RAPE PREGNANCIES 'SOMETHING THAT GOD INTENDED'

Cosmo

catefrances wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

catefrances wrote:

once again... stupid men saying stupid stuff. :roll:

...
You talkin' to me?

only if youre a stupid man saying stupid stuff, otherwise, no im not.

...
Oh... okay... thanx... I think.
Sometimes... I do say stupid stuff... and yeah, I know I ain't no genius. I thought in may have been my blow-jobs as contraceptives idea. Which actually... when you think about it... is really, a brilliant idea.
...
Okay... nevermind.

catefrances

Cosmo wrote:

...
Oh... okay... thanx... I think.
Sometimes... I do say stupid stuff... and yeah, I know I ain't no genius. I thought in may have been my blow-jobs as contraceptives idea. Which actually... when you think about it... is really, a brilliant idea.
...
Okay... nevermind.

my post was aimed at richard mourdock. hey! im all for blowjobs.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

catefrances wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Oh... okay... thanx... I think.
Sometimes... I do say stupid stuff... and yeah, I know I ain't no genius. I thought in may have been my blow-jobs as contraceptives idea. Which actually... when you think about it... is really, a brilliant idea.
...
Okay... nevermind.

my post was aimed at richard mourdock. hey! im all for blowjobs.

now there's a woman I can get behind.

PJ_Soul

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

catefrances wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Oh... okay... thanx... I think.
Sometimes... I do say stupid stuff... and yeah, I know I ain't no genius. I thought in may have been my blow-jobs as contraceptives idea. Which actually... when you think about it... is really, a brilliant idea.
...
Okay... nevermind.

my post was aimed at richard mourdock. hey! im all for blowjobs.

now there's a woman I can get behind.

You mean in front of.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Republican candidate says 'the rape thing' is not cause for abortion

OLYMPIA, Wash. - A Republican congressional candidate says abortion should not be legal, even when it involves "the rape thing," according to audio provided Wednesday to The Associated Press.

An activist working on behalf of liberal group FUSE Washington asked questions of Republican hopeful John Koster during a fundraiser Sunday. Koster said he does not oppose abortion when the life of the mother is in danger but then explains he would oppose it when it involves rape or incest.

Koster twice uses the phrase "the rape thing" when describing his views, first saying that he knows a woman who was raped and gave up the child for adoption without any regrets.

"But on the rape thing, it's like, how does putting more violence onto a woman's body and taking the life of an innocent child that's a consequence of this crime, how does that make it better?" Koster said in the exchange.

Koster's campaign manager, Larry Stickney, says the candidate has long been a proponent of dealing strongly with sex offenders. He noted that Koster worked in the state legislature on legislation to crack down on sex offenders and has daughters of his own.

"To imply that he's cavalier about the issue is preposterous," Stickney said.

Koster is locked in a competitive House race against Democrat Suzan DelBene.

Republicans have been beleaguered this year by comments about rape that some have deemed offensive. Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), who is challenging Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, said women's bodies have ways of avoiding pregnancy in cases of "legitimate rape."

More recently, Indiana Republican candidate Richard Mourdock has been criticized for saying that pregnancy resulting from rape is God's will.

Collin Jergens, a spokesman at FUSE Washington, said one of the group's activists went to the fundraiser to ask Koster about the issue of abortion. Democrats have been trying to portray Koster as out of touch with the district, which stretches from areas east of Seattle to the border with Canada, and they have focused particularly on his stance on social issues.

Sara Kiesler, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest, said the Koster's remarks are proof that he shouldn't be involved in a woman's decision about her pregnancy.

"My gut reaction was that rape is violence, and that rape is a crime, and that his choice of words diminishes that violence," Kiesler said.

cincybearcat

It's really great that instead of talking about the issue we know all get to have a debate about whether rape is bad. Really?

People need to be more careful with their words, but we also must look at context and allow people to clarify rather than jumping down their throats instantly.

cincybearcat

Well, actually there is a 3rd component and if any of these idiots actually don't think rape is a terrible crime then we need to get rid of them.

Cosmo

cincybearcat wrote:

It's really great that instead of talking about the issue we know all get to have a debate about whether rape is bad. Really?

People need to be more careful with their words, but we also must look at context and allow people to clarify rather than jumping down their throats instantly.

