sebster wrote: Here on dakka I've had to point out to the same people more than once that no Planned Parenthood funding can be used for abortion, only for those same people to mention it again later on.
Actually, if you don't mind me diverging for a second here (again); maybe you guys can help me with this. I once read an article that talks about a rubber band effect; whereby if you believe something enough, someone can show you clear evidence it's not true, and if you're reasonable, you'll then agree it was not true, but later on you will return to the original belief instead. It's not so much being disingenuous as an actual psychological phenomenon.
I've seen it as well, with a co-worker who was convinced Al Franken only got elected because "the democrats found a bunch of votes at the last second in the trunk of a car*". I showed many sources showing this wasn't so, he came around... and then a few months later, repeated the original belief. God, I wish I could find that article again.
*this thread is not the place to rehash that, I'm simply using it as an example
Confirmation Bias could also be the cause.
I now see posts on my facebook timeline featuring a student-ID from Obama that proves that he was a foreign student in New York. Of course the same people who think that this is 100% legit are also the same people who claim every birth certificate is photoshopped.
Oh man, I found it (not the article). It's called "Belief Perserverance". I'll read more about it when I'm not wearing one shoe and running out the door to work
Actually, if you don't mind me diverging for a second here (again); maybe you guys can help me with this. I once read an article that talks about a rubber band effect; whereby if you believe something enough, someone can show you clear evidence it's not true, and if you're reasonable, you'll then agree it was not true, but later on you will return to the original belief instead. It's not so much being disingenuous as an actual psychological phenomenon.
I think you're talking about suggestibility. The idea is that people vary significantly in terms of their willingness to accept, and seemingly espouse, new ideas. So, while you might seemingly convince someone that their first belief was false, they may well return to it when again exposed to the source of that belief.
In essence, a highly suggestible person not only lacks strong beliefs, but is unwilling to express doubt with respect to the beliefs of others.
d-usa wrote: They weren't saying it. Only Akin did. No-one was agreeing with the words at face value, even Akin.
They would only be 'dumber than 10 year olds' if they literally agreed with the original comments. No-one does, including Akin, even though most are pro-life, many as much or more so than Akin.
Except that isn't true. Here's a 1999 article that claims the same nonsense as Akin;
"What is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that's physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle."
http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/rape-pregnancies-are-rare-461
In 1995 North Carolina Rep Henry Aldridge made the same stupid claim; "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."
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Lawmaker-Says-Rape-Can-t-Cause-Pregnancy-3036411.php
This is not some totally out of the blue nonsense. It's stupid, loathsome gak that's been present in anti-abortion circles for more than a quarter of a century.
Well, thing is, the numbers add up fast enough so that there's been more abortions than victims of the holocaust, so by pure bodycount maths it holds up.
The trick is, of course, that in the same period ten times that number of unborn children have been lost through miscarriage, and yet you don't hear anything about that from anti-abortion crusaders. You don't hear them campaign for better medical techniques, and for the funding needed to make those medical techniques available to all pregnant women. It's almost as if when talking about abortion they absolutely 100% believe the unborn is completely equal to a person, but outside of that their assumptions tell another story entirely.
I hear that doctors say that women produce saddness hormones that make her depressed when she is not near a stove. It has to be legit because I am pretty sure it was a doctor who said that.
Melissia wrote: There's also a huge difference between a zygote and a human being.
There is, or there isn't, depending on your beliefs. End of the day we really don't have a definition for when life begins that's at all objective, and people have to go with what they personally believe.
DemetriDominov wrote: I could tell you that the majority of people who use the services of abortion clinics are undereducated, poor, and of a different class and race than those that predominantly judge and dictate how "wrong" abortion is. It really wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that abortion clinics are an agent of slow acting ethnic cleansing because those who need it most lacked the effective educational resources that could have prevented them from needing a clinic in the first place. If that is their intention, is a completely different matter.
It would be a massive, crazy pants stretch to claim that. It would be the silliest thing claimed since... well, since Rep Akin claimed that woman have biological defences to prevent rape during pregnancy.
If someone desired ethnic cleansing they wouldn't prevent access to birth control in the hope that some of the babies would be aborted... they'd just provide birth control. Seriously, your claim makes no damn sense at all, even if we assume there's a secret genocidal conspiracy.
Ouze wrote: Actually, if you don't mind me diverging for a second here (again); maybe you guys can help me with this. I once read an article that talks about a rubber band effect; whereby if you believe something enough, someone can show you clear evidence it's not true, and if you're reasonable, you'll then agree it was not true, but later on you will return to the original belief instead. It's not so much being disingenuous as an actual psychological phenomenon.
Yeah, and that happens to me, to you, and to everyone. It'd be nice if we were all perfectly rational beings, but we're not. But not all instances of phenomena like this are equal - the question at hand, why you believe as you do, and to what extent you're willing to believe it matters makes a difference.
I'd be happy to believe someone who is marginally interested in abortion would forget specific details of an abortion debate they had a year before, especially if that point wasn't the cornerstone of their debate. I'm a lot less likely to extend that forgiveness to someone who is an active, constant campaigner on abortion who undergoes self deceit to produce ignorance like Rep Akin showed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote: Not just that, being shown evidence that directly refutes what you believe will simply reinforce your belief
Yeah, I remember that study as well. It explained a lot about dakka, and especially how threads tend to get worse and worse as they go on - the opinions get more strident, especially among whichever side happens to be losing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Confirmation Bias could also be the cause.
I now see posts on my facebook timeline featuring a student-ID from Obama that proves that he was a foreign student in New York. Of course the same people who think that this is 100% legit are also the same people who claim every birth certificate is photoshopped.
Absolutely, but like I said to Ouze above not every instance of irrationality like this is the same.
DemetriDominov wrote: I could tell you that the majority of people who use the services of abortion clinics are undereducated, poor, and of a different class and race than those that predominantly judge and dictate how "wrong" abortion is. It really wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that abortion clinics are an agent of slow acting ethnic cleansing because those who need it most lacked the effective educational resources that could have prevented them from needing a clinic in the first place. If that is their intention, is a completely different matter.
It would be a massive, crazy pants stretch to claim that. It would be the silliest thing claimed since... well, since Rep Akin claimed that woman have biological defences to prevent rape during pregnancy.
If someone desired ethnic cleansing they wouldn't prevent access to birth control in the hope that some of the babies would be aborted... they'd just provide birth control. Seriously, your claim makes no damn sense at all, even if we assume there's a secret genocidal conspiracy.
Yes, but blacks do get abortions and triple the rate whites do, which should raise some alarms.
DemetriDominov wrote: I could tell you that the majority of people who use the services of abortion clinics are undereducated, poor, and of a different class and race than those that predominantly judge and dictate how "wrong" abortion is. It really wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that abortion clinics are an agent of slow acting ethnic cleansing because those who need it most lacked the effective educational resources that could have prevented them from needing a clinic in the first place. If that is their intention, is a completely different matter.
It would be a massive, crazy pants stretch to claim that. It would be the silliest thing claimed since... well, since Rep Akin claimed that woman have biological defences to prevent rape during pregnancy.
If someone desired ethnic cleansing they wouldn't prevent access to birth control in the hope that some of the babies would be aborted... they'd just provide birth control. Seriously, your claim makes no damn sense at all, even if we assume there's a secret genocidal conspiracy.
And how does my claim not make sense? I'm not championing for us to accept a conspiracy because you're assuming I'm inferring there is one by suggesting it. The facts are though that minorities and those of lower classes, especially minorities in a lower economic status constitute over 50% of abortions in this country, and little effort has been done to change it. Our government, and this thread seems to care more over who is right and who is wrong about the debate on abortion when they fail to realize that neither side's philosophical victory changes the situation of literally millions of lives. If abortion becomes illegal, women and families will die. If it remains legal, unborn children will die. The majority of which on both sides will be whom I've already mentioned and nobody seems to care. We talk about laws, order and the like, but fail to see the injustice of debating such polar aspects of life and miss what the real problems are. I mean, if people were properly educated, had the resources, the support, and were truly protected from crime what need would there to be to even decide to have a child or not?
Myth: Women usually get lubricated vaginally during rape and that means women love being raped.
Fact: Recent research conducted by Kelly Suschinsky and Martin Lalumiere, show proof that vaginal lubrication occurs during both consensual and unwanted sex, such as in sexual assault. The study shows that while an erection does indicate sexual arousal in men, sexual arousal in women requires a complex mix of intimate connection, physical stimuli, and emotional presence. Vaginal lubrication occurs during even violent sexual assaults as the body's defense against genital injury and urinary infection from forced, rough intercourse.
Scientific evidence supports the exact opposite of what Akin is suggesting. Did you even read the article or just lock it based on the title?
Including the part at the end where the author admitted that he made up the studies and statistics he quoted in the beginning of the article, and that the entire point of the article was to troll people because he thinks other people make spurious arguments, and clearly two wrongs make a right.
Amaya wrote:Arousal and consent are two very different things.
As are lubrication and arousal, as this new article you're quoting explains.
But, again, here's the weird thing. He may still win.... Missourian DO. NOT. LIKE. McCaskill.
The furor is really on a national scale. The locals *know* what Atkin stands for... (he has 100% pro-life rating for feth sakes)
I want him gone simply because of his stupidity for engaging this conversation... that man was up like 20% over McCaskill and now made it almost impossible to win.
Amaya wrote: Yes, but blacks do get abortions and triple the rate whites do, which should raise some alarms.
What alarms? Unplanned pregnancy tracks fairly closely with income, we all know that.
If you want to change that then you have to move towards racial income equality, and one of the best ways to do that is to take about the poverty trap. That poverty trap is, in part, caused by teen pregnancy, and one effective way of taking that down is, of course, abortion and safe sex teaching in general.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DemetriDominov wrote: And how does my claim not make sense? I'm not championing for us to accept a conspiracy because you're assuming I'm inferring there is one by suggesting it. The facts are though that minorities and those of lower classes, especially minorities in a lower economic status constitute over 50% of abortions in this country, and little effort has been done to change it. Our government, and this thread seems to care more over who is right and who is wrong about the debate on abortion when they fail to realize that neither side's philosophical victory changes the situation of literally millions of lives. If abortion becomes illegal, women and families will die. If it remains legal, unborn children will die. The majority of which on both sides will be whom I've already mentioned and nobody seems to care. We talk about laws, order and the like, but fail to see the injustice of debating such polar aspects of life and miss what the real problems are. I mean, if people were properly educated, had the resources, the support, and were truly protected from crime what need would there to be to even decide to have a child or not?
Are you honestly claiming that no-one cares about poverty among minorities? I mean, seriously?
You could argue that we don't do enough, and we can all acknowledge that breaking the poverty cycle is incredibly hard... but arguing that no-one does anything at all? That's just not sensible.
Including the part at the end where the author admitted that he made up the studies and statistics he quoted in the beginning of the article, and that the entire point of the article was to troll people because he thinks other people make spurious arguments, and clearly two wrongs make a right.
Amaya wrote:Arousal and consent are two very different things.
As are lubrication and arousal, as this new article you're quoting explains.
While I am pro choice (or more accurately anti-anything that isn't me) I've always wondered if the "It's only a (zygote,collection of cells, fetus, et cetera)" crowd applies that logic across the board. Like can you be okay with abortion and also be against say animal testing? I'm sure that there is some convoluted moral hyjinks that say it's okay to kill a potential human because it's in a person who doesn't want it, but it's not okay to kill an animal to theoretically keep a different person alive. Or the mentally handicapped, or euthanasia. Is that the same, less, worse whatever than regular murder? Is there just a point where it goes from being okay killing a potential person to it being abhorrent, or is it all relative?
