'Legitimate Rape'

Colmustard wrote: »

Its not so much that they block the pregnancy, the egg has to be in place, the conditions have to be right for the sperm to travel to the egg. But it does happen and the senator is a loon.

Couples wanting to have a child it usually takes a while, I know one couple it took a year for their first, they now have 4 kids proving there was nothing wrong with either's baby making departments.

I'm even more interested in hearing the details of batsh!t crazy pseudo science beliefs than I am in hearing actual science tbh

batistuta9 wrote: »

look it's terrible what happened to your friend, as the guy would seem to know what he was doing even if she did consent to it in her drunken state, he took advantage

but there's women who claim they've been sexually assault when in fact they haven't & they'll be women looking to have abortions too when they don't want the child

She wanted to go home. She woke up in his bed. She consented to nothing.

Do you have any clue whatsoever about what is involved in bringing a rape change against someone? It's not a quick phonecall and the poor guy is locked up forever. Intimate physical exams happen, the victim's statement is taken, and she is questioned extensively. if it proceeds to court, the prosecution is allowed to bring up her past sexual history, personal habits and morality to undermine her credibility.

Also no woman should have to continue with a pregnancy if she does not want to. The very idea that someone would be forced to lie about being suicidal, or having been assaulted to get one is totally abhorrent.

Edit: sorry, did not mean to continue derail

B0jangles wrote: »

She wanted to go home. She woke up in his bed. She consented to nothing.

Do you have any clue whatsoever about what is involved in bringing a rape change against someone? It's not a quick phonecall and the poor guy is locked up forever. Intimate physical exams happen, the victim's statement is taken, and she is questioned extensively. if it proceeds to court, the prosecution is allowed to bring up her past sexual history, personal habits and morality to undermine her credibility.

Also no woman should have to continue with a pregnancy if she does not want to. The very idea that someone would be forced to lie about being suicidal, or having been assaulted to get one is totally abhorrent.

Edit: sorry, did not mean to continue derail

Its dreadful, but she should have reported it, they are better with dealing with this now. This maybe a terrible thing to say, but in effect she left a unreported rapist out there.

If she had rohypnol in her system there is at least a case for your man to answer, even if it does not go to court people at least find out what that cnut is.

I know its not that simple.

PrincessLola wrote: »

The only good I can see coming out of that statement is that attention is now being drawn to the ignorent and messed up attitudes people have towards rape.
This man is a repulsive human being and I am filled with hope that people are outraged by his statement.

His own party are treating him like a fart in a crowded elevator and the National GOP has pulled all funding from his campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-todd-akins-rape-comments-abortion-is-back-in-the-campaign-spotlight/2012/08/20/c497bae4-eac7-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

Wibbs wrote: »

That's interesting. You would think evolution would have adapted the other way? If it didn't the either rape wasn't enough of a selection pressure in the first place or it was and it was an advantageous one at some time in the past. Fcuk knows why though? Possibly one reason why rapes go up massively in conflicts? The genetic replacement factor? Though again hat would have selected for women not to get pregnant. Very odd.

Actually I don't know an awful lot about this, never having thought to research it before, but there is quite a voluminous body of research & opinion on the internet about this. This article was particularly interesting.

http://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/McKibbin-et-al-RGP-2008.pdf

It reviews various research publications on the evolutionary background to rape, and notes that rape occurs in many different species (as owners of hens & pheasants will attest), but I thought their reference to primates who rape, in this case orang utans, was especially interesting.

Anyway, in terms of the higher pregnancy rate amongst rape victims relative to consensural partners, this aspect of the paper might help to explain that in some way.

Specifically, a rapist might be more successful reproductively by maximizing the chance that a one-time forced copulation will result in preg- nancy. According to this hypothesis, a would-be rapist may be more likely to target a highly fertile woman than a woman who is less fertile (Thornhill & Palmer, 2000). Human female fertility (current likelihood of conception per cop- ulation) peaks in the early to mid-20s. Therefore, if women in this age range are overrepresented in reports of rape, it is possible that this reflects a male adaptation that leads to raping fertile women more often than nonfertile women. Numerous studies have documented that young women are most often targeted by rapists, and that women of peak fertility are overrepresented in reported and unreported rapes (Ghiglieri, 2000; Greenfield, 1997; Kil- patrick et al., 1992; Shields & Shields, 1983, Thornhill & Palmer, 2000; Thornhill & Thorn- hill, 1983).

Just to go back to one point, in relation to the risk of pregnancy following on from rape. I was initially skeptical that the politician in question was being 'absurd', as some people seemed to claim. I thought it made evolutionary sense that a female's body might have been an inhospitable environment to fertilisation during a period of aggressive, co-ercive sex. We shouldn't dismiss these possibilities out of hand

But the really shocking thing is that it is incredibly easy to find the information on google scholar.

A very immature teenager could do this. Why on Earth is a lawmaker, a man with influence in shaping the legislation that affects an entire nation of women, not taking 5 minutes out of his day, to inform himself of the facts surrounding rape and pregnancy.

I find that genuinely staggering, pretty much to the point where he is neglecting the responsibility with which he has been honoured with by his peers.

That sort of disdain for decision making based on factual evidence is unjustifiable in a public representative.

Biggins wrote: »

I suspect he's very aware of a lot of facts - however he might be willing to ignore some facts - well those that don't suit his point of view.

