Republicans in Congress are Experts in Rape.

No, they do not rape women.  But they consider themselves experts on the topic.  They wanted to put into law a type of rape not covered by those the criminal justice system or existing laws on rape.

All of this entertainment provided us by the Republicans in Congress and those running for President came to light with the statement by Missouri Republican candidate for the Senate, Todd Akin.  He said “legitimate rape” victims rarely get pregnant.  Apparently, there are rapes where the pregnancy is OK.

A Republican Party bill to stop federal funding of more abortions illustrates what he meant.  That bill inserted the term “forcible rape” as the only kind of rape pregnancy allowable for federally funded abortions.

The term “forcible rape” is not defined in the criminal code.  The Republican legislators, like Senate Candidate Akin, seem to know what they mean by the term.

I’ve read various versions.  One theory is it would exclude funded abortions for women who are administered a “date rape” drug without their knowledge.  It might exclude circumstances such as when a young woman voluntarily enters an apartment where there are several men.  Or, when a woman is raped by someone she knows or even has had sexual relations with, such as a jealous ex boyfriend.

Republicans are suddenly more concerned about the Missouri Senate seat than they are about abortion.  They have removed the phrase, “forcible rape” and asked pro-life Akin to drop out of the race.

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Republicans in Congress are Experts in Rape.

  1. Avatar of Kay Syvrud Kay Syvrud says:

    Not on the topic at all but…….there is a film at http://www.wimp.com/babyhummingbird/ that is a must see. A young man has rescued an injured baby hummingbird and brought it back to health and has taught it to drink from an eyedropper and then a feeder and has brought it outside to accustom it to the real world of hummingbirds.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Buffalogal 1:29 Thank you–I’m going to look at that. Last week visiting a relative in a nursing home in Iowa we watched a humming bird for several minutes feed, rest and feed again. A treat because we don’t see them much where we live.

  2. Stan says:

    http://jezebel.com/5369395/whoopi-on-roman-polanski-it-wasnt-rape+rape

    Whoopi: “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.

    But Whoopi Goldberg, in a condescending rant ostensibly about clarifying exactly what Roman Polanski was charged with (as if that matters, when nobody is denying that he drugged and had sex with a child),

  3. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

    I cannot believe it took this guy until he was 60-some years old before ever making an outrageous statement like this.

    Wait a minute, I bet he said crap like this lots of times to lots of people! I bet some of those zany people elevated him to a position of power!

    Sucks when you’re so successful that suddenly the statements that got you into a position of power get your summarily tossed out on your self-righteous, condescending ear.

    • Stan says:

      Oh come now, have you followed the career of Joe Biden?

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        Stan 3:12 Joe Bieden has said only some rapes are legitimate?

        • Stan says:

          “I cannot believe it took this guy until he was 60-some years old before ever making an outrageous statement like this.”

          Acting dumb doesn’t suit you Jon.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Stan 12:04 “Acting dumb doesn’t suit you Jon.”

            This was actually Mac’s writing. I will be surprised, however, if some others do not come forward and say they heard Aken say the same thing at other times. If even one person does this, it will be hard for him to get this off the front burner.

      • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

        Biden has said a lot of stupid things. Some of them potentially inflammatory. But, fire needs oxygen. In this case the oxygen source is two fold. 1) His Presidential nominee absolutely does not want social issues on the table, especially abortion and 2) He’s in a contested Senate race for what could turn out to be the 51st seat one way or the other.

  4. Henry says:

    Jon, I would have never thought you and Coulter would find common ground.
    http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/20/ann-coulter-if-akin-loves-his-country-he-will-step-aside/
    Jon and Coulter make a nice team.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Henry 2:15 re: Coulter wants Akin to step aside.

      I remember reading during the primary season how delighted Sen. Claire McCaskill was that Akin was chosen by the Republicans. Now, I read she is worried someone else will be running against her. I’m on McCaskill’s team, not Coulter’s.

      • Henry says:

        Jon, then keep celebrating Aching’s gaffe. I welcome it. It is actually politically helpful. We’ll put your schadenfreude to good effect.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Henry 3:58 “It is actually politically helpful.”

          You may be right. A lot of people like it when politicans step forward, ridicule women in general and proclaim themselves as experts on the difference between ordinary, normal rape, and, legimate rape.

          • Henry says:

            I was referring to your schadenfreude being politically helpful. Nice try.

            Keep pushing. We only have until 5:00 today. Your continued help is needed.

  5. entech says:

    Call it what you like, without willing and informed consent, it is wrong.

  6. Simple says:

    This is where a masters degree in divinity gets you. In just doing a little reading he sure sounds like a dominionist.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Simple 9:51 “This is where a masters degree in divinity gets you.”

      You have to admire Akin’s brilliant contribution to law enforcement. Now, law enforcement does not have to just takes a woman’s word that she was raped. Instead, officials wait to see if her body accepts the sperm of the man. If she gets pregnant, it was not rape.

