The Issue of Legitimate Rape

Game On: Akin In, Some Republicans Come Around

Game On

Yesterday the deadline for Missouri Rep. Todd Akin to exit his U.S. Senate bid passed, and the the Republican congressman now best known for his magic rape ninja-fairies remark about "legitimate" rape is irrevocably committed to the November 6 ballot.

Not that this was a surprise. Since the controversy broke out like a bad rash last month, Akin has insisted that he would remain in the race.

And, in a strange nod to either bipartisanship, the transformation of political parties over the years, or sheer desperation, Akin compared himself to President Harry Truman, a Democrat and former Missouri senator.


Akin also sought to capitalize on Tuesday's deadline for candidates to withdraw by court order from the Missouri ballot. Instead of quitting, the congressman rallied with about 200 supporters in St. Louis before launching a statewide bus tour and asked for donations to replenish his financially strapped campaign.

Akin has repeatedly apologized and rejected calls from top Republicans to quit the Senate race after a television interview aired Aug. 19 in which he said that women's bodies have ways of averting pregnancy in cases of what he called "legitimate rape."

Some doubted his resolve to remain in the race, making Tuesday's drop-out deadline an important mark six weeks before the Nov. 6 election. But the 5 p.m. deadline passed without Akin quitting.

At his St. Louis rally, Akin said he was "given a trust" by voters who nominated him in the Aug. 7 Republican primary. He also compared himself to former Missouri Sen. Harry Truman, who overcame opposition from fellow Democrats to win re-election in 1940, later becoming vice president and then president.

"I have one purpose going into November, and that's replacing Claire McCaskill," Akin said in a five-minute speech prefaced by endorsements from various religious leaders and conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly. He left without taking questions from reporters.

(Lieb)​

Some Republicans are also changing course. Sen. Roy Blunt, who last month demanded Akin step down for the good of state and party, announced yesterday that he would support his fellow Republican's senate bid: "Congressman Akin and I don't agree on everything, but he and I agree the Senate majority must change."

Because the important thing is partisan quantity, not representational quality.

The Senate Conservatives Fund is also preparing to change, asking supporters on its email list whether to support Akin, and how much money to commit. The Club for Growth, though, and the U.S Chamber of Commerce, are so far committed to staying out of the Missouri senate race; RNC Chair Reince Priebus affirmed over the weekend that the organization will not support Akin's candidacy, though the Missouri Republican Party has said it will support the controversial candidacy.

Current polling averages suggest the Democratic incumbent, Sen. Claire McCaskill, leads by over five points.
____________________

Notes:

Lieb, David A. "McCaskill hits Todd Akin with new ad, raises 'legitimate rape' remark". Associated Press. September 26, 2012. CSMonitor.com. September 26, 2012. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...kin-with-new-ad-raises-legitimate-rape-remark

See Also:

Real Clear Politics. "Missouri Senate - Akin vs. McCaskill". (n.d.) RealClearPolitics.com. September 26, 2012. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/mo/missouri_senate_akin_vs_mccaskill-2079.html
 
superstring01 said:
Ugh. I mean. Fucking ugh.

We need to come up with a word that means "Ugh", "Facepalm", "Retard" (like in "The Hangover" - ri-TARD) and "Holyfuckingshit!"

~String
Click to expand...

Like how Romney means to defecate in terror, or Santorum means... uuggh what it means, and Obama-ed means to achieve mutual simultaneous orgasm?
 
TAHD-uh-kn

Well, it would have to be todakin, or something like that, because akin is already a perfectly good word.
 
How the hell did you people ever become as dominant in global politics as you are?

You know, I've never really been completely anti-American; more pro-, all things considered.
But in these last few years you seem to be falling further and further behind the rest of the western world. This is evidenced particularly in those you choose to represent you.

Watching American politics is a little like watching an episode of "Oprah" and then comparing it to Australia's "Q&A".
Youtube that, and then tell me if you have an equivalent. I'd be really interested to know.
 
The Marquis said:
How the hell did you people ever become as dominant in global politics as you are?

You know, I've never really been completely anti-American; more pro-, all things considered.
But in these last few years you seem to be falling further and further behind the rest of the western world. This is evidenced particularly in those you choose to represent you.

