Legitimate Rape
Vulchor
Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 4,176
If I was a women, his comments I would just dismiss as those of a lunatic. But since Paul Ryan isnt too far behind on choosing womens rights......scary time for women, and for freedom as a whole. But hey....since there is "legit rape" now, looks like Saturday nights will be a lot more fun.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/19/missouri-republican-claims-legitimate-rape-rarely-results-in-pregnancy/?hpt=hp_t1
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/19/missouri-republican-claims-legitimate-rape-rarely-results-in-pregnancy/?hpt=hp_t1
Comments
but atkins comments are pretty dumb.
gotta paint with a smaller brush.
the argument that is being overlooked by the left, that i find interesting, is when he said:
"...I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."
sorry vulch... kinda looks like you are trying to twist some words here. (not sure if you are but thats the impression i get) though i agree that his comment was dumb i dont think that he was trying to say that there is "legitimate rape" that is condoned in any way shape or form.
however there may be "legitimate" or "illegitimate" rape based off of if the woman is being truthful. If a woman cries rape and there was actually no rape than it is "illegitimate"
PS - first one of you who quotes one of the founding father's speaking on "legitimate rape" wins a prize.
Child of rape victim article
But heck, what do I know....
I'm a guy, and will never have the possibility to become pregnant...so I guess, IMO, it's a woman's health issue and should be decided by women and medical professionals.
What I do know, is that as a male, I'd be upset if women were trying to make decisions about health issues that only affected men - like prostate cancer.
Can't you just imagine the uproar if the shoe was on the other foot, so to speak.
Edit: And at Vulchor/the original post - regardless of one's opinion on this subject, I think we'll all agree that was an extremely poor choice of words ... I don't understand how so many politicians/public figures can seem so dumb sometimes and get away with these stupid remarks.
It seems to me that politicians are more concerned with pandering to their "base" than in thinking about how to solve the huge problems we are all facing. What we're seeing appears to be more the antics of middle schoolers than the actions of serious men and women of substance.
I am convinced that the intense polarization of our politics has led to an over all loss of substance and thoughtful discourse - essentially an unwillingness to solve the problems we are facing as our system of government was designed to do; with cooperation and compromise in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Instead we have politicians who are behaving as if they were in a game show or on talk radio.
... Benjamin Franklin
What do I win?
The notion that compromise is always the best solution is a classic logical fallacy and leads to much wickedness. For example, given the alternative between torture on the rack and no torture at all we compromise on water boarding. In so many cases, one side is right, the other wrong, and compromise is still wrong.
As men, we should keep our noses out of certain things. Abortion is one. This is an issue between a girl and at most her mother. Even Dad does not need to know. We ought to just shut up and leave it to them. Not our problem; not ours to solve.
________________________________
No, you're right. I have not seen such a polarized public since the Vietnam War. The present Administration seems to be at war with the American way of life. Some of us resent it. Those at war with American ideals resent us. These are the lines of battle: Individual versus State, Liberty versus Collectivity, Freedom versus Regulation, Opportunity versus Envy, Capitalism versus Fascism. Those in favor of the state are on the verge of victory, so are bending every effort to complete the transformation. Those for the Individual see that appalling victory looming near, and so their clamor becomes more strident. It is the moment when the barbarians are storming the walls.
In the end, the transformation appears certain. Every former civilization we know of has lost its moral compass in about two hundred years. No matter what form of government you start with, submission to oligarchy eventually prevails. When it does, when the counts of finance and the barons of bureaucracy completely dominate the individual, when the powerful tell him when he may be greedy, what he may think, down to whether he may smoke a cigar, drink a soda, or even use a certain cooking oil, whether he may utter the F word, the N word, the Q word, in short, when the powers that be own his body, his mind, his labor, his heart, and the substance of all his progeny for mountains of debts heaped up without amortization, what then? How long will that dark ages last? Will it take another millennia before a brave experiment like this America plants itself against all odds?
