Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 7:52:52 GMT -5
people who want abortions to be illegal like this line of thinking because it is often thought that even if abortions were illegal there would be an exception for pregnancies caused by rape. So the thought is that woman would claim rape in order to get abortions, when they weren't legitimately raped.
But if woman couldn't get pregnant by legitimate rape, then obviously, a woman who was pregnant was not legitimately raped, and therefore there would not need to be an exception for rape. Loophole conveniently closed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 8:00:53 GMT -5
Women claimed to be raped for various reasons all the time. Exactly... so it would be great to have a fool proof way to know for sure. If you are pregnant you weren't raped. unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Aug 21, 2012 8:01:10 GMT -5
"But, instead, we react like a frenzied thug mob over words when someone calls us a poo poo head and sit by like a bunch of slug couch potatoes while politicians legislate and vote our country down the toilet. "
Wow Shooby. Like it!
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Aug 21, 2012 8:01:41 GMT -5
I'm sure he does believe that - which in my view makes it worse - you can disagree, but anyone who believes that I want nowhere near the ability to pass legislation on abortion and health care in this country.
I also don't put much stock in apologies that come after a firestorm of criticism.
Regarding Harry Reid - no I personally find that comment incredibly offensive and wouldn't give him a pass on it, but as I don't control the media there's not much I can do about it.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 21, 2012 8:02:45 GMT -5
people who want abortions to be illegal like this line of thinking because it is often thought that even if abortions were illegal there would be an exception for pregnancies caused by rape. So the thought is that woman would claim rape in order to get abortions, when they weren't legitimately raped. But if woman couldn't get pregnant by legitimate rape, then obviously, a woman who was pregnant was not legitimately raped, and therefore there would not need to be an exception for rape. Loophole conveniently closed. ...not all people... ![:o](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/shocked.png)
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,653
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 21, 2012 8:18:41 GMT -5
Who doesn't have an opinion on abortion? It is what the opinion is based on that creates an issue. A person concerned about unemployment for storks caused by abortion shouldn't be making policy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 8:26:13 GMT -5
Our society is turning into a nation of rabid, hair-trigger scandal-seekers. Hi Virgil. It is the media which sensationalises these errant comments, for obvious reasons. Granted there will always be a few idiots who are taken in by it, but this isn't representative of society as a whole. It might serve you well to remember that it is the empty vessels which make the most noise, and so the spread of views presented in the public arena are an ill-proportioned representation favouring the idiotic end of the spectrum.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,653
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 21, 2012 8:33:35 GMT -5
It is what the opinion is based on that creates an issue. A person concerned about unemployment for storks caused by abortion shouldn't be making policy. But those who aren't concerned, should? Yes, those who aren't concerned about unemployment for storks caused by abortion should be making policy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 8:34:41 GMT -5
Who doesn't have an opinion on abortion? Entitled to your own opinions.... not your own FACTS ... Amazing how people still mix those up...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 8:40:42 GMT -5
Your whole post is crap. The guy is wanting a job legislating abortion. He should know how to talk about abortion. He wasn't using some metaphor like Biden that was taken out of context. I like the new guy!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 8:43:20 GMT -5
Hi Virgil. It is the media which sensationalises these errant comments, for obvious reasons. Granted there will always be a few idiots who are taken in by it, but this isn't representative of society as a whole. It might serve you well to remember that it is the empty vessels which make the most noise, and so the spread of views presented in the public arena are an ill-proportioned representation favouring the idiotic end of the spectrum. But the thing is that more and more of the vessel is being filled with those who are being taken in by it. If the vessel knew what was good for it, it would shut it down and slam shut.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 8:47:31 GMT -5