But, again, here's the weird thing. He may still win.... Missourian DO. NOT. LIKE. McCaskill.
The furor is really on a national scale. The locals *know* what Atkin stands for... (he has 100% pro-life rating for feth sakes)
I want him gone simply because of his stupidity for engaging this conversation... that man was up like 20% over McCaskill and now made it almost impossible to win.
Wait... so you want him to step down... not because he is hateful, misogynistic, uneducated and completely crazy... but because he let people become aware of his horrendous beliefs.
Are you for real?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote:While I am pro choice (or more accurately anti-anything that isn't me) I've always wondered if the "It's only a (zygote,collection of cells, fetus, et cetera)" crowd applies that logic across the board. Like can you be okay with abortion and also be against say animal testing? I'm sure that there is some convoluted moral hyjinks that say it's okay to kill a potential human because it's in a person who doesn't want it, but it's not okay to kill an animal to theoretically keep a different person alive. Or the mentally handicapped, or euthanasia. Is that the same, less, worse whatever than regular murder? Is there just a point where it goes from being okay killing a potential person to it being abhorrent, or is it all relative?
I'm for: -pro-choice -euthanasia -animal testing for medical (not cosmetic) purposes -mass-produced meat industry (chickens are NOT naturally intelligent, inquisitive creatures- they are as dumb as fish) -death penalty for capital crimes
While I am pro choice (or more accurately anti-anything that isn't me) I've always wondered if the "It's only a (zygote,collection of cells, fetus, et cetera)" crowd applies that logic across the board. Like can you be okay with abortion and also be against say animal testing?
I've met people who hold those two positions, and consider them consistent because an animal has a developed nervous system- can feel pain and suffering- but a zygote does not and can not. I rarely see anyone say "just a fetus".
Is there just a point where it goes from being okay killing a potential person to it being abhorrent, or is it all relative?
It depends on the person judging. For me, abortion is much less abhorrent if it occurs before the point where electrical activity can be measured in the conceptus' brain; which is likely the point at which brain function begins.
Are you honestly claiming that no-one cares about poverty among minorities? I mean, seriously?
You could argue that we don't do enough, and we can all acknowledge that breaking the poverty cycle is incredibly hard... but arguing that no-one does anything at all? That's just not sensible.
No one in power has done much about poverty in this country in past 80 years because it equates to socialism in many arguments. The cycle really isn't that hard to break but it's held in place because it's a well kept lie being pushed in the other direction. The motivation and drive is there for those in poverty to remove themselves from poverty, the resources, knowledge, and connections politicians have to do it just aren't being used effectively - literally ever, in anything.
Mannahnin wrote: It depends on the person judging. For me, abortion is much less abhorrent if it occurs before the point where electrical activity can be measured in the conceptus' brain; which is likely the point at which brain function begins.
Mn, for my part, I've not been talking about late abortions. At some point, the foetus is indeed capable of surviving outside of the mother, and has developed enough that it can feel pain, and begin to think, even if only in rug-crawler terms.
What point that is... that's something I'd want to ask a child-development specialist or seven. But considering that we're talking about people trying to ban ALL abortion, no matter the situation, this sort of fine distinction hasn't really come up.
It does get claimed that women can't rape men unless the man has an erection, which means he must be enjoying it and be up for it (literally). How anyone can say this is beyond me, are they saying that every time a man wakes up with morning wood they are consenting to sex with the nearest person, or at least having them stick a dildo up their arse?
A lot of bodily functions are not entirely under our control, just because a woman gets a bit lubricated or a man has a stiffy doesn't mean they are as good as consenting to having sex. Some teenagers suffer from it endlessly. People who dream this stuff up about bodily functions and consent don't even seem to look at their own life experience.
Considering that there have been many studies showing that the most rabid homophobes become exceptionally aroused when exposed to gay porn, one wonders if the more homophobic portions of the groups who make such claims would say that this means that they consent to gay sex?
Well, there is the theory that the most rabid homophobes who talk about it being a 'choice' think that way because they actually have those urges to resist being at least bisexual themselves. They don't get that for most people, gay or straight, there's no choice about it because they simply aren't attracted to more than one gender.
That's probably a bit optimistic really, but it might explain why you get a surprising few of these really public Christian family-values sorts being caught with rent boys in private...
Well, the studies I mentioned measured arousal after showing various kinds of porn, and they were indeed bisexual on average-- being aroused by straight, lesbian, and gay porn, whereas normal heterosexual men were aroused by straight and lesbian porn.
Some of it might also have to do with macho-ism, a stain upon our culture globally speaking. Homosexuality is considered unmanly, thus, macho-ism leads people to despise it utterly. Especially in Latino cultures.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Well, there is the theory that the most rabid homophobes who talk about it being a 'choice' think that way because they actually have those urges to resist being at least bisexual themselves. They don't get that for most people, gay or straight, there's no choice about it because they simply aren't attracted to more than one gender.
There's also a bit optimistic delusion involved. In essence, if homosexuality is a choice, then so long as I don't choose to be gay none of my urges matter.
A similar argument is often made with respect to those people that find sexuality "disgusting". In essence, they aren't comfortable with their own sexuality and so any state of arousal is difficult for them, so they consciously work to counter that sentiment by claiming that they're disgusted. The ultimate goal being to minimize their exposure to sexuality, and therefore arousal, in order to avoid confronting their urges.
Mannahnin wrote: It depends on the person judging. For me, abortion is much less abhorrent if it occurs before the point where electrical activity can be measured in the conceptus' brain; which is likely the point at which brain function begins.
Mn, for my part, I've not been talking about late abortions. At some point, the foetus is indeed capable of surviving outside of the mother, and has developed enough that it can feel pain, and begin to think, even if only in rug-crawler terms.
What point that is... that's something I'd want to ask a child-development specialist or seven. But considering that we're talking about people trying to ban ALL abortion, no matter the situation, this sort of fine distinction hasn't really come up.
That's actually the fine definition for my general stance, no late term abortions, say the third trimester and on for ANYTHING but medical purposes. If there's a chance the mother will die or something, please by all means. But if it's convenience or you just don't want a child, six months should be more then enough time to take care of business. After the third trimester begins the fetus is pretty much viable outside the mother and that's where the line really starts to get blurry.
For a heinous example of abortions I think any one vaguely civilized can agree is horrible look up the allegedly still in use (because I can't remember my source) Chinese abortion method called "crowning"
Don't do that shortly after or anytime before a meal.
But, again, here's the weird thing. He may still win.... Missourian DO. NOT. LIKE. McCaskill.
The furor is really on a national scale. The locals *know* what Atkin stands for... (he has 100% pro-life rating for feth sakes)
I want him gone simply because of his stupidity for engaging this conversation... that man was up like 20% over McCaskill and now made it almost impossible to win.
Wait... so you want him to step down... not because he is hateful, misogynistic, uneducated and completely crazy... but because he let people become aware of his horrendous beliefs.
Are you for real?
Nope...
Most us Missourian *knew* what Atkins was all about and we were ambivalent (if anything) towards him.. Need I remind you, he was ALWAYS pro-life.
He had this election in the bag. He could've saved all his compaign $$$, smoking cigars and drinking cognac and STILL would've won handedly. Yeah, McCaskill is THAT hated here.
And he chose to engage in acontroversial topic is just utterly stoopid.
That's why the national republicans are urging him to step down. It's not about what he said...it's about getting the Senate Majority (and the WH), which he has put MO at risk.
Bromsy wrote: While I am pro choice (or more accurately anti-anything that isn't me) I've always wondered if the "It's only a (zygote,collection of cells, fetus, et cetera)" crowd applies that logic across the board. Like can you be okay with abortion and also be against say animal testing? I'm sure that there is some convoluted moral hyjinks that say it's okay to kill a potential human because it's in a person who doesn't want it, but it's not okay to kill an animal to theoretically keep a different person alive. Or the mentally handicapped, or euthanasia. Is that the same, less, worse whatever than regular murder? Is there just a point where it goes from being okay killing a potential person to it being abhorrent, or is it all relative?
My question to this is, how is a zygote and a living, breathing animal similar in any way, shape or form?
But, again, here's the weird thing. He may still win.... Missourian DO. NOT. LIKE. McCaskill.
The furor is really on a national scale. The locals *know* what Atkin stands for... (he has 100% pro-life rating for feth sakes)
I want him gone simply because of his stupidity for engaging this conversation... that man was up like 20% over McCaskill and now made it almost impossible to win.
Wait... so you want him to step down... not because he is hateful, misogynistic, uneducated and completely crazy... but because he let people become aware of his horrendous beliefs.
Are you for real?
Nope...
Most us Missourian *knew* what Atkins was all about and we were ambivalent (if anything) towards him.. Need I remind you, he was ALWAYS pro-life.
He had this election in the bag. He could've saved all his compaign $$$, smoking cigars and drinking cognac and STILL would've won handedly. Yeah, McCaskill is THAT hated here.
And he chose to engage in acontroversial topic is just utterly stoopid.
That's why the national republicans are urging him to step down. It's not about what he said...it's about getting the Senate Majority (and the WH), which he has put MO at risk.
Yea... I hear TONS of hate for McCaskill from the Missourians I work with... totally, I really do.
The problem is that the idiots who have taken over what used to be an actual political party have made this kind of stupidity part of their party platform. This is what you're getting nowadays all the time with the current crop of religious ideologues who have hijacked the Republican party.
Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language in abortion bill he co-sponsored
Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan won't discuss his co-sponsorship of a bill that initially had language limiting federally funded abortions to cases of "forcible rape."
The original version of the measure banned all federally funded abortions, except in cases of "an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest."
The "forcible rape" provision was dropped from the bill after women’s health advocates and Democrats protested.
Ryan told reporters he has no regrets about sponsoring legislation, with Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, who is now under fire saying women who had been subjected to "legitimate rape" would be able to physically resist becoming pregnant.
Ryan was asked about it during an interview with KDKA-TV's Political Editor Jon Delano:
Delano: “You sponsored legislation that has the language ‘forcible rape.’ What is forcible rape as opposed…”
Ryan: “Rape is rape. Rape is rape, period. End of story.”
Delano: “So that forcible rape language meant nothing to you at the time?”
Ryan: “Rape is rape and there’s no splitting hairs over rape.”
BrassScorpion wrote: The problem is that the idiots who have taken over what used to be an actual political party have made this kind of stupidity part of their party platform. This is what you're getting nowadays all the time with the current crop of religious ideologues who have hijacked the Republican party.
Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language in abortion bill he co-sponsored
Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan won't discuss his co-sponsorship of a bill that initially had language limiting federally funded abortions to cases of "forcible rape."
The original version of the measure banned all federally funded abortions, except in cases of "an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest."
The "forcible rape" provision was dropped from the bill after women’s health advocates and Democrats protested.
Ryan told reporters he has no regrets about sponsoring legislation, with Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, who is now under fire saying women who had been subjected to "legitimate rape" would be able to physically resist becoming pregnant.
Ryan was asked about it during an interview with KDKA-TV's Political Editor Jon Delano:
Delano: “You sponsored legislation that has the language ‘forcible rape.’ What is forcible rape as opposed…”
Ryan: “Rape is rape. Rape is rape, period. End of story.”
Delano: “So that forcible rape language meant nothing to you at the time?”
Ryan: “Rape is rape and there’s no splitting hairs over rape.”
The Republican platform hasn't changed for many years on this subject. Neither has the Democratic platform.
The Wiener Dog Party's platform focuses on the economy, protection against the Great Squirrel/Cat/Raptor bird Menace, and unsurprisingly, tasty snacks for everyone.
