Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But even I understand what Akin was actually trying to say: That if a woman is, say, dragged into a dark alley and raped at knifepoint, then yes, she should be permitted to have an abortion; but in a "date rape" type situation, no.

Now mind you, I don't agree with this; just the same, probably a majority of states do punish "date rape" less severely than the dark-alley example I cited, usually by classifying the date rapes as "second-degree rape" and the other kind as "first-degree rape."

That's what Todd Akin's - and Paul Ryan's - "forcible rape" business is really all about; and if I were Rush Limbaugh I would be spinning this to suggest that Akin's blunder was to attempt to make any compromise by exempting even the victim of a "dark alley" rape from a blanket abortion ban (I hope Rush isn't lurking on this board somewhere).

Rape is rape. People who think acquaintance rape (which is the most common form) is not as bad as the stereotypical "creep abducting women off the street" rape are showing an underlying misogyny.

Originally Posted by Odin

Republican Senate Nominee: Victims Of ‘Legitimate Rape’ Don’t Get Pregnant

The stupid, IT BURNS!!! How does this guy remember to breathe? If you are so ignorant that you think rape victims can't get pregnant then you have no business being in politics. This guy must have went to a Christian private school or else he failed Biology.

Upon reflection, any woman who has had difficulty conceiving and has been told just to relax has heard a variant of the Akin thesis that "the female body has a way of shutting it all down". It used to drive me crazy to be told in essence that I wasn't conceiving because I wasn't relaxed. Especially after hearing news reports of massive rapes in the Balkans (this was the early 1990s) followed by lots of pregnancies.

Finally, the month that I finally conceived, in early 1994, was definitely not a month that I was relaxed about it. Grrr!

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But even I understand what Akin was actually trying to say: That if a woman is, say, dragged into a dark alley and raped at knifepoint, then yes, she should be permitted to have an abortion; but in a "date rape" type situation, no.

Date rape has the potential for the same consequences as the more blatant sort of forcible rape. The difference may be between being unconscious (drugged?) and being threatened with murder or severe injury.

Now mind you, I don't agree with this; just the same, probably a majority of states do punish "date rape" less severely than the dark-alley example I cited, usually by classifying the date rapes as "second-degree rape" and the other kind as "first-degree rape."

Most jurisdictions punish armed robbery more severely than other forms of theft because of the threat of death or crippling injury that any armed robbery poses. Armed robbery gets one 25 to life in Michigan, which is roughly the same sentence for attempted murder.

That's what Todd Akin's - and Paul Ryan's - "forcible rape" business is really all about; and if I were Rush Limbaugh I would be spinning this to suggest that Akin's blunder was to attempt to make any compromise by exempting even the victim of a "dark alley" rape from a blanket abortion ban (I hope Rush isn't lurking on this board somewhere).

Sex without consent is rape. That includes sex with a gun at one's head or sex under the influence of a date-rape drug.

GOP Convention Will Formally Endorse the Todd Akin Platform ?????

Schlafly, who has for decades been involved in Missouri politics, was an early and enthusiastic endorser of Akin’s candidacy for the Senate. And she defended the embattled congressman this week. Dismissing complaints about Akin’s “legitimate rape” remarks as “ridiculous,” Schlafly argued that the congressman’s critics—including prominent Republicans like Mitt Romney and Karl Rove—are “making a big thing about an unfortunate remark.”Schlafly has been rock steady in her championing of Akin as “a principled leader who has championed the issues of pro-life, traditional marriage, and sound economics.”

The principles, as advocated by Schlafly and Akin will be writ large in the GOP platform.
Here’s the key passage in the draft platform:

“Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

An example of the legislation that Schlafly and her fellow platform drafters are referencing is HR 3, the federal “No Taxpayers Funding for Abortion Act,” which sought to narrow the definition of rape by making exceptions only for “forcible rape.”

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169506...l=emailNation#

Less than 2% of the 1-2 million abortions happening every year are a result of rape. They are almost all after-the-fact birth control from consensual sex. A stupid comment by one Senate candidate on something that happens extremely rarely could not be more of a non-issue.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Less than 2% of the 1-2 million abortions happening every year are a result of rape. They are almost all after-the-fact birth control from consensual sex. A stupid comment by one Senate candidate on something that happens extremely rarely could not be more of a non-issue.

