all the way back to Huey Long.

*wtf is up with wv today??? 9th try

Jay said...

Harry Hay was the founder of the Mattachine Society, the first gay rights organization in the country.

Harry Hay had deep ties to NAMBLA.

Thanks.

Palladian said...

I'm interested in this popular notion that Sarah Palin is some sort of hyper-religious social conservative; from what I know of her, she seem rarely to mention social issues and doesn't appear to support candidates who frontline socially conservative issues in their campaigns.

Jay said...

Celebrated gay rights activist Harvey Milk supported NAMBLA.

EMD said...

I was going to defend the Minnesota guy and the lack of publicity for the story by saying that, unlike Akin's statement, his "transgression" was legal and private, but then I remembered that it happened in a public toilet, so I changed my mind; fair game.

Yeah, both a complete lack of judgment and thinking on both sides here.

Gabriel Hanna said...

Of public behaviors that are so indicative of bad judgement that they indicate unfitness for office, can we all agree that sex in a public toilet is one? Regardless of the genders and orientations of the participants, or the level of commitment in the relationship?

But the lack of coverage at the national level is not surprising, it's a state legislator, after all.

Gabriel Hanna said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Palladian said...

Calypso Facto... Blogger, being an extremely shitty product, is fraught with random and stupid problems. I had the same issue as you, but I discovered that if you type in the nearly-unreadable number in the image, the WV is accepted. Sucks, of course, but it seems that an attempt at the number is now required.

chickelit said...

If the MSM refuses to cover the Minnesota story, we'll never get another wink-wink idiom like "wide stance" to enrich the vernacular.

Andy R. said...

Celebrated gay rights activist Harvey Milk supported NAMBLA.

Cite?

EMD said...

Also, I find I'm less interested in what people say and more about what they do.

People say stupid shit all the time. I say stupid things, too — I use words I regret.

I'm rarely offended by words.

But it's more necessary to me to examine the totality of someone's actions before passing judgment on them.

Perhaps I'm too supportive of free speech.

garage mahal said...

If you want to know what's going on the gay world, Jay is your go to guy! Must have done a lot of, um, er, hands on research.

yashu said...

But straight males only like women over age 40! I mean, it's not like if you search the web for the word "Lolita", you'll find any evidence that straight men like young girls or anything!

Heh, exactly. I bet if one did an analysis of the pornography "consumed" by straight men vs. homosexual men, the ratio of Lolita porn for straight men would exceed by far the homosexual equivalent.

shiloh said...

Let's recap, shall we:

Jay has a NAMBLA fixation!

Carnifex said...

Traci Lords anyone?

Lindsey Meadows said...

Read the law. In Missouri Aken has missed the date when he can pull out on his own and now must obtain a court order to remove him from the ballot.

He is the gift that keeps on giving. God bless his soul.

Lindsey Meadows said...

Well established by whom? Can Jay give us a source or is it first hand experience....

no school zones for Jay...bless his soul.

machine said...

well, she certainly knows how to quit a job that's fo sho....

She could be the party's special counsel on quitting....

chickelit said...

Palladian said...
I'm interested in this popular notion that Sarah Palin is some sort of hyper-religious social conservative; from what I know of her, she seem rarely to mention social issues and doesn't appear to support candidates who frontline socially conservative issues in their campaigns.

The "Palin is a religious extremist" meme began about 2 ms after she hit the stage in 2008. The source of the smear may never be known, but it was famously championed by Sullivan and is parroted to this day by the likes of Andy R. This is why I accused him on another thread of having 99%homology with Sullivan. I meant no pun regarding sexual orientation--I literally meant that when it comes to Palin, the sequence of words they use to describe her--like comparing letters in strands of DNA--have 99%sequence homology.

Kansas City said...

I have some sympathy for Aiken because, while not very bright, he has been caught up in the democratic/liberal media machine for a modestly stupid comment. He had two ideas in his head - one that there are false claims of rape (true, which prompted the words "legitimate rape"), and two that the female body somehow diminishes the likelihood of pregnancy in a rape (presumably false).

Because the dems and their media friends would be very effetive at tagging republicans with Aiken's stupidity repackaged as an anti-women view, the republicans had no reasonable alternative other than to abandon him.

Aiken must be in shock after a big primary victory and an 11 point lead in the polls, to have the rug pulled out from him so quickly only one statement. There is no justice here, only political reality. I suspect the money dry up (and a promise of a job) will cause him to withdraw. The RNC cannot support him. PACS could reverse field and support him late, if there is chance he can win, but even that might be too risky.

If I was Aiken, I would start challenging McCaskill to an immediate debate, maybe even saying he will withdraw if she is afraid to debate him, so the onus is on her. If she accepts, he just might be able to save his candidacy with a strong debate performance.

Andy R. said...

I'm interested in this popular notion that Sarah Palin is some sort of hyper-religious social conservative

Are you talking about her personal beliefs or the policies that she supports/advocates for?

AprilApple said...

Everyone in the GOP wants Akin out. All while the left lie and claim Akin represents the GOp.
Whatever.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

If you want to know what's going on the gay world, Jay is your go to guy! Must have done a lot of, um, er, hands on research.


When are you going to demand that the party you vote for purge these gay extremists?

*GIGGLE*

Jay said...

Lindsey Meadows said...

Well established by whom? Can Jay give us a source or is it first hand experience....


Hey bimbo.

I gave you references.

Go do the research yourself.

Or wallow in ignorance.

I don't really care.

Jay said...

shiloh said...

Let's recap, shall we:

Jay has a NAMBLA fixation!


Notice the reaction of the "reality based community" to facts.

Why do you think that is, dum-dum?

Andy R. said...

All while the left lie and claim Akin represents the GOp.

In what way does the GOP disagree with Akin?

Lindsey Meadows said...

Pardon me but Aken is where he is not because of some leftwing witch-hunt but rather because he is an ignorant and misinformed slug who, incidentally chairs the science committee in the house.