Remember vote for Frazzled on the Wiener Dog Party ticket and you'll get a steak in every bowl!
azazel the cat wrote: @ Whembly: Thank you. I was already well aware of the general zeitgeist of Missouri. But my question was directed to you.
OH! my bad... sorry. (never said I wasn't a nimcompoop at times...)
I already knew that he was strong pro-lifer, so that is a "built in" cost with us here. (didn't vote for him in the primary btw)
I was more tripping over the fact that he chose to engage in this topic and he wasn't prepared. He had (any Republican for that matter) this election in the bag... and he blew it.
So, I question is "intelligence" to engage in any topics now (especially on national scale).
My question was this: did you seriously support his position, and not want him to withdraw for his hate, lack of education and misogyny; but want him to withdraw only because he made a political misstep and revealed it?
My question was this: did you seriously support his position, and not want him to withdraw for his hate, lack of education and misogyny; but want him to withdraw only because he made a political misstep and revealed it?
Honestly?? The latter... sort of.
That doesn't mean I supported the former. (he doesn't support gay marriage... and I do)
I'm not a single-issue voter.
I just wanted a (R) to win the senate seat from McCaskill.
Chicago, Illinois (CNN) -- When I was in law school, my criminal law professor introduced us to the crime of rape by reading us a quote from Lord Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century English jurist: "In a rape case it is the victim, not the defendant, who is on trial."
It was not merely a history lesson. I had lived it.
While a student in my final year of college, at age 21, I was raped. I have dissected that moment -- the horrifying moment that I became a "victim" -- from every possible angle. I have poked and prodded, examined and re-examined. Regrettably, I have even suspected myself in a desperate, ultimately futile attempt to understand how I became a victim.
But blaming myself was neither my idea nor my first inclination. I thought such 17th-century notions were long dead. I was wrong. People who did not even know me were quick to comment or speculate on my rape. What were you wearing? Did you scream loudly? Did this occur in public?
As my history lesson said, I found myself on trial, facing the most fierce judge and jury: ignorance.
Defiant Akin still in Senate raceRep. Akin's controversial claimsEight years after my rape, I find myself on trial against ignorance again. Rep. Todd Akin's recent comments that "legitimate rape" rarely results in pregnancy not only flout scientific fact but, for me, cut deeper. Akin has de-legitimized my rape.
You see, nine months after my rape, I gave birth to a beautiful little girl. You could say she was conceived in rape; she was. But she is also so much more than her beginnings. I blissfully believed that after I finally had decided to give birth to and to raise my daughter, life would be all roses and endless days at the playground. I was wrong again.
It would not be long before I would learn firsthand that in the vast majority of states -- 31 -- men who father through rape are able to assert the same custody and visitation rights to their children that other fathers enjoy. When no law prohibits a rapist from exercising these rights, a woman may feel forced to bargain away her legal rights to a criminal trial in exchange for the rapist dropping the bid to have access to her child.
When faced with the choice between a lifetime tethered to her rapist or meaningful legal redress, the answer may be easy, but it is not painless. For the sake of her child, the woman will sacrifice her need to see her once immensely powerful perpetrator humbled by the court.
I know it because I lived it. I went to law school to learn how to stop it.
Having fought this injustice for the past several years, I have come to believe that ignorance is to blame for this legal absence. Opponents argue no woman would ever choose to raise the child she conceived through rape. The only two studies to analyze the choices made by pregnant raped women indicate otherwise -- at least 30% of women who conceive by rape make this choice.
Others argue that no rapist would ever seek parental rights. Not only does my experience and that of others I know prove otherwise, but it is not surprising that a man who cruelly degrades a woman would also seek to torture her in an even more agonizing way, by seeking access to her child.
Today, it seems we may face a new and unbelievable challenge: convincing legislators that women can conceive when they are raped.
Make no mistake, my efforts and the efforts of others to persuade legislators to pass laws restricting the parental rights of men who father through rape will be directly impacted by Akin's recent comments. Whether these efforts will be helped or hurt, however, depends upon us as a society.
Either we will fight ignorance and take steps to legislate for raped women based upon reason and facts, or we will be led by ignorance and continue to make bad laws. Or fail to make good ones.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Shauna Prewitt.
Interesting to learn that the Doctor that the idiot politician is citing is on record saying he is tight with Romney, has worked to support his campaign and act as an adviser and has met with him privately about matters related to abortion and that Romney has promised to make abortion reform based upon his advising if elected as recently as this past fall.
The Doctor is also stating that Romney thanked him for his support, etc.
So the doctor who came up with this crazy theory that idiot politican cited is a supporter of Romney and the two have had private meetings together within the past year, yet Ryan is all over the news today saying nobody agrees with idiot politician and nobody has ever discussed or heard of such theories before, etc.
Somebody should tell Ryan that his running mate hangs out with the same doctor who advised idiot politician and who is councelling him on this very agenda...
My question to this is, how is a zygote and a living, breathing animal similar in any way, shape or form?
Because neither of them is human? I'd personally rate even a zygote with potential of becoming human higher on a scale of importance than an animal, which barring some unforeseen leap in science (or magic), never will.
I suppose my scale of morality is thus
Spoiler:
Me
Other people who have actively tried to help me or are really hot and willing to sleep with me.
Other people who have done nothing for or against me
Cute, useful, or badass animals
Annoying people (includes babies)
Ugly but inoffensive animals
Animals who have actively tried to kill/eat/poison or annoy me
Really really annoying people, generally people who have achieved the triple threat of loud, stupid*, and around me, or actively tried to cause me harm.
* means they have disagreed with me on any of the issues I feel strongly about
The way I separate these lines of folks is that I would cheerfully line any group up and give them all the noodle if it would save the life of any single member of the group above them. I have also used the distance between to indicate how strongly I feel.
I was simply curious about how other people apply their morality to these types of situations.
@d-usa
Yeah, I've known two other individuals who were concieved from rape and I know another woman who chose to carry the baby. (so ya, I'm bias)
It's dispicable that rapist has "visitation rights".
Missouri is one of the those states that you can get him to "release" all of his visitation rights. (still has to go thru this even if he was convicted )
I stole this from 'nother site:
...both pro- and anti-abortion groups are focusing on the “legitimate rape” part because it distracts from the very issue Akin himself was trying to hide from: What about pregnancy that results from rape? Akin doesn’t want to confront that this happens, which is why he put forth his dumb rape-doesn’t-cause-pregnancy theory. Pro-choicers, for the most part, don’t want to confront that an abortion that happens after a rape is still just as much an abortion as one that happens because nobody bothered with birth control.
I think both sides should own it. Stand in your truth and be straightforward about what you really believe.
DemetriDominov wrote: No one in power has done much about poverty in this country in past 80 years because it equates to socialism in many arguments. The cycle really isn't that hard to break but it's held in place because it's a well kept lie being pushed in the other direction. The motivation and drive is there for those in poverty to remove themselves from poverty, the resources, knowledge, and connections politicians have to do it just aren't being used effectively - literally ever, in anything.
There's certainly plenty of scope to be critical of the drift in the US away from poverty reduction and towards straight up blaming the poor for their place, but you are exaggerating by quite a bit there in claiming nothing has been done in 80 years.
LBJ put in place the War on Poverty in the 60s, and that led to the Economic Opportunity Act. Now, you might argue that those initiatives have been steadily been reduced since then (as part of a general trend away from concern over poverty) but many of those programs are still in place, and still making an impact against poverty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: A similar argument is often made with respect to those people that find sexuality "disgusting". In essence, they aren't comfortable with their own sexuality and so any state of arousal is difficult for them, so they consciously work to counter that sentiment by claiming that they're disgusted. The ultimate goal being to minimize their exposure to sexuality, and therefore arousal, in order to avoid confronting their urges.
I've often wondered what sick gak they must be into that they're so horrified that it causes them to blame all sex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: That's why the national republicans are urging him to step down. It's not about what he said...it's about getting the Senate Majority (and the WH), which he has put MO at risk.
It's worth noting views like Akin's are not that uncommon among the hierarchy of the Republican party, and even if not held by a leader personally he'd certainly be aware of many fellow leaders and staffers who held such views.
To the Republican party Akin's sin really is one of message control - his argument is one you're supposed to put out to evangelical groups, but when it becomes a national media issue then it becomes a distraction from the main Republican focus. That it looks like any other generic Republican would now be a better chance of winning his senate race is icing on the cake.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: The Republican platform hasn't changed for many years on this subject. Neither has the Democratic platform.
Yeah, but the issue is about message control.
This campaign is shaping up as the opposite of 2008. Now Republicans want to talk economy, economy, economy, while Democrats will look for any possible reason to talk about anything else. Compare that to 2008 when the Democrats just wanted to talk economy and Republicans were desperate to talk about anything else, and came up with all stupid nonsense about Wright and all that other nonsense.
Akin has just gifted the Democrats a chance to talk about something else. The Republicans best chance to stop that happening is kick Akin out.
He had this election in the bag. He could've saved all his compaign $$$, smoking cigars and drinking cognac and STILL would've won handedly. Yeah, McCaskill is THAT hated here.
Akin has never been ahead of McCaskill by more than 3 points.
The Republicans best chance to stop that happening is kick Akin out.
Kicking him out is irrelevant.
Romney's documented history with/political connections to the doctor that Akin is citing and Ryans MANY statements on the record (and voting record in regards to birth control/Planned parenthood, etc.) make it pretty clear they are far less distant from Akin's/the doctor then they are trying (badly) to pretend...
The fact that they are refusing to answer all questions on the subject other than to say canned responses that evade any question actually asked and refusal to appear on any news station or interview other than fox & co. speaks volumes. They could take a stance and state their positions and defend their past records on this subject, but instead they ar etaking the "put our fingers in our ears and hope it blows over" route. I hope it sinks them like the titanic...
whembly wrote: That's why the national republicans are urging him to step down. It's not about what he said...it's about getting the Senate Majority (and the WH), which he has put MO at risk.
It's worth noting views like Akin's are not that uncommon among the hierarchy of the Republican party, and even if not held by a leader personally he'd certainly be aware of many fellow leaders and staffers who held such views.
To the Republican party Akin's sin really is one of message control - his argument is one you're supposed to put out to evangelical groups, but when it becomes a national media issue then it becomes a distraction from the main Republican focus. That it looks like any other generic Republican would now be a better chance of winning his senate race is icing on the cake.
True dat... but Aktin is extreme in his abortion views... always has been. Like I said, we *knew* that about him.
What's driving me bonkers is what I said earlier... Akin doesn’t want to confront that this happens, which is why he put forth his dumb rape-doesn’t-cause-pregnancy theory [weaslely politican answer] . Pro-choicers, for the most part, don’t want to confront that an abortion that happens after a rape is still just as much an abortion as one that happens because nobody bothered with birth control.
BOTH sides should own it... otherwise, this is all we're going to hear... "Republicans haaaaaaaaaaaate women!" or "Democrats are baby KILLERS!".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: The Republican platform hasn't changed for many years on this subject. Neither has the Democratic platform.
Yeah, but the issue is about message control.
This campaign is shaping up as the opposite of 2008. Now Republicans want to talk economy, economy, economy, while Democrats will look for any possible reason to talk about anything else. Compare that to 2008 when the Democrats just wanted to talk economy and Republicans were desperate to talk about anything else, and came up with all stupid nonsense about Wright and all that other nonsense.
Akin has just gifted the Democrats a chance to talk about something else. The Republicans best chance to stop that happening is kick Akin out.
He had this election in the bag. He could've saved all his compaign $$$, smoking cigars and drinking cognac and STILL would've won handedly. Yeah, McCaskill is THAT hated here.
Akin has never been ahead of McCaskill by more than 3 points.
