Missouri Republican: 'Legitimate rape' rarely causes pregnancy

[Maximus]

Why?

Because if it can't it's not a good law.

[Scipio]

I think that Missouri deserves the jackass politicians it wants.  Let them choose between a moronic fascist and a time serving Democrat.

[Razgovory]

Why?

Because if it can't it's not a good law.

Uh, give me a little more.  Why is it not a good law?  I'm a little confused as Meri seems to be saying I don't know what I'm saying.  So spell this one out for me.

[Razgovory]

I think that Missouri deserves the jackass politicians it wants.  Let them choose between a moronic fascist and a time serving Democrat.

A term serving Democrat?

[Viking]

Same science that makes his enemies guns work as well.

Well, western science-fu gives rifles with 550 meter effective range, while non-western science-fu gives rifles with 400 meter effective range. So, Science works beeyotches.

[Razgovory]

Same science that makes his enemies guns work as well.

Well, western science-fu gives rifles with 550 meter effective range, while non-western science-fu gives rifles with 400 meter effective range. So, Science works beeyotches.

Most firefights happen within 300 yards.  It's extremely difficult to hit a target that is moving, hiding and shooting at you in over that range.

[Scipio]

I think that Missouri deserves the jackass politicians it wants.  Let them choose between a moronic fascist and a time serving Democrat.

A term serving Democrat?

She's a time server, a place holder, a professional politician without a single political accomplishment to her record.  The biggest thing she did was give birth while in office, and forget to pay taxes on a plane owned by her husband.

[Scipio]

I think that Missouri deserves the jackass politicians it wants.  Let them choose between a moronic fascist and a time serving Democrat.

A term serving Democrat?

She's a time server, a place holder, a professional politician without a single political accomplishment to her record.  The biggest thing she did was give birth while in office, and forget to pay taxes on a plane owned by her husband.

Which, granted, is more than her opponent.

[Razgovory]

I think that Missouri deserves the jackass politicians it wants.  Let them choose between a moronic fascist and a time serving Democrat.

A term serving Democrat?

She's a time server, a place holder, a professional politician without a single political accomplishment to her record.  The biggest thing she did was give birth while in office, and forget to pay taxes on a plane owned by her husband.

Oh, so she didn't do anything you consider important.  Gotcha.

[Maximus]

Uh, give me a little more.  Why is it not a good law?  I'm a little confused as Meri seems to be saying I don't know what I'm saying.  So spell this one out for me.

It's not that complicated. If a law can't withstand a legitimate challenge it's not a good law. I'm not a law expert but I think this is the basis of a large part of the common law system.

[Barrister]

Uh, give me a little more.  Why is it not a good law?  I'm a little confused as Meri seems to be saying I don't know what I'm saying.  So spell this one out for me.

It's not that complicated. If a law can't withstand a legitimate challenge it's not a good law. I'm not a law expert but I think this is the basis of a large part of the common law system.

Umm, not really.

Parliament is supreme.  It can pass any law they want, no matter how silly (as long as it is within their jurisdiction).  It is up to Parliament to change bad laws.

Now in most of the world, there is the overlay of a Bill of Rights / Charter of Rights.  Now, a law can be challenged.  But it can't be challenged because "it is not a good law", but rather only if it violates specific enumerated rights of its citizens.

[Razgovory]

Uh, give me a little more.  Why is it not a good law?  I'm a little confused as Meri seems to be saying I don't know what I'm saying.  So spell this one out for me.

It's not that complicated. If a law can't withstand a legitimate challenge it's not a good law. I'm not a law expert but I think this is the basis of a large part of the common law system.

What is a legitimate challenge?

[Maximus]

Umm, not really.

Parliament is supreme.  It can pass any law they want, no matter how silly (as long as it is within their jurisdiction).  It is up to Parliament to change bad laws.

Now in most of the world, there is the overlay of a Bill of Rights / Charter of Rights.  Now, a law can be challenged.  But it can't be challenged because "it is not a good law", but rather only if it violates specific enumerated rights of its citizens.

I think you are misreading what I said. Not that the law is challenged on the basis that it is not good. Rather, it is almost by definition no good if it can't withstand a legitimate challenge e.g. a bill of rights challenge.

This is also not intended to be a technical definition(see: I'm not an expert) but rather a simplified description of principle. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't courts struck down laws that don't show sufficient justification for the burden/restrictions they create? I'm thinking of Proposition 8 in California, but there may be better examples(or that may not be an example at all).

[Neil]

Given that having a charter of rights is a ridiculous infringement on the power of Parliament, I don't think laws that get struck down should be considered 'bad', per se.  Rather, we should have every judge who strikes a law down hanged.

[Viking]

More serious reporting

Mitt Romney joins calls for US candidate to quit race
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19339362

US media reacts

A New York Times editorial says that while Republicans are distancing themselves from Akin's comments, his views "expose a widely held belief among many fierce abortion opponents that a rape exception will be abused by women whose rapes were not 'legitimate'".

The Washington Post expands on that argument, saying: "Unfortunately, Mr Akin's remarks are not the first, nor are they likely to be the last, in a long-running effort to downplay the horror of rape as a way to restrict access to abortion. What they're really saying is that not all rape victims are victims, and so we shouldn't worry if they have to deal with unwanted pregnancy."

And the Atlantic says proponents of no-exception anti-abortion policies have tried to downplay or deny the occurrence of rape- or incest-related pregnancies: "The idea that trauma is a form of birth control continues to be promulgated by anti-abortion forces that seek to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest."

Meanwhile, the San Francisco Chronicle says Democrats are trying to link Mr Akin's comments to vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan's position on abortion: "This is the Democratic National Committee playbook: Delegitimize a respectable position - that abortion is the taking of innocent life - not by refuting it but by assessing guilt by association."