Getty Images
Mitt Romney could have called for Todd Akin to leave Missouri's U.S. Senate race yesterday, but instead he waited until (a) Akin recommitted himself to the campaign, and (b) the deadline for withdrawal had nearly come and gone.
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Tuesday called on Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) to drop out of the U.S. Senate race in Missouri.
"As I said yesterday, Todd Akin's comments were offensive and wrong and he should very seriously consider what course would be in the best interest of our country," said Romney in a statement. "Today, his fellow Missourians urged him to step aside, and I think he should accept their counsel and exit the Senate race."
So, here are a couple of follow-up questions Romney may not be entirely comfortable with.
First, if Akin's comments were offensive and wrong yesterday, why wait until he announced his intention to stay in the race to call for his departure?
And second, why, exactly, does Romney want Akin to withdraw? Is it because Romney disagrees with the congressman's policy position (there's ample reason to believe he doesn't disagree at all) or is it because Romney finds Akin politically inconvenient?
For what it's worth, I rather doubt the appeal will affect Akin's thinking. Akin has never been fond of Romney, and the former governor has never made any effort to help the congressman. So what's the point? I suspect Romney wants to give the appearance of reasonableness, standing up to nutty rhetoric regarding women's health, even as he and his running mate agree with the substance of Akin's underlying argument.
Leave a Comment:
This won't make a difference because the Republicans have passed an anti-abortion plank for their platform. Even if Akin leaves, the issue is now a problem for all Republicans who have voted or sponsored legislation on the abortion issue. Obama and the Dems are going to use this issue to increase their share of women voters. And it won't go away because of the plank.
I think Mittens is hoping to keep the similarities between Akins and Ryan unknown (even tho everybody is beginning to find out), because while he doesn't want to be associated with the personhood bills yet, he wants to get elected first, then bring up the bills.
As Andrea points out, this has been a plank in their platform since 2004. The only difference here is a pol went too far, and he has been called on it.
That being said, this is an opportunity to slam that plank until all that is left is toothpicks, and if the Dems don't make this happen then they have lost a GREAT opportunity.
Robme's statement is no more or less phony than any other time he opens his mouth. If Akin refuses to step down, next week he (mittens) will probably claim that he agrees with Akin. I hope he refuses to step down because the more he is in the public eye, the more people will see what this election is really about. Everyone in every district should write a letter to their local paper to keep this in the spotlight as long as possible.
The issue will come up in the debates and Romney/Ryan cannot get away from their previous statements and Ryan's sponsorship of bills. Obama and Biden are going to bludgeon their opponents on the issue. And Dems in tight races are going to use the issue to beat up their opponents. This issue packs enough power to create upsets.
Romney wants Akin to quit because he/Romney (as well as MO republicans) know that if Akin stays in the race, the odds of Claire McCaskill keeping her senate seat is much better and makes for an easier race for her.
By the way, I'm from MO.
Taylorbuss . . . Are you getting any sense of the impact that this might have on the race, based on polling done by the Missouri media?
It seems to me that Akin's blunder almost turned into a blessing in disguise for national Republicans, who really didn't want him to be their candidate for this seat. Too bad for them--but wonderful for McCaskill--that Akin was too stubborn to quit.
Akin is the little kid who pointed at Emperor MittRyan and said, totally without guile, "THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!" Suddenly, MittRyan feels the breeze on his (now not so) private parts, and realizes that everyone is seeing him for what he really is. The primitive instinct is to kill the messenger, so MittRyan wants to punish the kid for being naïvely honest.
Now that took real courage!
The sarcasm is strong with this one... :)
Why would Akin listen to Romney's advice? Romney doesn't seem to listen to the cries of the American public to release his tax returns.
Romney is finding out the limits of firing people who don't work for you.
When you see yourself as being on a mission from God, why would you listen to mortals like Romney and Rove?
Republican strategists may want him to quit the race, but the idea of "legitimate rape" and the rest is pushed by the kinds of Tea Party extremists that now make up the core of the GOP. This is not a misstep. Todd Akin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan actually believe these terrible things, and are not afraid tio force them on America if they are given power. You are going to be judged by the friends and associates you keep, and that is exactly how Mitt Romney and the Republican Party ought to be judged in this instance. The absurd and scientifically idiotic point of view espoused by Rep., Akin is not some random blurb from an unhinged individual. - progressive
No, Romney doesn't really believe this. He just thinks he has to pretend to to win the election. He HAS NO core beliefs, only stepping stones to his prize. In actuality he represents no one but himself and his money. He is a very sad man.
