Hubby was once working surveys using a voter registration list in Colorado. He got a George Bush and was idly wondering what it must be like to have the same name as the President--until the Secret Service agent who answered the phone demanded to know how he got that number and ordered him to get his supervisor on the line.

All Hubby could think was it a vacation home or something, and he declined to speculate on why the President was registered to vote in Colorado.

O'Donnell may be partially right(Nobody knows as much as he thinks he does, ever.) but basically that just adds to his rich-guy justice and Scrooge McDuck optics problems he's already got. But combine it with Reid being either exactly right(or proportionally so)...you're right, there must be a LOT of shit in there. Plus, probably some more stuff for Ann that would make the easiest feature story/soundbite in the world...so easy a stenographer could do it. He's...not very good at this campaign stuff...it's like he thought he'd just stomp around Iowa for a while, notice the foliage in New England in the fall, and they'd give him the keys as if 1600 were just some villa he rented.

I've come to think people are missing something in connection with the Todd Akin "legitimate rape" remarks, and I'd like to run it by here. Not least because, if I'm way off base, people will tell me so politely as a well-meaning (if clueless) man as opposed to someone with ill will.

Somewhere or other, I heard someone defend Akin along the lines of "punish the rapist, not the child." But it seems to me that the no-abortion-in-rape line punishes the victim far more than anything else.

First, if she becomes pregnant, the victim is forced to spend every minute of the next 9 months with a reminder of the crime committed against her. And, above and beyond that, for 5 or so of those months, her situation is obvious to any passing stranger she meets F2F. While the passing stranger wouldn't necessarily be aware that the woman was raped, any person that she sees with any degree of regularity is likely to realize that she was raped. (Unless there's a significant other to pose as biological father.) Which is likely (not least because of the -- may I call it societal baggage? -- surrounding rape) to create significant awkwardnesses. Not least because, under the Akin reasoning, the pregnancy itself proves that she wasn't "really" raped.

When the baby is born, the situation may become even worse. As I understand the law (and any expertise I had dates back to the 1980s, so things could easily have changed even if my memory is accurate, which it may not be), both parents have to give up parental rights before adoption can occur without a potentially messy courtroom battle. Or the woman can keep the baby, which means the rapist is on the hook for 18 years of child support. Which means that the rapist may be a significant part of his victim's life for the next 19 years (again, unless the woman can persuade a court to terminate the rapist's parental rights), and there isn't a lot the victim can do about it.

Is my logic missing anything?

I don't think it's that elaborately thought out, Fred. I think it's just another way for this guy to protest abortion at any cost, pretty simply.

Also, as far as I know, when it comes to adoption, if the mother puts "father unknown" on the birth certificate, then there isn't a father with any parental rights. I could be wrong, though.

Only that babies are miracles from God and always make life better....

Nah, j/k.

I have a relative who got pregnant after rape and kept the baby. The way I heard the story is that she was going to give it up for adoption, but the people at the agency (?? unclear, but definitely a Catholic institution) had her take the baby home to think about it first. So she ended up keeping him, and I guess it's fine, but he does know that half of his DNA comes from a rapist.

I saw a quote from Akin and he said that he thinks you are punishing innocent life if you have an abortion - no matter the circumstances by which the woman got pregnant.

So at least part of your post I agree with: the trauma that comes from carrying a child because you have no other options is pretty significant. I don't think he gives a shit about that or the fact that the presumed mother is an innocent herself.

If the mother is receiving any kind of public assistance, there is usually an attempt by the state to discover the father's identity to recoup cost of benefits.

bottom line to many anti-choice activists is that the unborn child's rights trumps the rights of any actual functioning human lifeform.

Life is not nearly as precious once the child is born, but in the womb it is the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER.

Life is not nearly as precious once the child is born, but in the womb it is the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER.

That's the part that pisses me off. If life is precious, why wouldn't you want to protect it and help it to flourish?

For a lot of these people, no woman is innocent.