Republicans still talking about rape, for some reason

[politicallefty]

I'd really prefer these people hold their thoughts until mid-2014. We could certainly use the help to win back the House and strengthen our majority in the Senate.

[Inverted Things]

Phil Gingrey, a doctor (or does he count as like a "self loathing doctor" or something? You know, like the black Republicans/Tea Partiers?), should not be allowed to speak on this. He should be ashamed of himself. Doesn't he know the narrative is already set?

Phil Gingrey should be allowed to speak.  He should also be ridiculed if he's wrong.  Want to know why the narrative is set here?  It's because he's wrong.

http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2896%2970141-2/abstract
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12110-003-1014-0
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2012/08/20/here-is-some-legitimate-science-on-pregnancy-and-rape/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0749-3797%2800%2900243-9
(the second link suggests that rape actually increases the probability of pregnancy!)

By the way, I wish people would stop complaining about Akin, Mourdock, Gingrey, et al making "anti-woman" comments.  Whether the comments are anti-woman or not is immaterial, because the comments are also incorrect.  Dismissing the comments by saying that they're anti-woman leaves open the possibility that the comments are true (since there's no reason to presume, a priori, that reality does not have an anti-woman bias).  Dismissing the comments by saying they're flatly wrong is much better.

[memphis]

Phil's not interested in playinjg this silly game where he debates issues. But he's terribly terribly offended. Same as it ever was.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil's not interested in playinjg this silly game where he debates issues. But he's terribly terribly offended. Same as it ever was.

Yep, "ANTI WOMEN RETHUGS!!!" is a far more productive way to "debate." But you get on that high horse about others not debating properly!

And I'm not sure why pointing out that extreme sudden trauma can prevent pregnancy doesn't count as a "real debate." Oh, I remember. It doesn't jive with your BS. You know, for all of your whining about how I can't be bothered with debating, I'll note that you didn't both to address my actual points in this thread. You're more interested in trolling any time I post. Like a fat kid on cake. Same as it ever was (in more ways than one)...

Phil Gingrey should be allowed to speak.  He should also be ridiculed if he's wrong.  Want to know why the narrative is set here?  It's because he's wrong.

http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2896%2970141-2/abstract
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12110-003-1014-0
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2012/08/20/here-is-some-legitimate-science-on-pregnancy-and-rape/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0749-3797%2800%2900243-9
(the second link suggests that rape actually increases the probability of pregnancy!)

Which doesn't negate the point that extreme sudden trauma can prevent it. For maybe the fourth time, I'll say that neither I nor Gingrey agreed with Akin's remark that pregnancy simply cannot happen after rape.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Phil's not interested in playinjg this silly game where he debates issues. But he's terribly terribly offended. Same as it ever was.

Yep, "ANTI WOMEN RETHUGS!!!" is a far more productive way to "debate." But you get on that high horse about others not debating properly!

And I'm not sure why pointing out that extreme sudden trauma can prevent pregnancy doesn't count as a "real debate." Oh, I remember. It doesn't jive with your BS. You know, for all of your whining about how I can't be bothered with debating, I'll note that you didn't both to address my actual points in this thread. You're more interested in trolling any time I post. Like a fat kid on cake. Same as it ever was (in more ways than one)...

[Keystone Phil]

The other "You don't debate issues" pontificator! As irritating as memphis is, no one quite matches the level of Marokai. I often wonder when the child last saw daylight.

[Inverted Things]

Phil Gingrey should be allowed to speak.  He should also be ridiculed if he's wrong.  Want to know why the narrative is set here?  It's because he's wrong.

http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2896%2970141-2/abstract
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12110-003-1014-0
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2012/08/20/here-is-some-legitimate-science-on-pregnancy-and-rape/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0749-3797%2800%2900243-9
(the second link suggests that rape actually increases the probability of pregnancy!)

Which doesn't negate the point that extreme sudden trauma can prevent it. For maybe the fourth time, I'll say that neither I nor Gingrey agreed with Akin's remark that pregnancy simply cannot happen after rape.

The current batch of studies very clearly show that, on balance, there is no net reduction in fertility following rape.

That does render Gingrey incorrect.  He said

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The data show that Akin is not even partly right.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Phil's not interested in playinjg this silly game where he debates issues. But he's terribly terribly offended. Same as it ever was.

