Well there was a point to that of course perhaps over some heads ...
ooOOoo... catty again! Of course 'some' don't and won't ever understand, will they? (see... it's OK... I've put a winky guy...)
Guess arguments have run out...
no argument needed just a general verbal berating of this person's stupid ill informed comment
arguments what arguments? ...
I have a different technique, I try to understand and interpret where someone
is coming from, that is who I am. Learn more about what he meant, what it was based in.
So many just stop listening when they don't agree...
I want more than that, I want to understand the person...
I find most everyone deserves that.
There is no consensual rape, just like there are no consensual muggings, robberies, physical assaults, etc. As I said before, rape is about a lack of consent, which may or may not include physical violence.
I think we both interpreted his words the same. That's why I am so offended by what he said. I agree with you that it helps to know exactly who our elected officials are. He's painting a very clear picture of himself.
I disagree... Statutory rape can be consensual though not in the eyes of the law.
The law case here overturned conviction after a young man was imprisoned
on just this and often the cases don't go to court because of the same reason.
It was consenting so no case they knew a jury would not convict.
I know in my teens I was consenting like many girls, that is not rape.
And yes he is thanks to freedom of speech.
this isn't up for disagreeing it's fact.. someone who is a minor or disabled mentally can't give consent because mentally are unable to mentally do so.. they havent got the capacity to think through a situation like an adult would.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
There is no consensual rape, just like there are no consensual muggings, robberies, physical assaults, etc. As I said before, rape is about a lack of consent, which may or may not include physical violence.
I think we both interpreted his words the same. That's why I am so offended by what he said. I agree with you that it helps to know exactly who our elected officials are. He's painting a very clear picture of himself.
I disagree... Statutory rape can be consensual though not in the eyes of the law.
The law case here overturned conviction after a young man was imprisoned
on just this and often the cases don't go to court because of the same reason.
It was consenting so no case they knew a jury would not convict.
I know in my teens I was consenting like many girls, that is not rape.
And yes he is thanks to freedom of speech.
In the case of statutory rape, the victim's age is the "no" - so whether or not he or she actually says "no" it's still not consensual. Indeed it's very difficult to get a conviction in these cases so many of them will not go to court.
Many people believe the age of consent is 18. That is not true in most states. In NJ the age of consent is 13. Under the age of 16 a kid can't consent to sexual activity to someone 4 or more years older than them (and it has to be to the day - so someone who is 13.5 can consent to someone that just turned 17), and between the ages of 16-18 they can't consent to someone who is a parent, guardian or in a position of authority. So a 14 year old can have sex with a 14 year old partner, a 15 year old can have sex with an 18 year old partner, and a 16 year old can consent to sex with anyone who doesn't have authority over them.
I do not believe a 12 year old can consent to sex as they do not have the mental capacity to do so, nor can a 13 year old consent to sex with an 18 year old. Here the law provides the protection so kids are not put in the position of having to try to protect themselves when developmentally they are not able to.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
There is no consensual rape, just like there are no consensual muggings, robberies, physical assaults, etc. As I said before, rape is about a lack of consent, which may or may not include physical violence.
I think we both interpreted his words the same. That's why I am so offended by what he said. I agree with you that it helps to know exactly who our elected officials are. He's painting a very clear picture of himself.
I disagree... Statutory rape can be consensual though not in the eyes of the law.
The law case here overturned conviction after a young man was imprisoned
on just this and often the cases don't go to court because of the same reason.
It was consenting so no case they knew a jury would not convict.
I know in my teens I was consenting like many girls, that is not rape.
And yes he is thanks to freedom of speech.
this isn't up for disagreeing it's fact.. someone who is a minor or disabled mentally can't give consent because mentally are unable to mentally do so.. they havent got the capacity to think through a situation like an adult would.
Hey I was thinking fine when I was screwing my boyfriend...
Pandora do you disagree with the hardened evidence that the frontal cortex isn't fully developed at a certain age meaning they haven;t got the capacity to mentally think through the reasoning side of things.. this is proven science that is taught in ALL facets of education. You don't have to believe in science but I guess you have the freedom of speech to not believe in scientific facts.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
In the case of statutory rape, the victim's age is the "no" - so whether or not he or she actually says "no" it's still not consensual.
