Republican Candidates and Rape

• O-Trap

  

  Devils Advocate;1303975 wrote:OMG! My masturbatorium is a death camp???????

  LOL
  
  Wet dream becomes a mass homicide dream!
• Con_Alma

  IggyPride00;1303516 wrote:Theoretically a senate candidate does in the sense that they will be voting on the next supreme court justice. If a pro-life judge in the mold of Scalia/Alito is appointed in place of Ginsburg it would give the court 5 votes to do away with Roe should it choose to revisit the case. Considering Roberts has shown he has no problem with doing away with cases many consider to be settled law (Citizens United overturned 100+ years of precedent) it is not unreasonable to think they would find a way to revisit Roe if they had the votes.

  That's not an elected official having the power. It takes the collective elected officials to approve and appointment.
• Con_Alma

  Obama wants babies who have survived an abortion to die: "On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute." Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Co

  Could this be twisted into an example of an elected official denying a women's right to choose??
• gut

  I can no longer let this thread go on without quoting the venerable Bobby Knight:
  
  "when rape is inevitable, the woman should just sit back and enjoy it"
• isadore

  gut;1304216 wrote:I can no longer let this thread go on without quoting the venerable Bobby Knight:
  
  "when rape is inevitable, the woman should just sit back and enjoy it"

  an example of Republican rape counseling followed by telling the victims it was all part of God's plan and that they don't have to worry about pregnancy if it was a legitimate rape.
• IggyPride00

  

  Look at Obama's newest ad to target women. Shame is clearly not in the President's vocabulary.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6G3nwhPuR4&feature=player_embedded
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1303946 wrote:Actually, I believe the discussion is whether or not they are a person, not a human.
  
  If you test a combination of a sperm and egg at any stage, you're going to get unique, human DNA. It's certainly human.
  
  
  
  Having its own, unique, human DNA would make it a human, from a scientific standpoint. That fact distinguishes it from skin cells and determines it to be of human descent.
  
  
  
  This.

  I meant person I guess if you look at it that way but I think what I was trying to say hopefully still was what came through in the post.
  
  Either way there's a disturbing trend amongst GOP representatives at various levels to belittle rape and try to classify "legitimate" rape and whatnot and it's awful. I don't think it is particularly reflective of the people who support GOP candidates or ideas as a whole though as even ardent Republican backers I know would recognize the misogyny and downright callousness of these sort of comments.
• I Wear Pants

  Devils Advocate;1303975 wrote:OMG! My masturbatorium is a death camp???????

  According to some, yes.
• BoatShoes

  O-Trap;1303946 wrote:Actually, I believe the discussion is whether or not they are a person, not a human.
  
  If you test a combination of a sperm and egg at any stage, you're going to get unique, human DNA. It's certainly human.
  
  Having its own, unique, human DNA would make it a human, from a scientific standpoint. That fact distinguishes it from skin cells and determines it to be of human descent.

  
  Unique, human DNA in an early stage embryo constitutes a necessary condition for human life but it is not sufficient for "human life" as I would say we ordinarily understand it....being "alive" per se...and in my opinion...at least not to the point of having a moral status that would warrant a gross violation the individual liberty of a free woman. I suppose you'd say it's a variation of the personhood camp but I don't think it's quite the same.
• O-Trap

  

  BoatShoes;1304808 wrote:Unique, human DNA in an early stage embryo constitutes a necessary condition for human life but it is not sufficient for "human life" as I would say we ordinarily understand it....being "alive" per se...and in my opinion...at least not to the point of having a moral status that would warrant a gross violation the individual liberty of a free woman. I suppose you'd say it's a variation of the personhood camp but I don't think it's quite the same.

  I don't even think "alive" is the matter, as the embryo is clearly alive. It is alive, it has human DNA. The human DNA is distinct from the mother's DNA.
  
  I don't think it can be contested that it is "human" and "living."
  
  I don't, however, think it is a person at all stages. I think there has to have been the development of a brain capable of consciousness, and in a fetus, for that consciousness to come about. I identify personhood mostly with consciousness ... if not manifested, at the least only temporarily delayed.
• BoatShoes

  O-Trap;1304821 wrote:I don't even think "alive" is the matter, as the embryo is clearly alive. It is alive, it has human DNA. The human DNA is distinct from the mother's DNA.
  
  I don't think it can be contested that it is "human" and "living."
  
