Republican representative Todd Akin (R-MO) got into some hot water yesterday when an interview clip went “viral” of him suggesting not only that some rapes are legitimate while other rapes are not legitimate (yikes) but also that when the rapes are legitimate a woman’s body naturally shuts down her reproductive proceses in reaction (no, this is not true) and therefore we should not even worry about the existence of babies as the product of rape or incest because if the woman’s body didn’t shut down then she probably in her heart of hearts wanted to make sweet love (and babies) with her horrifying and possibly related assailant. Guhhhhh. There have obviously been calls from both sides of the aisle for him to withdraw from his senate race. People on the left want him to withdraw because he’s an asshole, and people on the right want him to withdraw so he stops making the rest of them look like assholes. But far be it from someone who thinks that legitimate rape results in magical infertility to just give up his God-given quest to lead our nation to salvation. Instead, Todd Akin has made an apologetic campaign ad. It is pretty incredible, actually.

Well, first of all, no, Tracy Morgan. The mistake you made was absolutely not in the words you said. It’s not like this dude said, “rape is good” when he clearly meant “rape isn’t good.” That’s a thing that could happen! And a firestorm would still erupt even though everyone could tell from his inflection and other contextual clues that he clearly meant to say “isn’t” but just slipped up in the heat of the moment. Maybe he’s talking about the word “legitimate,” which OK, just to play devil’s advocate, we can say that he had some vague, ill-formed thought in his mind and he grasped at word straws and picked legitimate and it blew up in his face, and maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt EXCEPT FOR THE PART WHERE he then went on to argue that WOMEN’S BODIES DON’T GET PREGNANT FROM “REAL” RAPES. So it’s no longer about word choice at that point is the problem here. I’m sure that Todd Akin doesn’t WANT everyone to GET raped, which seems to be what he is apologizing for, but no one was really arguing that. People were just arguing that you’re an over-privileged, misogynistic white man with absolutely no clue of what you are talking about who would be a potently dangerous person to put into a position of power for the future of our country. That’s all, buddy! Don’t even sweat it!

Oh man though how much do I love a campaign ad that basically says “I’m sorry for the terrible things I said about rape, and that is why you should vote for me.” I mean, that is what this is. That’s amazing! “My family knows that in my heart I don’t want my two teenage daughters to get raped, and that’s why I’m asking my fellow Missourians to vote Todd Akin for senate.” Incredible! (Similarly, I’m fascinated by the latest round of Romney ads that I can’t seem to find on-line but that suggest that Obama is a super great, totally chill dude that we all want to kiss on the mouth, but that doesn’t mean we should re-elect him for president, and that you can totally vote for Romney while still wishing you could just snuggle all night with America’s Sweetheart Barack Obama, that is totally something Romney understands and approves. That is a weird strategy! Weird and also losing!)

But the most important thing I even want to talk about here is did you hear what Mike Huckabee said?! It might be even worse than what Todd Akin said!! So, Mike Huckabee discussed the Todd Akin scandal on his XM Satellite Radio show or whatever the fuck he even does these days, and allowed the congressman to come on his show and apologize, and basically just attempted to make everything seem like it was being blown out of proportion and yet another example of the lamestream media twisting someone’s words in their mouth. SURE. FINE. Except then he went on to say that a lot of “admirable” people were born out of rape. “Ethel Waters, for example, was the result of a forcible rape,” Huckabee said. OH HOLY SHIT. So basically MORE people should get raped because think of all the great RANDOM GOSPEL SINGERS the world is missing!!!! More Rapes = More Friends. UNBELIEVABLE. How is THAT GUY not being forced to make apology videos? That is some horrible shit right there. That is just the worst shit ever. Take Back the Night might want to start thinking about opening a daytime chapter because it is getting SCARY out here.

Comments (101)
  1. i’ll wait to hear what jessica alba thinks before i vote, thank you very much.

  2. Yeah, well, Detective Olivia Benson was the product of “forcible rape” too, but I’m pretty sure that’s why she DEVOTED HER LIFE TO FIGHTING RAPE.

  3. Just so we’re clear, the GOP platform will call for the end of abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest (which, to be fair, is the logical conclusion to the illogical premise that abortion is killing a human life).

    So Akin is getting called out for stating the soon-to-be official position of the GOP but getting the biology wrong. But Republicans don’t give a shit about biology since not understanding what a fetus is is why the GOP is opposed to abortion in the first place!