He said what he said and there isn't a coat of paint between him and Ryan.

You wingnuts need to stop blaming your crazies on the left wing..they are your doing. deal with it.

Andy R. said...

Jay, I asked for a citation regarding your claim that Harvey Milk supported NAMBLA.

Do you have one?

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

In what way does the GOP disagree with Akin?


Why don't you go read the statements released by all the Republicans who have asked him to step down.

That should help and then you can stop asking pretend serious questions on the Internet.

Lindsey Meadows said...

Jay said...
"Hey bimbo. I gave you references.
Go do the research yourself."

honeybunch, if you gave "references" then I wouldn't have to ask what bucket of shit you got your information from.

Homosexual men generally don't prey on young boys - unless of course they are priests .... and a case in point is this Jerry Sandusky character who was married with kids.

Lindsey Meadows said...

Jay said "Hey Bimbo"...

I rather like that. thanks.

Jay said...

Blogger Andy R. said...

Jay, I asked for a citation regarding your claim that Harvey Milk supported NAMBLA.


Yeah, Google.

Andy R. said...

Why don't you go read the statements released by all the Republicans who have asked him to step down.


Just because they asked him to step down, doesn't mean they disagree with him on policy.

Are the Republicans who are asking him to step down upset with him because of his policy views? Or just because he think women have some bodily defense against rapist sperm?

Andy R. said...

Yeah, Google.

I looked on google and didn't see any evidence that Harvey Milk supported NAMBLA.

Can you provide us with a link or retract your claim?

Jay said...

Lindsey Meadows said...

honeybunch, if you gave "references" then I wouldn't have to ask what bucket of shit you got your information from.


References:

Harvey Milk
Harry Hay (once wore a sign to the Los Angeles Pride Parade that read “NAMBLA walks with me.”)

See:
CHILD MOLESTATION AND THE HOMOSEXUAL
MOVEMENT

For example

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

Can you provide us with a link or retract your claim?


HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA

With no self-awareness no less!!!

Oh My God is that classic.

Harvey Milk marched with NAMBLA

Jay said...

Lindsey Meadows said...

Homosexual men generally don't prey on young boys


Actually, you should ask Gerry Studds about that.

chickelit said...

Andy R. said...
Jay, I asked for a citation regarding your claim that Harvey Milk supported NAMBLA.

Jay's right, you can GIY.

I don't exactly know or care about that point but while we're on the subject of Harvey Milk I'd just like to say that the movie MILK sucked. I watched it on Althouse's recommendation--she lauded it as one of the best movie of 2008--link This when I stopped taking Althouse seriously as a film critic. Odd how she has never really lauded it since or included it in any of her "best of" film lists. "MILK" was a total pander to the gay rights crowd in Hollywood and I still can't believe that it beat out "Gran Torino."


Andy R. said...

When and where did Harvey Milk march with NAMBLA?

I don't see anything about Harvey Milk in the Baldwin article you posted.

Colonel Angus said...

Just because they asked him to step down, doesn't mean they disagree with him on policy.

We, well yes, yes it does. The GOP has pretty much roundly condemned his comments yet you seem to be bitterly clinging to the fairy tale that Akin is somehow the Dark Lord of the GOP.

I can appreciate that living in the Matrix of partisan hackery is preferable to the cold facts of reality but don't be surprised when no one takes you seriously.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

Can you provide us with a link or retract your claim?


THIS coming from someone who brazenly asserted yesterday that Paul Ryan "wanted to change the definition of rape"

Let me be clear:

Go fuck yourself, you propagandist.

Andy R. said...

Just because they asked him to step down, doesn't mean they disagree with him on policy.

We, well yes, yes it does.


What is the policy that the GOP disagrees with Akin on?

EMD said...

Just because they asked him to step down, doesn't mean they disagree with him on policy.

This is certainly true. I suppose had nothing come of it, Akin would be in the clear to continue his run.

Andy R. said...

I've looked on google and can find no evidence that Harvey Milk supported NAMBLA.

Were you just making that up?

Are you a hateful bigot that has to lie because you know how badly your side is losing?

Saint Croix said...

He had two ideas in his head - one that there are false claims of rape

Jane Roe made a false claim of rape.

Why did she lie? She lied in order to get people to feel sorry for her. And it works. Nobody likes rapists. This is true even in the middle ages. It’s true no matter how “patriarchal” a society might be. (After all, fathers don’t like people who rape their daughters). Human society has been punishing and killing rapists for a lot longer than women have been voting.

Indeed, feminists count on our hostility to rape when they use rape to advocate for abortion rights.

For instance, it is often said that if you outlaw abortion, you are forcing women to be pregnant. The argument is that she doesn’t want to be pregnant, and you are keeping her pregnant against her will. Thus a law banning abortion is akin to a rape, or a “war on women”. You are forcing a woman, against her will, to be pregnant.

But is rape a fair comparison?

Consider the ultrasound. Some states are now requiring abortion doctors to also provide an ultrasound to their patients. This should not be a big deal. 99% of Planned Parenthood clinics routinely perform an ultrasound before or after the doctor aborts the pregnancy.

Yet people went kind of crazy over this. Rape! Rape! Rape!

Even the Supreme Court has gotten into the act. In Casey, the Court writes, “The underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can resolve these philosophic questions in such a definitive way that a woman lacks all choice in the matter.” See how the Court is assuming a woman has no choice in regard to sex and reproduction?

"I am pregnant against my will!"

In A Defense of Abortion, Judith Jarvis Thomson recounts her famous hypothetical. In it she compares pregnancy to a kidnapping.

An ultrasound is not rape. Pregnancy is not a kidnapping. It’s not even sort of analogous to a kidnapping. Unless you were actually kidnapped and raped, how is pregnancy anything like a kidnapping?

True, you might not consent to pregnancy. And yet when you consent to reproductive sex, you are consenting to reproductive sex. Reproductive sex means there is a possibility that you will be reproducing. Thus consent to sex is consent to the possibility that you might make a baby.

