Another day, another weird statement from a politician. This time it’s Republican Rep. Todd Akin, challenging Sen. Claire McCaskill in the Missouri Senate race, and now scrambling to backtrack after embarrassing himself with his explanation of why women who are raped don’t need access to abortions.
“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy after rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in defense of his stand that rape victims should not be allowed to access abortions. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Allow me to explain about those ways that the female body finds to “shut that whole thing down” in the event that she doesn’t wish to bear the child of her rapist. Those would be:
- Picking up some emergency contraception, which may, if taken soon enough, prevent your eggs from being fertilized at all, thus effectively shutting that whole thing down.
- If you didn’t manage to get that emergency contraception in time, or if you did and managed to be in the unlucky minority for whom it didn’t work, taking your female body to the nearest abortion clinic, which will, sure enough, shut that whole thing down.
That’s it. There are no special, magic, rape specific ways of shutting that whole thing down, without the assistance of doctors or pharmacies.
Senator McCaskill, the Democratic incumbent ” spent $2 million to run ads that boosted Akin as the “true conservative” during the three-way primary race for the Republican nod, which he won by six percentage points.”
While I am really having a difficult time wrapping my mind around the concept of a legitimate rape, I find this sort of political chicanery to be … )Sorry, I am having difficulty finding a word that is not pejorative and I really want to not use pejorative adverbs and adjectives any more. Maybe someone else can find a good word.) Apparently, Senator McCaskill prefers Akin as an opponent and is unconcerned about possible repercussions should he win the election. In the olympic competitions, several badminton teams were disqualified for deliberately losing matches in order to match up with weaker opponents. Obviously, politics is held to a lower standard.
As Mr. Dooley said, “Politics ain’t beanbag”.
Or badminton, it would seem.
I guess politicians are a bunch of pantywaists where you are. Out in the south suburbs of Chicago, a White Republican ran in the Democratic primary as a Black Democrat.
Ed – there’s a good rape in “The Vagina Monlogues” and Whoopee Goldberg talked about rape rape versus rape, or something like that. I’m pretty strong against abortion, but not in cases of rape or when the mother’s life/long term health is genuinely in danger. Akin’s statement was just plain stupid. I’m learning not to be surprised how stupid people can be whether a politician or anyone else. Seems like I hear a lot of stupid stuff, sush as, “How do you say ‘taco’ in Spanish?”
DAD, there was a George Carlin line in one of his monologues to the effect “Think how stupid the average person is. Then remember that half the population is stupider”
“I’m pretty strong against abortion, but not in cases of rape or when the mother’s life/long term health is genuinely in danger.” (DaD)
.
.
Ironically enough I find myself extremely pro-abortion….NOT “pro-choice” but pro-contraception/abortion. . .(mandated, if necessary, for the dependent poor). I think the moral hazards associated with a child being born to an unwilling parent, under all too often dysfunctional and chaotic circumstances outweigh those of the eradication of “potentially viable (living) tissue.”
I am generally pro-freedom (individual liberty), or what many call “Libertarian,” although I’m generally uncomfortable with that precise labeling, but it’s close enough, as they say.
BUT to be more specific, I’m generally Libertarian, BUT with strong fascistic personal inclinations. That’s because I don’t trust other people NOT to f*ck things up.
Since I’m very consistent in my views, here are some of the things that I find pretty weird.
The Catholic Church, as well as most true “Christians” and Orthodox Jews believe in “the sanctity of ALL human life,” therefore those who are consistent on that side of the ledger tend to oppose BOTH abortion and Capital punishment and even tend to support programs for the indigent (as the R.C> Church DOES).
I, personally, DO NOT subscribe to ANY of that. I DO NOT accept the efficacy of ANY “sanctity of life.” I support capital punishment, I believe fervently that ALL violent crime is dysgenic (the victim is virtually ALWAYS far more productive than the perpetrator) and thus must be punished in the most severe ways (not excluding chemically or even surgically altering the brains of such offenders), AND I support abortion on demand precisely because it IS eugenic. The poor have, by far, the greatest number of abortions….in NYC the media was “alarmed” by a report that showed that 84% of all black pregnancies end in abortion! My immediate response was, “It should be equally as high in Appalachia.”
