Rape being re-defined by Senator Akin

Some people are so obsessed with a fetus they prioritize it over the people already living

And Akin has no clue what he is talking about. There is no magical defense women have preventing pregnancy from rape

It was quite some time ago, and I don't clearly remember it anymore, but that's the closest that I can think of. =-=

I Saw this on the news not to long ago. The guy is a complete idiot and made me think "THESE are the people who're running our country?!". I genuinely fear for the future of my country. And as far I know the body cannot distinguish sperm from rape or consentual sex. Now to answer the question of the topic. you can say that there is different types of rape such as penetration and just touching inappropriately. but the way I see it rape is rape and should be dealt with equally and severely. I say locked up for life because there is no cure for these people, hell it isn't really anything to cure they are just messed up individuals.

I understand that one isn't as traumatizing or life ruining as the other but rapist don't stop after one nor does it stay the same. No, it can only escalate until some innocent women is raped, impregnated (yes akin a women can get pregnant when raped), mentally traumatized, and their life is effectively ruined. Best thing is to lock them up before they ruin someone's life.

Sorry if this isn't worthy for serious discussion. I take rape very seriously and am seriously pissed off.

I think President Obama responded aptly to his comment today, stating thus:

"“Let me first say the views expressed were offensive,” Obama said. “Rape is rape, and the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we’re talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people and certainly doesn’t make sense to me.” "
“What I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women,” Obama said. “So although these particular comments have led Gov. Romney and other Republicans to distance themselves, I think that the underlying notion that we should be making decisions on behalf of women … or qualifying forcible rape versus non-forcible rape are broader issues.”

via http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/president-obama-on-todd-akin-rape-is-rape.php

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248 (1996 study)

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/was-it-rape (rape definition)

For those of you who don't feel like reading through what the equivalence of 4chan ironic shitposting is.


Although I wouldn't dismiss the information in Lustful's links right away.

Ah, yes, the article is somewhat satirical, but in the context of my post, I was using it mainly to point out hilariously erroneous instances of classification of rape.
The RAINN stats and PubMed are much more reliable, and more scientific, sources, for actual statistics.

However, Lustful's link cited research conducted mostly in the 1970s by only two sources, so I think it is rather questionable.

This. ^(-__-) I'd think they'd have more brains than this by now..but screw it. Woman have magical rape defense powers, semen is people and Im a fucking butterfly.

Great, so our president is a sexist. I'd like to ask him how many females are in parliament? Exactly. And I'll say it once again: We are not making decisions on behalf of women, we're taking women off the pedestal of making themselves Demi-Gods deciding whether their children will live or die or not.

Murder is murder, and legalizing a form of murder doesn't make it any less so. And the life of the fetus is no different than the life of a child, or an adult. Our newborns have less rights than freaking animals.

I wonder what America's position is on infanticide, it's pretty much the same thing.

GO GOP GO! Show the world your true colors!

I don't believe that's what he was trying to convey. I believe that he is a strong advocate for womans rights. This speach was meant to defend woman, and rape victims in general, by saying that there aren't multi-types of rape. Rape is rape. It's unforgivable.

Also in his speach I don't recal him saying anything about killing a fetus. As far as I know, President Obama is Pro-Choice on the matter, which I believe is best choice. It's not right for the government, which is mostly male ,to make decision's that take away right's that belong only to woman.

But we have gotten off topic. This forum is here to dicuss the claim that there is more than one type of rape. Also wether or not woman have this "magical defense barrier" that can differ rape sperm from other sperm.

Well, it's pretty much universal. If we talk about women's rights, we have to address this issue. And I believe it's an issue we need to address, what right do we humans have to take away a life, any life?

The only exception I've ever thought of, was like Light Yagami: Only the worst and most serial of criminals, who disregard lives, including their own and would only be a danger to further life.

The death penalty, in the ideal world, should be the only source of death inflicted by anything other than disease or old age. Obviously, we're not in the ideal world but we can move closer.

Starting by giving our fetuses the same rights as at least freaking animals. I mean, that's disgusting that they don't have that right.

Question, would you give a embryo's those rights too?

Yes. The Sanctity of Life is the highest law of nature, the moment we lose this moral standing, is the moment we become, yes, we are indeed a third world country with first world material.

America has fallen, far from a threat to abortion, abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood enjoy massive funding, target low-key impoverished areas and they literally 'push' the patient towards abortion(Because the more abortions they perform, the higher the funding.)

Disgusting? Yes, of the umpteenth degree. Some 'rights', we're better off without. Murder for profit is one of them.

You do know planned parenthood does more than abortions right?

And i think i mentioned this in another topic, but making abortions illegal will not stop them from happening.And elevating a embryo to a person makes no sense to me.A fetus maybe, but a embryo?

Simply put: Is that embyro going to become something other than a human being? Pregnancy, when it's allowed to actually go through the process is a black and white thing. Either you give birth, or you have a miscarriage.

There is no such thing as a half child, half animal(At least, not that I've heard), or some other extraordinary phenemon occuring in birth.