Concur wholeheartedly...my sense for the push for Akin to step aside from his fellow compadres is not for the political position, but for simply letting the cat out of the bag this close to a major election. Did any republicans campaign on getting rid of public unions? Correcting voter fraud issues? Yet that's what we got...
November, 2011, as written by Steve: Conservative columnist George Will recently slammed Mitt Romney as “a recidivist reviser of his principles,” who seems to “lack the courage of his absence of convictions.”
Real courage? You got it, MuggleBorn. It's the same kind of courage one needs to pull his/her pants down before taking a dump.
Who owns the banks that Romney's holdings are in? How do we know that they wont hold his funds and dictate his policies?
I think Romney thinks by him saying that, Akin to quit the race, will make him look like a hero in the eyes of women!
Unfortunately, for Romney, it's way passed that stage!
We women know exactly how the Republicans feel about out rights and we're NOT going to let them get away with any of it!
See you at the polls!!!
There are no moderates in the GOP any more. They're either hardcore ultraconservative Christains, or they're a RINO.
And don't kid yourselves -- the only two "mistakes" Akin made were that he spoke in plainly understandable terms, and he did so before the election. Otherwise, Akin is in lockstep with the GOP platform and the Tea Party agenda.
Ooooo oooooo ooooo let me count the ways this excites me.
1. Romney displays "lack of leadership" in failing to come out early and strong against Akin
1a. Akin will of course ignore Romney's pathetic call-out
2. Romney will (once again, and correctly) look as though he has no standing or authority in his own party
3. The GOP continues to implode
4. A round of schadenfreude for the whole bar!
Mitt, you big STRONG candidate, you! Keep up the great work!
I'm looking forward to the convention.
"...why, exactly, does Romney want Akin to withdraw? Is it because Romney disagrees with the congressman's policy position (there's ample reason to believe he doesn't disagree at all) or is it because Romney finds Akin politically inconvenient?"
I'm thinking that it's the second one, personally. Call me cynical, but I don't think that Romney has any real opinions of his own other than what will get him elected.
Once again, Mittens has "painted himself into a corner".
It is becoming clearer by the day that there are many, many ways to ask the question- "Governor Romney, have you stopped beating your wife?"
Than he better ask Ryan to pull out of the race as well, since they co-sponsored a person-hood bill together. Under H.R. 3, only victims of “forcible rape” would qualify for federally funded abortions. Ryan believes that abortion should be illegal in all cases except for “cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother’s life.”
Forcible rape is probably the rape which is so violent, the woman needs to be hospitalized. Being raped at gunpoint or knifepoint doesn't qualify as forcible, because she isn't shot or stabbed.
I'm trying to understand the differences between "forcible rape" and "just plain rape." Isn't rape, by definition, forcible? Why do we need the adjective?
It's like "illegal murder" or "foreign off-shore accounts."
Now I hope Akin stays in the race. The hypocrisy here is just stunning. If Biden had said this, no problem. If Maher had said it, take his money anyway. The Democrat's keynote speaker is an actual accused rapist, and they will celebrate his arrival. Whoopi can say Roman Polanski didn't commit "rape-rape" and the world spins on without a hiccup.
The man has two daughters and said "legitimate" instead of "forcible". Said it, didn't actually do it. Right now he's got more integrity than the Democrats who condemn him for speaking badly while excusing the actual deed.
That is just repulsive.
Here's the thing: NEITHER OF THEM WOULD SAY SUCH A THING. The fact that he even did is an indication of his diseased mindset. Whoopi can say what she likes, since she only represents herself, not other citizens or the government. False equivalence. He has zero integrity, because he's still hedging his apologies.
When Weiner did something not even half as bad, he was driven out. So you're full of it... AGAIN.
The Democrat's keynote speaker is an accused rapist? Julian Assange is going to be the keynote speaker?
I'd be interested in hearing about this keynote speaker.
Shooter: You're reaching.
Joe Biden didn't say it. He would never say it because (1) he's pro-choice and (2) he isn't a total moron.
Bill Maher, Whoopi Goldberg, and Roman Polanski are not running for office, so who cares?
And while it would be very convenient for you if Julian Castro was an accused rapist, even you must know that's complete bullcrap.
I do believe Mr. Akin said exactly what he believes, and to have someone that ignorant in a leadership position in this country is very scary.
Wait, who was accused of rape? I haven't seen anything that mentions that Julian Castro was accused of rape. Who accused him, someone on Free Republic? Why do you even post here, Shooter? You and that idiot IrishPat have no credibility, because all you post is lies and stupid crap about how liberals "are not to be listened to."
