View Full Version : Rep Nominee confuses women with ducks.
Baffling, but apparently some people think like this...
Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri who is running against Sen. Claire McCaskill, justified his opposition to abortion rights even in case of rape with a claim that victims of “legitimate rape” have unnamed biological defenses that prevent pregnancy.
“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Akin said that even in the worst-case scenario — when the supposed natural protections against unwanted pregnancy fail — abortion should still not be a legal option for the rape victim.
If you get raped and become pregnant, it probably wasn't a legit rape...
jimnyc
08-19-2012, 04:58 PM
Yep, dumb comment for sure. He wasn't beating McCaskill anyway and he's loved in his area and isn't going anywhere. He's been in politics for like 20+ years from what I recall. In the local House elections he never got less than 60% of the vote. Dumb statements won't have much effect in getting rid of politicians - or Biden and Obama never would have made the WH and about 80% of Washington would be gone. You won't find many conservatives backing him up on these rape statements, but they aren't going to suddenly vote for his competition over it either. So I hate to say it, but his words really won't have any effect. If he had a chance of unseating McCaskill, this would have changed the course of the election, but that's not the case. Much ado about nothing here. It's like making headlines about Ron Paul backing racist newsletters or his wild views on abortion (he is the originator of the sanctity of life bills). Call him a nutter all you want, but without his retirement, he wasn't going anywhere.
SassyLady
08-20-2012, 12:00 AM
The guy is a total idiot for saying that .... #1 there is no such thing as a legit rape ... rape is rape! #2, I've never, ever, ever heard that a human female has a way of preventing pregnancy resulting from rape. I cannot believe there are people who believe this.....:bang3:
Voted4Reagan
08-20-2012, 07:23 AM
just another example of why establishment candidates need to be replaced.
20+ Years is too long.....
Time to take out the political trash on both sides of the Aisle....
jimnyc
08-20-2012, 08:09 AM
just another example of why establishment candidates need to be replaced.
20+ Years is too long.....
Time to take out the political trash on both sides of the Aisle....
Now THAT I can get on board with. NEITHER side should be able to have lifers in Washington. And BOTH sides should be held to the same standards, same laws and same benefits and everything else as every other American. And when their 2 terms (if that's what it is) are up, out they go and none of this benefits or money for life bullshit.
Abbey Marie
08-20-2012, 10:37 AM
I assume he was referring to situations where someone has sex (usually under the influence of something) and then calls it date rape the next day, when some sort of regret or anger sets in.
A different scenario from a violent forcible rape. Maybe there are biological changes in such a situation that impede the sperm and egg connection. It may well be a stupid comment, but I am not up on the latest in fertilization biology to say so.
Btw, where do the ducks come in?
DragonStryk72
08-20-2012, 12:00 PM
No, Noir, this isn't the republican opinion, this is a moron. No rational person is trying to act as though rape isn't actually a thing, or that women's ability to get pregnant somehow "shuts down". Even most republicans don't believe that rape victims should be denied abortion, or morning after pills. Same goes for incest, which is also, most usually, rape.
Voted4Reagan
08-20-2012, 01:07 PM
Now THAT I can get on board with. NEITHER side should be able to have lifers in Washington. And BOTH sides should be held to the same standards, same laws and same benefits and everything else as every other American. And when their 2 terms (if that's what it is) are up, out they go and none of this benefits or money for life bullshit.
2 words...
TERM LIMITS
3 terms in House @2 years
2 in the Senate @ 4 years
No, Noir, this isn't the republican opinion, this is a moron. No rational person is trying to act as though rape isn't actually a thing, or that women's ability to get pregnant somehow "shuts down". Even most republicans don't believe that rape victims should be denied abortion, or morning after pills. Same goes for incest, which is also, most usually, rape.
"Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate"
Yes, he is the republican option. Obv I'm not saying 'all republicans think like this' etc, but you can't say he's not the rep option, when he is.
logroller
08-20-2012, 01:57 PM
"Legitimate rape" :no:
Seriously, every so often free speech and unbridled stupidity manifest into something so unbelievable that I'm inclined to dismiss it for fear of becoming dumber.
