The presidential campaign turned to the subject of abortion this week after Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican candidate for Senate in Missouri, repeated the spurious claim that rape rarely results in pregnancy. "From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," Akin said in an interview with a local television station in St. Louis. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
Akin's claim about the rarity of pregnancies resulting from rape is, of course, false. Estimates of the number of pregnancies resulting from rape each year range from 3,000 to 25,000.
But the deeper, embedded assumption here -- that rape cannot truly be labeled as such if the victim becomes pregnant -- is not merely a bizarre misunderstanding of basic human biology. It's an insidious myth peddled by figures on the far-right for decades, and its lineage can be traced back centuries, to the earliest, most primitive theories about women, sexuality and reproduction.
In the second-century AD, the Roman physician Galen laid the groundwork for this myth with his theory that the reproductive systems of men and women were virtually identical. Galen wrote of genitalia, "Turn outward the woman's, turn inward, so to speak, and fold double the man's, and you will find the same in both in every respect."
That idea persisted in some form for centuries, influencing early legal theories about the relationship between pregnancy and sexual assault. A Medieval legal text from the 13th century, for example, contains this passage about rape: "If ... the woman should have conceived at the time alleged in the appeal, [the allegation] abates, for without a woman's consent she could not conceive."
The false principle at the heart of this theory was that women must experience sexual arousal in order for a pregnancy to occur. If the victim became pregnant, she must have consented, thus disproving the allegation of rape.
In the 17th century, the English Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale, who presided over a series of prominent witch trials, extended this principle to the courtroom, writing famously, "In a rape case it is the victim, not the defendant, who is on trial."
These antiquated notions about sexuality and reproduction persisted even into the 19th century, when the British physician Samuel Farr wrote in The Elements of Medical Jurisprudence, "For without an excitation of lust, or the enjoyment of pleasure in the venereal act, no conception can probably take place. So that if an absolute rape were to be perpetrated, it is not likely she would become pregnant."
This apocryphal connection between consent and pregnancy has been disproved countless times over the last half-century, but nonetheless persists in certain far-right circles. As recently as 1999, for example, Dr. John Willke, the former president of the National Right to Life Committee, wrote: "Assault rape pregnancies are extremely rare. … There's no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy."
Willke has long been a prominent figure in the anti-abortion movement. So prominent, in fact, that in 2007, a leading Republican presidential candidate eagerly touted Wilke's endorsement, saying in a statement at the time, "I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement."
On Thursday of next week that candidate, Mitt Romney, will formally accept the presidential nomination of a party whose platform explicitly calls for amending the United States Constitution to outlaw abortions entirely, making no exceptions for incest, the mother's health, or rape.
:: Sal Gentile is a segment & digital producer for Up w/ Chris Hayes. Follow him on Twitter at @salgentile. ::
Leave a Comment:
I love Chris's show but his search for justification and explanation for Akin's beliefs is totally ridiculous. Why didn't he search out a few PHD's ( from small Bible colleges) who did their thesis on the subject and can defend Akin just like Creationists defend the concept of marriage (except for Solomon who had 1,000 concubines).
There is real hard data on the subject from World War 2 when both German and Russian armies violently raped millions of women. Did any of them get pregnant? Why didn't any of this ugly history get explored.
All anyone needs to know is that Akin is an @!$%#. And so is anyone else who gets their science from the Bible.
I thought the background was fascinating. How is it in any way a good thing that these people justify their thinking with 13th Century "science"?
Fran i am not interested if Akin says putting leeches on a woman's breasts for a week will induce a natural hormonal rejection of the pregnancy. We don't need to search history for a logical basis for that belief. Nuts is Nuts!
I think it is always good to follow the journalistic impetus to try and understand a deeply different viewpoint. And there's a big difference between locating the source of what somebody believes and actually excusing or advocating for it.
In this case, Sal's reporting validates my own concerns that the Republican party is actually driving the country backwards, and gives factual standing to the feeling that Akin's views are not just nuts, but in fact, MEDIEVAL.
Thanks, Sal.
