by David Frum
When Richard Mourdock delivered his notorious answer about rape and abortion, I was sorry that the debate moderator failed to follow up with the next question:
"OK, Mr. Mourdock, you say your principles require a raped woman to carry the rapist's child to term. That's a heavy burden to impose on someone. What would you do for her in return? Would you pay her medical expenses? Compensate her for time lost to work? Would you pay for the child's upbringing? College education?
"If a woman has her credit card stolen, her maximum liability under federal law is $50. Yet on your theory, if she is raped, she must endure not only the trauma of assault, but also accept economic costs of potentially many thousands of dollars. Must that burden also fall on her alone? When we used to draft men into the Army, we gave them veterans' benefits afterward. If the state now intends to conscript women into involuntary childbearing, surely those women deserve at least an equally generous deal?"
That question sounds argumentative, and I suppose it is.
But there's a serious point here, and it extends well beyond the anguishing question of sexual assault.
If you're serious about reducing abortion, the most important issue is not which abortions to ban. The most important issue is how will you support women to have the babies they want.
As a general rule, societies that do the most to support mothers and child-bearing have the fewest abortions. Societies that do the least to support mothers and child-bearing have more abortions.
Germany, for example, operates perhaps the world's plushest welfare state. Working women receive 14 weeks of maternity leave, during which time they receive pay from the state. The state pays a child allowance to the parents of every German child for potentially as many as 25 years, depending on how long as the child remains in school. Women who leave the work force after giving birth receive a replacement wage from the state for up to 14 months.
Maybe not coincidentally, Germany has one of the lowest abortion rates, about one-third that of the United States. Yet German abortion laws are not especially restrictive. Abortion is legal during the first trimester of pregnancy and available if medically or psychologically necessary in the later trimesters.
Even here in the United States, where parental benefits are much less generous, abortion responds to economic conditions. In the prosperous 1990s, abortion rates declined rapidly. In the less prosperous '00s, abortion rates declined more slowly. When the economy plunged into crisis in 2008, abortion rates abruptly rose again.
These trends should not surprise anyone. Women choose abortion for one overwhelming reason: economic insecurity. The large majority of women who chose abortion in 2008, 57%, reported a disruptive event in their lives in the previous 12 months: most often, the loss of a job or home.
Of the women who choose abortion, 58% are in their 20s. Some 61% of them already have a child. Almost 70% of them are poor or near poor. Three-quarters say they cannot afford another child.
Pro-life and pro-choice debaters delight in presenting each other with exquisitely extreme moral dilemmas: "Would you ban abortion even in case of rape?" "Would you permit abortion even when done only to select the sex of the child?"
These dorm-room hypotheticals do not have very much to do with the realities of abortion in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Here's an interesting example of those realities: The Netherlands has one of the the most liberal abortion laws in the world. Yet for a long time, the Netherlands also reported one of the world's lowest abortion rates. That low incidence abruptly began to rise in the mid-1990s. Between 1996 and 2003, the abortion rate in the Netherlands jumped by 31% over seven years.
What changed? The Guttmacher Institute, the leading source of data on reproductive health worldwide, cites "a growing demand for terminations from women in ethnic minority groups residing in the country." Well over half of all abortions performed on teenagers in the Netherlands are performed on girls of non-Dutch origins.
These girls and women weren't being raped. They weren't selecting for the sex of their child. They chose abortion because they had become sexually active within male-dominated immigrant subcultures in which access to birth control was restricted, in which female sexuality was tightly policed, in which girls who become pregnant outside marriage are disgraced and in which the costs and obligations of childbearing loaded almost entirely on women alone.
A woman who enjoys the most emotional and financial security and who has chosen the timing of her pregnancy will not choose abortion, even when abortion laws are liberal. A woman who is dominated, who is poor and who fears bearing the child is likely to find an abortion, even where abortion is restricted, as it was across the United States before 1965.
So maybe at the next candidates' debate, a journalist will deflect the discussion away from "what if" and instead ask this:
"Rather than tell us what you'd like to ban, tell us please what you think government should do to support more happy and healthy childbearing, to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to alleviate the economic anxieties of mothers-to-be?"
