Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Amaya wrote:What? I'm against abortion.

Ah, sorry, I misread the "Only allowed for rape victims" bit. As in, didn't really read it at all.

Now I would like to ask, though: why are you against it?

While I am not against abortion, hell so long as it doesn't affect me I could care less. I think there are better ways to prevent pregnancy then abortion.

Plus doesn't it hurt a lot too?

Because you can't legislate humanity. You can't arbiterly decide when someone comes into existence. You shouldn't allow people to act stupid and get off with a slap wrist.

Seriously, if you want to feth around, get snipped or get your tubes died.

It's not like they can't extract sperm'n'eggs and cook up petri dish babies.

Edit: Abortion is potentially lethal, not to mention bad for your mental health.

Because you can't legislate humanity. You can't arbiterly decide when someone comes into existence.

Yes you can. I think you mean that you SHOULDN'T which is also very important, but not the same thing.

Also, even if we cannot legislate what constitutes a human, we can absolutely legislate what is proper with respect to humans. In fact, that's basically what legislation is about.

dogma wrote:Also, even if we cannot legislate what constitutes a human, we can absolutely legislate what is proper with respect to humans. In fact, that's basically what legislation is about.

I'm a bit hazy on what constitutes valid grounds for abortion in America right now. Is it legal for anyone to do it, say a fallback for contraception? Or must there be medical reasons (such as the mother's life being in danger). It wouldn't hurt to know what term abortion is acceptable into as well.

It depends on the state.

Amaya wrote:Abortion should only be allowed for rape victims.

That's actually a less logical position than the more extreme position of disallowing abortion in all cases, assuming you oppose abortion on the grounds of some theoretical rights of the fetus. If abortion is wrong because the fetus has rights, then it wrong regardless of the circumstances that caused that fetus to come into being.

More pragmatically, criminalizing abortion but allowing a rape exception isn't going to work. Here's why: If there is a rape exception and no proof of rape is required, then any woman seeking an abortion will simply claim to have been raped. So rather than end abortions, all such a law will do is encourage women to lie about rape. If there is a rape exception and proof of rape is required, then most women who have been raped will be forced to bear their rapists child -- only 8.5% of rapes lead to a conviction. In addition it can take months to go to trial, which means that by the time a woman has proven she was raped, it may be too late to perform an abortion.

It just doesn't work.

And you're mistaken in thinking that all conservatives are anti homosexual rights. I honestly don't give a feth. Marriage is only what the individual makes it out to be. It's a joke now anyways, people getting divorced 2-3 times in their lifetime.

Movement conservatives are either anti-homosexual rights, or perfectly willing to throw gay people under a bus in pursuit of some other goal. If you vote for the movement, if you donate to the movement, if you rally for the movement, then you are giving support to a homophobic agenda, whether you want to admit it or not.

I don't give any money to any movements. I don't support any politicians. They are all corrupt and all obsessed with their own power.

Republicans want to keep immigrants out to maintain their power.

Democrts want to remove voter id requirements so they can get votes from them.

They are all fething bastards.

Gailbraithe wrote:
That's actually a less logical position than the more extreme position of disallowing abortion in all cases, assuming you oppose abortion on the grounds of some theoretical rights of the fetus. If abortion is wrong because the fetus has rights, then it wrong regardless of the circumstances that caused that fetus to come into being.

That depends on where the rights of the fetus are thought to emanate from.

Gailbraithe wrote:
If there is a rape exception and proof of rape is required, then most women who have been raped will be forced to bear their rapists child -- only 8.5% of rapes lead to a conviction.

It is difficult to prove who raped whom, but it is relatively easy to prove who was, or was not, raped. You can't lay rape convictions against abortion law as a solid barometer of prediction.

Amaya wrote:It has nothing do with an ugly world. It's pretty simple. Don't do it without protection. Don't do it when you can get pregnant. Don't do it if you're afraid to have the kid.

But yes, punish the kid because you can't keep your junk in your pants or have an urge to spread your legs for every other guy you meet.

Having children is not an appropriate punishment for being sexually irresponsible. Children should never be a punishment. And that is exactly what you are describing, children as a punishment for "having an urge to spread your legs for every other guy you meet."

And considering how much more intensely women suffer that punishment, it's also a deeply misogynistic position. But still, I commend you for at least mentioning the father not keeping his junk in his pants. Most men who oppose abortion on these sort of grounds only seem to think women should be punished for being sexually active.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:It is difficult to prove who raped whom, but it is relatively easy to prove who was, or was not, raped.