    Ah this is very frustrating.

    • Thank you, Aunt Martha, for pointing that out.
      And as a side note on legitimate, Akin has noted that he meant to say “forcible” instead of “legitimate,” which all goes back to the House bill that tried to define “forcible” rape so as to make victims of statutory rape ineligible for Medicaid coverage of their abortions. This is great news for all of those 22-year-old creepos who date high schoolers, eh?

      • FUUUUCK. I had a longer thing typed but I think just swearing covers all my points. FUCK THAT NOISE. FUCK IT FOREVER.

        • Okay, so I am an American living in London and I spent all day yesterday angry at the whole Todd Akin thing, and then this morning I wake up and find that a left-wing member of Parliament has defended Julian Assange against charges that he had nonconsensual sex with a woman while she was asleep (or as regular people like to call it, rape) with the quote: “Not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion.” UGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
          I need to find a country without rape apologists. Maybe Antarctica?

          • Feminist moon base. I’m starting a kickstarter. It’ll be boss, we can invite the Mars Rover over for cocktails.

            Also, FUCK THAT GUY. Not only is it abhorrent, but it is also the grossest way to refer to rape. And rape is already terrible and gross. You don’t need to lower that bar, politicians.

            (also Fuck Julian Assagne)

    • THIS.

      I’d also like to add that Akins, like many members of the GOP, is a massive supporter of mandatory voter ID laws, and spoke last week about repealing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, routinely denies climate change and is trying to defund everything from school lunches to student loans to whatever (at that point I tuned out because I can’t vote against him). But, as Aunt Martha pointed out, this is the *same* stance that the National GOP / individual Tea Party candidates are taking on these issues.

      Paul Ryan has been saying the exact same shit for just as long and he is now very close to being VP. He just didn’t have a flustered remark on Sunday, so he moved out of the discourse. Obviously I don’t want this guy in the Senate, but he’s already in the House and so are many MANY people like him (ahem PAUL RYAN, Michelle Bachmann, etc.).

      But the repealing of the Voter Rights Act could mean that the fucked up voting practices that no one is discussing but The Daily Show could become a nationwide thing so more creeps like Akin will get into office because those voting against them are blocked at the polls and the federal government cannot intervene. In the long run, that is so much more frightening to me than a flub about rape (since the intent is the same intent as his entire nightmare base).

  4. So wait, which is it, idiots? If you REALLY get raped you won’t get pregnant, or if you REALLY get raped you might have a cool kid who ends up being famous and not a spitting image of the monster that did that to you?

    • GOD. It didn’t even OCCUR to me that Mike Huckabee inadvertently proved Akin’s (and excuse my word usage here) “hypothesis” that my lady bits have an Emergency Shut Off mode. Either that or Ethel Waters’ mother wanted it? Is that what you’re saying there, Mike?

  5. “People were just arguing that you’re an over-privileged, misogynistic white man…”

    I know that whenever a white guy says something insensitive about minorities we have to mention that he’s white, because it’s relevant. But what does him being white have to do with this? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming that us white guys have it hard. We don’t! We have it great! But just tossing the fact that he’s white in there as though that’s in and of itself a further damning piece of evidence seems kind of pointless and distracts from the real and terrible thing that he said. Isn’t him being a religiously-motivated misogynist enough? Every group has those!

    • I am seriously so mad right now I don’t even. Mike Huckabee, I most assuredly do not heart you at all. And Akin, seriously, no. Just no. Unless you have a condition that leads you to sprout gibberish, there is literally no way you can blame your words. The words you used were the least problematic thing. If my uterus was sentient, it would want so very much to run against you. The negative campaign ads write themselves! Todd Akin, literally worse at politics than a disembodied sentient reproductive organ!

    • I think being a white man (rather than say a black man) further cements his status as number 1 on the social dominance scale (as opposed to 2 or 3) for which his privilege is derived, so is therefore relevant

      • I suppose I knew someone would point that fact out, but I’m just not terribly comfortable with the idea that his whiteness further invalidates his opinion. It’s invalid all on its own, and not dissimilar from the sorts of opinions that zealots of all races and religions spout on a regular basis all across the world.

        I admit that it rankles me maybe more than it ought to, but I feel that within the need to point out his whiteness there’s an implication that by being white I somehow share in the guilt for what he’s done. I get that this isn’t about me, and I know that a white guy complaining about race-based assumptions can come across as pretty much THE whiniest thing in the world, but it just bugs me.

