The American Spectator : Cowed by Political Correctness

Text Size

Political Hay

Cowed by Political Correctness

By George Neumayr on 8.23.12 @ 6:09AM

Akin made a stupid remark. But the hysterical reaction to it was even stupider.

Todd Akin is a man unfit for the U.S. Senate, all sides seemed to agree this week, whipping themselves up into a sanctimonious fury over his foolish aside about female biology. We heard this week a lot about “insensitivity” to violence from establishment elites who blithely accept violence in the womb. We heard gasps about dangerously narrow definitions of “rape” from defenders of Bill Clinton (who surely appreciated Akin’s “legitimate” distinction if no one else did) and from apologists for Roman Polanski, who, as Whoopi Goldberg once asserted, never engaged in “rape-rape.”

And let’s not forget that Barack Obama hired as one of his top Department of Education officials a gay-rights activist named Kevin Jennings, who once glibly counseled a “15-year-old” student thought to have been statutorily raped by an older man: “I hope you knew to use a condom.” Jennings is also known for having been “inspired” by Harry Hay, a supporter of the North American Man Boy Love Association.

Don’t expect Obama to receive any questions from the press about these views of his first “Safe Schools Czar.” No, outrage in this culture is restricted to those deemed unenlightened in the nuances of avant-garde morality. According to its porous scorecard, Christianity is bad for women while Islam is good for them. Pro-life countries receive scoldings from Hillary Clinton, while the one-child policy of China, which kills female infants, isn’t “second-guessed” by this administration, as Joe Biden put it on a visit.

In a culture that panders to pro-abortion feminists like Sandra Fluke, thought crimes always rank higher than real ones. Words, not deeds, drive pols from public life. So Akin has to go. He simply harbors the wrong thoughts and no apology will be sufficient from him until he changes his position on abortion. Beneath all the hysterical extrapolations from his remark, which grew wilder and wilder as the days passed, lay that essential demand: approve of killing unborn children conceived under circumstances of rape or be deemed “anti-woman.”

This culture of hectoring explains why Mitt Romney rushed to the cameras upon hearing Akin’s remark to pronounce abortion in those cases “appropriate.” In a rotten culture, proof of one’s “civilized” bona fides comes from such shameless pandering.

An authentically conservative party would find Romney’s unprincipled position far more chilling than Akin’s gaffe. If unborn children gain or lose their right to life depending upon the circumstances of their conception, then the party has already conceded that that right doesn’t exist. Ronald Reagan understood the implications of that concession and never wavered in his defense of the right to life of all unborn children, not just some of them.

Instead of rejecting this media-determined culture of empty and opportunistic outrage, which rests on nothing more than poisonous Planned Parenthood-style propaganda, panicky GOP officials reinforced it this week by treating Akin as a monstrous leper. His stupid remark was thereby turned into a supposedly wicked one and treated as a great crisis for the party.

A party less cowed by political correctness and less in thrall to conventional wisdom wouldn’t have cannibalized its own so quickly. Even from a narrowly strategic standpoint, the frothing made little sense. Without even bothering to consult grassroots Missouri conservatives who elected him or even find out if they had a viable plan B, RNC officials called for Akin to be obliterated and ruled out any future money to him. Didn’t it occur to anybody that he might stay in the race, in which case these fulminations would simply serve to hand victory to the Dems before the race even began? For all the talk about “pragmatism” and “diplomacy” this week from country club Republicans, they didn’t display any towards a candidate who won a primary fair and square. Is this how the Romney administration plans to conduct diplomacy?

Making a bad situation worse, party bosses joined the media mob in brutalizing Aiken not for any high crime but for a single dumb remark. The same country club Republicans who rallied around Arnold Schwarzenegger after he was credibly accused of assaulting women demanded that the Missouri congressman leave the race immediately for a mere comment. If social conservatives had any doubt as to their disposable status in the party — which they shouldn’t , since they have been treated like fodder for years — they can add the hair-trigger purging of Akin to their list of complaints.

In Romney’s GOP, moderates can make any number of mistakes (starting at the top of the ticket) but conservatives are called to perfection. Should they fail, GOP officials will waste no time sacrificing them to the gods of political correctness.

About the Author

George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (315) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Jack in Wi| 8.23.12 @ 6:49AM

For once I agree with George. This is a well written and truthful essay. You can be a blood thirsty old bag like Barbara Boxer or Hillary Clinton calling for more and more funding of Unplanned Parenthood or you blunder with an inarticulate awer like Akin did and be thrown to the wolves.

Jack in Wi| 8.23.12 @ 7:34AM

Under the Commmon Law rape was sexual relations without the consent of the victim. It could be forced stranger rape or the more difficult one between people who had known each other or even had previous sexual relationships. In the old law books it was impossible for a man to rape his wife. Today we have marital rape, date rape, and morning after rape. Morning after rape can best be described as waking up with some weird strange guy and saying. How the hell did I let this guy screw me? It must be rape. The old defense of rape was usually consent. As an old judge once said. " There is no harm in asking. In the end rape is what a jury says.

Under the Common Law if you got a women drunk and had intercourse with her it was rape. In fact that is still the law. How many of us are guilty of that kind of rape?

e e eponymous| 8.23.12 @ 10:24AM

Akin said what he evidently believes and something that has been a staple on the pro-life fringe for a while.

It's obvious where this myth comes from. If you are pro-life, i.e. if you hold that a newly fertilized egg just attached to the uterus has all the constitutional rights of an adult or a newborn, (absurd beyond belief) then an exception for rape makes no sense.

The sane and past Christian view is that it's a mystery when a human "person" emerges from this modern neurotic fixation on full human personhood beginning at the zygote stage is absent from previous Christianity. And yes, it's a function of fundamentalism - pioneered by John Paul II and orchestrated by Benedict XVI.

The Avenger| 8.23.12 @ 11:00AM

Where did you get your theology degree? From Rev. Wright?

Dai Alanye | 8.23.12 @ 11:06AM

Anonymous eponymous is yodeling through his/her chapeau. The exception to a pro-life standard is based on a woman's right to defend herself against rape... and against its occasional consequence. No woman should ever be condemned for refusing to carry the spawn of a rapist.

As for the Constitutionality of the matter, he/she is merely expressing a personal opinion, not stating settled law.

KyMouse| 8.23.12 @ 1:20PM

Dai, to you, the child conceived in rape is merely "spawn" and a "consequence"? How de-humanizing and insulting!

If your mother told you that you were conceived in rape, would you say, "I should have been killed -- I don't deserve to live"?

Or would you say, "Thanks, Mom, for letting me live"?

Killing the baby turns a crime with one victim into a crime with TWO victims.

Rapists are spared the death penalty -- so why should their babies be executed?

Is there ANY child who doesn't deserve the chance to live?

In a 2000 survey of 192 women who became pregnant through rape or incest, Dr. David Reardon found that more than 90 percent of the women who had aborted their babies would discourage others from doing so.

And 94 percent of the rape victims said that abortion was NOT a good option for women in their situations.

One woman wrote, "I've been raped, but I've also been blessed with a beautiful baby girl. And in the end, I've gained more than I lost."

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:25PM

The baby is innocent regardless of its manner of coming into being.

KyMouse| 8.23.12 @ 1:02PM

Why are pro-abortion people so anti-science?

Science long ago settled the question of when a new human life begins. I have quoted before, and will now quote again, what "Human Development: Clinically Oriented Embryology," a textbook written for medical students (not seminary students) says on its very first page:

"Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male...A zygote is the beginning of a new human being."

From the moment of fertilization, DNA guides the developoment of that new human being. And it cannot be anything BUT human.

Once egg and sperm join, all that is needed is TIME and NUTRITION for that brand new human being to become an infant, a toddler, an adolescent, and an adult. He or she is the same human being through all of those perfectly natural stages of development. Just like you, just like me.

Jack in Wi| 8.23.12 @ 3:31PM

What does the Democrat Party stand for but abortion, homosex, war, euthanasia, sky high taxes, massive wasteful programs, and crooked bloated govvernment unions? It is truely the party of death and taxes. This country needs a long and hard discussion about abortion. It is destroying the future of the country. 60 million abortions have led to 60 million immigrants coming in to replace them.

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 3:44PM

What do you stand for, Jackboot the Nazi, but for heaping loads of praise on your hero, Adolph Hitler.
Tell us all how Hitler was such a good friend of the Jews because he wanted to ship them all to Madagascar.
Tell us all how Adolph was such a mench for not starting the "Final Solution" until 1942.

Jack in Wi| 8.23.12 @ 4:23PM

Nick you are severly deranged. You better see a psychiatrist. Occam is one. Oh maybe not! He is nuttier then most of his patients. You can't be call yourself pro-life and back the bombing of innocents and war for no reason like you do. Blessed are the peacemakers. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. End the hate Nick. It is destroying you. Peace and love is the answer

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 6:25PM

You need to STOP worshiping your hero, Hitler, Jackboot the Nazi.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:27PM

Jack, I am. You, on the other hand, support murdering babies if they are Jewish. Funny that I receive less abuse on this website than you do, you supporter of anal rape of little girls.

Jack in Wi| 8.23.12 @ 6:44PM

Thats a lie Occam. I have never advocated anything here but peace and justice.

e e eponymous| 8.23.12 @ 1:04PM

Sometimes it feels to me as if this campaign - with its entrenched support for both sides so dominant and the space for actual persuasion so minimal - is less a campaign than a cold civil war. Almost exactly along the same regional and racial lines as the real one.

TLP| 8.23.12 @ 6:51AM

Look, what's done is done. He's the Nominee. Period.

Get over it.

Todd Akin, to my knowledge, hasn't RAPED anyone. He hasn't Molested anyone who came to him for Help, as her Husband lay Dying. And he hasn't been Accused of either of these things, on National Television, on 60 Minutes.

I don't believe that he's testified before a Grand Jury, about charges that he Pulled Down His Pants and EXPOSED HIMSELF to a Woman that he didn't even know.

He never lost a Law Liscence for Lying to said Grand Jury. He never had to pay out $900,000 to a woman that he EXPOSED HIMSELF to.

He never used a Young Fat Intern as a Rest Stop for his Penis, at one end, and his Cigar at the other end, and then go on to describe HER as the Guilty Party. As the Stalker.

Mr. Akin, to my knowledge has never ATTACKED any Woman, either Physically, or using Surrogates to Trash Her in the Papers, and on the TV. He's never needed to Employ a Bimbo Eruption Squad, for the purpose of DESTROYING an Woman who sought to expose any Deviancy that he had committed.

That would be Bill Clinton.

The same Bill Clinton who will be Lionized by the adoring throngs at The Democrat Convention, as he introduces President Implosion for renomination.

TLP| 8.23.12 @ 7:05AM

The very same "Reporters" and "Commentators" who can't stop Hyperventilating over One Guy, who believes something differently from they believe, will be Smiling, and Laughing, and Crying as they watch THEIR HERO stride across the Stage to introduce THEIR MESSIAH, all the while, Wishing that they could go back in time and change places with the Fat Girl with the Black Thong and the Cheese Pizza. Dreaming it was them wearing the Blue Dress while satisfying Him, and his Cigar, at the same time, like nobody's business.

These are your Talking Points, give or take, some of the more Riske Situations.

They have a RAPIST/Serial Misogenyst/ Pathological Liar Ex President, about to take Center Stage with a Racist/Jew Hating/America Hating/Pathological Liar Current President.

But, we gotta get rid of Todd Akin?

Give me a Fckng Break.

Mimi | 8.23.12 @ 7:46AM

I don't think I would put it just that way Tim but they are certainly doing the bidding of the DEM'S on this. The Dem's are acting offended? ....You'd think they would wait for juicier news to get in a 'FAKE" uproar. OUR GUY'S have to wait on this stuff .....there is no need to react to their every impulse....It's wiser to take a we'll see attitude before instant reaction!
THEY NEED BETTER ADVICE...Maybe some older advisors would help the judgement!

TLP| 8.23.12 @ 9:13AM

We gotta stop pussyfooting around, with these people. My way, is the only way.

A punch in the face.

A bullet between the eyes.

To Defeat my Enemy. I must Become my Enemy.

Fight Fire, with Fire.

This Election is for All the Marbles, and we are Way Past "Being Civil" time.

It's time to Get Dirty.

e e eponymous| 8.23.12 @ 11:02AM

TLP is obviously unhinged, and his always-hateful, violent language has no place on this blog.

Stephie| 8.23.12 @ 11:10AM

No ee, he is passionate and fed up with the likes of the progressive marxist left who have infiltrated not only our government but our culture.
Now please, move along.

JmsA| 8.23.12 @ 1:14PM

No, he gets it. There's much at stake, not the least of the which the survival of the country and freedom. Like it or not, so far, we're stuck with Mr. Akin. The issue is to win; otherwise, we're done. There are some things, though not very many, that I don't I agree with insofar as TLP's posts are concerned. He's just voicing out loud, as it were, what many including myself feel. In this case, he's full spot-on.

Ultimately, though, where do you get off trying to censor his free speech?

Obama's a disaster; his re-election along with his party's retention of the Senate will be cataclysmic. TLP makes perfect sense: Republicans play by the rules and democrats don't. The only way to deal with this is to fight fire with fire.

TLP| 8.23.12 @ 7:50PM

There are some things that you don't agree with in TLP's Posts?

I don't believe it.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:29PM

Get the bathhouse data, like the Pentagon papers were gotten. Publicize the hell out of it.

Nad punch, Nad punch, Nad punch all the way. The Dems are vermin, like Jackboot Jack. Cowards and traitors and scum.

Oldefarte| 8.23.12 @ 11:05PM

Okay....amen brother:

http://youtu.be/8sAjIKTMICg

Jade12| 8.24.12 @ 12:07PM

Could not agree more!!!

