Rape being re-defined by Senator Akin

For all those talking about women having abortions for meaningless reasons. Has anyone here been in such a dire situation they felt they cannot take care of a baby?

If not, then i don't think we should go around making statements like this



Its easy to throw stones when you have never faced a situation like that.



You do know that if most pro-lifers had there way, condoms and any other form of birth control would be illegal since to them a embryo has the sanctity of life like Lustful said(his words,not mine). They don't want women getting abortions or using birth control to prevent themselves from getting into situations where they might feel a abortion is needed.

He reminds me of VP Biden... just doesn't know when to shut-up. Rambles on long enough that eventually the dipshit says something stupid and offensive and then tries to do damage control making it worse.

Let me just throw in my 2 cents before you guys keep talking abortion...

Senator Akin is not re-defining rape. He has almost no support on this issue, not even from his own party. Indeed, his party is actually calling for him to withdraw from the Senate race, which is rather indicative of how far this topic is really going to get. Best case scenario, nobody remembers the name Akin or re-defining rape by the end of this week.

This is just another case of mainstream media zoning in on radicals to make flashy headlines, spark controversy, and sell articles. They especially want people to get pissed off so that they make angry posts on hentai forums all over the internet (looking at you OP). Anyone remember or even care about Obama's "crazy" pastor? Yeah, neither do I.

The more people that talk about it, the more that are going to search it up on Google, go to their webpage, and earn them ad revenue. Reporting the news is about making money, not journalism. (exaggerating but you get the point) Lets get our panties unbunched, because rape is not going to be re-defined anytime soon.

Alright, continue with your abortion debate.

Don't give me a position, that I don't have. It's true, that I believe that all life, whether it be a zygote or a 60 year old man has the sanctity of life. But the responsibilities of motherhood(and fatherhood), should be reserved only for when your ready for that stage. Proper birth control that doesn't endanger the life of the mother, condoms, etc. I support all of these.

Of course, sadly, these items have been used to more openly engage in sex and defile the very meaning of romance but that's their choice. We can't regulate or govern everything, or we'll live in a hell hole.

With the advent of these tools though, the case of ill-affording a child should be less, not more. Taking responsibility for our ability to bring lives into the world, and holding some kind of meaning in our lives and the lives of others is our
responsibility to society, our responsibility to future generations.

If we fail to take this responsibility, we will continue to accept a society that murders it's defenseless and parades countless excuses to allow the genocide to continue.

America is a morally bankrupt, third world country. With first world materialism to disguise that fact.

Luckily, the people who at one time may have been taught such things (like what Akin said) were true will now be forced to face the truth.

That's the one good thing coming out of all this: clarification of the facts.

'Facts' are nothing more than accepted opinions, there's no scientific research one way or another, however in no world other than the world of the pro-abortionist is 5% a "large number".

5% of a cesspool is a really, really small percentage point lol.

So as to make it clear: 1% is one percent too much, but for the purpose of identifying it as a legitimate excuse for an open-ranged abortion policy, it is a poor excuse. One of the poorer ones actually.

...there is only a single species on earth than can "prevent" its own pregnancy, so far as I know. And is a type of BIRD. Not a human woman.

The problem is faulty facts: a) he believed that some magical rape-type qualifying portion of the uterus exists to somehow prevent pregnancy in all rape cases, and b) he thinks, through his use of the qualifier "legitimate", that some rapes are somehow not rape.

This is pretty fucked up, for someone who'd be making decisions for a large body of citizens if elected.

The dude mispoke(Not that I'm defending him, but this is political grandstanding of it's worst kind.) There is, no "Magical defense mechanism" for a female, specifically relating to rape cases of course.

However, there is a defense mechanism that's scientifically known and proven: The antibodies. Do you know why it takes at most, several months of intercourse before pregnancy? Because the antibodies inside the vagina cannot tell the difference from sperm or any other foreign germ or 'body'.

