Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
You mean like Michelle Bachman and Christine O'Donnell?
This is the best you can do? If this is all you can come up with on the negative side, it's actually quite a testament to women's leadership. Only two bad apples in the barrel? Pretty good barrel.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Listening to Akin's apology today reinforce my initial bafflement. He only seemed to apologize for a misstatement, using the word legitimate instead of forcible. There was no aknowlodgement that the idea that a woman can shut down her reproductive system in the case of a traumatic situation. :wtf:
Listening to Akin's apology today reinforce my initial bafflement. He only seemed to apologize for a misstatement, using the word legitimate instead of forcible. There was no aknowlodgement that the idea that a woman can shut down her reproductive system in the case of a traumatic situation. :wtf:
Yeah, plus parsing rape into various categories (like 'forcible' rape, etc.) is just ridiculous. Rape is rape. No means no. End of story.
Also, it should be noted that his views on abortion are consistent with the GOP's official 2012 platform, which currently "calls for a federal ban on abortion with no exception for rape and incest survivors" (Todd Akin's Abortion Position Reflects GOP Platform).
Also, it should be noted that his views on abortion are consistent with the GOP's official 2012 platform, which currently "calls for a federal ban on abortion with no exception for rape and incest survivors" (Todd Akin's Abortion Position Reflects GOP Platform).
Sounds like the GOP is dumping this guy, they want nothing to do with him now.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
[hyperbole]From the Republican point of view his biggest mistake was actually saying what many of them believe.[/hyperbole]
Also, it should be noted that his views on abortion are consistent with the GOP's official 2012 platform, which currently "calls for a federal ban on abortion with no exception for rape and incest survivors" (Todd Akin's Abortion Position Reflects GOP Platform).
Sounds like the GOP is dumping this guy, they want nothing to do with him now.
Yeah, they're certainly trying to distance themselves from him because of all the blowback his comments have engendered, which could negatively impact their chances of victory in other congressional races, as well as the presidential election. I just hope that doesn't fool anyone into thinking that his position on abortion is somehow more extreme than GOP's, which is reaffirming their platform of supporting a federal ban abortion, with no exception for rape and incest survivors, despite the fact that the SCOTUS via Roe v. Wade affirmed the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
You mean like Michelle Bachman and Christine O'Donnell?
This is the best you can do? If this is all you can come up with on the negative side, it's actually quite a testament to women's leadership. Only two bad apples in the barrel? Pretty good barrel.
No, but that's not my point.
Let me give you a slightly different answer. When I was principal, I had...well, I've forgotten now whether we had 22 or 26 other middle schools in our system. But at any, rate, I had twenty-some middle school principal colleagues, somewhat equally divided between males and females. We had some excellent male principals, and some excellent female principals over the years. We had some poor male principals, and some poor female principals over the years. We had some wacko male principals and some wacko female principals over the years. And while there may have been some general differences in leadership styles between male and female principals, overall I'd have to say the results of male versus female principals was pretty much a wash.
Over the past two days I've been doing some traveling, so I've been listening to a lot of MSNBC and CNN on XM radio. I've heard so much crap on both sides that it's nauseating. I'm a middle of the road Democrat, but today, Chris Matthews should have been repeatedly slapped in the face and told to snap out of it. He was so giddy I rather imagine he had wet his pants by the time his show was over. For example, he said that "no woman" would "ever" falsely charge rape. And I do think that's what Akin was referring to in the first part of his statement -- that at least on occasion there have been false accusations of rape.
Now, the second half of his statement -- about women's bodies being able to shut down a pregnancy after rape...well, we all know that's unbelievably ignorant, and that's why he should remove himself from the election. Anybody who is that stupid shouldn't be in Congress making decisions representing anyone.
To be honest, I care less about Akin's incredibly stupid statement, than I do about this shining a spotlight on the foolish ideas that a lot of Republicans have about abortion. This is just about the best thing to happen to Democrats this election cycle.
Also, it should be noted that his views on abortion are consistent with the GOP's official 2012 platform, which currently "calls for a federal ban on abortion with no exception for rape and incest survivors" (Todd Akin's Abortion Position Reflects GOP Platform).
How any right minded person can vote republican is beyond comprehension .
Also, it should be noted that his views on abortion are consistent with the GOP's official 2012 platform, which currently "calls for a federal ban on abortion with no exception for rape and incest survivors" (Todd Akin's Abortion Position Reflects GOP Platform).
How any right minded person can vote republican is beyond comprehension .
