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.
2012/08/20 15:51:34
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
There is no twisted logic here. Everything I said was true.
whembly wrote: Again, the debate remains as "when/how is it acceptable to kill life"?
Whenever it's politically convenient for the anti-choice crowd.
whembly wrote: And for the record, the "pro-life" crowd bugs me just as much as the "pro-choice".
The "pro-choice" group is not the same as pro-abortion. The stance is that it is the woman's choice of what to do with her body, not the state's. Many who are pro-choice dislike abortion, and would gladly try to talk mothers out of it. But in the end, they respect the mother's choice as to what she does with her body.
IMO-- and this is just my own beliefs, ignoring the "what measure is a human" argument-- if the state wants the child to live, it can go pay for an operation to have a surrogate mother or artificial womb carry the child to term, it should, however, legally force the mother to do so. Of course, this won't happen, because Republicans don't care what happens to the child after it's born.
whembly wrote: Did the woman walk up to Mrs. Nature and ask for a "natural miscarriage"?? No...
Why does that matter?
People have been put to jail for unintentional killings before.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/20 15:53:48
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/08/20 16:09:07
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
You still fail to understand, there are legal thresholds by which sexual intercourse is rape or is not rape. There isn't a halfway point. If a case goes to court jury or magistrate decides is it rape. It comes down to a yes or no. Rob a woman of her choice, wherther by force, drugs it still rape. There is nothing to suggest a mythical half setting criteria by which someone things that biologically it isn't rape and 'natural defences' if any do not come into play and nothing to suggest that Ukin beleives in such except clutching to a single phrase that has been openly rejected as mispoken.
I never claimed there was anything like "half-rape", you're putting words in my mouth because you cannot confront the argument I'm presenting, because doing so would mean admitting that you're wrong.
I stated that what constitutes the denial of consent is an open question, and a large part of the conversation surrounding rape. There is no such thing as "half-rape", but what person X considers a rape, person Y may not. This is a major issue both in terms of abortion, and women's rights in general.
Akin mispoke. There is nothing to read into the withdrawn comment "Legitimate rape" except that Akin mispoke.
Why bother continuing?
Because you are plainly incorrect. You do not "misspeak" an entire sentence. I do not misspeak if I say "From what I've been told by psychologist when a man legitimately rapes someone, it was probably the victim's fault." This is especially true when you have a history conflating things that are not abortion (Plan B), with abortion.
Akin was man enough to own up and say he mispoke his words. You ignored that.
You're still hung up on what you think people are protesting, and it isn't the notion that there is "legitimate" sense in which women can be raped. I already explained, several times, what the issue is and, while it does relate to the word "legitimate" it does not do so in the way you're describing. What constitutes the denial of consent such that rape occurs is not a settled question. This is why I claimed that you're deflecting, because you're plainly misrepresenting the arguments presented by myself and several other posters.
And, honestly, he can claim to have misspoken all he wants but his initial comments are in line with the views of a person that conflates Plan B with abortion. That's why I'm ignoring the claim.
Why should I 'man up' when I stand on a decent and logical principle, critique a man fairly. If someone misspeaks, don't jump on him, let him clarify, accept the clarification and carry on.
His clarification was bad for the exact same reason that his initial statement was. That's the point which several people, including myself, have been explaining to you throughout the majority of this thread. You've ignored it every single time out of either willful ignorance, or a bald-faced and sloppy attempt at trolling.
If you disagree with one side or other show some maturity, its isn't a case of people being 'idiot politicians' its about politicians who speak from conscience. I have more respect for those than the slimy gits who you cannot pin down with a straight answer.
Politicians that speak from conscience are "idiot politicians." It takes maturity to realize that.
Akin is clearly not of that ilk, yet earlier you accused him of doing just that; 'Dodging the question badly', apparently.
