I find it appalling how whenever abortion is brought up the people that are Hard pro life always say they want to save innocent life. What a crock. It's not about you or your feelings. It's not about YOU. If a woman does not want a child and that reason may be due to rape or it may be due to health or maybe due to her direction in life, it is her call.
In fact, abortion to save the life of the mother is fine by me as a last resort. You are right, it isn't about me, but it is about the child as well as the mother. Once again, it comes down to when you define life as beginning. I define it at conception. Would you argue that a woman has the right to kill her child after it is born because it is interfering with her direction in life? Of course you wouldn't. But that is what you are asking me to be ok with... death of a child for liberty of the mother. Yes, people will break the law and endanger themselves, but you can't remove laws just because people make bad choices about them. We would have fewer speeding tickets if we just removed all speed limits too.
On your point about sh!tty life for the kids. Yes. It sucks. And I do my best to help those I can throught taxes, tithing, volunteering, and anything else I can do. But at least they are ALIVE. And with life comes a chance to make a change. Many people have come from nothing to change the world. The more people living, the greater chance one will truly change the world for the better.
Once again it's not something "YOU" need to be okay with. It's about the woman here. Would you be okay with the govt or someone telling you when or if you can marry, or if you can date, or if you can have sex? I doubt it. If you think life begins at conception then that's your opinion, though there is no evidence that it does, but if you "feel" it does than that is okay by me. I think everyone should be able to have an opinion, however basing laws or infringing in others rights merely off of a "feeling" is not what I believe nor do I think the majority of people think.
If it is based on what a majority think... why can't we vote on it? Does the father get no say if he believes his child is alive at conception and his wife does not? And I am not sure what you mean by no evidence, what defines life? Why is the same not alive child that could be aborted suddenly alive if pulled out prematurly? Like I have said, I understand where you are coming from, but understand you are every much asking me to be ok with the death of a child as you feel I am asking you to be ok with the loss of a woman's right to liberty.
first of all please know I am not attacking you or your belief, you are allowed to think what ever you like. I'm not saying you have to be okay with it, I'm saying limiting what another person can do with their own body has nothing to do with how a person other than the one it's affecting feels. If you don't like abortion that's fine, hell I don't like it all that much however it is not mine or yours or anyone's right to tell another person what they can and can't do with their body. If that is the case then we are making slave. By telling a woman she cannot have an abortion or have birth control or the morning after pill or *** implants, she now becomes a slave. And slavery is not okay. Also another factor here is how the GOP have rallied against planned parent hood which served millions of woman and most have nothing to do with abortion. In a lot of ways educating woman will stem the need for abortion, educated people usually have less children and or go for abortions. But the whole point of this is that feeling something or having an opinion shouldn't be used to pass a law or make others be affected by that feeling.
"...Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins? ..."
After birth, outside the womb.
I would add that, in my view, those who believe that life begins at conception are just as concerned with their ability to control the lives of women as they are with "saving" the life of a "child" in the womb.
I am? I was unaware.
It can be successfully argued, I believe, that those opposed to abortion, and those who believe that life begins at conception, in most cases, are also very concerned with sex and sexual activity, and in the "sin" of sex outside marriage.
Funny how a lot of people that say it's a "sin" to have sex outside of marriage or are so concerned whether I like to have anal with a woman while having a another partner pee on her, usually are deprived themselves though are in the closet about it.
I find it appalling how whenever abortion is brought up the people that are Hard pro life always say they want to save innocent life. What a crock. It's not about you or your feelings. It's not about YOU. If a woman does not want a child and that reason may be due to rape or it may be due to health or maybe due to her direction in life, it is her call.
In fact, abortion to save the life of the mother is fine by me as a last resort. You are right, it isn't about me, but it is about the child as well as the mother. Once again, it comes down to when you define life as beginning. I define it at conception. Would you argue that a woman has the right to kill her child after it is born because it is interfering with her direction in life? Of course you wouldn't. But that is what you are asking me to be ok with... death of a child for liberty of the mother. Yes, people will break the law and endanger themselves, but you can't remove laws just because people make bad choices about them. We would have fewer speeding tickets if we just removed all speed limits too.