No, it's really not. But please, do explain how this determination can be made with relative ease.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:I don't give any money to any movements. I don't support any politicians. They are all corrupt and all obsessed with their own power.

Republicans want to keep immigrants out to maintain their power.

Democrts want to remove voter id requirements so they can get votes from them.

They are all fething bastards.

Then you are not a conservative by any definition I care about.

People who don't participate in the political system can hardly be said to have a meaningful position politically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

dogma wrote:Also, even if we cannot legislate what constitutes a human, we can absolutely legislate what is proper with respect to humans. In fact, that's basically what legislation is about.

I'm a bit hazy on what constitutes valid grounds for abortion in America right now. Is it legal for anyone to do it, say a fallback for contraception? Or must there be medical reasons (such as the mother's life being in danger). It wouldn't hurt to know what term abortion is acceptable into as well.

Abortion is completely legal for any reason up to the third trimester. During the third trimester it varies from state to state, but is legal in most.

In many states however it is very difficult or impossible to get an abortion, sometimes due to parental notification laws, but more often due simply to a lack of providers. In many parts of the country right wing violence and terrorism, whether it be bombing clinics or shooting doctors, has cowed local medical establishments into not offering the service.

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
If there is a rape exception and proof of rape is required, then most women who have been raped will be forced to bear their rapists child -- only 8.5% of rapes lead to a conviction.

It is difficult to prove who raped whom, but it is relatively easy to prove who was, or was not, raped. You can't lay rape convictions against abortion law as a solid barometer of prediction.

That's what I thought.

So what state has the most 'liberal' abortion laws and what state has the least, or bans it outright?

Gailbraithe wrote:
No, it's really not. But please, do explain how this determination can be made with relative ease.

I assume you've heard of rape kits, so and the associated metrics that involve their use, so I won't demean you by detailing their explicit contents. Wikipedia has adecent entry on the matter if you are really ignorant of anything related to them.

Anyway, rape is easy to prove because the violence associated with non-consent produces consistent, and clear, paterns of distress on the body of the victim (man, or woman). It isn't as though the DoJ produces its rape estimates via pure guesswork. They actually examine hospital visits and lay them against reported rape cases.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Amaya wrote:I don't give any money to any movements. I don't support any politicians. They are all corrupt and all obsessed with their own power.

Republicans want to keep immigrants out to maintain their power.

Democrts want to remove voter id requirements so they can get votes from them.

They are all fething bastards.

Then you are not a conservative by any definition I care about.

People who don't participate in the political system can hardly be said to have a meaningful position politically.

Heh. Funny it's...nevermind. I'll probably get yelled at.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

dogma wrote:Also, even if we cannot legislate what constitutes a human, we can absolutely legislate what is proper with respect to humans. In fact, that's basically what legislation is about.

I'm a bit hazy on what constitutes valid grounds for abortion in America right now. Is it legal for anyone to do it, say a fallback for contraception? Or must there be medical reasons (such as the mother's life being in danger). It wouldn't hurt to know what term abortion is acceptable into as well.

Abortion is completely legal for any reason up to the third trimester. During the third trimester it varies from state to state, but is legal in most.

In many states however it is very difficult or impossible to get an abortion, sometimes due to parental notification laws, but more often due simply to a lack of providers. In many parts of the country right wing violence and terrorism, whether it be bombing clinics or shooting doctors, has cowed local medical establishments into not offering the service.

So when is a fetus considered to have rights? Somewhere in the third trimester? Even so, having a law that allows abortion out of convenience rather than any other reason rubs me the wrong way.

Gailbraithe wrote:
In many states however it is very difficult or impossible to get an abortion, sometimes due to parental notification laws, but more often due simply to a lack of providers. In many parts of the country right wing violence and terrorism, whether it be bombing clinics or shooting doctors, has cowed local medical establishments into not offering the service.

Right, or not. Dude, I'm the first person to note the problems that the right has with abortion, but it isn't bombing that has kept providers from offering the service. Not int my experience (having paid for 2 abortions, not my children) in Minnesota, Illinois, or Missouri. In my experience the issue is one of a lack of funding for non-paying clients.

Still a result of political pressure, but not a result of bombing.

The people with money to pay for abortions generally don't want them.