Those are the questions that make the difference. It's amazing how little we talk about them.
by David Frum
When Richard Mourdock delivered his notorious answer about rape and abortion, I was sorry that the debate moderator failed to follow up with the next question:
"OK, Mr. Mourdock, you say your principles require a raped woman to carry the rapist's child to term. That's a heavy burden to impose on someone. What would you do for her in return? Would you pay her medical expenses? Compensate her for time lost to work? Would you pay for the child's upbringing? College education?
"If a woman has her credit card stolen, her maximum liability under federal law is $50. Yet on your theory, if she is raped, she must endure not only the trauma of assault, but also accept economic costs of potentially many thousands of dollars. Must that burden also fall on her alone? When we used to draft men into the Army, we gave them veterans' benefits afterward. If the state now intends to conscript women into involuntary childbearing, surely those women deserve at least an equally generous deal?"
That question sounds argumentative, and I suppose it is.
But there's a serious point here, and it extends well beyond the anguishing question of sexual assault.
If you're serious about reducing abortion, the most important issue is not which abortions to ban. The most important issue is how will you support women to have the babies they want.
As a general rule, societies that do the most to support mothers and child-bearing have the fewest abortions. Societies that do the least to support mothers and child-bearing have more abortions.
Germany, for example, operates perhaps the world's plushest welfare state. Working women receive 14 weeks of maternity leave, during which time they receive pay from the state. The state pays a child allowance to the parents of every German child for potentially as many as 25 years, depending on how long as the child remains in school. Women who leave the work force after giving birth receive a replacement wage from the state for up to 14 months.
Maybe not coincidentally, Germany has one of the lowest abortion rates, about one-third that of the United States. Yet German abortion laws are not especially restrictive. Abortion is legal during the first trimester of pregnancy and available if medically or psychologically necessary in the later trimesters.
Even here in the United States, where parental benefits are much less generous, abortion responds to economic conditions. In the prosperous 1990s, abortion rates declined rapidly. In the less prosperous '00s, abortion rates declined more slowly. When the economy plunged into crisis in 2008, abortion rates abruptly rose again.
These trends should not surprise anyone. Women choose abortion for one overwhelming reason: economic insecurity. The large majority of women who chose abortion in 2008, 57%, reported a disruptive event in their lives in the previous 12 months: most often, the loss of a job or home.
Of the women who choose abortion, 58% are in their 20s. Some 61% of them already have a child. Almost 70% of them are poor or near poor. Three-quarters say they cannot afford another child.
Pro-life and pro-choice debaters delight in presenting each other with exquisitely extreme moral dilemmas: "Would you ban abortion even in case of rape?" "Would you permit abortion even when done only to select the sex of the child?"
These dorm-room hypotheticals do not have very much to do with the realities of abortion in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Here's an interesting example of those realities: The Netherlands has one of the the most liberal abortion laws in the world. Yet for a long time, the Netherlands also reported one of the world's lowest abortion rates. That low incidence abruptly began to rise in the mid-1990s. Between 1996 and 2003, the abortion rate in the Netherlands jumped by 31% over seven years.
What changed? The Guttmacher Institute, the leading source of data on reproductive health worldwide, cites "a growing demand for terminations from women in ethnic minority groups residing in the country." Well over half of all abortions performed on teenagers in the Netherlands are performed on girls of non-Dutch origins.
These girls and women weren't being raped. They weren't selecting for the sex of their child. They chose abortion because they had become sexually active within male-dominated immigrant subcultures in which access to birth control was restricted, in which female sexuality was tightly policed, in which girls who become pregnant outside marriage are disgraced and in which the costs and obligations of childbearing loaded almost entirely on women alone.
A woman who enjoys the most emotional and financial security and who has chosen the timing of her pregnancy will not choose abortion, even when abortion laws are liberal. A woman who is dominated, who is poor and who fears bearing the child is likely to find an abortion, even where abortion is restricted, as it was across the United States before 1965.