Because he did. He could have simply stated that he was against abortion in the case of rape, which he has openly admitted to in other circumstances. Instead he used a weak appeal to nondescript "doctors" and a bit of pseudoscience, plus a dismissive term regarding rape, in order to avoid openly saying that. And, in doing so, he gave the opposition a soundbite so good that writers at the National Review are calling for him to drop out of the race.
He made an attempt at softening his response in the interview, and did so ineptly. You say he's speaking from conscience, maybe he is, but he plainly tried to avoid doing so and failed horribly.
Does he now? He claims her heard from doctors that this phenomena occurs. Whether it occurs in cases of rape is incidental.
No, it isn't. He directly claims that women that are raped have a biological reaction that either prevents or terminates pregnancy. In the context of that interview, in which claimed that pregnancy in the case of rape is very rare, he was most likely referring to the former.
As for the Missouri abortion policy, the most recent stuff I found it was a bipartisan anti-abortion movement, signed in by the state governor Nixon, a Democrat, with no mention of Akin in the article.
Akin bears no special responsibility for Missouri abortion policy, or the Republicans in general it appears.
Nor was it ever claimed that he, or they, did. You're the person injecting partisanship into this conversation.
At this point there is no reason to continue. You're not willing to engage the topic, or even entertain the information presented against you. All you're doing here is restating a position which has been thoroughly trounced by several posters, including myself.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/20 16:09:30
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/08/20 16:12:48
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
whembly wrote: Look, I understand where you're coming from... I just disagree that there's a timeframe/stage/magical level that delinates a zygote from a human life. They're all one and the same at different stage.
So, when I "say" I have no problem with contraceptives and that it can potentially kill a fertilized egg... yes, that was human life that was destroyed whereas had the women NOT taken the contraceptive, she probably would've remained pregnant.
It's acceptable now to use contraceptive (mostly)... and yes, that's a harsh way of looking at this.
I don't understand Whembly.
You think its wrong to abort a zygote, as you view it as killing a human life. On the other hand, your OK with the birth control pill, which prevents a zygote from bonding with the lining of the womb -- thus killing a human life
Isn't that a double standard? Am i misunderstanding your point?
whembly wrote: Look, I understand where you're coming from... I just disagree that there's a timeframe/stage/magical level that delinates a zygote from a human life. They're all one and the same at different stage.
So, when I "say" I have no problem with contraceptives and that it can potentially kill a fertilized egg... yes, that was human life that was destroyed whereas had the women NOT taken the contraceptive, she probably would've remained pregnant.
It's acceptable now to use contraceptive (mostly)... and yes, that's a harsh way of looking at this.
I don't understand Whembly.
You think its wrong to abort a zygote, as you view it as killing a human life. On the other hand, your OK with the birth control pill, which prevents a zygote from bonding with the lining of the womb -- thus killing a human life
Isn't that a double standard? Am i misunderstanding your point?
A zygote isn't a 'human life'. At some point along gestation you have to draw the line, but a zygote is just too early to be called a 'human life'. It is living tissue, but it's little more than a cluster of cells that may or may not successfully develop even if you don't interfere. People making a fuss about the human lives lost due to birth control and abortion would be better off trying to help the many children already living in very bad circumstances instead of beating their drum about this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/20 16:24:34
2012/08/20 16:24:40
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
Expect that from anyone who wants to end the rights of women.
Plus any Anti Woman (anti abortion) Republican is a Partei Verräter; destroying the rights of women is no consistent with small government.
Die Kirche hoch! Gestühl fest geschlossen. Die Kirsche marschiert mit ruhig festen schritt. Kinder die Rotfront und Reaktion abgetrieben, beten in geist in unser reihen mit!
Die Straße frei! Den Christen. Die Straße frei! Den sexistischen Schweine! Es schau'n aufs Kreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen. Der Tag für Sexismus bricht an!
Zum letzten Mal wird Sturmalarm geblasen! Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit! Bald flattern Christfahnen über allen Straßen. Die Frauenfreiheit dauert nur noch kurze Zeit!
