Isn't it disgusting when an elected politician makes stupid statements about rape, suggesting that sometimes it's not really rape?

You got nothing on US ...

I was aware of Todd Akin and his awful statement (his excuse of using the wrong words does not cover the whole clause concerning the odd belief that a woman's body can shut down pregnancy, and I'd love to know which doctors he's been speaking to).

What both have in common is that they were prepared to equivocate on rape because it is inconvenient for their own political position. Akin hates abortions in all cases, and that presents a problem when victims of rape who fall pregnant arise. It's easier for him to pretend they don't exist, somehow, either that it's not really rape, or that a pregnancy can't happen from rape, or is just astonishingly rare.

Galloway hates America (or at least the American political and military system), and sees Julian Assange as an ally, and a symbol of a struggle against US imperialism. But that presents a problem when Assange uses that as a reason why he can't face serious accusations of rape (not formal charges as yet, but Swedish law is clear that he cannot be charged until having been interviewed, but the evidence has been shown to be sufficient to charge him under UK law), and it becomes inconvenient when people point out that those accusations are what he is avoiding. So, Galloway has to pretend that what Assange is accused of isn't really rape.

Still, neither of them top Whoopie Goldberg's defence of Polanski, saying that sodomising a 13 year old against her will was not 'rape-rape'. So perhaps you do have us beat.

Mind you, while Akin's reasoning and explanation may be out of line to the Republican Party, his conclusion - that abortion should not be allowed regardless of situations like rape or incest, is similar to the position that the RNC has backed since the 1990s, and are to be presented with again this year, in the policy for a Constitutional Amendment.

Regarding Akin, his comments are way out of line. Having never been in a situation remotely like that, he needs to shut up in the first place. In the second place, he should have been gone already.

That being said...
I agree that rape is not a valid reason for abortion, but that is a personal opinion, and I would never take my opinion to a higher position over another's in such an emotional and forced situation. As I have said before, I would not outlaw abortion for rape as long as it was brought before the criminal system. Put charges in and allow the abortion. Otherwise, it is a personal choice/opinion being put over another's (Mother over baby). Since one's choice's should never be allowed to be sacrosanct over another's, abortion should be not allowed unless life of mother is in danger or filed rape charges are in place.

I know other people have differing positions. It is a hotly charged issue, and should be left to the life IN the womb unless the two cases above are in play.

If the life IN the womb is not mattering, then why does the court allow charges for a fetus being harmed or killed by the mother (in the cases of drug use); or others in the criminal situations where a mother is shot, and the fetus is killed?

Bottom lines? Akin is an idiot, and needs to go for stupidity. Abortion should not be used for convenience.

Assange is an idiot as well

Bbauska, one teeny tiny flaw with your condition that rape charges be laid before an abortion be allowed:

What if the assailant is not identified, or is not caught and so cannot be charged? Notwithstanding that charges for rape are unfortunately rare for all kinds of other reasons. Or that there is also a case for incest which is similar to that for rape, with added health issues.

On your follow up, I tend to agree, but the point was that George Galloway was the one acting like Todd Akin.

Put the case into the police for investigation. Would that meet your criteria? Incest would apply to the same standards.

As for Galloway, I do not know enough to cast judgement on him. As I research, I am sure I will agree with you on him as well.

Regarding Akin, i'm a little confused. I realize that what he said was stupid, insensitive, outrageous, and that he should know better. However, he did fully apologize. Even so, there is pretty much a unified chorus (Rove, Palin, mainstream Republicans, almost all Democrats) to get rid of him. Is this mistake so egregious that the rest of his career is meaningless?

Well, his apology didn't seem to me to acknowledge the problem. It was not just poor word choice over 'legitimate rape', it was peddling complete rubbish about biology as fact and as a basis for his views.

As for calls to resign, there are various possible reasons why. Firstly the apology as I've outlined not being seen as adequate. Secondly, that no matter the apology, his statement was bad enough. Thirdly, if he loses a small numer of votes, he could lose the race. As Missouri is a top target for the GOP in a year when they need to take it to beat Obama and to have a good chance to take the Senate, the Republicans have good political reasons to want him out and replaced with a less contentious candidate. Fourthly, the Democrats would have smelled blood and calls to stand down would be part of either scoring a 'win' by getting him to do so, or if not having a stick to beat conservative Republicans with. Fifthly, Republicans realising the Democrat game would want to at least neutralise the latter by disassociating from Akin, and the easy way is to join the 'resign' bandwagon.