        • R2, I feel you. Like, I understand the context and the reasoning…. but, yeah.

        • I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t think his race is the predominating factor for which people are upset; it’s just one factor. I think we derive a lot of our political/moral life views from the groups we belong to. Males, conservatives, and whites TEND to favor social systems that are hierarchical or submit to social norms and which subsequently favor institutional discrimination (against women, say.). I don’t think it’s for the fact that he’s white, but that he hits all of those descriptors, which also describe most of the legislators trying to legislate this issue so aggressively.

          • Fondue cheddar, I don’t think anyone should be upset with Akin’s race, even as one factor among many. I agree with R2. When one black or Asian fella says something moronic, I don’t see its moronicity as tied to the guy’s race (and therefore perhaps shared by all members of that race). It would be lazy and offensive to think this, right? Like you wouldn’t go on blackgum and be all “Oof, that black guy who said that crazy thing yesterday — black guys make me so mad! I mean as one factor.” Right?

            So can the world please adopt a similar policy when a caucazoid moron speaks? I don’t know this guy Akin and I think his beliefs about how vaginas work are… fringe. So let’s not lump me in, you guys.

            (FULL DISCLOSURE: I am mainly of Celtic descent with some Saxon, Norman and Gaul, plus probably some Viking rape got in there (irony!) and whatever the barbarian hordes were that later became Germany; so, on the melanin scale… let’s just say I bought both Fleet Foxes CDs.)

          • Well… at the same time white men (not all white men, obviously) have had a history of privilege in this country that does, in fact, include raping their slaves — specifically lady slaves but I am quite sure some men were also victims of that privilege. And it was totally legal. And Missouri went with the South in the Civil War so the anger (if there even is any) towards this rich white guy about his fucked up views on rape actually go very deep into our country’s horrifying history.

            I’m not saying that’s why people would be angry about this, but maybe? I still think it’s a way to discredit the actual anger at the actual statement so the idiots listening to Huckabee’s show can lump it in with their other assumptions about people who just hate white males as a whole so they should vote for ______ because that’ll show ‘em good.

          • I just don’t think these things occur in a vacuum and absolutely believe that the majority of people legislating to institutionalize discrimination in this country derive their privilege from being at the very top of the social hierarchy (of which race is a factor).

            This isn’t just Todd Akin likes ice cream, so all white people must like ice cream. This is an issue that enshrines superior and inferior groups. And white, conservative, men tend to like doing that more than others.

            And I say tend because I don’t want to lump you, me, and anyone else who belongs into one of those 3 categories to feel bad today. Not here. Not on blackgum. Not anywhere.

          • Yo, seriously consider the audience of Huckabee’s radio show. They’re trying to make Akin as sympathetic to potential voters as possible. Potential voters that think, “hey rape is fucked up” but may also think, “why are they always picking on the white guy?” This phrase allows them to focus on the latter instead of the message. That is why it was said. They do this with Christians all the time. It’s a basic viewer grabbing strategy of all conservative talk shows and very much Fox News. Play up that everyone is mad because he’s white or Christian, not because he just said a bunch of nonsense. It changes the dialogue LITERALLY so audience members will feel sympathetic to this asshole instead of considering the actual message.

          • No one is mad at Akin because before 1865 a tiny minority of people owned and raped slaves. And most people like Akin aren’t trying to “enshrine superior and inferior groups,” exactly; they are not the KKK kind of racist.

            Instead, they see the country as having been an organized, can-do, moral place in their childhood and all eras before, and they look at what has happened in their adulthood (flag-burning, urban riots and crime, casual Fridays) and they want to go back to more upstanding days. Which of course they remember through a child’s eyes and therefore don’t accurately remember.

            So they end up doing a lot of mental gymnastics to maintain that inaccurate view, instead of doing the harder honest work of building an accurate view. So, because no one talked about abortion in the 1950s, we end up with “I heard women can’t get pregnant from rape, MOVING ON,” instead of “Rape has consequences and one of them is that now we have to talk about abortion, which is icky and complicated.”

            I genuinely believe they mostly don’t hold directly racist thoughts — just an astonishingly dumb commitment to holding the simplest thoughts possible. Which can have racist results, if you are terrified of and therefore deny the existence of complexity, people who think differently, and a future that is doomed to look different than the past you cherish.