Little-Acorn
08-20-2012, 02:05 PM
Medical advice from a non-medical person.
Worth as much as it usually is.
tailfins
08-20-2012, 02:15 PM
The guy is a total idiot for saying that .... #1 there is no such thing as a legit rape ... rape is rape! #2, I've never, ever, ever heard that a human female has a way of preventing pregnancy resulting from rape. I cannot believe there are people who believe this.....:bang3:
Todd Akin used to be my congressman. He has sort of a cult following in his district. I'm not outraged because I think he was speculating about the biology of pregnancy during physical trauma to the body. However this exposes that Todd Akin is WAAAAAAAAAAAY out of his league as a US Senate candidate and should step aside to save the seat as a GOP pick up.
I assume he was referring to situations where someone has sex (usually under the influence of something) and then calls it date rape the next day, when some sort of regret or anger sets in.
A different scenario from a violent forcible rape. Maybe there are biological changes in such a situation that impede the sperm and egg connection. It may well be a stupid comment, but I am not up on the latest in fertilization biology to say so.
Btw, where do the ducks come in?
No 'may well be's about it, it was a ridiculously stupid comment, with its basis in junk science. What i find odd though is why he makes the distinction between 'legitimate' rape and other types of rape. Given he clearly states that even victims of 'legitimate' rape should not be legally allowed to have an abortion.
As for ducks - his claim that women have biological processes to stop pregnancy occurring (obvious tosh) reminded me of female ducks, in simple terms they have chambers in their vagina, that are dead ends. So if the duck is being raped by a male duck (common among many duck species as a method of reproduction) but the female does not want that male to fertilise her, she can make sure (though valves) that its sperm is directed into a 'dead end'.
jimnyc
08-20-2012, 04:15 PM
"Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate"
Yes, he is the republican option. Obv I'm not saying 'all republicans think like this' etc, but you can't say he's not the rep option, when he is.
Dragon said he was not the republican OPINION not option.
gabosaurus
08-20-2012, 05:29 PM
I believe Mr. Akin has totally quacked up his chances of being elected. I am guessing he will withdraw from the race within the next couple of days.
jimnyc
08-20-2012, 05:33 PM
I believe Mr. Akin has totally quacked up his chances of being elected. I am guessing he will withdraw from the race within the next couple of days.
Like I said, this wouldn't have changed the outcome anyway, McCaskill was gonna win regardless. He'll probably withdraw at most, and still end up with the position he's held for eons in his state. Sad, but likely true.
Dragon said he was not the republican OPINION not option.
Oh yeah, fairplay, sorry dragon. Though in fairness i never said it was.
jimnyc
08-20-2012, 05:37 PM
Oh yeah, fairplay, sorry dragon. Though in fairness i never said it was.
I think the main thing to understand, is that this is one man speaking as an idiot, this in no way reflects the official party stance, or the stance of any other politician that I'm aware of. Many are very strict about their anti-abortion stances, but not to the degree of the comments he made about rape.
I think the main thing to understand, is that this is one man speaking as an idiot, this in no way reflects the official party stance, or the stance of any other politician that I'm aware of. Many are very strict about their anti-abortion stances, but not to the degree of the comments he made about rape.
Looking at the party- Ryan has a very strict stance indeed, we know recently he co-sponsered the 'constitutional rights begin at conception bill. Add to that his comments about rape victims
September 26, 1998Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Spottswood called Ryan an "extremist" on abortion and characterized his general opposition to abortion as out of step with mainstream views. Though Ryan's and Spottswood's views on partial birth abortion now match, the two remain far apart on the abortion issue in general.
Spottswood generally favors abortion rights and Ryan is opposed.
"He wants to outlaw abortion in all cases, even rape and incest," charged Spottswood, 47. "He would put women and doctors in prison and return us to the days of back-alley abortions."