"deal with it"
interesting.
i think that is exactly what we are all attempting to do here.
i wasnt attacking you. heck, i kinda agree with you here. it was a very dumb comment. i dont know if it was intentional or not. i dont know what is in the man's heart. only he does.
abortion is a very interesting and tricky issue for me.
as many of you know, i base all of my political theories on the rights of the individual. so the question with abortion is:
"at what point do we have to take the rights of the baby into account?"
and the thing is, roe v wade didnt exactly decide that. what it did decide is that what happens between a person and a doctor is nobodys business but the person and the doctor. and i do agree with that 100%
... but back to the question at hand. at what point do we take the baby's rights into account? another way to ask this question is "when does life start?"
i cant speak for anyone else, but personally, i do not know. Is it at conception? or at the first heart beat? or when the baby first can feel pain? or when it would be able to survive out of the womb? or is it when the head crowns? I have no clue.
i doubt that anyone here actually does 100% for sure either.
this is where Roe v. Wade comes in.
this decision is left up to the woman and the doctor. right now, with the technology and understanding of life at hand R.v.W. is the best compromise we have. it errs on the side of caution, and by that i mean: the known adult individual. if we cant pinpoint when the baby has rights/is viable/is life, we have to divert to the rights of the people that clearly have rights and are alive. and that is what Roe v. Wade does.
am i for abortion?
hell no.
i would never think that it is ever a good idea for a woman to have an abortion. however, i am not a dictator, i am not God, and i certainly do not know when life begins, therefore i cannot tell others what to do.
given the political waters, and views of the country i doubt that ryan could get legislation passed that would take away that right in cases of rape.
hell, even sean hannity is ok with abortion in cases of rape. it wouldt pass so fretting about it is kind of a waste of time.
But seriously, this is a non issue. Everyone... Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Parrots.... Everyone has a slip of the tongue now and again, and it is frustrating to watch these tiny soundbites be torn out of context. Obama had one not to long ago, with the "You didn't build it" fiasco, and many treated him unfairly regarding that statement. People say dumb things, it happens, especially when not scripted. I just wish both sides would calm down, and stop shouting past the other side.
Call me naive if you will, but I truly believe most people on both sides of the aisle want what is best for the country. I may not always agree with how they plan to do it, but I don't think either side is planning to "destroy the country". Frankly, the most frustrating thing about politics to me is we rarely get to hear how someone is going to make things better, but instead the talk is how the opponent is going to make things worse. Worse still, the loudest voices on both sides are the most extreme, most vehement, and usually the least representative of either side as a whole. I don't know how or if we can fix this situation, but it is tiring to have to spend so much time digging to find a politicians true stance on issues. Also, frankly, I don't care who started the BS mudslinging... It just smacks of childishness to worry about who used what unfair tactic first, and my side is justified in being underhanded because your side is too. Again, I guess I am just naive to hope to see adult debates from those chosen to represent me.
Finally, on abortion... This is a really difficult subject, mostly because both sides come at it with a different initial supposition. Either you believe life begins at conception, or you don't. With such vastly different starting points, it is no wonder that neither side of the issue can understand the other. I know I believe the former, and am therefor opposed to abortion other than as a life saving measure for the mother, and I will admit I don't understand the other side. I don't know if there is anyway to bridge this gap, but what I do know is the most vocal on both sides don't help anything. Once again, intelligent dialogue is discouraged, vocal pro-choice likens pro-life to a desire to control all of woman's life and bar her from medical treatment. Vocal pro-life calls the other side murders and worse. The whole debate is sh!tty as hell, and would be helped...once again...by people listening and talking instead of labeling and dividing.
To summarize... 1. everyone makes mistakes, judge by intent, not by words. 2. If someone, on either side, only talks about how the other side is out to get you... stop listening to them. 3. Finally, and most important to me, our politicians and media need to grow up and discuss things like adults.
Jim Crow was decided. people couldnt deal with it.
just because something is law at the moment does not mean that it is right, fair, popular, or permanent.
this is a dynamic society.
however, as i stated above, i dont have much issue with R.v.W.
like i said, a passing thought.