So, why are you here? We don't want you, and you don't want us. Go be stupid somewhere else, chief.
Maybe its just me, but if I called someone, even a public figure, "an accused rapist" in a forum where I knew my real identity was discoverable through legal means, a sense of self-preservation, if nothing else, would lead me to want to cite a credible source for that very serious accusation so people wouldn't think I was just making @!$%# up that subjected me to a claim for defamation. Or failing that, not making the allegation.
Oh, you're just a complete moron and you thought that it was Julian Assange and not Julian Castro. Wow.
Shooter, every single day you prove your stupidity to us on a public forum. I'd hang up the keyboard, Tex. You're shootin' blanks.
It's true. If the left didn't have double standards they'd have no standards at all. Tsk.
You said "left", what you meant was "right." You're welcome, buddy.
Again a hypothetical cannot point out hypocrisy. You state that the hypocrisy is "stunning" yet you have not shown an actual incident of hypocrisy. You have only postulated that if something were to happen that Democrats might be hypocritical. Hypocrisy is an actual act; hypotheticals are fantastic situations (although usually semi-based in reality) that have not actually taken place. You do not know that Democrats would look the other way if Joe Biden made such a statement about women because it has not actually happened. You are making an accusation of hypocrisy on your speculative belief that X would happen. And you have no evidence to support X.
As for the Whoopi incident that sparked public outrage from both the left and the right and she was forced to publicly apologize. Her example proves the opposite of the point you were making. If Maher had said this and his money had been taken away as you suggest that also would be evidence of a punishment which would be evidence of outrage. If people are outraged then no hypocrisy is apparent- so even in your hypothetical you are postulating that, in fact, Democrats would be consistent.
Please use common sense and facts when addressing issues; nothing you have stated is based in fact OR is logically consistent.
Sorry for double post
Well, we can finally agree on something, Shooter. I'm glad Akin is staying in the race, too.
We're both glad. Just for different reasons.
Cartoon, do I really need to go down the list of things Biden actually has said that are offensive? Maher actually used misogynistic language and Obama took his money anyway. Roman Polanski is still feted by the left, even after sodomizing a 13 year old girl. And my favorite is still the Florida Rep ousted for emailing pages, while earlier a Democrat Rep actually had sex with a page and then held a press conference to celebrate it. Meanwhile a serial adulterer and accused rapist is giving the keynote at the Democrat convention.
None of that is hypothetical. Would you like to try another rationalization for Democrat's hypocrisies?
You've referred to people as dicks before. Unless you are willing to accept that you do not understand the terms hypocritical and misogynistic I would advise avoiding this argument. Additionally Maher called Palin a @!$%#- which is what I'm sure you're referring to- which is NOT comparable to justifying forcing a rape victim to carry her rapist's child to term. This is an apples and oranges comparison that makes no logical sense what so ever.
As it pertains to this argument your hypothetical was that if Joe Biden stated what Akin stated Democrats would look the other way. Joe Biden has not made this statement so yes this was a hypothetical and therefore you are coming to a conclusion of hypocrisy on the basis of what you believe would happen as opposed to reality. So yes if you want to go down this road please show me where Biden has made the same statement as Akin- as was your hypothetical- and where Democrats avoided the issue.
Polanski was denounced by many in the media including Eugene Robinson who appears frequently on TRMS. In so far as Democratic circles are considered even Stephanie Miller and Randy Rhodes came out and denounced Polanski unabashedly. Democratic politicians attacked Polanski and asked that he be extradited to the United States and the US Marshal Service was tasked specifically to bring him to justice under this administration. Even the current chair of the DNC spoke out against the Polanski situation. Lastly Polanski is not a political figure nor is he a routine reference in Democratic politics. I have no idea how his situation is even relevant to your argument. But in any case your argument is that Democrats are OK with rape as long as it's being done by other Democrats. Yet this is an example of a situation in which the opposite happened. Yet again this works against the point you are attempting to make.
Correct. He was ripped on The Daily Show in fact for 2 separate segments. But guess what? Being ousted by the part is evidence that the party does NOT support the behavior. It is not evidence in support of the behavior. By making this admission you are, again, admitting that no hypocrisy is evident.
