'Legitimate Rape'

southsiderosie

Sharrow wrote: »

And then there is the woman who is running against him, who is also a christian evangelical and opens her political message with "I am not a witch".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxJyPsmEask

No, that is Christine O'Donnell. He is running against Claire McCaskill...who is like the anti-O'Donnell...Thank goodness!

Colmustard

marshbaboon wrote: »

I'm honestly not a violent or judgemental person, but people like our good friend here need to be swiftly removed from the gene pool.

It's who they speak for and who elect them. I was in Alabama for a few days the attitudes are very medieval Europe and as dangerous to.

marshbaboon

Colmustard wrote: »

It's who they speak for and who elect them. I was in Alabama for a few days the attitudes are very medieval Europe and as dangerous to.

Exactly. People like him need to be stopped from reproducing. I'm all for freedom of speech, but hateful ignorance isn't covered I'm afraid.

Sonics2k

blacklilly wrote: »

Your logic is sexist and discriminatory, you believe men should not be allowed a say on this matter, none of us would be here were it not for men .
Do you believe people only have the right to an opinion if they themselves have had first hand experience of a certain situation?

Wait..

Saying it's a womans choice as it's her body is now = sexist.
But if he said it should be the mans choice, it'd still be sexist?

Colmustard

Sonics2k wrote: »

Wait..

Saying it's a womans choice as it's her body is now = sexist.
But if he said it should be the mans choice, it'd still be sexist?

I didn't interpret her post like that. My position is a man has no say in whether a woman has an abortion or not. That could be interpreted as sexist to a lot of people.

Biggins

southsiderosie wrote: »

No, that is Christine O'Donnell. He is running against Claire McCaskill...who is like the anti-O'Donnell...Thank goodness!

Aye.

An American congressman attracted widespread condemnation last night after claiming that women rarely become pregnant in cases of what he called “legitimate rape”.
Todd Akin, a Republican Senate nominee, said abortion should be illegal in the United States, even in cases of rape. In remarks that will jeopardise his party’s chances of winning control of the Senate in November, Mr Akin suggested women’s bodies had a biological ability to naturally prevent pregnancy after a sexual attack.

The NY Times states that Mr Akin has a Masters degree in Divinity...

The Republicans had expected to win the seat from the Democrats, moving them a step closer to a majority in the Senate. Even if President Obama was re-elected, he would be virtually powerless in terms of domestic legislation if the Republicans were to control both chambers of Congress.

Mr Akin’s opponent, the sitting senator Claire McCaskill, said she was stunned by the remarks. “It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant,” she said.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article3513027.ece

Looks like he might be the best thing to come along for Obama in a long time.
They might actually get back the majority of the house now.

southsiderosie

Biggins wrote: »

Looks like he might be the best thing to come along for Obama in a long time.
They might actually get back the majority of the house now.

I don't think they will get the House, but they may retain control of the Senate. Fingers crossed: the Senate has to confirm Supreme Court appointments, and I can only imagine what kind of judges would be put on the court with a Republican in the White House and a Republican controlled Senate.

Biggins

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't think they will get the House, but they may retain control of the Senate. Fingers crossed: the Senate has to confirm Supreme Court appointments, and I can only imagine what kind of judges would be put on the court with a Republican in the White House and a Republican controlled Senate.

Here's hoping.
Obama and co are no saints - but they seem at least to have much less wacko's!

As for any new presiding judges which might get assigned (till the day they die) to the supreme court, if they were of republican backward religious nut thinking, the USA would seriously be further screwed!

humbert

blacklilly wrote: »

Pro-life, anti abortion "nutters" are not all religious. I'm pro life and I'm not religious. Stop generalising and using the standard religious nutter phrase to try and strengthen your argument.

I don't hate pro choice people, I don't call them liberal fruitcakes

It wasn't a generalisation. There are people who are anti-abortion for reasons other than religion, I don't agree with them but I can appreciate their position. It's the anti-abortion religious nutters that I hate.

