Todd Akin: Pregnancy Rare from "Legitimate Rape".

There is supposedly a "rape gene", but it isn't on the woman's side. It is an indicator on the male side that they may be more likely to rape a woman. Also, guys that have the rape gene are also less fertile, so they are less likely to father a child from the act...

That being said, just because a guy has the rape gene doesn't mean they can't produce a child and just because they don't have the gene, it doesn't mean they won't rape someone...

 

Here is the clear reason why Claire McCaskill's campaign ran ads FOR this guy in the Republican Primary. He is the one she wanted to run against in the general election.

 

Not sure what it has to do with "religion" specifically, it's more just an ignorant comment from a pro-life candidate who is trying to justify their position with idiocy.

This probably isn't worth its own thread (neither were Joe Biden's comments), so I'll go ahead and throw the conversation over to the GOP Failure thread, because this is certainly a failure of epic proportions.

 

Between the lines, man. He doesn't have to spell it out. Five'll get you ten it's his religion that's given him the unique perspective on how to mistreat rape victims.

Let's try not to decide for others what deserves a thread and what doesn't. Every poster has the right to start a thread once they've been here for a certain amount of time.

 

I'll certainly try to "read between the lines" if that's what you suggest, but I'm not sure I see any "religious" connection other than the fact that Christians generally tend to be pro-life. By the same token, there are plenty of pro-lifers that are not Christians. I certainly will submit that his religious views could have influenced his pro-life stance, but to this point, I see little evidence that it was his faith that prompted his wholly ignorant statement regarding the specific biological function of the female body.

 

And apparently Paul Ryan shares similar views...

​

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...kin-and-paul-ryan-partnered-to-redefine-rape/

 

My understanding is that there are genes associated with most psychological profiles which, presumably, would include rape and other forms of violence.

I saw a very interesting BBC Horizon show a few years ago about a scientist who'd studied the DNA of quite a few murderers and compared them to a control group, (who, presumably, weren't), and said there were markers that were different.

Of course, I'd imagine it might come back to the old nature/nurture debate because if someone's, say, unattractive, they might find people reacting to them in an aggressive manner and thus react accordingly themselves.

Edit: This was it...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014kj65

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/sep/07/tv-review-horizon-good-evil

This took an interesting turn for Prof Jim. He tested his own family and found – unsettlingly – that one person had both the genes and the brain structure linked to violent behaviour, the profile of a psychopath. Even more unsettlingly for Jim, it was him. His family wasn't surprised (it went some way to explaining why he kept coming at them with a big axe). But it got Jim wondering: how come he hadn't killed anyone?

The answer is that whether genes are triggered or not depends on what happens in your childhood. The genetic variant alone doesn't mean you're going to be a violent killer, but if you add childhood abuse to the mix, then the chances are a lot higher. Fortunately for Jim, and for his family, he had a delightful childhood, which had offset the potential for violence. For now

Not sure I remember it properly but that's the one.

 

I have exactly the same question... Where is that "theory" is coming from?

 

Heh. I don't have a link, it was just something the doctor that was treating a relative told her after she was raped. It didn't stop them from giving her the morning after pill, or stop her from getting pregnant though. Akin's still an idiot though for thinking it never happens.

 

The Romney Campaign is running away from Akin as fast as they can. Akin, see you under proverbial bus.

"Akin's remarks made such a stir that the Romney campaign issued a response today. "Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape,"

" Except that, Mitt Romney said he would have supported a personhood amendment in Massachusetts, which would ban all abortions, and Paul Ryan co-sponsored the federal version of that amendment."
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...-ryan-respond-to-akin-on-legitimate-rape?lite

 

But that's based on the premise that rape is about reproduction, not violence, isn't it?

 

The problem being that the study was of only one group of people and there is no evidence that the Ache are representative of early humans, which weren't nearly as tightly organized as the Ache are... Additionally, the article you linked is largely in response to a book that gave an inordinate amount of credit to rape for the spread of humans.

Here's an article that pretty mch takes down both theories.

http://www.genetic-inference.co.uk/blog/2009/07/evolutionary-psychology-and-genetics/

 

Policy-wise - I don't see a major difference between the position of Akin and the Republican Party or any other American conservative on the issue.

Politically speaking - Obviously a disaster. This could make the Missouri Senate seat, which should be an easy pickup for Republicans, competitive. And a McCaskill upset would make it much more difficult for Republicans to take the Senate.

 

Ryan and Akin were co sponsors of a 2011 bill in Congress that would refine the federal abortion coverage ban exemption for rape to cover only “forcible rape. You can bet that the Obama campaign is going tie this issue around the Romney / Ryan team.
Please pass the popcorn!

 

Ryan and Akin were co sponsors of a 2011 bill in Congress that would refine the federal abortion coverage ban exemption for rape to cover only “forcible rape. You can bet that the Obama campaign is going tie this issue around the Romney / Ryan team.
Please pass the popcorn![/quote]

At this point, very few voters are likely to move based on this. I would likewise be surprised if the Obama campaign tried to frame the debate around social issues. And if they thought Ryan's vote was a true liability, they would have already used it.

It's a definite liability for Akin's campaign. Not sure I see it moving much in the presidential race.

 

At this point, very few voters are likely to move based on this. I would likewise be surprised if the Obama campaign tried to frame the debate around social issues. And if they thought Ryan's vote was a true liability, they would have already used it.[/quote]

You are really not following the campaign if you think this abortion issue, in the larger contect of
" the war on women" is not going to play a role. By the way, yes, they are already using Ryan's votes and extreme positions on women's issues. Ads are running since last week on that. The Akin fiasco will just add to the existing material on Ryan.

The Obama campaign know their advantage with the women vote and will continue to pounce this story. It is not surprising that the R&R campaign is already running for the hills and distancing itself from Akin.

 

Not if the Romney campaign distances themselves from it, which is what you're seeing. I doubt the whole Akin stir does much to change the status quo regarding the state of the national race.

 

Oh, the Dems will hang this around Wilbur & Goober's necks like millstones. It's the election. It was close until Wilbur picked the ultra right idealogue as running mate, and with this "abortion as crime" talk, they will lose the independents. And more than a few rednecks.

Here is a dirty secret: outside a few religious nuts, the Republicans want abortion safe and available. Find a rich Reep, and ask him if his daughter gets raped, does he want all avenues of medical attention available. He will want all avenues available.

The Reeps in general are always wrong; in this case they have found the pinnacle of wrong headedness.

 

Let me give you a little worst kept secret today....Republican campaign operatives are sending memos to their candidates asking them to distance themselves asap from Akin comments. They know how toxic it is not only for Akin but for their own election.
In addition, some R's are also calling for Akin to get out of the race, because not only he is a lost case against Claire Mc C, but because his presence is going to be a major distraction for the national campaign as well. They just want him gone and buried.
Evidently, I am hoping he stays....I want to enjoy my popcorn! Go Akin! lol

 

That's fine for you to believe, but again, I don't see much evidence of that. Opinion polls show almost no movement since Ryan joined the ticket, in fact, if anything a few swing states inched toward Romney. Granted, it's only been a little over a week since Ryan was announced, so perhaps the polls in the next couple weeks will give us a better feel for his true impact.

 

One would certainly think Akin should have automatically buried his chances in the senate race with today's comments, but that's actually still anything but certain. As for its impact on the national race, I doubt you see much lingering effect, especially with the upcoming conventions shortly.