Bob Parks: Should Todd Akin Drop Out? -- "Yes, he said something stupid and has apologized. However the same people claiming outrage are the some of the same that still supported Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton…"
What did he say that was stupid? As best I understand it, what he said is:
1) Not every time a woman charges 'Rape!' is *actually* a rape;
2) That a child may have been conceived by a rape is absolutely no justification for murdering him in the womb;
3) Conceptions from rapes are statistically rare, in any event:
3a) a woman's body seems to have some sort of built-in defense against such conceptions.
That last isn't stupid. It may be incorrect -- it's "common knowledge" via "old wives tales" -- but it isn't a stupid thing to say. It may even be correct.
Here's another claim that I expect most "liberals" will say is "stupid" -- "A girl who does not live in the same household as her biological father has a higher chance of entering puberty earlier than girls who do live with their biological fathers."
Or, to put it another way that will *really* cause the "liberals" to blow a mental gasket -- "Growing up in the same household with her biological father affords a girl some measure of protection against early sexual experimentation and early pregnancy."
However "stupid" it may seem, medical science says it's true -- Early Female Puberty Linked To Absent Biological Father [edit: while the linked article is but two years old, I had read similar article(s) a number of years ago; the point is, this effect has been known and studied for some time longer than two years.]
So, is it *really* "stupid" to suspect or believe that women's body may have built-in defenses against conceptions from rape?
Take-Home Message --
The fact is, 1) and 2) are true - and that he said those truths is why the “liberals” want to string him up. And, of course, the GOP Establishment, being "liberals" and all-but indistinguishable from Democrats, will never stand up for him.
Bob Parks: The Todd Akin Dangerous Precedent
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
That last isn't stupid. It may be incorrect -- it's "common knowledge" via "old wives tales" -- but it isn't a stupid thing to say. It may even be correct.
I defy anyone who reads this blog to stand up and say this claim sounds at all plausible. Drew, you game?
Yes, it was a stupid thing to say. Measuring it in terms of politics, it has torpedoed his candidacy, and made it much harder for the Republicans to win the senate - and it wasn't that hard to imagine it would have such a negative effect. Measuring it in terms of understanding, it "may be correct" in the same way that homeopathy "may work", as far as some totally uninformed person may know. Even if it's "common knowledge" via "old wives tales", a senate candidate should know to not blurt such crap out in public without at least verifying it.
So, is it *really* "stupid" to suspect or believe that women's body may have built-in defenses against conceptions from rape?
It's absolutely stupid to say such a thing based on "something I think I heard from some guy(s)", especially when you're in his position. Yes, it's stupid to, when talking about a very controversial subject, shoot from the hip instead of bothering to check and double check your statements when talking about what amount to scientific claims.
And, of course, the GOP Establishment, being "liberals" and all-but indistinguishable from Democrats, will never stand up for him.
Yeah, because wanting an obvious seat loser who made a real stupid, careless mistake to step down for the good of the party is a "liberal" act.
They want him gone because he's now dead weight, and if he's replaced, the seat may well be winnable. He made a mistake, a big one, that he's entirely culpable for.
And you are bad at spinning, no matter what you imagine Gentle Reader *should* think.
Why don't you just go bother someone who cares about your shit? I don't.
Actually, I did think it sounded somewhat plausible when I heard it.
I couldn't figure out why people were even upset about it. Even if it's not true, it's not worth getting upset about.
I assumed that maybe they were upset at him for saying that some rape claims were false (like Ilion states), or perhaps that non-forcible rapes (e.g. "statutory rape") should not really count as rape. But it turns out that people are just upset because they think he feels rape is "legitimate"? Are people really that intentionally dumb? I am not sure whether they are, or whether they are just dishonest. It is hard to imagine that even a legitimately stupid person would interpret his words to mean that rape is itself justifiable.
Regarding the issues of whether women fake rape claims, I was considering taking this opportunity to resume posting on my blog. But on the issue of whether the words "legitimate rape" means justified rape, I feel like that's a little too boring and pointless to waste a post over.
I guess one could easily make a post about the fact that Republicans are too quick to turn on each other. But, ehh.
The reason he used the unfortunate (or stupid, take your pick) term "legitimate rape" is the same reason that Whoopie Goldberg used the term "rape-rape". The leftists -- those wicked people to whom fools who like to call themselves 'conservative' are forever willing to submit -- have so succeeded in convincing so many people that ‘rape’ means “any sexual activity, or hint of sexual interest, that creeps-out a man-hating lesbian”, that many people are now resorting to on-the-fly qualifiers so as to actual rape from “anything of a sexual nature that creeps-out man hating lesbians”.
"I guess one could easily make a post about the fact that Republicans are too quick to turn on each other. But, ehh."
There are Republicans and there are conservatives. There are conservatives, and there are "conservative" -- who are really just unaware puppets of the leftist indoctrination in which we are all marinated during our so-called educations.
Post a Comment