It's not 'religious' at all, it's a scientific fact. Until we see a different phenmon occur, the only thing a pregnant woman can give birth to, is another human.

Life is not the highest law of nature. As far as I know, Survival of the Fittest is the only law of nature. Life is something we should all hold dear, but to force a woman who doesn't want the baby to have the baby isn't right. For rape victims, it's a constant reminder of the rape and some can't bear with that pain.

As for the abortion clinics, the thought of them making a profit on this doesn't sit right with me either. But even with all our disaproval, it's still a buissnes and nothing in this world is free. Though pushing patient's to an abortion is crossing the line. That's the decision of the victim and no one elses.

On the subject of rights we can live without, murder for porfit isn't a right. It's a crime. Right's a legal.

On the topic of where Senator could have gotten his crazy idea about magical pregnancy-stopping uterus functions, lots of news sources have pointed back to a "Dr. Willke" who holds radical, unscientific views on abortion.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/21/todd-akin-finds-a-friend-in-john-willke-a-pro-life-founding-father.html

Ironically enough, the highly erroneous article Lustful linked us to earlier in this thread


was written by this quack.

Here are a few of his "works".

"And in 1999, he wrote an essay [the very one cited by Lustful] saying that pregnancy from rape is rare. That’s the piece getting cited in the media now.

In that essay, Willke argued that factors such as physical trauma, stress, infertility, and birth control make it highly unlikely for women to get pregnant from rape. “There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape,” he said. “This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation, and even nurturing of a pregnancy.”

He offered up a complex mathematical calculation in the essay on how he arrived at his theory that pregnancy from rape is extremely rare. He also drew a distinction between “forcible rape,” statutory rape, and date rape. He said date rape counted as “forcible rape,” but that statutory rape was in a different category, as it could be consensual."

Basically, if someone's raped and has the emotional wherewithal to survive it, these magical, unproven "mechanisms" of stress kill any baby growing inside the womb. This is pretty bullshit, as tons of scared/stressed/emotionally-compromised women carry children born of rape to term.

Further more, he somehow thinks statutory rape isn't all that bad... yeah, he's off his rocker.

I like the way one person put the pro-life viewpoint: "On the one hand, they claim that rape doesn’t cause pregnancy. At the same time, they say pregnancy from rape shouldn’t justify abortion. Which one is it?”
Clearly they realize pregnancy can occur from rape. So to deny it is just foolish.

The idea of taking away a life as a business, is well...Let's call a spade, a spade: Wall Street cronyism doesn't even come close to that. But, in a country where there's millions of people, the opinions of a few, or even a thousand pales in comparison. So, no matter how I feel about the sanctity of life, we've long past that stage and any hope of recovery is sadly a dream.

I feel sad for victims of rape, I believe we should prosecute rapists the same as murderers. The failure of prosecution is at the state and federal level, and the best way to change things? A good ole threat: Failure to prosecute will risk the loss of the job of the Attorney General. As well as police who fail to follow through on the evidence.

Public servants, are SERVANTS of the state, city, country and the people in it. Crack the freaking whip.

But even with all of the rape, incest victims, and any other victim you want to add there: Their numbers pail in comparison to the tens of thousands of meaningless abortions a year, for the most selfish of reasons: "I'm not in an economic position to raise the child."

Question: Why'd you enter a serious relationship, knowing that fact? It goes back to what I said in another thread: Let's not condone the criminal, but let's also not condone stupid.

Giving women the right to play demi-god, to condemn stupid is the definition of a third world country.

Were at an impass. I think it's wrong to have the government take the right of abortion away from woman, You think it's wrong for the woman to have the right end a defenseless being.

But let me make sothing clear, I DO think abortion is wrong. I don't agree with it. But I ALSO think it's the right of the woman to decide what to do with her own body.

I also think abortion is situational. In the situation you stated, "I'm not in a good econoimcal state to have a baby" I think that's a stupid reason to get an abortion. You should have used a condom. But in the case of incest or rape belive that to be a decent reason for getting an abortion.

I also want to make clear that I fully understand you position. Do you disaprove of abortion for all situations or do you only disaprove wit the "I'm not in a good econoimcal state to have a baby" reason?

I 'fully' support Medical Abortion(IE: Rape, incest, the victims), but even to this extent, I believe it's right to have the hope that one day, in the science field we develop the technology to safely deliver from complicated preganancies.

In all realism, we probably won't be able to ban abortion in the same way we won't be able to ban guns. As dangerous, ill-concieved and anti-life as these items are, they're staunchly in our society and as such will probably never be removed.

Then, can we uphold our morality? We can, by avoiding as many "Pro-choice abortions"(IE:Murder) as we can. There's no reason to 'get' an abortion, just because you don't want to be a mother. I believe, we as humans should have the ability to decently converse about our intentions in a relationship, how serious we think we can go and if we can support a child, etc.

In my ideal world, we'd only support medical abortion and I'd be satisfied: We would've cut the abortion rate in nearly half. Because there are few medical cases, as opposed to the thousand of "pro-choice" cases.