  7. Simple says:

    These people are constantly praying for guidance and wisdom. Yet they say such stupid and hateful things. In my mind just more proof that their god does not exist.

  8. Michael Ross says:

    Libs say kill the kid and rehabilitate the rapist for $100,000/year at taxpayer expence. When he “cured” he can rejoin society as a productive citizen. Right Jon?

    • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

      Michael Ross:

      Just like Akin you mention “the kid” and “the rapist” but ignore “the woman.” If the only way to defend your position is to pretend that at least 1/3 of the entities who count in the analysis don’t exist, perhaps your position needs rethinking.

      • Henry says:

        I would have to agree with Michael on this one. Seems like Michael was only describing the liberal condition, not positing his own.

        If we were to compare using your assertion (which falls short), conservatives take into account only 2/3 of the equation (according to you), but meanwhile, liberals take into account a whopping 1/3 of the equation (just ask PP).

        • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

          The pro choice position ignores no one. The criminal is punished, and the victim is allowed to make what they believe is the best decision for them and their potential child (or not). It’s just plain dumb to act like this is a consequence free choice for the victim. They’re in a position where there is no right answer and no one has a right to dictate to them how to make the best of a terrible situation. If they to end the pregnancy that should be up to them, if they want to keep the baby that should be up to them, if they want to place the baby for adoption that should be up to them.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            “…ignores no one.” What about the child? Even victims of incest have healthy babies. “Potential child” indeed. I don’t see the earliest premies declaired “official” until after the usual nine month gestational date.

          • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

            1) Why do people act like this issue ends at birth?

            The consequences of being forced to have an unwanted baby reverberate through the lives of the mother and the child, their family and community and society as a whole.

            2) Who’s better positioned to make the best decision for themselves and their offspring? The mother or the government?

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Ask the baby.

          • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

            Really?

            Social conservative are all about children making up their own minds all of a sudden? :)

            But wouldn’t it be nice if we actually could? There’s a reason that this issue is so intractable. It’s hard. Many on the left like to believe that no one on the right gives two shakes about women. And many on the right like to believe that no one on left has any concern about the unborn. And we get calcified and cynical in our positions. The reality is far more complicated.

            How many women who’ve had or contemplated having an abortion, for whatever reason, do you think have asked themselves a version of that very same question? I’d bet just about all of them.

            If they need someone to help them with the answer, there are all kinds of resources to draw on, family, faith, friends, medical, etc. If the want to say “Jesus take the wheel” they can and do. What they don’t need is the government dictating the answer to them.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Another diversionary reply. Ask the baby if it should be aborted. Obviously it can’t respond immediately. Wait a while, and ask later.

          • Henry says:

            Ott: “It’s hard.”

            Understandedly so. When the solution is the denigration of white, Christian men (by Jon and others), the problem will continue to be hard.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Michael 6:19 “Right Jon?”

      Liberals see an adult human being, a woman, as being more valuable than two or three cells, the fertilized egg, when the interests of the two conflicts. Right to life people seem to put the cells at a higher value than the woman. You are right in that sense.

      When the cells are there because of a rape, liberals will always be in favor of the woman.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        Oh…. I think it could be said; Liberals will always be …” in favor of the woman”… having an abortion, even without the factor of rape.

      • Henry says:

        Jon: “a woman, as being more valuable than two or three cells, the fertilized egg,”

        ,which the fertilized egg quickly gets extrapolated to a full-term baby when there is a “conflict”.

        I thought this was about “privacy”, not choosing one life over another? What gives? Somebody apparently lied in 1973. Somebody lied in 1973, and babies are killed. Somebody lied in 2010 that the “Affordable” Care Act is not a tax, then SCOTUS tells me it is a tax, and I need to pay for this “affordable” care. Seems like a lot of word games going on here. But it obviously works at getting political liberals what they want.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Henry 11:50 “which the fertilitized egg quickly gets extrapolated to a full-term baby..”

          Henry, how could you make such a mistake? The two cells are a baby in right-to-life logic.

          • Henry says:

            No mistake. The baby is called cells in abortion-speak. Therein is the extrapolation. The argument is initially founded on cells that seem to some people to be non-viable without human characteristic. Once the “sale” is made (right or wrong, I say wrong), the procedure is applied to even a full-term baby if necessary. Bait-and-switch.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 12:34 “Once the sale is made…the procedure is applied to even a full-term baby if necessary.”

            So far as I know, in western law, a baby has always been considered human being after it is born. I’ve never forgotten an Ann Landers column some 40 years ago where a lawyer wrote that if we move away from that legal standard, there will be nothing but trouble forever.

          • Henry says:

            Ok. Now the standard of undeniable life according to Jon is passage through the birth canal. The “two cells” argument seems to have been abandoned by Jon. Ok, we have a new standard. Thanks, Jon for clearing this new one up.

          • Stan says:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR_blog.html

            “We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk,”

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Somehow the saying; “life unworthy of life”, pops into mind. Can’t remember where I heard it, but it is catchy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>