Die Kirche hoch! Gestühl fest geschlossen. Die Kirsche marschiert mit ruhig festen schritt. Kinder die Rotfront und Reaktion abgetrieben, beten in geist in unser reihen mit!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/20 16:24:53
As a discussion grows in length, the probability of a comparison to Matt Ward or Gray Knights approaches one.
Expect that from anyone who wants to end the rights of women.
Plus any Anti Woman (anti abortion) Republican is a Partei Verräter; destroying the rights of women is no consistent with small government.
Die Kirche hoch! Gestühl fest geschlossen. Die Kirsche marschiert mit ruhig festen schritt. Kinder die Rotfront und Reaktion abgetrieben, beten in geist in unser reihen mit!
Die Straße frei! Den Christen. Die Straße frei! Den sexistischen Schweine! Es schau'n aufs Kreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen. Der Tag für Sexismus bricht an!
Zum letzten Mal wird Sturmalarm geblasen! Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit! Bald flattern Christfahnen über allen Straßen. Die Frauenfreiheit dauert nur noch kurze Zeit!
Die Kirche hoch! Gestühl fest geschlossen. Die Kirsche marschiert mit ruhig festen schritt. Kinder die Rotfront und Reaktion abgetrieben, beten in geist in unser reihen mit!
Aren't you the one who was claiming that feminists want women to be raped? EDIT: Yes. Yes you were...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/20 17:14:33
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze "You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry.
2012/08/20 17:36:48
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
I never claimed there was anything like "half-rape", you're putting words in my mouth because you cannot confront the argument I'm presenting, because doing so would mean admitting that you're wrong.
You claimed there was a second set of characteristics that defined legitimate rape in separation to something else. Akin denied that position, you refuse to accept his denial.
You insist he meant something he refuses to claim he meant, that must mean you claim to know Akin better than he knows himself. Appeal to authority: denied.
I stated that what constitutes the denial of consent is an open question, and a large part of the conversation surrounding rape. There is no such thing as "half-rape", but what person X considers a rape, person Y may not. This is a major issue both in terms of abortion, and women's rights in general.
People may disagree on what is rape, which is why we have legislation.
Akin mispoke. There is nothing to read into the withdrawn comment "Legitimate rape" except that Akin mispoke.
Why bother continuing?
Because you are plainly incorrect. You do not "misspeak" an entire sentence. I do not misspeak if I say "From what I've been told by psychologist when a man legitimately rapes someone, it was probably the victim's fault." This is especially true when you have a history conflating things that are not abortion (Plan B), with abortion.
No he directly mispoke two words, 'legitimate rape' please pay attention.
Akin was man enough to own up and say he mispoke his words. You ignored that.
You're still hung up on what you think people are protesting, and it isn't the notion that there is "legitimate" sense in which women can be raped.
Which would concurs with my conclusion, later confirmed by Akin himself that that was mispoken. In all fairness you should ignore it, there is nothing to draw from it.
I already explained, several times, what the issue is and, while it does relate to the word "legitimate" it does not do so in the way you're describing. What constitutes the denial of consent such that rape occurs is not a settled question. This is why I claimed that you're deflecting, because you're plainly misrepresenting the arguments presented by myself and several other posters.
So you resort to fallacy of mass appeal.
I quite justly take Akins comments about what he said as of greater validity than the version of you would like to claim he said.
Let us return to your early comments on this issue:
See, this is what you don't seem to understand. I know what he was saying. He was differentiating between rape that is real, and "rape" that is not.
You 'know' what he is saying, so certain, even though he denies it flatly with a consistent logical path along which to do so.
What you should say is I really prefer to think he was differentiating between rape that is real, and "rape" that is not. It would be more honest. Even though that still makes no sense, and doesn't tally with anything else he is alleged to have said. Akin has not as far as much searches are concerned said anything remotely backing up your preferred view.