Yep, "ANTI WOMEN RETHUGS!!!" is a far more productive way to "debate." But you get on that high horse about others not debating properly!

And I'm not sure why pointing out that extreme sudden trauma can prevent pregnancy doesn't count as a "real debate." Oh, I remember. It doesn't jive with your BS. You know, for all of your whining about how I can't be bothered with debating, I'll note that you didn't both to address my actual points in this thread. You're more interested in trolling any time I post. Like a fat kid on cake. Same as it ever was (in more ways than one)...

Not even. More like

It's not even about policy or facts for him. It's about who can scream the loudest.

Just because that's what you think it is for him is no reason for you to be trying to win the contest.

[Simfan34]

Republicans are clearly not making the smart political move here. You don't win in politics by explaining or defending.  Strategically, Republicans need to lay low on abortion for a while because they can't make any headway arguing this point. 

But, it's not totally fair to take Republican to task for discussing this.  If you take the following positions, you have to talk about rape to be honest in your position.
1. Pro-life with an exception for rape
2. Pro-life with an exception for only forcible rape
3. Pro-life, no exceptions.

Those positions necessarily require a working definition of rape, a frank discussion of the morals and consequences of your position.  That discussion is uncomfortable for most people and it's easy to paint these out of touch 60 year old conservative men as clueless and sexist.  But, Republicans are in no way pro-rape or across the board "anti-woman" because they discuss uncomfortable topics.

To put a finer point on it, we ought to discuss these tough moral questions and hypothetical scenarios about rape.  If we don't dig into these debates we just end up with this static conversation between the pro-lifers and pro-choicers as if they were football teams.  To me, the whole rape discussion demonstrates that sex and reproduction are very individually contextual moral issues.  Because the issues are so personal and contextual, the insight may be that legislatures are the wrong decision-makers; women are the right decision makers.

Bravo, bravo!

[Keystone Phil]

Phil's not interested in playinjg this silly game where he debates issues. But he's terribly terribly offended. Same as it ever was.

Yep, "ANTI WOMEN RETHUGS!!!" is a far more productive way to "debate." But you get on that high horse about others not debating properly!

And I'm not sure why pointing out that extreme sudden trauma can prevent pregnancy doesn't count as a "real debate." Oh, I remember. It doesn't jive with your BS. You know, for all of your whining about how I can't be bothered with debating, I'll note that you didn't both to address my actual points in this thread. You're more interested in trolling any time I post. Like a fat kid on cake. Same as it ever was (in more ways than one)...

Not even. More like

It's not even about policy or facts for him. It's about who can scream the loudest.

Still haven't bothered to engage me on any points. But again, keep up the high horse routine.

[Mr. Morden]

Phil Gingrey, a doctor (or does he count as like a "self loathing doctor" or something? You know, like the black Republicans/Tea Partiers?), should not be allowed to speak on this. He should be ashamed of himself. Doesn't he know the narrative is already set?

Wow, so when a 13 year old get pregnant with her uncles child, she's not a victim, but just a slut?

...what?

It's the logical conclusion of the argument, that if she become pregnant she was a willing partipant, and that could have some interesting consequence, as she could be tried as a adult for breaking the law against incest and as such even if she avoided imprisonment she would be registered as sex offender.

This may sound insane, but as minors have been prosecuted (for child pornography)) for taking naked pictures of themselves and giving them to their boyfriends (which later spread them), I would say it's a likely risk.

Huh?  What sense does that make?  You're saying that if you can prove that a child younger than the age of consent was "a willing participant" in a sex act with an adult relative, that she can be tried as an adult for incest?  Do you understand how the age of consent works?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Phil Gingrey, a doctor (or does he count as like a "self loathing doctor" or something? You know, like the black Republicans/Tea Partiers?), should not be allowed to speak on this.

And Todd Akin was a member of the Science & Technology committee.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil Gingrey, a doctor (or does he count as like a "self loathing doctor" or something? You know, like the black Republicans/Tea Partiers?), should not be allowed to speak on this.

And Todd Akin was a member of the Science & Technology committee.

Ah, ok. I guess the way Gingrey became a doctor is very similar to how Akin got selected for that committee.

Thanks for continuing your streak of half-assed talking point responses. Can always count on you for consistency, at least.

