Althouse: "Believe me, I’ll tell you what, I’ve been through a spin dryer here in the last 48 hours, and I wish I hadn’t assisted them so much to that end..."

June 16, 2013

"Believe me, I’ll tell you what, I’ve been through a spin dryer here in the last 48 hours, and I wish I hadn’t assisted them so much to that end..."

"But somehow in the long run, truth and time travel the same road. And we are very blessed that the Lord that we serve will prevail in the final analysis no matter what."

Said Rep. Trent Franks’s (R-Ariz.), whose "bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks nationwide now includes an exception for rape and incest after his remarks about rape and pregnancy created an uproar."

I was going to slam Franks for saying "spin dryer," when the spin cycle is something that happens in the washing machine, not the dryer. Something about Franks never doing laundry, maybe. But it turns out there is something called a "spin dryer." Maybe Franks is this guy.

55 comments:

rhhardin said...: It all could be solved with time travel, except if you time travel to end a pregnancy after 20 weeks maybe it should be banned.

Interstate time travel would be even worse.; 6/16/13, 7:56 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: Aborting the rape baby I understand. Half the genes are evil.

But abortion for incest babies smacks of eugenics.

That's evil.; 6/16/13, 7:59 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: "I've been through a spin dryer . . ."

"Put through the wringer" is what he was going for.

I doubt he did well on standardized tests.; 6/16/13, 8:06 AM
Bob_R said...: "Put through the wringer" is a dead metaphor. I don't think many people have seen a wringer in action.

Spin dryer isn't really a bad metaphor. Sort of a portmanteau of spin cycle and tumble dryer. The spin cycle of a washer dries the clothes in the sense that its purpose is to remove water. And spin dryer get both the feeling of dizziness and extraction that he's trying to describe.; 6/16/13, 8:19 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: "I've been through a spin dryer . . ."

The representative moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.; 6/16/13, 8:23 AM
Renee said...: I'll stick my head out there for the sake of argument.... as someone who is a pro-life.

I can understand the argument for a rape exemption, the women didn't choose to have sex. It wasn't consensual, so how could she consent to a pregnant?

May I remind everyone, that as someone who is pro-life I recognize that the fetus is a human. The unborn, is an innocent victim as well in the act of rape. I would hope that rape victim who hold the same view and continue with the pregnancy, have the legal support they need against the rapist/biological father.

As for incest, assuming it wasn't an act of force. Why is there an exemption for that?

Charles Darwin married his first cousin.; 6/16/13, 8:29 AM
chickelit said...: Althouse wrote: I was going to slam Franks for saying "spin dryer," when the spin cycle is something that happens in the washing machine, not the dryer. Something about Franks never doing laundry, maybe.

She was trying to "slam" the man because perhaps the man had never stooped to do something women traditionally do. She picked the verb "to slam" to "criticize someone or something severely" without realizing that words sometimes have two meanings; in this case "to shut a door or a lid with great force so that it makes a loud noise, often because you are angry" sound petulant and stereotypically female.; 6/16/13, 8:29 AM
rhhardin said...: It's possible that Roe v Wade was actually a Democrat plot to divide the opposition.

Anyway this guy is happy to play.; 6/16/13, 8:46 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Nancy Pelosi thinks Gosnell is sacred.

So this rape loophole-- I suspect rape will rise. Not real rape, not actual rape - just - "Oh yeah - I was raped". *wink*.; 6/16/13, 8:50 AM
bandmeeting said...: I've not seen a laundry dryer that didn't spin. I wouldn't want one that dries the clothes as they sat in a pile.; 6/16/13, 8:52 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Pollo puts Althouse through the ringer.; 6/16/13, 8:53 AM
Bob Ellison said...: On this Father's Day, I'm grateful that I've not had to operate the washer or dryer more than perhaps five times in the last twenty years.; 6/16/13, 8:53 AM
Paco Wové said...: I think you should have slammed him for "in the long run, truth and time travel the same road". WTF?; 6/16/13, 8:54 AM
Gahrie said...: We need someone to fund a "March of Dimes" type organization to raise money to fund research to finally end the scourge of pregnancy once and for all.; 6/16/13, 8:55 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Then again, my clothes are starting to stink.; 6/16/13, 8:55 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Isn't New York Gov. Cuomo attempting to put in a Gosnellian expressway for baby death after 24 weeks?