Also, the term pro-life is completely stupid. Everyone is pro-life. We are talking about a tiny subset of people who are pro-life that are anti-abortion.

Madame K

WhiteRoses wrote: »

So, basically the female body can decide at will whether to conceive or not, especially in extremely stressful situations such as when she's being violated against her will. Seems legit.

Oh god something else for the pro-lifers to consider.

southsiderosie

Madame K wrote: »

Oh god something else for the pro-lifers to consider.

The sad thing is, they already are - they try to make this claim in order to justify not allowing a woman to have an abortion after being impregnated by a rapist.

hatrickpatrick

A US Republican is a batsh*t insane busybody big government advocate "social conservative"?

Who would have thought it! :rolleyes:

i71jskz5xu42pb

It's one of those quotes you'd expect to have come from The Onion

hatrickpatrick

Biggins wrote: »

He's another Republican nut-job.
They seem to breed them! Nuts!

Unfortunately, given their attitude towards even contraception, their breeding is pretty much a forgone conclusion.
Natural Selection would appear, on this occasion, to have made a bollocks of things.

blacklilly

Sonics2k wrote: »

blacklilly wrote: »

Your logic is sexist and discriminatory, you believe men should not be allowed a say on this matter, none of us would be here were it not for men .
Do you believe people only have the right to an opinion if they themselves have had first hand experience of a certain situation?

Wait..

Saying it's a womans choice as it's her body is now = sexist.
But if he said it should be the mans choice, it'd still be sexist?

I think both genders have equal say on this matter, we live in a democracy.
Yes the woman carries the baby, gives birth but that shouldn't mean that men are no. Entitled to a vote on the matter.
And before someone retorts with " so you're saying a man can force a woman to abort or force a woman to keep the baby" I'm not saying that, voting or having an opinion does not equate to forcing something on someone.

B0jangles

blacklilly wrote: »

I think both genders have equal say on this matter, we live in a democracy.
Yes the woman carries the baby, gives birth but that shouldn't mean that men are no. Entitled to a vote on the matter.
And before someone retorts with " so you're saying a man can force a woman to abort or force a woman to keep the baby" I'm not saying that, voting or having an opinion does not equate to forcing something on someone.

But there are only 2 people involved: one has to have the deciding vote - it has to be either the man or the woman.

Logically it follows that if the woman does not have the ultimate choice on whether or not to continue with the pregnancy then the man must have it (unless you are envisioning some kind of external committee-type situation?)

blacklilly

southsiderosie wrote: »

Madame K wrote: »

Oh god something else for the pro-lifers to consider.

The sad thing is, they already are - they try to make this claim in order to justify not allowing a woman to have an abortion after being impregnated by a rapist.

But that is the whole essence of pro life, it is not the circumstances in which conception occurs but rather the belief that abortion is wrong under any circumstances.
It would highly hypocritical to say to woman (a )who's contraception failed you must keep the baby as the sex was consensual and yet say to the woman who was raped that its perfectly ok to abort.

blacklilly

B0jangles wrote: »

blacklilly wrote: »

I think both genders have equal say on this matter, we live in a democracy.
Yes the woman carries the baby, gives birth but that shouldn't mean that men are no. Entitled to a vote on the matter.
And before someone retorts with " so you're saying a man can force a woman to abort or force a woman to keep the baby" I'm not saying that, voting or having an opinion does not equate to forcing something on someone.

But there are only 2 people involved: one has to have the deciding vote - it has to be either the man or the woman.

Logically it follows that if the woman does not have the ultimate choice on whether or not to continue with the pregnancy then the man must have it (unless you are envisioning some kind of external committee-type situation?)

The same could be said for pretty much every decision that is made in a relationship

B0jangles

blacklilly wrote: »

The same could be said for pretty much every decision that is made in a relationship

And? We are talking about legalities here, not specific relationships.