No... there were several local polls (historically more accurate than national ones) that Atkins was up like 18% over McCaskill. The other two (R) primary candidates were over 20%.
Can't find the info at the moment and will post if I find it (Kansas Star? Post Dispatch? Columbia Tribune?) <still looking>
Look, McCaskill for the last year and half basically went in hiding... we normally have media meetings and townhalls with our Senators... but McCaskill is MIA cause she knows it won't be pleasent here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Can everyone take a deep breath? Please?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You back? You relaxed?
In a media hungry for controversy Congressman Todd Akin appeared as a tidy morsel of thoughtlessness. And what began as an appetizer has grown into a full course meal of presumed misinformation.
On Sunday, August 19, 2012 Rep. Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” There you have it! Enough words to feast on but let’s dissect it.
Thoughtless Akin referenced a “legitimate rape.” Hard to conclude anything but thoughtlessness to speak of a “legitimate rape,” as if there were any other kind of rape. In a world of sound bites Akin got bit. But is there such a thing as an “illegitimate rape”?
The most conservative studies have suggested false rape reports account for 4%-8% of all reported rapes.[1] So, 4%-8% of rape reports could rightfully be called “illegitimate rapes.”
But it dodges the real point. In an issue as emotionally charged as rape, any qualification is dangerous and open to misunderstanding if not intentional misinterpretation.
As one might expect, Akin felt the harsh rebuke of those seeking an opportunity to portray him as insensitive. In a campaign ad response to the criticism Akin stated:
Rape is an evil act. I used the wrong words in the wrong way and for that I apologize. As the father of two daughters, I want tough justice for predators. I have a compassionate heart for the victims of sexual assault. And I pray for them. The fact is, rape can lead to pregnancy. The truth is, rape has many victims.
The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold. I ask for your forgiveness.
Misinformation Taking Representative Akin’s words in the best possible way we can accept his apology for failing to respect the high emotion of the rape issue. Now, how do the facts hold up?
Akin suggested that the emotional trauma of a rape creates some sort of natural birth control reflex in a woman’s body. He does not say pregnancies never occur, but in fairness he does not acknowledge that fact either. Is he just clinging in hearsay and rumor?
Right now news sources are quick to repeat the familiar mantra that a pregnancy occurs in 5% of rape cases. It is a 16-year-old statistic lifted from a study of 4,008 women.[2] A 1982 study of 692 women suggested the chance of pregnancy occurring from a rape to be between 2% and 4%.[3] While statistically 2% to 5% is not a large percentage, for the victim the prospect no matter how remote emotionally compounds an already traumatic event.
But let’s be honest here – Akin violated the emotional sanctity of this topic with his term, “legitimate rape.” We now want to know the accuracy of his statement. Emotionally, there is no debate that even 2% is 2% too much. Is it true that the trauma of the rape reduces the chances for pregnancy?
I have yet to see a study that demonstrates some sort of contraceptive effect from a rape. I do believe, however, it is not an unwarranted conclusion.
According to eMedicineHealth[4], a woman who is a typical user of combination hormonal pills has an 8% chance of getting pregnant. If her partner is a typical user of the male condom she has a 15% chance of getting pregnant. If she has never delivered a child and is a typical user of a cervical cap she has a 16% chance of getting pregnant. If she and her partner were typical in practicing the withdrawal method, she would have a 27% chance of getting pregnant. And finally, if neither she or her partner used any form of birth control, she would have an 85% chance of getting pregnant.
Eugene F. Diamond, MD, Professor of Pediatrics and Past Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine, wrote in the “To the Editor” section of the April 11, 1985 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine:
Pregnancy is rare after a single act of forcible rape. In a prospective study of 4000 rapes in Minnesota, there were no pregnancies. In a retrospective study covering nine years in Chicago, there were no pregnancies. In a prospective study of 117 rapes there were no pregnancies among either the 17 victims who received DES or the 100 who did not.
Statistically speaking, it appears something happens in a rape, either with the victim or with the perpetrator, that reduces the incidence of pregnancy. Fertility specialists continually debate the role of emotions, unresolved conflicts and trauma play in female infertility. As you review the literature you will see there are strong convictions on both sides.
That all being said, could Akin be right? Does the 2% to 5% of rapes resulting in pregnancy suggest something else is “shutting down” what otherwise could be a 27% (withdrawal) to 85% (no birth control method) chance of getting pregnant?
The Real Point In a rape in which pregnancy does occur there are two victims – the woman and her unborn child. The suggestion that an unborn child should be classified as a victim along with the woman is the rub. The naïve component of the abortion-rights movement likes to continue the outdated mantra that in the early stages of the pregnancy it is merely a blob of cells. As such it is of no value compared to the needs of the mother.
The more sophisticated element of the abortion rights movement are more honest in their evaluations and shocking in their conclusions. The sophisticated advocate admits that in an abortion a child dies. It is not profound logic that leads to this conclusion. After all, upon fertilization it is a chromosomally unique individual that grows and migrates down the fallopian tube and implants in the uterine wall. Even if prevented from implanting, the developing life could continue maturing as a human being with nourishment and care. Today they can be transplanted into surrogate mothers and we are still hearing rumors of progress made in the invention of an artificial womb. At fertilization that embryo was you as it was you at implantation in the uterine wall, as it was you when you made that first in utero kick, as it was you at birth, at school, at marriage, as a parent and as a grandparent.
So the sophisticated advocates of abortion acknowledge that in abortion a child dies and consider it a sad but necessary evil to protect the autonomy of the mother. It is of subordinate value to the life of the mother. By referring to the mother and baby both as victims injects emotional value to both mother and the child – something abortion-rights advocates want to avoid.
Akin’s point was that killing one of the two victims of a rape is morally wrong. At the same time Akin’s supports toughening the law against the rapists. Now, that is focusing the punishment on the real fiend!
It is hard for any of us to get past the emotion of the rape experience. Its violation of human dignity and intimacy is atrocious. The memory never disappears and an entire future is altered. Akin, as many others of a pro-life persuasion, want harsher punishments for rapists. They want greater support services and protection for women in danger of rape and for those who have been raped. They also want to protect a woman who will never forget her rape from compounding the tragedy of terminating her own child’s life.
Prudence Without a doubt Akin could have said what he said much differently and with more sensitivity. Also, in the interest of winning the favor of the general public he must also accept the fact that most people today can’t get past the thought of the rape event. His advocacy for protecting the unborn child conceived from a rape is morally correct but at this time is not politically prudent.
We live in a nation that has taken the lives of more than 54 million unborn children through abortion. Getting society to realize the error of all that is a big and noble task. Opinion polls suggest we are making progress but we aren’t there yet.
I would counsel Akin to focus on that larger picture and leave the emotionally distorting event of pregnancy from a rape for a later day when society is better educated. It is a prudent move which does not desert the plight of the unborn child resulting from a rape but rather is taking the steps for progress where you can get it for a greater and more lasting solution in the future.
The enemies of Representative Akin would consider his defeat in the run for the U.S. Senate dessert. I am more hopeful that the proper education that can come out of all this might better result in tougher laws against rapists, care and support for the women who have been raped, and protection for the most defenseless of all – the unborn child. Now wouldn’t that be sweet!
By Pastor Robert Fleischmann, National Director of Christian Life Resources
whembly wrote: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Can everyone take a deep breath? Please?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You back? You relaxed?
whembly wrote: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Can everyone take a deep breath? Please?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You back? You relaxed?
...bet ya didn't read it did ya?
Newsflash: If you read that link, you'll know that this "pastor" isn't doing the "scientific study".
Yes, it certainly is unscientific since it constantly references the 'unborn child' as a victim, and how terrible the pro-abortion mantra is considering a fertilized egg is merely a collection of cells (heaven forbid we use scientific terminology, this is a child with a soul!). Next you'll be quoting the soundness of Dr. Wilke's methods in determining 'legitimate rape' rarely results in pregnancy.
Members in my familiy want MORE socialism... and I'd always get snooker'ed in good ol'fashion family debate that no one wins.
How... HOW DARE THEY!?
Wanting more social services and safety nets? BOOTSTRAPS!
...bet ya didn't read it did ya?
Newsflash: If you read that link, you'll know that this "pastor" isn't doing the "scientific study".
Yes, it certainly is unscientific since it constantly references the 'unborn child' as a victim, and how terrible the pro-abortion mantra is considering a fertilized egg is merely a collection of cells (heaven forbid we use scientific terminology, this is a child with a soul!)
Thanks for proving my point!
Members in my familiy want MORE socialism... and I'd always get snooker'ed in good ol'fashion family debate that no one wins.
How... HOW DARE THEY!?
Wanting more social services and safety nets? BOOTSTRAPS!
I KNOW!!!
Maybe I'll start a new thread on this topic since folks are interested... let's stop here and not muck up Melissia's thread.
Well, this is what the ignore feature is for I guess.
Awww... don't be like that...
Here's what I said previously:
What's driving me bonkers is what I said earlier... Akin doesn’t want to confront that this happens, which is why he put forth his dumb rape-doesn’t-cause-pregnancy theory [weaslely politican answer] . Pro-choicers, for the most part, don’t want to confront that an abortion that happens after a rape is still just as much an abortion as one that happens because nobody bothered with birth control.
BOTH sides should own it... otherwise, this is all we're going to hear... "Republicans haaaaaaaaaaaate women!" or "Democrats are baby KILLERS!".
So... you jumped on the article because a PASTOR believed that those "collection of cells" is a baby. He's a PASTOR for feth sakes? That's controversial from him?
And you totally ignored his criticism/recommendation for the whole thing.
and yes, I'm sure tons of people here are totally interested in discussing bootstraps with you, and how we should let sick people die or go bankrupt.
And why does everything think when one says "I dislike socialsm" is equivalent to believing that there shouldn't be any safty net. D'oh... MUST.NOT.RESPOND.FURTHER.
Chicago, Illinois (CNN) -- When I was in law school, my criminal law professor introduced us to the crime of rape by reading us a quote from Lord Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century English jurist: "In a rape case it is the victim, not the defendant, who is on trial."
It was not merely a history lesson. I had lived it.
While a student in my final year of college, at age 21, I was raped. I have dissected that moment -- the horrifying moment that I became a "victim" -- from every possible angle. I have poked and prodded, examined and re-examined. Regrettably, I have even suspected myself in a desperate, ultimately futile attempt to understand how I became a victim.
But blaming myself was neither my idea nor my first inclination. I thought such 17th-century notions were long dead. I was wrong. People who did not even know me were quick to comment or speculate on my rape. What were you wearing? Did you scream loudly? Did this occur in public?
As my history lesson said, I found myself on trial, facing the most fierce judge and jury: ignorance.
Defiant Akin still in Senate raceRep. Akin's controversial claimsEight years after my rape, I find myself on trial against ignorance again. Rep. Todd Akin's recent comments that "legitimate rape" rarely results in pregnancy not only flout scientific fact but, for me, cut deeper. Akin has de-legitimized my rape.
You see, nine months after my rape, I gave birth to a beautiful little girl. You could say she was conceived in rape; she was. But she is also so much more than her beginnings. I blissfully believed that after I finally had decided to give birth to and to raise my daughter, life would be all roses and endless days at the playground. I was wrong again.
It would not be long before I would learn firsthand that in the vast majority of states -- 31 -- men who father through rape are able to assert the same custody and visitation rights to their children that other fathers enjoy. When no law prohibits a rapist from exercising these rights, a woman may feel forced to bargain away her legal rights to a criminal trial in exchange for the rapist dropping the bid to have access to her child.
When faced with the choice between a lifetime tethered to her rapist or meaningful legal redress, the answer may be easy, but it is not painless. For the sake of her child, the woman will sacrifice her need to see her once immensely powerful perpetrator humbled by the court.