LordofHats wrote:The people with money to pay for abortions generally don't want them.

Point.

LordofHats wrote:The people with money to pay for abortions generally don't want them.

You'd think that's why there's so much lobbying for government funding for it.

Monster Rain wrote:

LordofHats wrote:The people with money to pay for abortions generally don't want them.

You'd think that's why there's so much lobbying for government funding for it.

More or less. Point is that conservative terrorism isn't why places don't offer abortions. The demographic group most likely to want one is also the group least likely to have the money to pay for one.

Money makes the world go round.

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
No, it's really not. But please, do explain how this determination can be made with relative ease.

I assume you've heard of rape kits, so and the associated metrics that involve their use, so I won't demean you by detailing their explicit contents. Wikipedia has adecent entry on the matter if you are really ignorant of anything related to them.

I have worked in a rape crises center, and have trained people on the use of rape kits. So yes, I am familiar with them. Rape kits cannot be used to prove a rape occurred. That is not what rape kits are for, that is not how they are used, and that is not what they do.

Anyway, rape is easy to prove because the violence associated with non-consent produces consistent, and clear, paterns of distress on the body of the victim (man, or woman).

Hah hah hah hah. Yeah, no. Sorry, doesn't work like that at all. Completely consensual sex can leave the exact same kind of marks, especially if its the good kind of sex, and many women do not struggle or resist their rapist out of fear. Except in case where rape is accompanied by violent assault (which, btw, is NOT most cases) they are rarely clear cut. No one who has any actual experience in this field would ever describe such evidence as easy to obtain or easy to use to prove rape.

It isn't as though the DoJ produces its rape estimates via pure guesswork. They actually examine hospital visits and lay them against reported rape cases.

The DoJ, as it points out on that page you linked to, determines it statistics via the National Crime Victimization Survey. Which is done over the telephone, and relies entirely on self-reporting. They do not actually examine hospital visits, which (duh) would require the violation of doctor-patient privilege.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So when is a fetus considered to have rights? Somewhere in the third trimester? Even so, having a law that allows abortion out of convenience rather than any other reason rubs me the wrong way.

A fetus never has rights in America. Not until its born.

Gailbraithe wrote:
I have worked in a rape crises center, and have trained people on the use of rape kits. So yes, I am familiar with them. Rape kits cannot be used to prove a rape occurred. That is not what rape kits are for, that is not how they are used, and that is not what they do.

Really?

Link wrote:
The Sexual Offense Evidence Collection Kit was developed to create a standard protocol for hospital personnel to follow in the collection of evidence from persons involved in any criminal incident involving a sexual offense. It was established through the cooperative efforts of the State Crime Laboratories, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the State Police and the Department of Health.

Dependent upon reporting, but I already noted that.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Hah hah hah hah. Yeah, no. Sorry, doesn't work like that at all. Completely consensual sex can leave the exact same kind of marks, especially if its the good kind of sex, and many women do not struggle or resist their rapist out of fear. Except in case where rape is accompanied by violent assault (which, btw, is NOT most cases) they are rarely clear cut. No one who has any actual experience in this field would ever describe such evidence as easy to obtain or easy to use to prove rape.

Involuntary clenching does not follow from the 'good kind of sex'. If you want to get explicit about this, then I'm willing to d oso, but I doubt this is the proper forum.

Gailbraithe wrote:
The DoJ, as it points out on that page you linked to, determines it statistics via the National Crime Victimization Survey. Which is done over the telephone, and relies entirely on self-reporting. They do not actually examine hospital visits, which (duh) would require the violation of doctor-patient privilege.

No, the DoJ agregates it statistics, which is what the page that I linked to notes. The NCVS is one of the components of that aggregate, but not the only one. Note that there are multiple citations that do not read "ibid".

And, by the way, doctor patient confidentiality only applies to statistics that include names. Anonymous stats are not subject to that regulation.

In 2003, 38.5 percent of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to the police

That statement implies that statistics are collected that do not involve reporting, which is clear given the support mechanism that exists for rape victims. They don't need to say they were raped, they only need to enter the support group.

Gailbraithe wrote:
A fetus never has rights in America. Not until its born.

That depends on who you talk to.

I know firsthand(well, not firsthand, but via a very close relative) why women might not like the idea of going to the cops with a rape.

The system is extremely victimizing.