(weeks! not months...); 6/16/13, 8:55 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: He needed or intended to say "spin cycle". But now the letwinger media and the leftwing machine are crying "Akin!"

Fine.
Let the Gosnellian Planned Parenthood left whine.

The only reason the Planned Parenthood/Gosnellian left are insisting on a rape exception and a rape exception without a police report is that it will give the abortion industry the loophole they need to continue late term abortions. Sacred Nancy Pelosi late term abortions.; 6/16/13, 9:03 AM
KCFleming said...: Feminists should just get it over with and declare themselves a religion, with abortion it's greatest sacrament.

And guys who can't use the correct metaphor for Boy that was tough! are too stupid to understand how vital the dismemberment of a fetus is to their faith.; 6/16/13, 9:06 AM
Aridog said...: Renee said...

As for incest, assuming it wasn't an act of force. Why is there an exemption for that?

As someone who is also primarily pro-life, let me answer that for you. I have my exception...

"Incest" equals "inbreeding" and my experience with breeding horses and dogs informs me that it is deleterious genetically in substantially increased frequency to offspring. Humans are animals, just as horses and dogs. The effect of inbreeding, however accomplished, will be congenital defects and sundry other genetic aliments. These result end up as a tangible cost, financially and emotionally, [more so the later IMO] to society in more cases than not.

If there is to be a debate, it should be just who is responsible, harshly enforced if necessary, for caring for the offspring, as necessary, since we have advanced beyond just leaving non-survivable or defective or aged persons behind alone on a trail. In the wild, the weak offspring with are just eaten by apex predators.

In animals it is "inbreeding" [incest] if between partners less than 3 generations separated from a common ancestor, and it is "line-breeding" if between 3 and 5 generations apart.

I have never seen, in hundreds of examples, dogs and horses, a fully normal offspring from "inbreeding" ... not ever. I have rarely seen "remotely inbred", such as 3-2 generational, animals without some congenital deficiency. Closer than 22 and there is always a defect in my experience. Frequently the defects are individually lethal to the offspring over short spans of time versus normal expectancy.

If I am buying or breeding I will consider line-bred 4-5 and 5-5, but only after researching the progeny...other wise I prefer no line breeding inside of 5 generations removed....ideally 5-0 or further apart.

As for Darwin...everybody makes mistakes. Did he have kids and how did they do? Incest, if a species is to survive long term, makes no sense at all. It is therefore an exception just as serious as rape.; 6/16/13, 9:09 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: The obvious pro-democrat hack Politico states that now some "GOP woman" is in charge.

How dare she!

The anger from the left/politico-- You can almost taste and smell it as you read it.; 6/16/13, 9:10 AM
Meade said...: "Put through the wringer" is what he was going for.

He might have meant he was "hung out to dry." Etymology: based on the practice of hanging a fetus that has been aborted in a tree so its mass of cells can dry.; 6/16/13, 9:18 AM
Bill, Republic of Texas said...: Renee said... I'll stick my head out there for the sake of argument.... as someone who is a pro-life.

I can understand the argument for a rape exemption, the women didn't choose to have sex. It wasn't consensual, so how could she consent to a pregnant?

Im pro choice and I disagree. If we are going to outlaw abortion after 20 weeks why have a rape exception? With rape, you would have gotten morning after pills from the hospital . And if that didn't work you had 5 months to get an abortion.; 6/16/13, 9:18 AM
edutcher said...: The only thing I love more than the media types screaming any time a Republican says anything about abortion (it's getting old; try putting out what the Demos say - on any subject, it's usually worse) is the "All men are pigs" line of attack because they aren't familiar with stuff no self-respecting feminazi would touch with a 10 foot dildo.; 6/16/13, 9:20 AM
Big Mike said...: Back when I was a college student in the 1960's there were spin dryers in the dorm laundry rooms, and I saw them again in European laundromats when I toured Europe using a Eurail Pass. After removing your clothes from the washer you put them through the spin dryer, even though the washers had spin cycles of their own, so that additional water was centrifuged out. Only then did you use the heated air dryers.

You just lack sufficient experience with the world, Ma'am.; 6/16/13, 9:26 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: Here's the thing with the rape exception:

Should it be OK to kill the children of criminals in utero and painfully?

Or do kids deserve a shot at life even if their old men are evil?

If it's OK to kill the children of rapists, why not the children of murderers, drug dealers, drunk drivers, embezzlers and people who vote illegally?