Just for the record, the Republican platform's position on abortion does not match Mitt Romney's.
Also, it should be noted that his views on abortion are consistent with the GOP's official 2012 platform, which currently "calls for a federal ban on abortion with no exception for rape and incest survivors" (Todd Akin's Abortion Position Reflects GOP Platform).
How any right minded person can vote republican is beyond comprehension .
Just for the record, the Republican platform's position on abortion does not match Mitt Romney's.
True, but his position on abortion has changed so may times that it's hard to know where he truly stands, although his rhetoric has consistently moved to the right over the years. When running against Ted Kennedy for governor in 1994, for example, he said that he was pro-choice and that he thought abortion should be safe and legal in this country. In 2005, however, he said, "I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother," and that he's in favour of states determining "their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate (i.e., whether or not it should be legal). And just last year, he promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would help overturn Roe v. Wade. As for Ryan, who's views on abortion mirrored Akin up until his 'legitimate' rape comments last weekend, supposedly he "would not oppose abortion in instances of rape" as a part of a Romney-Ryan administration; but I'm not sure how much I could trust such a quick and obviously defensive shift in the heat of a presidential campaign to reflect his true views.
I know all that, but what you're discussing was beyond the scope of what I was pointing out.
But, since you bring it up -- yes, Romney's positions on a number of issues are all over the board. However, to a limited extent, I do see Romney's situation now (as standard bearer for the entire Republican Party) to be different from his situation then (as standard bearer for the people of Massachusetts -- one of the most liberal nations in the country) as being different.
He is not representing the same constituency now as he was then, so I don't expect his positions to be exactly the same. It is akin (no pun intended) to saying that there can be a difference between what a candidate personally believes in, and a position he takes representing the people.
And, incidentally, isn't it interesting that when Romney changes positions we say he "flip-flops", but when my candidate (President Obama) changes positions we say "his thinking has evolved"?
I know all that, but what you're discussing was beyond the scope of what I was pointing out.
But, since you bring it up -- yes, Romney's positions on a number of issues are all over the board. However, to a limited extent, I do see Romney's situation now (as standard bearer for the entire Republican Party) to be different from his situation then (as standard bearer for the people of Massachusetts -- one of the most liberal nations in the country) as being different.
He is not representing the same constituency now as he was then, so I don't expect his positions to be exactly the same. It is akin (no pun intended) to saying that there can be a difference between what a candidate personally believes in, and a position he takes representing the people.
I get what you're saying; but at the same time, such major shifts during campaigns also make it hard to know where he (or anyone else for that matter) really stands and what he'd actual do when in office.
And, incidentally, isn't it interesting that when Romney changes positions we say he "flip-flops", but when my candidate (President Obama) changes positions we say "his thinking has evolved"?
Just for the record, I never said Romney flip-flopped; I said "his rhetoric has consistently moved to the right over the years." I think the same can be said of Obama as well, whose actions have moved consistently to the right of his campaign rhetoric on most issues sans gay marriage, which has shifted to the left (e.g., his vote supporting a FISA bill with such immunity provisions despite his promise to filibuster any FISA bill including an immunity for telecom companies; his continuation of Clinton and Bush era policies such as extraordinary rendition and drone strike-assassinations; his signing of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law; etc.).
Today I leaned that the GOP's platform is more conservative when it comes to abortion than Islamic Hadith.The GOP platform supports a Constitutional ban on abortion with no mention of exemptions, whereas the Islamic law allows abortion up to the fourth month:
This 3-month stage ends the threshold of permissibility for abortion according to Islamic Law. All the Muslim Jurists concur that the fetus becomes a human being after the fourth month of pregnancy (120 days). The majority of the jurists, as a result, prohibit abortion after that stage and permit it until then provided there is a valid reason. Their totality permit it before forty days while ruling it offensive (makruh).
Today I leaned that the GOP's platform is more conservative when it comes to abortion than Islamic Hadith.The GOP platform supports a Constitutional ban on abortion with no mention of exemptions, whereas the Islamic law allows abortion up to the fourth month:
This 3-month stage ends the threshold of permissibility for abortion according to Islamic Law. All the Muslim Jurists concur that the fetus becomes a human being after the fourth month of pregnancy (120 days). The majority of the jurists, as a result, prohibit abortion after that stage and permit it until then provided there is a valid reason. Their totality permit it before forty days while ruling it offensive (makruh).
Kind of interesting.
