Todd Akin's comments "bad break", or just plain wrong?

Not sure your point on that. I said his statement was pretty much indefensible regardless of what the female body can do or can't do. He crossed a very big line and there is no valid defense. Apology, maybe. But it doesn't matter if it is true or not, it is still quite indefensible.

Well said Sierras.

http://news.discovery.com/human/women-sperm-selection.html A woman's body can reject sperm of rapist.

He and Paul Ryan co-sponsored a national "personhood" bill which could end up banning hormonal birth control.

He is pro life, but he has NOT tried to limit women's access to the pill. And HOW COULD he do that? Give me a break.

http://news.discovery.com/human/women-sperm-selection.html A woman's body can reject a rapist's sperm.

Since Debra is misrepresenting/misunderstanding the content of the article she's posting on *every* response, I guess I have to correct her on *every* response. :-/ That article says nothing about rapists. "University of Adelaide professor Sarah Robertson said her research suggested that sperm contains 'signaling molecules' that activate immunity changes in a woman so her body accepts it." So, according to that article, some rapists' sperm make it even *more* likely that their victims become pregnant.

A woman's body could reject the sperm of less suitable male partners. Sperm is more likely to fail if the woman had not been exposed to that man's semen for at least three months. "(T)he female body has a quality control system which needs convincing that his sperm is compatible," University of Adelaide professor Sarah Robertson said But some apparently healthy sperm failed to activate these changes, leading to the suggestion that the female system can be "choosy" about its biological mate, she said. That last paragraph was conveniently left out of the reponder above's synopsis of article.

Wasn't so dumb after all, was he? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2018958635.html http://news.discovery.com/human/women-sperm-selection.html

Actually, debater brought up abortion. And ask a Al Sharpton if women make up rape stories to cover their butts. And, a woman's body can reject a rapist's sperm. http://news.discovery.com/human/women-sperm-selection.html

could it be you are projecting your subconcious thoughts on someone you do not know, and have absolutely no proof that that is how he or anyother conservative or Republican thinks? He was merely trying to show that the left inflates and exagerates the statistics on what abortion is actually used for. Only 1% of abortions are because of rape or incest. The left would have you believe the percentage is much higher.

Debra, you are changing the subject. The man made a statement about "legitimate rape" which of course means that some rapes are not "really" rape. It was a disgusting and offensive thing to say.

he didn't say rape was legitimate. His meaning was a real honest to God rape as apposed to a woman crying rape when there was no rape.

and Akin is very PRO LIFE I might add.

A woman's body can reject sperm of rapist. http://news.discovery.com/human/women-sperm-selection.html

http://news.discovery.com/human/women-sperm-selection.html http://news.discovery.com/human/women-sperm-selection.html These two sites show medical and scientific evidence that a woman's body can reject a rapist's sperm, and that after a traumatic event, can stop ovulation.

Since Debra is misrepresenting/misunderstanding the content of the article she's posting on *every* response, I guess I have to correct her on *every* response. :-/ That article says nothing about rapists. "University of Adelaide professor Sarah Robertson said her research suggested that sperm contains 'signaling molecules' that activate immunity changes in a woman so her body accepts it." So, according to that article, some rapists' sperm make it even *more* likely that their victims become pregnant.

A woman's body could reject the sperm of less suitable male partners. Sperm is more likely to fail if the woman had not been exposed to that man's semen for at least three months. "(T)he female body has a quality control system which needs convincing that his sperm is compatible," University of Adelaide professor Sarah Robertson said But some apparently healthy sperm failed to activate these changes, leading to the suggestion that the female system can be "choosy" about its biological mate, she said. That last paragraph was conveniently left out of the reponder above's synopsis of article.

This raises a question for me: if statutory rape is "legitimate" rape, why do they have laws against it? Lash

debra, I understand the reason for the law, although I've not a big fan of "one size fits all" laws. But to the point, I thought it was Todd who differentiated between legitimate and illegitimate rape. Lash

@grandpa, the only reason the difference is made between statuatory rape and forcible rape under the law is sentencing. We made a difference here due to discussing the two studies. It was not in trying to make one legitimate and the other not.

"He goofed up in his choice of words." Not at all unlike the Australian politician you called an idiot in my discussion of double speak. It is a set of idiotic attitudes toward women. Lash

It is most women's opinion that ALL men have an idiotic attitude toward women. Not all women feel the same, not all women act the same, not all women believe the same thing. I and many other women are not offended by him at all. So who are YOU to say his attitude is idiotic when it comes to women?

He goofed up in his choice of words. Not on the science or on what he thinks about the issue. The problem being that this is not about women this is about a hotly contested seat in the Senate and by his goof in choosing his words, he gave the candidate against him an advantage because in our screwy world sound bites trump facts.