Chris’ comment about labor unions today got
my mind reeling. I know the show was focused on important race and individual
rights issues, but I haven’t been able to stop thinking about my own experience
since. I’m a former factory worker who lost my job due to outsourcing and the
movement of work to ‘right to work’ states. I was a member of our local UAW
bargaining committee for ten years and was an eye witness to the selling out of
our local by the national UAW in the playing out of a numbers game that
affected all of our members’ lives. I am presently pursuing a degree in
sustainable management through the Trade Readjustment Act which I never would
have known about without the UAW. The conflicted feelings and thoughts towards
unions that Chris mentioned strike very close to home for me. I’d like to see
more on this topic on your show at some point. Thanks for your attention, Pete
Flannery
There needs to be a full show devoted to the challenges for US middle income laborer- consumer. There are several facets
It seems to me if the economy is the main challenge facing the US, then thoughtful long form journalism ought to devote some time, even though much of the electorate seems to be unable to consider the subject in anything other than the most simplistic terms.
John,
While I agree with you that the economy is the main challenge facing the US and that SOMEONE should be doing in depth discussions of the economic issues, don't you think that just jumping into the "lump of labor fallacy" and the "neo-Ludditism" are just a bit advanced for the general audience that "UP with Chris Hayes" or the "Rachel Maddow Show" courts? How would Chris or Rachel simplify the theories of Albus and Tabarrok (and many others) so that the general audience could appreciate how they affect the views of the political parties today? Remember, MSNBC projects itself as "The place for Politics"!
Wouldn't it be better to start with Economics 101, perhaps in "documentaries" like they just did on Romney?
Onceler:
Do you think Solman's pieces are understandable enough examples of the kind of coverage that Stewart advocates? "Look, I'm not a hedge fund manager but my head is attached to my spinal column". - Eg: his piece on the Mortage financing fiasco.
Even if millions of viewers will watch something like a Solman piece and enjoy it rather than treat it as a tablespoon of castor oil, the research for this material deserves combat pay. It only begins with the migraines generated by the complexity of the subject matter. It's a mine field for responsible economics journalism because big players in the status quo of the US economy have waged an aggressive campaign since the 70s to own academic research in educational and research institutions and exclude consideration of heterodox economic theory. A case in point for the "think tank" portion of this campaign can be seen with Tabarrok and his pal Cohen both from the Mercatus center who appear at least superficially to be playing both sides of the court. I don't know if you are familiar with high technology research, but if you haven't read Cohen's e-booklet, his themes are indicated well enough in the piece that Solman did on this thinking a while back. It is highly disinformative about tech innovation, and as far as I'm concerned is a disingenuous campaign to have his foot in the door to express Koch brother philosophy on "technological unemployment" discussions and the systemic solutions debate- should it ever materialize.
You are aware of the axe that Mercatus center has to grind, right? The Koch's are being denied full ownership of Cato (WaPost article), but no problem- this is their own private tank to do their work.
The last thing that economic players want is for people to develop any political opinions about how the economy works. They are quite willing to politicize science, the judicial system, academic freedom at the US's best universities and any other institution of authority. But politicizing economics thought? Well- what wild eyed Bolsheviks do! I can hear the thinking of the 1% now... "Heavens to Besty- even that red baiter Nixon- look what he did when he tried his hand at intervention. As for the unwashed masses? Imagine the rabble discussing having ownership of the capital investment in machines as James Albus advocates. It's practically Marx's ownership of the means of production for pete's sake."
As for discussing it on MSNBC? I think Solman does the 101 type stuff well enough. They could get someone with good technical BS detectors like Ezra to do folksy type intros in Solman's style. There are probably decent enough popularizer writers who can inject drama and get a sense of the rivalries in the way that Discovery channel tries to pump up dry content with emotive material.
Honestly though? If you think about it, Dickens got the penetration into the minds of the people. As Camus put it, "A novel is never anything but a philosophy put into images". So maybe theater is what is necessary for the clearest communication of economics, for example,
There is a number 3 using a new genre of fiction that allows interactivity. This carries out the same Camus principle but the canvas is not the printed word but fictious social environments like second life or role playing games. Theoretically it should be possible illustrating in simple Dickensian characterizations or indirectly through encoding the economic principles at play within the rules executed in the "game". Master those principles, and you are adept in the artificial environment.
I might do something with this sort of approach.