I mean, wouldn't it make more logical sense to kill the children of murderers, since their dads are eligible for the death penalty, where most rapists are not?

Also, what's to stop a woman from lying and saying she was raped in order to obtain a late term abortion?; 6/16/13, 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Why does a ban limited to late-term abortions need a rape and incest exception? Even in the old joke, she realized it was rape as soon as the check bounced.; 6/16/13, 9:54 AM
Aridog said...: Bill, Republic of Texas ... I'm with you [I think] on the time elapsed aspect, for rape or incest, in my opinion. I am pro-life for the most part, but see my comment above on incest & inbreeding. Even under extreme circumstances, it is unlikely it takes 20 weeks to discover pregnancy or decide to end it...so no exception is necessary.

Renee ... in an attempt to be fair and provide a relevant example of the impact of inbreeding and close line breeding, for humans or horses, I will cite Hyperkalemic periodic paralysis (HYPP). I am very familiar with the occurrence of this aliment in the "Impressive" American Quarter Horse lineage. On the pedigree chart note the frequency and closeness of the horse "Three Bars" on both sides of "Impressive's" lineage. That prevalence is a recipe for disaster in breeding, whether humans, dogs or horses.

Given that "Impressive" had chronic Laminitis (rotation of the coffin bone down/away from the hoof wall), a condition that can derive from poor circulation [not yet determined as a genetic condition AFAIK), how "Impressive" was rated so highly is beyond me...he couldn't do anything but stand still and look pretty.

An offspring of "Impressive" was "Conclusive" and I can verify from being in his close presence, at times he was batshit crazy. Note how in the "Conclusive" pedigree the redundancy of "three Bars" is increased. Pure lunacy.; 6/16/13, 10:02 AM
Brian Brown said...: after his remarks about rape and pregnancy created an uproar."

"Uproar" with whom, exactly?; 6/16/13, 10:05 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "She was trying to "slam" the man because perhaps the man had never stooped to do something women traditionally do. She picked the verb "to slam" to "criticize someone or something severely" without realizing that words sometimes have two meanings; in this case "to shut a door or a lid with great force so that it makes a loud noise, often because you are angry" sound petulant and stereotypically female."

Well, it also means to eat very quickly, so I was picturing one of those hot dog eating contests when I wrote "slam franks."

Hey, guys, let's slam franks.

That sounds dirty too.; 6/16/13, 10:08 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Also, as for things I supposedly "don't realize," you ought to realize that if I'm using the transitive verb "slam" and the object is already there -- Franks -- then it can't be a door that is slammed on him. The slamming is of the Franks, and that excludes the possibility of a door.; 6/16/13, 10:10 AM
Aridog said...: Deirdre Mundy said...

Also, what's to stop a woman from lying and saying she was raped in order to obtain a late term abortion?

For me, there is no justification for a late term abortion unless it occurs as a coincidental result of another action to save a woman's life.

Though I am pro-life I do not expect we will be without abortion altogether. As for aborting the "get" of criminals, etc. I don't see that as equivalent to rape or incest...incest is known to cause genetic deficiencies and disease, while the other incidental occurrences are not.

In the end, at my age, I am astounded at the casual attitudes about sex and procreation today. I knew by the age of 15 [1957] that at least a good condom was necessary to prevent the issues we're talking about here. When did that change? The Hippies do that? WTF...I slept with some Hippies and still used condoms, with a secondary reason of not acquiring a disease that made me twist urinal pipes off the wall whilst pissing. When did simple common sense go out of style?; 6/16/13, 10:13 AM
Palladian said...: He ended up saying what he said because he was trying to avoid saying "tits in the wringer".; 6/16/13, 10:21 AM
acm said...: Yeah, I don't get why a ban on late-term abortion needs a rape or incest exemption, either. I can see how a ban on early abortions would have a rape exemption (I don't agree with it, but I can see the point; people are understandably reluctant to ask more from the victim who we can already see and identify with) but late term abortion is a whole other kettle of fish. Why would the victim still be pregnant five months after the rape? Even if she has a reason for not terminating sooner, letting her kill the baby at 20 weeks is comparable to letting a victim torture a born-alive child to death.