Ryan, a 28-year-old first-time candidate, said he has consistently opposed legal abortion and makes only one exception -- cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother's life. He favors overturning the Supreme Court's landmark Roe vs. Wade decision that made most abortions legal, Ryan said, and would let states decide what criminal penalties would be attached to abortions.
Ryan said he's never specifically advocated jailing women who have abortions or doctors who perform them, but added, "If it's illegal, it's illegal."
October 30, 1998
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
The Ryan ad accuses Spottswood of "flip-flopping" on abortion, taxes and Social Security.
The abortion reference says: "First Lydia was against partial birth abortion, now she supports this indefensible procedure." That completely twisted Spottswood's views on the issue, Spottswood spokesman Jonathan Brown said.
Spottswood has said she opposes "partial birth" abortion except to save the life of the woman or if her health was in grave danger. Ryan has said he favors only one exception to a ban, to save a woman's life.
jimnyc
08-20-2012, 06:26 PM
And that stance will be a moot point, I assure you, long behind the economy. His stance is far from unique and many politicians have even signed along with bills saying as much. Those bills started in the 90's with the 'sanctity of life' titling, and hasn't hurt any of them politically. Ron Paul's stance is even harsher, and he wasn't even questioned on it during his campaign that I'm aware of. As much as you want to think this is a major issue, it's just not. And while not as large as the run for the Presidency, his stances on abortion haven't hurt him in his many years in office. People will label him an extremist, and some will agree, mostly those that weren't going to vote on his party line anyway. Just as many think that most forms of abortion are extreme, or late term abortions, or federal funding... And the people who support that line are still in office, and those that disagree with their stances weren't going to vote their way either. Ryan's stance is that of many in the party. Read up on the entire history of the sanctity bills and who all has been involved. And lastly, Ryan is most recently on record as saying he supports abortions for rape victims. This isn't going to have anyone swing their vote from Romney to Obama, not at all.
sundaydriver
08-20-2012, 06:40 PM
Akin like others has a strict mindset on abortion and what he was clearly trying to do was to delegitimize any exception to abortion. His statement shows his attempt to make pregnancy by occurance of rape rape as NONEXSISTENT. If pregnancy from rape doesn't happen, then we don't need exceptions in the law.
And he has a really bad "comb over" to hide his baldness.
And that stance will be a moot point, I assure you, long behind the economy. His stance is far from unique and many politicians have even signed along with bills saying as much. Those bills started in the 90's with the 'sanctity of life' titling, and hasn't hurt any of them politically. Ron Paul's stance is even harsher, and he wasn't even questioned on it during his campaign that I'm aware of. As much as you want to think this is a major issue, it's just not. And while not as large as the run for the Presidency, his stances on abortion haven't hurt him in his many years in office. People will label him an extremist, and some will agree, mostly those that weren't going to vote on his party line anyway. Just as many think that most forms of abortion are extreme, or late term abortions, or federal funding... And the people who support that line are still in office, and those that disagree with their stances weren't going to vote their way either. Ryan's stance is that of many in the party. Read up on the entire history of the sanctity bills and who all has been involved. And lastly, Ryan is most recently on record as saying he supports abortions for rape victims. This isn't going to have anyone swing their vote from Romney to Obama, not at all.
Well thank goodness Ryan changed his mind!
Quite what took him (at the very least) 27 years to realise that rape victims should be able to have abortions is beyond me, that's an awful lot of years were he was a total moron.
And sure it won't swing whether he, and Romeny, get elected or not. In the same way Obamas 'thrid trimester abortions' didn't stop him...but it's interesting to know these things about peoples characters IMO
jimnyc
08-20-2012, 06:59 PM
Well thank goodness Ryan changed his mind!
Quite what took him (at the very least) 27 years to realise that rape victims should be able to have abortions is beyond me, that's an awful lot of years were he was a total moron.