I think the issue of abortion has been defined by the Republicans to deflect from their insidious war on women's health. Whenever discussing Republicans and abortion, one should always talk about what Republicans are doing to prevent abortions. As all abortion advocates say, abortions should be safe, legal and rare. If you focus solely on abortion you are missing the whole story. For instance, the spurious claims that President Obama is waging a war on religion because of the mandate women's contraception must be covered for free. All Republicans opposed to abortion should be amenable to this mandate because contraception prevents pregnancy and hence the need to even consider an abortion. And yet Republicans are vehemently opposed to this mandate. They are using abortion as an emotional wedge issue to control women and all of their efforts should be discussed instead of focusing solely on abortion. Republicans are also opposed to sex education, condoms in schools, etc.
Sarah, Exceptionally excellent post. Thank you!
What a thoughtful and logical comment Sarah. At least one person agrees with you (me). Republicans, however think like the Catholic Bishops. They like Cardinal Thomas Nolan, who would deny contraception to starving African women with 10 children and no food. The miracle of birth is the will of G-d and cannot be questioned, or some such nonsense.
Republican women do not think like Catholic bishops, and that is something that the Obama campaign is exploiting with the advertisement they released yesterday regarding GOP women for Obama.
Sarah points out that the GOP is attempting to use it as a wedge issue, but as Chris and Rachel were exploring on yesterday's TRMS, they are alienating women, blacks and Latinos. So if true, the wedge they are driving is between themselves and the majority of the american electorate. They seem to be a slave to the Angry white man echo machine. Folks like Akin seem to feel they have license to express lunatic ideas that they have previously understood were unutterable. I don't think that politicians have gotten more neanderthal in their thinking- they are simply feeling more freedom to be honest about the thoughts they have long felt.
Remember the old saying,' If only men would get pregnant....abortion would be a sacrament." The day may come when men will bear children...if that happens, men will find a robot to "oven" and raise their children?
Thank you Joyce. Your opening statement clearly states what my impressions amounted to. In the intellectual realm there can be clear reasoning, but there is also over-reasoning: ego. Sometimes I think this new crop of young people, although widely knowledgeable, are a bit besotted with their abilities.
Lee I was afraid I would be banned from this site for posting my real thoughs. Thank you for letting me know that I am not a part of the extreme fringe that I despise.
Really like your show but by the time you are covering some of these stories via
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
You are posting this comment to a publicly viewable discussion.
Post to my Facebook Wall
blogs, the MSM the issue has been taken apart. Would be great if you Up folks could pick up an important issue that has been swept under the ru
Post to my Facebook Wall
g during the week and dig deeper. Like the pay to play Congressman and staff swim naked in the Sea of Galilee story. Now we know that the MSM went wild on the naked part of that story. But the pay to play piece was swept under the rug. Most Americans think that after the Abramoff/Ney scandal the ability of lobbyist to manipulate and buy votes had been reduced. But clearly after 80 congress folks went on paid trips paid by American Israel Education Foundation (Adelson involved). Will you dig into this story?
There was a lost opportunity here to consider how this question strikes at the heart of the relationship between our belief that we should be moral people, that our society should be pluralistic, and that freedom of people to believe what they choose should not be infringed on.
Fundamentally, the GOP does not believe in the freedom of others to have beliefs on spiritual questions that differ with their own. The GOP's simplest "tell", is that they make the strength of other's their weakness, and their own weakness their strength. So, whatever value they are trumpeting is precisely the value they are trampling. They simply do not believe in freedom of religion.
Large portions of the American public do not agree whether a fertilized zygote is a human being. Goldberg pointed out there are important questions even if we all agreed the zygote is a human being. Long before we get to that stage, two simple facts decide the matter:
The President put it this way to Christians: What if we walked out of church and saw a modern day Abraham up on top of his house, ready to sacrifice his bound son. To modern day progressives this seems like an absurd question. But to a modern fundamentalist Christian, Muslim or Jew, the thought experiment asks a serious question. If they were present during the defining moment for these three religions, would they not feel duty bound to do what the could to stop Abraham, or at least call the authorities to have him put away?
