April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Chapter the next | Main | Isnermania »

Aug 20, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"It would be pretty to think the tide is turning against Just Making S(tuff) Up, but successful rackets rarely go out of style."

Yes, that's the concern about Obama and Biden, isn't it?


State Rep. Henry Aldridge (R-Pitt) made the same claim in 1995.

Dave Ribar

Rep. Paul Ryan was a co-sponsor with Rep. Akin of H.R. 3 which initially would have limited the rape exceptions on Medicaid funding of abortions to cases of "forcible rape."

Like Rep. Akin, Rep. Ryan seems willing to draw distinctions between who is and is not "legitimately" a victim of rape.

Andrew Brod

Yep, JMSU is successful, in part, according to Greg Sargent, because the media don't feel comfortable calling politicians on lies when they repeat those lies again and again. Once the fact-checkers do their thing, the media revert to he-said-she-said.

Perhaps oddly, this reminds me of the mid-1990s Bulls-Knicks playoff series, when the Knicks would often foul two or three times on a given Bulls possession, knowing full well that they could only be whistled for one foul at a time. The extra foul or two were a bonus because the rules allowed it. Similarly, the media allow multiple lies on the campaign trail. The difference, of course, is that the multiple Knicks fouls affected only one possession at a time, whereas Romney's welfare/work fabrication is a serial thing, which is why the Romney campaign's doing it. JMSU works when repeated often enough.

Ah well. No one said politics was easy.

Dave Ribar

Rep. Akins now says his remarks were "ill conceived." Really

Ed Cone

"No one said politics was easy."

True story: I arrived at a party on Saturday evening where people were playing some sort of beanbag game on the lawn, and said to myself, That ain't politics.


I think Aldridge went a little further, amazing as that sounds. He said something along the lines of "rape isn't possible, because penetration isn't possible unless the woman is aroused".

Ed Cone

Aldridge: "The facts show that people who are raped -- who are truly raped -- the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever."

Andrew Brod

"The juices don't flow." (Bangs head against desk.)

I'm reminded of the Chicago alderman who complained in the '80s that women don't make good police officers because they take too many days off for their "minister periods." The late great Mike Royko noted, "I'm not sure who was more confused and offended -- the policewomen or their ministers."


Akin's comments (and beliefs, apparently) are beneath contempt, but this does bring up an issue of hypocrisy within the pro-life movement. For those who believe that abortion is murder, then it's murder regardless of how the baby was conceived. It makes no sense to say that it's a baby, with a right to life, if it was conceived consensually but it's a fetus, and OK to kill, if it was conceived via rape.


Michele, that's the very angle that Mike Huckabee was playing up today. So I guess it's okay to rape a woman since the ends obviously justify the means. At least he's not a hypocrite.

Dave Ribar


That's not what Michele said.

Ed Cone

Not at all.

Nor is it what Huckabee said. He's a hack for failing to condemn Akin's awful argument and its clear lineage, but he did not imply OK to rape.

Sarcasm often plays poorly in these little text boxes.


"Sarcasm often plays poorly in these little text boxes."

In the case under discussion, it's simple lack of comprehension.



and its clear lineage

What lineage?


Points taken. Unlike Bubba, I'll shut up now.

Andrew Brod

Todd Akin, please stay in the race. You're right that America needs you (just not in the way you think). Don't let those party bigwigs tell you what to do!

Ed Cone

Ged, please stay in the mix as you please, we all blow a line every so often and few of us bother to acknowledge it as you just did.

Frog, the lineage is discussed at the "he means" link in the post, and many other places. Akin's junk science was not original to him, it's been repeated for years, including the Aldridge example mentioned in this thread.

Andrew Brod

Frog's juices aren't flowing.

Andrew Brod

But this guy's juices are. He says abortion is acceptable in the case of rape if the woman is a virgin who is religious, who planned on saving her virginity until she was married, and who was brutalized and sodomized. Other women just have to suck it up.


If you can see lineage then you must understand what he was saying.

Although I might possibly be able to follow the "legitimate rape" bit as opposed to the false accusation of rape, I am unsure of even that due to the garbled nonsense that followed.

But when you reference lineage you concede that you understood the intent of his comments. What was it?

Ed Cone

The lineage of the misinformation Akin parroted about pregnancies not resulting from rape is a long one.