You have yet to provide the thinest shred of evidence of any quote or action of Akin which backs up your opinions. So he considers 'morning after pills a form of abortion' (Plan B Onestep), how does that prove he meant something other than he said he meant in his Twitter revision regarding 'legitimate rape'? Dogma you don't actually have argument, you just claim to speak for Akin with authority to contradict his opinions of him on his behalf. That isnt very honest frankly. It would be excusable if you were a journalist looking to write an article to score political points, but we can and should be more detached here.
I am even going as far as to defend him on a point of fairness though I flatly disagree with his paradigm on a personal basis. That by the way takes maturity.
If you disagree with one side or other show some maturity, its isn't a case of people being 'idiot politicians' its about politicians who speak from conscience. I have more respect for those than the slimy gits who you cannot pin down with a straight answer.
Politicians that speak from conscience are "idiot politicians." It takes maturity to realize that.
That's cold even for you. Cynicism and maturity are not one and the same.
To speak from conscience as a politician, or anyone one else, is to show integrity.
At this point there is no reason to continue. You're not willing to engage the topic, or even entertain the information presented against you. All you're doing here is restating a position which has been thoroughly trounced by several posters, including myself.
Fallacy of mass appeal again. Allowing for what the topic is, read the thread title to give yourself a clue, it has been engaged. Its not your preferred point of view, but that doesn't mean much. You put words in Akin's mouth by refusing to accept that he claimed he mispoke what he said. I could see why, even before he made his retraction I put forward a reasoning for what he said that in retrospect matched his retraction. This means that on this issue I accurately calculated what he meant to say. You might not like that, but that isn't my problem, it clearly is Akins's however.
Its good copy for the media to jump on him right now and conveniently avoid his clarifications posted on Twitter, as many of the articles have done. Blood is in the water, 'Congressman says something that was less ridiculous than it first sounds' doesn't make as good a headline.
More interestingly I am unsurprised but still disappointed to read that Paul Ryan distanced himself from Akin verbally and called his comments "inexcusable" even though Ryan is himself is known for being a vocal advocate for a prohibition of abortion extended even in cases of rape.
So its not in the interest of politicians or newspapers to deal with Akin fairly, perhaps I should not be surprised you want a piece of him too, but in your case it can only be schadenfreude, you don't actually have anything to gain or lose.
Yes Akin's interview will be costly, I feel sorry for him because in all honesty I really do think he has been horribly misrepresented. This can and possibly will hurt him far more than it ought to, I think there is a lesson here, if you are under the media spotlinght and have a controversial opinion on a heated issue keep watch over every single word you utter. So very few are needed to ruin a reputation.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2012/08/20 17:47:45
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit since its aim is to belittle or hurt someone, and to laugh at their expense; we associate the word "cutting" with it. On the other hand, true wit associates with the word "levity", and boosts everyone's spirits, being aimed at an action, a happening or an attitude.
Mary Purnell, Revesby
This is why I try and avoid sarcastic comments when trying to have productive conversation.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/20 17:48:45
2012/08/20 17:48:18
Subject: Re:Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
Keyword is "rape". there's no degree, level, class, or column to classify rape. Rape is rape.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2012/08/20 17:49:49
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
Monster Rain wrote: So what about pro-life people that happen to be female? I assume they hate women as well?
There is indeed such things as misogynistic women, just as there are misandristic males.
I wouldn't suggest all pro-life women are misogynistic just as I wouldn't say the same thing about pro-life men, but I do think a not insignificant portion of them are. The "Concerned Women for America" organization run by Mrs. LeHaye, wife of one of hte authors of Left Behind, comes to mind.
CWFA has earned the nickname "Concerned Women Against Women" for its activism, bashing poor women for not working hard enough while also bashing middle class women for working at all, apparently only being happy with trophy wives of rich men.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/08/20 17:56:42
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/08/20 17:53:46
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit since its aim is to belittle or hurt someone, and to laugh at their expense; we associate the word "cutting" with it. On the other hand, true wit associates with the word "levity", and boosts everyone's spirits, being aimed at an action, a happening or an attitude.
