Posted on 08/21/2012 10:40:56 AM PDT by Uncle Slayton
Rep. Todd Akin, the embattled Senate candidate who used the phrase “legitimate rape” in talking about abortion and pregnancy, said Tuesday afternoon that he would stick to his decision to remain in the race.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I see.......so what you’re basically arguing is that an ALREADY pregnant woman being raped could be more likely to result in a miscarriage?...
...his problem is that he inserted a clause in between his subject and predicate, which obfuscated what he wanted to say...what you’ve posted above is simply trying to backpedal because you misread his original statement...
...trouble is, what Akin said doesn’t in the least resemble his premise...assuming his premise to be the least bit defensible, which I do not...
Or they were just flawed candidates that didn’t belong in a general election in the first place.
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio were also opposed by the “GOP Establishment” and they won, convincingly. It speaks to their intelligence and ability to campaign. They also didn’t make foolish comments that left them inserting foot-into-mouth.
I was thinking the same thing.
“Missouri went Rep in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004, and 2008.........”
Please note I said “similar” (though I admittedly underestimated MO in terms of recent Presidential elections).
However, as far as “solid blue” is concerned ... Gore won PA by 3% in 2000 and Kerry won PA by < 3% in 2004. Trust me, its not that blue of a state despite 2008. The state is trending “better” overall. 2010 was quite a nice recovery from 2008. I hold some hope for 2012, but not much.
“Santorum ran into a national buzz saw in 2006.”
Much like Akin is charging head first into the national buzzsaw.
Please, PLEASE understand that I hope I am wrong :-). I know I’m contributing to what people in the Akin camp (terrible way to refer to this) are seeing as “ the chicken little syndrome of 2012”, but my first thoughts ran to Rick Santorum when this whole thing unfolded.
You’re still wrong, obviously you didn’t listen to Akin’s interview with Hannity yesterday.
His comment had nothing to do with what happens AFTER a woman gets pregnant, he was trying to repeat the tired old disproven Mecklenburg line about women not being able to become pregnant as the result of a rape but he even failed at that and made it sound worse.
One that’s shockingly like yours in demographics and voting histories.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
I doubt it.
I’m much better known and far more talented than he is, I’m sure.
I sell out concert halls. He shoots himself in the foot.
As I said earlier.
I cannot support anyone with the IQ of a cement mixer.
Having a functioning BRAIN is my first qualification for high office.
weird how Biden’s gaffs or comments are always ignored and the media say”well that’s Biden”
He;s a VP for crying out loud but a man who runs for senate is attacked like mad.
Is this the fraud science that you are talking about:...
...very good, uncle chip...except for the fact that stress inhibiting reproduction has nothing to do with a woman who may already be ovulating and then gets raped...stress has absolutely nothing to do with that scenario, it may work to prevent a woman from ovulating, but unless the woman getting raped were stressed prior to being raped, ovulation would not be affected by the obvious stress from the rape...
...actually, the another poster’s point about increased miscarriage was much better than this stuff you bring, at least he had his bilogical timing down....
What happened in 2006 is similar to what happened in the 2010 midterms. Just as 2006 was a harbinger of what happened in 2008, 2010 could foreshadow what will happen in 2012. Akin is not running into a buzz saw, McCaskill and Obama are.
Just kidding.
...trouble is, what Akin said doesn’t in the least resemble his premise...assuming his premise to be the least bit defensible, which I do not...
Charles Jaco:
Okay, so if an abortion can be considered in the case of, say, tubal pregnancy or something like that, what about in the case of rape? Should it be legal or not?”
Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.):
Well, you know, uh, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, ‘Well, how do you – how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question.’
It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
Again, here is the reply in question...
Jaco was asking about a woman who was pregnant from the rape, wasn't he?
You’re crying about what is. if you’re a Democrat, you have the luxury of being allowed to be a moron without being called out on it, Republicans don’t, its a simple fact and comes along with having the media in your back pocket. If a Republican candidate can’t deal with that, they don’t belong in politics.
Zhang, that may be one of the most intelligent comments on this whole thread.
Christian conservatives have a bad habit of not asking ourselves what our words sound like outside our subculture.
It wouldn't at all surprise me if Todd Akin had been told hundreds of times that rape rarely results in pregnancy, and repeated that in front of a reporter who knew how explosive that comment would be.
This whole stupid discussion about whether rape can result in pregnancy isn't an issue addressed by Scripture, but there are plenty of Scriptural arguments that sound really bad to a secular audience. If we're going to make those arguments we need to know right up front that they will cause some of our enemies to mock, some to get angry, and others to scratch their heads. That's not necessarily bad, but we need to avoid unnecessary offense at the same time that we understand that some offense **IS** necessary to win. Truth hurts.
We need to be prepared to defend pro-life positions using arguments that convince not only ourselves but others. Akin really blew it.
The question is what do we do now as conservatives, and that is not at all clear.
There is a big difference between Biden being a dufus and someone talking about legitimate rape and making some asinine assertion about women’s bodies. There’s no cover on this one.
He was saying whether or not abortion is justified in the case of rape.
Akin answered that in the case of “legitimate rape”, the body has a way “shut that whole thing down”, which as he proved on Hannity, he meant to reduce fertility so that pregnancy never happens.
Also, your repeated harping on cortisol is asinine, miscarriage rates among rape victims are 15-20%, conventional miscarriage rates are 10-20%, so the “x factor” that you’re looking for simply isn’t there, at least not by regular Earth scientific standards.
You don't get it. The voters of Missouri are going to be running him off in November. And with it, the chance to repeal ObamaTax.
There will not be any opportunity to repeal ObamaTax after 2015. And there will not be another opportunity to repeal McCaskill until 2018. Is stoking Akin's ego really worth that?
His comment had nothing to do with what happens AFTER a woman gets pregnant...
Which comment is that?
...the tired old disproven Mecklenburg line about women not being able to become pregnant as the result of a rape...
Do you only have snippets of Mecklenburg as well or do you have something more substantial?
And if it's been "proven" and you "know what you're talking about" then pony that info on up and "Show Me!" (chuckle at the expense of Missouri) what you know!
You're not getting it. The lefty media wants him to stay in the race. He's the best thing the Democrats have going right now. If Akin continues to say more stupid things, Obama might actually take Missouri.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.