Watching American politics is a little like watching an episode of "Oprah" and then comparing it to Australia's "Q&A".
Youtube that, and then tell me if you have an equivalent. I'd be really interested to know.
Click to expand...

No you are too kind, since the official trashing of our "fair and balanced" media in favor of partisan media like Fox News American politics is more like an episode of the Jerry Springer Show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i0xKOi5e-c

The answer to your question is simple, we used to have a media that reported all sides equally and fairly so we had an informed voter base. We now have a MISINFORMED voter base thanks to the likes of Ruppert Murddock and his Fox News and Republican talk radio which markets a steady diet of anger and misinformation across the nation 24 hours a day 365 days a year.
 
Last edited:
Message Control

Joepistole said:

Well so much for the brief ostracism; it appears Republicans are now jumping back on the Akin bandwagon.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that was predictable, eh?

If you look at the way Republicans fight in the public discourse, it makes a certain amount of sense. It also makes sense in the general context of the Romney campaign.

Think of it this way: You can always point to a day in the past and say, "I did this."

Republicans often gamble on the public's short attention span and reluctance to dive headfirst into the muck of the political quagmire.

The Party that fields rape advocates as candidates? The right-wingers who are happy to take money from rape advocates? I mean, think of it this way: Say what Akin said? Karl Rove will tell donors that he wants to murder the Missouri congressman. But if your advice for rape victims is, "If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it"? Well, Karl wants your money.

The point is that despite the misogyny of Republican political campaigns, the GOP can always point back to the days when so many prominent members stood up and denounced Rep. Akin.

And if someone points to the days when the Party started crawling back to him, because the cosmic scoreboard is more important than human dignity, supportable policy, or the question of dangerous stupidity? Now you're just nitpicking.

I mean, think about it for a moment: Why is the most brutally honest and honestly brutal criticism of Republican misogyny and perversity reserved mainly to the liberal and Democratic surrogates in the public discourse? Democratic Party analysts, candidates, and operatives know the score. If they come out swinging on the point, there is always a record of Republicans making those superficial denouncements of people like Akin. And once that happens, the whole argument is up in the air. As we saw in the Swift Boat episode eight years ago, facts don't matter if you can saturate the market to the drowning point.

This is a party whose last presidential nominee was known for joking that a woman brutally raped by a gorilla would actually enjoy it.

So of course they need to polish their civilized credentials from time to time. That was the whole point of sacrificing Akin for saying aloud something absolutely stupid that is very near the heart of one of the GOP's key constituencies.

Consider Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO). In August, he said that Akin "needs to get out of this race".

Steve Benen explains what happened last week, when Rep. Akin passed the deadline for withdrawing from the race:

That was a month ago. Yesterday, Blunt said something very different; "Congressman Akin and I don't agree on everything, but he and I agree the Senate majority must change." In other words, Akin may be delusional, but he has an "R" after his name, and that's what really matters.

As Rachel noted on the show last night, there's a lot of this going around.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee issued a statement Wednesday clarifying its support for Rep. Todd Akin in the Missouri Senate race and suggesting it might spend money to help elect him, after saying a month ago that it would not do so.

"There is no question that for Missourians who believe we need to stop the reckless Washington spending, rein-in the role of government in people's lives, and finally focus on growing jobs in this country, that Todd Akin is a far more preferable candidate than liberal Sen. Claire McCaskill," NRSC executive director Rob Jesmer said. "As with every Republican Senate candidate, we hope Todd Akin wins in November, and we will continue to monitor this race closely in the days ahead."​

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Republican establishment was bluffing. GOP leaders wanted Akin to quit, so they said they'd withhold any and all financial support for his campaign, but they simply didn't mean it. When the final withdrawal deadline came and went on Tuesday, Republicans were forced to accept the circumstances: they desperately want to win a Senate majority; their odds of doing so are dwindling; and Akin's race is competitive.

Ergo, never mind all that stuff they said in August.​

Remember that pointing out a true fact that the other candidate is lying, or properly characterizing the other candidate's position according to widely-recognized social mores, is considered negative campaigning.

If you go after Republicans for backing rape advocates, or taking their money, or supporting the idea of the Women's Magic Ninja Rape Antibodies, you are the one being negative. And they'll play the litany of officials denouncing Todd Akin. And if you point out that these people crawled back to Akin because the idea of a Senate majority is what's really important to them, you're just nitpicking and complicating the discussion and trying to confuse people with your negativity.