I am assuming you are referring to Kerry Gauthier. In which case he did not hold a press conference to brag about having sex with a 17 year old boy and the boy was not a page or otherwise someone who worked for him. Gauthier is running for office in Minnesota and it was brought up that he had, had sexual relations with a younger person to which he admitted. He has otherwise been silent on the issue. He has been asked to resign by the Minnesota state chairman, the union that backed him, and the Democratic House minority leader. This is, yet again, evidence of Democrats speaking out against the act which does not show hypocrisy. I should also point out that the age of consent is 16 in the state of Minnesota.
Committing adultery is entirely irrelevant to the issue of rape unless the act of committing adultery in question was also that of committing rape. Otherwise you are talking about two entirely segregate issues. Julian Castro is the person who will be the Democratic key note speaker. I can find absolutely zero credible evidence that he has ever been accused of or convicted of raping another person. You will have to provide evidence that this accusation is actually true before it can be assumed that actual hypocrisy has taken place.
I am not rationalizing anything. If you state that X happened and X did not happen then you are lying. There is nothing to rationalize. If you claim something to be a fact and it is NOT a fact then you are the one who is in the wrong. You have yet to show me an actual situation regarding rape in which Democrats have been openly hypocritical. Secondly the particular statement you gave was that if a Democrat had came out and made the exact same statement as Akin then the Democrat would be given a pass. Since no Democrat has done this, this is indeed a hypothetical. You have neither proven that the hypothetical is realistic nor indeed have you proven that you understand what the term hypocritical actually means.
I would also like to add one more thing. On the Akin ignores pressure, says he's 'in this to the end' post on Maddowblog you attempted to differentiate between what Akin stated and what he meant. Your stated exactly that there is such a thing as forcible rape and consensual rape. You now, on this thread, attack Whoopi Goldberg for the 'rape-rape' comment. The comment Whoopi was making when she used the phrase rape-rape was that the girl had consented to having sex with Polanski. She was attempting to state that it had been, using YOUR words, consensual rape as opposed to forcible rape. By you using this example in an attempt to show hypocrisy you have inadvertently committed the IOKIYAR fallacy that you attempt to mock when you state IOKIYAD. When Whoopi Goldberg attempted to make a distinction between rape that occurs with a person too young to consent and rape that occurs via a brutal attack that is evidence, in your mind, of Democratic hypocrisy (presumably because you naively believe that all of Hollywood is represented by Democrats? I'm not even sure where that connection comes from...). But when Akin states that if a pregnancy has occurred because of real rape, which you clarify meant brutal rape and not rape as occurred because of underage consent, then it's something you have no problem justifying.
So far the only person demonstrating hypocrisy here appears to be you, Shooter.
@Shooter do you even know who is giving the Keynote address? I reside in San Antonio and have never heard a peep on Julian Castro. Just is case, I ran a Google search. Nothing, nada.
Shooter's just making @!$%# up, like any other pathetic troll. He's got nothing, so, like his idol Mitt, he lies to have anything to say.
Don, my bad. It turns out Bill Clinton is giving the nominating speech not the keynote.
Cartoon, look up Gary Studds. Meanwhile Biden compared a group to slavers. That's easily more offensive than making a distinction between forcible and consensual(statutory) rape. And yet it will pass barely remarked upon.
Yes, IOKIYAD.
Bill Clinton did not rape anyone or murder anyone. These were Republican accusations put out there that were investigated and found to be fraudulent. I have been asking you to provide a real life situation in which a Democratic representative- whether they be an elected representative or someone who represents the party as a pundit or campaign strategist or otherwise- and apparently the only evidence you can come up with is, again, fake. That was the entire point I was making from the beginning. You cannot point to an actual instance of hypocrisy so you instead point to hypothetical instances of hypocrisy. This would be like my saying you've obviously raped a girl before by your attempt to defend "consensual rape." What's that? You say that's not a fair accusation because it's never happened? But according to you it's OK to use fake accusations as actual evidence. As Bill Maher has stated before you are running against a false reality instead of the actual reality when it comes to President Obama, although I would extend this comment to the rest of the Democratic Party.
Gary Studds has been deceased since 2006. He is completely irrelevant to this conversation. But in case you'd like to know Studds was a member of the House of Representatives in 1983 under Ronald Reagan. He admitted to sodomizing a 17 year old boy. He was then promptly censured and forced out of politics. Guess what else? He was censured by the Democratically controlled House of Representatives and was ousted by DEMOCRATS. This is, yet AGAIN, evidence proving the opposite of the claim you are making.
First and foremost this discussion was not about whether or not any Democrat has ever stated something offensive. I am certain that both parties have made that mistake. This discussion was over whether or not, when a Democrat makes a statement justifying rape, the Democratic Party and representatives of Democrats will speak out. Whether or not you found Biden's back in chains argument offensive is irrelevant to this particular discussion.