Von Mises Jr| 8.23.12 @ 9:11AM

If the GOP did not have their heads up their posterior, they would use Akin incident to attack Obama's support for infanticide.
A measured response would be "that while we believe that Mr. Akin's comments were foolish and not helpful, are the American people so offended that Republicans are concerned about the life of all unborn children while the President wishes to kill live-born infants?"

Jack in Wi| 8.23.12 @ 9:46AM

Very good Von Mises. There are many ways to use this incident to push back against abortion lovers.

Boar Hunter| 8.23.12 @ 10:18AM

Aah yes.

I wish I had a dollar for every "If" concerning the Republican party's failure over the last seven years.

TLP| 8.23.12 @ 4:59PM

Indeed.

CJW| 8.23.12 @ 11:18AM

Von
They should have said:
"We do not need advice from the party of Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Akin has not drowned a woman nor raped and harassed his staff."

cuban pete| 8.23.12 @ 12:00PM

CJW
I don't mean to quibble but Teddy did not drown Mary Jo. He left her to suffocate, a much more terrifying way to die.
Best regards,
cp

CJW| 8.23.12 @ 4:10PM

cuban pete
You are correct. I use the word drowned as a shortcut.
Are you from Cuba? Had a teacher who was forced to leave Fidel and Che's paradise.

Jade12| 8.24.12 @ 12:09PM

Right on but they are too cowardly to do this.

Jade12| 8.24.12 @ 12:05PM

TLP as usual right on target.
This is what the stupid Republicans should be throwing back in the Dem faces.l

Joellen| 8.23.12 @ 9:27AM

And Tim, he never got drunk, drove a woman off a bridge and left her to drown in a few inches of water. I am so sick of the hypocrisy of the left, and of the weak so called right who cave to these immoral, evil leftist. I do NOT want to get along with the left - I want to battle them, not in their Saul Alinksy way. No, I want the right to set the rules and to set a new agenda. Why cant the elitist get it that we are at war here between good and evil?

Frank Drackman| 8.23.12 @ 10:18AM

ellen baby,
Mary Joe Kopeckney didn't drown, she Asphyxiated(There's a difference).

Chow,
Frank

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 10:34AM

It's "Kopechne" please show some respect.

Please source the drown vs. asphyxiate info.

Thank you,

DTOM

Frank Drackman| 8.23.12 @ 10:46AM

Respect? Who are you, Rodney Dangerfield?
I believe its from the death certificate, and No, I don't have a link handy, who do I look like? Mr. Wikipedia? Look it up yourself homo.

Frank

rightasrain| 8.23.12 @ 10:52AM

That Mary Jo asphyxiated makes Kennedy's actions all the more reprehensible. Mary Jo could have been saved had Kennedy not spent valuable hours with the family fixers deciding how to spin the story. He was an utterly comtemptible human being.

Stephie| 8.23.12 @ 11:12AM

Absolutely~

CJW| 8.23.12 @ 11:29AM

Teddy swam to shore and safety then he met with his handlers and lawyers, drinking coffe and orange juice to eliminate the alcohol from his system. After a story was concoted and the alcohol dissipated and eliminated from his system, the police was contacted.

While driving off the bridge may have been an accident, his conduct afterwards in failing to take any reasonable steps, such as calling the police, to save Mary Jo, would sustain a homicide charge.

In Pa, we have a charge of homicide by vehicle was intoxicated. It is basically a negligence charge coupled with driving while impaired. There is a MANDATORY three year imprisonment.

Instead of three years, Teddy ran for the Dem presidentail nomination in 1980, and became the moral leader of the Dems to block the nominations of Bork and Thomas.

We do not need advice from the party of Teddy, Jackson, and infanticide policy/rationing policy of Obama/Sebellius.

Cobalt| 8.23.12 @ 10:54AM

"Please source the drown vs. asphyxiate info"

Read what John Farrar, the diver who recovered Kopechne's body, said under "Testimony and cause of death"

"Chappaquiddick Incident"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....k_incident

Cobalt| 8.23.12 @ 11:04AM

Some people think given Teddy Kennedy's position as a United States Senator, his being a Kennedy patriarch, and his love of sailing and the ocean, that he should have been given a dignified, formal buriel at sea in a black Oldsmobile.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:30PM

Trapped in below water car with air in passenger seat, DTOM, sir.

The Avenger| 8.23.12 @ 11:09AM

And liberal pukes like you fawned all over the "Lyin' of the Senate"

Joellen| 8.23.12 @ 4:46PM

It's Joellen and I am not your baby. She DIED at the hands of liberal Ted Kennedy - so stick to the points and stop with the stupidity.

TLP| 8.23.12 @ 5:05PM

Exactly.

"She didn't DIE from Drowning. She DIED from Asphyxiation" as if it matters.

SHE DIED, and the MFer was given a Plea Deal, even though, under Massachusetts Law, that was not permissible at the time.

This Ccksckr is Buried in Arlington National Cemetary.

A Blasphemy that, if I was President, I would Rectify on Day 1.

Oldefarte| 8.23.12 @ 11:17PM

She died because this "Ccksckr" didn't either have the desire or the guts to personally perform a 'PT109' and pull her to safety. The "MFer was given a Plea Deal" because he immediately shoved his daddy's moonshine profits into the mouths [or possibly the other ended crevice] of approximately ten ambulance chasers [aka attorneys, lawyers] to defend him; and several state jurisprudent-prostitutes [aka judges] to avoid the state law concerning what should be known as MURDER!!!!!!

Frank Drackman| 8.23.12 @ 10:29AM

I had forgotton about that whole Clinton/Cigar/Monica's Va-JJ thang..
How Disgusting! How Sick! How Perverted!
Ruining a perfectly good C-gar...

Frank

Alej| 8.23.12 @ 11:18AM

Actually, Clinton is said to have thought the cigar later had an alluring bouquet.

2Anglico| 8.23.12 @ 3:14PM

Actually, I think Monica testified that Clinton gave said cigar to Arafat! Now that is funny.

benny havens| 8.23.12 @ 4:49PM

Arafat stated the aroma reminded him of one of his goats.

Drunken Sailor| 8.23.12 @ 8:22PM

The goat was offended.

Jade12| 8.24.12 @ 12:12PM

LOL!

rightasrain| 8.23.12 @ 7:29AM

Thanks, George for capturing completely my feelings about the Akin affair.

fmm| 8.23.12 @ 7:31AM

Really now. For the GOP, it was never about his policies on rape and abortion, but about his total inability to communicate, which reflects very poorly on his ability to function as a US senator.

rightasrain| 8.23.12 @ 7:49AM

Akins managed to get himself elected to the House for several terms so go figure. But right now both Akins and the Repubs cravenly calling for his head should just shut up.

MK48| 8.23.12 @ 11:09AM

Palin.........included

TLP| 8.23.12 @ 5:10PM

Indeed.

Instead of playing Defence?

The Republicans should be Reminding their Antagonists, that a RAPIST will be Front and Center at the Democrat National Convention, introducing a Muslim America Hater to the audience.

Oldefarte| 8.23.12 @ 11:20PM

I will not show my above linkage on HillBilly again, but please observe same FYI!!!!!

Mimi | 8.23.12 @ 7:52AM

It is up to the people of Missouri.... it is their choice!

RCV| 8.23.12 @ 11:35AM

...and the Rasmussen poll out this morning shows them rejecting Akins by 10%.

2Anglico| 8.23.12 @ 3:15PM

Would that be polls OVERSAMPLING donkeys?

RCV| 8.23.12 @ 5:44PM

No, Rasmussen is known for pro -GOP bias.

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 6:23PM

Not this canard again, RCV. I showed you how accurate Mr. Rasmussen's poll have been.
If he had a pro-GOP bias, his poll's would be less accurate. Like the pro-democrat polls.

TLP| 8.23.12 @ 7:53PM

Don't waste your time.

He's a joke.

An Unfunny One, at that.

RCV| 8.23.12 @ 8:55PM

And, Nick, I showed you the detailed analysis of Rasmussen's consistent pro -GOP errors in the 2010 polling. But you just ignored the facts. It's no canard, but a reality.

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 11:21PM

I think you might be thinking of someone else, RCV.
I only remember that you kept bringing up that guy from 385, or 538, or whatever it was, who isn't even a pollster.

Or, are you claiming that Rasmussen over-samples Republicans during the campaign, and then, gets it right just before the actual election?
I would concede that is a possibility, since the only poll that matters is the one on election day. After all, there really is no way to prove that the polls taken today are accurate, is there?
The best they can do is show the outliers, correct? The "margin of error" number is only a best statistical guess, when you get right down to it.
But, hey, I'm no statistician, so maybe I'm wrong.

RCV| 8.24.12 @ 12:02AM

Nick - would you like me to repost Nate Silver's detailed analyses of Ramussen's 2010 results? The one that demonstrated a consistent high margin of error in prediction ... virtually all in GOP favor? I'd be happy to if you want. But you're just deliberately ignoring facts, which isn't like you. If you honestly did miss the post, let me know and I will indeed send it to you.

RCV| 8.24.12 @ 12:22AM

"The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998."

RCV| 8.24.12 @ 12:24AM

Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.

Nick| 8.24.12 @ 2:01PM

I think you are conflating oversampling with overestimating, RCV. They are not the same.

The quotation that you cited, says as much:
"These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and [MAY] lead to biased samples." (Emphasis mine.)
He doesn't say that it does, or has, led to oversampling of Republicans.

Why don't you post a link to your source, so that I may read it in its entirety, okay?

RCV| 8.24.12 @ 3:04PM

The analysis showed that the results were consistently biased in the GOP's favor, as the quotes indicate. Don't take my word for it; read it yourself. The link is unbearably long, but you will find it instantly if you Google "Nate Silver on Rasmussen". It's the first site up.

Nick| 8.24.12 @ 8:08PM

I'm sorry, RCV, but I see very little "analysis" in the NYT article of Nov. 4, 2010. Very little data is provided by Mr. Silver, and the only methodology given is if a race was called for the democrat by 2 pt., and the race was won by the Republican by 4 pt., that shows a 6 pt. dem. bias.

Again, I'm no statistician, but I don't believe that is how statistical analysis works. And, his contention about the Hawaii race is rebutted by Rasmussen's website:
"Every pollster misses something along the way and our biggest miss came in Nevada."

http://www.rasmussenreports.co....._did_we_do

It should also be noted that this was an off-year election, that turned out to be a wave-election. (Which Rasmussen predicted, by the way.)

To me, this is just another Times hit-piece on someone they consider a conservative, and, therefore, must be discredited.
We'll see, the morning of Nov. 7th, if Mr. Rasmussen was as accurate as he has been in past presidential elections, that's for sure.

RCV| 8.25.12 @ 12:36PM

If he is, Obama will win. Take a look at the electoral map on Mr. Rasmussen's site.

Nick| 8.25.12 @ 5:55PM

Well, it's too bad, for you, that the election isn't this Tuesday, huh?
Besides, O'Bama doesn't have the electoral majority wrapped-up, yet. Anything can, and probably will, happen between now & November.
Especially, with "Crazy" Joe O'Biden out there, running loose & unmuzzled!

Kitty | 8.23.12 @ 7:41AM

Enough of Atkins already. Ol' Joe did it again!

Joe Biden Has Known Three Presidents Intimately

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.23.12 @ 7:51AM

I think you're wrong about this George. The one thing people fear more than anything is to be embarrassed. Teenagers avoid their parents for that reason, and sometimes vice-versa. One doesn't want to hang around someone who's going to say things or do things that are embarrassing within one's circle of friends.

Compare with Rush's plaintive comment the other day that he's tired of being smarter than politicians. He wants politicians whom he can look up to. He's tired of having to defend stupid comments made by politicians on his own side.

That's the reason why Weiner had to go: his behavior embarrassed his fellow Democrats. They'll defend just about anything said or done by their fellow Democrats; but not when they become an embarrassment.

Akin is simply an embarrasment to the Republican Party. I commend anyone for supporting life, but how one defends life can have a very positive or a very negative impact on whether others will join in that support.

rightasrain| 8.23.12 @ 8:41AM

You would think that after slutgate, Rush would be commiserating, not attacking.

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.23.12 @ 8:46AM

Rush called her a slut. At worst that's just an insult; not an example of stupidity. Plus, he's not running for office.

In addition, I don't think Rush should have apologized for telling the truth.

My motto: "Never apologize to the left."

rightasrain| 8.23.12 @ 9:42AM

Rush made a stupid remark. Akins made a stupid remark. So far, they're even.

Interested Conservative| 8.23.12 @ 10:11AM

True, but Rush isn't stupid. There's the difference.

rightasrain| 8.23.12 @ 10:57AM

No, Rush isn't stupid and I suspect Akins isn't stupid either. But both speak for a living and a stupid remark is inevitable. Having seen one poor word choice turn into nuclear war I would have expected Rush to be more sympathetic and less hypocritical.

Interested Conservative| 8.23.12 @ 3:57PM

Well - maybe. The problem is Akin revealed himself to be strikingly stupid about knowing his own ignorance. There are points to made in the discussions on the issue, but veering off into inanity shows another set of problems. Until he recognizes that, why should the voters?

Still, not as stupid as Guam capsizing, or head-banging faith in socialism, but still. Stupidity is non-partisan.

rightasrain| 8.23.12 @ 4:55PM

I think he recognizes that he made an inane remark--he admitted it and apologized without reservation. I guess the point I'm making is that instead of his own party kicking him to the curb with such haste and extreme prejudice was there no one with enough spine to say something along these lines: "The point Akin was making was that the number of women seeking abortions who say they were raped is extremely small. Abortion on account of rape accounts for a tiny fraction of all abortions. Yes, he put forth a unproven medical theory and yes he used a poor choice of words, but he has sincerely apologized. I accept his apology and now it's time to leave the matter to the voters of Missouri." Would that have been too much to ask?