[memphis]

Phil's not interested in playinjg this silly game where he debates issues. But he's terribly terribly offended. Same as it ever was.

Yep, "ANTI WOMEN RETHUGS!!!" is a far more productive way to "debate." But you get on that high horse about others not debating properly!

And I'm not sure why pointing out that extreme sudden trauma can prevent pregnancy doesn't count as a "real debate." Oh, I remember. It doesn't jive with your BS. You know, for all of your whining about how I can't be bothered with debating, I'll note that you didn't both to address my actual points in this thread. You're more interested in trolling any time I post. Like a fat kid on cake. Same as it ever was (in more ways than one)...

Not even. More like

It's not even about policy or facts for him. It's about who can scream the loudest.

Still haven't bothered to engage me on any points. But again, keep up the high horse routine.

All it takes is a simple wikipedia search:
Current scientific consensus is that rape is as likely to lead to pregnancy as is consensual sexual intercourse.[1][2] In some countries where abortion is illegal even after rape and incest, over 90% of pregnancies in children under 14–15 are due to rape by family members.[3] The false belief that pregnancy can almost never result from rape was widespread for centuries.[2][4][5] In recent decades, several prominent politicians in the United States who oppose legal abortion in cases of rape, and some organizations opposing legal abortion in the US and other countries, have advanced claims that pregnancy very rarely arises from it, and that the practical relevance of such exceptions to abortion law is therefore limited or non-existent.[6][7][8]

Frankly, the idea of rape "shutting things down" struck me as so absurd as not to need to a response, especially after Phil's meltdown, but here we are.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Phil Gingrey, a doctor (or does he count as like a "self loathing doctor" or something? You know, like the black Republicans/Tea Partiers?), should not be allowed to speak on this.

And Todd Akin was a member of the Science & Technology committee.

Ah, ok. I guess the way Gingrey became a doctor is very similar to how Akin got selected for that committee.

Thanks for continuing your streak of half-assed talking point responses. Can always count on you for consistency, at least.

Ted Stevens was also the chairman of the Senate committee on Science.
That gives us two possibilities.

1)His opinion about the internet being a series of tubes was a legitimate one, worth taking under consideration. He was the chairman of the Science committee after all, for God's sake. He must have had some expertise on these matters.

2)He was a moron who didn't know what the heck he was talking about (and that the Republican leadership were a bunch of morons for letting this man anywhere near that gavel).

Your choice.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil's not interested in playinjg this silly game where he debates issues. But he's terribly terribly offended. Same as it ever was.

Yep, "ANTI WOMEN RETHUGS!!!" is a far more productive way to "debate." But you get on that high horse about others not debating properly!

And I'm not sure why pointing out that extreme sudden trauma can prevent pregnancy doesn't count as a "real debate." Oh, I remember. It doesn't jive with your BS. You know, for all of your whining about how I can't be bothered with debating, I'll note that you didn't both to address my actual points in this thread. You're more interested in trolling any time I post. Like a fat kid on cake. Same as it ever was (in more ways than one)...

Not even. More like

It's not even about policy or facts for him. It's about who can scream the loudest.

Still haven't bothered to engage me on any points. But again, keep up the high horse routine.

All it takes is a simple wikipedia search:
Current scientific consensus is that rape is as likely to lead to pregnancy as is consensual sexual intercourse.[1][2] In some countries where abortion is illegal even after rape and incest, over 90% of pregnancies in children under 14–15 are due to rape by family members.[3] The false belief that pregnancy can almost never result from rape was widespread for centuries.[2][4][5] In recent decades, several prominent politicians in the United States who oppose legal abortion in cases of rape, and some organizations opposing legal abortion in the US and other countries, have advanced claims that pregnancy very rarely arises from it, and that the practical relevance of such exceptions to abortion law is therefore limited or non-existent.[6][7][8]

Frankly, the idea of rape "shutting things down" struck me as so absurd as not to need to a response, especially after Phil's meltdown, but here we are.

...and you didn't address what I said. At all. I never said rape isn't likely to cause pregnancy. I said extreme sudden trauma can prevent it. But keep copying and pasting from Wikipedia. I hear it's an excellent exercise.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Scientific consensus, shmientific consensus!

[memphis]

Phil's not interested in playinjg this silly game where he debates issues. But he's terribly terribly offended. Same as it ever was.