Yes it is, and that's why the statistics collected are not predicated on reporting.

dogma wrote:Yes it is, and that's why the statistics collected are not predicated on reporting.

Oh I know what you're saying.

It's just sad that it has to be that way.

I agree completely.

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
I have worked in a rape crises center, and have trained people on the use of rape kits. So yes, I am familiar with them. Rape kits cannot be used to prove a rape occurred. That is not what rape kits are for, that is not how they are used, and that is not what they do.

Really?

Yes, really.

Link wrote:The Sexual Offense Evidence Collection Kit was developed to create a standard protocol for hospital personnel to follow in the collection of evidence from persons involved in any criminal incident involving a sexual offense. It was established through the cooperative efforts of the State Crime Laboratories, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the State Police and the Department of Health.

Dependent upon reporting, but I already noted that.

Yes, rape kits collect evidence that may be useful in proving a rape has occurred in a court of law, but they do not prove that a rape has occurred.

Gailbraithe wrote:Hah hah hah hah. Yeah, no. Sorry, doesn't work like that at all. Completely consensual sex can leave the exact same kind of marks, especially if its the good kind of sex, and many women do not struggle or resist their rapist out of fear. Except in case where rape is accompanied by violent assault (which, btw, is NOT most cases) they are rarely clear cut. No one who has any actual experience in this field would ever describe such evidence as easy to obtain or easy to use to prove rape.

Involuntary clenching does not follow from the 'good kind of sex'. If you want to get explicit about this, then I'm willing to d oso, but I doubt this is the proper forum.

Involuntary clenching is not proof of rape. In fact there is no real correlation between involuntary vaginal clenching and rape. Involuntary vaginal clenching, or vaginismus, occurs regardless of whether the sex is consensual or not. Rape does not, despite your claims, produce consistent, and clear, patterns of distress on the body of the victim.

In 2003, 38.5 percent of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to the police

That statement implies that statistics are collected that do not involve reporting, which is clear given the support mechanism that exists for rape victims. They don't need to say they were raped, they only need to enter the support group.

They determine the number of unreported rapes by comparing the number of rapes reported in the NCVS with the number of rapes reported to the police.

Gailbraithe wrote:A fetus never has rights in America. Not until its born.

That depends on who you talk to.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Link wrote:The Sexual Offense Evidence Collection Kit was developed to create a standard protocol for hospital personnel to follow in the collection of evidence from persons involved in any criminal incident involving a sexual offense. It was established through the cooperative efforts of the State Crime Laboratories, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the State Police and the Department of Health.

Dependent upon reporting, but I already noted that.

Yes, rape kits collect evidence that may be useful in proving a rape has occurred in a court of law, but they do not prove that a rape has occurred.

Woah, what?

"Rape kits collect evidence that can be used to show someone was raped, but they cannot prove that a rape has occurred."

Gailbraithe wrote:
Yes, rape kits collect evidence that may be useful in proving a rape has occurred in a court of law, but they do not prove that a rape has occurred.

Proof varies according to context. In law, and most social sciences, 'proof' is discussed euphemistically because it is basically a bogeyman. That's the the sense in which I was using the word 'proof'; ie. a significant piece of significant evidence.

I was not using it to refer to 'proof' in the sense of logic, or mathematics.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Involuntary clenching is not proof of rape. In fact there is no real correlation between involuntary vaginal clenching and rape. Involuntary vaginal clenching, or vaginismus, occurs regardless of whether the sex is consensual or not. Rape does not, despite your claims, produce consistent, and clear, patterns of distress on the body of the victim.

Actually, there is a strong correlation between vaginal clenching and rape. No, it isn't a causal relationship, but it correlates strongly; above .75.

Gailbraithe wrote:
They determine the number of unreported rapes by comparing the number of rapes reported in the NCVS with the number of rapes reported to the police.

And the number of rapes reported to the NCVS is determined by people observing people coming in for rape counseling; ie. it has nothing to do with what thing are reported (where reporting is based on response to police) as rape.

Gailbraithe wrote:
No, it doesn't. That's the current standing of the law. People may be of the opinion that fetuses have rights, but in American law fetuses have no legal standing and are not recognized as person, and thus have no rights.