Boar Hunter| 8.23.12 @ 10:22AM

The only thing stupid about Rush's remark concerning the walking human parasite Sandra Fluke worm was that he did not go far enough.

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 10:09AM

"I don't think Rush should have apologized for telling the truth'

So you agree that anyone who uses reproductive health services on a health plan is a slut. How about your wife?

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.23.12 @ 10:21AM

I think all liberal women are sluts.....

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 10:35AM

"I think all liberal women are sluts....."

Too damn right. Women need to learn their place again.

MK48| 8.23.12 @ 11:14AM

Gee......Vernon where is this "let's take the high road" in what we say.

You berate TLP for his comments and now you jump into the pit.

Hypocrite

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.23.12 @ 12:10PM

MK48. A joke....as in an exaggeration....Besides, what makes you think I meant it as a criticism?

2Anglico| 8.23.12 @ 3:18PM

Sarcasm is lost on lefty's.

MK48| 8.23.12 @ 6:55PM

CVC......your the joke

get lost

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.23.12 @ 11:14PM

MK48. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

Boar Hunter| 8.23.12 @ 10:33AM

I was wondering. Would it be possible to obtain a photograph of you Jack? I would like to submit it to the pro life folks over at Planned Parenthood. Just as the pro-lifers hold up those horrible signs of aborted fetuses, I believe a photograph of you would counter them nicely as no one would want to be confronted with the prospect of giving birth to a child that looks like you.

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 10:45AM

here I am:

http://www.nndb.com/people/929.....london.jpg

Dai Alanye | 8.23.12 @ 11:14AM

London's writing skills have certainly deteriorated.

But the real Jack London was also an unreasoning socialist, so the alias might be considered well-chosen.

Drunken Sailor| 8.23.12 @ 1:27PM

Exactly!

KyMouse| 8.23.12 @ 1:51PM

"those horrible signs of aborted fetuses..."

It's interesting that a lot of people find the photographs of aborted babies "horrible," but not abortion, which kills those babies.

Circa 1860, I'll bet there were people who said, "Don't show me any horrible photographs of slaves."

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 10:49AM

No, Jack.

A unmarried woman, a law student over thirty years of age, attending a school with the self-professed intention of attacking their religious foundation, complaining to a Congressional hearing that she cannot afford birth control because of all the sex she is having is not the same as a married woman who pays, uncomplaining, for preventing the conception of another child.

The law student, whining to the TV cameras who is apparently bedding men, too cheap to chip in for a condom is a slut. The good, careful wife is not.

D'ya get it yet?

Do you need a diagram? A diaphragm?

Moron.

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 11:02AM

No - it was not about any of that. It was exactly equivalent to any woman paying for a health plan for a range of reproductive health services, not just contraception.

If you want to argue as to whether all single women should be denied such services, or that religious affiliated employers should be exempt, those are different questions.

The Avenger| 8.23.12 @ 11:13AM

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Same analogy holds true for Fluke.

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:55AM

Who's flucking Fluke this week? Is he laying out for the rubber?

HeeHaw - I bet she is seen with three different escorts at the Democratic Convention at Black Panther Stadium in NC.

Stephie| 8.23.12 @ 11:17AM

By services, I take it you mean I pay for her birth control? One day this federally funded crap is going to come back around and bite the women of American square in their asses. When Sebelius mandates the number of kids you can have and the forced abortions start, the wailing that will ensure will be deafening.

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 11:39AM

"By services, I take it you mean I pay for her birth control?"

No - she buys a plan, those services are covered. She pays into the plan - she does not get a free plan. Just like any other plan. Many health plans already cover reproductive health that includes things like long-acting reversible contraception - if you are part of such a plan you are already paying for others indirectly. Maybe you too are covered.

Drunken Sailor| 8.23.12 @ 1:28PM

Then I suggest she read her plan before buying it. Buyer beware.

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 12:04PM

No Jack, it was about that exactly. She enrolled in a nominally Catholic law school with the self-professed intent of busting their policies.

Has she gotten her law degree yet?

Pull your head out of where it is long enough to see the reality of things. You can also get a little clear air - that obviously wouldn't do you any harm!

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 12:23PM

Yes indeed - we can have a sensible discussion about whether a plan (not a free plan but one that people pay for) should cover reproductive health at all large employers in places such as universities and hospitals. What is stupid is changing the subject to women getting 'free' contraception just to have more sex, and I'm sure you are not stupid.

Dai Alanye | 8.23.12 @ 11:18AM

There is no point in reasoning with "Jack London," who is as resistant to logic as any other Obamabot who trolls this site.

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 12:09PM

Dai,

The idea is to refute the propaganda endlessly lest anyone take it as tenable, supportable, or reputable. Besides, it keeps us in shape!

George True| 8.23.12 @ 12:11PM

Within two miles of where she was living, there were three different drug stores where she could have bought the contraceptives she said she used for $9 a month. Nine dollars a month. Nine WHOLE dollars a month. She could apparently afford to go on a European vacation, but evidently could not afford Nine. Dollars. A. Month.

And so the Demo-Commie-Crats bring her before congress to testify live on national TV about how those wascally Wepublicans are 'denying' women access to birth control. Oh, the horror! Oh, the humanity! Republicans waging war on women!

She may or may not be a slut, but she is certainly a stooge and a g-d liar. Just like her Demon-rat handlers are g-d liars. She, along with her handlers, should all be in jail for perjury, and conspiracy to commit perjury.

But instead, the Dems and their mainstream media propaganda arm (read: professional liars) get all wee-wee'd up over a Republican candidate who carelessly substituted the word 'legitimate' for 'actual'. We all know what he was trying to say. Yet this innocent and harmless poor choice of words is somehow, in the Bizarro World inhabited by all leftists (read: thugs), far more sinister than a deliberate attempt on the part of Ms Fluke and her Dem handlers to lie to the American people.

George True| 8.23.12 @ 12:29PM

I'm calling you out, Jack London. Like all the leftist trolls here, everything you say is complete BS, transparent lies, and deliberate obfuscation.

Here is your ideology in a nutshell. You leftist thugs cannot stand it that anyone might disagree with you. So instead of agreeing to disagree, which is the hallmark of civilization, you attempt to prevent the dissenter from expressing their views. That is why you are here at this and other conservative forums, to prevent the meaningful exchange of ideas by disrupting or hijacking the comment threads if you can.

In your heart of hearts, like all leftist thugs, if you could, you would happily round up any who disagree with you, and cart them off to re-education camps or a quick execution for the more hardcore dissenters.

Since your kind don't have that power (yet), you instead lie about absolutely everything. Lying is as natural a state of being to your kind as breathing. Some of you even begin to believe your own lies as time goes on. Your kind, wittingly or unwittingly, worships at the feet of Lucifer, the father of lies.

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 12:34PM

George - calm down man - you'll have a heart attack. Nothing I've said is untrue - just saying I'm lying without saying why doesn't work, I'm afraid.

George True| 8.23.12 @ 1:04PM

Let's see...Your first paragraph, both sentences are lies. Second paragraph, one long sentence, is a lie.

spike59| 8.23.12 @ 4:38PM

pretty much EVERYTHING you say is untrue, jackie; that's the thing with Progresstards, you can't NOT lie

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 12:30PM

George, you should understand that reproductive health is a much wider category than you obviously think. The contraceptive pill is only available on prescription for a start. Long-acting contraception requires an implant, and there are other medical reasons for using the pill.

Do you really think that health plans should exclude a major area of health? How would you feel if your plan did not cover your erectile dysfunction?

George True| 8.23.12 @ 1:08PM

Nine. Dollars. A. Month.

Last time I checked, I didn't have ED. But if I ever developed it, that would be my issue to deal with, including whatever expenses may be involved. Not yours. Not Sandra Fluke's. Not anybody else's. So why is Sandra Fluke's birth control pills something that you, I, or anybody else has to pay for?

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 4:08PM

Sorry George but it's an absurd far-right position to exclude the reproductive system from health plans. If you can't see a doctor to have health checks for underlying health issues to do with erectile dysfunction or the contraception pill (the correct dosage, blood pressure etc are important - that's why it's prescription only) then you make a mockery of holistic health, and it's part of all other health systems in the world. You just make yourself look even more like an ignorant, bigoted fool, if that were possible.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:34PM

If YOU KNOW what the rules are going in, you accept it or you do not. Georgetown is nominally a private religious school.

I went to TCU. I did NOT insist on kashrut in the dining hall (although it would have significantly improved the food quality) because I knew THE RULES.

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 1:19PM

There is NO medical reason for using the pill, Jack'o.
Except, to avoid going through the cramps. And, there are pain-relievers for that.
So, where is this "major area of health" again?

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:35PM

Dear Nick: actually, there are conditions, such as PCOS, where the pill is sometimes used. But that was not Ms. Fluke's situation. In addition: if you go someplace private, accept the rules, and don't be an ass.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:37PM

In short, Nick, I support you, (as usual) and think London's an ass.

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 7:56PM

Thanks, Occam. I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the internets. Ha-ha!

My only point was that there isn't any life-threatening or disabling condition that is cured by birth control pills. At least, according to my sister, the one with eight kids!
G-d Bless!

2Anglico| 8.23.12 @ 3:22PM

Way to change the subject Jack.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:36PM

Many don't cover ED, Jack. Including a lot of Medicaid plans. Don't know much, d'ya?

Drunken Sailor| 8.23.12 @ 1:25PM

No, I agree that anyone who uses reproductive health services and expects someone else to pay for it is a slut. If you can afford the tuition of a University of that caliber you can afford the $9 a month birth control pill.

Mimi | 8.23.12 @ 8:07AM

It's just 'sickening to watch our GUYS fold to the Dem's time and time again....STAND-UP to them ! They are ruining our whole country. Do they think for one minute this will be the last Senate candidate they will try to take down?.....Along the way they will pull every "FAKE" ridiculous outrage.... and right up to the vote count..ie Norm Coleman/ Frankel ...You already know how the "SLICKSTERS" are...armor -up!

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 10:56AM

Tod Akins apparently is NOT folding.

No one has mentioned the fact that he was a legislator in the Missouri legislature from 1988 -2000 and in the US House from 2000 - 2012. The man served in the US Army, and worked for IBM and other firms before his legislative career.

He has very high ratings with the conservative ratings groups and correspondingly low ratings with the liberal groups - apparently for a long time.

Methinks you GOPers have circled the firing squads way too soon here.

Better to ask Barack Obama about abortion - he'll provide a slough of Biden-esque gaffes that'll stand most of the electorate up! After all, one of the few votes he actually cast in Illinois was to require infanticide in cases where the abortionist botches the job and the little varmint gets out alive...for the moment...

Quick, while all the klieg lights are still pointing over here!!!!

Don't Tread On Me...

MK48| 8.23.12 @ 11:17AM

Mimi.......the end justifies the means.

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:53AM

MK: Only for socialists, Alynskytes, progressives, and communists.

THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS!

Where did you learn that? Even Hanna Barbera cartoons didn't teach that tripe.

Good grief!

OP4| 8.23.12 @ 8:18AM

Here's why I'm not a social conservative - I don't care what kind of stupid thoughts are rattling around in his head and don't want to hear about them.

I want to hear how he'll reduce the size and expense of government, how he'll reform entitlements, how he'll reform our terrible tax system. How will he protect my freedoms and my kids' futures.

Make this election about freedom and the economy and Republicans will win easily. Make it about rape and abortion and other irrelevant crap - and the Democrats might hang on.

OCVtMmM! | 8.23.12 @ 8:54AM

@OP4 - This.

While I respect George's points and those here that echo them, frankly it's not about political correctness. It's about the consequences of saying something _massively_ stupid in public, what that says about the guy's abilities in said public (if this leaked out, what's next? and what does this say about his trustworthiness in such things?), and the ability of the Left to co-op the entire message of this campaign away from economic reality (which they lose) to social engineering topics (which they can spin to a win).

It is NOT political correctness to recognize that Todd Akin - very nice man though he may be - has through his OWN word and deed damaged himself to the point where his viability as a candidate is untenable. It is also not political correctness to recognize when one man is placing his own ego and self-importance ahead of issues that have not only local impact, but national as well. It doesn't matter that a liberal in the same position could (and likely would) be utterly hypocritical, uncaring and would get a complete pass on the issue (although there is the example of Anthony Weiner).

What _does_ matter is winning that Senate seat, and winning the presidency; and in those two areas, regardless how you feel about this entire affair, Todd Akin is pure liability. That is the sad truth we face today.

gazinya | 8.23.12 @ 9:39AM

Then don't vote for him. Vote for the Democrat. Then vote for dull plastic knives and nurf bullets.

OP4| 8.23.12 @ 9:51AM

Or, Missouri Republicans could have nominated an actual conservative.

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:08AM

How on God's green earth can you say he's not a conservative?

Look at his voting record!!!! He is conservative.

They did.

And if you think you can have a good economic climate in a country that justifies the slaughter of infants in their mothers' wombs for the mothers' convenience, think again.

A strong economy requires that people honor their agreements and contracts without requiring compulsion. If a society will permit killing infants for convenience sake, it'll never complain about people breaking contracts for convenience, either.

Just because your house is not worth what you owe on it does NOT mean you did not agree to make the payments. A mortgage is not a conditional contract, it's your solemn promise to repay the money they gave you, with interest.

So anyone using "underwater" as an excuse for not repaying the money they were given can only be seen as thieves.

If your conditions changed and you cannot make the payments, I sympathize, completely. But if the value of your house falls, it's not the lender's fault. You owe the money and need to pay it, without hesitation. Or follow the legal methods of resolving the situation - hello, bankruptcy.

Defaulters, did you really think that it would never, ever rain again? Who took your hand and made you sign that mortgage? The woman? A snake?

Grow up, America.