Mary Purnell, Revesby
This is why I try and avoid sarcastic comments when trying to have productive conversation.
If all you're doing is posting quotes and pointing out alleged logical fallacies, you should re-examine your definition of productive conversation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/20 17:54:39
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2012/08/20 17:57:43
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
Monster Rain wrote: So what about pro-life people that happen to be female? I assume they hate women as wellt
My guess would be one or more of the following:
1. fooled/guilted/shamed by religious indoctrination.
2. Raised/pressured to believe that they must accept being subserviant to what others tell them women should do/say/think.
3. Are actually just too afraid to stand out by saying something that they believe because others in their community/social circle/ family/etc. might cause them to be ostracized in some way.
The real problem here is morally. That's why all this effort goes into trying to define "life".
Thanks for being honest. I can appreciate that.
Its hard to define "human life" As a father, I can tell you that children are little more than eating blobs for the first few months of their life -- much less in the womb. Unlike other mammals our brains develop very slowly -- a huge evolutionary advantage as it allows for us to greatly adapt to multiple climates. The challenge is that it makes the definition of "when do we consider this person living" difficult to determine.
If one declares all zygotes life, then the corresponding logic is that 'the pill' would be murder. As we have seen, even in the great state of Mississippi, the 'personhood admendement' has been struck down. Its hard to get people to vote against birth control.
So logically, one must declare "human sentience" past the zygote state. We would like to declare it as before the birth stage for reasons I think should be obvious. Therefore, when do we draw that line? Morally its a hard decision to make.
Personally, I'm a a liberal libertarian. As a society we should provide social programs to help with adoption services and assistance on helping people to plan/raise families. On the other hand, if someone wants to abort their own children -- well that's their own business. it's their own life, and we should not interfere.
2012/08/20 18:01:14
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
Melissia wrote: CWFA has earned the nickname "Concerned Women Against Women" for its activism, bashing poor women for not working hard enough while also bashing middle class women for working at all, apparently only being happy with trophy wives of rich men.
Those positions all seem to be contradictory, don't they?
Monster Rain wrote: So what about pro-life people that happen to be female? I assume they hate women as wellt
My guess would be one or more of the following:
1. fooled/guilted/shamed by religious indoctrination.
2. Raised/pressured to believe that they must accept being subserviant to what others tell them women should do/say/think.
3. Are actually just too afraid to stand out by saying something that they believe because others in their community/social circle/ family/etc. might cause them to be ostracized in some way.
There's a thoughtful response. Thanks for that.
So there's really no room in your view of pro-life women that they might genuinely believe what they say they believe?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/20 18:03:03
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2012/08/20 18:04:51
Subject: Re:Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
I just watched the actual interview, maybe we are being too harsh on the bloke.
I mean, he said "Some doctors have informed me.." so maybe the old fether is just parroting what some ridiculous doc told him, and obviously, you trust doctors, and he is a politician not a doctor, so he might be a bit lacking with his biology education and just believe what his doc told him!
I say we take it up with his fething doctor..
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2012/08/20 18:06:29
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
Huh. I think he must be confusing women with Rabbits, who do have a bodily function which allows them to absorb the foetus if the Doe believed that the kit would have little chance of survival.
Maybe he doesn't know the difference between a Doctor and a Veterinarian?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/20 18:07:00
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2012/08/20 18:18:27
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
So there's really no room in your view of pro-life women that they might genuinely believe what they say they believe?
Lots of people genuinely believe things that are wrong/untrue, that doesn't change anything I said.
A number of the things I said (both 1. and 2.actually) often cause people to "genuinely believe" absurdities or support hateful/oppressive/backwards stances.
So there's really no room in your view of pro-life women that they might genuinely believe what they say they believe?
Lots of people genuinely believe things that are wrong/untrue, that doesn't change anything I said.
A number of the things I said (both 1. and 2.actually) often cause people to "genuinely believe" absurdities or support hateful/oppressive/backwards stances.
