News0 min ago
Why Doesn't "Legitimate Rape" Congressman Just Resign?
25 Answers
http://
*** YES I KNOW THERE WAS A THREAD YESTERDAY ***
Anyway, my point is slightly different to yesterday's which, for some obscure reason, was in the Religion and Spirituality section.
What is the point in this guy carrying on? For a start, would any woman vote for him after his outrageous statement?
Why not simply resign now instead of being obstinate, and save any shred of credibility and self respect he may still have?
*** YES I KNOW THERE WAS A THREAD YESTERDAY ***
Anyway, my point is slightly different to yesterday's which, for some obscure reason, was in the Religion and Spirituality section.
What is the point in this guy carrying on? For a start, would any woman vote for him after his outrageous statement?
Why not simply resign now instead of being obstinate, and save any shred of credibility and self respect he may still have?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by eyethenkyew. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I had to re-read that link a couple of times.
He believes that women's bodies could prevent pregnancy in cases of rape.
“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Mr. Akin said of pregnancies from rape.
He then said, “In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview, and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year.”
But it wasn't an off the cuff remark. He'd apparently 'spoken to doctors' about this. I would be interested to see this evidence.
He believes that women's bodies could prevent pregnancy in cases of rape.
“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Mr. Akin said of pregnancies from rape.
He then said, “In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview, and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year.”
But it wasn't an off the cuff remark. He'd apparently 'spoken to doctors' about this. I would be interested to see this evidence.
A few points -
first of all, can we track down trhe doctor(s) who told this idiot that womens' bodies can 'shut down' a pregnancy - and get them struck off, today if possible.
then you have to wonder that a man who by definition, given his status, must have had an education, can seriously believe this utter idiocy.
finally you have to listen to what he said, and try and figure out how he used the 'wrong words'? His statement was articulate and obviously beilieved, so to try and apologise by inferring that he expressed himself badly simply adds insult to injury.
This man hould never be put in charge of anything anywhere ever.
His unwillingness to resign demonstrates an ego and obvious lack of perception that makes him an ideal Republican candidtate - America can enjoy a smile seeing his name on a ballot slip - and then ignore it.
first of all, can we track down trhe doctor(s) who told this idiot that womens' bodies can 'shut down' a pregnancy - and get them struck off, today if possible.
then you have to wonder that a man who by definition, given his status, must have had an education, can seriously believe this utter idiocy.
finally you have to listen to what he said, and try and figure out how he used the 'wrong words'? His statement was articulate and obviously beilieved, so to try and apologise by inferring that he expressed himself badly simply adds insult to injury.
This man hould never be put in charge of anything anywhere ever.
His unwillingness to resign demonstrates an ego and obvious lack of perception that makes him an ideal Republican candidtate - America can enjoy a smile seeing his name on a ballot slip - and then ignore it.
StarBeast - actually the two do no corelate at all.
The belief in a God and / or a holy book is a matter of faith, the essence of which is belief in something for which no proof exists.
The notion that a woman's reproductive system can 'shut down' foetal development if she wishes is something any first-term medical student, and anyone who knows the very basics about human reproduction - can debunk without even trying.
One is a matter of faith, the other is a matter of the most laughable, not to say dangerous pseudo-science - so they are in fact poles apart, even though somefervent believers in the former may wish that the latter were true.
However, if this numpty is pro-life, as he claims, then surely he should be campaigning to stop all those women who are preferring not to continue gestation, and simply swinging their mental 'no thanks' option into gear?
The belief in a God and / or a holy book is a matter of faith, the essence of which is belief in something for which no proof exists.
The notion that a woman's reproductive system can 'shut down' foetal development if she wishes is something any first-term medical student, and anyone who knows the very basics about human reproduction - can debunk without even trying.
One is a matter of faith, the other is a matter of the most laughable, not to say dangerous pseudo-science - so they are in fact poles apart, even though somefervent believers in the former may wish that the latter were true.
However, if this numpty is pro-life, as he claims, then surely he should be campaigning to stop all those women who are preferring not to continue gestation, and simply swinging their mental 'no thanks' option into gear?
Nope, not going to fly jake.
Faith is a nebulous concept, open to endless interperetation, and fervent debunking equally - but all are based on an idea.
Human reproduction is basic scientific fact, known and understood for hundreds of years - except apparently to 'some doctors' who have the Congressman's ear - even if not his brain.
Faith is a nebulous concept, open to endless interperetation, and fervent debunking equally - but all are based on an idea.
Human reproduction is basic scientific fact, known and understood for hundreds of years - except apparently to 'some doctors' who have the Congressman's ear - even if not his brain.
No, I'm saying that belief in a God and belief in mind over reproduction are not compatible.
The potential for religious faith is based on concepts which have no evidence or proof, therefore a belief system is perfectly reasonable, given that gainsaying it has also to be given without proof to back it up.
The notion that women can 'shut down' their reproductive system is a farcical nonsense which is instantly disproveable by medical science with no effort what so ever.
My point is that religion is based on faith - unproven either way, but 'selective' reproduction' is the wishful thinking of an evil right-wing mind - and is utterly beyond any reason what ever.