Even if you specifically do not consent to having a baby (“I don’t want a baby!”), and you use birth control when you have sex, you are still consenting to the possibility that you might make a baby.

We hold men responsible for paternity all the time. It doesn’t matter under the law if you use a condom, or some other form of birth control. You nonetheless consent to the possibility that you might make a baby. Even if you have a vasectomy, and there’s no way you can make a baby, you might still make a baby. And you will still be responsible for that baby.

In other words, under our law there is a direct connection between reproductive sex and pregnancy. We sometimes seek to sever that connection via the use of birth control. But morally, ethically, and legally, men are responsible for our sex lives. And we are responsible for any babies we create.

Women, too, are responsible for their sex lives. If you have sex with a man, you can get pregnant, and you are responsible for that.

Obviously, women are not responsible for sex when they are raped. This is why feminists love to use rape analogies and kidnapping hypotheticals when they talk about pregnancy and abortion. It’s why Jane Roe pretended to be a rape victim. It absolves you of any responsibility for your pregnancy. You have no moral obligations to the baby you created, because you are defining yourself as a victim.

We should be really careful about rape hypotheticals. There are, after all, actual rape victims in the world.

Dante said...

Andy:

In what way does the GOP disagree with Akin?

Do you think the GOP has as its platform that women will not become pregnant when raped? I'm mean, really raped?

Colonel Angus said...

Why should someone have to quit politics for having consensual sex with a person of legal age? Is that the kind of game we're now playing?

It's the game that's always been played. Seventeen may be legal but when paired up with a 56 year old, well that's a bit weird. I'm confident if he'd been caught banging a 17 year old female the reaction would have been similar.

garage mahal said...

Were you just making that up?

Nah, Jay probably heard it in the comments section at Breitbart.com

Lindsey Meadows said...

Colonel Angus said...
"We, well yes, yes it does. The GOP has pretty much roundly condemned his comments yet you seem to be bitterly clinging to the fairy tale that Akin is somehow the Dark Lord of the GOP."

They have condemned him but NOT disagreed with him nor can Akin run apart with Ryan who has co-sponsored so many abortion bills with him.

I'm sure you can see the illogic of your argument so I'll let you off the hook this time. However, next time come back with something a bit better than Sean Hannity afterglow.

Howard said...

Leave it to the GOP to try and rape what they have sown.

Methadras said...

Andy R. said...

Palin is an expert on quitting.


Is resigning a governorship only once make one an expert on quitting? A resignation that basically saved her and the state of Alaska millions of dollars from lawsuits brought on by your fellow leftards for the most inane things that after even the release of her entire email collective, where nothing was found? That kind of expert perhaps, poofta?

Methadras said...

Right is right! said...

This is the Femization of the Republican Party. Todd Akin should stick to his guns and stay in the race. He won the primary and East Coast Republicans like Romney should not get to over rule the conservative voters in Kansas. I am now seriously thinking about voting third party for president.


Really? You are going to hang your hat on this guy and go 3rd party? If you are that fickle, you probably should just stay the fuck home. Which is the equivalent of a 3rd party vote.

master cylinder said...

Why does Aikin need to get out?

this from NYT:
Republicans approved platform language on Tuesday calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion with no explicit exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

The anti-abortion plank, approved by the Republican platform committee Tuesday morning in Tampa, Fla., was similar to the planks Republicans have included in their recent party platforms, which also called for a constitutional ban on abortions. The full convention is set to vote on the party’s platform on Monday.

So what did he do so wrong? He downplayed the need for abortions for women who have been raped, but Republicans want to make it specifically illegal. Which, I believe, would be the only correct position if you think abortion is wrong.

Why is everyone running away from him? They are about to sing it to the world as one big choir next week in Tampa.

Ladies of America-you should be scared shitless.

Howard said...

Methadras is so good at twisting up simple linear facts into a pretzel, he can now teabag himself. Perhaps he has been coached by the misogynistic dog blogger.

Methadras said...

Andy R. said...

When and where did Harvey Milk march with NAMBLA?

I don't see anything about Harvey Milk in the Baldwin article you posted.


Who the fuck cares about Milk, when you have human shit balls like Barney Kameny that advocates bestiality and is a NAMBLAite that supports that group of sub-human deviants.

Saint Croix said...

the female body somehow diminishes the likelihood of pregnancy in a rape

Jews and Christians--anybody who believes in God--struggle with the existence of evil. So it's understandable that Akin would engage in some wishful thinking, and believe that rape never leads to pregnancy. Thus he never has to think about the paradox between his pro-life view, and the possibility that a woman is pregnant because she is raped.

What's offensive about what he said is the implication that he would not believe any pregnant woman who said she was raped. Because he thinks it's "biologically impossible." And he doesn't want it to be true.

So he seems simultaneously ignorant and mean-spirited.

I think he's guilty on the charge of ignorance. And he admitted that. And I don't think he's mean-spirited. Lots of people (including Paul Ryan) think abortion is bad, even when a woman is raped.

I think this is an appalling argument, actually. You should at least recognize there is emergency contraception. And even a Catholic should not object to a rape victim using emergency contraception. Certainly not as a legal matter.

It's a birth control pill!

And you can take a pill after sex.

Conception can happen 30 minutes after ejaculation, all the way up to 5 days after ejaculation.

And implantation happens 7-9 days after conception.

If you take a mini pill in the 24 hours after a rape, it's 95% effective contraception.

There's a small possibility that this pill might actually abort a zygote (since birth control pills can weaken the walls of a uterus). But this is true (I think) of any birth control pill. And of course it's true of the IUD. These are all considered forms of birth control by most of us.

In Roe v. Wade, Texas argued that pregnancy began at implantation. That's so their criminal abortion statute would not run afoul of Griswold v. Connecticut. If you define a pregnancy as beginning at conception, the birth control pill might be an abortion, in a few cases. The IUD would be an abortion. A lot of what we consider birth control might possibly work as an abortion.