He did not just misspeak, he repeated an untruth that has been spoken often in the past.

Steve Harrison

"Frog's juices aren't flowing."

Since frogs don't even have a penis, rape is probably an obscure concept for them.

It's a bad thing, froggie. Just because she doesn't hop away, it doesn't mean she automatically wants you to fertilize her eggs. You still need to ask.


I am not convinced that he repeated anything, as it is gibberish and as gibberish words have no lineage.

But it appears that when you hear: "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down", you hear something coherent. What?

But if you insist on claiming gibberish has a lineage you could have just as easily pointed to the argument that an armed woman can shut down a rape, or if unarmed, fight off the rape with her body. You don't. Why?

And that is assuming we understand his word choice -- "legitimate rape". What is "legitimate rape"? Is it Whoopi's, "It's not rape, rape"? Or is it some form of rape that has been legitimized such as that rape committed under the Islamic faith?

You seem to know the answer to these questions, but refuse to explain them.

How do you get from gibberish to lineage?

And while you're at it, perhaps you can divine the intent and possible lineage associated with James' comment:

As I understand it, you believe the act of fertilization creates a magical new thing that doesn't exist in the sperm and egg as separate elements.

Ed Cone

Looks like the pedigree is even more ancient than I knew.

Andrew Brod

Even more ancient than that.


Despite your theatrics links are not linkages between gibberish and lineage.

Ed Cone

Turns out that Romney, who has now called on Akin to drop out of the race, has a history of his own with Willke.


"Despite your theatrics links are not linkages between gibberish and lineage."

They'll do anything to distract attention away from the political, social, and economic failures their worldview represents.

Let them continue to babble away.


What I don't understand, Bubba, is why they argue that beating and assaulting a woman promotes conception; clearly they do not believe it hinders conception.

Are they really attempting to make the case that woman in a delicate way --- aren't?

Do they truly justify female battery in an attempt to score political points?

Or perhaps they believe battery has no ill effects on women.

It seems they wish to use female battery to their advantage but refuse to connect their unappealing thinking to Akin's gibberish.

This is why I'd like them to connect gibberish to "lineage".

Andrew Brod

"What I don't understand, Bubba, is why they argue that beating and assaulting a woman promotes conception."

You really are a moron.



Frog's juices aren't flowing.

Wrong again.


Brod: Actually morons are unable quote others.

For example, you misquote me when you follow conception with a period.

In the actual quote "conception" is followed with a semicolon.

Allow me show you a quote as I quote myself:

What I don't understand, Bubba, is why they argue that beating and assaulting a woman promotes conception; clearly they do not believe it hinders conception.


Just as if one were to claim that racial epithets had no negative impact on minority races would that individual be justifying racism, so too in the claim that conception is unaffected by battery is one attempting to justify battery.

Andrew Brod

That's moronic and illogical. And you forgot to close your italics.


What is moronic and illogical is the claim that those who recognize that assault, battery and rape potentially hinder conception due to the violent nature of the acts are somehow waging a war on women while those who argue that all manner of violence afflicted on a woman will not materially harm them or their chances to conceive are chivalrous.

Sorry 'bout the italics -- I suspect the back-slash didn't take and such things do not show up in the preview when they are of the last characters typed.


To paraphrase Ms. Zellweger, you lost me (way back) at "minstrel."

However, the drone of your croaking is a marvelous sleep aid.


Considering the fact that Akin did not withdraw, the arguments I make here are those that you will likely see elsewhere.


I read Akin's clarifying comments, apology and request for forgiveness. I think Brod's 2nd link explains it. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I respect his pro-life position.

Dave Ribar

Really Michele? You respect the position of a man who says "at the heart of liberalism is a hatred of God?"


It is interesting that those who claim there is virtue in abortion do not believe that assault, battery and rape (legitimate rape?) may hinder conception.

When we step back and ask ourselves whether a battered woman is more or less likely to conceive, the answer should be obvious. Yet we are told that the obvious answer is wrong, that in as far as conception is concerned a little assault and battery is just fine.

The truth that there is no virtue in abortion and defending that which is without virtue leads to vice. In this case that vice is a tolerance toward assault and battery best expressed in the reaction toward Akin's apparent view that assault and battery negatively affect woman.

So here we are with a man who rejects liberal vice but is being torn down by pro abortionists seeking to not only defend abortion, but score points politically by feigning outrage over the recognition that assault may hinder conception.