And sure it won't swing whether he, and Romeny, get elected or not. In the same way Obamas 'thrid trimester abortions' didn't stop him...but it's interesting to know these things about peoples characters IMO
As much as the character of those who don't give a crap about the life of children. I suppose it depends on where you stand. Condemn what you call evil while ignoring other evils is how many will see it. I'm sure he's sorry to learn you won't be pulling the lever in his favor! :lol:
gabosaurus
08-20-2012, 09:01 PM
One interesting revelation that has come out of this scandal is Romney stating that he is not opposed to abortion for women who are raped. Which, I presume, is also Ryan's stand.
fj1200
08-20-2012, 09:57 PM
Like I said, this wouldn't have changed the outcome anyway, McCaskill was gonna win regardless. He'll probably withdraw at most, and still end up with the position he's held for eons in his state. Sad, but likely true.
I thought McCaskill was highly vulnerable. If this flips it back to her court it would be like the idiot in CO saying something about gays and completely screwing his campaign over in '10.
gabosaurus
08-20-2012, 11:07 PM
With the deadline to withdraw being Tuesday, Todd Akin has vowed to remain in the race. And polls still showing him with an edge of his Democratic challenger.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/poll-shows-todd-akin-with-one-point-lead-as-gop/article_5a8f74b2-eadf-11e1-8c55-001a4bcf6878.html
Akin says he is staying in because he feels Missouri "needs a conservative congressman." And he still has supporters.
But some conservative groups rallied to Akin's side. Tom McClusky, the vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council, tweeted: "We should always hold ourselves to a different standard but we should also not throw friends who've apologized under a bus."
DragonStryk72
08-21-2012, 02:55 AM
"Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate"
Yes, he is the republican option. Obv I'm not saying 'all republicans think like this' etc, but you can't say he's not the rep option, when he is.
Yes, and the Republican party isn't backing him. They're physically denying him even a dime of funding for his reelection campaign, because they can't kick him out of the party. They can however, choose to let a Dem win the seat instead, and let him fail.
Yes, and the Republican party isn't backing him. They're physically denying him even a dime of funding for his reelection campaign, because they can't kick him out of the party. They can however, choose to let a Dem win the seat instead, and let him fail.
Why can't they kick him out? Surly the party has a say in who represents the party?
fj1200
08-21-2012, 07:55 AM
Why can't they kick him out? Surly the party has a say in who represents the party?
He has apparently met the requirements (won the primary likely) to represent the party in the general election.
tailfins
08-21-2012, 08:42 AM
Why can't they kick him out? Surly the party has a say in who represents the party?
It was the Republican rank-and-file that had their say in the primary election. I don't think there is a recall mechanism, but I could be mistaken. These things have been decided by elections to avoid candidates being selected in back room deals.
With the deadline to withdraw being Tuesday, Todd Akin has vowed to remain in the race. And polls still showing him with an edge of his Democratic challenger.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/poll-shows-todd-akin-with-one-point-lead-as-gop/article_5a8f74b2-eadf-11e1-8c55-001a4bcf6878.html
Akin says he is staying in because he feels Missouri "needs a conservative congressman." And he still has supporters.
Todd Akin has until September 25 to petition a court to order his name off the ballot.
DragonStryk72
08-21-2012, 12:14 PM
Why can't they kick him out? Surly the party has a say in who represents the party?
The Dems couldn't do it either. There's a mish-mash of rules within the parties that keep that from happening. However, in the end, it really just comes down to the point that parties are what we make them, and so in each group, you have people who are total posers. After all, I could call myself an atheist, and still be a devout catholic, and what exactly could you do to stop me from it?
Little-Acorn
08-21-2012, 12:32 PM
Rep Nominee confuses women with ducks.
Akin never mentioned ducks.
The thread should be renamed, "Hysterical DP Poster confuses women with ducks."
BTW, Akin was a damned fool for saying what he said. But whom did he hurt? Did anyone even believe him?
If politicians always got thrown out of elections if they said something stupid, Republicans would win every election by default.