So maybe at the next candidates' debate, a journalist will deflect the discussion away from "what if" and instead ask this:
"Rather than tell us what you'd like to ban, tell us please what you think government should do to support more happy and healthy childbearing, to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to alleviate the economic anxieties of mothers-to-be?"
Those are the questions that make the difference. It's amazing how little we talk about them.
I came here to post this article but you beat me to it. I thought it was very insightful, and whats better is that it comes from a politically conservative thinker.
Again... let me re-state my opinion.
Pro-Choice doe NOT mean Pro-Abortion. I means Pre-Choice. You can choose to carry the pregnancy to term as keep and raise the child as your own... you can choose to carry the pregnancy to term and place the child up for adoption... you can choose to terminate the pregnancy. All of those choices are legal options. You or I or the State or the Church may not like them... but, it is not our call to make.
Certainty is not guaranteed in live... shit happens. We need to have options available in order to deal with uncertainty.
This is pretty much where I am on the issue.
I just don't think women should be required to go through the trauma of childbirth (which can be traumatic even under the best of circumstances when a pregnancy is planned and wanted) after already having her body violated and traumatized by rape. Pregnancy and childbirth under the best of circumstances can be complicated...women suffer many medical and mental health complications, from preeclampsia to gestational diabetes, placenta previa, postpartum depression, postpartum OCD, PTSD, etc. Those complications are going to be greatly increased if the mother is also carrying the additional strain of the trauma of rape. How do we mandate that a woman go through 9 months of that after she's already been traumatized? I work with women who cannot go to a regular OB/GYN visit years after a sexual violation...but we would require some to go for regular OB visits and then go through childbirth? It boggles my mind.
My husband and I are trying to have a baby...it is horrifying to think that someone could rape me and hijack my body and my life and I could become pregnant by someone other than him. I don't know what we would do at that point. I would like to think I could continue the pregnancy and we could both parent and love that child regardless...but I don't know how I would react to the trauma and the thought of my options being limited is unfathomable.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,802
It's funny that it took us 14 pages to get back to the core issue that Polaris (I think) alluded to on page fucking 1. This argument goes nowhere because in order to even have a reasonable debate about it, you have to decide one thing:
Either the embryo/fetus is a child (i.e., is a human) or it is not. If it is, it is afforded basic rights like the right to life. This particular right, in almost any current moral or legal code, trumps the pregnant woman's right to an "easier" life, whatever that means. However, if the embryo/fetus is NOT a child, then we can continue with this debate or even enter into the debate about when we should start considering the fetus a human life (e.g., have a conversation around late-pregnancy abortions). I don't see any way around this first step.
Pro-lifers tend to focus on this first step, pro-choicers tend to shy away from it and/or ignore it altogether, as this thread largely demonstrates. Occasionally someone on the pro-choice side will offer an argument about whether the embryo/fetus is a human, as gimme did here. But even that is just a set of pictures intended to sway not by biology or reason, but by inference. Further, let's say we agree that the zygote is not a human, as those pics of dividing cells implies -- are you, gimmie, willing to admit that the fetus that has developed at 4 weeks is a human? The fetus with brain, heart, leg/arm, spinal cord all identifiable? What about at 8 weeks, with a beating heart, sex organs, etc? Probably not, I'd guess, though don't let me put words in your mouth. So given that, where do we end? You'll never get a pro-lifer to agree that a zygote isn't a human if there's no defined end to that argument. I.e., if your argument against the zygote as a human being is that "duh, look at these two cells, how can that be human?", you can't just go changing your argument when the zygote becomes an embryo becomes a fetus and starts looking distinctly human.
Also, side note, was it just me or was that Onion article distinctly un-Onion? It wasn't funny or particularly sarcastic, it quite plainly put all the progressive talking points into "God's" mouth.
IMO once the fetus grows to a point where it could possibly survive outside of the womb with major intervention of medicine, at that point it could be considered a human being. Which I think as of now is around 22 weeks or so? Up until then it really is a parasite/host relationship although a relatively benign one.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Everything is a choice, illegal or otherwise.
Someday each of us will face what we did to humanity in our lifetime,
the punishment will be in the realization.