MK48| 8.23.12 @ 11:21AM

Just like here at TAS we are not talking about the real problems.

We should be talking about "are you better off today than you were 4 yrs. ago".

Anything to distract from the TRUTH..............

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:50AM

Roger that!

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:39PM

MK: correct again. Obama has been a nightmare from hell for our country.

For all his faults, I knew W wanted to keep my children and me from harm from terrorists, and he wanted the economy to be good for Americans. He is a good man.

Obama is a scumbag.

MK48| 8.23.12 @ 7:13PM

Occam...I kind of agree with you on some of W's traits. When I look at the overall picture and start digging into the family backround and connections I am not sure that this wase'nt a set-up for barry to run with.

Politicians always have a hidden agenda. Iam of the mind this whole barry deal was a set-up from way back.

Question.......how is it that some NOBODY, never veted, hidden backround could be elected....ya I know it is because he's black, but this had to be orchestrated when W's dad was in.

These bastards are always one step ahead.......

tminus1| 8.23.12 @ 10:09AM

Sadly, you are one of the two respondents in these comments who sees the consequences of Akin's vanity. People are wrong to dwell on the inane content of his remarks -- they don't matter. What he's done is turn a small issue into a club to be used whenever any Democrat is cornered. We will hear his words every day until the election because they are the perfect distraction, just what the Democrats need. And Akin, the principled man who puts career before country, is happy to provide it.

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:14AM

Not if we take the Paul Ryan approach and say "We welcome this discussion!"

"When if ever will the Democrat protect a baby in her mother's womb?"

America has finally turned the corner on abortion - it's a minority position today. Let Obama explain why he voted to insist that another doctor be allowed to clean up after a botched abortion that results in one of the little varmints almost getting away alive! It was supposed to die inside of Mom, so we can kill it here in the sterile conditions, so Mom doesn't have to worry. After all, we provide sterile, painless death to convicted murderers, why not the infants of sloppy, disinterested mothers. After all, condoms and morning after pills are soooo expensive!

We should make the Democrats have this tatooed on their foreheads.

Personally, I think Terrible Todd has given us an attack entree that we should not waste!

Don't Tread On Me!

tminus1| 8.23.12 @ 11:36AM

This is not about abortion. That's the point being missed in all these replies. The Akin's fiasco is about providing a distraction and becoming a central issue in the campaign. It wouldn't have mattered what "liberal sin" Akin committed. Any one would do, and Akin has responded as the Dems knew he would. He cares more for himself than his country. They chose their opponent well.

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:49AM

Himself? Maybe the guy is principled! Who cares more for himself, the guy who takes the principled, unpopular stand or the guy who rolls over and stands by quietly while 1,700,000 babies are murdered in their mothers' inconvenienced wombs every year.

Talk about selfish! Think it through-take more than five seconds like the entire media has...

Jade12| 8.24.12 @ 12:26PM

Maybe God is waiting to see who will stand on their principals and who will not
God decides who is in power and who is not.

rightasrain| 8.23.12 @ 12:01PM

The point is not to make this about abortion but about liberal hypocrisy. If we meekly accept that on every issue involving emotion liberals win, we might as well give up. Sure, it's the economy but we have to fight whatever comes our way as well. Throw Bill Clinton's neanderthal ways and Obama's support of the BAIPA back in their faces. As my father always said, "the meek shall inherit the crap."

scotchieguy| 8.23.12 @ 9:43AM

Excellent point. The reason you can't win with the left re hot issues like abortion is because it is 100% bathed in emotion. That is the only way libs can convey their views. Like petulant little brats, they WILL be heard, and the media will portray the conservatives as the bad guys every single time.

Instead, use your BRAIN, and rational people will agree that our economic house of cards is about to turn us into Greece. Or California. We can't lose if we stick to our guns.

As someone else said, it's the economy, stupid.

C'mon Man!| 8.23.12 @ 10:30AM

Then you clearly don't get it, the social aspect leads the fiscal one. "If they confess their sins, I will heal their land." Not an exact quote, but we have sinned, our land needs healing.
You can believe what you want, but in the end, there is only one correct choice.

Stephie| 8.23.12 @ 8:36AM

Oh the wailing about women's rights! What about the rights of the women who are being aborted? I saw an ad and it had 2 sonograms, each of an infant in the womb and above it was captioned, "which baby was conceived in rape?" Why is their life less viable?
One last thing. I find it funny that the desperate dems are going to make their cut short convention mainly about killing babies. The head *itch from NARAL will be there along with the nasty law student Flucke who couldn't scrape up $15 a month to pay for her pills so she could get laid. What a bill of fare for a political party.

Pecos Pete| 8.23.12 @ 8:37AM

Akin is a carnival sideshow in this election. A gift to the MSM.

We are $200 trillion +++ in debt, the economy is on the verge of a total disaster. King O reigns over another $1 trillion +++ deficit year. I don't care about Akin and his stupid comment. I do care about being sure this is King O's final year in office.

Let the democrats flail away at this non issue that is Akin while Republicans talk about fixing the economy and reducing spending to bring the federal's annual budget into balance.

Von Mises Jr| 8.23.12 @ 9:15AM

Perhaps they should stress that ObamaCare IPAB "Death Panels" may decide that your child should be aborted if the doctor even suspects any complications.
If Sebelius or the 15 IPAB Czars decide you will not be covered, will you risk a Ted Kennedy-style back alley delivery?

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 10:38AM

Well they are thinking of aborting babies with abnormally low intelligence, such as Von Mises Jr.

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:16AM

Jack, very doubtful that you would have made the cut, either.

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:18AM

Be very careful of what you wish for.

You get your mother angry at you and she might try to tell the death panel that she had a botched abortion that you actually survived, against her wishes! And they, in the name of cost savings, will finish the job now, before you cost them any more healthcare costs...

DTOM

Stephie| 8.23.12 @ 11:21AM

Too bad that Stanley Ann Dunham didn't make a left turn to the local Planned Parenthood.

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:46AM

Stephie - C'mon now. We can't go there. Be a good girl, Woman Up. Take it back.

No matter how much I agree with you.

Ever hear of the British fellow who in WWI had an opportunity to kill Cpl. Hitler but a merciful pang spared the seedy, little corporal?

I do believe the gentlemen felt pretty bad - but who could tell.

Look at it this way, how many would you have to kill in an effort to dodge a Hitler or an Obama? You just can't do it...

But I know exactly how you feel, too bad that Stanley Anne didn't, DOH!

CJW| 8.23.12 @ 12:00PM

Commie Jack, the Village Idiot ,
a/k/a purpie, with his daily contribution.
So you think aborting babies is a source of humor?

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:41PM

Nice rejoinder, Jack. You leave me unarmed with your wit, sir.

The real Jack London could write, poetaster. You're certainly no Ernest Everhard, either.

rightasrain| 8.23.12 @ 8:39AM

You would think that after slutgate, Rush would be commiserating, not attacking.

Anthony| 8.23.12 @ 9:11AM

You would think after the serial sexual predator, Bill Clinton, the sociopath-in chief, left office in disgrace, that the Ds would have sent him packing back to Arkansas. Oh excuse me, Chappaqua, N.Y.
Instead, he's fronting for the Kenyan Muslim Marxist, because that's all the Ds have to show the country after 4 years of Obozo the Marxist.
Yep, Dope & Chains have Lit'le Abner as their front man. What a hoot!!!!

rightasrain| 8.23.12 @ 9:48AM

Claire McCaskill's remark that she wouldn't let Bill Clinton, serial predator, Democratic darling and convention headliner, anywhere near her daughter, should be played at every Akin event.

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 8:41AM

The reason Romney is trying desperately to unload Akin is to deflect attention from both him and Ryan. Ryan is also in the same camp as he co-sponsored a bill with Akin with the term 'forcible rape' - which he's running from now, and Ryan opposes all abortion even for incest. Meanwhile Romney has endorsed John Willke, who's behind the bogus science about women not getting pregnant after rape.

Do I hear the sound of massive hypocrisy and flip-flops?

rightasrain| 8.23.12 @ 8:47AM

I'm not sure what's wrong with the term "forcible" rape (Akin stupidly said legitimate when he clearly meant forcible) to distinguish it from statutory rape which is consensual but banned because of age? I'm not being facetious. Is 'forcible" rape now un PC?

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 10:06AM

No - forcible is being used to subdivide rape into degrees. It's not about statutory rape.

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 1:29PM

WRONG!, Jack'0.
The term "forcible rape" is a category in F.B.I. crime statistics, brainiac.

CJW| 8.23.12 @ 4:02PM

Nick,
Each of our 57 states has a statute defining rape. Most are the same. This is Pa:

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits a felony of the first degree when the person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant:

(1) By forcible compulsion.

(2) By threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution.

(3) Who is unconscious or where the person knows that the complainant is unaware that the sexual intercourse is occurring.

(4) Where the person has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance.

(5) Who suffers from a mental disability which renders the complainant incapable of consent.

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.23.12 @ 9:02AM

I have to say, I had never heard of this guy before today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Willke

It may be true that abortion for rape pregnancies is extremely low, but how could this doctor possibly know that it's because a woman's body shuts down? It's more likely that post-rape medical intervention helps to prevent pregnancy from occuring. Other reasons might be sterility of the rapists, or infertility of the victim, or just accidental non-fertilization. These are more likely than a woman "tightening up" or shutting down.

In any case, pro-lifers don't need to go to such lengths to defend the life of children who are the product of rape. They are innocent and that's all there is to it.

The idea that the taint of evil passes from father to child is just the old racialist theory that was used in the early to mid-twentieth century to justify sterilization and other negative eugenical measures against "defective" individuals or "defective" races. It was the idea that moral qualities, or lack thereof, were passed down through one's "germ plasm" (the word for genes back then).

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 10:03AM

So by law you'd force a woman who's been raped to carry the baby to term?

What do you think of Romney getting behind this 'Dr' Willke?

C. Vernon Crisler | 8.23.12 @ 10:22AM

I don't agree with Romney or Wilke, but I don't agree that babies should be murdered either.

Frank Drackman| 8.23.12 @ 10:31AM

its not really "Murder"
I prefer "Suctioned out of a perfectly good Uterus with X-treme Prejudice"

Frank

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 10:37AM

So if your wife was gang-raped and became pregnant you'd deny her an abortion? A straight yes or no would suffice here.

Frank Drackman| 8.23.12 @ 10:48AM

Yes, because that would mean she had her Uterus put back in without tellin me.
And have you quit Jerry Sand-dusking little boys yet?
A straight Yes or No will suffice for the DA, I mean, suffice.

Frank

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 1:42PM

Human biological life begins at conception, Jack'o.
It's science, go look it up.

And, no one has the right to end that human life, for any reason. Ever. Abortion is intrinsically evil. Therefore, women who become pregnant because of rape or incest have NO right, morally or otherwise, to kill the unborn baby (fetus in Latin.)

By the way, this is the position of those crazy extremists Pope Benedict XVI & Blessed John Paul II, every Catholic bishop, and ALL Catholics who actually live their Faith.

Is that clear enough for you, Jack'o?

CJW| 8.23.12 @ 6:51PM

This argument about when life begins is a fraud. Everyone knows when life begins. The abortion crowd just finds it expedient to kill the unborn child.

In Pa we have a crime of "homicide of an unborn child." The child is defined as :

“Unborn child” and “fetus.” Each term shall mean an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth."

But the statute then says that this does not mean the unborn child is a "person" entitled to the protection of the law as other persons, except for this limited circumstance.

Now, how illogical is that. The mother or doctor can kill the unborn child, and in Obama's view leave the child without care to die, but if you kill a pregnant woman and kill the unborn child also, you have two homicide charges.

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 7:47PM

It's the same lack of logic, W, that has the left say that the father has NO say in the decision to kill the baby, but, if the mother chooses NOT to kill him, the father MUST pay child-support.

This is why I always say that to be a bleeding heart liberal, one must consent to receiving a lobotomy.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 4:05PM

My wife would deny herself an abortion even if the law required her to get one, so your question is moot, Jack.

You twist words (when do you not?) in claiming that WE would "deny" someone something. This is your side's common lie. You say we'd "deny" health care, too, if we refuse to gift it in unlimited quantity to everyone who asks for it.

You don't know the meaning of the word "deny".

I do not "deny" someone when I refuse to give something away without receiving something in return. And people who defend the helpless do not "deny" others some "right" to harm them!

Since we're asking stupid questions, Jack, let me ask you one: Do you support the denial of slaves to 19th century plantation owners?

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:42PM

My wife would refuse such an abortion, Jack. Can't wait to Death panel you, son.

MK48| 8.23.12 @ 7:16PM

I am thinking........friendly fire.....tool.

Boar Hunter| 8.23.12 @ 10:54AM

I wish someone could identify the liberal gene and abort every last one of them.

The only reason liberals support abortion is that they do not have any souls.

If they could make money off of it, they would happily sell the aborted fetuses to Ralston Purina.

One of liberalism's poster children, admittedly and openly planned to eliminate as many of the blacks from our population as possible.

In yet another liberal success story, some blacks within their own community continue to assist in the self imposed genocide of their race and the instance of aborted black children is at an all time high.

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:24AM

BH;

Actually that might not be such a good idea-think of it this way: Liberals are pretty stupid and predictable, they never zigzag, they never change course so, if you got the lead right, you'll nail them every time.

If we got rid of these dummies, the effect of natural selection might deliver us more difficult targets. Be grateful for dopes, they make life easier for the rest of us.

Look at it another way, when you get an infection in a hospital, it's usually a very strong, hard-to-kill bug, because the hospital with all of its sanitation protocols takes out all of the easy-to-kill bugs, leaving more room for the bugs resistant those protocols...

See what I'm saying?