......Here the law provides the protection so kids are not put in the position of having to try to protect themselves when developmentally they are not able to.
Whether the teen thinks she/he is 'mature' enough to be free with their body and 'give' this consent.
Seems like we're going back to medieval times on more than one aspect of this thread...
In the case of statutory rape, the victim's age is the "no" - so whether or not he or she actually says "no" it's still not consensual.
......Here the law provides the protection so kids are not put in the position of having to try to protect themselves when developmentally they are not able to.
Whether the teen thinks she/he is 'mature' enough to be free with their body and 'give' this consent.
right.. the teen doesn't think 'I haven't got the mental capacity to make the correct decision' they just do what comes naturally which is always with less reason then an adults...
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Pandora do you disagree with the hardened evidence that the frontal cortex isn't fully developed at a certain age meaning they haven;t got the capacity to mentally think through the reasoning side of things.. this is proven science that is taught in ALL facets of education. You don't have to believe in science but I guess you have the freedom of speech to not believe in scientific facts.
What the human brain can not understand until age 25 is consequence.
But the brain can understand love, sexual desires, etc.
The brain knows when the body is being raped
and when it isn't.
Pandora do you disagree with the hardened evidence that the frontal cortex isn't fully developed at a certain age meaning they haven;t got the capacity to mentally think through the reasoning side of things.. this is proven science that is taught in ALL facets of education. You don't have to believe in science but I guess you have the freedom of speech to not believe in scientific facts.
What the human brain can not understand until age 25 is consequence.
But the brain can understand love, sexual desires, etc.
The brain knows when the body is being raped
and when it isn't.
This might be going off topic though... Yes?
There is a disparity between sexual development and mental development, which is why the law provides some protections.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
First, every single month it seems a media whirl-wind occurs that tries to garner public attention away from the faltering economy towards some social topic. I can think of a couple: Georgetown contraception, Chick-fil-A, etc.
This will be the new one for a few weeks, I guess.
Second, as for the points.... What's really the issue here? Is it that this guy opposes abortion even in the case of rape? Is that the issue? Or is it his phrasing?
I do completely agree that the term "legitimate rape" is confusing, and derogatory since it paints the picture that rape could ever "legitimate". I don't get that, but maybe it's a medical/legal term of sorts because he was saying "from what I understand from doctors" which makes it more confusing. Was he saying "legitimate rape" or do doctors say it? Moreover, what does the term actually mean?
If you watch the full context via the video, he later went on to say the "punishment should be on the rapist". It didn't appear to be him condoning rape at all, it appeared to him providing an answer to what he admitted to be a "tough, ethical question" - which fell on the pro-life side. Maybe I'm missing something though, admittedly. The public is split roughly 50/50 on abortion.... so, if outrage is simply due to abortion views, it's kinda nonsensical.
Pandora do you disagree with the hardened evidence that the frontal cortex isn't fully developed at a certain age meaning they haven;t got the capacity to mentally think through the reasoning side of things.. this is proven science that is taught in ALL facets of education. You don't have to believe in science but I guess you have the freedom of speech to not believe in scientific facts.
What the human brain can not understand until age 25 is consequence.
But the brain can understand love, sexual desires, etc.
The brain knows when the body is being raped
and when it isn't.
This might be going off topic though... Yes?
not really on the right track about that.. sexual desires develop WAY before love I'm afraid.. again this isn't my opinion it's factual. This is why teen's and minors are protected by the law.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
First, every single month it seems a media whirl-wind occurs that tries to garner public attention away from the faltering economy towards some social topic. I can think of a couple: Georgetown contraception, Chick-fil-A, etc.
This will be the new one for a few weeks, I guess.
Second, as for the points.... What's really the issue here? Is it that this guy opposes abortion even in the case of rape? Is that the issue? Or is it his phrasing?