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?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm not sure I agree with the argument that if it's not yet human it is ok to abort, and saying since it is not capable of living outside the mother that by extension it is not human.
I had two nieces that died inside my sister-in-law's body, and when she had to go through labor knowing she was delivering a dead baby, they were DEFINITELY human.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm not sure I agree with the argument that if it's not yet human it is ok to abort, and saying since it is not capable of living outside the mother that by extension it is not human.
I had two nieces that died inside my sister-in-law's body, and when she had to go through labor knowing she was delivering a dead baby, they were DEFINITELY human.
...
I agree. Like I said, I'm not a fan of abortion... I'm a full supporter of Choice... I just hope that abortion is the last resort choice. If I could make the first choice... I would have men and women choose not to have an unwanted pregnancy.
Choosing Abortion is a tough call and one that should be fully considered... by the woman who is pregnant. The day I get pregnant... I'll make the call... and I can tell you this... I would be my business and i don't want anyone to decide for me.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I get that line of thinking. In reality, though I am anti-abortion, my actions really say I am more like you. I talk about it and discuss it with people, but I haven't really done anything to support my viewpoint, other than voting for some candidates that agree with it. But then again, I've voted for candidates that don't.
I think the reality of the situation hit me a while ago that despite what I think, I do not believe there will be any real change to abortion. And, as a few have mentioned before, let's start working on the root causes to prevent the outcome rather than keep fighting about the outcome. That way, a lot more people end up in a better place and we all get what I think everyone wants...less abortions. Because even if you don't think it's a life, it's still an invasive medical procedure.
...
See... we DO agree.
Maybe we can EDUCATE people on what happens when they fuck. Consequences.
To avoid consequences... responsibility.
Responsibility... condoms, the pill, not fucking, blow jobs... those are the choices that need to be made. Before, not after the fact.
So what if the birth control doesn't work? It's not 100%.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Getting back to the title of the thread, are there statistics out there that show how many pregnancies do develop out of rape situations?
I posted back aways some stats rape and incest 2% about 1.1 million I think
and of course they might not all be reported due to the nature of the crime.
I agree no change to abortion but again I'm glad we have pro lifers
because some people would have been in favor of allowing the fetus to suffer horribly.
No thought about it. We need empathy for new life. We can not forget to feel.
Also with them around hopefully we won't have to worry about population
control by forced abortion.
Getting back to the title of the thread, are there statistics out there that show how many pregnancies do develop out of rape situations?
I posted back aways some stats rape and incest 2% about 1.1 million I think
and of course they might not all be reported due to the nature of the crime.
1.1 million pregnancies each year? In the United States or globally?
That seemed extremely high to me, so I just did a search and came across the following article. Apparently the numbers are all over the map from 225 annually to 83,000 annually.
Getting back to the title of the thread, are there statistics out there that show how many pregnancies do develop out of rape situations?
I posted back aways some stats rape and incest 2% about 1.1 million I think
and of course they might not all be reported due to the nature of the crime.
1.1 million pregnancies each year? In the United States or globally?
That seemed extremely high to me, so I just did a search and came across the following article. Apparently the numbers are all over the map from 225 annually to 83,000 annually.
Getting back to the title of the thread, are there statistics out there that show how many pregnancies do develop out of rape situations?
It's a hard thing to get an accurate number since the majority of rapes (54%) are never reported.
This is the statement from the American Congress on Obstetricians and Gynecologists (it came after Akin's statements, so that's what they are referencing):
Washington, DC -- Recent remarks by a member of the US House of Representatives suggesting that “women who are victims of ‘legitimate rape’ rarely get pregnant” are medically inaccurate, offensive, and dangerous.
Each year in the US, 10,000–15,000 abortions occur among women whose pregnancies are a result of reported rape or incest. An unknown number of pregnancies resulting from rape are carried to term. There is absolutely no veracity to the claim that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down.” A woman who is raped has no control over ovulation, fertilization, or implantation of a fertilized egg (ie, pregnancy). To suggest otherwise contradicts basic biological truths.