Abbey Marie
08-21-2012, 01:19 PM
I heard today that McCaskill thinks we should give Akin a break, since he apologized.
fj1200
08-21-2012, 01:55 PM
I heard today that McCaskill thinks we should give Akin a break, since he apologized.
And why not? He's the only one she has a chance against. :laugh:
Abbey Marie
08-21-2012, 02:07 PM
And why not? He's the only one she has a chance against. :laugh:
Her motives are not for me to question.
Rep Nominee confuses women with ducks.
Akin never mentioned ducks.
The thread should be renamed, "Hysterical DP Poster confuses women with ducks."
BTW, Akin was a damned fool for saying what he said. But whom did he hurt? Did anyone even believe him?
If politicians always got thrown out of elections if they said something stupid, Republicans would win every election by default.
I never said he mentioned ducks. But he clearly has the two confused.
And i don't know, maybe talk to some 'illegitimate' rape victims, who where impregnated by their rapists, to see who his comments hurt.
Though thankfully he never had the power to force those 'illegitimate' victims to give birth to the consequence of their rape, and never will.
jimnyc
08-21-2012, 02:43 PM
I never said he mentioned ducks. But he clearly has the two confused.
And i don't know, maybe talk to some 'illegitimate' rape victims, who where impregnated by their rapists, to see who his comments hurt.
Though thankfully he never had the power to force those 'illegitimate' victims to give birth to the consequence of their rape, and never will.
Speak to the children who you are in favor of killing. Oh, wait, you can't. Or maybe start a thread about another person in office, or running for office, who is OK with killing a child who is out of the womb and breathing air. Oh, must not be worthy of your time. Condemn someone's beliefs and lack of similar condemnation for actual killings or support of later term killings. Odd. Or should I say hypocritical. But par for the course. The only thing missing, but sure to come before long, is to blame the Church somehow or other Christians.
Speak to the children who you are in favor of killing. Oh, wait, you can't. Or maybe start a thread about another person in office, or running for office, who is OK with killing a child who is out of the womb and breathing air. Oh, must not be worthy of your time. Condemn someone's beliefs and lack of similar condemnation for actual killings or support of later term killings. Odd. Or should I say hypocritical. But par for the course. The only thing missing, but sure to come before long, is to blame the Church somehow or other Christians.
...why and where would I support later term killings?
tailfins
08-21-2012, 02:51 PM
I never said he mentioned ducks. But he clearly has the two confused.
And i don't know, maybe talk to some 'illegitimate' rape victims, who where impregnated by their rapists, to see who his comments hurt.
Though thankfully he never had the power to force those 'illegitimate' victims to give birth to the consequence of their rape, and never will.
If you mean he got his butt kicked and won't do that again, you are probably right. If you think he will never win that Senate race, you underestimate McCaskill's unpopularity.
If you mean he got his butt kicked and won't do that again, you are probably right. If you think he will never win that Senate race, you underestimate McCaskill's unpopularity.
I mean he will never have the support to enact the type of law that he would want to enact, elected or not.
jimnyc
08-21-2012, 02:57 PM
...why and where would I support later term killings?
Condemn a man for his wanting to preserve life, however harsh it may be, but little to no equivalent condemnation for a man voting to make it OK to yank the plug on a baby out of the womb actually breathing air. Just odd that you would pick and choose certain things to condemn, or certain people when others do the same, or worse. No prior condemnation of the sanctity of life stuff, at least not until there's a political motive behind it. I guess there wasn't good enough reason to condemn the same until it was someone on Romney's team?
Condemn a man for his wanting to preserve life, however harsh it may be, but little to no equivalent condemnation for a man voting to make it OK to yank the plug on a baby out of the womb actually breathing air. Just odd that you would pick and choose certain things to condemn, or certain people when others do the same, or worse. No prior condemnation of the sanctity of life stuff, at least not until there's a political motive behind it. I guess there wasn't good enough reason to condemn the same until it was someone on Romney's team?
