By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Missouri Republican: 'Legitimate rape' rarely causes pregnancy

Kasz216 on 21 August 2012
Legend11 said:
Kasz216 said:
Legend11 said:
If you're going to take a stand on something you should always imagine you or a loved one in a particular situation that the stand is about.

In this case imagine that your mother or sister or daughter was raped. Would you be OK with them being forced to carry the child to term against their will by the government because of the moral or religious views of others?

Does this politician and others that share his views for example have more of a right to decide if your loved ones' pregnancy should continue even at the very beginning of pregnancy than your loved one does?

He believes that he has more of a right than your loved one in making the decision even though he doesn't have to take into consideration or even deal with the emotional and physical trauma of such a pregnancy.

Now that's a totally unfair position on his views.

This sentor believes (likely) that at conception, that life is a human life, because if not aborted it will grow into a baby and a human.  So therefore that child is a human.

So he IS thinking it from the view of the loved on in particular.  The baby.

 

I don't agree with him, but at the very least it's worth understanding where he is coming from.  He said something stupid enough that his argument doesn't need to be strawmaned to hell.


How is it an unfair position on his views?  At the end of the day it's the decision he wants taken.  I basically boiled away everything else including the reasoning and arguments and then asked the reader to decide for themselves who the decision should be left to.  I mentioned the emotional trauma of the woman because there would be many nameless women out there that would be forced to endure this that this politician won't even know exists.

Because you are completely ignoring the fact that he thinks a fetus is a human being in the same way babies and adults are

A correct presentation of his point of view would be

"Should someone have the right to kill a human being because their father was a rapist."

You can disagree with his point of view... like I do.  However THAT is his view.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 21 August 2012

His view he expressed is this: With rare exception, if a woman gets pregnant, she wasn't rape (legitimately refers to a real rape). In short, it fits into this ethos floating around the GOP. If anything bad happens to you, it is because it is your fault, this includes getting pregnant, and everything else being peddled here. It fully fits with how the GOP operates now at this point. It is why you shouldn't "punish" the successful, and why the market will end up causing everyone to get what they deserve, because markets fully rest on the concept of free choice deciding everything. It also fits in regards to unemployment. The unemployed are a mix of Obama not making the consequences of the market severe enough, and the unemployed being too lazy to go get a job, so there MUST be a nanny state on stop that babysits every step of the way to insure those lazy good for nothing unemployed, and on welfare, go get jobs. If you didn't force this, and drive it, and make unemployment conditional on having a job, they just wouldn't do it.

So, what Akin says fully fits what the GOP believes in, operates on, and the whole Newscorp Fox News Talk Radio machine pushes over and over and over again. Everything is your fault in life, or is the fault of those who enable you to get away from your own consequences.  



Legend11 on 21 August 2012
Kasz216 said:
Legend11 said:
Kasz216 said:
Legend11 said:
If you're going to take a stand on something you should always imagine you or a loved one in a particular situation that the stand is about.

In this case imagine that your mother or sister or daughter was raped. Would you be OK with them being forced to carry the child to term against their will by the government because of the moral or religious views of others?

Does this politician and others that share his views for example have more of a right to decide if your loved ones' pregnancy should continue even at the very beginning of pregnancy than your loved one does?

He believes that he has more of a right than your loved one in making the decision even though he doesn't have to take into consideration or even deal with the emotional and physical trauma of such a pregnancy.

Now that's a totally unfair position on his views.

This sentor believes (likely) that at conception, that life is a human life, because if not aborted it will grow into a baby and a human.  So therefore that child is a human.

So he IS thinking it from the view of the loved on in particular.  The baby.

 

I don't agree with him, but at the very least it's worth understanding where he is coming from.  He said something stupid enough that his argument doesn't need to be strawmaned to hell.


How is it an unfair position on his views?  At the end of the day it's the decision he wants taken.  I basically boiled away everything else including the reasoning and arguments and then asked the reader to decide for themselves who the decision should be left to.  I mentioned the emotional trauma of the woman because there would be many nameless women out there that would be forced to endure this that this politician won't even know exists.