That is to say, I could have intercourse with a woman I loved, and release, say I don't know within that stream of cum some 100 sperm eggs. By the time the anti-bodies are done with it, maybe 5 sperm eggs hit the womb, if I'm lucky.

Getting a woman pregnant is like playing the lottery, you might get lucky and land a bunch of sperm eggs in her womb. You might be somewhere in the middle and get a few in, so you'll have to try again.

Of course, this isn't an 'excuse' for rapists and obviously not for Akin's comments, the defense mechanism far from perfect, doesn't protect a woman's womb completely from rape. But it is a scientifically proven fact that the antibodies interfere with impregnation.

Here's one link about the subject of the antibodies:
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/8194608/reload=0;jsessionid=LRjpcMDgw1FVrUbZL2Z2.0

I want to re-empathize(since you like taking my words out of context so much.) I'm not defending Akin here, nor am I defending who I believe to be the worst of criminals, right up there with murderers.

But I do want to point out, that there might be some scientific research into explanations as to why pregnancy via rape is not some big statistic.

One excuse has always been: "The victims don't want to retell the tale of their horror", and no they probably don't, but they neither want to lie. At least, I'll honor the victims that much by believing that a victim will tell us the gist of what happened while respecting her own fragile mind at the time of a vicious attack.

Honestly if people are that addled, I don't think a small news story is going to change their entire opinion on rape. It might bring up a little cognitive dissonance, but I doubt anyone will change sides because of it. Which is a tragedy, because they elect people like Akin to be Senators, shaping the future of our country...

But now candidates are being asked their views on the subject, which (at least on the Republican side) they had been trying to evade until the major election-time debates. And they will HAVE to make their views clear.

A lot of people are now putting even more effort towards finding out these views, or donating to a side that supports their cause. While it's bad for the Republicans, it is also going to get a good discussion going this season, I believe.

For those who don't understand what new legislation (and soon-to-come, if approved, legislation) regarding abortion is approximately about, I suggest this satirical video likening gall bladder surgery to the process. Womb or no womb, surely it will make sense why new conservative "changes" to the availability and processes of abortion are becoming rather fucked up.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/65e56b7d7a/what-if-every-medical-procedure-were-politicized

I did not start this forum to put down the candidate for senate, Mr. Akin. I started this because of the topic he was talking about, rape and how there different kinds and types of rape.

A close friend of mine was raped and had an abortion. After words she committed suicide. I believe this to be an important topic, that's why I brought it up after hearing this on the news.

Until this topic came up I didn't know who this man was. I'm not really into politics, I just know my Governor and President. If at all possible I try to avoid politics at any costs. It is a topic that can get heated and it can ruin friendships and relationships.

Anyways this an opinion forum on the topic of Rape and now abortion. If you feel offended, this wasn't my intent. But you aren't forced to stay, go and search for another forum that suites your fancy.

I'm sorry about your friend, but I think you misunderstood me.

What I was trying to say was that rape has a very concrete definition, and nobody else is trying to redefine it. Rape, as defined by the U.S. Department of Justice:

"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

http://blogs.justice.gov/ovw/archives/1801

Honestly, I would think that the Attorney General has the final word on the definition of rape in America's judicial system. It might be slightly different elsewhere, but really, rape is rape.

The controversy stirred up by Akin is really nothing more than a few absurd assertions with little to no merit whatsoever. However, I do apologize for spending an inordinate amount of time on that tangent about media and politics.

Anyways, there's no reason for friendships to be ruined by different political views. All it takes is an open mind, a civil tongue, and a bit of respectfulness.

Also, sorry about that quip about the "angry posts on hentai forums." I do (often) forget to keep that civil tongue.

Finally, I think you meant to write, "afterwards," not "after words."

Lets be honest, most of what the Republican party says is non-sensical evangelical bullshit. Regardless, rape is rape.

As with most topics I see you posting, I think you're missing the finer point of this particular issue and the justification.

Let's say some woman gets raped and gets pregnant and wants an abortion. Most people except some radical rights would say, "Yeah, in THAT case that's ok."