In other words anyone who does not. believe what you believe is wrong, and clearly has been snookered to not share your own views. Which are the only right/true ones. What a gem.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/08/20 18:32:03
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
this 2009 blog post comes to mind, comparing a Navy press release with a CWFA press release regarding women serving on submarines.
To quote:
Concerned Women Against Women on Submarines
The Navy is considering a policy change that would allow women to serve on submarines, and this has the Concerned Women for America...well, concerned.
Let's compare the actual story...
The nation's top military officer has called for lifting the ban on women serving aboard submarines, in a significant step toward reducing the barriers to women in combat. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he seeks the change to broaden opportunities for women in the military. "One policy I would like to see changed is the one barring their service aboard submarines," Mullen wrote in answers to questions from Congress before his Senate reconfirmation hearing last week.
Lifting the ban would allow women for the first time to serve as officers and enlisted personnel aboard the strategic fleet of fast-attack and other submarines where sailors live and work in cramped quarters at sea for six months at a time. After combat- exclusion rules were lifted in the early 1990s, women in the Navy were allowed to serve on surface combat ships and in combat aircraft, but the ban on their employment in submarines remained.
The Navy has for years been exploring how best to bring women into its submarine force. In a statement this week, Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, said he is "very comfortable addressing integrating women" into the force, but added, "There are some particular issues . . . we must work through."
One issue, he said, is living space. Packed with specialized gear, spare parts, and food and other supplies to operate independently for three months, a submarine is extremely cramped...The submarines would have to be modified to provide adequate privacy for enlisted women and men, senior officers said.
Of greater concern, officers said, is the rate of retention for women in the Navy -- about 15 percent, compared with more than 30 percent for men -- and the possibility that the integration of women could lead to gaps in the relatively small submarine force. Women often leave in their late 20s to start families, although to improve retention the Navy in 2007 lengthened to one year the period that female sailors can remain ashore after childbirth...
...Once the ban is lifted, it would take a few years to integrate women successfully, both by training female Navy officers and enlisted personnel at all levels to move into the force and by designing a program to ensure a steady flow of women into jobs, the officials said. Integration would start with a small pilot program, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record.
One reason the Navy seeks to integrate women on submarines is that they make up a growing percentage of college graduates, including engineers. "There is a vast pool of talent that we are neglecting in our recruiting efforts," a senior official said. [The Washington Post]
U.S. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said Thursday that allowing women to serve on submarines is "an idea whose time has come" - and he said he sees no big hurdles to making it happen...he said he and other top officials believe "women should have the ability to serve throughout the Navy," and he sees no major impediments to their becoming submariners. [Forbes.com]
...with the press release that Concerned Women for America put out in response to this news.
Navy Considers Endangering Women to Appease Feminists
May lift ban on women on submarines
"National security is the Navy's primary mission, not advancing women's careers."
Contact: Demi Bardsley, Concerned Women for America (CWA), 202-266-4820
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 /Christian Newswire/ -- Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation's largest public policy women's organization, is disappointed in recent statements by Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus indicating their wish to lift the ban on women serving aboard submarines. Admiral Mullen advocated the policy change in written congressional testimony on Friday. Navy Secretary Mabus said he was "moving out aggressively on this."
"Unlike any other assignment in the U.S. Navy, the submarine service is a hazardous environment for women of child-bearing age," noted CWA President Wendy Wright. "No other assignment exposes women to a constantly recycled atmosphere of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and more than 200 potentially toxic chemicals. Those contaminants remain even with filtering. While normal adults can adjust to this environment, a developing child in the first trimester cannot, and the levels of carbon dioxide that crewmembers are exposed to can be linked to birth defects. Also, no study has been done to determine the impact of this environment on a woman's fertility."
"Another serious consideration is the threat to the life and health of the women assigned to submarine crews should an ectopic pregnancy occur. These cases, about four out of every 1,000 women per year, can be life-threatening situations that demand evacuation," Wright said. "For a great many women, the acute symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy are their first indication that they are even pregnant. Pre-deployment pregnancy testing is not a silver bullet either, since tests may not give a positive reading in the earliest stages of pregnancy."