I do completely agree that the term "legitimate rape" is confusing, and derogatory since it paints the picture that rape could ever "legitimate". I don't get that, but maybe it's a medical/legal term of sorts because he was saying "from what I understand from doctors" which makes it more confusing. Was he saying "legitimate rape" or do doctors say it? Moreover, what does the term actually mean?
If you watch the full context via the video, he later went on to say the "punishment should be on the rapist". It didn't appear to be him condoning rape at all, it appeared to him providing an answer to what he admitted to be a "tough, ethical question" - which fell on the pro-life side. Maybe I'm missing something though, admittedly. The public is split roughly 50/50 on abortion.... so, if outrage is simply due to abortion views, it's kinda nonsensical.
Pandora do you disagree with the hardened evidence that the frontal cortex isn't fully developed at a certain age meaning they haven;t got the capacity to mentally think through the reasoning side of things.. this is proven science that is taught in ALL facets of education. You don't have to believe in science but I guess you have the freedom of speech to not believe in scientific facts.
What the human brain can not understand until age 25 is consequence.
But the brain can understand love, sexual desires, etc.
The brain knows when the body is being raped
and when it isn't.
This might be going off topic though... Yes?
not really on the right track about that.. sexual desires develop WAY before love I'm afraid.. again this isn't my opinion it's factual. This is why teen's and minors are protected by the law.
Frontal cortex is the home to sexual behaviour (as it is to the executive functions, judgement, language impulse control, etc.). And you are right Zoso... sexual desire/impulse comes before the 'emotion' of love within this realm (then the 'merging' to form relationships, etc.). Details of the functions of the frontal cortex may be slightly off topic but it does give an insight to 'consent' and being 'capable' of such.
The brain knows when the body is being raped
and when it isn't.
Does it? I would be interested in seeing medical studies about this. Can you link some credible sources?
yeah no the brain doesn't always register this as a rape when it occurs.. not at all... if it's violent forceful rape that is different but most aren't.
Post edited by Zoso on
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
First, every single month it seems a media whirl-wind occurs that tries to garner public attention away from the faltering economy towards some social topic. I can think of a couple: Georgetown contraception, Chick-fil-A, etc.
This will be the new one for a few weeks, I guess.
Second, as for the points.... What's really the issue here? Is it that this guy opposes abortion even in the case of rape? Is that the issue? Or is it his phrasing?
I do completely agree that the term "legitimate rape" is confusing, and derogatory since it paints the picture that rape could ever "legitimate". I don't get that, but maybe it's a medical/legal term of sorts because he was saying "from what I understand from doctors" which makes it more confusing. Was he saying "legitimate rape" or do doctors say it? Moreover, what does the term actually mean?
If you watch the full context via the video, he later went on to say the "punishment should be on the rapist". It didn't appear to be him condoning rape at all, it appeared to him providing an answer to what he admitted to be a "tough, ethical question" - which fell on the pro-life side. Maybe I'm missing something though, admittedly. The public is split roughly 50/50 on abortion.... so, if outrage is simply due to abortion views, it's kinda nonsensical.
I think there are 3 issues - 1) that he opposes the option of abortion even in the case of rape 2) that he believes it to be unlikely that a woman would conceive during rape (which makes me wonder why he's so concerned about blocking access to abortion for rape victims since it would rarely be needed) 3) the phrasing he used implying that there are rapes that are not legitimate.
While I don't agree with his views on abortion, I respect them and can understand them. My own personal outrage comes from the misinformation about the biology of what happens to a woman's body during an assault, and the devaluation of any rape survivor. It really does set victims' rights back by decades.
We're still waiting to hear what he meant by legitimate, but I doubt it will be forthcoming. "Legitimate rape" is not a term I've heard used by medical personnel or law enforcement when I did rape crisis work. I think this may be his own wording, but maybe he'll reference something.
I do agree that this is a diversionary tactic - and it works!
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Discuss the topic, not the people discussing the topic. No personal comments. Look your comments over before hitting Submit and be sure you're debating THE TOPIC.
First, every single month it seems a media whirl-wind occurs that tries to garner public attention away from the faltering economy towards some social topic. I can think of a couple: Georgetown contraception, Chick-fil-A, etc.