DTOM

Boar Hunter| 8.23.12 @ 11:31AM

Thank you for cheering me up, that was some funny stuff right there. I don't care who ya are! LOL!

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:40AM

Funny, but TRUE!!!!

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:41AM

It's also why the progressives have gone after the education system as they have.

Fortunately schools have never been the source for common sense! Whew!

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 1:32PM

Excellent comment, Mr. Crisler. Just excellent.

gazinya | 8.23.12 @ 8:46AM

This is a well reasoned article. It is more 'food for thought' than a pro or con on Atkin. This is the same point a percentage of so called 'social' conservatives have been making for a long time. Why do the Repubs fear us? How can any political party not understand that 'social' theology transfers to 'moral' theology, that is completed in political theology?

I don't know this fellow Atkin. I remember giving some money to the lady running against him because S. Palin was for her. I like Sarah and I thought I should start putting my resourses to work 'because Ms. Palin and I are the same 'politically'. What did frustrate me was learning that Mr. Atkin does not 'smell like turnups'. He has been in politics 24 years.

Since he has not changed his ideas then the questions to his 'no abortion' theme should be a decades old tome. He sounded like 'what about rape' had never occured to him. He should have been ready with 'chapter and verse' when asked the question. But he flubbed the answer and if he doesn't know that the Repub machinists and the entire media aren't looking to rape him, then maybe......."PrimeTime?

CJW| 8.23.12 @ 8:54AM

This is the difference between Dems and Reps. The Dems all rallied to Bubba's defense even though he was a serial sexual harrasser, using his position of authority, and was accused by Juanita Braderick of rape.

Teddy drowned a young woman and the Dems regard his as their Lion of the Senate, and was almost nominated to run for the Presidency.

Jesse Jackson can call NYC "Hymietown" and he is regarded as the civil rights leader of the Dems, and also ran for the Dem nomination for president.

Joey Biden, well I don't have time to list all the stupid offensive things he said.

Akin said something dumb and he has to go

pogybait| 8.23.12 @ 9:36AM

As any with any Democrat or progressive, if you don't have any morals to betray, then there is no way one can be guilty of hypocrisy. It's just what make them better than all the rest.

Anthony| 8.23.12 @ 9:04AM

All true George. No doubts about the double standards, the leftist media hypocrisy, and the entire "get Republican" mentality.
However, as I said yesterday, Akin is a perfect example of the "me first" culture that is rotting away at America.
We have no statesmen, or very few, left in this country. We have none in power who see beyond their own personal political agrandizement. It's all about Akin, and the larger consequences to the country be damned.
While I agree if Akin was a D this story would have been pushed under the rug, but that's not the world we live in.
Akin doesn't give a rat's ass about the consequences of his decision on the rest of his state or the country.
If McCaskill wins, and the Ds hold the senate, and the dispicable Harry Reid remains in control of the senate, all is lost.
I hope Akin gets his just reward if that happens.
He can watch the carnage along with the rest of us up close and personal, and not from the hallow halls of the D.C. power structure either, but on the ground with us.

gazinya | 8.23.12 @ 9:51AM

There was a time when I could stand on a street corner and 'KNOW' what every person going 40 miles an hour pass me was 'thinking'. I knew if they were worthy or foul. I KNEW their motives. Then it was suggested I LOOK at myself first. That cleared up a lot of my character defects.

I don't know what Rep. Atkins has invested in this campain but I would suppose it is not a passing whim on his part. I don't know if he has spoken to others or has like you and me just listened to our 'biggest and brightest'. I do KNOW that he, unlike, most of the 'talking heads' would not have supported a 'Scozzafozza'. Newt, Coulter, Krauthamer, Steele, Boehner, McConnell, and Pelosi, Reid all supported her.

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:27AM

How about a twenty-two year long, legislative career as a reliable conservative vote. Way more reliable than Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, or Lisa Murkowski!

That's not such a small investment.

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:28AM

Didn't mean to pick on just girls, but they do behave pretty similarly...

Boar Hunter| 8.23.12 @ 11:02AM

But, but, but! That's not fair!

It won't be his faaaauult!

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 2:06PM

The democrats are not going to keep the Senate, Anthony.
Unless, the GOP keeps acting really stupidly, as it has during this unfortunate Rep. Akin affair. All those who DEMANDED that Mr. Akin drop out, like "The Architect of Destruction" Karl Rove & Coulter, et al, guaranteed that he would stay in the race.

Only El Rushbo & Mark Levin handled this correctly.

Besides, the democrats are defending 23 senate seats, out of 33 contests. Except for Maine, the GOP shouldn't have any problem retaining the seats they already have. They should also have no problem retaking the Red States they lost in '06, like VA, OH, & MT, as well as picking up ND, WV, PA, NE, FL, & NM.

But, with all the stupid decisions the GOP have made this year, starting at the top of the ticket, who knows what could happen?
As long as the RINOs are calling the shots, maybe we'll lose the House, too.

Louis Jenkins| 8.23.12 @ 9:08AM

Oddly enough, Utah has about the highest rape rate in the USA. And, from what I understand, it's the Bishop rather than the courts that does most of the work on the instances. Accordingly the female should resist all attempts at rape to ensure her reputation. The attention seems to be shifted to the victim rather than the perp. Regardless, Akin realizes he made a misnomer, but then again, so has just about every other politician. The difference is that Democrats make money off of their comments, or get a by-pass. Republicans scream for their own heads to the served up on a platter. Can't win an election like that. Afterall, I've visited all but two of the 57 states.

cicero| 8.23.12 @ 9:13AM

The whole "rape/abortion" issue is just one of those "gotcha" moments. You are either for right to life, or you are not. It is the height of sophistry to attempt to carve out exceptions. Once you start down that road, you are lost. The only possible exception is when the choice has to be made between the unborn child and the life of the mother. And even that one is so remote as to be non-existent in this day of medical efficiency.

The left loves to grab onto the "rape" exception, as it puts the right immediately on the defensive. Once you agree to it, you are stuck with the current definition of rape. How comfortable do you feel with that? Principle is rather a hard master. You are either for protecting the life of the child, or you are not. The responsibility of creating life is an awesome one, and not to be taken lightly. The position of the left is that the protection of life is a matter of convenience. The whole flap about Akin's remarks are giving the left a good laugh, while they watch the right self-destruct.

"Father of Marines"| 8.23.12 @ 9:26AM

Todd Akin, being consistenly pro-life for many years, simply re-iterated the opinion of some physicians back in the 70's-80's. His "sin" is not "being up to date" and erring on the side of life.
May I suggest that since he is "surrounded" a la Chosin Reservoir, taking fire from all sides, and now some idiot back at command is putting friendly fire on his position thinking he has been overrun, it's time to "fix bayonets" and attack!
The Democrat Party, and probably his opponent, virulently OPPOSES carry laws and the Second Amendment. They seek to leave women subject to the depredations of rapists, and then their supporters in Planned Parenthood get to profit from the trauma and tragedy.
The real story is Todd Akin, like most Conservatives, seeks to punish the guilty and
empower women. We seek to PREVENT the rape, not profit from it. And you'll notice, Mr. Akin is not so concerned about garnering votes today, he's acting on a long held principle of protecting all innocent human life.
Maybe it's time for Congressman Akin to ride this issue right into the Senate, it's obviously what the party of death believes is their way to victory, and the RINO's want to avoid.
Just like at Chosin, I believe the report went something like this, "We have them right where we want them, whichever way we shoot, we're hitting the enemy."!

Boar Hunter| 8.23.12 @ 11:24AM

I would agree, if you include a "MOAB" in your characterization of "friendly fire."

I heard one man on the radio state that his units motto was "deeds not words." He cited Akin's reliable record of supporting all conservative issues. We should look at his deeds and not a few words spoken on one occasion.

The problem is not in the absence of sexual deviance on the democrats side to throw back in they're faces, rather an absence of testicles on the Republican side.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:45PM

He's pro-America, pro-tax cuts, pro-strong defense, pro-Israel/anti-Sharia. And pro-Life. In short, an all around good guy.

LarryK| 8.23.12 @ 9:26AM

I am almost ashamed to be a conservative. Not because of the Idiot Akin, but because of Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. Listening to Hannity interview Akin, Hannity sounded like a spoiled brat that was not getting his way similar to the bed-wetters in the lame stream media. "Wah wah wah we're gonna lose the senate wah wah wah." He can be so annoying and childish on his program. And Miss Coulter, so Akin is an Idiot. So what. We have an Idiot vice-president and a lot of the people in the U.S. Congress are Idiots, "We have to pass the bill to see what is in it", Nancy Pelosi and her ilk. And don't get me started on "I've been to 57 states" Obama, the prize idiot albeit a very dangerous idiot.
I'm so mad, I could just spit!
Idiot Akin!
Yea, George, you are right. Political correctness will be the death of us all.

Boar Hunter| 8.23.12 @ 11:30AM

I agree with you completely. Hannity should have focused on trying to provide context, rather than trying to tout his own personal view of electioneering. By "speculating" about the results he believes will result from the comment, he is partially to blame for creating a self fulfilling prophecy.

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 2:26PM

I agree completely, LarryK. And with Mr. Neumayr.

Ann Coulter has been infuriating through the primary season. First she flip-flopped on Romney, imitating her new hero. Then she turned her considerable gifts of verbal destruction on her fellow conservatives, Mssrs. Santorum & Gingrich (and their supporters,) thus violating Ronaldus Magnus' 11th commandment. She's obviously been on that pig Maher's show too many times.

I really believe some on our side have succumbed to ODS, i.e., O'Bama Derangement Syndrome. It's the same as the Bush & Palin varieties: Nothing else matters except beating the O'Bama regime. Not even self-respect & keeping to first-principles.

And, like Chicken Lit'l, when a tiny speck hits them in the head, they start crying, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
This episode has shown how insecure the GOP is about Romney.

C. S. P. Schofield| 8.23.12 @ 9:31AM

Akin made a remark demonstrating that he is both stupid and delusional on a sensitive subject. That the Democrats howling for his head are no better does not change this. Defending him is a waste of time and energy better used hammering Obama.

Let's not try to rehabilitate Akin. We on the right waste entirely too much time trying to rehabilitate jerks demonized by the Left. There are people who the Left attacks unfairly, and who deserve to be defended. Then there are people like McCarthy; political hacks whose opposition to the Left serves only to make the Left look better than they deserve to. I propose that Akin is one of the latter.

pogybait| 8.23.12 @ 9:56AM

What's interesting to me is that the left always seems to find the good side in thugs but have been trying to destroy anyone who is a self-reliant, industrious person as a role model.

delahaya| 8.23.12 @ 10:42AM

Schofield,

If you are talking about Joe McCarthy and are really a conservative, then I hope you are aware of the Verona Project and others that proved almost every single person McCarthy went after was indeed a communist after all.

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:32AM

delahaya,

It would appear that CSPS decrying political hacks is to be taken seriously, as he seems especially qualified to identify them- after all, it takes one to know one.

DTOM

C. S. P. Schofield| 8.23.12 @ 6:38PM

Yes, there were Soviet agents in the government (with FRD's 'I can manage Stalin' delusion, it could hardly be otherwise). I still think, based on everything I've read about the Tail Gunner that any damage he actually did to the Soviets' intelligence apparatus was purely coincidental. He would have championed cannibalism with the same enthusiasm if he had thought it would get him political power.

I frankly doubt that anything like all the men he accused were Soviet agents; he claimed at one point to have a couple of hundred names, and the KGB and GRU weren't that sloppy.

McCarthy was a godsend to the Left. He was obviously a bully, self-absorbed to an astonishing degree, and made a lot of wild accusations. By concentrating on his character (or lack of it) the Left was able to distract from the fact that there were Soviet agents in the country. They have hauled McCarthy's name out every time anyone mentions uncomfortable facts like the undoubted guilt of Hiss or the Rosenburgs. Attempts to rehabilitate the jerk only grant the Left a longer shelf life for this distraction.

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 7:15PM

That's ridiculous, Mr./Mrs./Miss Schofield.
Facts are still facts, and you are just regurgitating lefty revisionist history, I'm afraid.

Senator McCarthy never claimed that he had the names of "a couple of hundred" Soviet agents in the government.
Another liberal lie spewed for decades, like the one about President Reagan wanting to define ketchup as a vegetable, or, that President GHW Bush didn't know that grocery stores had price scanners.

You should check out the writings of M. Stanton Evans, including his definitive Blacklisted By History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies.

You are aware that Senator McCarthy did NOT serve on the House Committee on Un-American Activities, aren't you?

C. S. P. Schofield| 8.24.12 @ 10:06AM

Yes, I am aware of that. It doesn't matter. Any time ANY anti-communist work is brought up, the left will trot out the specter of McCarthy. They have to. They can't defend Communism on its non-existant merits.

As for your claim that he never said he had the names of a couple of hundred soviet agents, I Refer you to (Griffith, Robert (1970). The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate. University of Massachusetts Press. pp. 49. ISBN 0-87023-555-9.);

" it is generally agreed that he produced a piece of paper that he claimed contained a list of known Communists working for the State Department. McCarthy is usually quoted to have said: "The State Department is infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.""

Plenty of people have jumped on the bandwagon of a good cause and done bad work in bad faith. McCarthy was born to be their patron Saint.

Nick| 8.24.12 @ 3:12PM

You refer me to a liberal professor from American University, who got his Ph.D from the U. of Wisconsin, Madison? And, a quote you got from wiki? Do you get all of your history from wiki, Mr./Mrs./Miss Scholfield?

I prefer the Congressional Record myself:
"I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy."

http://www.wvculture.org/histo.....thy01.html

Just because leftists have smeared & lied about Senator McCarthy for over a half-century, doesn't mean you should join them in this calumny & injustice, does it?