We've seen this pattern for years.

Really, I think that's the whole point of the Romney campaign tactic in which the candidate says something that sounds nearly like proper common sense, and within a matter of hours, the campaign quietly releases a statement undercutting the statement. It's like Mr. Dark wandering through Green Town in Something Wicked This Way Comes, littering the streets with carnival fliers. Republicans are just leaving enough detritus to always have something to point back to, and any deeper analysis will be denounced as destructive politics.

Consider the Wisconsin debacle. One of the themes of anti-Walker protests was that his union-busting was somehow a surprise; that is to say, he didn't run on a union-busting platform.

Well, come on. He's a Republican.

Conservative control of state houses? Sure, they ran on a jobs platform in 2010, and sure they followed up their victories with an astounding smorgasbord of anti-abortion laws, but who, really, is surprised? They're Republicans.

We already knew they are anti-union; we already knew they are anti-abortion. There is no surprise here, except in a short attention span context.

And that's the gamble.

Sure, it sounds cynically simplistic and stupid. But it keeps playing out, over and over again.

Think of it this way: Sure, President Bush said, of Osama bin Laden, "The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person .... I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

But as Republicans tried to minimize the end of the nation's foremost enemy, we were supposed to forget that. A bunch of Republicans said it was only George Bush's brilliance and dedication that allowed the Obama administration to put together the mission, and that's the record we're supposed to pay attention to.

Just create enough conflicting records that the average voter doesn't want to try to untangle the skein.

And it works well enough to keep trying. It's message control.

Think of the Medicare lie. Yes, Obama is moving $716 billion in cost inflation out of Medicare. The hospitals and pharmas that receive this money are okay with this cut; they expect the difference to their bottom line will be made up by the individual mandate. The reduction has no impact on Medicare benefits for program participants—i.e., senior citizens.

But if the big problem with this Republican attack gets mentioned, it is more often discussed in artificial terms. That is, the Ryan budget would strip about the same number from Medicare. This comes up from time to time in the media discourse; the Democratic sympathy on MSNBC will push it, the Republican sympathy on FOX will omit or reject it. The "journalistic" analysis? Well, it's becoming harder to avoid, but only twice recently, out of all the times I've heard or read about this story, have I encountered the fact that the Ryan plan would strip that money from Medicare, reduce benefits for participants, and apply the harvest to a tax cut for the wealthy. This is a tremendous, fundamental difference, but message control focuses first and foremost on the idea that Obama is cutting benefits; that Ryan would cut a similar number enters the discussion occasionally; rarely, though, is the devil in the details given much sunlight.

If you saturate the market with misinformation, you can exercise tremendous influence over the public discourse.

All of this rubbish the GOP is leaving around is simply for the purpose of message control. They really do seem to have gotten so cynical.

It's not so much, as Benen suggested, "never mind all that stuff they said in August". Rather, it's, "Don't pay attention to that until we tell you to."

I know, I know. But they're Republicans. We ought to be accustomed to this by now.
____________________

Notes:

Israel, Josh. "Karl Rove's Super PAC Accepts $1 Million From Notorious Rape Defender". ThinkProgress. September 21, 2012. ThinkProgress.org. October 1, 2012. http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...cepts-1-million-from-notorious-rape-defender/

Benen, Steve. "GOP establishment: maybe Akin's not so bad after all". The Maddow Blog. September 27, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. October 1, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...stablishment-maybe-akins-not-so-bad-after-all
 
This Is What Happens When You Elect Republicans

This Is What Happens When You Elect Republicans

And remember, Todd Akin is actually Rep. Todd Akin. Yes, he's already been elected to public office. He just wants a different title.

Just over the past few months, Republican Todd Akin, the U.S. Senate candidate in Missouri, has said victims of "legitimate rape" have magical abilities to prevent pregnancies, defended employers who choose to pay women less than men for equal work, and critiqued Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D) ability to be "ladylike."

Any chance the right-wing congressman can make matters a little worse? As a matter of fact, yes.

