Republican Senate Nominee: Victims Of ‘Legitimate Rape’ Don’t Get Pregnant

If we're going to segue into fathers rights in abortion - there's a thread for that.

Hard to connect those dots here with the words "legitimate rape" in the thread title.

~Heff

I've trouble getting past the word "legitimate" myself.

I'm fairly certain, though not completely, that he misspoke. Given the tone of the "apologies", his handlers probably had conniptions, and/or heart failure.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
How much we value life and when we think life begins varies from individual to individual. We can't come up with a universal values system that will serve everyone. How much do you value a spider's life? Many people just kill them, but some people wouldn't ever THINK if killing them. The government shouldn't be dictating our values.

I believe life begins at conception, therefor I wouldn't have an abortion (even in the case of rape), unless it threatened my health. But I want that choice for myself and I believe every woman should have it.

I'm not sure opinion really matters if the issue can be scientifically proven. I can walk around saying the sky is red all day but it doesn't make it fact. As I said though, in every primate on the planet a heart beat is required for life. I think that would be a good place to start, but I'm by no means a scientist or doctor.

So, if I put a piece of chicken on the counter and don't wash it carefully, and as a result, I get salmonella, I should just buck up and get through it without medical help to kill it in my body? I made my bed by not being careful enough, so ... my tough luck?

I think there's a difference between bacterial and intelligent life and one should be considered of higher value over the other. People have no problem hunting deer, but hunting a dolphin would be considered wrong.

That's an entirely different subject. We're already off topic and I won't wander farther away.

Suffice it to say, I support the male having the choice to get out of parental obligations when a pregnancy results from his actions.

But it is a couple's right to murder?

I absolutely do not agree with late term abortion, but I think that if the choice does need to be made, it should be made by both involved and not one or the other. Consider this, what if the woman wanted the child and the man did not? It would not be acceptable for the male to force the woman to abort the child would it? But if the man actually wants to raise their kid it's basically tough luck.

I want equality on the issue. I don't like the hypocrisy and I think that's my main issue here. If we truly want an equal society between men and women, then men need to have rights aswell.

reply to post by Lannister


I was responding to your criteria regarding the definition of when my rights should kick in. What I choose to do or not do in fact is irrelevant to a discussion of my right to be able to do it.

reply to post by Lannister


It comes down to the fact that it's her body, not his. The final choice should always remain with her. If the woman is a minor, than it gets a bit more muddled with parental involvement... But for adults? It's clear as cut crystal, the woman's right to choose supersedes all others. As it should.

In a perfect world, the decision would be made by the couple...but perfection rarely obtains in this world.

reply to post by Lannister

Originally posted by Lannister
I'm not sure opinion really matters if the issue can be scientifically proven.

I think there's a difference between bacterial and intelligent life and one should be considered of higher value over the other.

I think that if the choice does need to be made, it should be made by both involved and not one or the other.

I'm not sure opinion really matters if the issue can be scientifically proven.

Don't get me wrong. I respect your right to your opinion. But if my opinions don't matter, then neither do yours.

Originally posted by seagull


I'm fairly certain, though not completely, that he misspoke.

Come on. He obviously said what he believed and something he's no doubt said before to more contained audiences only this time he got caught spewing scientific nonsense on the national stage as a candidate for the U.S. Senate during a presidential campaign. By "misspoke" he really means he wishes he hadn't said that out loud.

At this level of politics there's no "do overs" for this degree of faux pas. This is like a dem saying something like "What's wrong with Sharia law for the U.S. anyway?"

THe problem is because he is using his opinion and applying to others who do not share that opinion. He can have the opinion, not matter how wrong it is, but to apply it as a politician to all his constituants is wrong.

Your rights can not infringe on others. Period.

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Lannister

 

It comes down to the fact that it's her body, not his. The final choice should always remain with her. If the woman is a minor, than it gets a bit more muddled with parental involvement... But for adults? It's clear as cut crystal, the woman's right to choose supersedes all others. As it should.

In a perfect world, the decision would be made by the couple...but perfection rarely obtains in this world.

The child in question is NOT part of her body.
The child in question was not placed in her body by her own doing.
She does not OWN the child.