...
I get what you are saying... but, those comments tend to lessen the effect rape has on it's victims. It's like saying, "You got raped? Hey, look on the bright side... it may result in a gift from God."
I'm not saying the guy thinks rape is good... or not a crime. I'm saying he is a dick for trying to place a positive spin on the thing. It is still rape. And I think that until he's experienced first hand, the effects of rape... he should rely on the opinions of the one whom have.

comebackgirl

Cosmo wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

It's really great that instead of talking about the issue we know all get to have a debate about whether rape is bad. Really?

People need to be more careful with their words, but we also must look at context and allow people to clarify rather than jumping down their throats instantly.

...
I get what you are saying... but, those comments tend to lessen the effect rape has on it's victims. It's like saying, "You got raped? Hey, look on the bright side... it may result in a gift from God."
I'm not saying the guy thinks rape is good... or not a crime. I'm saying he is a dick for trying to place a positive spin on the thing. It is still rape. And I think that until he's experienced first hand, the effects of rape... he should rely on the opinions of the one whom have.

...and I can't think of another violent crime where we try to put a positive spin on it. If someone breaks into someone's home, beats them bloody, ransacks the place, etc, but leaves a newborn, we don't say "I'm so sorry that happened, but lookie! At least you now have a beautiful new life to raise." I just can't even think of a comparable example...it just sounds crazy. Words have power. Some of these guys may have misspoke, but words definitely reflect the way we think about things and shape the way we view things. The comments do have an impact in terms of invalidating the trauma of a rape.

In terms of him referring to an abortion as more "violence" to a woman's body...I don't think that's an accurate descriptor. With regard to the physical impact, carrying a child for 9 months (which has the possibility of resulting in some of the physical and mental health conditions I listed above in even the best circumstances) and either a vaginal birth or c-section, is likely to have more of a physical impact on a woman's body than an early term abortion.

Jason P

In the latest polls, Mourdock is losing in the polls 47% to 36% to Democrat Joe Donnelly. As an interesting note, the Libertarian candidate has 6%.

My main man Rupert has 5% in the governors race.

Who Princess

comebackgirl wrote:

...and I can't think of another violent crime where we try to put a positive spin on it. If someone breaks into someone's home, beats them bloody, ransacks the place, etc, but leaves a newborn, we don't say "I'm so sorry that happened, but lookie! At least you now have a beautiful new life to raise." I just can't even think of a comparable example...it just sounds crazy. Words have power. Some of these guys may have misspoke, but words definitely reflect the way we think about things and shape the way we view things. The comments do have an impact in terms of invalidating the trauma of a rape.

Especially when trivializing assault with terms like "the rape thing."

_

comebackgirl wrote:

In terms of him referring to an abortion as more "violence" to a woman's body...I don't think that's an accurate descriptor. With regard to the physical impact, carrying a child for 9 months (which has the possibility of resulting in some of the physical and mental health conditions I listed above in even the best circumstances) and either a vaginal birth or c-section, is likely to have more of a physical impact on a woman's body than an early term abortion.

Yes, childbirth is considerably more "violent" on a woman's body than abortion. Most abortions in this country happen at 9 weeks gestation or less, at which point abortion is 71 (SEVENTY-ONE) times safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.

cincybearcat

comebackgirl wrote:

In terms of him referring to an abortion as more "violence" to a woman's body...I don't think that's an accurate descriptor.

I'd agree. It's violence "in" a woman's body. It's not the woman that you are inflicting violence on however.

cincybearcat

_ wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

In terms of him referring to an abortion as more "violence" to a woman's body...I don't think that's an accurate descriptor. With regard to the physical impact, carrying a child for 9 months (which has the possibility of resulting in some of the physical and mental health conditions I listed above in even the best circumstances) and either a vaginal birth or c-section, is likely to have more of a physical impact on a woman's body than an early term abortion.

Yes, childbirth is considerably more "violent" on a woman's body than abortion. Most abortions in this country happen at 9 weeks gestation or less, at which point abortion is 71 (SEVENTY-ONE) times safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.

Sounds like we should ban births.

comebackgirl

cincybearcat wrote:

_ wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

In terms of him referring to an abortion as more "violence" to a woman's body...I don't think that's an accurate descriptor. With regard to the physical impact, carrying a child for 9 months (which has the possibility of resulting in some of the physical and mental health conditions I listed above in even the best circumstances) and either a vaginal birth or c-section, is likely to have more of a physical impact on a woman's body than an early term abortion.

Yes, childbirth is considerably more "violent" on a woman's body than abortion. Most abortions in this country happen at 9 weeks gestation or less, at which point abortion is 71 (SEVENTY-ONE) times safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.