At a fundraiser on Saturday night, Akin decided he should compare Claire McCaskill to a dog. "She goes to Washington, D.C., and it's a little bit like one of those dogs, you know 'fetch,'" Akin said. "She goes to Washington, D.C., and get all of these taxes and red tape and bureaucracy and executive orders and agencies and she brings all of this stuff and dumps it on us in Missouri."

(Benen)​

Yeah. Ladies and gentlemen: Republicans.

Of course, this is the candidate with a campaign consultant who admiringly compares the Republican senatorial candidate to David Koresh.

No, really.

Ah, my Republican neighbors, it's one thing to hurt yourselves. But no, you should not be making such a point of hurting everyone else, too.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Akin just can't help himself". The Maddow Blog. October 22, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. October 22, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/22/14616391-akin-just-cant-help-himself

McDermott, Kevin. "Akin consultant compares GOP attacks to the siege on Waco". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. September 28, 2012. STLToday.com. October 22, 2012. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_42658a4a-0996-11e2-990d-0019bb30f31a.html
 
This Is What Happens When You Support Democrats

And remember, these Democrats representing are all elected to public office.

“The one cavil I will have … is this speech has — [it] reinforces something we’ve heard all night, which was how much the crowd goes crazy and how passionate they are about abortion and gay marriage and the social issues. And tonight has been about that.

(Brooks)​

Yeah. Ladies and gentlemen: Democrats.

Of course, this is the same group of individuals who claim to have the greatest sympathies for the trodden and helpless.

Ah, my Democrat neighbors, it's one thing to hurt yourselves. But no, you should not be making such a point of hurting everyone else before they're even old enough to defend themselves, too.
____________________

Notes:

Morrissey, Ed. "Brooks: Man, these Democrats really love abortion, don’t they?". Hot Air. SEPTEMBER 5, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. SEPTEMBER 5, 2012. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/05/brooks-man-these-democrats-really-love-abortion-dont-they/
 
It's a nice format, but ...

It's a nice format, but ...

... is there a point?

I mean, given a guess, I would suggest that you probably didn't intend to walk into a discussion about a Republican who thinks women have magical anti-pregnancy antibodies when "legitimately" raped, who seems to have a terrible opinion of women in general, and argue a point that requires we disqualify women as human beings.

Then again, that wouldn't be the craziest thing I ever read at Sciforums, so it's a risky guess.

I suppose the easier thing is to simply ask directly: And your point is?

But yes, the post looks good. Reads easy. All that.
 
No Kidding, it Makes Everything Look Legitimate...

This Is What Happens When You Support Cookie Monster

And remember, these puppets all live in a barrio near you.

“Me like fruit."

(Wiki)​

Yeah. Ladies and gentlemen: Cookie Monster.

Of course, this is the same individual who claims to have the greatest hunger and desire for cookies.

No, really.

Ah, my Sesame neighbors, it's one thing to lie about fruit. But no, you should not be making such a point of lying about cookies.
____________________

Notes:

Street, Sesame. "Is Cookie Monster now the Veggie Monster?" http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Is_Cookie_Monster_now_the_Veggie_Monster?
 
Last edited:
Yes, there is a point.

If you are not in the pro-abortion camp there are still conditions where abortion is sensible. One of those cases is in the event of rape. Let's ignore the insane group of people which believe in the magical womb and not let them hijack a reasonable issue. If abortion were to be illegal and if rape were a case for exception.. then you will likely have false claims of rape. It's this case that the term "legitimate rape" originated from. Why focus on the lunatics? Isn't that counter productive?
 
Galton Whistles, and Other Notes

Chipz said:

If you are not in the pro-abortion camp there are still conditions where abortion is sensible. One of those cases is in the event of rape. Let's ignore the insane group of people which believe in the magical womb and not let them hijack a reasonable issue. If abortion were to be illegal and if rape were a case for exception.. then you will likely have false claims of rape. It's this case that the term "legitimate rape" originated from. Why focus on the lunatics? Isn't that counter productive?
Click to expand...

Well, here's the thing about that:

• This stupid idea has been floating around for over twenty-five years, at least, since it was published by Dr. John C. Willke, formerly president of the National Right to Life Committee. He pushed the theory into public prominence at least three times over the years; in 1985 when he published it, in 1999 when he had some cause to make sure people remembered it, and again recently in defense of Rep. Akin. Dr. Willke's latest explanation of the theory is that a rape victim is “frightened, tight, and so on”, with the result that “the tubes are spastic”. While real doctors, here defined as those that are credentialed but not certifiable, dismiss such silly notions, Dr. Willke got to be the head of the NRLC.