I know it because I lived it. I went to law school to learn how to stop it.
Having fought this injustice for the past several years, I have come to believe that ignorance is to blame for this legal absence. Opponents argue no woman would ever choose to raise the child she conceived through rape. The only two studies to analyze the choices made by pregnant raped women indicate otherwise -- at least 30% of women who conceive by rape make this choice.
Others argue that no rapist would ever seek parental rights. Not only does my experience and that of others I know prove otherwise, but it is not surprising that a man who cruelly degrades a woman would also seek to torture her in an even more agonizing way, by seeking access to her child.
Today, it seems we may face a new and unbelievable challenge: convincing legislators that women can conceive when they are raped.
Make no mistake, my efforts and the efforts of others to persuade legislators to pass laws restricting the parental rights of men who father through rape will be directly impacted by Akin's recent comments. Whether these efforts will be helped or hurt, however, depends upon us as a society.
Either we will fight ignorance and take steps to legislate for raped women based upon reason and facts, or we will be led by ignorance and continue to make bad laws. Or fail to make good ones.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Shauna Prewitt.
....I... I lack words. I am /trembling/ with rage.
I just deleted a massive rant that was going to be here.
I have calmed down a little. I am still very very angry.
I also have my new personal cause to rally, fund raise and do whatever the hell needs to be done for. Rape is the second most disgusting crime I can think of and the only thing that beats it is the same act when perpetrated against a child. That such... things, and things these criminals are because when you violate the social contract like that you may as well turn in your human being card... but that those things can possibly assert parental right on the women they raped, basically impose themselves on them again, control them again....
I'm going to stop or I will go off on another twelve paragraph rage trip. It's disgusting. It's wrong and as a civilized society we should not tolerate this gak.
Chicago, Illinois (CNN) -- When I was in law school, my criminal law professor introduced us to the crime of rape by reading us a quote from Lord Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century English jurist: "In a rape case it is the victim, not the defendant, who is on trial."
It was not merely a history lesson. I had lived it.
While a student in my final year of college, at age 21, I was raped. I have dissected that moment -- the horrifying moment that I became a "victim" -- from every possible angle. I have poked and prodded, examined and re-examined. Regrettably, I have even suspected myself in a desperate, ultimately futile attempt to understand how I became a victim.
But blaming myself was neither my idea nor my first inclination. I thought such 17th-century notions were long dead. I was wrong. People who did not even know me were quick to comment or speculate on my rape. What were you wearing? Did you scream loudly? Did this occur in public?
As my history lesson said, I found myself on trial, facing the most fierce judge and jury: ignorance.
Defiant Akin still in Senate raceRep. Akin's controversial claimsEight years after my rape, I find myself on trial against ignorance again. Rep. Todd Akin's recent comments that "legitimate rape" rarely results in pregnancy not only flout scientific fact but, for me, cut deeper. Akin has de-legitimized my rape.
You see, nine months after my rape, I gave birth to a beautiful little girl. You could say she was conceived in rape; she was. But she is also so much more than her beginnings. I blissfully believed that after I finally had decided to give birth to and to raise my daughter, life would be all roses and endless days at the playground. I was wrong again.
It would not be long before I would learn firsthand that in the vast majority of states -- 31 -- men who father through rape are able to assert the same custody and visitation rights to their children that other fathers enjoy. When no law prohibits a rapist from exercising these rights, a woman may feel forced to bargain away her legal rights to a criminal trial in exchange for the rapist dropping the bid to have access to her child.
When faced with the choice between a lifetime tethered to her rapist or meaningful legal redress, the answer may be easy, but it is not painless. For the sake of her child, the woman will sacrifice her need to see her once immensely powerful perpetrator humbled by the court.
I know it because I lived it. I went to law school to learn how to stop it.
Having fought this injustice for the past several years, I have come to believe that ignorance is to blame for this legal absence. Opponents argue no woman would ever choose to raise the child she conceived through rape. The only two studies to analyze the choices made by pregnant raped women indicate otherwise -- at least 30% of women who conceive by rape make this choice.
Others argue that no rapist would ever seek parental rights. Not only does my experience and that of others I know prove otherwise, but it is not surprising that a man who cruelly degrades a woman would also seek to torture her in an even more agonizing way, by seeking access to her child.
Today, it seems we may face a new and unbelievable challenge: convincing legislators that women can conceive when they are raped.
Make no mistake, my efforts and the efforts of others to persuade legislators to pass laws restricting the parental rights of men who father through rape will be directly impacted by Akin's recent comments. Whether these efforts will be helped or hurt, however, depends upon us as a society.
Either we will fight ignorance and take steps to legislate for raped women based upon reason and facts, or we will be led by ignorance and continue to make bad laws. Or fail to make good ones.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Shauna Prewitt.
....I... I lack words. I am /trembling/ with rage.
I just deleted a massive rant that was going to be here.
I have calmed down a little. I am still very very angry.
I also have my new personal cause to rally, fund raise and do whatever the hell needs to be done for. Rape is the second most disgusting crime I can think of and the only thing that beats it is the same act when perpetrated against a child. That such... things, and things these criminals are because when you violate the social contract like that you may as well turn in your human being card... but that those things can possibly assert parental right on the women they raped, basically impose themselves on them again, control them again....
I'm going to stop or I will go off on another twelve paragraph rage trip. It's disgusting. It's wrong and as a civilized society we should not tolerate this gak.
Right there with ya man. My solution... Firing Squad... and even then, that's not good enough.
No... there were several local polls (historically more accurate than national ones) that Atkins was up like 18% over McCaskill. The other two (R) primary candidates were over 20%.
Local polls actually tend to be much less accurate than their national counterparts due to poor funding and therefore poor methodology. Of course by "local" I assume you mean "funded by a local organization".
This survey is actually a good example. Public Policy Polling conducted a survey of 500 Missouri residents in a single evening, all via the same method (automate phone calls), while the SurveyUSA data used in the local poll was collected over 3 days using 2 separate methods (pre-recorded interview and electronic questionnaire). The first method is generally more accurate because it features less variation according to collection methodology, but also more expensive because all responses need to be acquired in a relatively short frame of time. The PPP survey found Akin to be ahead by a point, compared to the 11 point lead indicated by the SurveyUSA data.
That PPP poll just seems weird, I think they over sampled the (D)s in that poll making it closer... McCaskill is easily over 10% now...
Edit again:
Since PPP decided it can't help itself, I've done you all a service.
I went through their ridiculous R+9 sample and ONLY changed the D/R/I proportions to match previous elections, and an even turnout.
With R+9, PPP's headline screams Akin up by 1. It is an obvious, sick ploy to get this delusional Bio101 flunkie to stay in and cost us a seat.
Here are the real numbers:
If turnout in November matches 2008 (it won't):
McCaskill 49.25% Akin 39% (this is a D+6 turnout model)
If turnout in November is even, an incredible feat for the GOP considering heavy turnout in St Louis and Kansas City during an election year:
McCaskill 47% Akin 40%.
If turnout in November matches the best we have ever seen in the state (R+3 during 2010):
McCaskill 45% Akin 41%.
McCaskill is a dead duck if we dump Akin. The other candidates from the primary were crushing her up and down. To trail her by four in a best-case scenario is inexcusable at this point.
The fact that PPP had to triple the best R margin ever just to get Akin over McCaskill screams agenda polling, but they will never admit to that, so I'm calling them out on it, and it's time for you to spread the word. PPP's "Akin still leads" poll is garbage, the approval rating for Akin with this huge R spread is a God-awful 24%, and McCaskill hasn't cut one rape ad yet.
My question was this: did you seriously support his position, and not want him to withdraw for his hate, lack of education and misogyny; but want him to withdraw only because he made a political misstep and revealed it?
Honestly?? The latter... sort of.
That doesn't mean I supported the former. (he doesn't support gay marriage... and I do)
I'm not a single-issue voter.
I just wanted a (R) to win the senate seat from McCaskill.
What does that make me?
I dunno, but a foundational discourse on women's rights is a pretty big issue. I suspect that If someone is in favour of insert anything here and yet against women's rights, that makes them a misogynist.
whembly wrote:
And why does everything think when one says "I dislike socialsm" is equivalent to believing that there shouldn't be any safty net. D'oh... MUST.NOT.RESPOND.FURTHER.
Because we don't suffer from cognitive dissonance.
I also have my new personal cause to rally, fund raise and do whatever the hell needs to be done for. Rape is the second most disgusting crime I can think of and the only thing that beats it is the same act when perpetrated against a child. That such... things, and things these criminals are because when you violate the social contract like that you may as well turn in your human being card... but that those things can possibly assert parental right on the women they raped, basically impose themselves on them again, control them again....
I'm going to stop or I will go off on another twelve paragraph rage trip. It's disgusting. It's wrong and as a civilized society we should not tolerate this gak.
Really, I mean, yeah, rape is a terrible crime and all but did you really just rank it as worse than murder? I mean, I get that there are people who have that opinion, but ... you survive it. No one survives being murdered.
I also have my new personal cause to rally, fund raise and do whatever the hell needs to be done for. Rape is the second most disgusting crime I can think of and the only thing that beats it is the same act when perpetrated against a child. That such... things, and things these criminals are because when you violate the social contract like that you may as well turn in your human being card... but that those things can possibly assert parental right on the women they raped, basically impose themselves on them again, control them again....
I'm going to stop or I will go off on another twelve paragraph rage trip. It's disgusting. It's wrong and as a civilized society we should not tolerate this gak.
Really, I mean, yeah, rape is a terrible crime and all but did you really just rank it as worse than murder? I mean, I get that there are people who have that opinion, but ... you survive it. No one survives being murdered.
Which some people might argue as a reason why rape is worse.
Once the murder is done, the victim doesn't suffer anymore. Rape affects the victim for the rest of their lives.
I also have my new personal cause to rally, fund raise and do whatever the hell needs to be done for. Rape is the second most disgusting crime I can think of and the only thing that beats it is the same act when perpetrated against a child. That such... things, and things these criminals are because when you violate the social contract like that you may as well turn in your human being card... but that those things can possibly assert parental right on the women they raped, basically impose themselves on them again, control them again....
I'm going to stop or I will go off on another twelve paragraph rage trip. It's disgusting. It's wrong and as a civilized society we should not tolerate this gak.
Really, I mean, yeah, rape is a terrible crime and all but did you really just rank it as worse than murder? I mean, I get that there are people who have that opinion, but ... you survive it. No one survives being murdered.
Which some people might argue as a reason why rape is worse.
Once the murder is done, the victim doesn't suffer anymore. Rape affects the victim for the rest of their lives.
That, to me at least is an idiotic statement. Using that logic, assault is worse than murder. Stealing is worse than murder. Kicking someone in the shin is worse than murder. In fact, using that argument murder is a victimless crime because the victim can't suffer any more.
No.
You just took away an entire lifetime of possibilities. That is significantly worse than rape.
I also have my new personal cause to rally, fund raise and do whatever the hell needs to be done for. Rape is the second most disgusting crime I can think of and the only thing that beats it is the same act when perpetrated against a child. That such... things, and things these criminals are because when you violate the social contract like that you may as well turn in your human being card... but that those things can possibly assert parental right on the women they raped, basically impose themselves on them again, control them again....
I'm going to stop or I will go off on another twelve paragraph rage trip. It's disgusting. It's wrong and as a civilized society we should not tolerate this gak.
Really, I mean, yeah, rape is a terrible crime and all but did you really just rank it as worse than murder? I mean, I get that there are people who have that opinion, but ... you survive it. No one survives being murdered.
Which some people might argue as a reason why rape is worse.