The trouble is that we all agree that Isaac is a human being and that murder is wrong. Abraham has a belief that justifies his action, but his position is unprovable. The conclusion for the modern day member of a pluralistic society is that Abraham should be prevented from carrying out his plans to sacrifice his son.
The GOP platform wording begins with an apple pie statement. Who does not affirm a belief in the sanctity in human life? The following statement does the sleight of hand, containing the unspoken assertion that states among other things, that a fertilized egg is a human being. This is a question of belief. When is a human a human? Does a living breathing human body which has no brain have a human being living inside of it? Effectively, this is similar to the question loved ones must ask themselves when they are given incontrovertible scientific proof that their grandfather's brain died. Is their grandfather somehow still present in that flesh? Or is there no person present in that body anymore?
Similarly, when is it that a human being is present in a zygote growing in a human womb? Before the rudiments of even the reptilian brain has formed, it is hard to believe based on current science that there is any human consciousness present. Similarly into the second trimester it can be concluded that a primate level of consciousness might be possible, but still, not human.
So there is no objectively provable way to support the assertion that an unborn "child" is a human being. Is it life? Yes. Are the cells human? Yes. Is there a person present in that mass of cells? The science answer is that it is unlikely, if by the question it is asked whether their is a human level of consciousness present.
The religious person may object that none of the science is relevant- many might object that the key question is whether a soul is present, and when that human soul is present. Some say it is the moment of conception, others say it is emergent and is dependent on the capacity of the entity for cognitive activity. I am a devout Christian and believe the latter, but I recognize there are many other principled theological positions. The point remains- even if I did believe the fertilized egg was a person, the question is unprovable and since there is no agreement on it, the state has no right to impose a contrary view on individuals
So this brings us to the practicalities for a society with multiple competing belief systems. The President's point in his "Call to Renewal" speech (transcript) is that civil government in a pluralistic society has a part to play regarding the values and beliefs we do hold in common. For matters that large portions of the population do not agree on, the implication is that the government should step away and respect the freedom of belief of the individual.
We agree the woman is an individual with rights, but we do not agree that a human person is present in her womb after the moment of conception. Any assertion to the contrary is an attempt by one group of persons in the society to force their beliefs on others.
What is ludicrous is that their bald expression of theocratic power is masquerading as freedom of religion. The GOP simply want to be free from the religion of others: they want to be free from the reality that large segments of the American public have different beliefs than theirs.
John-- Frankly I really don't care what professor, scientist, theologian including Obama and Joe the Nut Biden says. The question about abortion is very simply. When the divine spark of the heart beat is heard, life has been made. From what decision you as an individual or individuals make, the cards will be dealt with by our Heavenly Father. Trust me, he plays all hands. Play against his hand, you'll deal with his wrath. I frankly don't care what you pro abortionist think. I refuse for my tax dollars assist any type abortion. In case of rape, my heart goes toward the victims, with complete support, immediate medical attention with financial assistance if needed.
392 hemi,
If you REALLY BELIEVE this:
then why aren't you content to let GOD do the punishing? Seems to me if you believe your GOD is all powerful, then he really doesn't need YOU to do his "punishing" for him!!!
Or is it that you DON'T really believe in GOD and you really DON'T believe in what he says? Is it that you just want to force YOUR views on others and are using GOD as some wierd sort of "justification" to force YOUR control on others?
Oncerepublican---Out of all the comments I've seen you sir, is the most dim-witted, brainless, obtuse, and slow on the uptake of the month. All your trying to accomplish is some type of back door criticism of liberal aversion. You've made my point Obama diversion of all truths. You support a President and administration that made a MOCKERY of the good people. Put it simply what I said is the truth, and your trying to come up with some type of meaningless HORSE CRAP to degrade. Try something else.
392
WOW!! I touched a nerve!! Here's what YOU need to get into YOUR "dim-witted, brainless, obtuse, and slow" mind:
NOBODY is going to FORCE you to have an abortion if you do not want one if you believe it is wrong.
Yet YOU think YOU have the right to FORCE me NOT to have one, even though I DON'T believe as you do!
You get it yet? YOU think YOU get to force YOUR beliefs on me!
All that "spark of life" crap is just a BELIEF - there is NO SCIENCE to it - so WHY do YOU think YOU have the right to force that BELIEF on everyone else????