It’s the inconsistencies on BOTH sides of the ideological spectrum that I find. . .interesting.
I can pretty much assert that ALL of the so-called “liberals” here both support abortion and oppose eugenics, which is absolutely stupefyingly inane! Abortion on demand IS eugenic in origin and by design. STILL, I’d be shocked to hear another fellow “liberal” here champion abortion precisely because it is eugenic.
Likewise, IF your opposition to abortion on demand is “the sanctity of human life,” then how can you really NOT also oppose capital punishment, since it also takes a life and does so, at least somewhat arbitrarily?
While I fully understand the Republican obsession with holding onto the 40 to 50 MILLION Evangelical Christians in this country, while the GOP money-men (the “Moderate”/Rockefeller-wing of that party) has nothing but contempt for the views of that “goober community” (that’s REALLY what they think of the “Religious Right”), it is such a disingenuous strategy, perhaps only rivaled by the Democrat’s “pro-immigration propaganda, backed up by the largest number of deportations during any four year period by this “most pro-immigrant, liberal POTUS,” OR it’s decidedly anti-black “black agenda,” one which ignores the actual problems within that community and instead focuses entirely on the symptoms, virtually insuring that future generations of that community are afflicted with the same problems today’s blacks deal with.
In the Democrat’s case, there is the issue of organized Labor having traditionally been anti-immigrant (because immigration increases the size of the labor pool and thus lowers the price of labor, or “wages.” and anti-black), but WHY do reasonable “Moderate” (Corporatist) Republicans continue to play these absolutely idiotic games, pretending to take seriously views NONE of them hold and most of them find ridiculous, at best, and deeply offensive, at worst, is beyond me.
Look, “the Religious Right,” like “the black community,” are going nowhere! BOTH are effectively tied to their respective Parties. In both cases, there’s little downside in telling them exactly where they stand. . .which is in political limbo. A “so-called “religious Conservative” is no more going to vote for a “liberal Democrat, than an inner city black is going to vote for a “Conservative Republican.
So WHY the charade?
BOTH Parties COULD BE brutally honest with those “nowhere to go” constituencies with almost zero downside! There’s NO REASON for the Rockefeller-wing (money men) to support the Todd Akins’ of the world. Quite honestly, they are a veritable zoological anomaly for that Party.
I can pretty much assert that ALL of the so-called “liberals” here both support abortion and oppose eugenics, which is absolutely stupefyingly inane! Abortion on demand IS eugenic in origin and by design. STILL, I’d be shocked to hear another fellow “liberal” here champion abortion precisely because it is eugenic.
Well put on your shocked hat, I guess, because I’m glad that abortion on demand is available for eugenic purposes.
I am opposed to any attempts to restrict a woman’s right to abort a fetus on the basis of the results of an amniocentesis test.
You’re nothing if not honest John and that’s a good thing.
I’m surprised no other “liberal” has taken you to task for supporting such “Social Darwinism.”
I DO support unfettered abortion, at least up through the 21st week (when that fetus is developed enough to survive outside the womb), I’d go further and mandate contraception for the dependent poor.
I have little doubt that Levitt & Dubner (of Freakonomics fame) were right on the money when they asserted that the precipitous drop in random violent crime rates that occurred in the early 1990s (around 1993 in NYC and other locales) was due, at least in part to the eugenic effects of our abortion policies.
but WHY do reasonable “Moderate” (Corporatist) Republicans continue to play these absolutely idiotic games, pretending to take seriously views NONE of them hold and most of them find ridiculous, at best, and deeply offensive, at worst, is beyond me.
Because otherwise they would have to pay for the work that their volunteers do for free.
I don’t know, perhaps….BUT that would be some EXPENSIVE volunteers!