Sure it will cost him votes, not because he is necessarily wrong, but because the liberal candidate against him will twist his poor choice of words to mean something they weren't intended to mean.

I think any woman who falsely accuses someone of rape should be punished as severely as an actual rapist would be; that there could be women on this earth who would do such as thing shames me deeply and I can only imagine how it makes true victims feel. That having been said, I have to say with all due respect there is absolutely no evidence Akin was thinking along those lines at all. He's been given every opportunity to explain himself and hasn't said a word about meaning it like you said, Debra. Also, it's hardly been just "the left" that has pounced and those on the left who have called for him to end his campaign and resign his seat deserve a great deal of credit since with him in the race that's one seat the Democrats will almost surely hold onto that they well may have lost. Anyway, it wasn't only the term "legitimate rape" - which Akin himself today said is nonexistent - but the idiotic comments that followed it about how a woman's body prevents her from becoming pregnant when raped. This from the chairman of the House Science Committee! Then, he followed up by saying there should be "some" punishment for rape. Mike Huckabee seemed to be trying to "help" him out by suggesting he'd meant to say "forcible" in place of "legitimate". Remember the Ryan/Akin bill limiting the exception for federal payment for abortion to cases of "forcible" rape? What does that even mean? Of course, Ryan is trying to pretend it never happened now by saying "Rape is rape" when asked about the language of his bill, refusing to actually address the question. Annie

I've addressed the science he was refering to, in fact, it is posted in just about every response, take a look. As for Ryan and Akin's bill; (I know, it's Breitbart's site, but come on...read it anyway. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/23/Actually-It-Was-Obama-Who-Redefined-Rape

Deb, how does someone lying about a personal experience like being raped effect your personal experience? My wife was raped, and we talked about this, and she doesn't feel that someone lying about being raped doesn't mean that she wasn't raped. She is more upset with people like Todd Akin trying to context rape as "forcible rape". When someone rapes you, they rape you. The amount of force used, or not is irrelevant, but many republicans feel it isn't. I don't think there is any "gloating" going on, I think it is just highlighting how the GOP feels about women. It isn't like this is the only time a republican has come out and talked about "forcible rape". One of the other facts that I learned this morning was that republicans have pushed over 1,000 anti-abortion bills throughout the United States since 2010. How many jobs bills have republicans pushed in that time? I think we all know it isn't 999!!!!!

Deb, the problem with the comments is that he is passing judgement on women who say they were raped, and questioning all rape cases. When you take something like rape, and try to water it down, or demonize it, than less people will come forward, and more criminals walk the streets. It sure sounds like you are defending him, which is fine as long as you are OK with it. But, I still don't know how ANYONE could say he caught a "bad break", when it was his own comments that landed him in this mess.

debater, I've been raped. I DON'T feel he is watering anything down. Like I said, when people CLAIM to be raped (and they weren't) THAT hurts those of us who have actually went through the horror. THAT waters down the grief that those who actually have been raped went through. And that is what he was refering to. I don't think he should have said it, and his 'science' (in saying if it was actually NOT RAPE means the woman wouldn't get pregnant) is totally false. I called for him to step down from the race. I made the remark that the left will gloat. I don't see how any of what I said means I'm ok with his remarks. I'm just not willing to make it something it wasn't.

His agenda is quite clear to the objective observer, and it is odd, since anti-abortion rhetoric is already so much a part of the reactionary Right's agenda. Why did he feel the need to obfuscate his meaning in this way? Lash

40-50% of Americans identify themselves as pro life. The bill in question grants personhood to fetuses and defunds Planned Parenthood. It does not make birth control illegal. Once again, it is assumed that liberals are always for 'rights', when in fact they are for gaining power and holding on to it. And the subtle and not so subtle propaganda used by the left does not reflect the majorities opinions on the matter. I don't feel he was 'obfuscating' his meaning, he made a poor choice in words, allowing the left to do the 'obfuscating' in twisting them. Akin has been very straight forward in his stance against abortion. His opponent has used this to make him seem a demon who wants women to suffer. I call that 'obfuscating' and dirty politics. She uses sound bites rather than honest debate on a difference of opinion.

This is true Lash- he was not distorting the truth for once, he was just saying his actual feelings. The only mistrustful he told, from what I can see, is that he misspoke. No, he really believed what he said.

Fat, why should Biden apologize? He is talking about people being Shackled IF Romney gets election. Romney claims that they are already Shackled!!! So who needs to apologize?

http://news.discovery.com/human/women-sperm-selection.html A woman's body can reject the sperm of rapist.

He said "chained" to a black audience. And this is not a problem?????????? Even Obama and other democrats objected to this. So if one can say what they want, what's your beef with Akin? Besides it is a republican that said it.