I make topics as they come onto my radar, via media like Twitter, the first i've heard of the sanctity of life bill (for example) i posted it here. If i had of heard about it a year ago i would of posted it then. I can't post about something before i know aboout it =/
And ofcourse i'd condemn someone wanted to 'pull the plug' on a born baby, indeed i know i have posted here before saying i personally believe that abortion (other than the extreme cases - rape, risk to mother etc) isn't the answer. And i know that in the 'sanctity of life' thread i referred to (what i consider the gross extreme) of Obamas previously stated stance of 'third trimester' abortions. So i don't see where you're going with this.
Little-Acorn
08-21-2012, 03:12 PM
I never said he mentioned ducks. But he clearly has the two confused.
Gotta love these noirisms, where he contradicts himself in the same sentence (or at least the same line) and cruises on as though nothing had happened. :D
gabosaurus
08-21-2012, 03:22 PM
I am sure the Dems are all for Akin staying in the race. Especially since they contributed $1.5 million so Akin could win the primary. Missouri Dems have always know that Akin was a time bomb. They know that the more Akin spouts off, the more it will reflect on the larger picture.
It's all in the online St. Louis Post-Dispatch if you want to read it.
tailfins
08-21-2012, 03:58 PM
I am sure the Dems are all for Akin staying in the race. Especially since they contributed $1.5 million so Akin could win the primary. Missouri Dems have always know that Akin was a time bomb. They know that the more Akin spouts off, the more it will reflect on the larger picture.
It's all in the online St. Louis Post-Dispatch if you want to read it.
Even having Todd Akin on the ballot might not save "Mirror Mirror on the wall, who's the CLAIREST of them all". Also, the early beating Akin is now taking might make him be more careful.
Gotta love these noirisms, where he contradicts himself in the same sentence (or at least the same line) and cruises on as though nothing had happened. :D
Noir: Mammals are cold blooded vertebrates, they lay eggs, and have scaly skin.
Little Acorn: No Noir, you are confusing mammals and reptiles.
Noir: What? No, i never said the word reptiles.
Little Acorn: I didn't say you said the word reptiles, i said you confused mammals with reptiles.
Noir: Contradicting yourself i see, then just cruising along like nothing happened...
^,^
Little-Acorn
08-21-2012, 06:01 PM
Noir: Mammals are cold blooded vertebrates, they lay eggs, and have scaly skin.
Little Acorn: No Noir, you are confusing mammals and reptiles.
Noir: What? No, i never said the word reptiles.
Little Acorn: I didn't say you said the word reptiles, i said you confused mammals with reptiles.
Noir: Contradicting yourself i see, then just cruising along like nothing happened...
^,^
Do these quotes you attribute to me, have any resemblance to what I actually said?
I didn't think so.
You are a very confused boy.
OTOH, Akin never mentioned ducks. You did, in your title.
Akin clearly isn't the one who "confused women with ducks". You're the one who compared them, not Akin.
I hope this helps you understand.
-------------------------------------------------
The moral of the story is: Don't try to attribute something to some one who never said it. You'll get it shoved down your throat.
.
Do these quotes you attribute to me, have any resemblance to what I actually said?
I didn't think so.
You are a very confused boy.
OTOH, Akin never mentioned ducks. You did, in your title.
Akin clearly isn't the one who "confused women with ducks". You're the one who compared them, not Akin.
I hope this helps you understand.
-------------------------------------------------
The moral of the story is: Don't try to attribute something to some one who never said it. You'll get it shoved down your throat.
.
Simply baffling :laugh:
Good day, Sir.
gabosaurus
08-21-2012, 06:04 PM
Is there a reason why we are arguing about ducks here? Perhaps I missed it.
tailfins
08-21-2012, 10:54 PM
Little Acorn: I didn't say you said the word reptiles, i said you confused mammals with reptiles.
[/I]^,^
Aren't ducks reptiles?
Is there a reason why we are arguing about ducks here? Perhaps I missed it.
Noir was pointing out that the only way Todd Akin's "biology lesson" could be correct is if he were talking about ducks.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.