Secondly did you just seriously state that slavery is more offensive than rape??? You do realize that slavery was a tool by which thousands of women were forcibly raped by their white owners, yes? You attack Joe Biden for making a racially insensitive statement while SIMULTANEOUSLY making a racially insensitive statement. You do realize how horrifically hypocritical this is on your behalf, yes? You have just, yet AGAIN, proven that the IOKIYAR idiom is in fact true.
For Willard, Todd's blurting out of the 'Republican truth' was "An Inconvenient Truth" moment and, like everything else, it backs Willard into a corner of his own making.
Clearly Romney wants Akin to withdraw because he is afraid of what Akin will say during the rest of the campaign. Akin won't say anything that isn't Republican canon, but he will say things in a way most Americans will find offensive. During the next 80 or so days, Romney can count on having to spend time dealing with Akin. Every day he spends on Akin is a day lost or worse. It is also another day the American people will be exposed the Republican crazy, many for the first time. Akin in the campaign can't end well for Republicans who want to appear reasonable to the bulk of Americans when their real positions clearly aren't.
What courage! What Leadership! 48 hours to calculate the political impact, to hear what Reince had to say, to see that Rove pulled his funding. Classic Willard.
Romney the political predator...
nah, Romney is the boss (likes to fire people dontcha know) and he is the only one allowed say things like that...!
Again, I'm late to the party, I posted elsewhere that Rmoney wants Ryan to be quiet. Scarorough says it's stupidity that's making him embarrassed. They are all saying we can't go out and say what we really think. Others, S.E. Cupp said the liberals are saying Ryan and Akin cosponsored a bill, well… they did, right?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-20/todd-akin-and-paul-ryan-are-more-alike-than-you-think.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/20/1122134/-Paul-Ryan-and-Todd-Akin-co-sponsored-8-anti-abortion-bills-in-112th-Congress
Rape definition and Personhood.
This should all be said in quiet rooms, not in front of public.
Akin has done his party a great service and will continue to do so. Granting that he misspoke and meant to say "forcible rape" rather than "legitimate rape," which I think is probably actually true, what he said is perfectly consistent with his party's, and more specifically Ryan and Romney's stated positions.
Their party's platform committee just passed a plank demanding a Constitutional amendment (and man, Republicans just luvs them some proposed Constitutional amendments, don't they? I don't recall a time in the last thirty five years when they haven't been demanding some crazy-ass amendment or amendments to appease base-crazies) to ban abortion. No exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother mentioned in the plank. Just a few months ago, Ryan signed on to the attempt to change "rape" exception in the "no federal funding" laws to "forcible rape" (as opposed, apparently, to dirty little slut who didn't fight and thus had it comin' and she's probably lyin' anyway rape) until someone shone a light on what he and a couple of hundred white male Republican colleagues were up to and they all went scurrying for the baseboards. During the primaries, Mittens had to flip to full absolutist to flop away his history as Governor of Massachusetts.
And rejecting and denouncing Akin lets them create the impression that they and the GOP do not, in fact, agree with him 100% even though they do. Because that's how the Romney campaign rolls.
I'm just wondering if these GOP men are stupid enough to draw the same conclusions that teen age boys tend to think up, such as a woman has to have an orgasm to get pregnant, therefore, she must have enjoyed it if she got pregnant. they seem to assume that you have an orgasm, and poof an egg pops out. SMH
No, they really think that women are liars and accuse rape, when they asked for it. Hence the "slip" ~legitimate~, when that is exactly what they mean. But let's keep defining rape and keep them squiming, There's no way to debate this without insulting women. The sooner women realize that, the better.
I am aware that there is opposition to abortion in both parties, but some folks are not trying to control women. They just want to do it quietly and Akin broke the rule, revealing it in public.
Just a particularly offensive manifestation of the way the Republican brain operates these days. They're dogmatists, not ideologues. A mere ideologue is capable of changing the ideology to conform to objective reality. For a dogmatist, however, no such adaptation is possible because that would concede their dogma is fallible, which is not possible. Instead, the dogma generates whatever "facts" are necessary in order for them to continue to adhere to the dogma. Just like "tax cuts increase revenue," and "Saddam had WMD's" and "all the people on unemployment are lazy moochers who could get a job if they just got off their duffs."