            But it is not a white vs black thing or a power vs no-power thing, I tend to think. It is dumb people wanting to go back to the good stuff about the 1950s, when no one talked about problems and the future looked bright BECAUSE YOU WERE SIX.

          • Well I’m sure someone somewhere is upset about this. I honestly think this ENTIRE THING is a means to detract from the real issues — birth control regulation, voting regulation, environmental regulation, etc. that Akins’ party is trying to push forward.

            Everyone everywhere* agrees that rape is wrong. Akins is a way to get the whole nation outraged when only the good people of Missouri can make a difference… But while we’re astounded by this man’s awfulness, we’re ignoring a ton of equally terrifying candidates and ideas gaining in popularity — all of which are related to big business lobbies and interest groups that fund these fucks because of Citizens United and corporations being people too. And while I OBVIOUSLY don’t want this man in office, focusing on him instead of people I do have control over putting in or out of power… namely Romney and Ryan and the reps of my area is my main concern. And since my area is super liberal, I am continuing my vocal disdain for Romney and Ryan and the anti-environment, anti-education, pro-life, pro-business agenda they (and their buddies) will put forth.

            *serial rapists and psychopaths, probably

          • If it were only about going back to the 1950s, wouldn’t we expect all legislators of different races, genders, etc. born in the 50s to all generally think the same way? Yet, one group consistently holds views that attempt to maintain the power structure

            Is it all about power structure regarding how politicians legislate? No. Is it somewhat related? Yes. Do I hate when people do this both in writing and in conversation? Yes. Why am I doing it? I don’t know. Did my boss just try to talk to me about a bifurcated penis? Yes. It was weird.

            I agree that most people don’t hold explicit racist views anymore. But subconscious racism or implicit adherence to a more authoritarian structure which puts white men at the top and everyone else after still certainly exists, and regularly influences people’s political and social views, including myself I’m sure.

          • “wouldn’t we expect all legislators of different races, genders, etc. born in the 50s to all generally think the same way?”

            No. Not everyone has the same pathologies. Some people born in the 50s turn into Akin voters. Some turn into Ralph Nader voters.

            We go through life trying to satisfy our unique personal anxieties (or ideals) more than we do trying to “maintain the power structure.” This is my point. We’re all different. And to the extent we’d avoid saying, “Well, you know Jesse Jackson — underprivileged black male,” we should avoid saying “Obviously Akin said this — overprivileged white male.”

            Please send all awards for Winning the Internet Discussion of Race to: hotspur, .com, USA.

        • His whiteness doesn’t invalidate his opinion inherently. However as an overprivileged white man, his life experience is so far removed from those of women, especially underprivileged women, not to mention underprivileged minority women, that his opinion is invalid. Even overprivileged white women have some experience, but the issue of abortion availability is less of an issue. If you have enough money you can afford to go to where the services are. If you don’t, you have fewer options, and it’s the GOP’s policy to reduce that more and more.

          It’s not that “white people don’t understand”, but specifically, the ”rich/white/man” combination that lives a very different life from most other people. Now, if there were tons of rich minorities running around, it’s possible that they too could become out of touch, however, few of them are generationally privileged, having only become rich in recently, and thus might still have some concept of how the rest of the world lives.

          The core of the sort of Ayn Rand/Bootstraps part of Republicanism is that their version of treating everyone equally is to not bother trying to make things equal at the start. If someone ‘won’ the lottery and was born into a rich family, and was able to go to good schools, had a family that could afford to pay to get them into good universities, where they make friends alllowing them to get great jobs, and they end up being rich (even without inheriting money from their parents), and someone else ‘loses’ the lottery and is born into poverty, forced to go to a crappy school, has to take on massive student loan debt to go to college, then has to work a crappy job to try and pay it off … well, that second person could have hypothetically worked his butt off and been a genious and got a scholarship and been able to be just as successful as the first person. That one or two people are capable of succeeding against overwhelming odds is enough reason to not bother trying to make things better for the other 99.99% of people in the same situation, in their opinion. The argument is basically that anyone that is stuck in a continuous poverty cycle is only there because they didn’t want to get out of it hard enough, ignoring of course that the “anyone can do it” conveniently forgets the “but not everyone can do it”. The whole “be exceptional to get a free ride into better schools” thing only works for so many, since of course the word exceptional has a meaning, not to mention there are only so many scholarships offered.