On your point about sh!tty life for the kids. Yes. It sucks. And I do my best to help those I can throught taxes, tithing, volunteering, and anything else I can do. But at least they are ALIVE. And with life comes a chance to make a change. Many people have come from nothing to change the world. The more people living, the greater chance one will truly change the world for the better.
Once again it's not something "YOU" need to be okay with. It's about the woman here. Would you be okay with the govt or someone telling you when or if you can marry, or if you can date, or if you can have sex? I doubt it. If you think life begins at conception then that's your opinion, though there is no evidence that it does, but if you "feel" it does than that is okay by me. I think everyone should be able to have an opinion, however basing laws or infringing in others rights merely off of a "feeling" is not what I believe nor do I think the majority of people think.
If it is based on what a majority think... why can't we vote on it? Does the father get no say if he believes his child is alive at conception and his wife does not? And I am not sure what you mean by no evidence, what defines life? Why is the same not alive child that could be aborted suddenly alive if pulled out prematurly? Like I have said, I understand where you are coming from, but understand you are every much asking me to be ok with the death of a child as you feel I am asking you to be ok with the loss of a woman's right to liberty.
first of all please know I am not attacking you or your belief, you are allowed to think what ever you like. I'm not saying you have to be okay with it, I'm saying limiting what another person can do with their own body has nothing to do with how a person other than the one it's affecting feels. If you don't like abortion that's fine, hell I don't like it all that much however it is not mine or yours or anyone's right to tell another person what they can and can't do with their body. If that is the case then we are making slave. By telling a woman she cannot have an abortion or have birth control or the morning after pill or *** implants, she now becomes a slave. And slavery is not okay. Also another factor here is how the GOP have rallied against planned parent hood which served millions of woman and most have nothing to do with abortion. In a lot of ways educating woman will stem the need for abortion, educated people usually have less children and or go for abortions. But the whole point of this is that feeling something or having an opinion shouldn't be used to pass a law or make others be affected by that feeling.
The Christian right wants to control the lives and the bodies of women. Plain and simple. If you have a uterus, should you be in control of it, or should Church doctrine be in control of it?
"...Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins? ..."
After birth, outside the womb.
I would add that, in my view, those who believe that life begins at conception are just as concerned with their ability to control the lives of women as they are with "saving" the life of a "child" in the womb.
I am? I was unaware.
It can be successfully argued, I believe, that those opposed to abortion, and those who believe that life begins at conception, in most cases, are also very concerned with sex and sexual activity, and in the "sin" of sex outside marriage.
I thought I was wanting to control women...now I want to control sex? It is frustrating debating with you.
Me: Point
You: Counterpoint
Me:CounterCounterpoint
You: Witty retort, CounterCounterCounterpoint
Me: Glib response, CounterCounterCounterCounterpoint
You: You just want to control women.
Me: Bwah?
American puritianism has been obsessed with sex and the sexual conduct of women from the very moment the Pilgrims got here. Current day Evangelical Christians still are, and many of these will often rail against "radical feminism" and how they've destroyed the "moral fabric" of our society, and sex is usually at the heart of their concerns.
For the record, my wife says that it's frustrating debating with me, too
Well let me throw this out there, I am a current day Evangelical Christian. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. I have committed this sin. All sins are equal in the eyes of God, and not all sins require the punishment of man. We, as a statement of intent and belief, have no desire to pursue laws in this matter. I can't comment on all denomonations, but the LCMS doesn't care. In fact we try to actively avoid the political arena. The sole and only we pursue abortion so strongly is that we believe it robs another of a chance at life. As far as "the woman's place", we believe in Biblical marriage. In that, wives submit to husbands (as a democracy of two ends in a lot of ties). But, the part many like to overlook when calling us pigs, Men, love your wives as Christ loved the Church. This means I talk to her about everything, we decide everything together, and if one of us must sacrifice, it will be me. It also means, whenever I can make things better for her, I will. It is a discussion I have had with many men preparing to get married, that from this point on, your wife and children are your priority in everything. Your wants come last. Sorry for the rant on this, I am very passionate about biblical manhood as too many on both sides try to twist it to be about women being lesser than men.
For some reason, I think our wives would get along. She says the same about me.
I find it appalling how whenever abortion is brought up the people that are Hard pro life always say they want to save innocent life. What a crock. It's not about you or your feelings. It's not about YOU. If a woman does not want a child and that reason may be due to rape or it may be due to health or maybe due to her direction in life, it is her call.
