Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by speedracer "legitimate rape" is a dog whistle. The hardcore pro lifers know banning rape victim abortion is a loser. But their politicians also know that hard core pro lifers don't give a shit about whether it was rape or not and believe that people will just use it as an excuse to get abortions. So they try to redefine what the word rape means and you get shit like this. The only "mistake" the dude made was in the sort of crass way he put it but that's exactly what he meant and that's exactly what his supporters want to hear. "and not only that bob, but her body will fight it off if she's not the dirty whore we all auto-assume about her. A doctor told me that. That's ing science right there. See? It's not just the bible. *wink wink*" and he still has no idea why everyone's all pissy. Of course he wouldn't quit. He didn't say anything wrong. It's reality to them. If she isn't wheeled into the er on the cusp of ing death, bitch wanted it. It's cool though. He's talking about the deficit so i'm voting for him anyway. /thanks libertarians! Siding with them is brilliant!

qft.

Originally Posted by RealDeals Man, I've been trying to figure it out since I've been on Vs. Is he trolling? Isn't he trolling? Is he CEREALZ? Nah, I've figured it out... UB is a full on troll. That or he's one of those pathetic point shavers that are keeping the score in their mind. ( OOH SEE, THE DEMS DO IT TOO SO NOW LET'S FORGET THE RIDICULOUSNESS AND THE DISGUST SUCH A TOPIC SHOULD CAUSE AND BEGIN A 30 POST GAME OF HE-SAID SHE-SAID! HOORAY! YOUR TURN DD) Seriously kiddies, DO NOT feed the trolls.

Hey man, at least I'm not dragging this out for pages like I used too.

I have to say, arguing with bob in person would probably be an interesting, if incredibly frustrating experience.

Originally Posted by speedracer "Legitimate rape" is a dog whistle.

For...? Is this his way of communicating that he's not some ninny liberal communist who says they're pro-life, but then hedges on incest and abortion (or worst of all, personal right to privacy) in order to avoid doing anything about it?

i.e, the dog whistle is that by being a hardline numbskull, he's telling the anti-choice persons that he'll totally outlaw all abortion ever?

I just want to be clear - "dog whistle" is usually a subtle statement. this has the subtlety of a brick to the skull.

Originally Posted by mykevermin For...? Is this his way of communicating that he's not some ninny liberal communist who says they're pro-life, but then hedges on incest and abortion (or worst of all, personal right to privacy) in order to avoid doing anything about it? i.e, the dog whistle is that by being a hardline numbskull, he's telling the anti-choice persons that he'll totally outlaw all abortion ever? I just want to be clear - "dog whistle" is usually a subtle statement. this has the subtlety of a brick to the skull.

I'd also like to add that in addition to subtle, it's an easily understood statement describing something specific. I know you know that, but you know how literal some people can get.

I'd say it's less a dog whistle and more a bullhorn.

Originally Posted by mykevermin For...? Is this his way of communicating that he's not some ninny liberal communist who says they're pro-life, but then hedges on incest and abortion (or worst of all, personal right to privacy) in order to avoid doing anything about it? i.e, the dog whistle is that by being a hardline numbskull, he's telling the anti-choice persons that he'll totally outlaw all abortion ever? I just want to be clear - "dog whistle" is usually a subtle statement. this has the subtlety of a brick to the skull.

I think his intention was to dog whistle but he slipped up.

Originally Posted by RealDeals [more of the usual]

It's always fun when I post directly on topic and then some of the same folks come in and throw insults my way for doing it.

Look, this guy (Akins) is a douche. That's pretty obvious and I think we all pretty much agree on it.

So, where does the topic go from here? We can have such riveting discussions like talking about inserting dildos sideways or try to crack jokes about other ways to try to define a phrase as ignorant as "legitimate rape". I suppose that's a great use of our time.

There's a great line in Roger Ebert's review of Natural Born Killers that is applicable here.

We are becoming a society more interested in crime and scandal than in anything else - more than in politics and the arts, certainly, and maybe even more than sports...

This isn't a national debate or an overview of the issues, it's a scandal over some stupid thing some guy said and it's being played out far too much. If only an overview of the two candidates stances on civil liberties was the top story on CNN for three days. Wait a second, they both agree on those things.

These social scandals cloud the minds of the electorate, but people like it because it gives us something to get all worked up about and it's easy to understand.

Originally Posted by Spokker There's a great line in Roger Ebert's review of Natural Born Killers that is applicable here. This isn't a national debate or an overview of the issues, it's a scandal over some stupid thing some guy said and it's being played out far too much. If only an overview of the two candidates stances on civil liberties was the top story on CNN for three days. Wait a second, they both agree on those things. These social scandals cloud the minds of the electorate, but people like it because it gives us something to get all worked up about and it's easy to understand.