If you took the time to read my posts, you might get the whole picture. But obviously you choose to have tunnel vision. I've read your posts. They make my blood boil. I'm actually more disturbed by the remarks that you and Virgil have made in defense of Mr. Akin than his original case of foot-in-mouth disease. I believe that Mr. Akin fell victim to a Freudian slip and let us in on a little bit of his actual thought process, rather than the polished political soundbites he was supposed to say. I think that you and Virgil have done the same thing. You seem to have an underlying mistrust of women, or perhaps you know a man who was falsely accused of rape, but you seem to come down pretty hard on the side of making an example of pregant women. That makes me sad for you. But I still like the new guy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 8:50:06 GMT -5
If you took the time to read my posts, you might get the whole picture. But obviously you choose to have tunnel vision. I've read your posts. They make my blood boil. I'm actually more disturbed by the remarks that you and Virgil have made in defense of Mr. Akin than his original case of foot-in-mouth disease. I believe that Mr. Akin fell victim to a Freudian slip and let us in on a little bit of his actual thought process, rather than the polished political soundbites he was supposed to say. I think that you and Virgil have done the same thing. You seem to have an underlying mistrust of women, or perhaps you know a man who was falsely accused of rape, but you seem to come down pretty hard on the side of making an example of pregant women. That makes me sad for you. But I still like the new guy. it all comes down to abortion. If anti-abortionist could prove that women who were legitimately raped couldn't get pregnant they wold have one less hurdle to overturning Roe v Wade. And if they can't prove it, they can say it enough so that people start to think it is true.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Aug 21, 2012 8:50:50 GMT -5
Your whole post is crap. The guy is wanting a job legislating abortion. He should know how to talk about abortion. He wasn't using some metaphor like Biden that was taken out of context. I like the new guy! He sure did seem to choose the perfect 'name'.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 8:58:03 GMT -5
Entitled to your own opinions.... not your own FACTS ... Amazing how people still mix those up... No where did I read where he stated anything to be a fact. He stated his understanding of facts... you can't have an opinion that women don't get pregnant from abortion... because 5% of them do... that's a fact. So, when he states that his opinion is that women don't get pregnant from rape, what he is saying is that the 5% of women who do get pregnant, weren't really raped... which is not factual. And it is scary danerous... That is one of the things contributing to the OP, which I find much more prevasive and dangerous... the idea people seem to have that they are entitled to have an opinion on facts... ie. they are entitled to discount fact when it doesn't jive with their opinion...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 8:58:26 GMT -5
But the thing is that more and more of the vessel is being filled with those who are being taken in by it. Is this true, or is it merely that communications technology is affording you a better view of the stupidity that has always been? Who doesn't have an opinion on abortion? Entitled to your own opinions.... not your own FACTS ... Amazing how people still mix those up... A good point from you and Billison. We subscribe to the rule of Reason. If an opinion does not accord with reason then it has no place influencing government policy.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Aug 21, 2012 8:58:40 GMT -5
And in response to the OP, some comments are so offensive that it doesn't really matter to me how many times a person disclaims them after the fact, saying them at all is enough. Many people, politicians especially, are trained to talk in non-offensive vagaries, so I think in some cases "slips" like this are sometimes closer to what they truly then the often sanitized language they typically use. Agreed. Would hold true for me on the Akin & Reid 'mistakes'. Those would be B for me. Something like Obama's, Biden's, or the unfortunate mod's comments would fall into the A answer for me. Unfortunately I agree with anyone here that's said the majority of the population doesn't think past the 'gotcha' sound bite of the day.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 9:03:21 GMT -5
![](http://forums.clubrsx.com/images/smilies/yeahthat.gif) And this is why a guy with 30 posts has 11 karma already! ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/thumbsup.png)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 9:06:51 GMT -5
Obama is anti business... lmao.... the OP claims that people don't look at what politicians actually do and its true... business has made record profits under Obama, the stock market bounced back in record time... many, many more private sector jobs have been created under Obama than Bush... its a bit crazy that people could actually look at what Obama has done, and still say he is socialist/anti-business/etc...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 9:37:54 GMT -5
It all comes down to this - in a world of too much information, all we get are soundbites, 5-10 seconds max and public opinion is swayed by that. Unfortunately a majority of people do not go past that to look at the entire speech or the background of the person doing the talking.