—Certes, you're aware that the the NRLC is the largest and longest-running anti-abortion organization in the United States, with over 3,000 chapters through all fifty states. Given the proximity of the NRLC to the anti-abortion movement in general, would you like to rethink the question of why focus on the lunatics, or would you rather leave NRLC in such (ahem!) esteemed company?​

• Those who have actually been paying attention to the question of lunatics and “legitimate” rape also recall that last year, the newly-elected Republican House majority attempted to redefine rape by limiting the act to physical coercion. That is, while most “anti-statch” folks think “statch” is wrong, the GOP went “anti-statch” by trying to disqualify statutory rape. Now, think about it for a moment. If you can bang a kid and knock her up without using physical force? You know, drugs, bribery, verbal coercion. So what is that about lunatics? Yes, let's make raped children carry pregnancies to term. Oh, right. They're “not” raped. At least, not “legitimately”.

—It is worth noting that Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP's vice presidential nominee, co-sponsored H.R. 3, the repugnant (ahem!) “anti-statch” bill.​

Why focus on the lunatics, you ask? Is that not counterproductive? Well, I suppose I can see how it is. After all, by your definition, the GOP is driven quite proudly by lunatics.

Furthermore, your question overlooks the proposition—obvious to many—that Rep. Akin has some kind of problem with women. In addition to the legitimate rape comment, there is the bit about his opponent being a “wildcat” who was not “ladylike” enough in campaigning. Add in the bit about thinking employers should be able to pay women less simply because they are women?

And then there is this. You know, there is a phrase in liberal circles that I'm not a fan of: “dog-whistle”. It refers to “coded” or sublimated ways of making otherwise-inappropriate points. There have been many examples in the last few years that pertained to the tinfoil xenophobia, with Republicans trying to put public distance between themselves and Tea Party racists, but wanting to keep the Tea Partiers close. Like Rep. Lamborn, who tried to drop the phrase “tar baby” into the discourse, and then pretended he had no idea why it was controversial. Or Rep. Coffman, who explained, “I don’t know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don’t know that. But I do know this, that in his heart, he’s not an American. He’s just not an American.” After all, he didn't actually say that Obama was born in Kenya, just that he didn't know if the president was born in the U.S. You know, because of all the fifty states, Hawaii is the one nobody should ever trust, or something.

But this isn't even “dog whistle”. Akin compared his opponent to a dog, and one need not be of Mensa to know the word for a female dog.

It's not hard to figure out. And given that many prominent Republicans, including Newt Gingrich and Sen. Roy Blunt—who originally said Akin should drop out of the race—have come back to support him now that the deadline to withdraw from the race has passed, it's pretty obvious what is important to them. Notably, though, as of a couple weeks ago, Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the National Republican Senatorial Committee—the Party's electoral arm within the Senate—are the holdouts.

When the hell did Karl Rove become the voice of sanity in the GOP? Currently chaired by Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the NRSC is catching heat from Newt Gingrich, Erick Erickson's RedState, and others for staying out of the Missouri contest.

(Meanwhile, as long as we're in orbit around the question of lunatics, have you seen who all is on the House Science Committee?)
 
What Indiana Republicans Voted For

What Indiana Republicans Voted For

The following sickness is brought to you by Republican voters in the great state of Indiana:

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Tuesday when a woman is impregnated during a rape, "it's something God intended."

Mourdock was asked during the final minutes of a debate whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

He replied: "I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that's something God intended to happen" ....

.... In response to Mourdock's comment, Donnelly said after the debate that he doesn't believe "my God, or any God, would intend that to happen."

Mourdock explained after the debate he did not believe God intended the rape, but that God is the only one who can create life.

"Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don't think that," Mourdock said. "Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that's not even close to what I said."

(Associated Press)​

Setting aside the theological niceties of God's apparently opportunistic will in blessing a rape with pregnancy, regardless of how the GOP candidate intended it, we should remember that Mourdock is competing for the seat currently held by Sen. Richard Lugar. To be specific, Indiana Republicans dumped the thirty-six year public servant in favor of state Treasurer Richard Mourdock. Apparently, the six-term, widely respected senator from Indiana—sometimes referred to as the "Statesman of the Senate"—was insufficiently conservative for Republican voters in the Hoosier State.