Incest exemptions are eugenics, period. But, pretending there's nothing wrong with eugenics, it still doesn't make sense to have an incest exemption for 20 week abortions. By 20 weeks, congenital defects that may have been the result of incest can be detected. Killing a child who is healthy, despite his being a product of incest, doesn't make sense from a eugenics standpoint. The exemption eugenicists want---the ability to kill any imperfect child---would apply equally to incest babies and normal-couple babies, wouldn't it?

But really incest is a crime where the child resulting is a victim. It doesn't make sense to kill the victim.; 6/16/13, 10:21 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: Actually late-term incest and rape exceptions DO make sense if you see the point of abortion not as 'protecting the mother' or whatever they call it, but "preventing embarrassment and protecting reputations."

I mean, it doesn't matter how the kid turns out, the point is that when your dad and your brother are the same guy, or your grandma and ma are the same person, it just sort of looks bad. I mean, those type of optics totally destroy political careers and ruling houses of ancient Greek city-states.

In fact, if you see the main purpose of abortion as avoiding embarrassment, the feminists' position makes sense. They don't work NEARLY so hard when mere lives are on the line.; 6/16/13, 10:28 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: Of course, then the question becomes:

Is it appropriate to dismember another person in order to avoid embarrassment?

I.e. "Johnny overheard me saying I had a crush on Billy, so I chopped him into pieces and buried him under the compost pile......"; 6/16/13, 10:29 AM
Aridog said...: acm said...

Incest exemptions are eugenics, period. But, pretending there's nothing wrong with eugenics, ...

Nonsense. Eugenics deals with imperfections realized. Read what I've said above about inbreeding and line breeding. Is it "Eugenics" to avoid realization of a flawed outcome that someone has intentionally instituted? I am NOT suggesting death, or abortion, for children with known deficiencies that are products of non-inbred relationships. The issue for me is: Why intentionally create deficiencies in nature. Even wolves know better than that. Are they Eugenicists too?; 6/16/13, 10:31 AM
cassandra lite said...: I lived in Paris in the mid '70s. Laundromats had washers, spinners, and dryers, each of them costing however many francs. If you didn't want to spend a lot more on drying, you ponied up for the spinner, since the spin cycle in washers wasn't much more effective than it would've been to stand wet on a merry-go-round.; 6/16/13, 10:36 AM
Meade said...: Aridog said...
"In the end, at my age, I am astounded at the casual attitudes about sex and procreation today. I knew by the age of 15 [1957] that at least a good condom was necessary to prevent the issues we're talking about here.[...] WTF...I slept with some Hippies and still used condoms, with a secondary reason of not acquiring a disease that made me twist urinal pipes off the wall whilst pissing."

Hey, Aridog
You were born the same year as Erica Jong, jimi Hendricks, Larry Flynt, and Joe Biden.; 6/16/13, 10:56 AM
Brian Brown said...: There were an estimated 83,425 forcible rapes reported to law enforcement in 2011 according to the FBI.

Pretending 30,000 of those resulted in pregnancies is preposterous.; 6/16/13, 10:57 AM
acm said...: Regarding the incest embarrassment issue---

I don't give two farts about the embarrassment of the people who committed incest. The child who resulted from that, though, should be placed for adoption and not told that his/her conception was the result of incest until adulthood, if then. Killing a person to spare him some embarrassment about the circumstances of his conception is absurd. Again, the child is the victim of the incest.

Aridog, treating human beings like racehorses to be bred toward one attribute and away from others, is the very essence of eugenics. Killing an innocent child because there is a possibility of defect is not materially different from killing a child because of a known defect. The whole point of eugenics is to treat those who have, or may have, a defect as somehow less human than their healthy (or probably healthy) counterparts.; 6/16/13, 11:21 AM
Aridog said...: acm said ...

Aridog, treating human beings like racehorses to be bred toward one attribute and away from others, is the very essence of eugenics ...

You obviously did not read or understand what I said. Good for you. If you were attentive you would have noted I am definitely against what you just suggested.

Though I am generally pro-life, I do believe a woman pregnant from incest or rape should have the right to terminate that pregnancy, inside of 20 weeks at the most...earlier is preferable. I don't believe she should be forced to do so.; 6/16/13, 11:50 AM
Renee said...: Darwin had kids, they turned out fine. Many marriages are with relatives in other parts of the world.