To be honest, I have difficulty imagining that a relationship could survive a deadlock on this topic, presuming that in an imaginary world both man and woman have a 50% vote on what happens - one of the two people involved is going to be profoundly hurt - either by having their child aborted unwillingly or by being forced to become a parent unwillingly. I can't see that there can ever be a middle ground where both could be satisfied.

Dangerous Man

Colmustard wrote: »

Because pro/choice and the moronic meaningless chant of pro/life makes little sense to me.

I say if a woman wants an abortion it is her decision and never a mans no matter the circumstances. So I am pro/woman.
Why is always in the majority of cases, its always men that oppose abortion, if by some freak of nature men were to suddenly be the ones to carry a pregnancy I bet they would change their tune.

You have no right to cast others as morons and then spew out the hastily-composed, borderline sexist garbage below.

newmug

chatterpillar wrote: »

OK, apart from anything else ...

Do think that the chances of a woman becoming pregnant depend on whether or not the sexual intercourse had been consensual, or not?

Honestly, I don't see the relevance of your comment in the context of the politician's argument?

chatterpillar wrote: »

What. The. Fuck.

Tell me more about what you know of "the biology of pregnancy"?

I'm intrigued. Because I truly can't see how conception resulting from rape would be any more difficult or rare than conception resulting from consensual intercourse, all other factors being identical.

lazygal wrote: »

Do you have any facts or statistics to back up the numbers of women who change their mind post coitus? Or is this another one of those 'my mate shagged a bird who cried rape, what a b!tch' anecdotes?

Would the two of you calm down?

Now. Yiz both took me up wrong. As did a mod. I dont agree with what this looper of a politican is saying, I am merely pointing out that maybe he was taken out of context. Maybe he used the word "legitimate" to differentiate between non-consensual violent rape, and the consensual-but-changed-your-mind-afterwards type. It happens more often than you think!

As for statistics about getting pregnant, (which I dont really see the relevance for, rape is rape), Bojangles nailed it well:

B0jangles wrote: »

False rape claims are estimated to be in and around 2-8% of all rape allegations, leaving 92-98% to be legitimate. Many rapes are not even reported - I have two friends who have been raped who didn't go to the police; they didn't think they'd be believed. Rape is an awful lot commoner that maybe you'd like to believe.

Also 5% of rapes result in pregnancy, apparently that's in and around the same rate as via as ordinary unprotected intercourse. -I'll see if I can dig up the study that demostrated this now.

Edit: Here's a link to the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248

later12

B0jangles wrote: »

Also 5% of rapes result in pregnancy, apparently that's in and around the same rate as via as ordinary unprotected intercourse. -I'll see if I can dig up the study that demostrated this now.

Edit: Here's a link to the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248

Actually, I think it's even worse than that. Gottschall & Gottschall (2003) found that " per-incident rape-pregnancy rates exceed per-incident consensual pregnancy rates by a sizable margin, even before adjusting for the use of relevant forms of birth control. "

http://www.springerlink.com/content/wp5cnp43k6byxj4d/

You're actually more likely to get pregnant arising from being raped than you are from consensual sex.

Colmustard

Dangerous Man wrote: »

You have no right to cast others as morons and then spew out the hastily-composed, borderline sexist garbage below.

Pro/life is moronic, what the hell does it mean, the 2 positions are either pro abortion or anti abortion. And what part of my post was sexist.

PS I am a man.

blacklilly

Colmustard wrote: »

Dangerous Man wrote: »

You have no right to cast others as morons and then spew out the hastily-composed, borderline sexist garbage below.

Pro/life is moronic, what the hell does it mean, the 2 positions are either pro abortion or anti abortion. And what part of my post was sexist.

PS I am a man.