  I don't, however, think it is a person at all stages. I think there has to have been the development of a brain capable of consciousness, and in a fetus, for that consciousness to come about. I identify personhood mostly with consciousness ... if not manifested, at the least only temporarily delayed.

  I would actually disagree. I would agree that an embryo with distinct human dna is "human" and that it is "living" in the sense that it is an organic life form with metabolism, etc. However, I would disagree that it is "alive" in the sense that we normally understand what it means to be alive, having preferences, a mind etc.
  
  I think the brain structure having the capability of consciousness is the threshold of "aliveness" but I don't think quite would be the threshold of personhood. For instance, a chimpanzee or an alien visitor that is a sentient being might have more "personhood" than a fetus with thalamacortical connections but that embryo nevertheless has cross the threshold of "being alive" in that sense wherein its moral status deserves significant consideration to where it might be murder to destroy it. I'm not really sure "personhood" is all that important if we're to be consistent because we treat beings with all the characteristics we align with personhood significantly less than we treat human persons.
• gut

  Dreaming, I think, begins around Wk20 (not sure how they know that). My feeling is the point at which such brainwaves begin, and also the point at which it can survive outside the womb, is the beginning of the debate (going backward to earlier development, if you will).
  
  Now, some people would say a 22wk-old fetus can't survive on it's own without technology. This is true, but it's also true that a newborn can't survive on its own and, in some cases, also needs technology to live. So to me 3rd trimester is a pretty clear line.
  
  Again, an intersting theoretical/moral debate, but for practical purposes it shouldn't, and arguably can't, be illegal
• O-Trap

  

  BoatShoes;1304838 wrote:I would actually disagree. I would agree that an embryo with distinct human dna is "human" and that it is "living" in the sense that it is an organic life form with metabolism, etc. However, I would disagree that it is "alive" in the sense that we normally understand what it means to be alive, having preferences, a mind etc.

  See, I see a distinction without a difference between "living" and "alive."
  

  BoatShoes;1304838 wrote:I think the brain structure having the capability of consciousness is the threshold of "aliveness" but I don't think quite would be the threshold of personhood. For instance, a chimpanzee or an alien visitor that is a sentient being might have more "personhood" than a fetus with thalamacortical connections but that embryo nevertheless has cross the threshold of "being alive" in that sense wherein its moral status deserves significant consideration to where it might be murder to destroy it.

  I believe the issue we deal with legally is that, to my knowledge anyway, our laws regarding murder protect human persons. As your two examples don't meet that criterion, I'd contend that it would be LEGALLY more permitted ... at our current juncture anyway ... to kill a chimp as opposed to a conscious living human being. Now, MORALLY, it's conceivable to have a different discussion.
  

  BoatShoes;1304838 wrote:I'm not really sure "personhood" is all that important if we're to be consistent because we treat beings with all the characteristics we align with personhood significantly less than we treat human persons.

  I'm saying they're both necessary. "Human" and "personhood." You are correct that we treat beings we tend to personify differently. That doesn't, I don't think, actually make them a person. It just makes us identify with them.
  
  If, however, one must make a distinction between what is human and what is a person, then I suggest both are necessary.
• gut

  I don't know if I want to go here, but what I was unable to find was research linking physical trauma that is evidence of rape with pregnancy. I see doctors saying there is no physiological proof the body can reject or isn't fertile during a rape (but there doesn't appear to be proof there isn't, either).
  
  A study that did pop-up frequently found DOUBLE the normal rate of pregnancy. A variety of reasons were given for this, except the obvious. I realize many rape cases go unreported, but we also know from research that 25-50% of reported rapes are bogus (victims either failed a lie detector or suspects were exonerated based on DNA).
  
  So there are some rather obvious conclusions to draw. Not that it in anyway supports the "legimitimate rape" bs, but let's just agree that it is rare. As issues go, this one is hitting WAYYYYY above it's average.
• isadore

  gut;1304859 wrote:I don't know if I want to go here, but what I was unable to find was research linking physical trauma that is evidence of rape with pregnancy. I see doctors saying there is no physiological proof the body can reject or isn't fertile during a rape (but there doesn't appear to be proof there isn't, either).
  
  A study that did pop-up frequently found DOUBLE the normal rate of pregnancy. A variety of reasons were given for this, except the obvious. I realize many rape cases go unreported, but we also know from research that 25-50% of reported rapes are bogus (victims either failed a lie detector or suspects were exonerated based on DNA).
  