          • I basically agree with your 3rd paragraph but seriously, your 1st paragraph is unsupported by it: you can’t declare someone’s opinion “inherently invalid” because of their gender, how much money their parents made, and their ethnicity. That’s offensive. And useless.

            I mean flip it and you’ll see: I can’t fathom Mitt fuckin’ Romney’s world — so is my opinion on what kind of taxes he should pay “inherently invalid”? I get to have an opinion, right? And there’s a chance it’s going to be a decent one, right?

          • On the “inherently invalid” … that was likely the wrong wording. I intended more to imply that it’s uninformed. Unless he has went out of his way to learn about vastly different lives than his own, it’s quite possible that he has an uninformed opinion, since being rich, white and male would all mean he could easily go most of his life without actually having been put into situations that he is judging other people about.

            And the MASSIVE difference is, that he is a LAW MAKER. His opinion allows him to pass laws and actually force people to behave in a certain manner based on that opinion. I, on the other hand, only have the ability to deem, for MYSELF, that someone’s opinion is invalid, and AT BEST, I can convince others of the same thing. There isn’t really a flip side … someone that is that far removed from Romney’s world is not going to be in a position to IMPOSE those opinions onto him. Anyone in high enough office to actually change the tax laws is at least reasonably rich and privileged.

            Now, a lot of people’s opinion on what Mitt should pay, on both sides, is uninformed, or at least not significantly informed. It is possible to be informed, on either situation. Now, if a rich, white, male anthropologist, or real doctor, or someone else that would be INFORMED in their opinion said it, it would be less likely that they’d be questioned. Similarly, economists that point out that the whole trickle down thing is a load, and that the economy is driven by the middle class buying shit (because if they are buying stuff, THEN companies will create jobs as they have to increase production to meet demand because that will make them more money … they aren’t going to spend tax money to increase production if there is no demand as that wouldn’t result in larger profits, it would be wasting money.) And, as the “how much taxes should Romney pay” thing has to do with the entire economy, and not with the lives of people that would never actually cross your path (for example, this Senator could likely be in a social circle where no one would actually be impacted by his stupid policy based on his ignorant opinion.)

    • Like fondue cheddar said, the fact that he is a white man automatically puts him in a position of privilege in our society and he mistakes that privilege as proof that he is qualified to legislate everyone else, even though he is a dangerous, backward moron with a terrible grasp of basic biology.

      • All true points, but everyone who runs for office thinks they’re qualified to legislate on out behalf. It’s kind of the job. He happens to be wrong in that assumption.

    • Don’t forget he’s probably rich because he can afford to run for office. Rich white guy.

    • I agree with this. I think it’s a way to deflect the anger towards Akins so the audience assumes this is just another angry liberal hating white males as a whole instead of anger at his stupid comment. That way instead of thinking about how incredibly fucked up the comment is, the audience of Huckabee’s radio show can think “damn liberals, always hating the white guy” and tune out the actual message. The right has totally co-opted this phrase to throw around so angry poor white guys can feel like the directed anger at rich white guys is not about class or beliefs or politics but about the color of their skin or their shared religion. It’s a very popular strategy in recruiting angry white people to the Tea Party or just electing GOP members as a whole. The book What’s The Matter With Kansas covers this fairly well.

      • I listened to Rush Limbaugh for 3 minutes this morning and badidea is correct. It was all about how us socialist liberals lie in wait, hoping to pounce on good Americans for using the wrong word just once. He went on to pitch Akin as an embattled individual who might keep running for office just to stand up to all the people who think they can tell us what to do. In the 3 minutes I heard, anyway, there was no discussion of how wrong Akin was; just discussion of how liberals hope to destroy good Americans.

        • Yup. Now a vote against Akins is a vote against a shared interest — the disappearing white male. His polices, voting record and fucked up economic policy are no longer the issue. This is literally how the spin cycle starts so that it ultimately becomes a “well yeah rape is wrong, but this is an attack on Christianity, my race, etc.” — which is EXACTLY why you can’t have reasonable discourse about a candidate. One group wants to argue facts and the other wants to argue feelings.

          This is also why (I suspect) GOP-leaning groups like Halliburton and the like are able to convince people to act in their worst interests over, say, local college professors that have fundamental proof that the long-term implications of drilling in someone’s back yard for natural gas or oil are not as valuable as “job creation” or a quick $$ bonus for rights and the lack of recourse when stuff goes wrong and you have massive nerve damage and your water catches on fire. (Because, yeah, fracking plays a part in this debate. This guy is bankrolled by big energy and Missouri is one of the big areas where fracking is ruining lives but expanding exponentially.)