This will be the new one for a few weeks, I guess.
Second, as for the points.... What's really the issue here? Is it that this guy opposes abortion even in the case of rape? Is that the issue? Or is it his phrasing?
I do completely agree that the term "legitimate rape" is confusing, and derogatory since it paints the picture that rape could ever "legitimate". I don't get that, but maybe it's a medical/legal term of sorts because he was saying "from what I understand from doctors" which makes it more confusing. Was he saying "legitimate rape" or do doctors say it? Moreover, what does the term actually mean?
If you watch the full context via the video, he later went on to say the "punishment should be on the rapist". It didn't appear to be him condoning rape at all, it appeared to him providing an answer to what he admitted to be a "tough, ethical question" - which fell on the pro-life side. Maybe I'm missing something though, admittedly. The public is split roughly 50/50 on abortion.... so, if outrage is simply due to abortion views, it's kinda nonsensical.
I think there are 3 issues - 1) that he opposes the option of abortion even in the case of rape 2) that he believes it to be unlikely that a woman would conceive during rape (which makes me wonder why he's so concerned about blocking access to abortion for rape victims since it would rarely be needed) 3) the phrasing he used implying that there are rapes that are not legitimate.
Not trying to defend this guy, but let me play devil's advocate and answer your points here:
1) A lot of pro-life folks oppose abortion even in the case of rape. In fact, I'm pretty sure the pro-life stance is to never favor termination - regardless of circumstances. So, #1 is a non-issue. There's tons of politicians who feel the same.
2) I think this is semantics. He said "from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare" when saying this. Moreover, he prefaced his comments by saying it's a "tough ethical question" and went on to say that the "rapist" should be punished. I don't think he stated that it could not happen at all, instead I think he said "from what I understand from doctor's, that's really rare". Then he goes on to say, let's assume that didn't work". He's against all forms of abortion is the story here. So, he's against blocking access to abortion because of that. Right?
3) I admit... This one here is just plain confusing and is really kinda indefensible. Rape is never legitimate. But, like I said before, perhaps this is a medical term or some sort. I don't know.
At the end of the day - I watched the video. I heard his context and I don't understand the uproar at all. I mean Ron Paul said something similar and I'm a big Ron Paul supporter: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... n-should-g
... there wasn't a huge issue then. Why now? Most knew what he meant. To me it's just typical diversionary tactics to underscore people are very polarized on social issues, and that the other issues aren't going well.
I really wish I could know what he meant by "legitimate"...
He coulda just meant that sometimes women cry rape after the fact when it wasn't the case.
Or, like others have said, statutory rape.
He coulda just meant that maybe a woman would lie about it so that she could still obtain an abortion.
Who the hell really knows? What I do know is it sounds really bad and since we only care abut soundbites, he is screwed. And maybe he should be.
what he meant was that, according to his understanding - if a woman is legitimately raped, her body would know that and therefore create a physiological condition that would prevent pregnancy ... the whole context of whether rapes are legitimate has been taken out of context ...
in his context, a non-legitimate rape would simply be any woman who had consensual sex and then claimed rape afterwards ...
First, every single month it seems a media whirl-wind occurs that tries to garner public attention away from the faltering economy towards some social topic. I can think of a couple: Georgetown contraception, Chick-fil-A, etc.
This will be the new one for a few weeks, I guess.
Second, as for the points.... What's really the issue here? Is it that this guy opposes abortion even in the case of rape? Is that the issue? Or is it his phrasing?
I do completely agree that the term "legitimate rape" is confusing, and derogatory since it paints the picture that rape could ever "legitimate". I don't get that, but maybe it's a medical/legal term of sorts because he was saying "from what I understand from doctors" which makes it more confusing. Was he saying "legitimate rape" or do doctors say it? Moreover, what does the term actually mean?
If you watch the full context via the video, he later went on to say the "punishment should be on the rapist". It didn't appear to be him condoning rape at all, it appeared to him providing an answer to what he admitted to be a "tough, ethical question" - which fell on the pro-life side. Maybe I'm missing something though, admittedly. The public is split roughly 50/50 on abortion.... so, if outrage is simply due to abortion views, it's kinda nonsensical.