  So there are some rather obvious conclusions to draw. Not that it in anyway supports the "legimitimate rape" bs, but let's just agree that it is rare. As issues go, this one is hitting WAYYYYY above it's average.

  I realize there is a republican rape lobby out there, but where do you get your stats from, do you just make them up or do you have sources. These seem to contradict your statements.
  “FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%”
  　
  http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf
  “
  However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with "false" allegation. The largest study, published in 2005, was based on 2,643 sexual assault cases and found 3% of false reports.
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1905867/
  
• gut

  isadore;1305213 wrote:I realize there is a republican rape lobby out there, but where do you get your stats from, do you just make them up or do you have sources. These seem to contradict your statements.
  “FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%”
  　
  http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf
  “
  However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with "false" allegation. The largest study, published in 2005, was based on 2,643 sexual assault cases and found 3% of false reports.
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1905867/

  LMAO. You need to learn how to do a search on the internet - might be why you are so ignorant.
  
  I mean, I can go on and on, but here are a few links
  http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/
  Combining this 27% with the initial 212 "disproved" cases, it was determined that approximately 45% of the total rape allegations were false. (accusations on Air Force bases, no less)
  
  25-50% is a number I've seen in several studies. I'm not going to bother to look them up, you can find them yourself when you expand beyond wikipedia. The 40-50% number is observed on college campuses, 25% comes from the federal database based on exonerations from either recant or DNA.
  
  http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/research-varies-on-frequency-of-false-rape-reports/article_fe94e340-39b8-11e1-bbe1-0019bb2963f4.html
  "When Muir visited in person with that woman and another who'd filed a sexual assault complaint, "we had a discussion here in my office about the fact that there is false reporting that does take place," he said. "There are studies that have shown numbers are closer to 40 to 50 percent."
  
  And, gee hmm, I wonder why advocacy groups want to throw out polygraphs when alleged rape victims fail them left and right.
• isadore

  the statistic you site to support the rape lobby is an outlier from 30 years ago that does not reflect the single digit percentages presented since then. as a statistic from bases around the world it is not shown to be reflective of american women. but of women living often in cultures where mores and poverty can lead to false reporting to protect their lives and honor. the statistic for American women is consistently much lower, but of course to the rape lobby any number that justifies the argument for "legitimate" rape will be used.
• HitsRus

  

  I realize there is a republican rape lobby out there,

  Is that like the democratic 'murder machine'?
  
  When you start to use terms like that your argument is diminished, because it brands you as an extremist.
• isadore

  the rape lobby is the main stream of the Republican party. who do they run for the US Senate, one of our highest elected office, why Todd Akin and Richard Murdock. "Legitimate rape' Akin and Paul Ryan work together to make their hateful views oon the subject into federal law. And Mitt's continuing his political ads for Richard, "a woman's rape is God's plan" Murdock, the only Senate candidate he has made commercials for so far.
  
  Republicans can continue to worship the fetus and continue their rape lobby.
• gut

  isadore;1305293 wrote:the statistic you site to support the rape lobby is an outlier from 30 years ago .

  No it isn't, it's studies done in the late 90's, but nice try. You know, wikipedia is not always the best or most accurate source.
• elitesmithie05

  I guess if Republicans have rape lobbies than Democrats have lying wench lobbies...see thats what happens when I use a tiny percentage of a population and label the majority with it.
• isadore

  gut;1305507 wrote:No it isn't, it's studies done in the late 90's, but nice try. You know, wikipedia is not always the best or most accurate source.

  Gosh I cited 1996 s and 2007 study, you site a study from 1980-1984. The other examples from the site you provided agree with me. Those that use specific checkable sources in the 1990s or later agree with me. Not with you and the Republican rape lobby.
• isadore

  elitesmithie05;1305619 wrote:I guess if Republicans have rape lobbies than Democrats have lying wench lobbies...see thats what happens when I use a tiny percentage of a population and label the majority with it.

  gosh a ruddies the one definite majority is women, those potential victims of rape, the crime republicans see as part of God's plan.
• gut

  isadore;1306019 wrote:Gosh I cited 1996 s and 2007 study, you site a study from 1980-1984. The other examples from the site you provided agree with me. Those that use specific checkable sources in the 1990s or later agree with me. Not with you and the Republican rape lobby.

  Once again, those studies are from the 90's. Pretending it's not doesn't make it so. I didn't make-up the numbers, I didn't pick and choose, those are what the numbers are from the most comprehensive studies I could find.
• I Wear Pants