Sounds like we should ban births.

I think it's more about a woman having the choice to go through childbirth, particularly when she didn't have a choice about the conception. In a lot of these discussions about abortion remaining an option in the cases of rape or incest the potential impact on the woman's body is lost.

_

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

is there specified law on when the unborn is actually considered human? what if a woman were to kill her unborn child at say 35 weeks? is it murder, or illegal late term abortion?

I think people use the wrong terminology in this debate. "Human" and "life" are not the issues. Lots of things are human and/or are alive. My big toe is human - I mean, what else would it be? It's not feline or alien or something. And my dinner salad is alive.

It's really a question of personhood. And we become people, with the legal rights of people, when we are born. Several states have recently tried to create laws re-defining personhood as beginning at some point before birth - most (or all?) of them saying it begins at conception. But they have all been struck down in the courts. So, no, ending the life of an unborn "child" is not legally considered murder anywhere in the United States; in the cases where it's illegal (and the legality of it varies by state), it would be considered illegal abortion.

cincybearcat

_ wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

is there specified law on when the unborn is actually considered human? what if a woman were to kill her unborn child at say 35 weeks? is it murder, or illegal late term abortion?

I think people use the wrong terminology in this debate. "Human" and "life" are not the issues. Lots of things are human and/or are alive. My big toe is human - I mean, what else would it be? It's not feline or alien or something. And my dinner salad is alive.

It's really a question of personhood. And we become people, with the legal rights of people, when we are born. Several states have recently tried to create laws re-defining personhood as beginning at some point before birth - most (or all?) of them saying it begins at conception. But they have all been struck down in the courts. So, no, ending the life of an unborn "child" is not legally considered murder anywhere in the United States; in the cases where it's illegal (and the legality of it varies by state), it would be considered illegal abortion.

Your toe is not a human, it is a human body part. And we aren't talking about killing lettuce here.

But, I know that people have be charged with murder or an additional count if they cause a woman to lose her child or if they killed a pregnant woman. I just don;t know if they ever held up. You are telling me that they have not? So, if someone punches a pregnant lady in the stomach resulting in the unborn child never being born...it;s not murder, it's just assault?

_

cincybearcat wrote:

_ wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

In terms of him referring to an abortion as more "violence" to a woman's body...I don't think that's an accurate descriptor. With regard to the physical impact, carrying a child for 9 months (which has the possibility of resulting in some of the physical and mental health conditions I listed above in even the best circumstances) and either a vaginal birth or c-section, is likely to have more of a physical impact on a woman's body than an early term abortion.

Yes, childbirth is considerably more "violent" on a woman's body than abortion. Most abortions in this country happen at 9 weeks gestation or less, at which point abortion is 71 (SEVENTY-ONE) times safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.

Sounds like we should ban births.

That's what kills me about all these bogus anti-abortion arguments that say they are supporting women. I can't count the number of times I've heard people say they want to ban abortion as a choice for pregnant women so as to protect the women from risk of harm. If that was in any way their real belief, they would be banning childbirth instead & forcing all women to have abortions for their own safety. But there's absolutely positively no way in hell anyone (pro-choice people included) would stand for that. So they need to just drop the bullshit act and admit that their positions are in no way based on concern for the well being of pregnant women, but that they in fact actually (nearly) completely disregard their well being.

cincybearcat

comebackgirl wrote:

I think it's more about a woman having the choice to go through childbirth, particularly when she didn't have a choice about the conception. In a lot of these discussions about abortion remaining an option in the cases of rape or incest the potential impact on the woman's body is lost.

Right, I was joking. And I can agree with "when a woman didn't have a choice about contraception". I still don't like it personally, but I understand it and it makes sense to me in a lot of ways. I think that is a good point and a good way of stating it.

I also think that if a guy doesn't use a condom even though the woman says he has to (and she doesn't know) that seems like rape to me. And he should be charged accordingly.

cincybearcat

_ wrote:

So they need to just drop the bullshit act and admit that their positions are in no way based on concern for the well being of pregnant women, but that they in fact actually (nearly) completely disregard their well being.

Well, I think it isn't complete bullshit. I think there are those that are legitimately concerned about the mental tool and somewhat the physical tool that an abortion can take on a woman.

But in reality, I would say that most of it is about defending the life of what they believe to be a child.

which, approx. 50% are/will be women after all.