I think there are 3 issues - 1) that he opposes the option of abortion even in the case of rape 2) that he believes it to be unlikely that a woman would conceive during rape (which makes me wonder why he's so concerned about blocking access to abortion for rape victims since it would rarely be needed) 3) the phrasing he used implying that there are rapes that are not legitimate.
Not trying to defend this guy, but let me play devil's advocate and answer your points here:
1) A lot of pro-life folks oppose abortion even in the case of rape. In fact, I'm pretty sure the pro-life stance is to never favor termination - regardless of circumstances. So, #1 is a non-issue. There's tons of politicians who feel the same.
2) I think this is semantics. He said "from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare" when saying this. Moreover, he prefaced his comments by saying it's a "tough ethical question" and went on to say that the "rapist" should be punished. I don't think he stated that it could not happen at all, instead I think he said "from what I understand from doctor's, that's really rare". Then he goes on to say, let's assume that didn't work". He's against all forms of abortion is the story here. So, he's against blocking access to abortion because of that. Right?
3) I admit... This one here is just plain confusing and is really kinda indefensible. Rape is never legitimate. But, like I said before, perhaps this is a medical term or some sort. I don't know.
At the end of the day - I watched the video. I heard his context and I don't understand the uproar at all. I mean Ron Paul said something similar and I'm a big Ron Paul supporter: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... n-should-g
... there wasn't a huge issue then. Why now? Most knew what he meant. To me it's just typical diversionary tactics to underscore people are very polarized on social issues, and that the other issues aren't going well.
I understand your points, and like I said, while I do not agree with his views on abortion, I can understand and respect them. The information he gave about the rarity of pregnancies being conceived during a rape is based on nothing. That misinformation is damaging to survivors, as we saw from one of the posters here. Sure, the rapist should be punished, but let's not punish the victim as well. I don't believe "legitimate rape" to be a medical term. I was an advocate on a SART team and I never heard a SANE nurse use that terminology. I am interested to see how he explains this though. Not holding my breath...
I agree that it is diversionary. It concerns me that any politician holds these views and I wish they were addressed every time. The one positive about this being made into such an issue is that in the end it may actually bolster victims' rights and protections.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Comments
I have a different technique, I try to understand and interpret where someone
is coming from, that is who I am. Learn more about what he meant, what it was based in.
So many just stop listening when they don't agree...
I want more than that, I want to understand the person...
I find most everyone deserves that.
this isn't up for disagreeing it's fact.. someone who is a minor or disabled mentally can't give consent because mentally are unable to mentally do so.. they havent got the capacity to think through a situation like an adult would.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Many people believe the age of consent is 18. That is not true in most states. In NJ the age of consent is 13. Under the age of 16 a kid can't consent to sexual activity to someone 4 or more years older than them (and it has to be to the day - so someone who is 13.5 can consent to someone that just turned 17), and between the ages of 16-18 they can't consent to someone who is a parent, guardian or in a position of authority. So a 14 year old can have sex with a 14 year old partner, a 15 year old can have sex with an 18 year old partner, and a 16 year old can consent to sex with anyone who doesn't have authority over them.
I do not believe a 12 year old can consent to sex as they do not have the mental capacity to do so, nor can a 13 year old consent to sex with an 18 year old. Here the law provides the protection so kids are not put in the position of having to try to protect themselves when developmentally they are not able to.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Whether the teen thinks she/he is 'mature' enough to be free with their body and 'give' this consent.
Seems like we're going back to medieval times on more than one aspect of this thread...
right.. the teen doesn't think 'I haven't got the mental capacity to make the correct decision' they just do what comes naturally which is always with less reason then an adults...
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
But the brain can understand love, sexual desires, etc.
The brain knows when the body is being raped
and when it isn't.
This might be going off topic though... Yes?
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
This will be the new one for a few weeks, I guess.
Second, as for the points.... What's really the issue here? Is it that this guy opposes abortion even in the case of rape? Is that the issue? Or is it his phrasing?