Once the murder is done, the victim doesn't suffer anymore. Rape affects the victim for the rest of their lives.
That, to me at least is an idiotic statement. Using that logic, assault is worse than murder. Stealing is worse than murder. Kicking someone in the shin is worse than murder. In fact, using that argument murder is a victimless crime because the victim can't suffer any more.
No.
You just took away an entire lifetime of possibilities. That is significantly worse than rape.
Let's look at some of the other reasons why rapes are as bad as they are:
A large number of rapes are committed by people the victim knows. It shatters their trust, their judgement, their ability to trust the people around them. It creates long term problem when it comes to forming relationships.
Rape victims often face judgement from people around them. You have idiotic comments like "legitimate rape" for the same reason why defense attorneys try to bring up the sexual past of rape victims. Because they are judged and people like to look at them and think "she probably asked for it", "she probably wanted it", "she dressed like a slut", "she has sex with everybody anyway".
You can end up with an STD. If you are "lucky" it is something curable, but you will still end up going to the clinic and being judged because you must get around to get an STD. If you are not so lucky you will end up with something that will either stay with you for the rest of your life or even cut your life short.
Maybe a couple of the scenarious at once, here is a worst case scenario that is not that unlikely:
Married woman is raped by a co-worker (because many rapes are by somebody the victim knows), the crime is reported and the guy goes to jail. After 3 months of trying to deal with it her husband leaves her because he has a hard time dealing with feelings like "she cheated on me", "was he better than me", "what did she do that made him think she wanted it". Between the rape and her husband leaving she is unable to have a normal relationship after that. Guy had HPV and she gets cervical cancer.
Really not that unlikely of a story.
I don't think it is worse than murder, but it is in a category that is up there with it.
Considering some of the rape victims I've met the argument could be made that a lifetime of possibilities was taken away there too. Sure you're alive... with a shattered mind a body that disgusts you.
Rape and Murder are the top two most vile crimes* bottom line because they are a complete and personal violation of the only thing that's really yours. Your actual person. if you really want to get into the semantics of it all we can start a polling thread and all of OT can vote and decide which crime's worst.
*as perpetrated by an individual on an individual.
Or you can realize I was probably insanely pissed off and not typing 100% coherently. Your call.
Well, D, I am glad that you agree that murder is worse than rape. I also agree with you that short of murder, it is about the worst damn crime out there. Maybe I don't express that because I try to be fairly succinct.
But K-money.... really? Having someone take a brick and make your frontal lobe your not quite so frontal lobe is a worse thing than rape. I'm sorry, but it is. Emotional damage sucks, but it does not trump death. Being murdered is not a violation, it is a negation. It is taking you, and making there not be you any more. Rape can take you and twist you and change you, but it cannot negate you. It can make you choose to negate yourself, but it cannot negate you forceably. I don't care if every person on dakka or for that matter in the whole world disagrees with me, because my choice of morality isn't a popularity contest. It is what I need it to be.
While the term “Legitimate Rape” wass only recently introduced into the common lexicon due to the interview by Senate hopeful Todd Akin, its origins actually stretch back far further than most people realize. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch went into detail behind the origins of his claim. The origin for the rape-pregnancy-free argument comes from a single source, the 1972 article “The Indications for Induced Abortion: A Physician’s Perspective,” by Dr. Fred Mecklenburg. This two page piece was one of 19 included in the 1972 anthology “Abortion and Social Justice” compiled by Dr. Thomas W. Hilger. Dr. Mecklenburg formerly was the chairman of obstetrics at Inova Women’s Hospital in Fall’s Church, Va.
In Dr. Mecklenburg’s piece, he posted several statistics, from a woman’s menstrual cycle to a rapists masturbation to theorize that pregnancies from rape are incredibly improbable. But, buried within the piece is one line, one bit of insight into the origin of this tale. It states that a woman exposed to rape, “will not ovulate even if she is ‘scheduled’ to.” The source of his claims, however, is where the story falls apart.
Since the paper’s release in 1972, there has been leaps and bounds in the field of obstetrics. Taken from the Post-Dispatch is this gem from Dr. Barbara Levy, vice president for health policy at the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:
“From a scientific standpoint, what’s legitimate and fair to say is that a woman who is raped has the same chances of getting pregnant as a woman who engaged in consensual intercourse during the same time in her menstrual cycle.”
So where then did Dr. Mecklenburg originate his hypothesis?
According to RawStory, the papers which he cited for his own article originated from the concentration camps and the sadistic medical experiments done by Nazi doctors such as Josef Mengele, Herta Oberheuser and Karl Brandt. Quoting from Dr Mecklenburg’s article, the doctors tested their hypothesis “by selecting women who were about to ovulate and sending them to the gas chambers, only to bring them back after their realistic mock-killing, to see what the effect this had on their ovulatory patterns. An extremely high percentage of these women did not ovulate.” To confirm his hypothesis, he cites the work by the most inhumane and evil of men.
Of course, medical science invalidated his theory decades ago. The original Nazi experiments were on people malnourished and abused, both of which by themselves have been found to cause infertility. This is not new knowledge, but why then was this source cited by Dr. Mecklenburg?
It turns out his wife, Marjory, was the chairwoman of the National Right to Life Committee. She also served under both Presidents Ford and Reagan. To back their anti-choice positions, they needed scientific papers. And here is her husband providing just what they needed in a publication paid for by Americans United for Life, run by William Buckley’s brother-in-law. A very tight-knit group. To gain the academic credibility needed, he needed to give sources, and the only ones available came right out of the mass murders of the Holocaust.
Since the publication of his paper, it is often cited by a number of other anti-choice studies for validation of their figures. This is how the cycle is perpetuated, in this case political advocacy through fake science. No different than Intelligent Design or Divine Mathematics. The “science” behind the anti-choice movement is a fraud, built upon the theories of mad men who were out to create the Master Race.
The ultimate Godwin’s Law indeed, when your own proof is nothing but a reconstituted Third Reich lie.
Bromsy still seems to be missing the part where I flat out said "Posted that while pissed off, probably not my actual opinion on where murder sits on the "gakky things to do to other human beings" scale. "
Melissa's right though. There's plenty of things worse then death and while our society is pretty good about out reach and help in trying to rebuild victims... well I can't talk about rape but I can talk about being the victim of spousal abuse and domestic violence and there were more then a few times that suck starting a 1911 felt like a superior option to living another day. Obviously I didn't make that choice but the actions of others can and do make people's lives a living hell.
I guess it comes down to this. Would you rather be shot in the head? Or tortured for years with almost NOTHING that can be done about it? To live with the constant unending terror that your personal nightmare is going to come back and hurt you again?
I don't think he should drop out, all he has done is proved that he is a bigot and a feth wit.
Surely that's 90% of politicians isn't it? Both here and in the US Senate!
As you are all aware, I am a monarchist not just because I happen to like our current Queen, but mostly because I absolutely loathe politicians, the only job whereby if you are honest and intelligent you are utterly unfit for the role.
The higher a modern politician rises, the more of a fething scumbag he has to be. Therein lies the problem! By definition a "successful" politician is a liar and a backstabber of the highest order!
I have recommended scrapping Parliament for years and just letting Lizzie make all the rules again, the illusion of freedom isnt worth the price, so feth it, im down for some absolute authority. Seeing as you aren't tied to our Monarchy anymore, I recommend you all take one last vote, and nominate a US Monarch, who can save you several billion dollars a year by scrapping all of the politicians and forcing them to get real jobs, and then making all of the rules themselves like a King of Old.
Ill leave it up to you guys to decide.. go for someone tough so he can help out in a battle. Bruce Willis?
On the Subject of abortion, Killing a zygot is no different from eating eggs, sure there was potential for life, but you dont feel bad about eating eggs doo ya?
hotsauceman1 wrote: On the Subject of abortion, Killing a zygot is no different from eating eggs, sure there was potential for life, but you dont feel bad about eating eggs doo ya?
hotsauceman1 wrote: On the Subject of abortion, Killing a zygot is no different from eating eggs, sure there was potential for life, but you dont feel bad about eating eggs doo ya?
mattyrm wrote: I don't think he should drop out, all he has done is proved that he is a bigot and a feth wit.
Surely that's 90% of politicians isn't it? Both here and in the US Senate!
As you are all aware, I am a monarchist not just because I happen to like our current Queen, but mostly because I absolutely loathe politicians, the only job whereby if you are honest and intelligent you are utterly unfit for the role.
The higher a modern politician rises, the more of a fething scumbag he has to be. Therein lies the problem! By definition a "successful" politician is a liar and a backstabber of the highest order!
I have recommended scrapping Parliament for years and just letting Lizzie make all the rules again, the illusion of freedom isnt worth the price, so feth it, im down for some absolute authority. Seeing as you aren't tied to our Monarchy anymore, I recommend you all take one last vote, and nominate a US Monarch, who can save you several billion dollars a year by scrapping all of the politicians and forcing them to get real jobs, and then making all of the rules themselves like a King of Old.
Ill leave it up to you guys to decide.. go for someone tough so he can help out in a battle. Bruce Willis?
One issue, while the Queen Mother's pretty BA (She's gone skydiving with James Bond and I haven't 'nuff said there) the Charles problem remains once she finally (if ever, I think she's a highlander) dies.
That's the real issue with a monarchy or benevolent dictator. Sure the boss you got is fething awesome. But who's going to take over when they die? Probably someone who sucks.
No, he needs to stay in. I look forward to seeing Akin become Romney's very own Willie Horton.
I'm not convinced that'd happen. Had the Republican's circled wagon and defended Aktins, then yeah I could see it.
For the life of me, I don't understand this... the DNC is going to run on "women's rights" at the Convention. Which is fine and dandy... but Bill Clinton is going to be the keynote speaker?!:!
Does anyone note remember Lewinski? The accused rape (Juanita and Paula Jones)? Another example of bad optics.
Sometimes people use [/sarcasm] at the end of their posts or hte sarcastic parts of their post to indicate when they're starting to be serious. No actual sarcasm tag thgough. Personally, I prefer to use "Jokes aside, [...]" to indicate the previous part of my post was sarcastic.
Melissia wrote: Yeah, that's just freaking unethical. But I doubt those laws will be changed any time soon...
People start talking with votes, the idiots in power will start listening.
So you want the abolution of democracy and the creation of a populist tyrant? No thanks.
One of the hallmarks of a democracy is that the leaders should ignore the whims of the people and do what's right, not what's popular. I mean, have you actually met the "man on the street"? People are fething idiots!
Melissia wrote: Yeah, that's just freaking unethical. But I doubt those laws will be changed any time soon...
People start talking with votes, the idiots in power will start listening.
So you want the abolution of democracy and the creation of a populist tyrant? No thanks.
One of the hallmarks of a democracy is that the leaders should ignore the whims of the people and do what's right, not what's popular. I mean, have you actually met the "man on the street"? People are fething idiots!
How about just the end of the republican party. If they want to live in the past, then they should get out of the present so we can move into the future. Better yet the end of both parties and go back to electing people to represent real people, not the corporations posing as people.
Melissia wrote: Yeah, that's just freaking unethical. But I doubt those laws will be changed any time soon...
People start talking with votes, the idiots in power will start listening.
So you want the abolution of democracy and the creation of a populist tyrant? No thanks.
One of the hallmarks of a democracy is that the leaders should ignore the whims of the people and do what's right, not what's popular. I mean, have you actually met the "man on the street"? People are fething idiots!
I...never said anything about populist tyrants. But ok. I guess you can make some sort of connection there.
And actually, it's a fundamental principle of democracy to listen to the will of all people. Perhaps you are thinking of a republic?