People rely on the media too much to do the thinking for them -- and THAT is where the problem lies.
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on Aug 21, 2012 9:43:46 GMT -5
I disagree, Virgil. I don't think "everyone" thought he was an enemy to rape victims. I certainly don't think such. It's foolish to do so, based on what the man said. I do believe he's ignorant of how these things work, but he's sure not alone in that, and it's understandable. I also don't think all people necessarily believe what they may be advocating at any given time. As I said, people twist thing to make those things fit their agendas. They know they're twisting, but they need to be right ... so twist until you're right. It's like a motto for some. Akin also said that his statement was not what he meant in his heart ... So, my question is how did it get twisted? If that is not what he meant to say as it was not in his heart then how did it come out of his mouth? Based on news reporting, I note that his party is sacrificing him for the "good" of the party because they need that senate seat. However, he is not bowing out gracefully ... yet. Wondering how this will turn out for him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 9:47:08 GMT -5
Because he already has a history of wanting to redefine rape in a way that suggests a woman needs to prove she resisted in order for it to be deemed 'legitimate'...
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on Aug 21, 2012 9:52:57 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 10:20:20 GMT -5
Akin and Ryan tried to say that abortion could only be paid for if it was a case of 'focible rape'... ie. rape effected against resistance through force... and no, there is no indciation that under that definition drugged would count... it opens the whole thing up to 'interpretation' of what is a legitimate claim of rape...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 21, 2012 10:53:48 GMT -5
My grievance, sir, is that we're all assuming he intended to saw his hand off. The WP article did, actually. The issue is moot because as you point out, my defense was specifically "maybe he's right" and not "he's right". Meaning "I see no evidence that he's wrong." This doesn't mean I agree with him, but I still see no evidence that he's wrong. There's no actual research on the subject as far as anyone here has determined. Just doctors warring based on their intuition. Thank you, Ms. Wolf. A bright light of reason. ![](http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff155/JiminiChristmas/buttons/K2.png) This was also mmhmm's reaction to my mini 'editorial', but I'm not as convinced as either of you. In theory, attack ads are the lousiest promotion of a candidate imaginable. "Vote for me because I'm not the other guy." Yet it is widely understood—a marketing reality—that a politician cannot win an election without a foundation of attack ads. They work. They shouldn't, but they do. I know of nobody who claims "That attack ad really changed my mind," but when it all comes out in the wash at the polls, the attack ads work. Sound bite scandals are simply the verbal and literal equivalent—the attack ad distilled to its purest form. If I utter "clean, articulate, well-dressed", we all know who I'm talking about, why I'm saying it. I can get a political rally whooped up with cheers and laughter and applause. A lie repeated often enough is a lie people will believe. It's laziness, as shooby says. And it's a tragedy, because the house is on fire, as wolf says. You demonstrated—repeatedly—in the Akin thread that you hadn't actually read my comments. You initially misrepresented Rep. Akin's comments. And you were more interested in debating a straw man of your own invention than us. If that 'disturbs' you, so be it. This is precisely the 'B' mentality. We're not to infer a politician's motives by what he orates, or writes, or legislates, or does, or puts his name behind, but by a single statement in a single interview that overrides all of the aforementioned. I say phooey to that. It's irrational and it's lazy. Fair enough. ETA: Very few pro-lifers don't. A life is a life.
|
|
Don Perignon
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2011 18:46:42 GMT -5
Posts: 2,024
|
Post by Don Perignon on Aug 21, 2012 13:06:02 GMT -5
"A life is a life", but the life of a woman who has been impregnated from a forcible brutal rape has been diminished. Forcing that victimized woman to bear the unwanted offspring of her attacker seems to me to be more brutal than the actual rape. I can't comprehend why anyone would insist that the afflicted woman should be forced to bear that unwanted child unwillingly... how could anyone be so heartless as to impose that cruel fate upon a rape victim?
