Missouri Republican: 'Legitimate rape' rarely causes pregnancy

[CountDeMoney]

Reports are that Akin will officially withdraw by tomorrow evening.  And apparent Ashcroft is one of the possible replacement candidates

Wow.  What, Dick Rumsfeld wasn't available?  Scooter Libby isn't available on work release now?

[Ideologue]

Viking:

You asked the question I gave it a serious answer. Serves me right for thinking you were going to take anything I might say seriously.

Vikes, you're fighting an uphill battle with these guys;  as educated as they are, they're more than willing to accept the legislative rollback women's reproductive rights as long as it's packaged along with deficit reduction and union busting.

For a bunch of self-proclaimed libertarian-leaners, they certainly don't give a shit about liberties unless there's a penis attached.  So don't even bother.

Yeah, one of the good things about being a Democrat is not having to deal with such cognitive dissonance.

Well, except with war.

[Ideologue]

The US has moved a lot further along the path towards the world in The Handmaid's Tale than I ever imagined.

Except the dude is being rightly pilloried for his comments about "legitimate rape".

Guy is getting pilloried, but the legislation is still getting pushed in various ways in different states.

He's getting pilloried for the "gaffe" of saying out loud how he justifies his otherwise immoral stance on forcing rape victims to give birth to their rapists child.

Well, what's really important is whether his conclusions, being based on incorrect information, will change or at least be reevaluated.

Lol.

[Viking]

Yeah, one of the good things about being a Democrat is not having to deal with such cognitive dissonance.

Well, except with war.

Sigh, I have the same problem with socialists this side of the pond.

[garbon]

Viking:

You asked the question I gave it a serious answer. Serves me right for thinking you were going to take anything I might say seriously.

Vikes, you're fighting an uphill battle with these guys;  as educated as they are, they're more than willing to accept the legislative rollback women's reproductive rights as long as it's packaged along with deficit reduction and union busting.

For a bunch of self-proclaimed libertarian-leaners, they certainly don't give a shit about liberties unless there's a penis attached.  So don't even bother.

Yeah, one of the good things about being a Democrat is not having to deal with such cognitive dissonance.

Well, except with war.

Except that I'm not sure that any of "these guys" exist on the board.

[garbon]

Well, what's really important is whether his conclusions, being based on incorrect information, will change or at least be reevaluated.

Lol.

Actually it looks like he'll be forced out of politics and his conclusions will be irrelevant, just like him.

[Ideologue]

Well, what's really important is whether his conclusions, being based on incorrect information, will change or at least be reevaluated.

Lol.

Actually it looks like he'll be forced out of politics and his conclusions will be irrelevant, just like him.

OK, I'll admit it: too bad.

But I dunno, it's a question worth asking: would you vote for someone who would (and let's assume could) roll back Roe v. Wade, if you agreed with all their other policies and were assured that they would also be enacted?

[Viking]

Well, what's really important is whether his conclusions, being based on incorrect information, will change or at least be reevaluated.

Lol.

All those Family Research Council affiliated and sponsored politicians and demagogues will continue pretending that condoms don't prevent AIDS, abstinence only education works and the ability to think critically is a bad thing. He might be gone but whoever replaces him will be identical in every way except for his ability to not say what he really thinks.

[CountDeMoney]

Actually it looks like he'll be forced out of politics and his conclusions will be irrelevant, just like him.

One Republican asshole in Missouri down, lots more Republican assholes in Virginia, Mississippi, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, the rest of the states that have passed over 83 anti-abortion legislation since 2011, and the US House of Representatives to go.

Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.

[CountDeMoney]

But I dunno, it's a question worth asking: would you vote for someone who would (and let's assume could) roll back Roe v. Wade, if you agreed with all their other policies and were assured that they would also be enacted?

Who gives a shit about Roe v Wade anymore?  States have been running around it on their own for quite some time.  Using Roe v Wade as a barometer is useless these days.

[Ideologue]

But I dunno, it's a question worth asking: would you vote for someone who would (and let's assume could) roll back Roe v. Wade, if you agreed with all their other policies and were assured that they would also be enacted?

Who gives a shit about Roe v Wade anymore?  States have been running around it on their own for quite some time.  Using Roe v Wade as a barometer is useless these days.

Look, you know what I meant by the God damned question.

[Viking]

OK, I'll admit it: too bad.

But I dunno, it's a question worth asking: would you vote for someone who would (and let's assume could) roll back Roe v. Wade, if you agreed with all their other policies and were assured that they would also be enacted?

I think you should write a law about it rather than have Scalia imagine what Thomas Jefferson would have thought about it. This is a problem best solved by writing a good law with the best possible knowledge we have on the issue today.

[Razgovory]

How can Reid find proof?  Did most Republicans regard Reid as credible before this?

I'm pretty sure he can't.  No clue.

Well, that's not very constructive criticism.  Why should he listen to people like you?

[garbon]

But I dunno, it's a question worth asking: would you vote for someone who would (and let's assume could) roll back Roe v. Wade, if you agreed with all their other policies and were assured that they would also be enacted?

In this world of hypotheticals, no not unless there were some substantial policies that they could enact that would outshine the tarnishing or rolling back Roe v. Wade.

[garbon]

Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.

I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.