That abortion in cases of rape is rare (which is true) does not make this a non-issue.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

O.K. Edifice. If you're the personality-type that finds that funny(like I am), you may want to see this or this or this!
(I can't stop laughing!!!!)

Prince

PS: It might be a good idea to use the bathroom before watching any of the links. Seriously!
[There's a whole slew of them on YouTube; Type in "shreds" and enjoy!]

Hah! The original Santana Shreds is still the best.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Less than 2% of the 1-2 million abortions happening every year are a result of rape. They are almost all after-the-fact birth control from consensual sex. A stupid comment by one Senate candidate on something that happens extremely rarely could not be more of a non-issue.

The latest data I've seen was a study from 1996. If you divide by the population ratios, it would be approximately 42,300 per year. 100 a day. Not some abstract insignificant statistic, but one hundred people, every day. One hundred families affected. Mothers, daughters, wives. You want to say they don't matter? They're a non-issue? Their struggle is insignificant in your bigger picture of an ideal world? Are you going to support your wife in pregnancy while she carries her rapist's child?

I don't have any publicly appropriate words for this controversy. The only thing worse than the dumbass Senator who started it, is that there are people who still try to defend him.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

The latest data I've seen was a study from 1996. If you divide by the population ratios, it would be approximately 42,300 per year. 100 a day. Not some abstract insignificant statistic, but one hundred people, every day. One hundred families affected. Mothers, daughters, wives. You want to say they don't matter? They're a non-issue? Their struggle is insignificant in your bigger picture of an ideal world? Are you going to support your wife in pregnancy while she carries her rapist's child?

I don't have any publicly appropriate words for this controversy. The only thing worse than the dumbass Senator who started it, is that there are people who still try to defend him.

I'm not defending him, I'm saying it's a meaningless controversy. You talk about "families...Mothers, daughters, wives..." but babies don't factor into your equation. Your "compassion" and "empathy" are phony.

The fact of the matter is that abortion in America, in the overwhelming majority of cases, boils down to this: "killing a baby is a small price to pay when you really need to screw".

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Less than 2% of the 1-2 million abortions happening every year are a result of rape. They are almost all after-the-fact birth control from consensual sex. A stupid comment by one Senate candidate on something that happens extremely rarely could not be more of a non-issue.

They would not have to use Abortion as BC if you wingnuts would support real sex-ed rather than the Abstinence-only nonsense. Of course that is not what you guys really want, you guys are natalists who want to force women to have as many kids as possible to serve as wage slaves and cannon fodder.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm not defending him, I'm saying it's a meaningless controversy. You talk about "families...Mothers, daughters, wives..." but babies don't factor into your equation. Your "compassion" and "empathy" are phony.

The fact of the matter is that abortion in America, in the overwhelming majority of cases, boils down to this: "killing a baby is a small price to pay when you really need to screw".

That's because a 2-month embryo is not a baby.

Personally, I think your statistics about the number of abortions performed are very telling. Whether they are the result of rape or not is irrelevant. I think it says quite a bit about our society that women do not feel secure and hopeful enough to bring their pregnancies to fruition. There is very little hope and support in this nation for a young woman with a child. I have seen other statistics that show that single mother headed families are likely to remain in poverty. There is not safe reliable affordable childcare. The extended family structure is so dispersed and strained it provides no support for either new children nor frail elderly. There is very little employment opportunities for unskilled women and what exists is generally dead end. Educational opportunities are limited d/t lack of childcare and decreased funding for Pell Grants. Every day we hear about more cutbacks in human services with some congressmen or state senates proposing to decrease food stamps, energy subsidies, etc. TANF certainly is a deterrent. Back when AFDC was in existence there was help, prenatal and post birth care; since Bush eliminated family planning funding infant mortality has increased exponentially. If you live in an "At Will" employment state and call in sick because your baby is ill, you lose your job. The schools continue to get worse and more dangerous. Private schools and extracurriculars are beyond reach financially. Homelessness has increased as more budgets are cut from programs that help those who are poor and the so-called leaders just sneer and say they are not poor enough, for god's sake, they have running water, a refrigerator and a working television set.

There is little compassion in this nation for the poor, actual children, unemployed and the old; how can you expect women to feel compassion for an embryo when they see the logical progression and implications of single motherhood? Perhaps in your zeal for saving every fertilized egg, perhaps the focus could be on science-- the ability to gestate a fertilized egg outside a woman's body to a live "birth" since it is unlikely the system of unbridled crony capitalism and its consequences will be turned round.