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 21, 2012 13:29:28 GMT -5
"A life is a life", but the life of a woman who has been impregnated from a forcible brutal rape has been diminished. Forcing that victimized woman to bear the unwanted offspring of her attacker seems to me to be more brutal than the actual rape. I can't comprehend why anyone would insist that the afflicted woman should be forced to bear that unwanted child unwillingly... how could anyone be so heartless as to impose that cruel fate upon a rape victim? ...diminished life =/= destroyed life... ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/wilted.png)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 13:34:55 GMT -5
In theory, attack ads are the lousiest promotion of a candidate imaginable. "Vote for me because I'm not the other guy." They work. They shouldn't, but they do. I know of nobody who claims "That attack ad really changed my mind," but when it all comes out in the wash at the polls, the attack ads work. Sound bite scandals are simply the verbal and literal equivalent—the attack ad distilled to its purest form. They might appear to work, Virgil, indeed, but there might be a reason for this other than the one being proposed. There are some who suggest that the 'lesser of two evils'-line has really come to sum up the kind of democracy we have; the attack ad strategy works not because of a susceptibility in the public mind caused by laziness, which is a simplistic explanation, but because it is a strategy aligned with, or reflective of, a status quo that many have come to accept through being born into it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 13:36:21 GMT -5
You demonstrated—repeatedly—in the Akin thread that you hadn't actually read my comments. You initially misrepresented Rep. Akin's comments. And you were more interested in debating a straw man of your own invention than us. If that 'disturbs' you, so be it. This is precisely the 'B' mentality. We're not to infer a politician's motives by what he orates, or writes, or legislates, or does, or puts his name behind, but by a single statement in a single interview that overrides all of the aforementioned. I say phooey to that. It's irrational and it's lazy. I'm not sure why I keep taking the bait, but I'm going to go ahead and push back on this. You have been chastized for misquoting posters in the past. Can you point to the place where I mischaracterized Mr. Akin's remarks? I believe I called him a fool in the other thread. I believe I stated the opinion that his remarks were a Freudian slip and indicative of his true beliefs in this one. But I have said very little about Mr. Akin. I don't believe I have misquoted him or characterized his statements one way or another. For the most part, I have commented on the reactions to Mr. Akin's boneheaded statement (I have now called Mr. Akin a fool and boneheaded) on these boards. Specifically, I have taken objection to your search for science TM to disprove the anti-Akin backlash. I have read and understood everything you have written. I used to teach probability. I may not be good at arithmetic, but I do understand statistics. What you have not understood is that I am not parsing your argument, because I object to its premise. I think you have been asking scientifically invalid questions that serve no purpose other than to discredit women and further disenfranchise those who have been raped. I'm not trying to split hairs over word choice, I'm saying these words matter. You seem to like analogies and changes in font size. Let's see if I can make my meaning clearer... A poster could use science TM to calculate the probability that a black runner would be faster than a white one. While I understand stop watches and how muscle mass analysis works, I would object to the premise of the discussion as offensive. Because race is a social construction, and not a function of biology or genetics, the argument is invalid. Another poster could jump in and say "wait, I saw Usain Bolt run really fast, so it might be true," but I am still going to find that offensive and irrelevant. I object to trying to parse out degrees of rape. I object to the implication that if a woman is pregnant after a rape, she may be in any way responsible. You're trying to convince me to think about stopwatches for a minute, and I'm saying you need to shut the hell up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:46:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 13:39:23 GMT -5
"A life is a life", but the life of a woman who has been impregnated from a forcible brutal rape has been diminished. Forcing that victimized woman to bear the unwanted offspring of her attacker seems to me to be more brutal than the actual rape. I can't comprehend why anyone would insist that the afflicted woman should be forced to bear that unwanted child unwillingly... how could anyone be so heartless as to impose that cruel fate upon a rape victim? They justify it by suggesting it wasn't really rape...
|
|