This is important to remember, as some would have us dismiss this sort of depraed talk as being reserved to the lunatic fringe. But Indiana's Republicans chose Mourdock by over twenty points.

And, of course, Mitt Romney has lent his voice to the Mourdock campaign.
____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Richard Mourdock: Rape, pregnancy and God's plan". Politico. October 23, 2012. Politico.com. October 23, 2012. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82795.html

—————. "Romney urges support for Mourdock in Indiana's tight Senate race, Mourdock seeks moderates". The Washington Post. October 23, 2012. WashingtonPost.com. October 23, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...40fe9c-1d17-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html
 
Tiassa said:
What Indiana Republicans Voted For

The following sickness is brought to you by Republican voters in the great state of Indiana:

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Tuesday when a woman is impregnated during a rape, "it's something God intended."​
Click to expand...


He probably gleans that logic from the idea that God raped Mary and gave us Jesus. So he sees all rapists as instruments of God's will. Creepy isn't it.​
 
Nauseous, and Other Notes

Nauseous: I Don't Even Like Repeating This Phrase

Or if you leave rape and incest exceptions in an anti-abortion policy, well, some women just ... oh, hell, I can't even say it. —Tiassa, October 21, 2012​

Yes, it really is hard to repeat. So I'll pass over to Patrick Marley of the Journnal Sentinel:

A state representative is drawing heat for saying that his father had told him when he was young that "some girls rape easy" as a way to warn him that a woman could agree to sex but then later claim that it wasn't consensual.

Freshman Rep. Roger Rivard (R-Rice Lake) in December discussed a case with the Chetek Alert newspaper in which a 17-year-old high school senior was charged with sexual assault for having sex with an underage girl in the school's band room.

The newspaper quoted him as saying his father warned him, "Some girls rape easy" - meaning that after the fact they can change what they say about whether sex was consensual. On Wednesday, Rivard told the Journal Sentinel that the article did not provide full context of his comments and that his father's exact words had been slightly different from how they appeared in the Chetek Alert.

He told the Journal Sentinel that his father had advised him not to have premarital sex, and he took that seriously.

"He also told me one thing, 'If you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry,' " Rivard said. "Because all of a sudden a young lady gets pregnant and the parents are madder than a wet hen and she's not going to say, 'Oh, yeah, I was part of the program.' All that she has to say or the parents have to say is it was rape because she's underage. And he just said, 'Remember, Roger, if you go down that road, some girls,' he said, 'they rape so easy.'

"What the whole genesis of it was, it was advice to me, telling me, 'If you're going to go down that road, you may have consensual sex that night and then the next morning it may be rape.' So the way he said it was, 'Just remember, Roger, some girls, they rape so easy. It may be rape the next morning.'

"So it's been kind of taken out of context."​

Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee, and Gov. Scott Walker wisely withdrew their endorsements of Rivard in the subsequent hullaballoo. Another Wisconsin congressman, Rep. Sean Duffy, announced that he was donating a campaign contribution from Rivard to a sexual abuse shelter program. The Republican Assembly Campaign Committee has withdrawn its financial support of Rivard's re-electin campaign.

And perhaps what we are witnessing here is part of what Indiana Republican senate nominee Richard Mourdock describes as an electoral fight "about the direction of the Republican Party". It may well be so, with incredibly hateful sentiments bubbling up among many hardline right-wing voters, and Party leadership scrambling to control the damage. Perhaps misogyny and other forms of hatred play well on the right wing, but at some point, Party leaders must address the general election; it would not do well to go into Election Day known as the Party of Rape Fiends.

• • •​

Seagypsy said:

He probably gleans that logic from the idea that God raped Mary and gave us Jesus.
Click to expand...