WHY can't you answer my questions in a civil manner if you TRULY BELIEVE in your GOD?
It is immoral to force a woman to bring life into this world. We don't have the societal infrastructure or the science to support the baby or the mother.
It is immoral to legislate upon what one doesn't fully understand. Do you know all the circumstances in which a pregnancy can kill the mother? Did you know 1 in 8 pregnancies end in miscarriage? Do you know how many women are raped by people they already know in a year?
It is also immoral to make the victim of a crime into a criminal by thrusting her into desperate circumstances. A raped girl should not be arrested in the same month as her rapist for expelling his progeny.
I don't care what god you believe in. The point is that LEGISLATORS are not GOD and shouldn't use their power to behave like gods, especially in this immoral fashion.
I'm not forcing anything on you. I'm only imposing my own personal beliefs. You can believe whatever you want. If you believe in Darwinism, you have that right. But sooner or later you will answer on your convictions. Read what Fran is saying, She giving me the impression she'll do what she wants. If I want an abortion, I'll get an abortion if the conditions are not favorable to her terms. Hey fine, do what you want. BUT NOT ON MY TAX MONEY YOUR NOT. You LIBS are going to ride this Atkins Wagon as long as you can divert from the real issues.
Romney own success in building Bain Capital from scratch into a successful organization with a great reputation that met a significant payroll and provided a service on which the economy absolutely depends." Over 28 years, the firm has boosted income at the companies it backed by $105 billion, creating thousands upon thousands of jobs. To attack Bain, you have to attack all of private equity.
President Obama's arrogance and hypocrisy revealed itself, yet again, when he chastised Congress on its refusal to cut subsidies for Big Oil.
He seems to forget when he went to Brazil and handed a $2 billion subsidy to develop its oil industry,. It was supposed to bring "cheap" oil to the U.S. and lower the prices of domestic fuel.
It did, in fact, help update and develop Brazil's oil refining and exploration capabilities. And China, not the U.S., is buying all of it. It's another failure added to what is getting to be a very long list of them.
From Solyndra, to Fast and Furious, QE1 and QE2, Cash for Clunkers and Obamacare, one has to ask, The $16 trillion debt limit will be reached Sept. 12 of this year, and Congress will raise it again, and the nation's credit rating will take another hit. because of the cooc we have in office.
Excuse me, it's not YOUR tax money. It is OUR money that we pay into OUR insurance! BTW WE pay taxes too. What if we decide that we don't "believe in" whatever medical prodedures YOU need? Is it OK if we tell you you can't have medical treatment because we don't "believe" in it?
Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions - is it OK for them to close down the Red Cross Blood Drives?
The rest of what you said are just "red herrings" and have no bearing on this conversation.
Re: #8.5
In the last paragraph is the following statement that is factually incorrect:
"The $16 trillion debt limit will be reached Sept. 12 of this year, and Congress will raise it again, and the nation's credit rating will take another hit."
The nation's credit rating did not "take a hit" in 2011 because the debt limit was raised. It was lowered because the Republicans were using the debt limit as a hostage to get their own demands - making the US look like complete idiots.
1. W. Kamau Bell is right - to a point.
W. Kamau Bell is right when he asserts that MEN should shut up before inserting themselves into issues involving WOMEN'S bodies. MEN should reserve their comments for the GUYS who put women in the position of having to make these choices in the first place (MEN respect people too much to do that, GUYS are too selfish to care). Do that and we may be well on our way to eliminating the problem.
2. The Republican Platform on Abortion
Mike Huckabee reminds me of the Minister of Parliament from the 1840's (The Potato Famine) who took his fellow MPs to task when they lamented the carnage in Ireland after passing the policies that brought on that carnage. We must hold all conservatives acountable for the consequences of their policies, not just Todd Akin, and we must do it in the marketplace as well as the polling booth.
3. The Consequences
In this debate I have yet to hear how these policies are to be enforced. The only effective enforcement measures I can think of will turn this country into a police state for half its citizens and their doctors. I am a male Catholic and I believe abortion destroys human life but I cannot support measures that destroy the freedoms this country was founded on. The girls brought to term through these policies will never enjoy the freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness so many Americans died for for 236 years.