          It’s perception slight of hand and it starts off subtle but moves quickly into something totally different.

        • Hotspur is 100 percent correct. I was just reading this Akin’s comically poorly-written site and this is his call to action:

          Todd Akin
          I apologized but the liberal elitist media is trying to make me drop out. Please stand with me tonight by signing my petition

          Don’t think for a second they’re not spinning this into exactly the us vs. them garbage nonsense that will make people who otherwise disagree with his take other issues into an “Obama elitists take our jobs” mentality. The left is doing it too.

          And look! Everyone stopped asking about Romney’s tax returns for the first time in MONTHS. The system works. I’m going to have my gin now.

  6. So we have moved from rape apologism to rape advocacy? Well shit, I need to double down on this ‘drinking until I am dead’ thing.

  7. “Hi I’m Mike Huckabee and I want to talk to you about kittens. You see, kittens are born of rape so violent the mother screams throughout it in pain. Maybe it’s the claws and teeth to her back or maybe it’s the backward facing spikes in the male’s penis. Or it could be that before she is mounted the male has to fight other cats, sometimes to death, making the intercourse an adrenaline-fueled cathartic burst of displaced animal anger. Anyways, my point is, why do liberals hate kittens so much?”

  8. I understand from talking to doctors that this guy doesn’t have a fucking clue. Shut it down.

  9. So, if Huckabee can argue that rape-fetuses shouldn’t be aborted because they might become cool famous people, can I use the same logic to say that non-rape-fetuses should be aborted because they might become, say, Hitler?

  10. ” Some people met and fell in love in Auschwitz, so, you know… ” – Adolph Hitler at the Nuremberg trials

  11. I only accept legitimate apologies.

    • Well, given that the GOP is going to take away $5 million in planned funding for his campaign, some might call it a forcible apology.

      • i’m really glad that they are taking away funding, but on a deeper level it kinda pisses me off, because it’s just appeasement. the GOP is filled with assholes that say comparable shit to this ALL OF THE TIME. their platform totally supports the basic sentiment of what this dude said, mainly, that women should not be trusted with decisions around their reproductive system, and that frankly we are all too dumb to even know what our hearts and bodies want anyway. so the fact that they are pulling 5 million is just a way to distract from the fact that their policies are harmful to women, because now they can say that they disowned this man and they know that a certain percentage of voters will now think that the GOP is not one giant “FUCK WOMEN” bandwagon of assholes.

        • Yup. I think he’s getting thrown under the bus in a very public way so that we’re not talking about all the other candidates who think and propose the exact same stuff… like, oh, Paul Ryan.

  12. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/republicans-decry-todd-akins-rape-remarks.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp

    >>Ms. Barnes echoed Mr. Akin’s statement that very few rapes resulted in pregnancy, adding that “at that point, if God has chosen to bless this person with a life, you don’t kill it.”

    “That’s more what I believe he was trying to state,” she said. “He just phrased it badly.”<<

    A woman (A WOMAN!) defending him. The GOP, ugh. It'd be somewhat easy to write it off as "LOL GOP, you so crazy!" if there wasn't a very real chance that Republicans could take the Senate & the Presidancy, while keeping the House, topped off by conservative pundits & voters (hi Mom, love you, but you gotta turn off Fox News and the conservative radio idiots) gloating for the next 4 years. UGH.

    • Yeah, I mean, if God chooses to bless somebody with a rape, what’s the big deal.

      To quote Lilbobbytables: FUCK! FUCK THAT NOISE! FUCK IT FOREVER!

    • I can’t even wrap my head around someone referring to a rape pregnancy as a blessing.

    • WHAT. THE. FUCK. I mean I have heard that argument before, but it boggles the mind that she just made rape some sort of Divine Intervention.

      • i mean, honestly, the chances that jesus himself was a product of rape is pretty damn high when you get down to it. there’s a whole book exploring the gospel through that lens. a dirty FEMINIST book. so, point being, a lady’s rape baby could be the next jesus baby.

      • Hahaha! When a person commits rape, that’s divine intervention, but when a person commits abortion, that’s a crime!