Because you are completely ignoring the fact that he thinks a fetus is a human being in the same way babies and adults are

A correct presentation of his point of view would be

"Should someone have the right to kill a human being because their father was a rapist."

You can disagree with his point of view... like I do.  However THAT is his view.

The last two paragraphs of my original post more than accurately give a representation of the issue at hand for people to decide if Akin's position is one that they agree with.  The whole purpose of my post was for them to decide for themselves if an embryo is a human being, if women should be forced to continue a pregnancy when they are raped or even if they weren't raped, etc.  It wasn't meant to simply state Akin's view, it was meant for people to form THEIR OWN views and in doing so it would show if they have the same views as Akin.



Kasz216 on 21 August 2012
Legend11 said:
Kasz216 said:
Legend11 said:
Kasz216 said:
Legend11 said:
If you're going to take a stand on something you should always imagine you or a loved one in a particular situation that the stand is about.

In this case imagine that your mother or sister or daughter was raped. Would you be OK with them being forced to carry the child to term against their will by the government because of the moral or religious views of others?

Does this politician and others that share his views for example have more of a right to decide if your loved ones' pregnancy should continue even at the very beginning of pregnancy than your loved one does?

He believes that he has more of a right than your loved one in making the decision even though he doesn't have to take into consideration or even deal with the emotional and physical trauma of such a pregnancy.

Now that's a totally unfair position on his views.

This sentor believes (likely) that at conception, that life is a human life, because if not aborted it will grow into a baby and a human.  So therefore that child is a human.

So he IS thinking it from the view of the loved on in particular.  The baby.

 

I don't agree with him, but at the very least it's worth understanding where he is coming from.  He said something stupid enough that his argument doesn't need to be strawmaned to hell.


How is it an unfair position on his views?  At the end of the day it's the decision he wants taken.  I basically boiled away everything else including the reasoning and arguments and then asked the reader to decide for themselves who the decision should be left to.  I mentioned the emotional trauma of the woman because there would be many nameless women out there that would be forced to endure this that this politician won't even know exists.

Because you are completely ignoring the fact that he thinks a fetus is a human being in the same way babies and adults are

A correct presentation of his point of view would be

"Should someone have the right to kill a human being because their father was a rapist."

You can disagree with his point of view... like I do.  However THAT is his view.

The last two paragraphs of my original post more than accurately give a representation of the issue at hand for people to decide if Akin's position is one that they agree with.  The whole purpose of my post was for them to decide for themselves if an embryo is a human being, if women should be forced to continue a pregnancy when they are raped or even if they weren't raped, etc.  It wasn't meant to simply state Akin's view, it was meant for people to form THEIR OWN views and in doing so it would show if they have the same views as Akin.Whil

While phrasing it from the point of view of the woman.

From his point of view it isn't the woman who's the person in the situation.

It's the child.

Your post from his point of view would look like this

"If you're going to take a stand on something you should always imagine you or a loved one in a particular situation that the stand is about.

Should the choice of your sister or friend living or dieing be made by there parents, or should there be laws to protect the life of a child?"

For example, if you have a newborn, who still hasn't reached quite "human" status, should parents just be allowed to stop taking care of them?  Afterall, they clearly know better then the senator what kind of emotional stress continued taking care of the baby would cause right?

phrasing such a situation from his point of view, would ask if the life of a child can ever be worth less then the emotional trauma of a person.

 

In reality abortion should be argued on two fronts.  

1) Sceintifically what is a good guideline for "human".

2) What level of care are people forced to give said humans/people.



Mr Khan on 21 August 2012

This has really been a boon to democrats, though, because even though Republicans have tried to disown him, he won't resign from Congress or drop out of the senate race, so he'll be an albatross around their collective neck for the next two months.

Unless he does bow out, but still...



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
badgenome on 21 August 2012
Mr Khan said:
This has really been a boon to democrats, though, because even though Republicans have tried to disown him, he won't resign from Congress or drop out of the senate race, so he'll be an albatross around their collective neck for the next two months.

