“Why is it that one asinine comment-MUST!!! be tossed overboard”
It wasn’t just an asinine mistake, it was a telling reflection of his core belief concerning rape.
I do not doubt that. And I agree it was hella stupid. But the other guy’s core beliefs and repeated statements, recent and past, are even crazier and the current dogma says he must be supported, do or die. Those two things are polar opposites.
That is not remotely consistent. If Romney is good enough to keep, then logically, so is this idiot.
Just an addition to my last post. His mistaken and asinine ‘belief’ results in what exactly when the rubber hits the road? Nothing. Zero effect on anything. His belief in how reproduction works, while wrong, results in nothing but his embarassment. Not one thing changes otherwise, legaly, legislatively or anything. No woman suffers any harm because of it. He can force it on no one.
The other guy’s ‘belief’ that homosexual adoption is A OK HAS resulted resulted in raped children. If not in Mass, then elsewhere. I’ve read the articles on FR. That mindset DOES result in legal problems and raped kids.
I do not see the sense in tossing a man who is otherwise rock solid on the issues. ESPECIALLY considering the damage another RINO replacement will do.
Can you enlighten us exactly what you mean by "telling" in terms of Akin's core beliefs concerning rape? What do you believe his core beliefs are re rape?
It was a poorly worded expression of two things, 1) that physically traumatic rape (as opposed to voluntary sex which may under some conditiions be considered rape as a legal fiction) is less likely to produce a child than voluntary sex, and 2) that even if a child is conceived under such adverse conditions, they are still a person with a right to live.
As to the first point, he offered his belief that there are physiological reasons why one might have a reduced expectation of pregnancy where severe trauma is present, and there is an ongoing medical question here whether this is true. Therefore his statement on this is not on its face wrong, nor is it a reflection of personal insensitivity toward women. It is a statement of personal belief regarding human reproductive physiology which is the subject of current medical research and therefore, at minimum, scientifically plausible.
As to the second point, a human child at any age, even 5 seconds, is still living human being. It eats, it grows, it becomes more complete and capable of human living with every passing moment. It, no, he or she, has a God-given right to continue on that path of life, and to take that life, no matter how conceived, is unjustified homicide, aka murder. This is nothing other than standard prolife belief, and if this is the core belief to which you object, then you are objecting to the core belief of myself and probably most of the prolife movement. If I have misunderstood you, please accept my apology in advance.