I know telling them the plain truth (“We have absolutely no intention of changing a policy (abortion on demand) that has been such an economic benefit to the country”. . .Remember the 1st 2 years of G W Bush – they COULD’VE pushed such legislation through. . .but DIDN’T)) might leave some (and by “some” I, of course mean “many”) of these people somewhat disenchanted, meaning fewer volunteers, very possibly a few fewer votes, just as would the Dems being honest with blacks would probably do the same (though I believe VERY FEW blacks actually volunteer politically). . .but overall both groups would lose precious little support, no matter how blunt they’d be with such “nowhere to go” voting blocks.
There was a time during the McCain campaign before he chose Palin when the Focus on the Family crowd was making some serious third party noises.
Would they have walked if McCain had gone with an abortion ‘moderate’? We’ll never know.
Frankly, I’d like to see the Religious Right walk out of the GOP and form their own “God and Country” party and then let the GOP go back to being Country Club Republicans.
“Frankly, I’d like to see the Religious Right walk out of the GOP and form their own “God and Country” party and then let the GOP go back to being Country Club Republicans.” (JE)
.
.
That would require a seismic political shift, John.
Were the GOP to being the Progressive party of its roots, the Democratic party would return to being the Conservative party it had been until the mid-1960s.
There simply aren’t enough Progressives to man two parties. My best guess is that of the appx 20% of Americans who consider themselves “liberals,” maybe 2/3s or about 12% of the population are “Progressives.”
Not nearly enough to man two parties. . .and quite frankly, the Conservatives have “earned” their 2.5 to 1 advantage (44% conservative to 19% liberal), so even if the monied interests CAN marginalize that voice they do a disservice to us ALL when they even attempt that.
Actually, if it weren’t for the Blue Blood GOP (Rockefeller-wing) money, it’d be far more likely that the 44% of Americans who call themselves “Conservatives” would marginalize “progressivism.”
Even on the “liberal” side, George Soros is no “progressive.” He may have strong socialistic leanings, but he’s no progressive, by any stretch.
Would a principled progressive had relied on a Milton Friedman devotee (Vic Neiderhoffer – one of the best commodities and currency speculators around and author of The Education of a Speculator http://www.amazon.com/Education-Speculator-Victor-Niederhoffer/dp/0471137472/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345729862&sr=1-1&keywords=the+education+of+a+speculator – GREAT book) to build his fortune.
Look where we are as a nation, Dennis Kucinich can’t even stand a Primary challenge in Ohio and despite boatloads of money dumped into a “Defeat Alan West” war chest by liberals, the best they’ve come up with to run against the guy is Pat Murphy a 29 y/o accountant…
The worst thing to have happened to Conservatism has been the GOP wooing so many across the aisle. Today, most of the GOP base is Conservative, while 42% of Democrats STILL call themselves “Conservative.”
I could be one. . .I guess, since I’m a lifelong Democrat, although NOT a “progressive,” though I’m big time pro-abortion, and pro-sexual liberation, so maybe I’m really just an anti-Corporatist (progressivism is the political representation of Corporatism) “liberal.”
STILL, regardless of whether I agree with ardent Conservatives or not, I, like all of us are diminished when any authentically American voice (and Conservatism is real down home American) is given more or LESS volume than it it has with the people. A nation where the media was 2.5 to 1 Conservative, the Party that had the Conservative base would have a base more than twice as large as the other Party’s, would do none of us any harm, no matter where we fall on the political/ideological scale.
As an example of how bad off we are, my plumber is smarter than (best guess estimate) about 77% of the people in the news media and I say that because I’ve met and spoke with a tremendous amount of media people (both those in front of and behind the cameras). . .in their defense, he’s a pretty bright plumber, but what I said is true, NOT hyperbole at all and that SHOULD say something negative about our news media. It does to me, but I fear too many others WANT to believe (based on zero evidence) that “Generally, the best and brightest get into the media in America.”
Lynn, I love it when you’re sassy.