An image from an evangelical religious tract:

​

I mean, talk about the Divine Moneyshot. There really isn't any decent language that sufficiently describes such sickness.
____________________

Notes:

Marley, Patrick. "Rep. Roger Rivard criticized for 'some girls rape easy' remark". Journal Sentinel. October 10, 2012. JSOnline.com. October 24, 2012. http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...d-for-comments-on-rape-hj76f4k-173587961.html

—————. "Paul Ryan, Gov. Walker withdraw endorsements of Rivard after 'some girls rape easy' remarks". Journal Sentinel. October 11, 2012. JSOnline.com. October 24, 2012. http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...irls-rape-easy-remarks-a076ln1-173718041.html

Davis, Susan. "Sen. Richard Lugar defeated in Indiana's GOP primary". USA Today. May 9, 2012. USAToday30.USAToday.com. October 24, 2012. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...5-08/lugar-indiana-senate-mourdock/54844834/1

Chick, Jack T. Creator or Liar? Ontario: Chick, 2005. Chick.com. October 24, 2012. http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0005/0005_01.asp
 
seagypsy said:
He probably gleans that logic from the idea that God raped Mary and gave us Jesus. So he sees all rapists as instruments of God's will. Creepy isn't it.
Click to expand...

Yes and no..

In his sick and twisted little mind, only God can create life, therefore if a woman falls pregnant as a result of a rape, then it is somehow part of God's plan that she has been so blessed to be singled out by God to bear fruit..

Think about the implications of his statement though..

If one is religious, then one should somehow believe that God somehow singles out women to not only be raped, but to then be forced to endure the knowledge that the men who violated them were specifically selected by God to do so because God wanted those women to have a child... After all, that was his intention...
 
What kind of sick god does Richard Mourdock worship?

Bells said:

If one is religious, then one should somehow believe that God somehow singles out women to not only be raped, but to then be forced to endure the knowledge that the men who violated them were specifically selected by God to do so because God wanted those women to have a child... After all, that was his intention...
Click to expand...

The weird thing is how he tries to parse his own argument:

"Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don't think that. Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that's not even close to what I said."​

Well, okay, it's not weird. But it is neurotic and depraved.

They say God works in mysterious ways and such, but what the hell is the logic here? What, does God look down at a woman being hideously raped and say, "How horrible; I shall bless her with the offspring of her rapist"?

This whole thing about free will doesn't work. Sure, God doesn't have to preordain the rape itself, but it is by any reasonable construction a result of His Will. And, hey, if God really wants to bless that woman, the Holy Spirit can stick its fucking foot out and trip the rapist.

But Richard Mourdock's God? He looks at the rapist; He looks at the victim; He says, "Hey, I know, let's knock her up!"

In the end, though, as we see, there are more important things to Republicans than rape survivors. Like, you know, getting misogynists elected because they're fellow Republicans.

And here's another sick conundrum: Sure, the rape isn't God's fault because He gave humanity free will. Okay, so, sure, God gave humanity free will. Who the fuck are the Republicans to take it away?

Apparently, they think they know better than God.
 
Tiassa said:
The weird thing is how he tries to parse his own argument:

"Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don't think that. Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that's not even close to what I said."​

Well, okay, it's not weird. But it is neurotic and depraved.

They say God works in mysterious ways and such, but what the hell is the logic here? What, does God look down at a woman being hideously raped and say, "How horrible; I shall bless her with the offspring of her rapist"?

This whole thing about free will doesn't work. Sure, God doesn't have to preordain the rape itself, but it is by any reasonable construction a result of His Will. And, hey, if God really wants to bless that woman, the Holy Spirit can stick its fucking foot out and trip the rapist.

But Richard Mourdock's God? He looks at the rapist; He looks at the victim; He says, "Hey, I know, let's knock her up!"

In the end, though, as we see, there are more important things to Republicans than rape survivors. Like, you know, getting misogynists elected because they're fellow Republicans.

And here's another sick conundrum: Sure, the rape isn't God's fault because He gave humanity free will. Okay, so, sure, God gave humanity free will. Who the fuck are the Republicans to take it away?

Apparently, they think they know better than God.
Click to expand...

Or let's take this "logic" in another direction: Say a person is shot during an armed robbery and then dies before they get to the hospital where their life could have been saved. Now God could of intervened and kept the person alive long enough to get to the hospital, even if he couldn't intervene with the robber's freedom of choice in shooting them. But if God didn't intervene, then he must have "intended" for the victim to die, and if that is the case, how can you charge the robber with murder for what is obviously is "act of God"? ( at most you could charge them with assault with a deadly weapon).

What a slippery slope you slide down when you begin to assume " God's intent".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top