Now let's say some woman is wearing protection or using protection, or THINKS her partner is using protection and she ends up getting pregnant, and wants an abortion.

Now in THAT scenario, a lot of people change their tune and say, "No no! You must have that child!"

Why? In either situation sex happened and ended in an unwanted result. Either way the woman didn't want the baby when she got pregnant. So why in the first scenario is it ok to get the abortion, and through the eyes of someone who believes a fetus has rights, deny the fetus the right to life in that scenario, but it's NOT ok to do the exact same thing in the second scenario?

The point I'm making here is that the argument isn't, "Abortion's ok for rape cases, therefore we have to make it available to everyone!" Like most things people discuss and oversimplify on the internet, it's much more nuanced than that. The question here, the issue here, is "If it's ok to have an abortion in the case of rape, where can we rationally draw the line without it being totally arbitrary?"

There's also the fact that it's generally, though not by all, seen as ok to have an abortion most of the way through a pregnancy ONLY if the fetus is in the position of being stillborn, or, the fetus is positioned in a way that it will kill the mother if birthed. So in the case of, "If this baby is born the mother will probably die" it's generally seen as acceptable to terminate the fetus. Meaning the woman's life takes precedence over the baby's. Why?

I think, and this is just a wild hair up my ass doing the talking here, that the reason for this is because as a matter of fact, not you, nor most other pro lifers actually view fetus' as being equal in rights and moral consideration to people.

So nevermind the statistics saying the VAST majority of abortions are performed chemically within the first weeks of the pregnancy, meaning that there is literally no pain being felt by the fetus, nevermind the fact that women are generally seen as having a right to their body in cases of rape, but some hypocrite switch gets turned on when a sperm gets lucky and gets into her egg, let's just focus on the fact that I am not convinced that ANYONE believes fetus' have any real moral consideration at LEAST until they reach their 23rd week and are able to feel pain.

And here's a thought experiment to demonstrate it:

You're in a burning building, a fertility clinic. You stumble into a room and see 5 jars filled with fertilized eggs, zygotes ready to be artificially placed inside a woman and become a child in 9 months time. Next to them is an unconscious 5 year old.

You can only save one armful...so do you save the 5 jars, or the 5 year old?

I think most rational people will pick the latter.

Ideally, I'd like to save both. First, get the unconscious kid out of the fire. And then go back in and save the jars. This, however is a logical fallacy. The way you state the argument, again forces a rational person to take the side of the unconscious child, hence proving your argument that we would view conscious beings
over unconscious beings.

However, you're incorrect as you attempt to portray my position. Both conscious and unconscious beings, are beings. I therefore see them both as equal, plus there's always firefighters and they typically do the lifesaving thing in the case of a fire.

Hell, I'd wake up the child and tell him to GTFO and then go and save the jars.

In the case of consental sex where a female partner thinks protection is being used, and it wasn't used, I do concur that the female doesn't have the 'right' to abort that baby. Most likely, the female and male were contemplating a true, serious long-term relationship, and were planning out their future.

Is it an unfortunate accident? Yes. Could they raise the child? Probable, even if in "poor conditions" initially, but whose to say five or ten years later is the difference economically for the couple? Most likely, there isn't an economic difference.

An abortion, in non-medical cases is pure selfishness and a Demi-God status granted unto females. Do you want to know where irony truly lies? At the Pro-"Choice" crowd. "Reproductive Rights", the meaning of the word reproductive is to actually have children.

If we were to give the term "Reproductive Rights" true meaning, we would create a country and a economy where women are giving birth in full, resulting in the future wealth of a future generation of Americans.

Liberals do not stand for "Reproductive rights", as proof of that you give the excuse that because the undeveloped life has not yet developed sensory nerves, it doesn't have the right to live. Liberals stand for murder of the worst kind, murder of the innocent, helpless and defenseless.

Are you saying a couple who have a unintended pregnancy could probably take care of the child?I want to clarify if i'm interpreting this part of your post correctly...cause raising a child is a huge commitment, both financially and otherwise.