In fact, abortion to save the life of the mother is fine by me as a last resort. You are right, it isn't about me, but it is about the child as well as the mother. Once again, it comes down to when you define life as beginning. I define it at conception. Would you argue that a woman has the right to kill her child after it is born because it is interfering with her direction in life? Of course you wouldn't. But that is what you are asking me to be ok with... death of a child for liberty of the mother. Yes, people will break the law and endanger themselves, but you can't remove laws just because people make bad choices about them. We would have fewer speeding tickets if we just removed all speed limits too.
On your point about sh!tty life for the kids. Yes. It sucks. And I do my best to help those I can throught taxes, tithing, volunteering, and anything else I can do. But at least they are ALIVE. And with life comes a chance to make a change. Many people have come from nothing to change the world. The more people living, the greater chance one will truly change the world for the better.
Once again it's not something "YOU" need to be okay with. It's about the woman here. Would you be okay with the govt or someone telling you when or if you can marry, or if you can date, or if you can have sex? I doubt it. If you think life begins at conception then that's your opinion, though there is no evidence that it does, but if you "feel" it does than that is okay by me. I think everyone should be able to have an opinion, however basing laws or infringing in others rights merely off of a "feeling" is not what I believe nor do I think the majority of people think.
If it is based on what a majority think... why can't we vote on it? Does the father get no say if he believes his child is alive at conception and his wife does not? And I am not sure what you mean by no evidence, what defines life? Why is the same not alive child that could be aborted suddenly alive if pulled out prematurly? Like I have said, I understand where you are coming from, but understand you are every much asking me to be ok with the death of a child as you feel I am asking you to be ok with the loss of a woman's right to liberty.
first of all please know I am not attacking you or your belief, you are allowed to think what ever you like. I'm not saying you have to be okay with it, I'm saying limiting what another person can do with their own body has nothing to do with how a person other than the one it's affecting feels. If you don't like abortion that's fine, hell I don't like it all that much however it is not mine or yours or anyone's right to tell another person what they can and can't do with their body. If that is the case then we are making slave. By telling a woman she cannot have an abortion or have birth control or the morning after pill or *** implants, she now becomes a slave. And slavery is not okay. Also another factor here is how the GOP have rallied against planned parent hood which served millions of woman and most have nothing to do with abortion. In a lot of ways educating woman will stem the need for abortion, educated people usually have less children and or go for abortions. But the whole point of this is that feeling something or having an opinion shouldn't be used to pass a law or make others be affected by that feeling.
Believe me, I understand where you are coming from. Like I said, different initial premises which means we this issue cannot be reconciled. I do not fault you for your position, and am glad you don't fault me for mine...even if sometimes you paint Christians with a frustratingly wide brush. I really do hope and pray for a day that science can provide evidence that resolves this issue.
"...Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins? ..."
After birth, outside the womb.
I would add that, in my view, those who believe that life begins at conception are just as concerned with their ability to control the lives of women as they are with "saving" the life of a "child" in the womb.
I am? I was unaware.
It can be successfully argued, I believe, that those opposed to abortion, and those who believe that life begins at conception, in most cases, are also very concerned with sex and sexual activity, and in the "sin" of sex outside marriage.
I thought I was wanting to control women...now I want to control sex? It is frustrating debating with you.
Me: Point
You: Counterpoint
Me:CounterCounterpoint
You: Witty retort, CounterCounterCounterpoint
Me: Glib response, CounterCounterCounterCounterpoint
You: You just want to control women.
Me: Bwah?
American puritianism has been obsessed with sex and the sexual conduct of women from the very moment the Pilgrims got here. Current day Evangelical Christians still are, and many of these will often rail against "radical feminism" and how they've destroyed the "moral fabric" of our society, and sex is usually at the heart of their concerns.