In Massachusetts you can marry your 1st cousin.; 6/16/13, 12:12 PM
acm said...: My reading comprehension is fine. You used the "defective" argument to justify allowing an incest exemption. That's eugenics. Just because it's not forced doesn't mean its not eugenics. Your whole reasoning is to prevent "flawed outcomes from being realized" by allowing the flawed children to be born. If a mother has a right to kill her flawed child, but not her less-likely-to-be-flawed child, then yes, you are treating flawed (or likely to be flawed) children as less human. Since you identify as primarily pro-life, I assume you're against all other abortions, right?; 6/16/13, 12:12 PM
Joe said...: It takes 20 weeks for a rape victim to decide to abort? That's bullshit.; 6/16/13, 12:23 PM
William said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/16/13, 12:27 PM
Renee said...: Joe,

Denial or a teenage minor.; 6/16/13, 12:27 PM
William said...: One can reliably depend upon some Republican somewhere to say something stupid about rape and abortion. One can just as reliably depend upon the media to widely report and mock such a statement. One can also depend upon the ever reliable media to mute or ignore cases of abortion abuse such as was witnessed in the Gosnell case......My own feeling is that late term abortions should be banned and that an exception be allowed in cases of rape and incest. If, in practice, this loophole becomes too wide, then, at that time, fight over the loophole. The anti abortion people would win more battles if they fought with the wind at the back of their arrows, and the sun in their enemies' face, instead of vice versa.; 6/16/13, 12:36 PM
ricpic said...: Jesus, who would analyze to death the perfectly clear phrase "I've been through a spin dryer," looking for inconsistencies?!; 6/16/13, 12:45 PM
jr565 said...: Do women who get abortions at 20 weeks not realize they were raped for 20 weeks?; 6/16/13, 4:24 PM
Aridog said...: acm ... I don't like answering a question with a question, but this time I must.

Tell me, under what circumstances of rape or incest do you NOT consider the woman a victim?

As a victim, should that woman be required to give birth?

Nothing is stopping her if she chooses to do so in her own right. In those instances shouldn't she also have the right, as a victim, to stop the process?

And yes, short of rape or incest, I do not favor abortion.; 6/16/13, 6:32 PM
Aridog said...: acm...Renee ... in the case of incest and inbreeding I am comfortable in my opinion, based upon first hand experience, and doubt positive outcomes result anywhere near as often as negative ones.

And acm ... your interpretation of what I said about horses and citation of "Impressive" was plainly the opposite of what I think. I have no use for even close line breeding let alone inbreeding and would never advocate for it or contribute to it. If NOT sponsoring such conduct is also "eugenics", so be it.

I despise horse racing and any horse related "sport" where horses are asked to strain to their limits before the age of 5, with 3 being the bare minimum for starting any such activity. The Triple Crown, and the lead ups to it, is outright animal abuse...of animals whose joints have not yet matured. However, that is just my personal opinion and YMMV.; 6/16/13, 6:46 PM
acm said...: Aridog, the circumstances under which inveterate occurs in which the woman is not a viictim are pretty clear---if a woman is an adult, mentally competent, conscious, and she chooses to have sex with her relative, and she's not forced in any way (no violence threatened, no one holding her kids in a dark basement) then she's not a victim. If a woman is raped---by a relative or anyone else---then of course she's a victim. Unfortunately, if the rape results in a pregnancy, there are two victims, the baby and the woman who was raped. I really can see why people favor a rape exemption for abortions before 12 weeks, even though it amounts to one victim killing the other. It's unfair to the baby, but if done early enough, at least he or she doesn't suffer as badly.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for inbreeding either. I just think that advocating for abortion to be legal in the case of fetuses who have or are more likely to have congenital defects is eugenics. Think of it this way: I also don't advocate the use of alcohol during pregnancy, but I would never argue that abortion should be legal for those children who were alcohol exposed.; 6/16/13, 8:04 PM
acm said...: Crappy. Autocorrect. That should say "incest" in the first sentence, not inveterate.; 6/16/13, 8:07 PM
Timotheus said...: I am generally inclined to reduce, not increase, the usage of the death penalty. But I make the following exception: For the crime of rape which results in pregnancy, on the general principle that it is far better to kill the guilty rapist than to kill his completely innocent child.; 6/17/13, 7:48 AM
Aridog said...: acm ... I may understand your position, but not sure you do mine. No matter, we will resolve nothing. I am about 99% positive you have less experience than I do with what inbreeding can produce and how frequently...let alone tragically and how far in to the future it can impose very negative results. So we agree to disagree and go our ways.; 6/17/13, 1:01 PM