Unless he does bow out, but still...

His campaign started the process of withdrawing yesterday, but it seems like he suddenly dug in his heels (maybe because he's still leading in the polls, barely).

I think you overestimate the importance, though. Enough people aren't going to care about an obscure congressman from Missouri for this to matter nationally, and those who do care a lot have already decided which side they're on.



Mr Khan on 21 August 2012
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:
This has really been a boon to democrats, though, because even though Republicans have tried to disown him, he won't resign from Congress or drop out of the senate race, so he'll be an albatross around their collective neck for the next two months.

Unless he does bow out, but still...

His campaign started the process of withdrawing yesterday, but it seems like he suddenly dug in his heels (maybe because he's still leading in the polls, barely).

I think you overestimate the importance, though. Enough people aren't going to care about an obscure congressman from Missouri for this to matter nationally, and those who do care a lot have already decided which side they're on.

I don't know. Given our news cycle, it could fade from importance pretty quick, but I also think there's the possibility that this could really push a lot of undecided women towards the democrats across the board, and, if he stays in the race, it would allow democrats all over the country to really keep hammering away at the "Republicans are anti-women" line, which seems to be one of the more decisive weapons in their arsenal this time around.

We'll have to see how this goes.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

happydolphin on 21 August 2012
theprof00 said:

I don't know what else I can possible explain to you happy.

Your study evidences that the two factors exist concurrently, not that one causes the other.
Your study involves ALL forms of trauma, AND no study exists that shows rape trauma is related to miscarriage. Therefore, while rape is certainly a portion of the cases they analyzed regarding trauma, it itself is not capable of being correlated with miscarriage. I feel like this is a metaphysical debate. The evidence doesn't exist specifically, therefore it is not proven.

You think that because the study says stress is correlated to miscarriage then rape is correlated to miscarriage because it is a form of stress. That is, and I can't stress (lol) this enough, a baseless extrapolation that you have decided on using warped logic. I could similarly say that cracked nail paint or "lolguys" cause miscarriage. However, I would be wrong because it is only a portion of women whom would think of such things as being entirely stressful, or unable to cope.

It may sound like mockery, but I'm trying to point out the flaws in simply deciding what causes stress.

Also, I don't know what gives you the idea that people disagree with him for political reasons. It seems like another misunderstanding in the line of logic.

That is, what he just said was reminiscent of 1950s psychology mixed with a heap of social injustice. Women do not have power over their miscarriages, but he's saying so because he wants to deny women who are raped the ability to abort. His goal is to say, "well, a woman who is LEGITIMATELY RAPED, would naturally miscarry, and if not, then they likely were NOT LEGITIMATELY RAPED". Rape is a serious issue happy, and one that this man obviously did not understand.

Nobody disagreed with him because it's political. We disagree because he's wrong. It then becomes a political thing because it's a women's rights issue. None of us say "oh that's women's rights, he's automatically wrong".

:3 your puns are very pun.

Well, it's not working for me because on  one end you say that rape is a serious issue, and on the other you liken it to nail paint, so I don't know what foot you're dancing on anymore.

 

Regardless, I was keeping a balanced view by not saying "he is right", but by saying what he said at least makes sense. Your position is to say "He is completely wrong", and that's something I can't accept.

People on the left generally accuse conservatives of being black and white, but the more I debate the more I notice the pole opposite. It's not because what he said was mildly off that people should say 1) he's an idiot and 2) he's completely wrong. What was off was to say that rape leads to miscarriage as if it was indisputably true 100% of the time. Well, even if he didn't think that, it's how he worded it.

I'm just saying that the idea is not terribly bonkers, and there is truth in what he is saying, though his claim in and of itself is false.

I hope that clears it up.



badgenome on 21 August 2012
Mr Khan said:

I don't know. Given our news cycle, it could fade from importance pretty quick, but I also think there's the possibility that this could really push a lot of undecided women towards the democrats across the board, and, if he stays in the race, it would allow democrats all over the country to really keep hammering away at the "Republicans are anti-women" line, which seems to be one of the more decisive weapons in their arsenal this time around.

