I noticed one or two threads (ok... maybe a few more than that) that seemed to veer off in the general "string 'em up..." direction. I thought we could bring that side of things into 1 thread.
personally, captains that offload the only "priority" pallet come to mind...
Obama: We shouldn't have politicians making health decisions for women Continue reading the main story US Presidential Election 2012
A row has erupted in the US after a congressman said women's bodies were naturally able to prevent pregnancy in the case of "legitimate rape".
Todd Akin, who is also running as Republican candidate for the Senate, made the comments in a TV interview to explain his strict views on abortion.
He later said he had "misspoken" but his Democratic rival said the comments were "beyond comprehension".
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he disagreed with the view.
President Barack Obama criticised the comments during a press briefing at the White House on Monday.
'Rape is rape'
"The views expressed were offensive," Mr Obama told reporters.
"Rape is rape and the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we are talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me."
During the interview for KTVI-TV on Sunday, Mr Akin was asked about his no-exceptions view on abortion, a highly charged issue in the US, and on whether he would like abortion to be banned even if the pregnancy was the result of rape.
Todd Akin on "legitimate rape" Video courtesy FOX 2 KTVI
He replied: "It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that is really rare.
"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
"But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."
The interview has sparked a furious reaction in the US, with critics attacking both Mr Akin's scientific view and his reference to "legitimate rape".
Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill said it was "beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape".
"The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive."
'Flat-out astonishing'
Ms McCaskill, who is trailing Mr Akin in opinion polls for the Missouri seat, said on PPRuNe that as a former prosecutor she had personally handled hundreds of rape cases. Sen Claire McCaskill in Clay County, MO (7 Aug 2012) Akin rival Claire McCaskill, who has been trailing in the Senate race, pounced on his comments
On blogs and PPRuNe, users have also poured scorn on his biological view, and expressed concern that he is a member of the House Committee on Science.
Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, told AP radio that the comments were "flat-out astonishing" and that such language was "intended to shame women".
A spokesman for Mr Romney said that both the candidate and his running mate, Paul Ryan, disagreed with Mr Akin, and stressed that "a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape".
Mr Akin later issued a statement saying he had "misspoken" in his "off the cuff" remarks, though did not specify on which points.
He said the interview "does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year".
Mr Akin also reconfirmed that he "believes deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action".
The six-term congressman for Missouri is a long-time vocal opponent of relaxing abortion laws.
In 2011, he co-sponsored a controversial bill that would have limited the government help available to women seeking abortions in the case of rape to cases of "forcible rape".
After a public outcry, the House Republican party was made to change this language.
Last edited by fernytickles; 20th Aug 2012 at 19:05.
Of course if you vote for "string 'em up" the question you should be prepared to answer is would you push the button/pull the lever yourself ?
Yes, I would, and I would also regret the necessity (as I do when I zap those little brown moths that lurk in the larder, or put down lethal ant powder), regret the necessity yes, but I would still do it.
With some people there's no other solution but to remove them from the human race. Kinder that jailing them for years, too.
And the other question is would you be prepared to make the judgement yourself ? Again I would, and I would take full responsibility for it.
(Potential immigrants to Pprunonia, please take note.)
For every extremist on one side of the abortion debate, you have an equal or even more extreme example on the other. Here's one that doesn't even let that little technicality called "birth" stand in the way of a mother's "right to choose" of who lives or dies.
I mean if you're going to string up one for being an idiot about the medical side of abortion and rape, you have to string up the other for forgetting that once a fetus does become a baby, what she advocates is murder in anyone's book.
Even some convicted killers agree with the 'string em up' idea.
Fred West Dr Shipman Peter Foster last week at Lewes Prison and many more, except I can't think of any.
Maybe offering them a way out after conviction might be acceptable one day.
I'm in the 'life should mean life' camp. I thought that was the compact Parliament made with the country on abolishing the death sentence. Letting out someone who goes on to kill again would not happen in that case.
When one hears of life in prison meaning 12 years it's bound to raise hackles. And yet politicians, the judiciary and hand wringing liberals think the silent majority agrees with them
Not very impressive either, but at least she's not trying to run for Senate...
The thing you must understand about the candidate is that despite his ignorance on rape/pregnancy, his semantics in the legislative arena on the difference between "rape" and "forcible rape" is 1) a non-starter, and 2) comes down to a question of when federal funds should be available to pay for an abortion. That funding question is argued a million different ways and has been for decades as part of the American political landscape. I know nothing about this guy, but I'm guessing his stance is religious-based.
It would be just as easy to argue that "At least he's advocating the notion that every life is precious, whereas she is advocating the murder of babies ". What's more damaging or dangerous? A fringe Congressman out of 100s that doesn't stand of chance in hell of ever having his personal religious viewpoint incorporated into law even if he became a Senator (one that wouldn't kill anyone anyway if it did), or a "respected" woman's Journalist, published author, and advice-giver telling mothers it's perfectly ok and moral to smother a child after they're born?
He may be stupid, but she's stupid AND doubly-so for being so irresponsible as to hand/implant the idea for any postpartum-depressed mother out there listening an excuse to decide for themselves to kill and feel OK about it. IMO, on the basis of that I'd say she's more worthy of being strung up, and the fact she's not running of any office is irrelevant and perhaps makes it worse since opinions are more easily swayed by those in the Oprah world than by a politician someone votes for because they already agree with thier viewpoint.
believable