Better to define pregnancy as beginning at implantation. (And in the case of the in vitro fertilization, that's when pregnancy clearly begins. Conception happens in the test tube).

Pro-lifers and Republicans need to seriously protect birth control. Which means you give up on the zygotes. And you focus on babies and how liberals want to define them as property. Focus on the actual homicides, under state death statutes.

And ignoring the issue is never a good idea. Ignorning issues leads to ignorance, and you say stupid things like Akin said the other day.

Joe said...

Why does Aikin need to get out?

Akin is an idiot, but from a purely objective basis, I'm not sure he does. He's still polling ahead of McCaskill. I believe that the Democrat National Convention is going to polarize likely voters while the Republican Convention will energize the base in an anything-but-democrat sort of way.

I can all but guarantee if that Palin gets her way with a third party, McCaskill will win.

B said...

Andy R. said...What is the policy that the GOP disagrees with Akin on?

Why don't you tell us why you think the GOP agrees with what Akin said about rape? Because that is the issue.

Just once, why don't YOU explain one of your sweeping and inane generalizations.

Just fucking once, try to make a case for something instead of showcasing your sophomoric pedantry.

Dante said...

Akin is an idiot, but from a purely objective basis, I'm not sure he does. He's still polling ahead of McCaskill.

He's polling ahead of McCaskill apparently in a poll that oversampled republicans.

He needs to get out because he is an idiot, and gives people like hatboy endless reams with their screwed up logic. You have to accept that the press is biased, and that the whole country will have to pay because he is an idiot. Or, who knows, maybe not. Maybe hatboy and others will realize how divisive they really are, and if they want to make it seem as if Akin represents the views of conservatives, then by stronger logic, people can say Hatboy supports pedophiles.

Paco Wové said...

"...nor can Akin run apart with Ryan who has co-sponsored so many abortion bills with him."

How many? (I'm not even going to attempt to figure out what the first part of the excerpt is supposed to mean.)

Hagar said...

What Akin actually said was very weak beer compared to what the left claims he said, and does not present any danger to the country, since he would never get anywhere with it.

The Republican "establishment" have caused great damage to themselves by piling on to this and giving the Democrats opportunity to keep demagoguing it.

They should have kept their traps shut and it would have blown over in a day or two, buried in all the other "misstatements" that are pouring forth in this election season.

Now they have a problem, but they made it themselves, not Akin so much.

Cedarford said...

chickelit said...
It would actually be great if Palin convinces him to quit. This would increase the butthurt inflammation Andy is feeling from all those flames.

==============
No, he is like the other maladjusted gay that posted here and also managed to bait other commentors into making each thread he went into All About Downtown Lad.

They thrive on attention and butthurt.

AllieOop said...

St.Croix,
Thanks for being so forthright about the use of the Emergency contraceptive pill and the BC pill, the IUD and implantation. It's refreshing to hear a pro life person being so reasonable.

If there were more rational pro lifers such as yourself, perhaps the pro life message would resonate with far more women on the left.

Shanna said...

Allie, most pro life people I know have no problem with Birth Control (hell, most catholics I know have no problem with birth control!)

Colonel Angus said...

Pro-lifers and Republicans need to seriously protect birth control.

I was unaware that there was a major GOP effort to ban birth control.

As a matter of fact, I would suggest that if more couples would practice the common sense application of birth control when having sex the country would be better off and not just by reducing abortions.

AllieOop said...

Shanna, don't let Father Martin Fox hear you say that ;).

Synova said...

"The Republican "establishment" have caused great damage to themselves by piling on to this and giving the Democrats opportunity to keep demagoguing it."

My foo is stronger than your foo... or something like that. ;)

I was clicking around and someplace or other was the claim that the Democrats were going to make their convention all about women's health.

I suppose this makes sense to them since the War on Women thing has been working so well for months. It could practically gestate a baby by now.

But is it really a good thing? I think that there is a potential for the Republicans coming off looking like they're serious and the Democrats looking unserious. Ryan is going to give a speech about the economy. Romney will give a speech about the economy. The female governors will give speeches about the economy.

And the Democrats will talk about sex, birth control, and killing babies and how the government has to pay for it all.

As *bad* as it would be for the Republicans to run on abortion, it's got to be just as bad for Democrats to run on abortion. Doesn't it?

Kansas City said...

Hagar makes an interesting point, valid intellectually, but probably no consistent with the realistic political situation.

The Republican "establishment" had to make a quick assessment and decision regarding the extent of damage that democrats inflict based on the statement and concluded it was significant. Hagar believes it would have blown over in a day or two. Most snafus do, exepct for ones that help democrats and touch a sensitive issue that the dems and liberalscan exploit. This falls in that category. So the repubs decided to try to preempt the damage and sacrifice Akin. Thus far, Akin has failed to agree, which keeps the story alive but does not damage anyone other than Akin.

It is possible the republicans could have ridden out the story, but it also is reasonable that they decided not to try it. In fact, if Aken goes along, it is a very smart political move. There is no justice for Akin, but this is politics and he did a dumb thing, it is not a courtroom where justice might be expected.

Akin without money will probably wind up capitulating and, at that points, the republican establishment might look pretty good and, at least, not subject to further effective criticism on the Akin issue.

Cedarford said...

Hagar - "The Republican "establishment" have caused great damage to themselves by piling on to this and giving the Democrats opportunity to keep demagoguing it.

They should have kept their traps shut and it would have blown over in a day or two, buried in all the other "misstatements" that are pouring forth in this election season.

Now they have a problem, but they made it themselves, not Akin so much.'


====================
No, because the election is now about convincing moderates, idependents, and younger women to vote for Romney. Not pleasing some Sweet Baby Jeebus loving Right to Lifer extremists wanting to get rid of exceptions like rape, incest, severe genetic abnormality as grounds for abortion.

This "wouldn't just go away", as the Asshole Akin was going to be in the news everyday as THE FACE of religious extremist Republicans, running for a Senate spot.