No, the law takes no stance of when someone becomes a person, not as an aggregate. For example, you aren't a person according to the law, nor am I. The law doesn't care.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

Link wrote:The Sexual Offense Evidence Collection Kit was developed to create a standard protocol for hospital personnel to follow in the collection of evidence from persons involved in any criminal incident involving a sexual offense. It was established through the cooperative efforts of the State Crime Laboratories, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the State Police and the Department of Health.

Dependent upon reporting, but I already noted that.

Yes, rape kits collect evidence that may be useful in proving a rape has occurred in a court of law, but they do not prove that a rape has occurred.

Woah, what?

"Rape kits collect evidence that can be used to show someone was raped, but they cannot prove that a rape has occurred."

No, rape kits don't collect evidence to show someone was raped, they collect evidence that may be used to identify the rapist. You can use a rape kit to determine if someone has had sex, but not if they were raped. The evidence collected by a rape kit can determine whether a person has had sex, and can be used to identify that person (when the evidence is processed by a DNA identification lab), but a rape kit cannot determine if that sex was consensual or non-consensual.

Dogma's claim that rape can be easily proven by the vaginal exam part of a rape kit procedure is absolute nonsense. It has no factual validity at all. The external injuries documented can be caused by any rough or exuberent sex, and the internal injuries he is referring to can be caused by any number of factors, from improper use of lubrication, to vaginismus (an extremely common condition, especially with younger women), to the male having too large of a member.

More importantly, the lack of such injuries is no way proof that a rape did not occur, which is the far more insidious implication of what dogma is saying. The reality is that many women who are raped respond exactly as they would to consensual sex, even achieving orgasm. If a woman lubricates naturally, which is an involuntary response, then there will be little or no evidence of trauma. What dogma is saying, though he may not realize it, is that rape is always violent. But the opposite is true. Rape is often not violent. Rape often occurs because a woman is too scared to say no and too intimidated to resist. And there won't be evidence of resistance if she does not resist.

It's also important to note that a rape kit is useless after 72, and that's assuming the victim wears the same clothes and does not shower or bathe for those three days. After 72 hours, there is no evidence to collect. I bring that up because we are talking about proving a rape occurred in the context of a rape exclusion for abortion.

Here's my concern. A young woman meets a man at a party. They are both drinking, she is not thinking clearly. She allows herself to be separated from the crowd and taken somewhere secluded, where the man begins making sexual advances. She is drunk, confused, and scared, and she doesn't resist, even though she doesn't want to have sex. She lubricates normally and orgasms, and like many women who have this experience when raped she feels tremendous shame. She is deeply conflicted and confused, and she doesn't know if she was raped or not. This shame is so intense that she pushes the experience out of her mind, doing nothing in response to it. She simply can't cope with it, so she engages in avoidance behavior. Because she's traumatized. Three weeks later she realizes she's missed her period and she's pregnant.

I want her to be able to go get an abortion, and I don't want her to have to tell anyone why, or provide any proof, or ask anyone's permission. I don't want to compound her trauma by forcing her to revisit it again and again. I don't want her to have to prove to someone, especially some man, that it was rape and not just sex she regrets. And that's why I think a rape exclusion is a bad idea, and that abortion should simply be legal with no questions asked.

It's also why dogma assertion that it's "relatively easy" to prove a rape occurred is ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Actually, there is a strong correlation between vaginal clenching and rape. No, it isn't a causal relationship, but it correlates strongly; above .75.

Do you have any citations in support of that, because I have researched this stuff pretty thoroughly and never came across anything like that in the literature. Which is why I find the claim highly suspicious.

Gailbraithe wrote:They determine the number of unreported rapes by comparing the number of rapes reported in the NCVS with the number of rapes reported to the police.

And the number of rapes reported to the NCVS is determined by people observing people coming in for rape counseling; ie. it has nothing to do with what thing are reported (where reporting is based on response to police) as rape.

No, as I said earlier, the NCVS is a phone poll that randomly samples the population and depends entirely on self-reporting. Its conducted by the Census bureau. I participated in the one they did in the mid-nineties.

This thing you're claiming about rape counseling is made-up, it's completely fictitious. Never happened.

Gailbraithe wrote:No, the law takes no stance of when someone becomes a person, not as an aggregate. For example, you aren't a person according to the law, nor am I. The law doesn't care.

Yeah, well, the stack of criminal law books I read while obtaining my criminal justice degree says otherwise. So there.

Amaya wrote:Abortion should only be allowed for rape victims.

Why?

Also, how do you know who is a rape victim?