"Along with the medical issues, there are very real social and psychological difficulties posed by mixing the sexes in the 'Silent Service,'" Wright added. "Military readiness and cohesiveness will be affected, and commanders will have the added difficulties of harassment and fraternization to deal with, which are inevitable in this situation of confined quarters with extremely little privacy. National security is the Navy's primary mission, not advancing women's careers." [Christian News Wire]
From this I think we can learn a few things about the way things work in the CWA's world:
1. The CWA knows what's best for the Navy better than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of the Navy, and other senior military officials.
2. The CWA doesn't trust the women who are actually in the Navy to weigh the risks and benefits of serving aboard a submarine and decide for themselves. If your priorities aren't the same as the Concerned Women's priorities...you're wrong.
3. The CWA has never considered that a man might have a potentially serious medical issue that they're not aware of, and that routine pre-deployment medical testing wouldn't necessarily reveal. They're also unconcerned with any potential health risks for women that aren't related to pregnancy or fertility.
4. In the CWA's world, woman=mother, or potential mother. No exceptions. If you're not pregnant, you're pre-pregnant. Lesbians, infertile women, women who don't want kids...they just don't exist (or shouldn't exist). And since that's the case, we should always be prioritizing that role over all else. If there's even the tiniest, remotest chance that you could be pregnant with a miracle baby capable of hiding from all pre-deployment pregnancy tests, or that your fertility could be affected (although there's apparently no evidence to suggest that it would be), well then why are you even considering getting on a submarine? What kind of woman are you?
4a. Of course, for all of their pregnancy talk, the CWA glosses over the actual problem of rape in the military, which is the one point that they could have raised that might have made their overreaction about the pregnancy issue seem a little more reasonable. Unfortunately, I suspect that their idea of a solution to that problem would be for women to wise up and realize that they don't belong in the military in the first place.
5. The CWA can't grasp the idea that maybe it hurts national security to exclude smart and talented and dedicated women from activities that they're perfectly capable of doing just because they're women. I'm guessing they also have trouble comprehending the fact that it's a bad idea to dismiss people with critical skills from the military just because they're gay, which happens to women at a disproportionate rate and is something that's actually worth being "concerned" about.
6. The CWA apparently thinks that top military officials devote a lot of time to thinking up new ways to make feminists happy.
So, based on this little exercise, I think we can safely conclude that there is no resemblance whatsoever between our world and CWA World.
Yeah, I hate that group...
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/08/20 18:33:54
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
The real problem here is morally. That's why all this effort goes into trying to define "life".
Thanks for being honest. I can appreciate that.
No problemo...
Its hard to define "human life" As a father, I can tell you that children are little more than eating blobs for the first few months of their life -- much less in the womb. Unlike other mammals our brains develop very slowly -- a huge evolutionary advantage as it allows for us to greatly adapt to multiple climates. The challenge is that it makes the definition of "when do we consider this person living" difficult to determine.
I'm a father of two boyz (yes... with the 'z' at the end!)... so, I am biased. Having said that, the problem is "morals".
Human life, is from fertilzed egg to the day we die. It's a biological fact.
The problem is moral and "technical legal" definition... as you succiently argue in the next passage:
If one declares all zygotes life, then the corresponding logic is that 'the pill' would be murder. As we have seen, even in the great state of Mississippi, the 'personhood admendement' has been struck down. Its hard to get people to vote against birth control.
Right...
All I'm saying is-call a spade, "a spade".
So logically, one must declare "human sentience" past the zygote state. We would like to declare it as before the birth stage for reasons I think should be obvious. Therefore, when do we draw that line? Morally its a hard decision to make.
Morally... yeah, where is the line?
Personally, I'm a a liberal libertarian. As a society we should provide social programs to help with adoption services and assistance on helping people to plan/raise families. On the other hand, if someone wants to abort their own children -- well that's their own business. it's their own life, and we should not interfere.