It all comes down to the perception of the fetus... Is it life? If so, shouldn't it be protected? I honestly don't know... I guess if I was in position where I had to make the choice, I would want to make the choice, not someone else, but I do see both sides.
Today I leaned that the GOP's platform is more conservative when it comes to abortion than Islamic Hadith.The GOP platform supports a Constitutional ban on abortion with no mention of exemptions, whereas the Islamic law allows abortion up to the fourth month:
This 3-month stage ends the threshold of permissibility for abortion according to Islamic Law. All the Muslim Jurists concur that the fetus becomes a human being after the fourth month of pregnancy (120 days). The majority of the jurists, as a result, prohibit abortion after that stage and permit it until then provided there is a valid reason. Their totality permit it before forty days while ruling it offensive (makruh).
Kind of interesting.
It all comes down to the perception of the fetus... Is it life? If so, shouldn't it be protected? I honestly don't know... I guess if I was in position where I had to make the choice, I would want to make the choice, not someone else, but I do see both sides.
Sure, me too. I can appreciate the position that any embryo, from the moment of fertilization onward, is a potential human being, and that some people feel strongly that this potentiality should be protected. And I can also appreciate the position that at very early stages, this potentiality is just a collection of dividing cells (no sense organs, and most likely no feelings, perceptions, volitions, or consciousness), and that this collection of cells resides within, and depends upon, the body of the woman who, throughout her pregnancy, should have the final say about whether or not she wishes it to remain there and continue its development (which I personally happen to side with).
As for my previous post, I just thought it was interesting that Islamic law, which often gets framed as being overly harsh and extreme, particularly towards women, is actually less conservative in this respect than the GOP's platform, which seeks to ban abortion outright.
Today I leaned that the GOP's platform is more conservative when it comes to abortion than Islamic Hadith.The GOP platform supports a Constitutional ban on abortion with no mention of exemptions, whereas the Islamic law allows abortion up to the fourth month:
This 3-month stage ends the threshold of permissibility for abortion according to Islamic Law. All the Muslim Jurists concur that the fetus becomes a human being after the fourth month of pregnancy (120 days). The majority of the jurists, as a result, prohibit abortion after that stage and permit it until then provided there is a valid reason. Their totality permit it before forty days while ruling it offensive (makruh).
Kind of interesting.
It all comes down to the perception of the fetus... Is it life? If so, shouldn't it be protected? I honestly don't know... I guess if I was in position where I had to make the choice, I would want to make the choice, not someone else, but I do see both sides.
Sure, me too. I can appreciate the position that any embryo, from the moment of fertilization onward, is a potential human being, and that some people feel strongly that this potentiality should be protected. And I can also appreciate the position that at very early stages, this potentiality is just a collection of dividing cells (no sense organs, and most likely no feelings, perceptions, volitions, or consciousness), and that this collection of cells resides within, and depends upon, the body of the woman who, throughout her pregnancy, should have the final say about whether or not she wishes it to remain there and continue its development.
...
I think that's a very reasonable viewpoint.
It's interesting to me that so often the people on the more progressive side of the issue see only their viewpoint as the one being worthy of "seeing both sides of the issue", while the viewpoints of those on the more conservative side aren't deserving of having their positions respected. All too often it comes down to one side winning and one side losing the argument.
As for me, I personally don't approve of abortion, with some exceptions. But I also don't feel that the law should be based on my personal beliefs. So I think abortion under some circumstances should be legal...but I am not set on what those circumstances should be.
Some people have a deeply held religious belief that life (and the eternal soul) begins at conception and so must be protected no matter what. When this deeply held belief meets reality, and things are no longer black and white, what to do?
It appears that this congressmen and others of his ilk just make up more beliefs. Ignore the facts. Rape and incest does not result in pregnancy so there is no problem with compassion, or lack of compassion, for the mom. Carry this ignorant belief to the next step and they might say her ovaries were asking for it.
OK fine. People can and do believe in all kinds of non-sense. But I sure don't want these extremists to be making the laws.