Any person forced to submit to sexual intercourse against his or her will is the victim of rape, a heinous crime. There are no varying degrees of rape. To suggest otherwise is inaccurate and insulting and minimizes the serious physical and psychological repercussions for all victims of rape.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Getting back to the title of the thread, are there statistics out there that show how many pregnancies do develop out of rape situations?
I posted back aways some stats rape and incest 2% about 1.1 million I think
and of course they might not all be reported due to the nature of the crime.
1.1 million pregnancies each year? In the United States or globally?
That seemed extremely high to me, so I just did a search and came across the following article. Apparently the numbers are all over the map from 225 annually to 83,000 annually.
I think it's important to be informed of the facts before throwing around viewpoints and opinions.
I was going to post the RAINN estimates too, which are down around 3,204. All we can do is estimate. It's tough to get hard numbers, because many women are not going to disclose that's why they're pregnant or that's why they are seeking an abortion. When I have survivors presenting for counseling for sexual violence they very rarely list that as the reason on their intake. They'll usually put something vague and it's only after I meet with them that they'll disclose...and sometimes that's after meeting with them for a few times. So I would say any numbers of self-report are probably very low in comparison to true numbers.
In 2004-2005, 64,080 women were raped.8 According to medical reports, the incidence of pregnancy for one-time unprotected sexual intercourse is 5%. By applying the pregnancy rate to 64,080 women, RAINN estimates that there were 3,204 pregnancies as a result of rape during that period.
This calculation does not account for the following factors which could lower the actual number of pregnancies:
Rape, as defined by the NCVS, is forced sexual intercourse. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by offender(s). This category includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Certain types of rape under this definition cannot cause pregnancy.
Some victims of rape may be utilizing birth control methods, such as the pill, which will prevent pregnancy.
Some rapists may wear condoms in an effort to avoid DNA detection.
Vicims of rape may not be able to become pregnant for medical or age-related reasons.
This calculation does not account for the following factors which could raise the actual number of pregnancies:
Medical estimates of a 5% pregnancy rate are for one-time, unprotected sexual intercourse. Some victimizations may include multiple incidents of intercourse.
Because of methodology, NCVS does not measure the victimization of Americans age 12 or younger. Rapes of these young people could results in pregnancies not accounted for in RAINN's estimates.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
See... we DO agree.
Maybe we can EDUCATE people on what happens when they fuck. Consequences.
To avoid consequences... responsibility.
Responsibility... condoms, the pill, not fucking, blow jobs... those are the choices that need to be made. Before, not after the fact.
So what if the birth control doesn't work? It's not 100%.
...
That is why I previously stated that uncertainty is part of modern life. People need options to choose from.
...
P.S. Blow jobs (and Cunning Linguistics)... 100% effective.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
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.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
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.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
...
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.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
...
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.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
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.
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.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
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.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Comments
http://us.cnn.com/2012/10/29/opinion/fr ... ?hpt=hp_t2
by David Frum
When Richard Mourdock delivered his notorious answer about rape and abortion, I was sorry that the debate moderator failed to follow up with the next question:
"OK, Mr. Mourdock, you say your principles require a raped woman to carry the rapist's child to term. That's a heavy burden to impose on someone. What would you do for her in return? Would you pay her medical expenses? Compensate her for time lost to work? Would you pay for the child's upbringing? College education?
"If a woman has her credit card stolen, her maximum liability under federal law is $50. Yet on your theory, if she is raped, she must endure not only the trauma of assault, but also accept economic costs of potentially many thousands of dollars. Must that burden also fall on her alone? When we used to draft men into the Army, we gave them veterans' benefits afterward. If the state now intends to conscript women into involuntary childbearing, surely those women deserve at least an equally generous deal?"
That question sounds argumentative, and I suppose it is.
But there's a serious point here, and it extends well beyond the anguishing question of sexual assault.
If you're serious about reducing abortion, the most important issue is not which abortions to ban. The most important issue is how will you support women to have the babies they want.
As a general rule, societies that do the most to support mothers and child-bearing have the fewest abortions. Societies that do the least to support mothers and child-bearing have more abortions.