Worse, the old fool alluded to some RTL quack doctor saying that women rarely get pregnant from rape unless it is not a real rape that happened.

He was denounced all over by the Palins, Huckabees as wel as "the establishment" because all recoggnized just how toxic his rape implication was and how out of the mainstream it was to seek to bar any raped woman from having an abortion if they decided it made the best sense to move on with their lives.

Even the most rabid of Fundies, to say nothing about moderates, independents, hispanics, and younger women....would think long and hard about trying to bar someone they knew, themselves, or some other woman from having recourse to abortion if they - say - were jumped by a black thug and raped.

Its like the conservative response to severe abnormalities like Downs..they can blather on about how much rights the Down's Baby has to be alive...but when it comes down to a decision, most conservatives recognizing how crippling to the family a Downs baby is vs. aborting and trying for a healthy normal child - opt for abortion.

It would take a special sort of religious fanatic to try and tell their raped 17 year old that her rights were less important than the fetus planted in her by the thug or 28-year old guy hookup she had while drunk.

Saint Croix said...

I was unaware that there was a major GOP effort to ban birth control.


Of course there's not. My complaint is that pro-lifers have been sloppy, for instance in not forcibly arguing that you can take birth control after a rape.

I feel that the Republican plank is quite good, by the way. You don't actually need a "rape exception" to an abortion statute, properly defined. Republicans can and should explain why that is.

Cedarford said...

And Hagar - may I suggest a simple rule.
Things may blow over if you are of no consequence...a congress critter in an off election year, even.
But the rules are pretty simple if you are Anthony Weiner and the official Democrat talking head...or a pol right in the middle of an election contest. You are toast. And if you try sticking around because it is all about saving your precious ass and ambitions, the collateral damage spreads to others of your party as guilty by implication of accepting you sticking around.

Colonel Angus said...

Of course there's not. My complaint is that pro-lifers have been sloppy, for instance in not forcibly arguing that you can take birth control after a rape.

I think that argument has been made before and the counter is that after rape, the victim is far too traumatized to think about preventing pregnancy, which is understandable.

Synova said...

"What's offensive about what he said is the implication that he would not believe any pregnant woman who said she was raped. Because he thinks it's "biologically impossible." And he doesn't want it to be true."

I agree that he *wants* to believe it's not a problem so that he doesn't have to deal with it, but I think that the "implication" that he wouldn't believe it was "legitimate rape" if a woman was pregnant is counter-indicated by the fact that he immediately made accommodation for that... saying if a woman got pregnant that way, we ought to punish the rapist, not the baby.

This "never" or "can't" thing in there... I see an "it's unlikely" thing in there. And sure, wishful thinking, or maybe just hanging on to "common wisdom" acquired when he was younger, or maybe a misunderstanding of some of the "rhythm method" information. Not too long ago I was hearing "rapes don't often end in pregnancy" explanations of "because they're often anal." Bad information abounds. There's no reason to make up stuff like "never" or that he'd refuse to believe that any violent rape resulted in pregnancy. Making stuff up is sort of like... lying.

And do we really NOT all agree that whatever the case, it wasn't the fault of the fetus/baby? That's hardly a horrible thing to say, is it? It's not even a controversial thing to say, is it?

Where is the point of controversy?

Lem said...

Dog whistles are not working on Akin..

Republicans need an akin to a dog whisperer.

Synova said...

"It would take a special sort of religious fanatic to try and tell their raped 17 year old that her rights were less important than the fetus planted in her by the thug or 28-year old guy hookup she had while drunk."

I was going to say something and then I noticed that you said "raped 17 year old" and "hookup while drunk".

I was going to point out that her rape was not committed by the fetus, but it might not have been committed by her "hook up" either.

I mean, honestly. If he was drunk *too*, maybe she raped *him*.

So, Cedarford, are you actually arguing that her 17 year old right to get drunk and hook up consequence and responsibility-free is greater than the right of the fetus who didn't do a single thing to her and that only a particularly *fanatic* religious sort would say so?

Yes, she has a right to chose. And she has the right to self-defense. Someone who is raped did not *chose*, and one may use lethal force to defend against rape, and aborting a rapists baby probably counts as self-defense, psychologically. "Life of the mother" is also self-defense. You *get* to defend yourself.

But that doesn't change the fact that the baby is innocent and one may *hope* that the woman can chose to let it live and receive support in her decision, without being a religious fanatic and without wanting the law to prohibit abortions in cases of rape or threat of death or serious injury to the mother.

master cylinder said...

Synova, if a fetus a has the same rights as the mother, which is what "personhood" bills assert, than the mother must surrender her rights in order for the fetus to live. I disagree with that.

master cylinder said...

Sounds to me as if people know this....[that a female who is pregnant surrenders her rights to her child] and will bend their ideals to suit and then you get:
exemptions.

Saint Croix said...

Allie, thanks for the nice words.

When I was younger I thought the Catholic opposition to birth control was really weird. As I've gotten older I appreciate it more. They just don't want sex to be sport and they want people to appreciate the importance of love-making, and how sex leads to babies, often. So I think that's a vital moral lesson.

Almost all my pro-life arguments I've gotten from other pro-lifers. Michael McConnell, David Smolin, Baruch Brody, John Goldenring. People on this blog. Studying the law and the cases and the issues made me way more pro-life than I was before. In fact I would say that the pro-life position is more rationally based than the pro-choice one. For instance the line from Casey that Althouse loves to cite is poetry. It's not logic!

Anyway, thanks for the kind words. You and I both know I can be really emotional on this subject. I do my best, but sometimes I really lose my temper.

Colonel Angus said...

Synova, if a fetus a has the same rights as the mother, which is what "personhood" bills assert, than the mother must surrender her rights in order for the fetus to live.

Interestingly, if you are unfortunate enough to have a member on the endangered species list inhabiting your property, the Federal government will force you to surrender your property rights.

jeff said...