@SeaOfTranquility I can't comprehend this ignorance enough to calculate what the next step to his belief would be. I doubt your correct, but if you are, I'll proclaim your mastery of forecasting ignorance
Comments
Yeah, they're certainly trying to distance themselves from him because of all the blowback his comments have engendered, which could negatively impact their chances of victory in other congressional races, as well as the presidential election. I just hope that doesn't fool anyone into thinking that his position on abortion is somehow more extreme than GOP's, which is reaffirming their platform of supporting a federal ban abortion, with no exception for rape and incest survivors, despite the fact that the SCOTUS via Roe v. Wade affirmed the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
Let me give you a slightly different answer. When I was principal, I had...well, I've forgotten now whether we had 22 or 26 other middle schools in our system. But at any, rate, I had twenty-some middle school principal colleagues, somewhat equally divided between males and females. We had some excellent male principals, and some excellent female principals over the years. We had some poor male principals, and some poor female principals over the years. We had some wacko male principals and some wacko female principals over the years. And while there may have been some general differences in leadership styles between male and female principals, overall I'd have to say the results of male versus female principals was pretty much a wash.
Over the past two days I've been doing some traveling, so I've been listening to a lot of MSNBC and CNN on XM radio. I've heard so much crap on both sides that it's nauseating. I'm a middle of the road Democrat, but today, Chris Matthews should have been repeatedly slapped in the face and told to snap out of it. He was so giddy I rather imagine he had wet his pants by the time his show was over. For example, he said that "no woman" would "ever" falsely charge rape. And I do think that's what Akin was referring to in the first part of his statement -- that at least on occasion there have been false accusations of rape.
Now, the second half of his statement -- about women's bodies being able to shut down a pregnancy after rape...well, we all know that's unbelievably ignorant, and that's why he should remove himself from the election. Anybody who is that stupid shouldn't be in Congress making decisions representing anyone.
To be honest, I care less about Akin's incredibly stupid statement, than I do about this shining a spotlight on the foolish ideas that a lot of Republicans have about abortion. This is just about the best thing to happen to Democrats this election cycle.
But, since you bring it up -- yes, Romney's positions on a number of issues are all over the board. However, to a limited extent, I do see Romney's situation now (as standard bearer for the entire Republican Party) to be different from his situation then (as standard bearer for the people of Massachusetts -- one of the most liberal nations in the country) as being different.
He is not representing the same constituency now as he was then, so I don't expect his positions to be exactly the same. It is akin (no pun intended) to saying that there can be a difference between what a candidate personally believes in, and a position he takes representing the people.
And, incidentally, isn't it interesting that when Romney changes positions we say he "flip-flops", but when my candidate (President Obama) changes positions we say "his thinking has evolved"?
It all comes down to the perception of the fetus... Is it life? If so, shouldn't it be protected? I honestly don't know... I guess if I was in position where I had to make the choice, I would want to make the choice, not someone else, but I do see both sides.
Sure, me too. I can appreciate the position that any embryo, from the moment of fertilization onward, is a potential human being, and that some people feel strongly that this potentiality should be protected. And I can also appreciate the position that at very early stages, this potentiality is just a collection of dividing cells (no sense organs, and most likely no feelings, perceptions, volitions, or consciousness), and that this collection of cells resides within, and depends upon, the body of the woman who, throughout her pregnancy, should have the final say about whether or not she wishes it to remain there and continue its development (which I personally happen to side with).
As for my previous post, I just thought it was interesting that Islamic law, which often gets framed as being overly harsh and extreme, particularly towards women, is actually less conservative in this respect than the GOP's platform, which seeks to ban abortion outright.
Sure, me too. I can appreciate the position that any embryo, from the moment of fertilization onward, is a potential human being, and that some people feel strongly that this potentiality should be protected. And I can also appreciate the position that at very early stages, this potentiality is just a collection of dividing cells (no sense organs, and most likely no feelings, perceptions, volitions, or consciousness), and that this collection of cells resides within, and depends upon, the body of the woman who, throughout her pregnancy, should have the final say about whether or not she wishes it to remain there and continue its development.
...
I think that's a very reasonable viewpoint.
It's interesting to me that so often the people on the more progressive side of the issue see only their viewpoint as the one being worthy of "seeing both sides of the issue", while the viewpoints of those on the more conservative side aren't deserving of having their positions respected. All too often it comes down to one side winning and one side losing the argument.
As for me, I personally don't approve of abortion, with some exceptions. But I also don't feel that the law should be based on my personal beliefs. So I think abortion under some circumstances should be legal...but I am not set on what those circumstances should be.
It appears that this congressmen and others of his ilk just make up more beliefs. Ignore the facts. Rape and incest does not result in pregnancy so there is no problem with compassion, or lack of compassion, for the mom. Carry this ignorant belief to the next step and they might say her ovaries were asking for it.
OK fine. People can and do believe in all kinds of non-sense. But I sure don't want these extremists to be making the laws.