W. Kamau Bell is right to point out the patriarchal farce being played out, but he is out of his fricking mind. For the adults in the room, the proposition is preposterous, calling into question the foundation of governance which requires representatives to faithfully defend the interests of groups they are not a member of.
Logically, his proposition is nonsense:
Bell is expressing the converse case of this argument from authority , that if X is not a member of set S then the proposition is presumed to be tainted. Think about the implication of that for governance. Concretely, does this mean that Obama cannot represent the interests of black americans because he is half white, that his heritage did not involve american slavery, or that he is wealthy and went to the best schools?
You are right, John, but you assume there are only adults in the room. Faithfully defending someone else's interests involves listening, and precious little of that goes on in this debate. Let us hope Mr. Bell's comments promotes more listening.
It took me a while to wrap my mind around all of the implications of Akin's statement, and I still haven't.
However, I sense a trap. The policy of allowing abortions in the cases of "legitimate," "forcible" rape or incest could effectively end abortions. One of yesterday's commentators, a democrat for life, stated that only 5% fall into this category of rape. Her group wants to prevent the 95%.
Being that most rapes-- date rape, drugged rape, pinned rape, rape by coercion, marital assault rape, statutory rape, rape due to miscommunication, and consentual sex that leads to brutality-- are not reported, women falling under those categories will have to prove to a doctor, the police, a judge that she was raped according to the State's definition of rape, which brings us back to the underreporting of rape.
Among that "95%" claim is (probably) a significant number of unwanted pregnancies due to rape. Rape trials are very difficult for men and women, especially when there is a lack of profound forensic evidence, as well as the social bias towards women that casts her as trying to ruin a man's life by making the claim. Add to this the intense public scrutiny and efforts of character assasination on both sides; and not-to-go-unmentioned, the apparently arbitrary range of justice doled out to perpetrators (compare Sandusky to some Catholic priests).
It seems that socially conversative Republicans have thought long and hard about this and they know that women can become pregnant due to rape. They also know that abortions and rape are directly related. So in order to reduce the number abortions, they have set out to restrict the definition of rape, rather than reduce the numbers of rapes. Otherwise we would have to institute rape court, like traffic court through which the perpetrator could demand parental rights and insert themselves in the life of the victim for years. Or we could witness an increase of rape-related murders.
The exceptions of State-defined rape and incest are a trap.
Hemi, regarding your statement:
This is not responsive to the issue. The GOP is not asserting that there is simply life there. As a factual matter they have not yet stated anything controversial for Dems or progressives. The zygote is alive- there is no question about that. The GOP is going beyond that to a specific spiritual view, that you apparently hold that a fertilized egg is a person.
If the GOP wants to make this case, then they will have to show on what authority this statement is true. No doubt scripture can be quoted to support this or contrary views, but if it is based simply on their religious belief, then what the GOP is advocating is that government take sides on a controversial theological question.
THAT, my friend is deeply un-American. The fact is that the GOP is dead set against the principles of religious freedom on which this country was founded.
Perhaps GOP Christian fundamentalists needs to consider whether they believe in a pluralistic society where they can coexist with people who have deeply felt beliefs that run counter to principles they believe in.
The religious right has chosen to back someone who is not a born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ over a Christian President. Somehow, those who are willing to quote scripture from a fundamentalist perspective in order to dictate what women do with their bodies are unwilling to apply the same fundamentalist readings of scripture to their own decisions about their candidates.***
I find that deeply hypocritical. It is the application of religious values as a cudgel only when it serves one's political ends.
If it is possible to maintain religious tolerance in the case of Romney, then why is tolerance of beliefs that person-hood occurs later impossible? This also strikes deeply against GOP pretensions of standing against assaults on liberty. How is it that simple theological belief in an early moment of person-hood is sufficient basis for dictating to citizens not just what they do with their bodies, but what they shall be doing with the next 18 years of their lives?
Hemi, there is a simple term for what the GOP is peddling, and you have bought into it.
.
---Notes--
*** Jeffries is not the only recognized fundamentalist authority who has likened Mormonism to a cult following a false Christ.