Germany, for example, operates perhaps the world's plushest welfare state. Working women receive 14 weeks of maternity leave, during which time they receive pay from the state. The state pays a child allowance to the parents of every German child for potentially as many as 25 years, depending on how long as the child remains in school. Women who leave the work force after giving birth receive a replacement wage from the state for up to 14 months.
Maybe not coincidentally, Germany has one of the lowest abortion rates, about one-third that of the United States. Yet German abortion laws are not especially restrictive. Abortion is legal during the first trimester of pregnancy and available if medically or psychologically necessary in the later trimesters.
Even here in the United States, where parental benefits are much less generous, abortion responds to economic conditions. In the prosperous 1990s, abortion rates declined rapidly. In the less prosperous '00s, abortion rates declined more slowly. When the economy plunged into crisis in 2008, abortion rates abruptly rose again.
These trends should not surprise anyone. Women choose abortion for one overwhelming reason: economic insecurity. The large majority of women who chose abortion in 2008, 57%, reported a disruptive event in their lives in the previous 12 months: most often, the loss of a job or home.
Of the women who choose abortion, 58% are in their 20s. Some 61% of them already have a child. Almost 70% of them are poor or near poor. Three-quarters say they cannot afford another child.
Pro-life and pro-choice debaters delight in presenting each other with exquisitely extreme moral dilemmas: "Would you ban abortion even in case of rape?" "Would you permit abortion even when done only to select the sex of the child?"
These dorm-room hypotheticals do not have very much to do with the realities of abortion in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Here's an interesting example of those realities: The Netherlands has one of the the most liberal abortion laws in the world. Yet for a long time, the Netherlands also reported one of the world's lowest abortion rates. That low incidence abruptly began to rise in the mid-1990s. Between 1996 and 2003, the abortion rate in the Netherlands jumped by 31% over seven years.
What changed? The Guttmacher Institute, the leading source of data on reproductive health worldwide, cites "a growing demand for terminations from women in ethnic minority groups residing in the country." Well over half of all abortions performed on teenagers in the Netherlands are performed on girls of non-Dutch origins.
These girls and women weren't being raped. They weren't selecting for the sex of their child. They chose abortion because they had become sexually active within male-dominated immigrant subcultures in which access to birth control was restricted, in which female sexuality was tightly policed, in which girls who become pregnant outside marriage are disgraced and in which the costs and obligations of childbearing loaded almost entirely on women alone.
A woman who enjoys the most emotional and financial security and who has chosen the timing of her pregnancy will not choose abortion, even when abortion laws are liberal. A woman who is dominated, who is poor and who fears bearing the child is likely to find an abortion, even where abortion is restricted, as it was across the United States before 1965.
So maybe at the next candidates' debate, a journalist will deflect the discussion away from "what if" and instead ask this:
"Rather than tell us what you'd like to ban, tell us please what you think government should do to support more happy and healthy childbearing, to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to alleviate the economic anxieties of mothers-to-be?"
Those are the questions that make the difference. It's amazing how little we talk about them.
I came here to post this article but you beat me to it. I thought it was very insightful, and whats better is that it comes from a politically conservative thinker.
I just don't think women should be required to go through the trauma of childbirth (which can be traumatic even under the best of circumstances when a pregnancy is planned and wanted) after already having her body violated and traumatized by rape. Pregnancy and childbirth under the best of circumstances can be complicated...women suffer many medical and mental health complications, from preeclampsia to gestational diabetes, placenta previa, postpartum depression, postpartum OCD, PTSD, etc. Those complications are going to be greatly increased if the mother is also carrying the additional strain of the trauma of rape. How do we mandate that a woman go through 9 months of that after she's already been traumatized? I work with women who cannot go to a regular OB/GYN visit years after a sexual violation...but we would require some to go for regular OB visits and then go through childbirth? It boggles my mind.
My husband and I are trying to have a baby...it is horrifying to think that someone could rape me and hijack my body and my life and I could become pregnant by someone other than him. I don't know what we would do at that point. I would like to think I could continue the pregnancy and we could both parent and love that child regardless...but I don't know how I would react to the trauma and the thought of my options being limited is unfathomable.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Everything is a choice, illegal or otherwise.