Senator McCarthy never falsely accused anyone of being a communist. He was correct about the level of Soviet spying happening in the federal government, thanks to the Polio Prince.
Don't you care about the facts and the truth, Scholfield?
The time to stand-up to the lies of the left, is today.

Frank Drackman| 8.23.12 @ 9:57AM

Can I be Frank?
Since Roe V Wade was passed in 1972, (don't blame me, blame Nixon-Appointed-Chief-Judge Warren Burger) some 50 million abortions(babies ) have taken place(been killed).
and considering the oldest dead babies would be 40, (Dr. Strange-glove Accent) and the average fertility rate, minus average mortality rate, fudge-packing factor, carry the 2, cube root of pie...
there'd be like 60 million more Peoples around, talking at the movies, stealing my Confederate flag license plates(WHERE do those things go), parking in fire lanes, buying lottery tickets with foodstamps,
OK, maybe the guy/gal who's got the cure for mankinds most dreaded disease,
thats right,
Male Pattern Baldness,
ended up in a red biohazard container,
it's worth it to get through the drive through 5 minutes faster...
and sorry if I offended any of you Polly-Annas out there, thats what I do, I'm Ar-Tistic.

Frank

C'mon Man!| 8.23.12 @ 11:06AM

Don't worry about offending us, worry about offending God - He says don't kill, and take care of widows and orphans. I don't think abortion in in His will...
How about you tell Him what you believe when you see Him. Maybe He'll change His views to match yours.

Frank Drackman| 8.23.12 @ 11:23AM

Oh yeah??
So I'd wager, oh yeah, thats prohibited too,
I'd believe you've probably "Rubbed One Out" at least once in your Holy Life.
Maybe even twice, or thrice, four, five,
OK, probably not at least once a day, every day for the last 38 years, like yours truly(I'm the Cal Ripken Jr of Jerking off!)
Soooooooo...
did you find a home for the 200,000,000 sperms in the average Male Ejaculi? And no, I don't have a source, ask Barney Frank. Cause unless you did, you're Adolph Hitler 40 times over, just with little microscopic sqiggly things instead of Anne Franks.

Frank

DTOM| 8.23.12 @ 11:38AM

I'll be frank. No wait, I'll NOT be frank.

Spermatozoa are not people - God saw to it that it'd take two of His to make another one. Are you self-identifying as proof of His wisdom with that? Worrying about lost sperm is time wasted, as is the time spent creating it, surely...

Sheesh...

Keep your icky habits to yourself!
DTOM

Frank Drackman| 8.23.12 @ 11:42AM

Ummm,
did your parents ever have that talk with you?
Cause 2 Sperms don't make anything, thats why the Homos have to borrow a Snatch if they want a (semi) bio-logical kid.

Frank

spike59| 8.23.12 @ 4:45PM

when one of your loved ones dies oof some horrible and painful disease, ponder whether the research team that would have found the cure 'ended up in a red biohazard container'...then go kisss your mother's feet, arse, and anything else she chooses and weep your thanks that she didn't toss YOU into one

C. S. P. Schofield| 8.23.12 @ 6:46PM

The commandment is "thou shalt not commit murder". Moreover, no less a Theological authority than Thomas Aquinas held that an infant wasn't fully human, with a soul, until it was several weeks old.

Just saying.

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 7:42PM

Only, Saint Thomas' opinion was NEVER a teaching of the Catholic Church, Mr./Mrs./Miss Schofield.

Do you know what has been, since the Church's inception, c. A.D. 30?
The Church's teaching against abortion.

"[...] you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten."
- The Didache, c. A.D. 60-90

CJW| 8.23.12 @ 9:26PM

That opinion was based on the knowledge of its day about the beginning of life. He used the term "ensoulment." At common law they used the term "quickened." But with today's medical knowledge, we know life when life begins.
Pa. law on criminal homicide defines "unborn child" as from fertilization.

pigdog| 8.23.12 @ 10:31AM

My sentiments exactly, mostly. I'm not quite clear if George Neumayr means that Akin's remarks reflect stupidity, or ignorance. I'm embarrassed to admit that, I too, was ignorant, and in the same way that Akin was. It would not suprise me in the least that it was something I read 3 decades ago, perhaps written by Dr. John Willke, and apparently absorbed by Mr. Akin, as well. The superstition dates as far back as the Middle Ages, if not longer. I am not stupid, but I will admit ignorance when enlightened by science.
Lucky for us, Barak Obama is the science president, and he schooled me on what I missed in class.

How about a little quiz for my fellow conservatives that want to ostracize Mr. Akin for his ignorance.

Do you believe in man-made global warning?
Will stimulus spending right the economy?
Will higher tax rates on the rich lessen the deficit?
Are women as capable as men in combat?
Is renewable energy better for the environment than fossil fuels?

Think carefully before you answer. The correct answers are "settled science."

Frank Drackman| 8.23.12 @ 10:36AM

Its the same as every woman said to me before I slipped my wife a rufie,
No. No. No. No. No.

Frank

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:49PM

Frank, Frank---what med school did you go to? Tell me you didn't get your "4 score and 7" like my classmates and I did.

delahaya| 8.23.12 @ 10:40AM

Spot on. Totally cowardly unprincipled hysteria. Akin was awkward but he exposed three FACTS:
1) For whatever reason, thankfully, rape is far less likely to result in pregnancy than regular relations. That is a medical fact.
2) The whole "rape and incest" issues is a red herring by abortion lovers. Let's call their bluff. Let's all agree to outlaw abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. That will expose the fact these cases really are NOT prevalent and only account for a minute fraction thankfully. Liberals know in their heart the vast majority of abortions are simply by choice for convenience. They will fight our bluff tooth and nail.
3) Our society has become anti-intellectual and hysterical. Reason and logic is out the window. Now it becomes clear that perhaps the decline of our schools under the leadership of Democrat unions may just have been intentional, not a side byproduct of patronage politics.

Jade12| 8.24.12 @ 12:41PM

Amen.

delahaya| 8.23.12 @ 10:43AM

Abortion is a billion dollar business. Where are all the anti big business liberals?

C'mon Man!| 8.23.12 @ 11:12AM

But it's their big business, so it's ok, get it?

Frank Drackman| 8.23.12 @ 11:38AM

With apologies to my Favorite Godfather character, Hymen Roth,
"We're bigger than Hoover Vacuum Cleaners"

Frank

Anthony| 8.23.12 @ 11:51AM

Whew, Frank's on a roll today!!!

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:47PM

Of course, 60 million more young folks would have ensured the Babyboomers entitlements.

MelvinNC| 8.23.12 @ 11:26AM

I've got to hand it to the Dems though, keeping the Republicans off they're game with the economy and now everyone is focusing on that, "Abortion thing again."
Abortions are not going to put women back to work again, Abortions aren't going to put women in affordable housing again, Abortions aren't going to get women loans from the bank to create small businesses. Abortions are not going to get women decent affordable health care that they can chose what doctor they want to see.
So you see the Democrats focusing on the vagina, isn't going to help women at all.
This vagina thing is only a diversion, because Barrack Obama's domestic policy frankly, "Sucks." Even some Democrats have to admit that.
I would be embarrassed as a candidate that all I had to run on is a woman's vagina instead of a political record that spans almost four years.
Not only is it embarrassing, it's just down right pitiful.
"Barrack, did you get the economy going?" "No." Barrack did you end or win the wars?" "Well, kinda of.....No?" "Barrack, for all the trillions of dollars that you spent, do you have anything of substance to show for it.?"Hmmmmm, Uhmmmmm, !Oh yea there is one thing." We kept the voters focus on a woman's vagina. That kind of counts.......doesn't it?"

Oldefarte| 8.23.12 @ 11:44AM

For once, someone with an ounce of common sense. OMG, the loons here and elsewhere moaning and groaning about Akin's STUPID [with a capital S] remark [which no doubt he obtained from reading that doctor's book(can't rmember his name) regarding same]. You morons may have handed this Missouri election to Claire the Barry Panderer on a silver plater. Thanks a whole friggin lot, DA's one and all. STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES! The GD object of this political contest ending in November is to WIN FOR REPUBLICANS [especially in the US Senate]. If we lose, then it's Obama/Democrats GAME, SET AND F&^JKING MATCH! WAKE UP DA AMERICA PLEASE.....WAKE UP! It's bad enough you DA's voted for domestic terrorism on 11/4/08 and now we have 20% unemployment, $800billion in non-stimulus pi&^ed away to labor unions, a Homeland Security Dept being run by a group of lesbian bulldykes allowing illegals a pass on deportations, a DOJ suing states over their immigration legislations, etc but now this? WAKE UP gd it!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank Drackman| 8.23.12 @ 12:11PM

WHEN YOU USE ALL CAPS ITS LIKE YOUR SHOUTING THE N-WORD IN THE MIDDLE OF A JAY-Z/USHER/KANYE/SNOOP DOG/THATS ALL THE RAPPERS I KNOW/CONCERT/OH YEAH, BEING THE ONLY WHITE DUDE SHOUTING THE N-WORD/CAUSE ONLY N-WORDS CAN SAY THE N-WORD WITHOUT HAVING OTHER N-WORDS BEAT HIS CRACKER ASS
FRANK DRACKMAN

Oldefarte| 8.24.12 @ 12:44PM

No, it's for whats commonly referred to as....EMPHASIS!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 8.24.12 @ 12:50PM

PS: "....THE ONLY WHITE DUDE SHOUTING THE N-WORD/CAUSE ONLY N-WORDS CAN SAY THE N-WORD WITHOUT HAVING OTHER N-WORDS BEAT HIS CRACKER ASS...." Thats not true if the non"N-WORD" is whats commonly referred to as PACKING!!!!!

JD| 8.23.12 @ 11:46AM

The sixth paragraph of this article is the key to the whole issue.

supremecourtlegislator| 8.23.12 @ 11:54AM

Finally, Mr. Neumayer, the first sensible commentary on Todd Akin that I have seen or heard.

Spineless Republicans, as usual, McCainlike, circled like sharks when blood is in the water. They should have said that Akin misspoke--agreed, he did. He apologized. He explained. It is his discision whether to continue in the race. If he does, it is the voters of Missouri's dicision. Akin's opponent for the Senate is Clair Mccaskill. She is all in for Obama and all in for Obamacare.

Estblishment Republicans and so-called conservatives have backbones like a house of cards. When it comes to leftist Democratic Party hacks and radicals, they have political Stockholm syndome. They join the Democratic Pary radicals and the leftstream media shark circling and take some of the most vicious bits.

It is an act of cowardly self-preservation: I only have to outrun you. Not to mention that establishment types feel more threatened by a conservative than by even the most radical left-wing and Marxist Democrats.

Jade12| 8.24.12 @ 12:44PM

Excellent last paragraph.

JimP| 8.23.12 @ 12:05PM

Have you seen today's Rasmussen poll for the MO Senate seat? McCaskill leads Akin by 10 points. That's why so many of us wanted this guy gone by now. PC intimidation and stupidity among Republicans and conservatives had nothing to do with it. It's the stupid hysterical voters that we knew would respond negatively to what Akin said that concerned us. This is not the year for a principled stand after making a gaff. We [the nation] are in a life boat in heavy seas. We must cut lose the dead weight to save the majority [country] this year. It's unfortunate for Akin, but he is expendable.

C Smith | 8.23.12 @ 12:27PM

"... Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin" (John 19:11). Jesus answered Pilate, after Caiaphas the high priest “delivered” up Christ to the governor of Roman occupied Judaea.

Romney in "delivering" up Akin to that which is rotten in our culture hath the "greater sin." This leaves us little choice on the second Tuesday in November the evil or the greater evil.

Slacker| 8.23.12 @ 12:44PM

Those country club republicans are wiser than you think. Akin must go because the rape circumstance undermines the pro-life argument. The subject must not be spoken of.

Two entities occupying the same body cannot both have full rights. The substantial disagreement between pro-life and pro-choice is which entity comes first; the fetus or the mother.

The Pro-life side justifies taking away the mother’s rights by claiming (correctly) the pregnancy is a result of her behavior and choices.

This argument doesn’t fly with rape. Now it’s just an arbitrary decision between the rights of two entities. One entity has free will. The other can be frozen and thawed. Who do you think will win that dispute? It is a downhill slippery slope from there.

I shall now receive the inevitable raking over the coals from every pro-lifer in cyberspace.

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 2:42PM

You'll receive the "raking over the coals," Slacker, because your point is wrong & illogical.

The Pro-Life position is that both the mother & unborn baby (fetus in Latin) have the right to life, and both lives should be protected, if medically possible.

Since, human biological life begins at conception, abortion is never justifiable, for any reason. Even rape & incest. The unborn baby (fetus in Latin) has committed NO crime, and has just as much right to live as you or me.

You need to study this issue some more, I'm afraid.

Slacker| 8.23.12 @ 3:54PM

Study of this issue has taken me in the other direction. There are too many paradoxes in the pro-life position. Far too much significance is given to conception but, that is another debate.

To deny mothers the liberty to choose the fathers of their children is disgustingly unjust. We can’t make things right by forcing the rape victims to carry the babies to term. There is no righteous outcome. Sometimes innocents must die to protect other innocents.

I don’t expect to win any converts so I’ll propose a compromise. In the case of rape (or any unwanted pregnancy) the fetus will be extracted, frozen, and stored in perpetuity at the fertility clinic where it remains viable. We will figure out what to do with it later.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 3:59PM

Your side jumps to the rape exception every time, yet 99% of abortions are not rape cases. Where is your side's offer to ban those abortions?

You speak of our supposed overemphasis on conception, but it is your side's status quo that uses a far more ludicrous benchmark: birth. THAT is the scientifically unsound position here.

You act as if, at best, there are two beings with an equal right in play. False. One person's right to life is not equal to another person's emotional well-being.

You say there are paradoxes. I don't believe you. Name one.

Slacker| 8.23.12 @ 4:49PM

Okay.