It comes down to each and every one of us, with our own convictions has a Nation. "In God We Trust; Do we is the question. Do yourself a favor. Go buy the book " The Harbinger". Yes I've been saved by my LORD JESUS CHRIST!
"In God We Trust" is not in the Constitution. It was adopted as our "motto" in 1956 to replace "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of many, one) which was the unofficial "motto" before that. It is not germaine to either my or John's comments. Can you at least answer John's questions?
if you didn't understand, he was asking on what basis other than religion do you believe that life begins at fertilization? If it is just "belief", can you accept that perhaps others have beliefs different from your that also should tolerated? How do we form a government of "We the people" if you insist that only YOUR religious beliefs matter?
Re: #11.1
Regarding "The Harbinger".
The author of this book is extrapolating from the Old Testament prophet who told the people of Israel that - because of their sins - God was going to d*mn Israel.
Wait a sec ... that sounds familiar ... who else said a similar thing. Oh - yeah that's right - Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of the UCC church that President Obama belonged to in Chicago.
This was the exact phrase in the video clips that got all of the attention in 2008.
Rev. Wright was using the exact same Old Testament prophets and the same "signs" [harbingers] with the same result. Not God Bless American but God D*mn American
The exact sins that the author of "the Harbinger" and Rev. Wright are very different - but the result is the same.
Bottom line: If you believe that "The Harbinger" is true, then you owe Rev. Wright an apology. You can then have a debate about the particular severity of the sins.
My own opinion is that this kind of extrapolation is not valid. But we can still have a debate about the grave sins that different people are lifting up.
I believe there is a passage in the Gospels about the Pharasees binding up great burdens to put on other people's backs that might help frame this debate. If we are all following the Commandments then there is no issue and the discussion is moot. We are not, therefore we must come up with a solution we can all live with. The conservatives have come up with a way males can live with while females have to look over their shoulders in their own homes ALL THE TIME. This is not the America we fought a revolution, civil war, two world wars and a cold war to preserve for this world.
I can't get past the fact that people are demanding laws mandating aggravation of the damages from the crime of rape. Do female citizens not have a right to remedy and relief for damages caused by crime(s) against her?
P Ryan refers to rape as "a method of conception". NO. Rape is a criminal act. Impregnation is a DAMAGE and INJURY resulting from that criminal act. Forced gestation and childbirth is illegal, I do believe. How the hell does the gov't pile on and further aggravate the crime against the victim by prohibiting remedy? This whole debate is sick and wrong.
Apparently, in some circles, rape and unwanted children are a time-honored tradition that women just have to accept.
The only sin rep Akins committed was telling the truth out-loud in public. He stated exactly what a majority of all repubs have believed since the 90's. What he said is EXACTLY what the put in their platform in Tampa a few days later.
It was good for Chris to go through the medieval history and 'science' they have used to justify their misogyny. Chris left out one little gem in Rep. Akin’s information source. That is the Nazi studies done in the death camps. There are numerous sources for this - just put"german study of ovulation in concentration camp" into google machine. This is from Raw Story.
Rep. Akin’s source of information about the rarity of pregnancy resulting from rape is from Fred Mecklenburg’s 1972 book Abortion and Social Justice. This has helped two generations of anti-abortion activists build the 'medical case' to ban all abortions without exception!
Mecklenburg cites several reasons in this book why women do not impregnate during rape. Akin seemed to focus on Mecklenburg’s statement that a woman “will not ovulate even if she is ‘scheduled’ to [during rape].” This conclusion originates from Nazi death camp experiments.
The Nazis tested this hypothesis “by selecting women who were about to ovulate and sending them to the gas chambers, only to bring them back after their emotional torture peaked as they thought they were going to their death. The Nazis studied what the effect was on their ovulatory patterns. An extremely high percentage of these women did not ovulate.”
I don't know if this falls under Godwin's Law (first person to citing Nazi reference etc.)?
The Republicans are deeply engaged in Medaeval thought. Even given the misspelling, evil!
Akin's comment reveals the subtext of the radical right's attitude toward women and sex.
When women say they were raped, they are just lying and trying to get something to keep them quiet. That's because they think that women are constantly lusting after sex. Can't get enough of it. All nymphomaniacs and all conniving devils. How do you think the witchcraze got going?