For the record, my wife says that it's frustrating debating with me, too
Well let me throw this out there, I am a current day Evangelical Christian. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. I have committed this sin. All sins are equal in the eyes of God, and not all sins require the punishment of man. We, as a statement of intent and belief, have no desire to pursue laws in this matter. I can't comment on all denomonations, but the LCMS doesn't care. In fact we try to actively avoid the political arena. The sole and only we pursue abortion so strongly is that we believe it robs another of a chance at life. As far as "the woman's place", we believe in Biblical marriage. In that, wives submit to husbands (as a democracy of two ends in a lot of ties). But, the part many like to overlook when calling us pigs, Men, love your wives as Christ loved the Church. This means I talk to her about everything, we decide everything together, and if one of us must sacrifice, it will be me. It also means, whenever I can make things better for her, I will. It is a discussion I have had with many men preparing to get married, that from this point on, your wife and children are your priority in everything. Your wants come last. Sorry for the rant on this, I am very passionate about biblical manhood as too many on both sides try to twist it to be about women being lesser than men.
For some reason, I think our wives would get along. She says the same about me.
You Are probably right. My wife is in the DAR, and her best friend is the Chaplain for this chapter of that organization, but they're both what you would probably call "liberals". Subservise inflitrators working behind enemy lines, that's what they are.
"...Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins? ..."
After birth, outside the womb.
I would add that, in my view, those who believe that life begins at conception are just as concerned with their ability to control the lives of women as they are with "saving" the life of a "child" in the womb.
I am? I was unaware.
It can be successfully argued, I believe, that those opposed to abortion, and those who believe that life begins at conception, in most cases, are also very concerned with sex and sexual activity, and in the "sin" of sex outside marriage.
I thought I was wanting to control women...now I want to control sex? It is frustrating debating with you.
Me: Point
You: Counterpoint
Me:CounterCounterpoint
You: Witty retort, CounterCounterCounterpoint
Me: Glib response, CounterCounterCounterCounterpoint
You: You just want to control women.
Me: Bwah?
American puritianism has been obsessed with sex and the sexual conduct of women from the very moment the Pilgrims got here. Current day Evangelical Christians still are, and many of these will often rail against "radical feminism" and how they've destroyed the "moral fabric" of our society, and sex is usually at the heart of their concerns.
For the record, my wife says that it's frustrating debating with me, too
Well let me throw this out there, I am a current day Evangelical Christian. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. I have committed this sin. All sins are equal in the eyes of God, and not all sins require the punishment of man. We, as a statement of intent and belief, have no desire to pursue laws in this matter. I can't comment on all denomonations, but the LCMS doesn't care. In fact we try to actively avoid the political arena. The sole and only we pursue abortion so strongly is that we believe it robs another of a chance at life. As far as "the woman's place", we believe in Biblical marriage. In that, wives submit to husbands (as a democracy of two ends in a lot of ties). But, the part many like to overlook when calling us pigs, Men, love your wives as Christ loved the Church. This means I talk to her about everything, we decide everything together, and if one of us must sacrifice, it will be me. It also means, whenever I can make things better for her, I will. It is a discussion I have had with many men preparing to get married, that from this point on, your wife and children are your priority in everything. Your wants come last. Sorry for the rant on this, I am very passionate about biblical manhood as too many on both sides try to twist it to be about women being lesser than men.
For some reason, I think our wives would get along. She says the same about me.
You Are probably right. My wife is in the DAR, and her best friend is the Chaplain for this chapter of that organization, but they're both what you would probably call "liberals". Subservise inflitrators working behind enemy lines, that's what they are.
My wife is a rostered Director of Parish Music and Christian Education ... I am actually the liberal one. But she enjoys good times and good beerwhisky like every good Lutheran should.
"...Now, with your definition of life, do you mean actually are pulled out of the womb, life begins or when they are able to live outside the womb, life begins? ..."
After birth, outside the womb.
I would add that, in my view, those who believe that life begins at conception are just as concerned with their ability to control the lives of women as they are with "saving" the life of a "child" in the womb.
I am? I was unaware.
It can be successfully argued, I believe, that those opposed to abortion, and those who believe that life begins at conception, in most cases, are also very concerned with sex and sexual activity, and in the "sin" of sex outside marriage.
I thought I was wanting to control women...now I want to control sex? It is frustrating debating with you.
Me: Point
You: Counterpoint
Me:CounterCounterpoint
You: Witty retort, CounterCounterCounterpoint
Me: Glib response, CounterCounterCounterCounterpoint
You: You just want to control women.
Me: Bwah?