"He won the primary and East Coast Republicans like Romney should not get to over rule the conservative voters in Kansas. I am now seriously thinking about voting third party for president." Yeah, sure you are. But first how about explaining the law that allows those conservative voters in Kansas vote in a senate race in Missouri. As far as the exclusions for abortion go, i'm guessing that if you believe abortion is the killing of a baby, then killing a baby is bad no matter the circumstances of that babies creation. Which is a logically defensible position. However, since that is a minority position, even in the Republican party, the idea that somehow abortion will be illegal under any circumstances remains nothing more than a way to scare people out of their money and to keep their support. Much like telling seniors that SS and medicare is going away tomorrow if Republicans win political office. It will go away, of course. Eventually, if everyone keeps kicking it down the street, but we dont want to talk about that.

Lindsey Meadows said...

Synova said...
"And the Democrats will talk about sex, birth control, and killing babies and how the government has to pay for it all."

Well now, let's all rush out and jump on the stupid comment pile.

This business is the GOPs doing. No one else's and watching them set fire to themselves is just about the best show in town.

If the democrats thought about it the best thing they could do is give all their TV time over to these GOP fools and encourage the public to watch.


bbkingfish said...

I agree with Kristol that Akin will be gone by Labor Day.

His evangelical base wanted him to drag his feet, so he did. Groups like the Family Research Council have had to swallow a lot this year, smiling for the cameras while having Rove et al shove a ticket down their throats that, from their perspective. might as well be a Scientologist and a Hare Krishna.

Akin will act defiant for a week or so to save some face for the fundamentalists. Then he will leave quietly for a well-paid job in the religious industry.

Lindsey Meadows said...

Colonel Angus said...
"Interestingly, if you are unfortunate enough to have a member on the endangered species list inhabiting your property, the Federal government will force you to surrender your property rights".

Oh you old snail darter you...you just pulled that out of your ass didn't ya'?

One reason for the dislike of all things GOP is just that kind of rhetoric, that God awful overreach..just clever enough to get attention but absolutely void of fact or reality.

Synova said...

"Synova, if a fetus a has the same rights as the mother, which is what "personhood" bills assert, than the mother must surrender her rights in order for the fetus to live. I disagree with that."

Not at all true. The mother is a person. That the fetus is a person does not make the mother not-a-person.

Unless it *says* that a mother has to surrender her rights in favor of the rights of the fetus to live, then it's not true and you're making stuff up.

Of course the *equivalent* right of the fetus to live, is the right of the mother to live. The mother's right to not get stretch marks doesn't quite measure up.

And what you're left with is... yes... exceptions in the case of rape and life or serious injury of the mother. Just like pro-life people have been saying *forever*.

More likely than any change at all in abortion policies if a resolution passed into law (and how likely is that?) is a new legal impediment to using viable human "persons" as laboratory material. Which I think is a good thing in the long run. A lot of what we *refuse* to do (such as cloning humans) would benefit from ethical clarity in favor of personhood, as counter-intuitive as that may seem.

bgates said...

What's offensive about what he said is the implication that he would not believe any pregnant woman who said she was raped. Because he thinks it's "biologically impossible."

What's contemptible about what you wrote is that you're unequal to the task of criticizing one of the biggest laughingstocks in the country without completely misstating his position.

The first sentence of Akin's response to the question about abortion in the case of pregnancy due to rape was, "It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare." "Really rare" and "impossible" are not synonyms.

He concludes by saying, "You know, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist". Why do you suppose he would be in favor of punishing a rapist in a situation where you say he wouldn't believe a rape had occurred?

Saint Croix said...

if a fetus a has the same rights as the mother, which is what "personhood" bills assert

Don't be silly. Nobody's saying a baby in the womb has a right to vote, or drive a car. Children have less rights than adults.

We're not saying a baby has the same rights as mom. We're saying she's a human being, and you can't slaughter her like she's a pig.

Our Constitution was not written with babies specifically in mind. But they're still human beings! You can't sell a baby on eBay.

Justice Scalia argued in his Casey dissent that maybe newborns and the incompetent elderly are non-persons, too.

I think that's an appalling argument.

We can recognize that babies have less rights than women, without defining them as property and killing them.

the mother must surrender her rights in order for the fetus to live. I disagree with that.

You're playing rhetorical games. Nobody has a right to kill a baby. So there's no "surrender" of a right to kill a baby. That's a right nobody ever had, prior to Roe v. Wade.

Of course people have a right to "autonomy," as abortion fans like to say. But if you fail to use birth control, then you can't blame society, or the government, for holding you responsible for the pregnancy you caused.

This why we hold men responsible for the babies we create. Even if I use birth control, and it fails, I am responsible for the babies I create.

Holding women to the same level of responsibility is equality, is it not? Men do not have a kill-right, or even a walk away right.

And liberals are particularly vicious when they dehumanize the babies of happy pregnant moms. For instance, Justice Blackmun cites this case for his argument that a baby in the womb is not a person, and she has no right to live.

Colonel Angus said...

One reason for the dislike of all things GOP is just that kind of rhetoric, that God awful overreach..just clever enough to get attention but absolutely void of fact or reality.

If by overreach you mean the Endangered Species Act then I whole heartedly agree. It's God awful.

Now if you have something of substance to contribute, I will be glad to entertain a sensible dialouge but I have a hunch you're not up to the task.

Synova said...

"Well now, let's all rush out and jump on the stupid comment pile."

I always respect someone willing to lead by example.

"This business is the GOPs doing. No one else's and watching them set fire to themselves is just about the best show in town."

I related a very specific rumor, as a rumor, and suggested why it might not be a good plan for the Democrats to set up a marshmallow roast, no matter how entertaining.

Because you have to get votes, just like the Republicans do, from people who aren't already true believers.

I almost wondered if I should point out the folly, or potential folly, just in case someone got a clue. It was foolish of me to think it might happen. Obviously a marshmallow roast is too much fun to bother to think about optics.