This may sound all conspiracy-ish, but I wonder if the Republicans are trying to throw the election by getting the Democratic voter base riled up.
Unlikely. I spent a short time reviewing this theory of non conception today. It appears that it stems from some 14th century research documenting that women only become pregnant if they have an orgasm. The theory then went on to assume that, if a woman became pregnant, it was not rape since she had obviously had an orgasm. I suppose that science in the ensuing seven hundred years has been able to expand upon the research given Rep Akins mention of all the physicians who advised him on this topic.
In fairness to Akin, we should point out that he does not believe abortion should be offered even in event of a proven rape. At least he is consistent in his belief that any conception deserves to be carried to term however conceived. I have never been able to understand why conceptions from rape or incest deserved death while all others must be protected.
Talmudic theory had it that the woman is more likely to conceive a male child if she has an orgasm. I always figured that was just one of our founding mothers sneaking a clever idea to her rabbi husband in his sleep.
Aha, that preceeded the 14th century by a lot. Clever rabbinic wives to get the men to write this into their talmud.
On call tonight so asked the OB docs if this made any sense. They said no.
Steve
Very interesting – and JMK’s tome is by far the most provocative of the lot. I like where he’s/she’s going, though, and I’d add this: Why does eugenics have to stop in the womb? If we legislate the right to terminate a life, and we most assuredly do, then why do we put artificial limits on the gestational age of the liquidated? 21 weeks? Why? It certainly is unfair and insupportable to make that limit based on when the fetus is “viable”, especially where that line has steadily moved back as medical science has moved forward. Forget the whole concept of “viability” – that really has to do with whether that being could make it on his/her own, and doesn’t answer the question only eugenics can. So, I’d propose instead that whomever might be responsible for a life should have, at any time, the continuing right to do with that life what they will.
For parents to children under the age of majority – yes, the universal 18-year-old line – that power would hold sway over their children until that age. That way, parents that bring children into the world, then find them unfit, too hard to deal with, to hard to care for, or too hard to bring up can simply do away with them – problem solved. This would effectively certainly curb the issue of unruly or disobedient children, and would, even moreso, allow for a society to more carefully sculpt the makeup of its inhabitants.
On the flip side, children who eventually become guardians for their aging, feeble, and dependent parents/grandparents/etc. would have the same rights, once those older folks reach that point where they are simply no longer contributors, but, rather, a drag on the rest of society. Once an elder is made a ward of a guardian, that guardian should be in a position to exercise those same rights the parents once held over those same children, and for the same reasons, those once-children will now being doing society a favor by closing out those non-productive lives.
As well, the same should be the universal law of the planet for the infirm, the incompetent, and those that simply can’t fend for themselves – put into their guardians the right…no, the duty…to terminate those miserable lives, and society benefits as a whole.
Eugenics, done rightly and smartly like JMK espouses, could have a great and beneficial effect, not only on society, but on our burdened planet. JMK, you have it right – you just need to take it further. Frankly, I can’t wait to be declared your guardian.
Hmmmm Zzoot, I can’t precisely decipher where your moral compass lies.
That’s not at all surprising to me, since I tend to have none, myself. That is, given that I rejected “western morality” when I rejected its foundation (religion) as a child – Western morality springs virtually unfiltered through the Judeo-Christian ethos -I don’t think in such “moral terms.”
Since I reject the faith such morality is rooted in, I tend to reject a faith in that overall “morality” as well.
I once saw this lack of such a “compass,” as a handicap, but it’s NOT. It’s merely a challenge.
It allows me/US to ask, “What is a life worth?” AND “What gives a life its value?”
The superstitious view that, “ALL life is sacred,” is positively Neanderthal in its illogic. Clearly “ALL life is NOT sacred, nor even valuable.” What value does a marauder’s life (an individual devoted to harming others) have? For that matter, what “value” do the completely unemployable have?
IF ALL life is sacred and valuable simply because “it IS,” or it “exists,” then that presupposes a claim, without a concomitant responsibility.