You can - as I understand you do - think that both notions are equally fatuous, but my argument is that faith remains undimmed because of a lack of contrary evidence - this fool is talking nonsense for anyone at all to argue against - that is why in my view, the two do not co-relate.
The potential for religious faith is based on concepts which have no evidence or proof, therefore a belief system is perfectly reasonable, given that gainsaying it has also to be given without proof to back it up.
The notion that women can 'shut down' their reproductive system is a farcical nonsense which is instantly disproveable by medical science with no effort what so ever.
My point is that religion is based on faith - unproven either way, but 'selective' reproduction' is the wishful thinking of an evil right-wing mind - and is utterly beyond any reason what ever.
You can - as I understand you do - think that both notions are equally fatuous, but my argument is that faith remains undimmed because of a lack of contrary evidence - this fool is talking nonsense for anyone at all to argue against - that is why in my view, the two do not co-relate.
" ....... and the Earth was made in six days!, is it not a scientific fact that it wasn't?"
This is delving into the finer points of religious belief.
My point was simply that faith - as a broad concept - exists because of a belief which cannot be proven either way, but 'selective conception' really is a myth, and can be proven very simply.
We can debate the finer points of books of faith for years, but my point remains valid, a world-wide faith system and the ramblings of an ignorant buffoon are not essentially compatible as an argument against religion.
This is delving into the finer points of religious belief.
My point was simply that faith - as a broad concept - exists because of a belief which cannot be proven either way, but 'selective conception' really is a myth, and can be proven very simply.
We can debate the finer points of books of faith for years, but my point remains valid, a world-wide faith system and the ramblings of an ignorant buffoon are not essentially compatible as an argument against religion.
//The potential for religious faith is based on concepts which have no evidence or proof, therefore a belief system is perfectly reasonable, given that gainsaying it has also to be given without proof to back it up. //
Er I think there's plenty of evidence that water doesn't turn into wine, that people dont rise from the dead or walk on water.
Just saying it's magic (or a nebulous concept) doesn't make stop such ideas from being laughable
What's the most credible, that a woman's body wouldn't conceive under extreme mental stress or that Carpenters rise from the dead?
Er I think there's plenty of evidence that water doesn't turn into wine, that people dont rise from the dead or walk on water.
Just saying it's magic (or a nebulous concept) doesn't make stop such ideas from being laughable
What's the most credible, that a woman's body wouldn't conceive under extreme mental stress or that Carpenters rise from the dead?
"The notion that women can 'shut down' their reproductive system is a farcical nonsense which is instantly disproveable by medical science with no effort what so ever. "
no more farcical and disprovable than the assent to "heaven" or Descent to "hell".
Interesting debate Andy but I can see no differences, both are equally farcical to me.
no more farcical and disprovable than the assent to "heaven" or Descent to "hell".
Interesting debate Andy but I can see no differences, both are equally farcical to me.
Belief and faith are selective and by no means makes sense. The west believe that god spoke to men who wrote the bible. But they do not believe he talked to another man who wrote the Quran. To anyone not religious it is patently obvious that God spoke to no one.
What we have with this politician is that he has over stepped a line from 'accepted' stupidness to unaccepted stupidness. The reason Romney has to act is not because it is a huge variation from the Republicans Pro-Life stance, because it isn't. He has to distance himself from the comments because it will affect votes from women.
What we have with this politician is that he has over stepped a line from 'accepted' stupidness to unaccepted stupidness. The reason Romney has to act is not because it is a huge variation from the Republicans Pro-Life stance, because it isn't. He has to distance himself from the comments because it will affect votes from women.
> "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
What are you saying ...
* that many/most/all Christians actually think that?
* that many/most/all Christians have the capacity to think that (despite the scientific evidence to the contrary)?
* that these are the words of a deranged loon?
I'd go with option 3, myself. If option 1 or 2 is correct, then no wonder he's carrying on!
What are you saying ...
* that many/most/all Christians actually think that?
* that many/most/all Christians have the capacity to think that (despite the scientific evidence to the contrary)?
* that these are the words of a deranged loon?
I'd go with option 3, myself. If option 1 or 2 is correct, then no wonder he's carrying on!
jake - I don't think we will get very far delving into the minutiae of biblical stories - especially since as an aetheist, I am not arguing from a position of religious belief.
My point is an answer to the proposal that religious belief and selective mental birth control are equally fatuous - and in my view they are not, even though I disbelieve both with equal fervour.
My only issue is with the fact that faith is not proveable, but reproduction is - and therefore the idea that both are equally unbeilevable does not stand up.
That's really my only point - so feeding 5,000 and raising the dead etc. etc. ad nauseum does not really address my original response.
My point is an answer to the proposal that religious belief and selective mental birth control are equally fatuous - and in my view they are not, even though I disbelieve both with equal fervour.
My only issue is with the fact that faith is not proveable, but reproduction is - and therefore the idea that both are equally unbeilevable does not stand up.
That's really my only point - so feeding 5,000 and raising the dead etc. etc. ad nauseum does not really address my original response.
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Only The A F D Can Save Germany
News9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.