I whole-heartedly disagree. This isn't Monica Lewinski or Ashley Dupree. This is the kind of scandal that leads to healthy discussion of the issues.

Akin was the frontrunner, he had a lead and was on track to be the Republican's tide-turning Senator. Akin was talking about policy, he was trying to justify his political stance on abortion.

It's forcing the Republicans to spend a little too much time on an issue that has to potential to divide their base. It forces Republicans to explain their viewpoints on women's health issues. They can no longer duck behind language about definding the "unborn", they have to clarify what they think of women and how many rights women should be afforded when it comes to reproduction.

In short, it's a time when it sucks to be in the party of small-minded bitter misogynists. And I'm loving it!

Originally Posted by camoor I whole-heartedly disagree. This isn't Monica Lewinski or Ashley Dupree. This is the kind of scandal that leads to healthy discussion of the issues. Akin was the frontrunner, he had a lead and was on track to be the Republican's tide-turning Senator. Akin was talking about policy, he was trying to justify his political stance on abortion. It's forcing the Republicans to spend a little too much time on an issue that has to potential to divide their base. It forces Republicans to explain their viewpoints on women's health issues. They can no longer duck behind language about definding the "unborn", they have to clarify what they think of women and how many rights women should be afforded when it comes to reproduction. In short, it's a time when it sucks to be in the party of small-minded bitter misogynists. And I'm loving it!

Totally agree with this.

In a perfect world, Akin would have made this statement, then been laughed out of the race. I mean, he didn't even go with the more reasonable "A life is a life, regardless of how it was conceived" line. He went with something so totally bull**** batty that it never should have been a point of discussion. Like Vermin Supreme, but without the satire.

But some of the "social conservatives" are so screwed up in the head that they actually support someone who thinks this. Thus, we apparently do need national discussion about it.

This is absolutely what people talk about when they complain that social issues take over in an election year to distract from real issues like the deficit, war and civil liberties.

I can't makes head or tails of this thread, is Akin trying to say that women of religious conviction form anti-sperm antibodies when being raped?

Originally Posted by Indigo_Streetlight I can't makes head or tails of this thread, is Akin trying to say that women of religious conviction form anti-sperm antibodies when being raped?

He tried to say that stress causes strain on the reproductive system and makes for a less friendly environment for conception.

Don't know why he would even bother trying to make that argument. If he wanted to talk about women who cry wolf after consensual sex, he chose a very awkward way to go about it.

Originally Posted by speedracer "and not only that Bob, but her body will fight it off if she's not the dirty whore we all auto-assume about her. A doctor told me that. That's ing science right there. See? It's not just the bible. *wink wink*" And he still has no idea why everyone's all pissy. Of course he wouldn't quit. He didn't say anything wrong. It's reality to them. If she isn't wheeled into the ER on the cusp of ing death, bitch wanted it.

In my opinion, this is the part of the debate that should be getting the attention. It shouldn't be his loose grasp of biology or his belief that vaginas come equipped with panic rooms for the egg, but the dangerous implication that if someone gets pregnant from rape, it obviously wasn't rape and she wanted it, whether she realizes it or not. That is the most reprehensible part of what he said. It is taking the victims of an already traumatic incident and characterizing them either as whores or liars, and this is when many women are already reluctant to report the crime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ub_pNukOmY

It's like they bought a GOP Mad Libs book and turned it into a commercial.

Seriously, what in the bumble is he even trying to say?

(This ad is from way earlier in the year, but just goes to show you what blundering idiots the GOP will vote for just as long as they have the right jargon down.)

That ad didn't even have a message, it was just a bunch of buzzwords strung together with a religious overtone.

Originally Posted by Spokker This is absolutely what people talk about when they complain that social issues take over in an election year to distract from real issues like the deficit, war and civil liberties.

Is this a joke that went over my head?

civil liberties ≠ social issues.

Got it.

...

huh?

No, abortion is not a civil liberties issue from the woman's perspective. There's a debate there in which a third-party, the fetus/baby/gob of cells/whatever is involved. The debate is over what rights this third-party has and when they have them. I think they have zero rights until the first trimester is over or in cases in which the parasite is going to kill its host, but clearly others disagree. It might be a civil liberties issue from the would-be baby's perspective, at least in the 2nd or 3rd trimester.

And you do not have a right to an abortion performed by a professional anymore than you have a right to public transportation, health care or ipods. There are all sorts of things that are wrong with making the provision of a product or service a right, and defenders of abortion should understand why.