I do completely agree that the term "legitimate rape" is confusing, and derogatory since it paints the picture that rape could ever "legitimate". I don't get that, but maybe it's a medical/legal term of sorts because he was saying "from what I understand from doctors" which makes it more confusing. Was he saying "legitimate rape" or do doctors say it? Moreover, what does the term actually mean?
If you watch the full context via the video, he later went on to say the "punishment should be on the rapist". It didn't appear to be him condoning rape at all, it appeared to him providing an answer to what he admitted to be a "tough, ethical question" - which fell on the pro-life side. Maybe I'm missing something though, admittedly. The public is split roughly 50/50 on abortion.... so, if outrage is simply due to abortion views, it's kinda nonsensical.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
not really on the right track about that.. sexual desires develop WAY before love I'm afraid.. again this isn't my opinion it's factual. This is why teen's and minors are protected by the law.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Does it? I would be interested in seeing medical studies about this. Can you link some credible sources?
yeah no the brain doesn't always register this as a rape when it occurs.. not at all... if it's violent forceful rape that is different but most aren't.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
While I don't agree with his views on abortion, I respect them and can understand them. My own personal outrage comes from the misinformation about the biology of what happens to a woman's body during an assault, and the devaluation of any rape survivor. It really does set victims' rights back by decades.
We're still waiting to hear what he meant by legitimate, but I doubt it will be forthcoming. "Legitimate rape" is not a term I've heard used by medical personnel or law enforcement when I did rape crisis work. I think this may be his own wording, but maybe he'll reference something.
I do agree that this is a diversionary tactic - and it works!
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
http://m.urbandictionary.com/#define?te ... ate%20Rape
Discuss the topic, not the people discussing the topic. No personal comments. Look your comments over before hitting Submit and be sure you're debating THE TOPIC.
He coulda just meant that sometimes women cry rape after the fact when it wasn't the case.
Or, like others have said, statutory rape.
He coulda just meant that maybe a woman would lie about it so that she could still obtain an abortion.
Who the hell really knows? What I do know is it sounds really bad and since we only care abut soundbites, he is screwed. And maybe he should be.
Akin said.
Not trying to defend this guy, but let me play devil's advocate and answer your points here:
1) A lot of pro-life folks oppose abortion even in the case of rape. In fact, I'm pretty sure the pro-life stance is to never favor termination - regardless of circumstances. So, #1 is a non-issue. There's tons of politicians who feel the same.
2) I think this is semantics. He said "from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare" when saying this. Moreover, he prefaced his comments by saying it's a "tough ethical question" and went on to say that the "rapist" should be punished. I don't think he stated that it could not happen at all, instead I think he said "from what I understand from doctor's, that's really rare". Then he goes on to say, let's assume that didn't work". He's against all forms of abortion is the story here. So, he's against blocking access to abortion because of that. Right?
3) I admit... This one here is just plain confusing and is really kinda indefensible. Rape is never legitimate. But, like I said before, perhaps this is a medical term or some sort. I don't know.
At the end of the day - I watched the video. I heard his context and I don't understand the uproar at all. I mean Ron Paul said something similar and I'm a big Ron Paul supporter:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... n-should-g
... there wasn't a huge issue then. Why now? Most knew what he meant. To me it's just typical diversionary tactics to underscore people are very polarized on social issues, and that the other issues aren't going well.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
My first reaction was that he was saying:
"Some women say they got raped but their pregnant so obviously they weren't raped or they wouldn't be pregnant because that's basically impossible."
what he meant was that, according to his understanding - if a woman is legitimately raped, her body would know that and therefore create a physiological condition that would prevent pregnancy ... the whole context of whether rapes are legitimate has been taken out of context ...
in his context, a non-legitimate rape would simply be any woman who had consensual sex and then claimed rape afterwards ...
I agree that it is diversionary. It concerns me that any politician holds these views and I wish they were addressed every time. The one positive about this being made into such an issue is that in the end it may actually bolster victims' rights and protections.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Awesome. He said doctors told him this. He needs to tell us what doctors said these things or admit that he was lying.