Originally Posted by Kate

Personally, I think your statistics about the number of abortions performed are very telling. Whether they are the result of rape or not is irrelevant. I think it says quite a bit about our society that women do not feel secure and hopeful enough to bring their pregnancies to fruition. There is very little hope and support in this nation for a young woman with a child. I have seen other statistics that show that single mother headed families are likely to remain in poverty. There is not safe reliable affordable childcare. The extended family structure is so dispersed and strained it provides no support for either new children nor frail elderly. There is very little employment opportunities for unskilled women and what exists is generally dead end. Educational opportunities are limited d/t lack of childcare and decreased funding for Pell Grants. Every day we hear about more cutbacks in human services with some congressmen or state senates proposing to decrease food stamps, energy subsidies, etc. TANF certainly is a deterrent. Back when AFDC was in existence there was help, prenatal and post birth care; since Bush eliminated family planning funding infant mortality has increased exponentially. If you live in an "At Will" employment state and call in sick because your baby is ill, you lose your job. The schools continue to get worse and more dangerous. Private schools and extracurriculars are beyond reach financially. Homelessness has increased as more budgets are cut from programs that help those who are poor and the so-called leaders just sneer and say they are not poor enough, for god's sake, they have running water, a refrigerator and a working television set.

The core reality is that the notion of family, and particularly marriage, has been eroded by 40+ years of baby boomer "counter culture" values. There are not huge numbers of young men and women who don't understand how babies are made and don't know about birth control. The leftist idea that more sex education would solve this problem is hilarious (if they even consider mass abortion a problem -- many don't). Most abortions are not had by teenagers either. These are adults, usually in their 20s.

What has happened is that many young women no longer view marriage as a prerequisite for having children. The example of multi-millionaire female Hollywood celebrities doesn't translate so well to the inner city. For some, having a baby follows the same thought process as getting a dog. For others, it may be an attempt to get a boyfriend to stick around. If that plan doesn't work out, there's always the option of killing the baby.

In other words, this is not about economic conditions or the lack of government programs. It's about one thing, which was the central "ideal" of the 1960s: Do whatever you want, and don't worry about the consequences. If there are consequences, do not take responsibility, throw that responsibility onto someone else. Whether it be an unborn child, society at large, or the government.

Unless that mentality is completely destroyed, this society is through.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

.....
Unless that mentality is completely destroyed, this society is through.

No, that would be when you have succeeded in enslaving millions of women and making the rest second class citizens by establishing that any who are not presently enslaved are such only by circumstance.

There simply is a difference in belief as to if and when a fetus is a baby. To impose your belief system on women wanting to abort a pregnancy, society would have to force the woman to carry the baby to term or at least to the third trimester. That is slavery -

Slavery:the state of being under the control of another person

Over 1/2 million Americans died to settle the issue of slavery. You apparently want to bring it back. And yes, with that, our current society as we know it would be through.

I really don't know why JPT implies that the destruction of "this society" lies in the future or can be prevented, when what he means by those two words -- the patriarchal society we had when I was a boy -- was "through" before he was even born.

And good riddance.

A lot of my fellow antipodean don't follow US current affairs and know about US politics like myself. Which makes not scared and outright disgusted at the rhetoric of the*Conservatives*in the United States, like many of my fellow antipodeans are or would be.

By antipodean standards, I am defiantly on the right because of free market economic positions I hold. Overall while President Obama has made mistakes, he has not been a bad president and don't deserve the sort of rhetoric which some in the United States dish out on him.

However I don't believe Obama will be re-elected in November, instead the Romney-Ryan ticket will eek out a narrow victory. Also I predict the Republicans will control both houses of Congress. I fully expect such an administration and congress to accomplish the following objectives;

Massive cuts to government expenditure (I have heard this has happened in many states, cities and countries already) apart from defence spending. Also at the same time massively cutting taxes (especially on higher income earners and companies). Not to mention a National consumption tax might be seriously considered at the same time.

Abolition of both medicare and medicaid, replacing both with a system of compulsory savings accounts for major medical expenses. Along with deregulation of the private health insurance companies.