American puritianism has been obsessed with sex and the sexual conduct of women from the very moment the Pilgrims got here. Current day Evangelical Christians still are, and many of these will often rail against "radical feminism" and how they've destroyed the "moral fabric" of our society, and sex is usually at the heart of their concerns.
For the record, my wife says that it's frustrating debating with me, too
Well let me throw this out there, I am a current day Evangelical Christian. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. I have committed this sin. All sins are equal in the eyes of God, and not all sins require the punishment of man. We, as a statement of intent and belief, have no desire to pursue laws in this matter. I can't comment on all denomonations, but the LCMS doesn't care. In fact we try to actively avoid the political arena. The sole and only we pursue abortion so strongly is that we believe it robs another of a chance at life. As far as "the woman's place", we believe in Biblical marriage. In that, wives submit to husbands (as a democracy of two ends in a lot of ties). But, the part many like to overlook when calling us pigs, Men, love your wives as Christ loved the Church. This means I talk to her about everything, we decide everything together, and if one of us must sacrifice, it will be me. It also means, whenever I can make things better for her, I will. It is a discussion I have had with many men preparing to get married, that from this point on, your wife and children are your priority in everything. Your wants come last. Sorry for the rant on this, I am very passionate about biblical manhood as too many on both sides try to twist it to be about women being lesser than men.
For some reason, I think our wives would get along. She says the same about me.
You Are probably right. My wife is in the DAR, and her best friend is the Chaplain for this chapter of that organization, but they're both what you would probably call "liberals". Subservise inflitrators working behind enemy lines, that's what they are.
My wife is a rostered Director of Parish Music and Christian Education ... I am actually the liberal one. But she enjoys good times and good beerwhisky like every good Lutheran should.
To quote Ward Bond fom "The Quiet Man", "God Help Us!"
(trying to re-read and find out what I've missed since my last comment.....
i guess that's what happens when I browse the other threads for a couple hours, LOL.)
Ill change the topic...just a bit, at least from where it is and ask this----as I do not know and havent done any research. Is there any evidence....REAL evidence....that a woman is less likely to conceive during a rape? And if not, does anyone believe it could be true (hormonally or the like within the body)?
Ill change the topic...just a bit, at least from where it is and ask this----as I do not know and havent done any research. Is there any evidence....REAL evidence....that a woman is less likely to conceive during a rape? And if not, does anyone believe it could be true (hormonally or the like within the body)?
I don't want to google it at work, but from my wife and I trying to conceive... it wouldn't surprise me... seems like everything we do, both men and women goes straight to the nether regions and makes us more or less likely to conceive, whether it is food, drink, what we breathe, temperature of our bath, how we sit, if we work out, ...posistions..., how we feel... the list goes on. Doesn't change the fact the phrasing is sh!tty as is the implication that if you got pregnant you weren't really raped. I sincerely doubt that is what he meant, but damn, man, pick your words better.
Ill change the topic...just a bit, at least from where it is and ask this----as I do not know and havent done any research. Is there any evidence....REAL evidence....that a woman is less likely to conceive during a rape? And if not, does anyone believe it could be true (hormonally or the like within the body)?
No, absolutely not. There is no medical evidence whatsoever that a woman's body can prevent conception in a case of rape. That is 19th century thinking, and it has no basis in modern medicine.
JDH, there's at least some evidence for about anything. Have you read on this topic extensively? I haven't. But I sure don't see it as unreasonable. We sure do see stranger things than that prove true in nature all around us. Like lizards that can walk on the ceiling, and moray eels who have a second set of jaws down their throat that reach up and grab what their first set has latched onto and pull it in, and penguins setting on an egg on their feet on antarctic ice for months, and snakes that fly, and birds that land but once a year, and seahorses, and the astonishing life cycle of a botfly. Nature is chock full of marvelous stuff. Women are chock full of emotional triggers.
I wonder how persuasive any such evidence might be? It would be fascinating. It would help explain the prevalence of romantic love as a Darwinian advantage.
Or, we could just get all het up and close our minds.
I've seen a lot of fertility experts instucting their want-to-be mothers to do certain things to prepare their bodies (relax, use this position, etc) that would help them to conceive. I suppose the opposite would have the opposite result? Just a thought.
Ill change the topic...just a bit, at least from where it is and ask this----as I do not know and havent done any research. Is there any evidence....REAL evidence....that a woman is less likely to conceive during a rape? And if not, does anyone believe it could be true (hormonally or the like within the body)?
