I have no idea what these morons are thinking, but I can think of a reasonable definition of "legitimate" rape. The first link to the EXTREMELY biased Eugene Robinson's piece hints at it, but ignores it for political gain. An 18 year old boy and 17 year old girl have consensual sex and it is considered "rape" (statutory), but it's not forcible, not against the girl's wishes, etc. I have a hard time classifying it as "rape" at all, especially if the two had been boyfriend/girlfriend for years. That said, I'm pro-choice and find the republican stance on the issue to be absurd and out of character with keeping govt. out of peoples' lives.
I agree with everything you said. I have a beef with him making claims that a woman's body could "shut down all that stuff." implying: A. women can't get pregnant from rape (5% of rapes end in pregnancy) B. If you did get pregnant from being raped, you must have liked it
Robinson is just as bad. Never mind the fact that all rape, by its very nature, is “forcible.” (We just agreed that some statutory rape is not "forcible." It's common sense.)
At least Hannity and Limbaugh seem to have a clue. The article below talks about the origin of the belief about rape an pregnancy expressed by Akin. http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/aug/22/idea-behind-akins-rape-comment-has-ancient-roots/ With Akin on his program yesterday, Hannity told him those ideas are wrong and that there is no distinction between "assault rape" or "legitimate rape" and other kinds of rape. "Rape is rape, I mean we got to be honest here," Hannity said. "And when you talk about, well, a woman's body has a way of doing that, a lot of people, including myself, thought it was a pretty ignorant statement in terms of medical science and biology." Akin acknowledged to Hannity that he was wrong in his statement and that he has since learned that pregnancy in rape is common. "Well, and I don't know, I am no medical expert, so I don't pretend to know percentages or anything like that. It was just an article I read or a couple of articles I read, and I think that they were probably in error." Limbaugh had insight into why abortion opponents continue to make the claim. "This is the kind of thing that people who do nothing but talk amongst themselves will conjure up ... they'll grab onto anything they can to support what their empirical belief is because their ultimate aim is to save life," he said.
That is such garbage. So Limbaugh justifies ignorance by saying yes wht they are saying is wrong but that is becasue they are so good inside that they are blind to reality. His spins have no limit.
Call me old fashioned, but it just seems wrong to use the term "War on..." against any inconvenience or distraction or social controversy our country faces. My first thought when somebody says, "There's a war on Christmas/women/drugs/violence/poverty/whatever" is that that person thinks far too much in abstraction. War isn't abstract. It's about two groups of people, and at least one of them wants to kill the fuck out of the other one. I often wonder about where demagogues go from here. Once upon a time there were merely "controversies" and "disputes," and maybe some "struggles" when shit got real. Now everything is a "war." In 20 years will we be discussing the "Social Security Holocaust" and the "Capital Gains Tax Apocalypse"? The "Anal Raping of the Laotian Immigrant Community?" The "Skull Fucking and Fecal Swapping of the Hand Gun Owning America"?
You're right. Hyperbole has been unnecessarily used. I'm sorry. The point that the current Republican party seems to be pushing back social standards and accepted science, still stands.
Yes, there are a fair number of crazies that are part of political parties, and sometimes these extremists even get elected. The Democrat and Republican tents are BIIIIIIGGG and contain all kinds. It is interesting to note that the largest single contributor to the Akin primary campaign was........... the Democrats. They desperately wanted to run against that goofball. They get exactly what they want, and now express shock at some of the things he can say. Please.
That's not spin. I'm sure he would apply the exact same logic to animal rights activists or climate change activists (on either side). I don't see how he's justifying anything by explaining how it came to be. Ed O.
Also, I thought this thread was going to be about this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/21/iran-bans-women-from-college-courses.html Ed O.
I don't beleive that is how it came to be and Limbaugh is trying to sell it as that it how it came to be . . . that a person in that position is willing to ignore facts because their "ultimate aim is to save life". Limbaugh is apparently trying to use some positive trait of this person to show why he thinks this way. I see no positive trait about this line of thought. I could easily twwist this to say he is an ignorant person so full of hate he will beleive anything to try justify his position. And that line of reasoning makes more sense when you look at what his idiotic statements were. Those were not statements of someone whose ultimate aim is to save life . . . but Limbaugh sure makes it sound like this person is good to a fault. Really it sick in way.
I'm sure Limbaugh is a staunch supporter of the malcolm X too. I mean didn't he bring the phrase "By any means necessary" to the forefront of Americna culture. That's what he's arguing for basically. "They will grab anything [false information] they can to support..."
I read Limbaugh's statement to be Reasoned. Let the facts lead you to your position, don't invent facts (global warming hoax!) to invent a position.
i think the point is that limbaugh is giving him a golden parachute, whereas if the guy was a liberal, hed be handed a brick