The privatisation of social security and replacement with compulsory savings accounts for unemployment, disability and retirement funds.

Possibly a war against Iran be declared with the eye towards*Regime Change. Although it would be hard to know once the regime of the Mullahs was overthrown, that Iran would descend into civil war like Iraq did. This would be accompanied towards a more hostile stance by the United States towards countries such as North Korea and China.

Overall as I see it the United States now is more like Germany and Italy (along with Spain) were in the last 4T, in that the*counter-awakening*side managed to win out (for a while) in the Crisis of that saeculum. Although in both countries the defeat of both the Italian Fascist and Nazi regimes, allowed the awakening side to win out towards the end. However if the Axis powers had won World War Two both the Italian Fascist and especially the Nazi regimes would have lasted a lot longer.*

Much the same can be observed of the Sixteen Century with the Catholic Counter-Reformation managing to prevail throughout a lot of Europe. If it had not been for Queen Catherine of Aragon's failure to produce a male heir who survived beyond infancy, England would have join the Catholic Counter-Reformation. So this is where I get my term of the “counter awakening” side from.

However the last awakening themes weren't really about what economic system we should have. It was primarily as I see about environmental sustainability, along with gender equality and equal rights for LGBT people (please correct me if I am wrong). So even the counter awakening side are reluctant to want to reverse the changes made in these areas which have been made in the last fifty years. At most a lot of them just want to either slow down or stop these changes, but reverse them not really.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It's about one thing, which was the central "ideal" of the 1960s: Do whatever you want, and don't worry about the consequences. If there are consequences, do not take responsibility, throw that responsibility onto someone else. Whether it be an unborn child, society at large, or the government.

Unless that mentality is completely destroyed, this society is through.

Generally speaking, I tend to agree with the above as an observation of one of a number of more fundamental "causes" of some of the symptoms that some are identifying as lacking in our Society. IME, organic-systems(or maybe better put, systems that contain an organic-element) appear to compensate to alleviate the perceived(and/or real) lacking component that they deem(or is actually) necessary for survival(maybe Homeostasis is an appropriate term). IOW, they adapt or die. I believe we, as Individuals and as a Society, will do the same, as we(and other systems) have done before. There are certainly no guarrantees.

What form this adaptation would take is anyone's guess, but I believe it will be important to consider the perceived "time-critical"-nature of possible responses. IME, the perceived urgency of a necessary change alters the form and fundamental nature of those reponses.

That said, given that our Society(in the physical sense) does survive, its character and form may look nothing like we can even imagine. So, in that sense, "this society" pretty much has been making changes through-out history; It has died and been re-born over and over again. But, there are certainly some core fundamentals that, if we lose respect for them, I would agree that "this Society will indeed be through".

FWIW, although I believe we'll survive, I am concerned about how painful a successful adaptation may be.


Prince

PS:I believe the differing choruses of the song to which your signature is refering pretty much sums-up my feelings, JPT.
"I will get by; We will get by; We will survive"!

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Generally speaking, I tend to agree with the above as an observation of one of a number of more fundamental "causes" of some of the symptoms that some are identifying as lacking in our Society. IME, organic-systems(or maybe better put, systems that contain an organic-element) appear to compensate to alleviate the perceived(and/or real) lacking component that they deem(or is actually) necessary for survival(maybe Homeostasis is an appropriate term). IOW, they adapt or die. I believe we, as Individuals and as a Society, will do the same, as we(and other systems) have done before. There are certainly no guarrantees.

What form this adaptation would take is anyone's guess, but I believe it will be important to consider the percieved "time-critical"-nature of possible responses. IME, the percieved urgency of a necessary change alters the form and fundamental nature of those reponses.

That said, given that our Society(in the physical sense) does survive, its character and form may look nothing like we can even imagine. So, in that sense, "this society" pretty much has been making changes through-out history; It has died and been re-born over and over again. But, there are certainly some core fundamentals that, if we lose respect for them, I would agree that "this Society will indeed be through".

FWIW, although I believe we'll survive, I am concerned about how painful a successful adaptation may be.


Prince

PS:I believe the differing choruses of the song to which your signature is refering pretty much sums-up my feelings, JPT.
"I will get by; We will get by; We will survive"!