Of course, his opponent did not call for him to step down. Perhaps that was a noble gesture, accepting his apology and recognising that the two of them have very different views on abortion and the electorate have indicated that they want Akin to represent one side. Alternatively, she now thinks she can beat the putz and doesn't want him replaced by a more credible opponent in such a tough election.

Akin's problem is that he's standing down from his House seat to contest the Senate elections. If he was defending his own seat, it would be perhaps less contentious, but as it is a 'step up' and as it's a close race, his suitability for office now will trump considerations of how good he's been over his previous House terms.

bbauska wrote:Put the case into the police for investigation. Would that meet your criteria? Incest would apply to the same standards.

I see your point. However, there are unfortunately many reasons why victims may not come forward, perhaps not until a pregnancy becomes apparent (and even then maybe not). Incest and marital rape are likely to be more prone to this, and tied up with other issues such as domestic violence. Some victims do not go to the police for fear of not being believed or because they just want to move on and not have to go through the whole thing through an investigation, trial etc, or simply because they feel ashamed (despite not being to blame themselves); and so even if they decide to later on there may not be much for an investigation to go on.

As for Galloway, I do not know enough to cast judgement on him. As I research, I am sure I will agree with you on him as well.

Start with the article linked to in the OP, because that's where we are comparing him with Akin.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Put the case into the police for investigation. Would that meet your criteria? Incest would apply to the same standards.

I see your point. However, there are unfortunately many reasons why victims may not come forward, perhaps not until a pregnancy becomes apparent (and even then maybe not). Incest and marital rape are likely to be more prone to this, and tied up with other issues such as domestic violence. Some victims do not go to the police for fear of not being believed or because they just want to move on and not have to go through the whole thing through an investigation, trial etc, or simply because they feel ashamed (despite not being to blame themselves); and so even if they decide to later on there may not be much for an investigation to go on.

If it is not important enough to report, then it is not important enough to gain the benefit of killing a fetus. To address your cases one by one:
victims may not come forward, perhaps not until a pregnancy becomes apparent : I would not expect an abortion to happen before pregnancy was diagnosed, but ok...
Incest and marital rape are likely to be more prone to this, and tied up with other issues such as domestic violence: All the more reason to bring horrendous crime to light. For safety of the mother and those around her after all.
Some victims do not go to the police for fear of not being believed or because they just want to move on and not have to go through the whole thing through an investigation, trial etc, or simply because they feel ashamed (despite not being to blame themselves): When a life is on the line, I would think that the extra effort would be afforded a fetus before abortion. It is not the moral right of the mother to determine if the fetus is worth the hassle of an investigation.
they decide to later on there may not be much for an investigation to go on: That is not a moral right for the victim to decide.

I find this entire aspect shallow and unfeeling toward the life of a fetus. Yes, rape is horrid, and the only forcible aspect of rape that I would advocate is forcible long term incarceration (as a minimum!) of the perpetrator upon being found guilty.

Holloway is an idiot as well. (Just got done checking...)

bbauska wrote:

Put the case into the police for investigation. Would that meet your criteria? Incest would apply to the same standards.

Carried to the reasonable conclusion.
Any woman, willing to file a complaint with police, would be able to legally abort ?
Essentially any woman willing to concoct a story, and bring it to police, would then have the right to make the choice?
Seems to me, you would simply be inviting a lot of made up stories to police
I can see womens organizations forming support groups to help women with unplanned pregnancies find there way through this legal loop hole.
Strikes me that this would not be a serious impediment to women who've made the conscious choice and are motivated and empowered to act.
Once you start trying to parse differences between situations, you are on a slippery slope or opening up options.
Either you let women make the moral choice about their own bodies, or force them all to bear unwanted pregnancies to birth...
Right now there is a legal protection for the unborn at the point where they can become viable . That is, where there is a chance that they can become persons. This protection can be reasonably enforced, as a medical pratitioner would be required to terminate a pregnanacy at that point and they can be held responsible if they violate the law.
Charging or convicting women who are pregnant but don't want to be, seems to be a violation of an individuals freedom to act according to their concscious.