Yep, "ANTI WOMEN RETHUGS!!!" is a far more productive way to "debate." But you get on that high horse about others not debating properly!

And I'm not sure why pointing out that extreme sudden trauma can prevent pregnancy doesn't count as a "real debate." Oh, I remember. It doesn't jive with your BS. You know, for all of your whining about how I can't be bothered with debating, I'll note that you didn't both to address my actual points in this thread. You're more interested in trolling any time I post. Like a fat kid on cake. Same as it ever was (in more ways than one)...

Not even. More like

It's not even about policy or facts for him. It's about who can scream the loudest.

Still haven't bothered to engage me on any points. But again, keep up the high horse routine.

All it takes is a simple wikipedia search:
Current scientific consensus is that rape is as likely to lead to pregnancy as is consensual sexual intercourse.[1][2] In some countries where abortion is illegal even after rape and incest, over 90% of pregnancies in children under 14–15 are due to rape by family members.[3] The false belief that pregnancy can almost never result from rape was widespread for centuries.[2][4][5] In recent decades, several prominent politicians in the United States who oppose legal abortion in cases of rape, and some organizations opposing legal abortion in the US and other countries, have advanced claims that pregnancy very rarely arises from it, and that the practical relevance of such exceptions to abortion law is therefore limited or non-existent.[6][7][8]

Frankly, the idea of rape "shutting things down" struck me as so absurd as not to need to a response, especially after Phil's meltdown, but here we are.

...and you didn't address what I said. At all. I never said rape isn't likely to cause pregnancy. I said extreme sudden trauma can prevent it. But keep copying and pasting from Wikipedia. I hear it's an excellent exercise.

Is your issue with the validity of wikipedia? I've found them to be a credible source in the past, though I'll be glad to find a more traditional source if  you prefer. In any case, I certainly trust wikipedia more than the delusional statements of politicians. If rape could prevent it, even in a small minority of cases, the scientific consensus would not be "that rape is as likely to lead to pregnancy as is consensual sexual intercourse." The numbers don't lie.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Phil Gingrey, a doctor (or does he count as like a "self loathing doctor" or something? You know, like the black Republicans/Tea Partiers?), should not be allowed to speak on this.

And Todd Akin was a member of the Science & Technology committee.

Ah, ok. I guess the way Gingrey became a doctor is very similar to how Akin got selected for that committee.

Thanks for continuing your streak of half-assed talking point responses. Can always count on you for consistency, at least.

Ted Stevens was also the chairman of the Senate committee on Science.
That gives us two possibilities.

1)His opinion about the internet being a series of tubes was a legitimate one, worth taking under consideration. He was the chairman of the Science committee after all, for God's sake. He must have had some expertise on these matters.

2)He was a moron who didn't know what the heck he was talking about (and that the Republican leadership were a bunch of morons for letting this man anywhere near that gavel).

Your choice.

You are an absolute moron. Not just moronic. Absolutely moronic. But let me address your irrelevant Talking Points #12 of the day!

Answering #2 in your question doesn't disprove my point that Gingrey is more of an authority. If you want to question his authority, question something in his medical background. Newsflash: the GOP conference didn't make Gingrey a doctor!

You want to argue about Akin and Stevens based on their committee assignments which is totally irrelevant to what is being said. I'm not here defending their authority on these matters.

I don't know if you just think I'm a dope that would fall for your sad excuse of a diversion or you just fail to grasp logic.

Well, if that's the case then I can say that Gingrey is an absolute jackass and that judging by his words I would never trust him even for applying a bandaid.

[Sewer]

Is this thread a parody?

[memphis]

Phil Gingrey, a doctor (or does he count as like a "self loathing doctor" or something? You know, like the black Republicans/Tea Partiers?), should not be allowed to speak on this.

And Todd Akin was a member of the Science & Technology committee.

Ah, ok. I guess the way Gingrey became a doctor is very similar to how Akin got selected for that committee.

Thanks for continuing your streak of half-assed talking point responses. Can always count on you for consistency, at least.

Ted Stevens was also the chairman of the Senate committee on Science.
That gives us two possibilities.

1)His opinion about the internet being a series of tubes was a legitimate one, worth taking under consideration. He was the chairman of the Science committee after all, for God's sake. He must have had some expertise on these matters.