Please explain how it moronic? Pro life believe that the unborn should be protected have have rights attributed to it, they believe a life is created at conception, pro choice have no definite point of clarity as to when the unborn should be attributed rights and their argument is based upon the unborn being wanted or not therefore i think the pro life stance is self explanatory and in no way moronic

Pace2008

Colmustard wrote: »

Pro/life is moronic, what the hell does it mean, the 2 positions are either pro abortion or anti abortion. And what part of my post was sexist.

PS I am a man.

Well, pro-abortion sort of sounds like you're in favour the idea of gratuitous terminations, so pro-choice is the preferred term. But of course once one side's using a euphemistic term to describe they're position the others going to want one as well, so we end up with pro-life and pro-choice. To be honest I don't think it's a problem once the terminology is easily understood.

Colmustard

Pace2008 wrote: »

Well, pro-abortion sort of sounds like you're in favour the idea of gratuitous terminations, so pro-choice is the preferred term. But of course once one side's using a euphemistic term to describe they're position the others going to want one as well, so we end up with pro-life and pro-choice. To be honest I don't think it's a problem once the terminology is easily understood.

I am, a women is entitled to an abortion on demand it has nothing to do with the man who made her pregnant.

blacklilly wrote: »

Please explain how it moronic? Pro life believe that the unborn should be protected have have rights attributed to it, they believe a life is created at conception, pro choice have no definite point of clarity as to when the unborn should be attributed rights and there argument is based upon the unborn being wanted or not therefore i think the pro life stance is self explanatory and in no way moronic

Pro life, choose life, life is for living, why not pro abortion or anti abortion. It describes the position more clearly. Pro life suggests that the faotas is a viable human being and it is not, it is a potential human being and that is different.

batistuta9

newmug wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks that he meant "legitimate" rape to mean a brutal assault where sex was non-consensual, as opposed to the type of "rape" which happens nowadays sometimes, whereby two people have consensual sex, but the woman decides afterwards she didn't actually want it?

yeah he means when they were actually raped by legitimate

and the other type is just people getting out of having a baby by making up they were raped

another molehill turned into a mountain on boards.ie

lazygal wrote: »

Do you have any facts or statistics to back up the numbers of women who change their mind post coitus? Or is this another one of those 'my mate shagged a bird who cried rape, what a b!tch' anecdotes?

everyone knows that happens

B0jangles

batistuta9 wrote: »

everyone knows that happens

No they don't, not to any stastistically relevant extent anyway.

A friend of mine was a bit too tipsy one night, so we called her a cab. A mutual friend spontaneously offered to see her safe to her door.

Next time I saw her she tearfully told me that she woke up the following morning naked in his bed, with clear signs that she had had sex and no memeory of having done so. She had already gotten the morning-after pill and was looking into what STI tests she should get.

She did not go to the police because she didn't think she'd be believed.

He was not drunk.

He offered to see her safe to her own house.

He took the opportunity of her state to take her to his own home and rape her.

I'm sure his friends (if they hear anything at all) heard about how he finally got into the pants of that hot girl he knew.

If she had gone to the police and you were his friend. don't you think that he'd tell you that it was totally consensual and she just regretted it the morning after, and crazy bitches just make this **** up all the time?

Biggins

The BBC:

It is not the first time the six-term congressman, who is a long-time vocal opponent of relaxing abortion laws, has got into trouble on the issue of rape.

In 2011, he co-sponsored a bill that would have limited the government help available to women seeking abortions in the case of rape to cases of "forcible rape".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19326666#

So anyone that has suffered unforcible rape - would get no help?

The man is mental!

...But it gets better - he is a member of the House Committee on Science!

SERIOUSLY! :eek:

Wibbs

later12 wrote: »

Actually, I think it's even worse than that. Gottschall & Gottschall (2003) found that " per-incident rape-pregnancy rates exceed per-incident consensual pregnancy rates by a sizable margin, even before adjusting for the use of relevant forms of birth control. "

http://www.springerlink.com/content/wp5cnp43k6byxj4d/

You're actually more likely to get pregnant arising from being raped than you are from consensual sex.

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.