Melissia wrote: Yeah, that's just freaking unethical. But I doubt those laws will be changed any time soon...
People start talking with votes, the idiots in power will start listening.
So you want the abolution of democracy and the creation of a populist tyrant? No thanks.
One of the hallmarks of a democracy is that the leaders should ignore the whims of the people and do what's right, not what's popular. I mean, have you actually met the "man on the street"? People are fething idiots!
How about just the end of the republican party. If they want to live in the past, then they should get out of the present so we can move into the future. Better yet the end of both parties and go back to electing people to represent real people, not the corporations posing as people.
As the amount of time out of office increases, the extent of change that a political party will undergo increases exponentially.
In 1979 when the Labour Party lost to Margeret Thatcher, they were a democratic socialist organisation arguing for state control of industry.
By the time they were elected in 1997, they were extremist laissez-faire.
No, he needs to stay in. I look forward to seeing Akin become Romney's very own Willie Horton.
I'm not convinced that'd happen. Had the Republican's circled wagon and defended Aktins, then yeah I could see it.
For the life of me, I don't understand this... the DNC is going to run on "women's rights" at the Convention. Which is fine and dandy... but Bill Clinton is going to be the keynote speaker?!:!
Does anyone note remember Lewinski? The accused rape (Juanita and Paula Jones)? Another example of bad optics.
I'm not certain that it'll happen, but I can say this much: Lee Atwater was one of my heroes (I know... WTF, right?) and what I would do, is make sure that every single woman in America understood exactly what Akin stands for, and I would make sure every single woman in America understands that he and Ryan are joined at the brain. Then I would make sure that everyone in America well understood that Akin is representative of the attitudes of the entire GOP.
And insofar as Clinton goes, I don't really remember the Lewinsky scandal (which amounted to absolutely nothing other than a distraction) in any way equating to the GOP's desire to take away women's rights. As for Paula Jones, you appear to be making the mistake of believing that sexual harassment and rape are interchangeable.
Bill Maher on Upcoming Presidential Election: "There's Obama and There Are the People from the Mental Patient Party"
Speaking of news this week, Todd Akin with the legitimate rape thing. Do you think he actually believes that or do you think it's just an anti-abortion thing?
I think he actually believes it. He's not the only one. It's actually a common belief on the fringes of the pro-life movement. And he's not the first one to say it. We've got hold of a number of people in assemblies, state representatives, who over the years have made similar comments. They believe the woman emits a mythical vaginal secretion during rape to stop it.
And this is what I mean when I say religion is a mental illness. It corrodes your way of thinking. I mean, this is a guy from the suburbs of Saint Louis. He's not from Mississippi or Alabama or someplace where you think, oh, those people are hicks. I think Saint Louis is a pretty modern city. And this guy gets elected over and over by large majorities. I think people in America really need to take a hard look at the Republican party.
I said the other day, and said, it's this kind of thing that gives me a good answer when people say, "Obama's so far from perfect. Why'd you give him a million bucks?" Because there's only two choices in America. There's Obama and there are the people from the mental patient party.
No, he needs to stay in. I look forward to seeing Akin become Romney's very own Willie Horton.
I'm not convinced that'd happen. Had the Republican's circled wagon and defended Aktins, then yeah I could see it.
For the life of me, I don't understand this... the DNC is going to run on "women's rights" at the Convention. Which is fine and dandy... but Bill Clinton is going to be the keynote speaker?!:!
Does anyone note remember Lewinski? The accused rape (Juanita and Paula Jones)? Another example of bad optics.
I'm not certain that it'll happen, but I can say this much: Lee Atwater was one of my heroes (I know... WTF, right?) and what I would do, is make sure that every single woman in America understood exactly what Akin stands for, and I would make sure every single woman in America understands that he and Ryan are joined at the brain. Then I would make sure that everyone in America well understood that Akin is representative of the attitudes of the entire GOP.
Heh... that's what I'd do...
And insofar as Clinton goes, I don't really remember the Lewinsky scandal (which amounted to absolutely nothing other than a distraction) in any way equating to the GOP's desire to take away women's rights. As for Paula Jones, you appear to be making the mistake of believing that sexual harassment and rape are interchangeable.
Actually what you have is a campaign thrwing everything it can on the wall to distract from its craptacular handling of the economy and the bueaucratic nightmare that is the ACA. But sorry please go back to talking about abortion, or tax returns, or dogs on the roof or something. Look over there!
Frazzled wrote: Actually what you have is a campaign thrwing everything it can on the wall to distract from its craptacular handling of the economy and the bueaucratic nightmare that is the ACA. But sorry please go back to talking about abortion, or tax returns, or dogs on the roof or something. Look over there!
You hilarious conservatives want this election to be a choice between the very flawed President Obama and some perfect ideal that you promise exists, but won't actually talk about.
I'm no fan of President Obama, but you can't bitch and complain about distractions when Mitt Romney has been stupidly vague and evasive about every single issue. All he says is that he's better because of his business experience (except all those times he raided pension funds and closed plants) or because he's a family man, or because he saved the Olympics? Or something, but at least he won't talk about how can he speak French or was the religious leader of several Mormon temples.
Basically, stop being cry babies. Romney is going to lose in hilarious fashion this year, and complaining about distractions now is just funny.
Frazzled wrote: Actually what you have is a campaign thrwing everything it can on the wall to distract from its craptacular handling of the economy and the bueaucratic nightmare that is the ACA.
Yeah, Obama is totally not addressing the economy. Not at all.
Frazzled wrote:Actually what you have is a campaign thrwing everything it can on the wall to distract from its craptacular handling of the economy and the bueaucratic nightmare that is the ACA. But sorry please go back to talking about abortion, or tax returns, or dogs on the roof or something. Look over there!
So some degree, I kinda agree with you. But probably not in the way you'd hope. Every congress and white house administration that doesn't regulate the ever-living-crap out of the banking industry is handling it in a craptacular fashion. Y'all are in the mess you're in due to de-regulation, and don't even try to deny that. The banks did what they did because they were allowed to. Simple as that.
And as a side note, does anyone else think that Todd Akin's Mistaken Baby Makin' Theory would make a great name for an Alan Parsons cover band?
Frazzled wrote: Actually what you have is a campaign thrwing everything it can on the wall to distract from its craptacular handling of the economy and the bueaucratic nightmare that is the ACA. But sorry please go back to talking about abortion, or tax returns, or dogs on the roof or something. Look over there!
Rape and abortions are being talked about as this thread is about rape and abortions and specifically some imbeciles opinions on them.
If you want to discuss economics then you could start an economics thread.
"Next week in Tampa the Republicans must admit that the difference between a GOP convention and Comic-Con is that the people at Comic-Con have a much firmer grasp of reality."
PPP's newest poll of the Missouri Senate race finds that Todd Akin is weathering the storm and the contest remains a toss up. Claire McCaskill leads 45-44, just a small change from our poll last week which found Akin ahead by a 44-43 margin.
Okay, I think you may have officially accomplished something if you manage to piss off Bill Nye and have him go off like this:
Look, these people they're f**king slowed. Rape can't cause pregnancy? Breastmilk cures homosexuality? I caused a hurricane by challenging creationism? Who can possibly take these people seriously anymore?
It used to be these Republicans didn't believe in global warming or evolution. That was bad enough. Now they don't even believe in egg + sperm = baby. Where does Todd Akin think babies come from? Does he think there are separate storks for people who were raped and people who weren't? Hey look over there! It's the rape stork. It drops off all its babies directly at the orphanage.
He's a f**king idiot. Just a plain f**king idiot. I'm sorry -- I don't say that word very often -- but it happens to fit in this case. He's just a f**king idiot.
Rape Stork...priceless.
I just read the rest of it
As the stunned anchors hurriedly tried to wind the conversation down and cut to commercial, Nye stared directly into the camera and issued a challenge to his new-found rival:
"So Todd I got an offer for you. You and me. Any time. Any place. Debating science mano- a-mano. I'll bring the facts, and you bring the Vaseline. Because your a** is gonna f**king need it when I'm done whipping."
However, Nye, in recent years, has become an outspoken opponent of social conservative asshattery in the realm of science. For that alone he's one of my heroes.
whembly wrote: True dat... but Aktin is extreme in his abortion views... always has been. Like I said, we *knew* that about him.
Yeah, and that's the difference between good and bad politics. Akin's views on abortion were known already among the people for whom those views are beneficial, so there was no point talking about it anymore.
What's driving me bonkers is what I said earlier... Akin doesn’t want to confront that this happens, which is why he put forth his dumb rape-doesn’t-cause-pregnancy theory [weaslely politican answer] . Pro-choicers, for the most part, don’t want to confront that an abortion that happens after a rape is still just as much an abortion as one that happens because nobody bothered with birth control.
I don't think pro-choicers are that bothered about the idea of abortion when no-one bothered with birth control. I think they'd point out that such behaviour is rare - which should be self-evident when you compare the cost of a condom against the cost of an abortion.
If you want a sticky subject for pro-choice people talk about gender selection abortions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Which some people might argue as a reason why rape is worse.
Once the murder is done, the victim doesn't suffer anymore. Rape affects the victim for the rest of their lives.
But they're alive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: I have recommended scrapping Parliament for years and just letting Lizzie make all the rules again, the illusion of freedom isnt worth the price, so feth it, im down for some absolute authority. Seeing as you aren't tied to our Monarchy anymore, I recommend you all take one last vote, and nominate a US Monarch, who can save you several billion dollars a year by scrapping all of the politicians and forcing them to get real jobs, and then making all of the rules themselves like a King of Old.
Because when monarchs had real power they were always the most considered and responsible of people.
Bill Maher on Upcoming Presidential Election: "There's Obama and There Are the People from the Mental Patient Party"
Speaking of news this week, Todd Akin with the legitimate rape thing. Do you think he actually believes that or do you think it's just an anti-abortion thing?
I think he actually believes it.
I remember when Paul Haggis left scientology, and a fellow asked him if he really believed all that stuff about Xenu and volanoes and all the other nonsense. In what was probably the only bit of genuine insight into humanity Paul Haggis has ever given us (seriously his movies are awful), he said he didn't so much believe it as accept it. It was important to being part of his social group, and really important to all the other beliefs he held dear, and so he just accepted it because the alternative was too hard. And doing so wouldn't be that hard, because all the people like him were just as willing to just accept it, and not actually really believe it.
I think its the same with Akin and all the other socially conservative Republicans who've made similar claims. They don't really believe the no pregnancy from rape thing... I don't believe for one second that if their own daughters were pregnant and said it was due to rape I doubt any of them would think for one second that it must have not been a real rape.
But as long as it's a piece of nonsense shared among social conservatives at dinner parties and fundraisers, they're willing to accept it to get out the inconvenient issue of forcing a women to bring to term a baby that was the product of a rape.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Actually what you have is a campaign thrwing everything it can on the wall to distract from its craptacular handling of the economy and the bueaucratic nightmare that is the ACA. But sorry please go back to talking about abortion, or tax returns, or dogs on the roof or something. Look over there!
I dearly love the claims about Obama's handling of the economy, when there is a complete absence of economic recovery planning on the other side of the house, and has been since the GFC. It's a recession. They suck. Stop pretending government has a magic solution to stop recessions from sucking. They can do one thing to prevent them being worse... and that's to spend money - but your side is opposed to that anyway.
And more to the point, in 2008 when the gakky economy was perceived as a Republican thing McCain did everything he could to talk about everything else. Now the shoe is on the other foot and all of a sudden you're outraged about the Democrats looking for other stuff to talk about... and it's only now that it bothers you, not in 2008. So stop your partisan nonsense. It's boring.