Pro-lifers are fond of saying the zygote/embryo/fetus is innocent. I even played along above. This is a paradox because we would never hold a fetus morally accountable for its actions. Guilt and innocence have no meaning in utero.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 5:17PM

"Not being accountable for its actions" is not a state unique to the unborn. Do we hold an infant responsible for its actions? If an infant is killed, would you consider it invalid to call it "innocent?"

What about an adult with a severe mental illness? Can we kill them?

The only way innocence could even be a relevant part of the conversation is if "self-defense" is being claimed in justifying murder. The life of the mother is at risk in, according to records, 0.2% of abortions. Are you conceding on all others? Regardless, in the self-defense case, the state of inaction equates to innocence. Innocence means "not guilty". No action or ability to act is required to be innocent.

My argument for the personhood of the unborn does not require "innocence" in any way, nor is innocence required to make murder a crime, nor have you established the non-innocence of the unborn.

You're not even close to having a paradox.

Another try?

Slacker| 8.23.12 @ 5:32PM

Free will is a condition of being human. Hence we pull the plug on the brain dead relatives, although they are certainly alive and more autonomous than embryos. We can kill a person with a dead brain. We can kill an embryo with no brain.

We don’t investigate miscarriages as homicides.

The infant has just enough free will to be human. I believe we become fully human at about the time we can survive outside the womb.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 5:48PM

Free will? Interesting. Many Democrats seem not to believe anyone has it, given their insistence that people aren't responsible for their circumstances. Maybe you need to be rich to have free will? But then your argument suggests I can kill the poor!

We do not "kill" someone when we stop providing for them. That's typical liberal logic - that to not give is the same as to take. It's all over social welfare conversations.

What makes a brain-dead adult more alive and autonomous than a fetus? Leave both undisturbed for a time, and I bet the latter is the more viable!

We don't investigate many accidental deaths as murders, because it's clear that they're accidents. Miscarriages are accidents. If they're not accidents, but done without the mother's permission, then TODAY we prosecute them as murders!

Your belief that we have "enough free will" at birth seems terrible subjective and unscientific. In fact, it reeks of substituting superstition and convenience for science. How do you feel about that tactic on environmental issues? Religion?

I've already made other counterpoints. Premature birth, changes in how premature a baby can survive due to technology, etc. Are you next going to split hairs between needing an incubator vs needing a blanket, or being fed with a tube vs a bottle?

Argument's feeling weak...

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 5:57PM

Is English your second language, Slacker?

If you take a patient off of life-support, and the patient dies of natural causes, that IS NOT killing them.
Many times the person keeps on breathing. If you then choked then to death, that would be murder.

Everybody can now see the effect that the Terry (Shiavo) Schindler case & Jack Kervorkian have had on the ignorant in this country.

Slacker| 8.23.12 @ 6:47PM

Got a living will?

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 7:18PM

What does that have to do with the inanities you have been spewing, Slacker?

CJW| 8.23.12 @ 9:28PM

Slack
You do know that many states have a criminal charge for homicide of an unborn child? Except for abortion, of course.

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 4:14PM

There is no compromise with evil, Slacker.
And your position is definitely evil.

Grzmlyk| 8.23.12 @ 4:22PM

Talk about disgustingly unjust. Slacker flappin his dogma-intoxicated gums is disgustingly unjust. I guess the insensate herd of trolls got its marching orders to join us today, eh?

JD| 8.23.12 @ 3:56PM

Slacker, you misrepresent the argument. Your mistake is in pretending that one person's right to convenience is equal in magnitude to another's right to life. Whatever personal freedoms one may have do not include the right to kill innocent others. If one's personal liberty is curtailed by the act of not killing, then that is the choice society requires.

There is no scorekeeping by which one may say "ok, you've inconvenienced me too much now, so now I can kill you." There is no scorekeeping by which one may say "my life is worth more than yours."

Such logic violates the principle of equal rights that America supposedly holds so dear.

Slacker| 8.23.12 @ 5:11PM

You could never extend your logic to other areas of life. You have taken “turn the other cheek” to absurd levels. We would be stranded under your morality.

Take for instance self-defense. We are allowed to defend our property with lethal force. Getting robbed is less of an inconvenience than having a felon’s baby. We could not fight wars under your morality because we sure kill the hell out of civilians. It goes on and on. We can and do scorekeep the vaule of life.

You major mistake in logic is misusing the concept of innocence.

Slacker| 8.23.12 @ 5:24PM

I used to think the mother of all paradoxes (and what changed my mind on abortion) was everything that happens inside the fertility clinics.

No I have a better paradox. The pro-choice folks call me evil and the pro-life folks hate me too. There is no wining.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 5:26PM

I explained the flaw in your innocence claim above.

Castle laws are controversial, especially on the Left (strange that you eagerly cite on here), but a primary rationale for them is the fear that the intruder may harm you. That's where self-defense comes in. Where is this fear with a baby? A burglar is inviting the threat of death upon himself by entering a home, despite knowing the law and the wrongness of his act. Hostile ACTIONS like that are required to make a self-defense claim valid.

You are correct in saying that we value life, and we rank it against other values. But such an argument is only valid in talk of trading lives for lives (such as war). Abortion is not a life-for-life trade. It is a trade of one life for one person's relative happiness. Life wins that trade every time.

Again, a fundamental American principle is equal treatment under the law (not to be confused with liberal "equal results"). A person is a person is a person. If you want to kill a being in America, for a benefit that is less than the life vs death of another being, you must establish that it is not a person. No lesser scorekeeping is acceptable under American principles.

Slacker| 8.23.12 @ 5:34PM

Make no mistake. I am saying a fetus is not human.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 5:39PM

I hope you meant to say "not a person", because "not human" is a lot more scientifically unsound than Akin.

I have made, in several posts here, the case that your definition of the start of personhood at birth is seriously flawed. Your counter-argument, thus far, is your say-so. I think you can do better, and I invite you to try.

But please, for once, focus on the nature of the being in question. We've had enough of these diversions toward pointless external factors.

Slacker| 8.23.12 @ 6:44PM

I think we are just too far apart.

If you believe personhood (a term I dislike) begins at conception then there is little to say. I can’t reconcile freezing and thawing embryos. We can’t even do it to simple organs. Maybe the embryo has the rights of a hibernating frog?

I can’t accept heaven is full of the souls of aborted babies. I can’t think of a basis to judge a soul that never had an opportunity to think, love, hate, experience, or feel anything at all.

The ramifications of personhood starting a conception are so immense, and extend so far beyond abortion, that I suspect it cannot be so.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 7:40PM

Are you saying that if we develop the technology to cryo-freeze and unfreeze adults, they too won't be people?

What of your arguments don't apply moments after birth just as well as before?

And why does your feeling that we can't deal with the ramifications make it impossible for the condition to exist?

Wait, I think I like that one. Ok, greenies, here it is! We can't deal with the ramifications of global warming disaster, so it must not be possible for it to happen!

Oooh. I like this :)

But seriously, what ramifications are there that differ significantly from the ramifications of personhood beginning at birth? An infant has plenty of helplessness, dependence, etc. And sometimes they die of natural causes. We deal with all of those things.

The only "ramification" some people should be scared of is a little personal responsibility.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:52PM

Slacker: that's nice that you think that. But viable outside the womb cuts considerably into "appropriate abortion" ranges if that's yur answer---one year's inviable may be viable the next year.

I take it you don't have kids. I hope so.

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 5:41PM

Wrong!, again, Slacker.
Your mistake is you don't understand that the role intent brings to the subject.

Abortion is the deliberate, intentional killing of an unborn baby (fetus in Latin.) It is ALWAYS intrinsically evil.

Defending yourself with lethal force has the intent of stopping an innocent human being from getting killed. The same goes for war.
When innocent civilians are killed, it is NOT because they were targets of the defender. The intent is to stop the aggressor's army, not kill civilians.

You really should study the subject, and think about it, before you bloviate on a public forum about the abortion issue.

Slacker| 8.23.12 @ 6:46PM

You repeatedly frame the discussion as about intentional killing of babies but I don’t think a fetus and a baby are the equivalent. I don’t think a fetus has rights. A right is only real if it can be exercised and a fetus seems incapable of doing anything whatsoever.

I think our differences are irreconcilable .

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 7:29PM

The right to life is exercised by....umm....living, Slacker.

And, what you believe is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm talking about science and human biology.

So, answer me these simple questions: When, precisely, does a fetus (Latin for unborn baby) become a baby? What day, hour, second? What are your criteria for baby-hood?

JD| 8.23.12 @ 7:53PM

Thank you, Slacker, for being the only abortion supporter in the room willing to acknowledge that substance of our conflict is the personhood of the unborn, not sexism or other straw men invented by the others.

But your argument is unconvincing, because many who are born suffer from the same limitations that you say disqualify the unborn from the right to life.

Nick's first sentence at 7:29 is right - the right to life can be exercised by living. As to his question - when does personhood begin, your side's answer remains the mere removal from the womb. That's about as dumb a criteria as there could be. There is no particular change in the nature of the being at that point. No first heartbeat or brainwave. Some that are born prematurely can be less developed than others not yet born. No substantial change in "dependence" at birth either. They still need temperature control, careful handling, and in some cases breathing and feeding tubes. They'll need substantial care for years!

Someday we'll have the technology to remove babies before they weigh a pound, sparing the mother the rigors of advanced pregnancy. What will that do to your benchmark?

There is one benchmark that suffers from no ambiguity - the start of life. Having not established a reason to not use that benchmark (at least, no reason that doesn't justify slaughtering inconvenient toddlers), you haven't made the case to separate personhood from life.

Paul A'Barge | 8.23.12 @ 1:26PM

This is just more of the "Obama did worse so shut up".

Todd Akin is stupid. Not just stupid, the man is knob-on-a-rock lame.

I say screw the gods of political correctness but Akin goes under the bus.

We have enough morons who are members of the Black Congressional Caucus. We don't need a mutt in the US Senate. Put in Steelman and let's move on.

Al_B| 8.23.12 @ 1:42PM

Hey George, are you including your colleague Quin Hillyer on your list of reactionaries?

obadiah| 8.23.12 @ 3:18PM

Akin's stupid remark expresses the feelings of many Republicans. Ryan is close to Akin in such feelings. Romney is stuck with the unpopular abortion issue and won't get away from it. He shows weakness in his inability to control the party. If Romney loses, Akin will be a big reason.

e e eponymous| 8.23.12 @ 3:26PM

". . . if you hold that a newly fertilized egg just attached to the uterus has all the constitutional rights of an adult or a newborn . . .

Let me make myself clear:

If you believe a newly fertilized egg attached to the uterus has all the constitutional rights of an adult or a newborn, then you are a fool.

Not only are you a fool, but you are evil.

You Pro-Life fanatics are incapable of reason and have no perception of morality.

You do have a blind political agenda, and it is fascist all the way.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 3:48PM

You seek to mask the weakness of your position with invectives. We are not fooled.

Your side has created a concept of "personhood" which requires more than mere human life, despite the risks that such a distinction opens up. Such logic was once used to strip black people of personhood!

And you apply your definition in very inconsistent, illogical ways. If a man strikes a pregnant woman, killing her unborn child, he is charged with murder. If she chooses to kill the same child, it is not a crime. What logic or science is that? Personhood, not on the nature of the being, but on the whims of another being?

And you call us blind!

One can be born seven months after conception, immediately regarded as a person, and protected. Another, unborn at 8.5 months, can be killed? The latter is a more advanced being than the former!

What happens when we can conceive a human in a test tube and grow him to adulthood without ever needing a womb? When will personhood begin for such a being? For other, traditionally borne children of his era? Is it the sin of today's children that they were born before this technology exists, and should they be killed for it?

You have established no just cause for separating life and personhood, and have defined your personhood in an appallingly illogical way. Who is it who is "incapable of reason" and "has no perception of reality"? "Blind", "fool", and "evil"? Look in a mirror.

e e eponymous| 8.23.12 @ 4:02PM

Abortion a private issue, so private that it's impossible to regulate. Abortions have been performed since the beginning of time, and they will continue.

Studies have shown that the number of abortions stays the same, whether it's legal or illegal. The thing that changes is that more women die when it's illegal.

Which is just fine with you anti-privacy, pro-lifers.

e e eponymous| 8.23.12 @ 4:05PM

Another thing:

Pro-lifers claim they have a higher moral purpose — saving innocent lives — by trying to ban abortions when their hidden agenda is re-establishing our male-dominated society’s power to control women. If women have no control over the issues surrounding their capacity to bring new life into this world, they will have little control over other aspects of their lives.

Pro-lifers equate abortions with murder. They purposely avoid addressing the reality that a pregnancy can cost a woman her life. If a woman should die because she could not end a pregnancy under the laws that “pro-lifers” wish to enact, shouldn’t responsibility for her death fall on their shoulders?

e e eponymous| 8.23.12 @ 4:08PM

And finally:

Termination of a pregnancy is a woman's right. The blob of protoplasm is part of her body.
It's her body. Her's alone.

Men should have no say-so in the matter.

Period.

e e eponymous| 8.23.12 @ 4:12PM

Pro-lifers are anti-woman. The choice is between the individual woman having the right to do with her body as she pleases (men enjoy that right) or allowing the government to take away that right.

Women couldn't even vote 100 years ago. Same attitude toward women today--male control

Grzmlyk| 8.23.12 @ 4:22PM

Are you STILL doing your onanistic thing? Yawn.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 4:15PM

It's its own body. That's not even debateable. That's scientific fact. There is a clear delineation of bodies.

She's not the one feeling pain when her baby's brain is sucked out.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 4:13PM

And there you go. You're just a despicable person - the exact evil you pretend to condemn. You can't even address a logical, reasonable argument against your position, so you hate, hate, and hate some more. Hate doesn't require logic!