Akin has a lot of like minded people supporting him in Missouri. He did finally come out and say he was misinformed, but he hasn't really backed off his postion on rape babies. Whatever else you say about him, he's committed. A lot of cosponsors of his bill on the redefinition on Rape, aren't quite so brave about defending that bill.

Ray Jay wrote:Even so, there is pretty much a unified chorus (Rove, Palin, mainstream Republicans, almost all Democrats) to get rid of him. Is this mistake so egregious that the rest of his career is meaningless?

Because Claire McCaskill is considered an easy pick in the Senate. From what I understand she is extremely unpopular in Missouri and can be defeated rather easily in November. That is unless the Republican candidate is so tainted by something. Basically, I think the party is looking at this as a replay of Nevada's Reid/Engle 2010 race. Harry Reid was so unpopular (39/49 -favorable/unfavorable)that most early polls had him losing some by rather large margins. Then Engle opened her mouth and Reid won.

I think the Party is worried Akin's gaffe will basically give McCaskill the life support she needs to win the election and well as potentially bleed out over into the national race. So get rid of him as soon as possible. Get a more acceptable candidate on the ballot kills two birds with one stone. It takes that attack against the national ticket out of play and keeps McCaskill as a possibly easy pick.

bbauska wrote:If it is not important enough to report, then it is not important enough to gain the benefit of killing a fetus.

You are getting close to the knuckle here. As neither of us can ever be in the position where we have been raped and find ourselves pregnant, I would advise you not to declare in such terms how those who do should behave, or that if they don't they don't deserve decent treatment. And the words 'gain the benefit of killing a fetus' are pretty gut wrenching, to be honest.

To address your cases one by one:
victims may not come forward, perhaps not until a pregnancy becomes apparent : I would not expect an abortion to happen before pregnancy was diagnosed, but ok...

But the later they come forward, the less likely that an investigation would be taking place. That's the point - that rape may not be reported straight away, and perhaps until the victim realises she is pregnant. The passage of time makes it less likely that evidence will be available to investigate on; there will be questions asked about the delay (which may be reasonable, but may also dissuade her from pressing the complaint).

Incest and marital rape are likely to be more prone to this, and tied up with other issues such as domestic violence: All the more reason to bring horrendous crime to light. For safety of the mother and those around her after all.

Yes, but until we get to the perfect world where all rapes are reported and investigated, how about we deal with the real world where that is not the case? (after all, the more perfect world would be where the rape never happened in the first place). The problem with simplistic rules is that they tend to cause problems when they run up to the complexities of real life.

Also, we are dealing with a victim of a pretty horrific crime, one that strikes at the very core of someone's person. It may be that they won't be behaving perfectly rationally

Some victims do not go to the police for fear of not being believed or because they just want to move on and not have to go through the whole thing through an investigation, trial etc, or simply because they feel ashamed (despite not being to blame themselves): When a life is on the line, I would think that the extra effort would be afforded a fetus before abortion. It is not the moral right of the mother to determine if the fetus is worth the hassle of an investigation.

Again, the decision on whether to come forward will likely have been taken some time before knowledge of pregnancy. Your language here 'worth the hassle' seems to suggest that you may not recognise that not only is rape incredbly traumatic, but so is having to relive it - or the prospect of it.

they decide to later on there may not be much for an investigation to go on: That is not a moral right for the victim to decide.

No, but if the police decide (without 'morality' coming into it), that there isn't enough evidence, does this mean that your rule tells us that no abortion is possible?

I find this entire aspect shallow and unfeeling toward the life of a fetus.

Well, I'm going to say that I think similarly that this aspect is also shallow and unfeeling toward the quality of life of a rape victim.

Yes, rape is horrid, and the only forcible aspect of rape that I would advocate is forcible long term incarceration (as a minimum!) of the perpetrator upon being found guilty.

I don't advocate forced abortions. If a woman does want to carry the baby to term, that is her choice. But equally, I don't feel at all comfortable with her being legally forced to continue with a pregnancy that is a result of rape, simply because she did not jump through the legal hoops that people set up to make the 'moral' choice for her.