When I say the society is through, I don't mean that everyone will die in some kind of cataclysm. I also don't mean civil war or the dissolution of the United States as an entity. What I mean is that we may not be experiencing something like the Great Depression that we bounce back from. We may be merely beginning the process of devolving into second or third-world economic status. The rise and rhetoric of Barack Obama has too many parallels to people like Hugo Chavez. The cult of personality, the messianic aura, the abject failure of policy.

When a society has lost all of the building blocks that sustain it, there is nowhere to go but down. The consequences of the Utopian fantasy of the 1960s are manifestly apparent to anyone with the willingness to see. But it is the one thing that still cannot be challenged in modern America. The cultural dominance of the Boomer left is nearly absolute, and the result is a society that cannot confront the source of its problems. Not unlike Soviet Communism, when the central beliefs of your culture are based on false premises (in this case, that it's possible for everyone to do whatever they want without consequences and have a functioning, prosperous society*), the only thing that will change it is collapse. The golden calf of the 1960s will have to be brought down, or the country will fall instead.

*Recognize that I'm talking about culture here, not law. The government cannot force this kind of change. It will have to come from the people, and perhaps from a collapse so devastating that the only refuge is the "old ways" (family and faith, and the support, self-restraint and self-sacrifice that comes with them).

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah I thought that too, until Akin made his jackass statement.

One guy. This is the kind of thinking that prevents us from understanding and dealing with reality. The media decides what reality is by what it chooses to focus on, and we accept it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah I thought that too, until Akin made his jackass statement.

I am pretty sure that most normal people understand how babies are made. Akin is simply a representative of the average intelligence of the typical congress critter. The only thing party affiliation affects is how that stupidity is expressed.

I think those of you who may be thinking of voting for Romney/Ryan, just consider for a bit that the children you see around you today will be alive in the 22nd century. Then think about what the climate scientists are saying our world will be like by then if we do nothing about global warming, as Republicans propose. Do you really want these kids to live in a world where our beaches have eroded, the fish in our oceans have died, droughts and fires and floods are much worse than what we experienced this year, plagues like west nile virus are spreading beyond control, our food supply is exhausted, many more living species have lost habitat or failed to adjust to their changing environment, and so on? It is your choice today. You have a responsibility to these children you see around you, or to your own or your grandchildren.

You may not like the policies of the Democratic Party, such as some people paying higher taxes for programs that you think don't work or give money to people you don't think should get it. You don't have to vote Democratic, but please, just consider the consequences of voting for an extreme right-wing party that is unwilling to take any action at all to deal with the results of our actions as humans beings on this planet.

Do whatever you want, and don't worry about the consequences. If there are consequences, do not take responsibility, throw that responsibility onto someone else.

The central tenet of today's Republican Party is stated above.

Originally Posted by Galen

I am pretty sure that most normal people understand how babies are made. Akin is simply a representative of the average intelligence of the typical congress critter. The only thing party affiliation affects is how that stupidity is expressed.

The average intelligence of members of Congress is actually quite high. I doubt Akin is dumb, either. What he is, is ignorant in a way that appeals to a constituency that is ignorant in the same way.

JPT is showing his inability to imagine a functioning culture that is different then the patriarchal authoritarianism he thinks is so great. He has the same backward mentality that Dostoyevsky had ("if God is dead then everything is allowed"), believivng that people only behave because they are afraid of divine punishment.

Originally Posted by playwrite

No, that would be when you have succeeded in enslaving millions of women and making the rest second class citizens by establishing that any who are not presently enslaved are such only by circumstance.

There simply is a difference in belief as to if and when a fetus is a baby. To impose your belief system on women wanting to abort a pregnancy, society would have to force the woman to carry the baby to term or at least to the third trimester. That is slavery -



Over 1/2 million Americans died to settle the issue of slavery. You apparently want to bring it back. And yes, with that, our current society as we know it would be through.

Kate made some excellent points yesterday about the lack of community support for women expected to carry out unwanted pregnancies. It does amaze me that many staunch anti-abortionists want to appear as if they care about the sanctity of life. Yet when some of these babies are born, these pro-life crusaders abandon them by wanting to steal their safety nets. Women who don't have the financial or community support to raise a child, are considered lazy by the so called pro-lifers when she asks for government assistance. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah I thought that too, until Akin made his jackass statement.

Actually, all the people who told me to relax if I wanted to get pregnant back in 1993 had the same idea as Akin and could have used some biology lessons.