Meanwhile the most scary Republican breeder fanatic of them all, Sarah Palin, is endorsing Akin's Republican opponent and promising a third party race if he doesn't bow out. Somehow that just doesn't seem like "lighting themselves on fire" very much. And trying *somehow*, trying to make all the pro-lifer's burn, and believing that they are burning, ignores the fact that many many many people seem to be increasingly disgusted with the hardliner pro-choice position, a majority favoring *some* limits, and ignoring the fact that nearly all "choice" arguments depend on women being inept children who couldn't be responsible for their reproductive organs if you led them by the hand *and* paid for it. "Rights" having everything to do with having someone else take care of you, 100%. Like a MAN.

master cylinder said...

But Synova, a baby's life depends on the mother. The baby can not BE without a mother.
"Stretch marks"?
Lost me there.

master cylinder said...

St Croix...less rights? Are they people or not?

Lindsey Meadows said...

Synova..

"hard-liner pro choice position"?

get real. you can choose from the gamut of options - from absolute pro-life to absolute pro-choice. That is what it means. That is YOUR choice.

Do not make it for me. Or are you saying that you want someone else making your decisions for you? You are ok with that?

Lindsey Meadows said...

Synova said...
"Well now, let's all rush out and jump on the stupid comment pile.I always respect someone willing to lead by example."

Your bread crumbs were easy to follow...I just decided not to follow you off the cliff.

Synova said...

MC, logically if there are two "people" involved in a transaction, then two people are involved in the transaction.

The question of which person gets precedence in a particular situation is not determined by the fact that both are legally persons.

Saying that the mere definition always puts the baby ahead of the woman is illogical.

We're not, any of us, required by law, morals, or common sense, to sacrifice our life for someone else. We're not, any of us, required to give up the right to self-defense, even if it means the death of another person.

Yes, a fetus can't live outside a human womb (at least not yet). So sure, a woman loses the "right" to do away with it if she's only threatened by stretch marks. But she doesn't lose any sort of right to either autonomy or choice or the right to control her own reproduction. So what right does she lose?

Rape takes away her rights to those things, absolutely it does. But *failing* to be autonomous, or make choices, or control her own reproduction isn't rape, it's *choice*.

We aren't children.

EMD said...

"Do not make it for me. Or are you saying that you want someone else making your decisions for you? You are ok with that?"

Let me check with Michael Bloomberg first.

Synova said...

"...get real. you can choose from the gamut of options - from absolute pro-life to absolute pro-choice. That is what it means. That is YOUR choice.

Do not make it for me. Or are you saying that you want someone else making your decisions for you? You are ok with that?
"

The wondrous thing about paradox is... if I demand I have an unlimited right to make my own decisions, how to I justify making decisions for the human in my womb?

It's a paradox of principle. If I hold it absolute then... what?

If I chose an abortion, I've made someone else's decision for them. A very permanent decision for them.

Moreover, with a couple of exceptions, if I find myself with a human in my womb, I freely chose the circumstances that brought that about.

So no. I don't want my decisions made for me by someone else.

But neither do I demand that there is some cosmic reason that I'm entitled to unlimited do-overs instead of being responsible for the consequences of my free, made by me and not anyone else, choices.

Lindsey Meadows said...

EMD said...
"Do not make it for me. Or are you saying that you want someone else making your decisions for you? You are ok with that?"

"Let me check with Michael Bloomberg first."

Can you possibly be serious? I know that was just a silly toss-away line but I would imagine that some would take offense that you would somehow lump jumbo sized sugary drinks in a discussion about abortion, pro-choice and some idiot from Missouri.

Lindsey Meadows said...

Synova said...
"But neither do I demand that there is some cosmic reason that I'm entitled to unlimited do-overs instead of being responsible for the consequences of my free, made by me and not anyone else, choices".

I believe that the issue is rape and its aftermath potential pregnancy. I'm fairly certain you know that rape isn't a choice most women make.

Please try and focus.

master cylinder said...

So if a man dictates that choice [pregnant by rape] the woman can choose. But if there is no other person dictating ... the woman can not choose? And again, you refer to stretchmarks as if pregnancy requires no real buy-in except for that pesky superficial cosmetic stuff? Having children involves much more in my case.

Saint Croix said...

St Croix...less rights? Are they people or not?

Of course babies are people. You understand that no children can vote, drive a car, enter contracts or have sex, right? They have less rights than we do.

Babies are weak and vulnerable. All babies need affirmative action. You have to feed a baby, give her shelter. If you don't, she will die.

Babies are weak and helpless. Utterly dependent on adults.

But this weakness does not mean they are not human! This is why the viability argument is so disgusting. It was how Plato and Aristotle justified infanticide.

Synova said...

"I believe that the issue is rape and its aftermath potential pregnancy. I'm fairly certain you know that rape isn't a choice most women make.

Please try and focus.
"

If the issue really is rape, how about we outlaw abortion but make an exception for rape? Simple, right?

If that were an uncontroversial statement and the issue really is rape and people were *really* only upset that Akin has pudding for brains we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Synova said...

"So if a man dictates that choice [pregnant by rape] the woman can choose. But if there is no other person dictating ... the woman can not choose?"

If no one is *dictating* then the woman *did* choose.

Perhaps she chose poorly. But she chose.

"And again, you refer to stretchmarks as if pregnancy requires no real buy-in except for that pesky superficial cosmetic stuff? Having children involves much more in my case."

I don't know how many times I have to say that No One is required to sacrifice herself (or himself) for another person. Do women have a heavy physical "buy in" with pregnancy? Yes, they do. But they've also got, in our society, both the right and the *means* to decide when or if they ever reproduce. They also have the same buy-in that men have when they reproduce, in that they, like men, are responsible for the babies they have. Men have that responsibility even when a woman gets pregnant on purpose or lies about contraception. They have that responsibility if contraception fails and they have that responsibility if the baby belongs to some other man entirely, if they are married to the mother and sterile as the surface of Mercury.

Yes, there is a *buy-in*. This is called normal adult responsibility.