That is, IF any life can claim a “right” to exist (food, clothing, shelter, etc.), without the burden of producing, because of some imagined “innate human value,” then we ALL intrinsically MUST have that SAME right. . .ONLY we can’t all have that “right,” or nothing gets produced.
So, you can plainly see that Karl Marx’s idiotic dictum, “FROM each according to his abilities and TO each according to his needs,” runs afoul of even the most basic logic – NOTHING gets produced when ANY can claim the “right” to stuff/“production” without producing, for if ANY can claim such a “right,” then ALL can claim it!
Clearly, it is production that creates an individual’s value or worth and that your “worth” (economic value or position) is displayed in your personal lifestyle – well-off, or “wealthy” people drive better cars, live in better homes, eat better and healthier foods, get better medical and legal assistance, etc.
People who DO NOT produce much value get little (if any) of that. . .in ANY society on earth! The poor are no better off in “socialistic Venezuela, in FACT they are far worse off, and there are far more of them!
You are absolutely correct in asserting that, “Eugenics, done rightly and smartly like JMK espouses, could have a great and beneficial effect…” however the issue is HOW best to institute policies that are generally MORE eugenic and generally LESS dysgenic.
Relying on government officials is generally a poor choice, given the generally low quality of people attracted to government service. Given that the likes of Himmler, Goebbels and Hess were among “the best and brightest” drawn to such service in “the modern era,” well, I think, “Enough said,” so to speak.
THANKFULLY, freedom/INDIVIDUAL Liberty is the MOST eugenic system available. NOTHING punishes non-productivity as severely as a system that rigidly rewards the best producers and ignores the non-producers, a system that punishes crime severely (crime, especially “random violent crime” is overwhelmingly dysgenic, in that the victim is almost always far more productive than the perpetrator). Under such a system, there could be no “Roe v Wade,” as such a law would serve no purpose, since it would be an illegal/unconstitutional overreach for ANY government (state, local or federal) to intercede either in support of, or in opposition to abortion and contraceptive services. That is, availing one’s self of such “services” would be an entirely personal choice.
NOW, of course THAT might lead to a rash of unwanted pregnancies among the poor, as they might well find themselves unable to afford such services “out of pocket,” as it were.
So, what to do?
Well, in a truly free society, either charities (Margaret Sanger founded Planned parenthood to do exactly THAT) or local governments would HAVE TO step into the breach. Surely a relatively minor outlay in such contraceptive/abortion costs upfront would deliver HUGE savings in terms of LESS crime, LESS dependent poor, LESS overall dysfunction down the road.
That leads to an inevitable, but interesting conundrum, or dilemma, do we trust even local government ENOUGH to help fund and encourage (perhaps even mandate) such services for the chronically poor/non-productive, or do we simply ignore such pathetic creatures, risking the potential dysgenic effects of very possible widespread crime and mayhem in the hopes that “nature eventually takes its course?”
Your own dilemma appears to be that you cannot make an argument against such eugenic policies without encouraging, actually actively subsidizing many severely dysgenic effects.
To justify/rationalize the dysgenic impact of banning abortions and refusing to subsidize (even mandate) contraception for the poor, you have to be able to make an affirmative argument to the effect that “Indeed ALL life is sacred and thus we ALL do have a “right” to exist, absent, even divorced from any responsibility to produce.”
I’d personally like to see precisely what such an argument, made along logical lines, might look like.
Given that Marx’s idiotic premise stems from the SAME superstitions of the religious traditions he himself later abandoned (Marx was, like AlGore, a somewhat dimwitted Divinity student), and is, as I proved, patently illogical, you’re faced with a daunting challenge.
Considering that, logically speaking, ALL you expect from a society predicated upon, “FROM each according to their abilities, TO each according to their needs” is a society filled with gluttonous, ex-workers with chronically bad backs and anxiety disorders.
On that score, one has to go in a VERY different direction from Marx to justify everyone’s “right to exist”…that is, the right to product (productivity) without having to produce anything yourself.