        So rapists are doing the Lord’s work! Abortion doctors are evil! They might be killing future blues singers! HAHAHA BARF! I just laughed until I threw up! Wait, what if there’s one — just one — abortion doctor who’s doing the Lord’s work because he’s killing fetal Hitlers?

        But then, maybe a Holocaust is part of God’s plan too! DON’T PREVENT THE HOLOCAUST! Oh except the Holocaust of Abortions! Prevent that one!

        HAHAHAHAHA RELIGIONNNNNNNNN I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE BELIEVE IT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS NO WAY TO DO SO!!!

      • It’s all part of His plan…

    • I am too angry to deal with people who think that way. Please don’t ever talk to me, people think rape pregnancies are blessings. It will not end well.

      • It’s from people who think that women are just containers for a uterus, and if the uterus isn’t used for baby-making than the woman is a waste of space. Not all babies are “blessings,” because not everyone wants to be “blessed” with a baby, especially if they don’t get to choose the time, place, or crucially, father.

      • *people WHO think

        God, so many angry typos on my comments today. Just ignore me.

  13. Another probably stupid question: if there is such a thing as “forcible rape” then what’s the other kind of rape? I’m really fucking confused here.

  14. Yesterday I learned that if you play wii Tennis for two and a half hours while drinking white wine and blasting Tina Turner, you can get rid of a few of your rage issues. Running helps, but hitting things very hard with a fake tennis racket is slightly more soothing. I mean, of course, I woke up to see this… but hitting fake things is really soothing.

    Also, and I don’t want to brag, but you guys might not see me around these parts much longer. The wii suggested I become a pro bowler and I might take up the suggestion. Later jerks!

  15. So Huckabee’s position is that a future rape baby may discover the cure for cancer, and can we really afford to risk losing the cure for cancer?

    • Good god, I hope that cancer-curing future rape baby is born into a shit load of money because if he gets his way (Akins, Huckabee, Ryan — all of those fucks, honestly everyone is saying the same goddamn message), they will have eliminated federally-funded student loans so only people who can afford to pay for college upfront (by that point $500,000,000 a year) will be able to go. Why? Because that’s how we don’t have to raise the debt ceiling because OBAMACARE that’s why.

      I hate everything about this mentality so much.

      • That shit is my favourite part. MY FAVOURITE. You’re a terrible murderer for wanting to get rid of that baby you can’t afford, but damned if we’ll help you afford to keep it. My friend who got pregnant as a young, poor, uninsured, single woman and the only way she could afford prenatal care was to go to Planned Parenthood. But by all means, demonise and destroy those abortion factory monsters because who cares that they are one of precious few groups trying to make health care affordable to women who actually want to keep from murdering their precious miracle babies.

  16. Here’s a nightmare hypothetical. What if one day it were discovered that life begins at conception? Fetuses feel pain, etc. Obviously, this would be an amazing boon for pro-lifers, but what would be the correct moral response to this discovery? I’ve thought about this before, because there was a time when I was anti-abortion because I held this belief (junior high). When do the rights of women end and the rights of unborn life begin?

    Of course, anyone arguing that abortion should be illegal should also be 100% pro-contraception for all. Those two positions go hand in hand because we live in a sane society, right?

    • For cereal. I don’t understand the whole against abortion AND against contraception. Do you people not understand that by taking away one it causes you to need to other. Someone make this into a math problem or something, so the engineer will understand it.

      • Because sex is a sin. That is seriously where this comes from. If that little lady didn’t want to raise a child, she shouldn’t have opened her legs!!! The man of course, couldn’t help it and is blameless.

        • He said be fruitful and multiply, and by gum, we are going to make sure that EVERYONE does it whether they like it or not. See also: why they hate the gays.

        • yeah, i think before we can have an intelligent discussion about abortion and contraception in this country we have to have an intelligent discussion about sex.

    • but I mean, let’s even say that life did begin then, and fetuses feel pain. Ladies still have to be a life support system for it. It can’t live outside of us, right? The Government can’t compel me to donate a kidney – even if it would clearly and unambiguously save the life of a living, breathing person who can obviously feel pain. If that fetus lived inside of me, and then I birthed it, and then as a 4 year old kid, walking around, needing more sand, it needed my bodily resources -a kidney, a blood transfusion, etc. – the government could not and would not force me to provide them. So why is it different when something/someone is trying to LIVE INSIDE MY BODY? dumb.