We'll have to see how this goes.

There's no way this story holds the national attention for two and a half months, and if a woman is susceptible to that line of argument, why would this one instance get her off the fence when Democrats have beaten the "war on women" drum to death already? Undecided voters are a pretty nonideological and uninformed bunch, and they're going to break one way or the other based on their gut feeling about the candidates and how things are going generally.



Legend11 on 21 August 2012
Kasz216 said:
Legend11 said:
Kasz216 said:
Legend11 said:
Kasz216 said:
Legend11 said:
If you're going to take a stand on something you should always imagine you or a loved one in a particular situation that the stand is about.

In this case imagine that your mother or sister or daughter was raped. Would you be OK with them being forced to carry the child to term against their will by the government because of the moral or religious views of others?

Does this politician and others that share his views for example have more of a right to decide if your loved ones' pregnancy should continue even at the very beginning of pregnancy than your loved one does?

He believes that he has more of a right than your loved one in making the decision even though he doesn't have to take into consideration or even deal with the emotional and physical trauma of such a pregnancy.

Now that's a totally unfair position on his views.

This sentor believes (likely) that at conception, that life is a human life, because if not aborted it will grow into a baby and a human.  So therefore that child is a human.

So he IS thinking it from the view of the loved on in particular.  The baby.

 

I don't agree with him, but at the very least it's worth understanding where he is coming from.  He said something stupid enough that his argument doesn't need to be strawmaned to hell.


How is it an unfair position on his views?  At the end of the day it's the decision he wants taken.  I basically boiled away everything else including the reasoning and arguments and then asked the reader to decide for themselves who the decision should be left to.  I mentioned the emotional trauma of the woman because there would be many nameless women out there that would be forced to endure this that this politician won't even know exists.

Because you are completely ignoring the fact that he thinks a fetus is a human being in the same way babies and adults are

A correct presentation of his point of view would be

"Should someone have the right to kill a human being because their father was a rapist."

You can disagree with his point of view... like I do.  However THAT is his view.

The last two paragraphs of my original post more than accurately give a representation of the issue at hand for people to decide if Akin's position is one that they agree with.  The whole purpose of my post was for them to decide for themselves if an embryo is a human being, if women should be forced to continue a pregnancy when they are raped or even if they weren't raped, etc.  It wasn't meant to simply state Akin's view, it was meant for people to form THEIR OWN views and in doing so it would show if they have the same views as Akin.Whil

While phrasing it from the point of view of the woman.

From his point of view it isn't the woman who's the person in the situation.

It's the child.

Your post from his point of view would look like this

"If you're going to take a stand on something you should always imagine you or a loved one in a particular situation that the stand is about.

Should the choice of your sister or friend living or dieing be made by there parents, or should there be laws to protect the life of a child?"

For example, if you have a newborn, who still hasn't reached quite "human" status, should parents just be allowed to stop taking care of them?  Afterall, they clearly know better then the senator what kind of emotional stress continued taking care of the baby would cause right?

phrasing such a situation from his point of view, would ask if the life of a child can ever be worth less then the emotional trauma of a person.

 

In reality abortion should be argued on two fronts.  

1) Sceintifically what is a good guideline for "human".

2) What level of care are people forced to give said humans/people.

It doesn't make any sense to to refer to it as your "friend" or "sister" or "newborn" when asking people to decide for themselves if an embryo at fertilization or in the first few weeks is a human being or not.  The embryo at that point is not an almost newborn or a 20 year old friend because if it was then there would be no question about it being a human being.

Anyways I'm done discussing this as I feel that simply asking people to look at something and make up their own minds about it is hardly being unfair to Akin.  Asking this question doesn't require it to be asked from Akin's point of view or even to tell people what his stand is in the first place.

Also the question was never about a newborn that the parents stopped taking care of so you're the one that is actually guilty of creating straw man arguments with that and in stating the question needs to be asked from one of the viewpoints you've mentioned.