What would the purpose be of such a debate? Any current 'evidence' would be anecdotal or severely limited by retrospective review and flaws due to lack of study design.
In other words, in order to have REAL, accurate and reliable evidence of such a query as yours a researcher would have to perform a prospective review with two groups of women. Rape one group of women and have consensual sex with the other group of women. Then to follow proper study design there would have to be a washout phase, lets say 1 year in this case and then crossover the groups where the consensual sex group is now raped and the original rape group has consensual sex. Of course this researcher could not follow a double blinded study design so even this evidence would be debatable. All this to see if there might be a percentage difference in conception rates in the 2 groups. What then? Since there is not any REAL human evidence that is reliable (unless the Nazi's did this study in WWII) any beliefs one way or the other would be theories and conjecture and those debating could circle-jerk each other to death before accomplishing anything.
Maybe you were trying to be absurd with your line of questioning since the whole topic is absurd to begin with.
Ill change the topic...just a bit, at least from where it is and ask this----as I do not know and havent done any research. Is there any evidence....REAL evidence....that a woman is less likely to conceive during a rape? And if not, does anyone believe it could be true (hormonally or the like within the body)?
What would the purpose be of such a debate? Any current 'evidence' would be anecdotal or severely limited by retrospective review and flaws due to lack of study design.
In other words, in order to have REAL, accurate and reliable evidence of such a query as yours a researcher would have to perform a prospective review with two groups of women. Rape one group of women and have consensual sex with the other group of women. Then to follow proper study design there would have to be a washout phase, lets say 1 year in this case and then crossover the groups where the consensual sex group is now raped and the original rape group has consensual sex. Of course this researcher could not follow a double blinded study design so even this evidence would be debatable. All this to see if there might be a percentage difference in conception rates in the 2 groups. What then? Since there is not any REAL human evidence that is reliable (unless the Nazi's did this study in WWII) any beliefs one way or the other would be theories and conjecture and those debating could circle-jerk each other to death before accomplishing anything.
Maybe you were trying to be absurd with your line of questioning since the whole topic is absurd to begin with.
We could also debate the validity of gravity, or the existence of atoms, or the Easter Bunny too.
Ill change the topic...just a bit, at least from where it is and ask this----as I do not know and havent done any research. Is there any evidence....REAL evidence....that a woman is less likely to conceive during a rape? And if not, does anyone believe it could be true (hormonally or the like within the body)?
What would the purpose be of such a debate? Any current 'evidence' would be anecdotal or severely limited by retrospective review and flaws due to lack of study design.
In other words, in order to have REAL, accurate and reliable evidence of such a query as yours a researcher would have to perform a prospective review with two groups of women. Rape one group of women and have consensual sex with the other group of women. Then to follow proper study design there would have to be a washout phase, lets say 1 year in this case and then crossover the groups where the consensual sex group is now raped and the original rape group has consensual sex. Of course this researcher could not follow a double blinded study design so even this evidence would be debatable. All this to see if there might be a percentage difference in conception rates in the 2 groups. What then? Since there is not any REAL human evidence that is reliable (unless the Nazi's did this study in WWII) any beliefs one way or the other would be theories and conjecture and those debating could circle-jerk each other to death before accomplishing anything.
Maybe you were trying to be absurd with your line of questioning since the whole topic is absurd to begin with.
Well I am sure there are stats somewhere of children convieved in rape, though I am not sure how reliable they would be. I am also very aware of proper tests and measurements and how to run a good experiment, thank you. As far as bringing a cirle jerk into the discussion and calling my questions absurd or the topic absurd, I am sorry you feel this way I am not attacking you nor forcing you to participate.
Ill change the topic...just a bit, at least from where it is and ask this----as I do not know and havent done any research. Is there any evidence....REAL evidence....that a woman is less likely to conceive during a rape? And if not, does anyone believe it could be true (hormonally or the like within the body)?
What would the purpose be of such a debate? Any current 'evidence' would be anecdotal or severely limited by retrospective review and flaws due to lack of study design.