      • For the record, this is more or less my position on this. As things stand now, we don’t know that fetuses don’t feel pain (or do we?), and I’m willing to accept that any harm they might suffer is not comparable to the definite harm suffered by women forced to carry to term. I just put this hypothetical out there because it would certainly change the balance.

        Let’s say that x represents the likelihood that a fetus is a living feeling thing and that y represents the amount of harm that would suffered by the fetus if this were true. So x*y would be the harm suffered by any fetuses, and would represent the interests on the fetus side of the scale. x*y would be weighed against z, the definite quantifiable harm suffered by women. We don’t know the value of x, but since it is greater than or equal to 1, we should definitely, definitely favor z unless, of course, we don’t value women. If x were equal to 1, it would be harder to come to a comfortable moral conclusion.

        This was a weird riff, and late in the day, but food for thought, I guess?

        • This does sort of go with the whole issue brought up in the last post, the whole “they don’t really act the way they talk” thing. If they genuinely believed that the fetus is exactly equal to a human, and that thus abortion is exactly equivalent to state sanctioned murder, and the ammount of deaths is a holocaust, etc, etc, etc … they don’t really seem to be doing anything to stop it. Most people would hurt others to stop killing, or even kill. So, outside of the crazies (who, if they are taking the rhetoric as literally are acting ‘rationally’) no one is really willing to act on the “1 fetus = 1 human” thing. So, outside of the people bombing clinics and killing doctors, the majority are at least acting as if they believe that a fetus’ life is worth the same as a baby’s life. And, thus their overblown rhetoric should be blamed for inciting violence in those that cannot understand the implied “sort of” at the end of things like “Abortion is murder” and “Life begins at conception” and stuff like that. If those unstable people would be comparable to a robot in fiction, the ‘logical’ steps from “Abortion is murder, killing one person to stop hundreds of murders is justifiable, therefore I should kill the abortion doctor” are pretty clear. The only thing to stop that is to know that, even though they are SAYING that killing a fetus is equivalent to murder, that isn’t something that most of them don’t believe enough to actually do anything about it other than protest and petition and legislate around the edges.

        • *less than or equal to 1, doh.

  17. I’m late to the show, but I’m too fed up and compelled to vent, and this is a nice, quiet corner of the Internet in which to do so.

    I’m a philosophy student (BOO!), and I’ve been focusing on intention and morality in the last year or so. One thing I had to work through was whether moral value is found in the act or the intention or both. I agree with Kant, in part, but also Duns Scotus and Peter Abelard, in that moral culpability is found only in intention – so a person’s guilt or merit is determined only by their intention (ex. If a car thief consented (decided) to steal a car but was then struck by lightning while approaching the car, he is no less guilty than a successful thief). BUT – I could not argue that moral value ends at intention.

    I believe there is moral worth inherent in acts themselves. So, there is something inherently evil about rape. The act is evil. Even if, somehow, the rapist’s intention were something else (maybe because of ignorance, mental illness, whatever) the act itself would still be evil.

    It’s so hard to deny that there is evil inherent in the act of rape. But, I can’t find or formulate any arguments that really, clearly conclude that. There’s so much dissection and precision in the comments here (and it’s pretty great. This is a bodacious Internet community), but I think the clearest affirmation of the evil in the act of rape is just the swell of fear and terror and indignation that rises in me when I think about the victim. I’ve never been in that position, but I have felt unsafe and threatened, and it feels so destructive, so negative. Chaos. It disturbs so much and leaves people helpless.

    I think the evilness of rape is self-evident, but you have to contemplate the act itself (not the god damn precious “baby” contents (fetuses are not babies!)) to see that. To feel that. I don’t think Akin or Huckabee have ever done that. I appreciate that anti-choice people see abortion as a big, glaring self-evident evil in the same way I see rape. But why can’t they see the awful, stinking vileness of rape?

    These shit-brained arguments that try to water down rape are disgusting, obviously. It’s like trying to water down a turd. Rape is a big evil turd. Fuck you, Huckabee.

    • Rape is torture. Torture is definitionally evil, correct?

      Also, fetuses are by definition parasites. Parasites that have value to a mother that wants to eventually birth a child, but still! Parasites!

      Can you imagine if we forced any male Congressman to host LITERALLY THE SPAWN OF HIS TORTURER, moving around inside of him, feeding off of his blood supply, making him ill for months, and then ripping his genitals apart upon exit??

      What a blessing!!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.