You need us to have evil motives to justify your hate, so you just invent them. No basis in reality required. You have the arrogance to believe that you can tell me what my motives are. And when I say otherwise, you have the arrogance to tell me I'm wrong! About my own mind!

If you need a heart transplant and can't find a donor, can you kill a person to take his heart? Would police that prevent you from doing so have your life on their shoulders? That is your argument.

You say it's "private"? And it'll happen even if banned? What? Really? Ok, we'll why don't you just go molest a few children privately, and we'll ignore that because it's private, too. Heck, might as well not ban it, because it'll happen anyway!

But what am I doing? Addressing your every word in responses, even though you won't address anything I write at all. This is a waste of time.

Grzmlyk| 8.23.12 @ 4:17PM

OMG! You figured out my hidden agenda! Curses! Foiled by a moron again!

JD| 8.23.12 @ 4:20PM

"Moron" seems generous. Mostly this guy just seems unethical, until you realize that in order to proceed with such lies and hate, he has to actually believe that he's justified. That's where the stupidity comes in.

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 4:12PM

Well said.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 4:14PM

Jack, you degrade yourself by agreeing with such terrible arguments.

Grzmlyk| 8.23.12 @ 4:19PM

I disagree. How can feces degrade itself? By attracting a lower class fly? Jack is just another Obamaton, doing the bidding of the greedy, lazy and destructive class.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 4:21PM

He's been plenty willing to misquote, distort, and use straw men lately. More than before. But he's still more reasonable than this guy, by a long shot.

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 4:41PM

He's not making a terrible argument. If you think that the vast majority of women who have abortions aren't hugely conflicted by the decision then you're wrong. Driving them to backstreet abortions and our country to the dark ages is not the answer. If you want to reduce abortions your best path is to back policies that lessen inequality and provide decent primary healthcare, including contraception. But you want it both ways - cut access to healthcare and contraception, reduce more poor people to begging for food stamps, and ban abortions. The one thing you can't ban - yet - is people having sex, but I expect you'll get to that.

spike59| 8.23.12 @ 5:04PM

access to contraception????????? give me a break; a condom costs, what, a buck? a month's worth of BC pills costs about 9 bucks in Sandra Fluke's neighborhood...the local health clinics provide condoms FOR FREE

JD| 8.23.12 @ 5:09PM

Jack, I just defended you, and now you go and do this...

I never said anything about whether anyone was "hugely conflicted", though I suspect YOU exaggerate. We'll save the fact that your policies, not ours, contribute to inequality for another conversation.

I've made the case that abortion is murder, and neither you nor your troll friend nor any other here will even address it. For you to instead say "banning it isn't the way to stop it" just makes it sound like you want to legalize all murder. Why have criminal law at all, if it doesn't eliminate crime?

I'm a conservative. I don't want government enforcing social policy. But the WHOLE disagreement between us is our contention that abortion ISN'T "social policy". It's murder - the preeminent crime which government exists to prevent. You can't chastise us for wanting government to enforce what YOU call social policy without first winning the argument that it IS social policy.

But you avoid that argument like the plague. And then, like your moronic friend above, you add a few more choice straw man arguments, just to make yourself feel better about your hate.

"Cut access". Despicable wording. "Access" is being able to buy. BUY. As in, with your money. What you want is "access" like 19th century plantation owners had "access" to the work of black people.

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 5:26PM

I told you the way to cut abortions and unwanted/unplanned children, but you want to drive the numbers up by defunding services such as Planned Parenthood, even when they set up entities separate from any abortion activities, as Texas is doing now. So tell me - how does shutting down clinics help your aims? Bear in mind that these clinics also cover things like pap smears and STIs. What are your practical solutions? You can't get things such as long-acting contraception without about $300 at a clinic. All the evidence shows that women and children benefit hugely when women choose when to have babies, but we have one of the worst maternal and neonatal death and health rates in the developed world.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 5:36PM

You drift further and further from the topic, Jack. You're not even trying to justify abortion anymore. You seem afraid to try. Now you're just trying to buy us off by convincing us that there are better ways to prevent murder than to criminalize it.

And what a silly game. You and your allies keep hammering until you can get me to slip up ONCE in my logic, at which point you'll confidently declare victory. But I've broken your logic many times, apparently pointlessly, because you reserve to yourselves the infinite right to scrap your argument and try again with something new.

Opposing murder does not make those of us who oppose murder uniquely responsible for preventing murder, or for supporting those not murdered. One could just as easily argue that those who freed slaves were eternally responsible for the well-being of blacks. Which is funny, because your party claims to own civil rights, yet makes our party pay for so much welfare!

Planned Parenthood should not get federal funding. Period. Doesn't matter whether it's for abortions or not. You're just employing the usual Democratic trick of separating the supposed benefits of your spending from its costs, and vice versa for our ideas, so that in everything you can claim we want to eliminate your benefits and add our costs, without talking about your costs or our benefits.

The answer is always the same, Jack. Let us keep our money, and we'll do more good with it than your government does.

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 5:54PM

So let's get this straight - your only answer to reducing abortion is to make it illegal - despite the obvious consequences of driving it underground or abroad - and your only answer to reducing unplanned pregnancies is to eliminate family planning clinics? Einstein eat your heart out. There's a new genius in town.

As for 'your money' what do you think costs more to the state - many children born poor and in poor health, or funding family planning?

JD| 8.23.12 @ 6:02PM

Quit playing games, Jack. There are over a million abortions in America each year, and there would be a small fraction of that if it was illegal. It would also change society's perception of abortion if it were more understood to be murder.

Again, your same argument applies to murder of the already-born. Shall we legalize that? Rape? Theft? Child abuse?

We don't legalize serious crimes because making them illegal is dangerous to the criminal, Jack.

I don't call for "eliminating family planning clinics". Like a typical liberal liar, you act as if opposing taxpayer subsidy for an industry equates to opposition to the industry. You guys complain about farm subsidies - do you not like food?

I never said ending illegitimate subsidies would reduce unplanned pregnancies either. You made that one up.

Children born to families that won't care for them are a sad thing. Shall we kill them too? The same argument applies to a five-year-old as to the unborn. Your argument could have been used in 1860 to suggest that we can't free the slaves because they're illiterate and uneducated, and no one would take care of them if they weren't slaves anymore. Think how much they'd cost society!

You make it harder and harder to believe that you're arguing in good faith, Jack.

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 6:15PM

Well let's get another thing straight then: abortion will remain legal, so you'll have to work from there.

I don't understand your point about family planning clinics - if you end their funding they will close, as is happening now in states like Texas. I would have thought the one thing you'd understand is cost-effectiveness - are you saying you prefer to pay higher welfare and health costs than much lower clinic costs on a point of principle, not economics?

JD| 8.23.12 @ 6:22PM

What on earth makes you think I support welfare?

Society has adapted to your welfare state, but it worked without a welfare state, and if we end the welfare state, it will work without it again. If people have to be responsible for the children they create, more will be.

Funding "family planning" is not a role of government. That's not idle ideology - it comes from the same reasoning that opposes other frivolous government funding.

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 6:32PM

We won't be ending welfare in this country either, so you'll have to work from there.

As for the role of government, that's not in your gift to decide. I can think of few less frivolous activities than providing healthcare and education.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 6:42PM

You forgot to add "because I said so" to the end of your post. You might as well. Your "debate" skills have devolved to that point.

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 6:56PM

I think you rather lost the plot when you said that reducing unwanted pregnancies is a frivolous goal for society. You have a great evening now.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 7:44PM

Jack, you have to stop changing the words people say when you "quote" them.

I said GOVERNMENT does not belong in the business of funding social agendas. You substituted "society" for "government". Big difference. Much liberal theology supposes that Big Brother and "society" are equivalent things. They are not.

Nick| 8.23.12 @ 6:16PM

Jack'o has never tried to argue in good faith, since he showed up here, JD.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:56PM

Planned parenthood doesn't do deliveries the last time I checked, Jack, or proper prenatal care. And your friendly neighborhood OB/Gyn can also prescribe contraception, as can your FP. You are setting up straw men to knock down, just like your boss.

Jack London| 8.23.12 @ 7:04PM

Planned Parenthood is just one service and it's primarily about reproductive health - not about pregnancy – and it provides other vital services such as cervical screening. Other services are also losing funding.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 7:45PM

Government doesn't need to fund any of those services for them to exist. You cloak the indefensible in other things you find more defensible in order to pass the whole boondoggle - much the same as how Democrats pass legislation.

C. S. P. Schofield| 8.24.12 @ 9:57AM

For the record; I do not believe that a fetus is human.

That said, I don't think that I can prove this. I don't think you can either. I think that anybody (with the exception of God, who mostly stays out of courtrooms) who asserts that they know when a fetus becomes human is relying on faith, not proof.

And on those terms the Pro-Life people have better grounds for calling you evil than you have for calling them so. Their chosen position does not automatically end in the death of something you consider human.

Robert17| 8.23.12 @ 3:43PM

Akin will still win.

tinyurl.com/ToddF-Akin

darcy| 8.23.12 @ 5:24PM

"Cowed by Political Correctness," or as I term it, cultural Marxism. Most certainly true. If our principles were as passionately held even half as much as those of the left are, we would be winning this culture war.

Jade12| 8.24.12 @ 12:54PM

Right on darcy.

Who Knows?| 8.23.12 @ 5:32PM

Pow!

It’s all about power.

And, therefore, since we each are ongoing choice-makers, what we SPEND our own power on, minute by minute, requires intelligent use of factual reality. Believing abortion is murder is fine. There are some who don’t believe this, and choose to abort fetuses---and, it’s legal.

Do the antiabortionists have the power to stop their foes? Not, heretofore, legally.

So, argue all you want, even about science and at the end of every day, some women will choose to abort.

While the USA teeters on the brink, considering whether to choose 4 more years for the murderer of this country to do his deeds, expending one’s personal power on the subject of abortion is an opportunity cost.

The abortionist supreme, Obama, is regularly flushing freedom down the drain! He’s the priority, and stopping him is what to use power on.

Abort the abortionist!

Do the deed---happily persuade those who are still open, by avoiding the topic of abortion, and just ask people if they’re better off because Obama won in 2008.

Keep it simple for the simpletons---lay off abortion.

Kingofthenet| 8.23.12 @ 5:35PM

You Conservatives who are trying to defend Akin THINK you are making Lemonade out of Lemons, but your REALLY making Lemonade out of Piss.

JD| 8.23.12 @ 5:36PM

Go troll elsewhere.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.12 @ 6:57PM

Well, given that you are lower than whale dung, King, it's an improvement from being a Dhimmicrat. You support rapists, child rapists, child murderers, and anal rapists. You are a loathsome piece of crawling scum.

Kingofthenet| 8.23.12 @ 7:50PM

If you want to make it 'Rain' at a GOP convention, make sure it's Raining Men!...in a 'Wide Stance'

RCV| 8.25.12 @ 12:39PM

Hope you enjoy the planned "Tribute to Ron Paul" at the GOP National Convention, Occam. And I hope the entire American Jewish community is watching.

David| 8.23.12 @ 8:39PM

I didn't read the article, and did not read the comments, so hope I am not repeating everyone else.

My thoughts: Yes, it was stupid for him to go there, just as it was stupid for Santorum to get into "contraception is bad for women". While both Santorum's comment and the "women's bodies have a way of coping with legitimate rape" are scientific facts, neither of those issues have been debated in the public square, and therefore, should not have been uttered.

John II| 8.24.12 @ 12:03AM

Whew. I've read this whole thread. Maybe I need to get a life. No, I probably need another movie.

Anyhow, a quick kudos to JD for his sustained arguments against the antinomian trolls. Saved me a lot of time and effort.

But I am fascinated by Jack's choice of nom de internet. As one of the posters suggested earlier, the choice is probably more apt than Jack realizes.

And so, Jack, if you get a chance for a breather, you might want to bone up on your namesake: a fierce socialist of goofy parentage and rootless background, intermittently bright and bold, but erratic and undisciplined, hugely self-centered and clownishly self-important, a flamboyant man who died rather young without ever having acquired a sense of proportion or shame. Indeed, his epitaph might plausibly have read: "At his best when things were going his way."

In short, Jack London was the perfect avatar of the Obamanation, a thin man of colossally chubby disposition.

And now back to "Call of the Wild" (1935), in which Clark Cable plays a somewhat chummy version of John Thornton in a VERY loose adaptation of the 1903 London novel. But at least Buck the dog is closer in breed (a mix of St. Bernard and sheep dog) to the original canine lead. In the 1972 Charlton Heston version, the plot is closer to the novel's, but Buck is played by a German shepherd who acts like Rin Tin Tin. London would have whined that there is no justice.

2blumutts| 8.24.12 @ 12:53AM

You, Sir, took of your time to write a fine essay, here. That the Republican Party leadership had even just a bit of the clear-headed thinking you shared, here. Thank you. I passed this on to others.

Kingofthenet| 8.24.12 @ 4:32AM

Let's see the rapist should be severely punished...
The 'Baby' should get to live...
There 'may' be someone else in this equation we should be considering, but darned if I know who it is?

Oh Wait, The VICTIM, yeah maybe for shits and giggles we should see what she has to think?

Jack London| 8.24.12 @ 10:03AM

No - don't you know a woman's psychological state is entirely irrelevant, not to mention her own life chances.

Latest Headlines

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer|6 comments

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|132 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|143 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|63 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|18 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|25 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|41 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|16 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

Good Luck Quin

Aaron Goldstein | 12:13AM

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 5.23.13

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 5.23.13

Crisis Looms, and Kevin Williamson Can Hardly Wait

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.23.13

Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds

Ross Kaminsky | 5.23.13

Bill Would Ban All Abortions After 20 Weeks

Jordan Gonzalez | 5.23.13

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 5.23.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?