I can certainly understand this viewpoint.... there's no easy solution to this as we have zealots on both sides. Hence, why I'd advocate the federal solution... leave it up to the states to determine this.
IMHO: Contraception is okay (understanding that it does destroy life) <--- this is what I mean by calling spade, "a spade". This is an acceptable convention in our society (for the most part).
Abortion should be discouraged (note, I did not say "BAN", with adoption agencies/Charities stepping up to help those in need.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/08/20 18:37:47
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
Well ladies and gentlemen! This is how to destroy your career with the following words "Rape is a rare occurrence and we should punish rape victims"! Congrats you Arsehole(Republican guy no one in this thread), you have just made me lose all respect for the republican party.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/20 18:38:09
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
2012/08/20 18:38:04
Subject: Re:Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
mattyrm wrote: I just watched the actual interview, maybe we are being too harsh on the bloke.
I mean, he said "Some doctors have informed me.." so maybe the old fether is just parroting what some ridiculous doc told him, and obviously, you trust doctors, and he is a politician not a doctor, so he might be a bit lacking with his biology education and just believe what his doc told him!
I say we take it up with his fething doctor..
True... but he's still a dummy for saying that.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/08/20 18:38:17
Subject: Re:Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
In case you've been deep-sea diving in the Mariana Trench, yet another Republican Congressman unwittingly revealed his party's contempt for and distrust of women. It's part of a reactionary, fundamentalist backlash to modernity. It's a war on science. It's a war on facts. It's a war on critical thinking. But, really, consider it a war on democracy.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/20 18:40:16
"I hate movies where the men wear shorter skirts than the women." -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
"Elements of the past and the future combining to create something not quite as good as either." -- The Mighty Boosh
Check out Cinematic Titanic, the new movie riffing project from Joel Hodgson and the original cast of MST3K.
See my latest eBay auctions at this link.
"We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. You have our gratitude!" - Kentucky Fried Movie
2012/08/20 18:39:10
Subject: Idiot Poltician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"
Expect that from anyone who wants to end the rights of women.
Plus any Anti Woman (anti abortion) Republican is a Partei Verräter; destroying the rights of women is no consistent with small government.
Die Kirche hoch! Gestühl fest geschlossen.
Die Kirsche marschiert mit ruhig festen schritt.
Kinder die Rotfront und Reaktion abgetrieben,
beten in geist in unser reihen mit!
Die Straße frei! Den Christen.
Die Straße frei! Den sexistischen Schweine!
Es schau'n aufs Kreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen.
Der Tag für Sexismus bricht an!
Zum letzten Mal wird Sturmalarm geblasen!
Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit!
Bald flattern Christfahnen über allen Straßen.
Die Frauenfreiheit dauert nur noch kurze Zeit!
Die Kirche hoch! Gestühl fest geschlossen.
Die Kirsche marschiert mit ruhig festen schritt.
Kinder die Rotfront und Reaktion abgetrieben,
beten in geist in unser reihen mit!
Aren't you the one who was claiming that feminists want women to be raped?
EDIT: Yes. Yes you were...
It was also an extreme over simplification at the time. Maybe not totally fair.
As a discussion grows in length, the probability of a comparison to Matt Ward or Gray Knights approaches one.
Asherian Command wrote: lican guy no one in this thread), you have just made me lose all respect for the republican party.
You realize that prominent republicans have denounced him, right?
Republicans in Congress and in state legislatures have made a serious effort over the past couple of years to outlaw abortion in cases of rape, to prevent low-income rape and incest victims from using Medicaid to pay for their abortions, and to narrow the definition of rape to only include "forcible" rape. Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) recently authored a bill that would ban abortions in Washington, D.C., without an exception for rape victims, and the House Judiciary Committee approved it.
I was talking about this part
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
" -KingCracker
No problemo...
, with adoption agencies/Charities stepping up to help those in need.