And if bearing children is dangerous for you, for goodness sake go get a tubal.

Kansas City said...

Dick Morris, smart former politcal operative, had a very interesting take on the O'Reiley show tonight. He thinks it is a great positive for Romney, because it prominently identifies him to independent/swing votes as reasonable on the issue of abortion in the case of rape. He is very positive about the entire episode in terms of how it will help Romney. I had not thought of it, but he was pretty persuasive.

chickelit said...

Synova, I like your arguments compared to Lindsey's. I guess you're also not buying her earlier attempts to tie Ryan to Akin's remarks.

I had to laugh when I read your stretch marks comment. I work with a young woman who once said "I am so outsourcing my pregnancy" for similar reasons.

master cylinder said...

Oh and they are owning it too:

Republicans approved platform language on Tuesday calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion with no explicit exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

The anti-abortion plank, approved by the Republican platform committee Tuesday morning in Tampa, Fla., was similar to the planks Republicans have included in their recent party platforms, which also called for a constitutional ban on abortions. The full convention is set to vote on the party’s platform on Monday.

Lindsey Meadows said...

Kansas City said...
Dick Morris, smart former politcal operative..."

Dick Morris? The guy who used to ride prostitutes around in hotel rooms? Yeehaw Dick? That Dick Morris?

Yes. By all means. Listen to him.

Synova said...

"Can you possibly be serious? I know that was just a silly toss-away line but I would imagine that some would take offense that you would somehow lump jumbo sized sugary drinks in a discussion about abortion, pro-choice and some idiot from Missouri."

Some people take offence at everything. Fact of life.

Sure, it's a dumb throw away line but it's still applicable.

If we're going to make choices *for* other people, what makes more sense, what situation actually might justify interfering with individual sovereignty? Making frivolous choices about sugary drinks we put into our own bodies, or making choices that end another human life?

The frivolity of the interference is actually sort of offensive just because it's so uselessly trivial but somehow someone still thinks they have the right.

We make laws against serious things like theft or assault, because those things are important, not because they're *not*.

Lindsey Meadows said...

Synova...how does that work? One tells the rapist "hey wait a minute until i get a tubal"?

Let's just let it go at you would carry a baby to term regardless if you were impregnated by a gopher and I chose to keep my options open depending on hundreds of variables until the legally prescribed viability issue kicks in and that ends my choice.


No choice. Pro-choice. It is very simple really. But I can't have my pro-choice if you prevail and you can have your no choice if I prevail. What seems fairer to you?

If you subscribe to the fertilized egg is a human theory like our buddies Mr. Akin and Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney and the GOP platform, you just hand government your ability to make a choice..you just give it up.

That is your choice. Don't make it for me.

Lindsey Meadows said...

hmmm abortion/rape/pro-choice = sugary drinks....hmmmm

not so much.

Alex said...

Republicans approved platform language on Tuesday calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion with no explicit exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

Exactly. Jeebus Freaks will court no compromise on this issue. To them any compromise on abortion is Satan's work.

chickelit said...

Lindsey Meadow: That is your choice. Don't make it for me.

It's a damn shame you insist on playing goddess with the ultimate power to negate life on whim. Otherwise you're quite reasonable.

Alex said...

chickelit - do you really want government telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies? Do you think the government will stop there? You Jeebus freaks are just the other side of the statist coin with the lefties. Same shit.

chickelit said...

Alex, and you don't think the State is already starting to tell us what to do with our bodies? Once healthcare is nationalized it's in everybody's best interest to starting scolding all sorts of behavior.

I think you're being alarmist regarding abortion rights and where things are headed legislatively. Nanny statism is already championed by Obama and his wife.

Kansas City said...

Brilliant Lindsey,

Why don't you tell me your experience on political campaigns so I can compare it to Dick Morris helping Clinton repeatedly getting elected governor and then helping him get re-elected president.

Address the merits of Morris' argument, don't just attack his morals, which have nothing to do with whether his political assessment is correct.

Jason said...

I don't think anyone's yet demonstrated that anything Akin said was wrong.

I mean, there a lots of hysterics from the usual shrieking knuckleheads, and loads of political posturing. But I haven't seen anyone falsify Akin's specific claims - nor even make a game attempt.

What precisely, did he say that is demonstrably false?


Jason said...

By the way, a hearty pre-emptive "fuck you" to anyone claiming that he said it was impossible for a woman to get pregnant via rape. That's not what he said at all.

EMD said...

Can you possibly be serious? I know that was just a silly toss-away line but I would imagine that some would take offense that you would somehow lump jumbo sized sugary drinks in a discussion about abortion, pro-choice and some idiot from Missouri.

Lindsey, I am pro-choice.

I just think your arguments suck.

I think the pro-life movement would be better served by dealing with the circumstances that bring about unwanted pregnancies, and attack those with the zest they reserve for a law that's not going to be overturned in my lifetime.

I think the pro-choice side needs to realize how uncaring and selfish they make women appear to be, and that their rhetoric is often times the epitome of hyperbole. I also think they could spend a bit more time understanding how emotionally devastating having an abortion can be for any woman.

Jason said...

The best thing conservatives can do to prevent unwanted pregnancies is defeat the current wrecking crew that is devastating the long-term prospects of the economy with trillion per year deficits, so that the economy can grow in real terms and we can afford to bring up children.

They're doing that.

The best thing conservatives can do to prevent unwanted pregnancies from rape is to throw sex offenders in prison and keep them there for a long time - and defeat the libtards trying to release them. They must also defeat the libtards who have so devastate the California economy that they are forced to release prisoners in order to fund more state worker salaries.

Conservatives are doing that, too. Libtards are fighting them.

Conservatives opposed the furlough program that let a rapist and murder Willie Horton out to terrorize innocents again. The Democrat nominee, Mike Dukakis, defended the program EVEN AFTER HE LET HORTON OUT.

If you want to maximize the number of pregnancies that are actually wanted, you must vote conservative.