Someday each of us will face what we did to humanity in our lifetime,
the punishment will be in the realization.
Until then rationalize away.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I had two nieces that died inside my sister-in-law's body, and when she had to go through labor knowing she was delivering a dead baby, they were DEFINITELY human.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I agree. Like I said, I'm not a fan of abortion... I'm a full supporter of Choice... I just hope that abortion is the last resort choice. If I could make the first choice... I would have men and women choose not to have an unwanted pregnancy.
Choosing Abortion is a tough call and one that should be fully considered... by the woman who is pregnant. The day I get pregnant... I'll make the call... and I can tell you this... I would be my business and i don't want anyone to decide for me.
Hail, Hail!!!
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
and of course they might not all be reported due to the nature of the crime.
because some people would have been in favor of allowing the fetus to suffer horribly.
No thought about it. We need empathy for new life. We can not forget to feel.
Also with them around hopefully we won't have to worry about population
control by forced abortion.
1.1 million pregnancies each year? In the United States or globally?
That seemed extremely high to me, so I just did a search and came across the following article. Apparently the numbers are all over the map from 225 annually to 83,000 annually.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... 90750.html
I think it's important to be informed of the facts before throwing around viewpoints and opinions.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
http://www.mccl.org/us-abortion-stats.html
It's a hard thing to get an accurate number since the majority of rapes (54%) are never reported.
This is the statement from the American Congress on Obstetricians and Gynecologists (it came after Akin's statements, so that's what they are referencing):
http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Roo ... _Pregnancy
Statement on Rape and Pregnancy
August 20, 2012
Washington, DC -- Recent remarks by a member of the US House of Representatives suggesting that “women who are victims of ‘legitimate rape’ rarely get pregnant” are medically inaccurate, offensive, and dangerous.
Each year in the US, 10,000–15,000 abortions occur among women whose pregnancies are a result of reported rape or incest. An unknown number of pregnancies resulting from rape are carried to term. There is absolutely no veracity to the claim that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down.” A woman who is raped has no control over ovulation, fertilization, or implantation of a fertilized egg (ie, pregnancy). To suggest otherwise contradicts basic biological truths.
Any person forced to submit to sexual intercourse against his or her will is the victim of rape, a heinous crime. There are no varying degrees of rape. To suggest otherwise is inaccurate and insulting and minimizes the serious physical and psychological repercussions for all victims of rape.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Here is the RAINN info if anyone is interested:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/st ... lt-victims
In 2004-2005, 64,080 women were raped.8 According to medical reports, the incidence of pregnancy for one-time unprotected sexual intercourse is 5%. By applying the pregnancy rate to 64,080 women, RAINN estimates that there were 3,204 pregnancies as a result of rape during that period.
This calculation does not account for the following factors which could lower the actual number of pregnancies:
Rape, as defined by the NCVS, is forced sexual intercourse. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by offender(s). This category includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Certain types of rape under this definition cannot cause pregnancy.
Some victims of rape may be utilizing birth control methods, such as the pill, which will prevent pregnancy.
Some rapists may wear condoms in an effort to avoid DNA detection.
Vicims of rape may not be able to become pregnant for medical or age-related reasons.
This calculation does not account for the following factors which could raise the actual number of pregnancies:
Medical estimates of a 5% pregnancy rate are for one-time, unprotected sexual intercourse. Some victimizations may include multiple incidents of intercourse.
Because of methodology, NCVS does not measure the victimization of Americans age 12 or younger. Rapes of these young people could results in pregnancies not accounted for in RAINN's estimates.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
That is why I previously stated that uncertainty is part of modern life. People need options to choose from.
...
P.S. Blow jobs (and Cunning Linguistics)... 100% effective.
Hail, Hail!!!
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You talkin' to me?
Hail, Hail!!!
only if youre a stupid man saying stupid stuff, otherwise, no im not.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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.
Hail, Hail!!!
my post was aimed at richard mourdock. hey! im all for blowjobs.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
now there's a woman I can get behind.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
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.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
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.
Hail, Hail!!!
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.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
My main man Rupert has 5% in the governors race.