I can see how accepting that humanity was created by chance (I don't think accident is the appropriate word) and has no more inherent meaning or value than any other animals could be hard.
mattyrm wrote: I have recommended scrapping Parliament for years and just letting Lizzie make all the rules again, the illusion of freedom isnt worth the price, so feth it, im down for some absolute authority. Seeing as you aren't tied to our Monarchy anymore, I recommend you all take one last vote, and nominate a US Monarch, who can save you several billion dollars a year by scrapping all of the politicians and forcing them to get real jobs, and then making all of the rules themselves like a King of Old.
Because when monarchs had real power they were always the most considered and responsible of people.
Sebster, you are far too bright to start acting like one of the plebeians, please don't make a habit of replying to my obviously jocular remarks with "Because.." or "So what you are saying is..." as I find it insulting. Like you are using the fact I made a joke to insinuate that I never went to school and am utterly unaware of my own country's history. I am well aware that for every good Monarch or benevolent dictator you tend to get three bad ones. Obviously for every Victoria there is a Richard III or Edward II... or every Irishman's favourite Oliver Cromwell.
As I said, generally speaking, on this forum is someone's reply starts with "So what you are saying is... its actually - insert nothing you said" or "Because - its - insert ridiculous comment" you can rest assured that said retort will be about as funny as finding a lump on your testicles.
So don't cheapen your otherwise almost exemplary posting record.
It will only work if the pro-Life side of the debate is, indeed, pro-Life and has as its main interest the preservation of the unborn children. All too many 'pro-Life' advocates are really just 'pro-I-want-women-to-behave-a-certain-way-and-punish-them-if-they-don't' and they won't go for this.
Ever since Roe v. Wade, BILLIONS of dollars has been spent in court and on advertising on the pro-Life side. MILLIONS of man (and woman) hours have been invested in the debate. And to what return? Bubkiss. Nothing. Nada. The country is just as divided on the issue as ever before. NOTHING has been resolved.
So obviously debate and legal action on this subject is a total waste. It is, therefore, irrational to continue wasting resources on the subject.
INSTEAD, how about funding medical research? With that much money behind it, I'm pretty sure a procedure to remove an embryo from a woman - and keep the embryo ALIVE in the doing - can be developed. I'm also pretty sure a method to bring the embryo to term outside a woman's body can also be developed.
Once this happens, the whole abortion issue disappears overnight. All the children can be saved, and women can still have their choice.
As a bonus, things like ectopic pregnancies - which are 100% fatal to the mother if not treated, and currently 100% fatal to the embryo - can be handled without killing the embryo as well!
All the pro-lifers have to do... is give up the joy of screaming 'baby-killer!' in debate and actually DO something positive to remove the need for abortions instead.
At puberty (determined by pediatrician), lets gave all males a vasectomy (the reversal kind).
Then, when ready to have kids, reverse it and voila! Little critters on demand!
Then, there's not issue with needing abortion.
/snark off
actually... that may have some merits...
*be gentle... I'm sorta drunk now...
This is a pretty good idea.. I was planning on having one so I could choose when I wanted to have kids but still enjoy all the sex I wanted without worry.
I don't really see how there would be much of a downside other than having an operation, though I'm sure there are plenty of things people will find wrong about it and yell "freedom" at it for.
At puberty (determined by pediatrician), lets gave all males a vasectomy (the reversal kind).
Then, when ready to have kids, reverse it and voila! Little critters on demand!
Then, there's not issue with needing abortion.
/snark off
actually... that may have some merits...
*be gentle... I'm sorta drunk now...
This is a pretty good idea.. I was planning on having one so I could choose when I wanted to have kids but still enjoy all the sex I wanted without worry.
I don't really see how there would be much of a downside other than having an operation, though I'm sure there are plenty of things people will find wrong about it and yell "freedom" at it for.
I can see the protests now...
"The government is taking away our God given right to have an unwanted child!"
At puberty (determined by pediatrician), lets gave all males a vasectomy (the reversal kind).
Then, when ready to have kids, reverse it and voila! Little critters on demand!
Then, there's not issue with needing abortion.
/snark off
actually... that may have some merits...
*be gentle... I'm sorta drunk now...
Doesn't need to be considered snark, I think it's a pretty good idea myself. People need to be liscenced to drive a car; they should need a liscence to have kids.
At puberty (determined by pediatrician), lets gave all males a vasectomy (the reversal kind).
Then, when ready to have kids, reverse it and voila! Little critters on demand!
Then, there's not issue with needing abortion.
/snark off
actually... that may have some merits...
*be gentle... I'm sorta drunk now...
Doesn't need to be considered snark, I think it's a pretty good idea myself. People need to be liscenced to drive a car; they should need a liscence to have kids.
I think it needs to be encouraged more... but, not forced by guvmint.
At puberty (determined by pediatrician), lets gave all males a vasectomy (the reversal kind).
Then, when ready to have kids, reverse it and voila! Little critters on demand!
Then, there's not issue with needing abortion.
/snark off
actually... that may have some merits...
*be gentle... I'm sorta drunk now...
Doesn't need to be considered snark, I think it's a pretty good idea myself. People need to be liscenced to drive a car; they should need a liscence to have kids.
Except if one has to get a license for kids, then how does one qualify for the said license?
mattyrm wrote: Sebster, you are far too bright to start acting like one of the plebeians, please don't make a habit of replying to my obviously jocular remarks with "Because.." or "So what you are saying is..." as I find it insulting. Like you are using the fact I made a joke to insinuate that I never went to school and am utterly unaware of my own country's history. I am well aware that for every good Monarch or benevolent dictator you tend to get three bad ones. Obviously for every Victoria there is a Richard III or Edward II... or every Irishman's favourite Oliver Cromwell.
As I said, generally speaking, on this forum is someone's reply starts with "So what you are saying is... its actually - insert nothing you said" or "Because - its - insert ridiculous comment" you can rest assured that said retort will be about as funny as finding a lump on your testicles.
So don't cheapen your otherwise almost exemplary posting record.
Sorry, I was trying to run with the joking tone of your post to add my own bit. It didn't work, my bad.
At puberty (determined by pediatrician), lets gave all males a vasectomy (the reversal kind).
Then, when ready to have kids, reverse it and voila! Little critters on demand!
Then, there's not issue with needing abortion.
/snark off
actually... that may have some merits...
*be gentle... I'm sorta drunk now...
Doesn't need to be considered snark, I think it's a pretty good idea myself. People need to be liscenced to drive a car; they should need a liscence to have kids.
Except if one has to get a license for kids, then how does one qualify for the said license?
Racial puri.... err I mean IQ of course.
Honestly breeding licenses just smack of eugenics.
Figuring out who can breed? That'll be the fun part, won't it?
I favor the same qualifications it takes to adopt... but then, I think there are WAAAAYYYY too many people in the world and we need to trim down the numbers substantially.
Removing warning labels is a good start, in my opinon. If you're not smart enough to figure out shampoo is not to be used internally (for example), you don't need to be polluting the gene pool with your genes.
favor the same qualifications it takes to adopt... but then, I think there are WAAAAYYYY too many people in the world and we need to trim down the numbers substantially.
Adoption within the US right? Adoption from outside the US is a whole new ball game.
Vulcan wrote: Figuring out who can breed? That'll be the fun part, won't it?
I favor the same qualifications it takes to adopt... but then, I think there are WAAAAYYYY too many people in the world and we need to trim down the numbers substantially.
Removing warning labels is a good start, in my opinon. If you're not smart enough to figure out shampoo is not to be used internally (for example), you don't need to be polluting the gene pool with your genes.
Removing warning labels is incredibly stupid Idea how many substances do you own that you know are toxic, acidic, bio-hazardous, carcinogenic, explosive, flammable, etc without looking at the label.
Vulcan wrote: Figuring out who can breed? That'll be the fun part, won't it?
I favor the same qualifications it takes to adopt... but then, I think there are WAAAAYYYY too many people in the world and we need to trim down the numbers substantially.
Removing warning labels is a good start, in my opinon. If you're not smart enough to figure out shampoo is not to be used internally (for example), you don't need to be polluting the gene pool with your genes.
Removing warning labels is incredibly stupid Idea how many substances do you own that you know are toxic, acidic, bio-hazardous, carcinogenic, explosive, flammable, etc without looking at the label.
And not a one of them is in food, drink, or medicine. Shampoo, soap, and industrial solvents (among other things) are not among those, and thus are not consumed as such by a person of any intelligence. If you're not smart enough to figure out the difference between 'edible' and 'inedible' on your own, do we really need you to breed?
Of course we could just stop pretending that the warning labels are there for the consumers. They are only there to stop random idiots from deciding to take a drink just so that they can sue companies for not telling them that they shouldn't drink that.
Same reason why the same grill that turns my steak from red to brown has to have a warning telling me that it is hot.
Vulcan wrote:And the idiot judge who first allowed that to go down deseves to be shot for opening up the door for all the frivolous lawsuits that followed.
If you drink shampoo, you are a moron who doesn't deserve a cash reward for it, you deserve to get sick and possibly die. Period.
I really think that you should cite a source as to exactly which case you are speaking about. Because, once you filter out of the propaganda created by those who endorse tort reforms in the protection of corporations, I think you'll find that there are generally no "frivolous" lawsuits that are ever successful, almost by their very definition.
Vulcan wrote: Figuring out who can breed? That'll be the fun part, won't it?
I favor the same qualifications it takes to adopt... but then, I think there are WAAAAYYYY too many people in the world and we need to trim down the numbers substantially.
Removing warning labels is a good start, in my opinon. If you're not smart enough to figure out shampoo is not to be used internally (for example), you don't need to be polluting the gene pool with your genes.
Removing warning labels is incredibly stupid Idea how many substances do you own that you know are toxic, acidic, bio-hazardous, carcinogenic, explosive, flammable, etc without looking at the label.
And not a one of them is in food, drink, or medicine. Shampoo, soap, and industrial solvents (among other things) are not among those, and thus are not consumed as such by a person of any intelligence. If you're not smart enough to figure out the difference between 'edible' and 'inedible' on your own, do we really need you to breed?
So you use an unlabeled cleaning agent and inhale some of the fumes without knowing, and then you become sick for a week due to the product being toxic would that make you an idiot?
Vulcan wrote: And not a one of them is in [...] medicine.
Whyfor do I have a sudden desire to stab someone?
Did something stupid just get said? I can't remember the last few seconds, it's like my mind is trying to block it.
Vulcan wrote: Shampoo, soap, and industrial solvents (among other things) are not among those, and thus are not consumed as such by a person of any intelligence.
Something doesn't have to be consumed to be dangerous.
Also, if a child or other incompetent person does get hold of it and harm themselves or another with it, having the labeling gives anyone else vital information about its ingredients, effects, immediate aid instructions (induce vomiting or not, for example), etc.
Mannahnin wrote:Also, if a child or other incompetent person does get hold of it and harm themselves or another with it, having the labeling gives anyone else vital information about its ingredients, effects, immediate aid instructions (induce vomiting or not, for example), etc.
To add:
Many modern cleaning agents also list chemicals that you should not mix together. A common one is ammonia and bleach. Were it not for the warning labels, I suspect chlorine gas would be one of the leading causes of workplace accidents. Not everyone is a chemist, and not everyone would immediately know the composition of many cleaning agents, either.
Vulcan wrote: And the idiot judge who first allowed that to go down deseves to be shot for opening up the door for all the frivolous lawsuits that followed.
If you drink shampoo, you are a moron who doesn't deserve a cash reward for it, you deserve to get sick and possibly die. Period.
Also I don't think ingesting shampoo is harmful either in fact I would imagine some of it's quite tasty actually it certainly smells nice.