Ed Cone

Michele, it seems to me there's a difference between respecting his staunch anti-abortion position, and respecting his callousness and scientific illiteracy.

I'm sure you meant the first, but the latter elements are very much in play here -- they translate into very poor politics, as well they should, which is why a lot of his big name anti-abortion allies are pressuring him to drop out of this race.

Account Deleted

Frog: You know man I think if you spent a bit more time weaving the threads in between your logical progressions that you could be in line for a column over at the Guardian. I could see a photo of you standing in front of the flag in all your linguistic glory, a beacon to the world foretelling of the certitude of your solipsistic style. I mean, seriously, why limit yourself to dominating the comment thread at edcone.com when the world is thirsting for the vibrant flavor of your deontological theories?

After a few months of serious effort I think you would be in line for a move up to National Review or Weekly Standard. Maybe a pit stop at Red State along the way.

I encourage you fully to take your (Leo) Straussian mimesis to the next level.

Dave Ribar


Your contentions are far from "obvious." You are conjecturing about one factor in the likelihood of pregnancy but ignoring other, larger factors.

Physical and emotional stress do appear to affect the likelihood of conception following intercourse. So there is some basis to your premise. However, the available evidence only finds negative links for chronic stress. The evidence is not there to support the conjecture that acute stress decreases the conception rate. Indeed, there is some evidence that acute stress actually triggers ovulation and increases conception.

The bigger factor that you are overlooking is contraception. Rape-induced intercourse is much less likely to involve contraception than consensual intercourse. As a consequence, it appears that rape-induced intercourse may actually result in a greater chance of pregnancy.

BTW, intimate partner violence (chronically beating and assaulting a woman) also appears to be associated with higher pregnancy rates rather than lower rates, mostly through the effects on contraception and intercourse timing.

Andrew Brod

"It is interesting that those who claim there is virtue in abortion do not believe that assault, battery and rape (legitimate rape?) may hinder conception."

First, while I realize that such niceties as accuracy are irrelevant to you, but I've never seen or heard anyone "claim there is virtue in abortion." Yes, it's a convenient strawman for you but it's a gross misrepresentation.

Second, this isn't about belief. It's about science, which so often presents a problem for folks like you. It's the science that tells us that the trauma of rape doesn't systematically hinder conception. As Dave notes, some studies have shown higher rates of conception among rape victims than those who'd engaged in consensual sex. That's unpleasant to contemplate, to say the least, but there it is. Biology does what it does regardless of what we think it should do.

So go ahead, Frog, and try to reason this out from (your) first principles, but you're missing the point. As always.


"Really Michele? You respect the position of a man who says "at the heart of liberalism is a hatred of God?" - Dave R.

I do know that respect is surely owed to those who believe that Mitt Romney is a felon who kills sick people as well as those who believe that conservatives are racists and bigots. Are we really going to get into the "you respect the position of a person who respects the position of X?" If so, we can start with Rev. Wright...

I also know that a lot of liberals don't believe in God and are quite open about this and even hostile to others who do. There is nothing wrong with that intellectually but to take offense when the opposition points out such a generalization doesn't seem sincere. The undertone to the whole "conservatives are anti-science" and even the blatant attacks on religious people during the recent Amendment One debate are rooted in an often hostile secularism.

You can't have it both ways where all conservatives are roundly attacked by many the Left (including some on this blog) as religious zealots who believe in fairy tales, but then take such great offense when some conservatives respond against such people by attacking that very same secularism.

When confronted with such an accusation that "liberals hate God", the true atheist should be mildly amused and reply "that's not possible".

Tony Wilkins

At 53 years old, on this day and on this thread, I learn that frogs do not have penises. Googled it to confirm. Dissected them in school. Never heard that in my life that I remember.

"Froggy went a courtin'" takes on new meaning.

Ed, please do not take down this blog.

Ed Cone

The man said liberals, not atheists; the terms are not synonymous. There are plenty of religious people on both sides of the aisle, and there are conservative non-believers, and religious people who vary in their religious beliefs, and who believe in the secular state established by the Constitution, etc.

That said, "that's not possible" is a good line.

David Wharton

Hey, Jeff. Don't knock writing for the Weekly Standard.


TW - Maybe that's what the whole "crambone" thing is about.

The comments to this entry are closed.