In other words, in order to have REAL, accurate and reliable evidence of such a query as yours a researcher would have to perform a prospective review with two groups of women. Rape one group of women and have consensual sex with the other group of women. Then to follow proper study design there would have to be a washout phase, lets say 1 year in this case and then crossover the groups where the consensual sex group is now raped and the original rape group has consensual sex. Of course this researcher could not follow a double blinded study design so even this evidence would be debatable. All this to see if there might be a percentage difference in conception rates in the 2 groups. What then? Since there is not any REAL human evidence that is reliable (unless the Nazi's did this study in WWII) any beliefs one way or the other would be theories and conjecture and those debating could circle-jerk each other to death before accomplishing anything.
Maybe you were trying to be absurd with your line of questioning since the whole topic is absurd to begin with.
Well I am sure there are stats somewhere of children convieved in rape, though I am not sure how reliable they would be. I am also very aware of proper tests and measurements and how to run a good experiment, thank you. As far as bringing a cirle jerk into the discussion and calling my questions absurd or the topic absurd, I am sorry you feel this way I am not attacking you nor forcing you to participate.
When Berlin fell, and the Russians took the city, there were one hell of a lot of
Russian/German children born as a result of the rapes of the civilian population.
There is no medical basis for this fairy tale that "she can shut that whole thing down".
Ill change the topic...just a bit, at least from where it is and ask this----as I do not know and havent done any research. Is there any evidence....REAL evidence....that a woman is less likely to conceive during a rape? And if not, does anyone believe it could be true (hormonally or the like within the body)?
What would the purpose be of such a debate? Any current 'evidence' would be anecdotal or severely limited by retrospective review and flaws due to lack of study design.
In other words, in order to have REAL, accurate and reliable evidence of such a query as yours a researcher would have to perform a prospective review with two groups of women. Rape one group of women and have consensual sex with the other group of women. Then to follow proper study design there would have to be a washout phase, lets say 1 year in this case and then crossover the groups where the consensual sex group is now raped and the original rape group has consensual sex. Of course this researcher could not follow a double blinded study design so even this evidence would be debatable. All this to see if there might be a percentage difference in conception rates in the 2 groups. What then? Since there is not any REAL human evidence that is reliable (unless the Nazi's did this study in WWII) any beliefs one way or the other would be theories and conjecture and those debating could circle-jerk each other to death before accomplishing anything.
Maybe you were trying to be absurd with your line of questioning since the whole topic is absurd to begin with.
Well I am sure there are stats somewhere of children convieved in rape, though I am not sure how reliable they would be. I am also very aware of proper tests and measurements and how to run a good experiment, thank you. As far as bringing a cirle jerk into the discussion and calling my questions absurd or the topic absurd, I am sorry you feel this way I am not attacking you nor forcing you to participate.
Yep, I chose to participate, I didn't mean for it to sound like I was attacking you personally and unfortunately, I don't see that the questions can be answered with anything but theory or conjecture, no real evidence. The stats that you are talking about of children conceived in rape would have the limitations noted... retrospective and lacking proper study design. They wouldn't be able to answer the question. I guess I need to ask, did someone really say something to the effect that if a women gets pregnant from it then it really wasn't rape? Cuz yeah, if that's what we are talking about then I do think it is absurd.
Sorry roberto if I came at you hard, sometimes wording here sounds different than we intend---I apologize. And yes, to answer your question, a politiican from Missouri made the statement or at least the allusion that if a woman gets pregnant it wasnt really rape because a womans body doesnt allow it.
No worries Vulchor, I didn't take it that you were coming at me hard. Simply challenging my post which is ok with me. Clearly, I could have done better with my wording. It is difficult in the format of this forum to get things across the way we intend but if we are too afraid to ask for clarification we will be ruled by the illusion of our assumptions.
It's pretty scary who we have as our elected officials these days.
The chances of someone getting a grant to actually conduct impartial research hover somewhere between yeah right and are you even kiddin me. Universities lean left. It would be like trying to research gay bowel syndrome, or trying to explain the physiology of why one race scores fifteen points lower IQs than any other race. Some things are strictly taboo even for science. Now more than ever. The difficulty of devising an impartial measure are formidable, but the difficulty of overcoming leftist bigotry are even greater.