No matter who often the Re-Pube-Li-Cans seem to "step in it", and or shoot themselves in the foot...We need to GET OUT THE VOTE> "They" are not out to necessarily elect Romney..But unseat President Obama. The Republicans could have Porky Pig on the ticket, it doesn't matter. Anything and everything to get rid of Obama. As it was stated almost before Obama had his first breakfast..(from Mitch McConnell) ."It should be the first priority of this body to make sure President Obama is a one term president"...or something very close to that. That about says it all.
What happened to "Davey Crockett's blackberry. Maybe Akin should have stayed in touch with that fantasy rather than open his mouth on subjects that he feels should be annointed in holy oil before he can comment...sick. If he were shot he would claim that bullet was a "gift from God".
It's a 'fetus' not a baby. Until it breathes in the air of life it is not a baby or a citizen. Especially after 2days or one week or 3months...It's a fetus...come on Akin...say it with me...f-e-t-u-s...fetus...fetus...fertilized egg taking shape.
But isn't sperm one half of a whole person too?
//snark off//
Which is worse, being asked to leave a race for public office for being honest about your wacked out ideas, or not being asked to leave a race for public office for continually and transparently lying to cover your wacked out ideas?
Politics is exhausting...
Akin just 'legitimately raped' himself for election day. Women everywhere are compelling their girl parts to block his election as we speak.
The sad thing is that for all of the goalpost moving that the right wing has been doing on this matter to where mainstream politicians can say nonsense like Personhood begins at Conception and No Exceptions No Matter What, Americans are not going to use it as an opportunity to examine their own prejudices surrounding abortion and really consider how the anti-choice propaganda machine might have influenced them over the years. It's still far too common for people to hand-wring over abortion by stammering that while they totes think it should be legal, isn't it just so AWFUL, and they would never have one unlike those slutty sluts who do. They do this because of the hard work of the anti-choice. People need to seriously think about the prejudices they have surrounding abortion, what those prejudices would actually look like as policy, and then act on it:
"I would never have one myself" - Very, very few people get to say this. Never is a strong word, and it encompasses a lot. You might not opt for one so long as you were able to afford a child, but what if the primary breadwinner in the family suddenly found themselves out of a job? What if the amnio came back with serious abnormalities and the baby wouldn't survive more than a year or two, or would require you spend the rest of your life in 24/7 care of it? Even healthy babies have a serious impact on a person's life. Once you begin to wrap special needs into the picture, the needs to an existing family might take precedent over the potential life.
"Women shouldn't use it as birth control" - setting aside that it's not used for much else (teeth whitening, weight loss, etc) - what's the magical number where it suddenly becomes problematic? And furthermore, if a woman is so irresponsible that she goes back for abortion after abortion because she can't be bothered to take a pill or demand a condom, is this really someone who should be in charge of raising a child?
"I don't want federal money to pay for it" - Unwanted pregnancies do not become wanted simply by virtue of the fact that an abortion was not financially possible. Women who have unwanted children are more likely to abuse or neglect those children, and statistically speaking, those children are going to become problems for society later on and cost way more in the long run than an outpatient surgery.
"They could just give the baby up for adoption" - It is a rare quality in a woman that she could gestate a fetus for 9 months and then hand it over without any problems. And those women are awesome, no matter how cold and heartless their friends and coworkers might deem them for the entirety of their pregnancies. This is why we had "maternity homes" back in the bad old days -- women had to be imprisoned because they had this pesky tendency to become attached to the fetus that they could feel kicking etc.* When a woman, especially a mother tells me this, I ask her if it's something she would have been able to "just do" herself.
* Unfortunately, this attachment does not guarantee a good parent. The initial honeymoon period of having a new baby that sleeps 18 hours a day wears off pretty quick, and we're a lot less forgiving of mothers trying to adopt out their child "after they've driven it off the lot" so to speak.
Thanks for your empathetic comments RE adoption. I gave up my daughter in 1970 in a private adoption & just reunited with her this month. I'm fortunate that she does not blame me for my decision as a naive 20 yr old & blessed we can develop a relationship.
Romney/Ryan Republican budget policy fight abortion, but turn around & block funding for birth control and cut programs for young mothers who carry to term.
Thank you, Ponygirl, for one of the most thoughtful and insightful comments I've ever seen on this subject. /none of my usual snark - really.
For a really great perspective on this from my favorite blogger, check out this link.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/21/rep-todd-akins-views-typical-in-anti-abortion-religious-right/
Basically the best explanation of exactly why Akin "misspoke" and said this utterly offensive and stupid thing: he didn't know it was utterly offensive and stupid.