2)He was a moron who didn't know what the heck he was talking about (and that the Republican leadership were a bunch of morons for letting this man anywhere near that gavel).

Your choice.

You are an absolute moron. Not just moronic. Absolutely moronic.

Now there's a stunning rebuttal. And totally within the site's Terms of Service as well.

[Keystone Phil]

Yeah, after your first post in response to me here, please lecture me about the ToS. You and Marokai. Please. Go on. I'm waiting for my lesson. Be sure to cite Wikipedia, too, and reprimand me for not debating at your professional level!

I can't wait until the moderators trim some of the fat from this thread.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Is this thread a parody?

Unfortunately it is not.

[Smash255]

Phil Gingrey, a doctor (or does he count as like a "self loathing doctor" or something? You know, like the black Republicans/Tea Partiers?), should not be allowed to speak on this.

And Todd Akin was a member of the Science & Technology committee.

Ah, ok. I guess the way Gingrey became a doctor is very similar to how Akin got selected for that committee.

Thanks for continuing your streak of half-assed talking point responses. Can always count on you for consistency, at least.

Ted Stevens was also the chairman of the Senate committee on Science.
That gives us two possibilities.

1)His opinion about the internet being a series of tubes was a legitimate one, worth taking under consideration. He was the chairman of the Science committee after all, for God's sake. He must have had some expertise on these matters.

2)He was a moron who didn't know what the heck he was talking about (and that the Republican leadership were a bunch of morons for letting this man anywhere near that gavel).

Your choice.

You are an absolute moron. Not just moronic. Absolutely moronic. But let me address your irrelevant Talking Points #12 of the day!

Answering #2 in your question doesn't disprove my point that Gingrey is more of an authority. If you want to question his authority, question something in his medical background. Newsflash: the GOP conference didn't make Gingrey a doctor!

You want to argue about Akin and Stevens based on their committee assignments which is totally irrelevant to what is being said. I'm not here defending their authority on these matters.

I don't know if you just think I'm a dope that would fall for your sad excuse of a diversion or you just fail to grasp logic.

The general consensus of the medical community in Gingery is an assclown and wrong.  

Now if you are ill and seek treatment, and go to 100 doctors, 99 of them have a consensus of what it is, but one of the differs.  Which one are you going to put more stock in.  The one that differs or the 99 that have the consensus??

[Badger]

Phil Gingrey, a doctor (or does he count as like a "self loathing doctor" or something? You know, like the black Republicans/Tea Partiers?), should not be allowed to speak on this.

And Todd Akin was a member of the Science & Technology committee.

Ah, ok. I guess the way Gingrey became a doctor is very similar to how Akin got selected for that committee.

Thanks for continuing your streak of half-assed talking point responses. Can always count on you for consistency, at least.

Ted Stevens was also the chairman of the Senate committee on Science.
That gives us two possibilities.

1)His opinion about the internet being a series of tubes was a legitimate one, worth taking under consideration. He was the chairman of the Science committee after all, for God's sake. He must have had some expertise on these matters.

2)He was a moron who didn't know what the heck he was talking about (and that the Republican leadership were a bunch of morons for letting this man anywhere near that gavel).

Your choice.

You are an absolute moron. Not just moronic. Absolutely moronic. But let me address your irrelevant Talking Points #12 of the day!

Answering #2 in your question doesn't disprove my point that Gingrey is more of an authority. If you want to question his authority, question something in his medical background. Newsflash: the GOP conference didn't make Gingrey a doctor!

You want to argue about Akin and Stevens based on their committee assignments which is totally irrelevant to what is being said. I'm not here defending their authority on these matters.

I don't know if you just think I'm a dope that would fall for your sad excuse of a diversion or you just fail to grasp logic.

The general consensus of the medical community in Gingery is an assclown and wrong.  

Now if you are ill and seek treatment, and go to 100 doctors, 99 of them have a consensus of what it is, but one of the differs.  Which one are you going to put more stock in.  The one that differs or the 99 that have the consensus??

Constructive suggestion: maybe a link to the medical community broadly denouncing gigrey's statement MIGHT be constructive here. Just sayin'

I'll also say that, while I'm not ready to lock this thred as there's certainly more wheat than chaff here, I'm going to politely but firmly insist ALL sides kindly dial the rhetoric down a notch. Thank you.