Well, obviously, you'd like to get your feet on the ground as a couple: Have a supporting job, get your education, etc. Without all these things, it's highly doubtful a child could be raised in a 'great' atmosphere(probably, something close to the ghetto.) But it's not "impossible." Heck, I went through some of those same challenges that today, some would argue, I should have been aborted and maybe "born" into a better life.

For my part, I'm glad I wasn't aborted. I'm glad I faced those challenges, I still am facing those challenges and they cultivate my personality and me as a person to uphold my ideal of morality.

To me, to try and put a "spin" on the morality of abortion by saying:"We're going to give the child a better life" is an intellectual fallacy, since the ideal of the better life is an unknown quantity. We don't know if your life is going to be better or not.

I'll say it like this: Ideally, those in "dire" poverty shouldn't have children, but are we to discriminate and kill every impoverished fetus?

The Founding Fathers said all life is equal before their creator, I agree unilaterally. All life is equal before creation, and all life deserves the opportunity to grow and develop.

While there are people like you who have made through circumstances like that,there are plenty who don't. Not that i think we are going to come to a agreement on this, but just wanted to point that out

Agreed, there are plenty who haven't and couldn't make the climb. It's not a climb I want to present to my child. That's why I want to build my life as best as I can for my child. Nothing's perfect, and nothing will likely be perfect in our generation(or even untold future generations.) But we should uphold our morality. When we uphold our morality, the sanctity of life and what it means to be human we have a much better chance of creating a better society.

Morality should guide our ideals and convictions, our ideals shouldn't govern our morality.

If it's a logical fallacy, then you can name and demonstrate the fallacy. I find it fun that you choose not to. It seems to me you're just pissed off that you would pick the child and it proves my point and goes against your preconceptions. Do you not like when someone makes a good point? Is making a good point a logical fallacy now?



Well I didn't say there were firefighters, so that's rather irrelevant. Also, what are you on about with conscious and unconscious beings? There are 0 conscious beings in this scenario for you to pick from.



Clearly that's the way to wake up anyone who falls unconscious during a fire. Clearly they're just napping and just haven't figured out that there's thousands of degrees of flames scorching the place, and that a little nudge and a shout will wake them up. Are you insane? I have to seriously ask that. The implication in this is that they've been knocked out by some falling debris or their lungs filled with smoke or something, not that they're tucked in bed and sleeping soundly in the same room as 5 eggs in jars. Who does that?



Well you don't know that, so how about we leave bare assertions out of the conversation? Sound good? Great.



Oh, of course, an extra mouth to feed and clothe and send to school and pay taxes on and blah blah wouldn't at all hurt a family who you're just PRESUMING is perfectly capable of raising them without a problem. Do you just think everyone's of the middle class? It's really weird the way you argue. So many unstated premises and undemonstrated bare assertions about hypotheticals.



Right, the choice to have a child or not. Women aren't baby machines. They have the right to say no. But apparently that blows your mind. Something about women being able to choose what they do with their bodies just confuses the hell out of you and somehow grants them demi-god status. I'd really love to see you demonstrate THAT silly little line.



I'm REALLY curious as to what you mean about that. Do you mean like...as SOON as women are capable of having children they have to have a dick in them at all times until they're pregnant, then right after having babies they have to have a dick in them again and repeat the process? Is that what 'reproductive rights' means to you?



Are you kidding me? I don't think they have the right to live AFTER developing sensory nerves. I just think it becomes a moral issue to knowingly cause pain and suffering onto another living thing.

But please, demonstrate that I'm not 'pro reproductive rights' this'll make me giggle. Please. I want you to lay that out logically how me saying women have the right to choose means I'm anti reproductive rights.

Also, please tell me why you consider chemical abortion murder. Because at that point, you might as well say chemotherapy to kill cancer is murder.

Go ahead Lustful, I'm waiting to see a single valid point from you. God damn this is gonna be interesting.