I don't know Biggins. My guess would be that he genuinely didn't bother to do a quick search, or ask the people whom he knew could give him reliable answers based on cold hard facts.

People often mock 'civil war politics in Ireland. And whilst our politicians are not always the most informed policymakers we might wish for, instances like this actually make me quite thankful that we do not have the same deeply ideological political divide in Irish politics.

If a fact is wrong,a poltician will be pulled up on it quite rapidly. He will more than likely be forced to stop repeating that untruth.

Not so in the US, where 'facts' seem to carry a far deeper ideological significance, regardless of whether they are correct or incorrect.

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Your gender is irrelevant. And your post is moronic because (a) you're reducing an argument that is literally about life and death to a semantic distinction; (b) your post is sexist because you state that men have no say in a decision taken to abort a fetus.

You can't just dismiss the opinions and feelings of HALF THE PLANET because it suits you.

But it's a black and white situation : either the pregnancy is aborted or it is not.

Woman says abort. Man says do not abort (or vice versa)

Whose opinion/feelings take precedence?

To be fair to Dangerous Man, I'm not sure how literally his "have no say" should be taken. He may not be referring to men having the legal right to prevent abortion, but rather having the basic right to object to an abortion taking place.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

To be fair to Dangerous Man, I'm not sure how literally his "have no say" should be taken. He may not be referring to men having the legal right to prevent abortion, but rather having the basic right to object to an abortion taking place.

And how exactly would that operate in practice? Force a woman against her will to end of term? Not have 'the legal right to prevent abortion' but to 'object'? What does the 'basic right' [note: basic rights are not what you think they are] to 'object' to an abortion [but not legally prevent] practicably mean?

pennypocket wrote: »

And how exactly would that operate in practice? Force a woman against her will to end of term? Not have 'the legal right to prevent abortion' but to 'object'? What does the 'basic right' [note: basic rights are not what you think they are] to 'object' to an abortion [but not legally prevent] practicably mean?

I was thinking more along the line of "How dare you abort my child...", etc, etc...

When it's suggested men should "have no say in the matter", I think it's quite an odd way of phrasing things and it unsurprisingly riles many men.

And do tell me what I think basic rights are, I'm curious now.

pennypocket wrote: »

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

You told me basic rights weren't what I thought they were - I asked you what I thought they were...now you've given me the universal declaration of human rights. I'm confused.

pennypocket wrote: »

You are just caught up in knots with assuming what another poster had to say on the matter. Unless you share the same IP address.

With respect - likewise.

pennypocket wrote: »

There is no reconciliation with cannot 'legally prevent' and must have the the ability to 'object' to an abortion in practice. 'How dare you abort my child' is in the nature of something that cannot be legislated for. In any case we have not reached the maturity of that argument in this country. Even today, women have had to go the European Courts in order to ensure their constitutional rights regarding their limited abortion rights in this country, where in theory, abortion is legal if it threatens the life of the woman. We are still awaiting the legislation on this limited right.

Forget about 'the odd way of phrasing'. As it stands we have many routes to circle before those arguments even precipitate in this country.

You don't think avoiding alienating half the voting public and most of the elected representation with blanket claims that men should get no say would perhaps accelerate that journey?

It's not really about 'half the voting public'. It's about women having the right to decide what happens to their bodies and their lives. I really feel that this is an issue above party politics.

Why the confusion over basic rights? The UDHR is a document on basic human rights that has been agreed upon since 1948. Ireland has still yet to ratify sections of it, particularly in relation to rights of the child, so maybe your confusion is justified.

Again, you do not need to legitimise the arguments of your co-posters.

In any case, the discussion has been derailed by this side-show. Back to Todd Akin please.

Dangerous Man wrote: »

The evidence is already in this thread. You know full well what I originally objected to so stop trying to distract focus in this argument by way of being intellectually disingenuous.

Secondly, there is nothing ironic about my argument.[/QU
x

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Your gender is irrelevant. And your post is moronic because (a) you're reducing an argument that is literally about life and death to a semantic distinction; (b) your post is sexist because you state that men have no say in a decision taken to abort a fetus.

You can't just dismiss the opinions and feelings of HALF THE PLANET because it suits you.

So another man opposes abortion, surprise, surprise, a man who will never have to have an abortion,

So you are ANTI ABORTION, I bet that makes you feel good about yourself. For you that is an empty platitude as you will never be in a position to have to make that "choice" but yet you impose your morals and judgement on half the worlds population.

Good for you and as for that been sexist, really, a woman's body and life is her own, she has the right to carry a pregnancy or not. Nothing to do with us.

mackg wrote: »

Here is the thing. While it might be their bodies unquestionably, I think everyone will agree that both parents should (be forced to) accept responsibility for the child once it's born. Therefore it is not just the mothers life that is affected. You wanting to not even allow for fathers to object in any form comes across as rather dismissive of their position.

But it is the mother and woman that must see the full term of the pregnancy. The father can move on. I will honestly give my experience. I travelled in my early 20s and I fkuced around and not always with a condom. It is possible that I made someone pregnant, perhaps those possible pregnancies were aborted or not, I don't know, one thing I do know, either way, I was not around.

Colmustard wrote: »

He can have an opinion, but he can't oppose an abortion clinic.

Says who? Last time I looked we lived in a democracy - if people want to oppose things, they are free to do so. I'm pro-choice and I wouldn't want it any other way.