The chances of someone getting a grant to actually conduct impartial research hover somewhere between yeah right and are you even kiddin me. Universities lean left. It would be like trying to research gay bowel syndrome, or trying to explain the physiology of why one race scores fifteen points lower IQs than any other race. Some things are strictly taboo even for science. Now more than ever. The difficulty of devising an impartial measure are formidable, but the difficulty of overcoming leftist bigotry are even greater.
Isn't that right, JDH?
Uh, what? You are saying the MAIN thing stopping scientists from raping women is the leftist agenda?... Things I never thought I would say, "Thank you liberals for protecting us from evil scientists."
Web - I would advise that the American Congress of Obstretricians and Gynecologists can provide you with the data you are looking for regarding "legitimate rape". I would add that scientific research is based on the scientific method, not religious dogma or political ideology.
As for a response to your straw man arguments about racial inferiority (and therefore racial superiority) and "leftist bigotry" that prevents legitimate research- fugitaboutit - there's only one race; the human race, and we're all equal in the eyes of God.
Web - I would advise that the American Congress of Obstretricians and Gynecologists can provide you with the data you are looking for regarding "legitimate rape". I would add that scientific research is based on the scientific method, not religious dogma or political ideology.
As for a response to your straw man arguments about racial inferiority (and therefore racial superiority) and "leftist bigotry" that prevents legitimate research- fugitaboutit - there's only one race; the human race, and we're all equal in the eyes of God.
I do not pretend to speak for God. I do maintain that difference does imply inferiority. Let me repeat that, as it is an unfamiliar concept to most: Difference is not inferiority. We may all be created equal, but we are obviously not all created the same. Some are taller, some nimbler, some more organized, other more spontaneous, some more martial, some more hairy, and so forth.
I only mean to say that there are avenues of inquiry concerning our differences which denied us because dogma must remain unquestioned.
Web - I would advise that the American Congress of Obstretricians and Gynecologists can provide you with the data you are looking for regarding "legitimate rape". I would add that scientific research is based on the scientific method, not religious dogma or political ideology.
As for a response to your straw man arguments about racial inferiority (and therefore racial superiority) and "leftist bigotry" that prevents legitimate research- fugitaboutit - there's only one race; the human race, and we're all equal in the eyes of God.
I do not pretend to speak for God. I do maintain that difference does imply inferiority. Let me repeat that, as it is an unfamiliar concept to most: Difference is not inferiority. We may all be created equal, but we are obviously not all created the same. Some are taller, some nimbler, some more organized, other more spontaneous, some more martial, some more hairy, and so forth.
I only mean to say that there are avenues of inquiry concerning our differences which denied us because dogma must remain unquestioned.
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
-Barry Goldwater
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
-Barry Goldwater
He was right on the money. The prospect of a theocracy is more of a possibility now than it ever has been, I think.
Comments
For some reason, I think our wives would get along. She says the same about me.
i guess that's what happens when I browse the other threads for a couple hours, LOL.)
carry on
I wonder how persuasive any such evidence might be? It would be fascinating. It would help explain the prevalence of romantic love as a Darwinian advantage.
Or, we could just get all het up and close our minds.
In other words, in order to have REAL, accurate and reliable evidence of such a query as yours a researcher would have to perform a prospective review with two groups of women. Rape one group of women and have consensual sex with the other group of women. Then to follow proper study design there would have to be a washout phase, lets say 1 year in this case and then crossover the groups where the consensual sex group is now raped and the original rape group has consensual sex. Of course this researcher could not follow a double blinded study design so even this evidence would be debatable. All this to see if there might be a percentage difference in conception rates in the 2 groups. What then? Since there is not any REAL human evidence that is reliable (unless the Nazi's did this study in WWII) any beliefs one way or the other would be theories and conjecture and those debating could circle-jerk each other to death before accomplishing anything.
Maybe you were trying to be absurd with your line of questioning since the whole topic is absurd to begin with.
There is no medical basis for this fairy tale that "she can shut that whole thing down".
It's pretty scary who we have as our elected officials these days.
Isn't that right, JDH?
As for a response to your straw man arguments about racial inferiority (and therefore racial superiority) and "leftist bigotry" that prevents legitimate research- fugitaboutit - there's only one race; the human race, and we're all equal in the eyes of God.
I only mean to say that there are avenues of inquiry concerning our differences which denied us because dogma must remain unquestioned.
I myself am proud to be a mongrel.
-Barry Goldwater