Regardless of that, we as a society want equality, yet in every case the scale is tipped in the favore of the female. Look up the statistics on the percentage of custody cases awared to the mother. Women are not born with the right to murder their child, but I'll make a deal with you:

She can abort whatever she wants, but don't call me a dead beat dad when I choose to shrug the same responsibility. Don't throw me in prison when I miss the child support payment. Equality. Does that sound equal to you? After all, sitting in a cage for 18 years because I was forced to have a child I did not want could be detrimental to my health.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Don't straw man me.

Originally posted by Lannister
As I said though, in every primate on the planet a heart beat is required for life. I think that would be a good place to start, but I'm by no means a scientist or doctor.

It's hardly that simple. Is every primate with a heartbeat on the planet afforded full rights as an autonomous sentient being? How about all the other fully developed mammals with heartbeats that we regularly kill?

Additionally, you need MORE than just a heartbeat to be considered alive. Humans with heartbeats are taken off life support and allowed to die everyday.

It seems to me that a more logical starting point would be when the fetus becomes capable of surviving independently of the mother without massive medical intervention though this would be fraught with moral ambiguities as well.

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by Lannister
As I said though, in every primate on the planet a heart beat is required for life. I think that would be a good place to start, but I'm by no means a scientist or doctor.

It's hardly that simple. Is every primate with a heartbeat on the planet afforded full rights as an autonomous sentient being? How about all the other fully developed mammals with heartbeats that we regularly kill?

Additionally, you need MORE than just a heartbeat to be considered alive. Humans with heartbeats are taken off life support and allowed to die everyday.

It seems to me that a more logical starting point would be when the fetus becomes capable of surviving independently of the mother without massive medical intervention though this would be fraught with moral ambiguities as well.

I could be wrong, but doesn't the doctor need permission to remove life support?

Originally posted by Lannister

I could be wrong, but doesn't the doctor need permission to remove life support?

Permission from who? The family? The same way a woman with a fetus with a beating heart gives permission to a doctor to abort?

My point was simply that a beating heart is not the sole criterion for viable human life. Humans with beating hearts are left to die all the time and there is rarely the question of a moral dilemma.

Ah yes, you see that temple of mysticism known as the female body has ways of dealing with legitimate rape. Not so good with the illlegitimate rape though.

I'm guessing illegitimate rape would be when you screamed "No" as a deeply "ironic" metaphor for " YES Please, beat me up, shred my clothes, sexually abuse me and if you're not in too much of a hurry, maybe stab me a few times with a hunting knife".................... you dirty slut, well now of course you're going to be pregnant. You invited it on yourself by dressing provocatively or being generally attractive in some slutty way.And you probably didn't even bring condoms.

Nice girls don't need abortions because they get raped properly, probably by an ethnic minority or a socialist or some one from the working classes.Once their uterus detects such foul seed, the roller shutters come down on the fallopian tubes and it's a no show.

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by Lannister

I could be wrong, but doesn't the doctor need permission to remove life support?

Permission from who? The family? The same way a woman with a fetus with a beating heart gives permission to a doctor to abort?

My point was simply that a beating heart is not the sole criterion for viable human life. Humans with beating hearts are left to die all the time and there is rarely the question of a moral dilemma.

Is the man on life support still considered human? Is he still a member of our species? The original question was asking when does human life begin. To say that a fetus isn't human until it can survive on it's own would basically be saying that abortion is acceptable until the age of what? 13?

reply to post by blah yada


Agreed!

Akin has now apologized and said he meant "forcible" rape, not "legitimate" rape. An unfortunate choice of words

1. Rape is rape. It's ALWAYS forced. That's what rape is. If the victim is willing, it's not rape.
2. Where's his apology for his lack of basic biological knowledge? Where's his mea culpa for being stupid enough to think that women have built-in powers for "shutting down" conception?

Originally posted by Lannister
The child in question is NOT part of her body.
The child in question was not placed in her body by her own doing.
She does not OWN the child.

That is right it is a parasite however and as such she has the right to rid herself of it like any other parasite.
No it may not have been but is in her body nonetheless, if it were a parasite in your body you could get rid of it too.
Maybe, maybe not but she does own the house it is squatting in, it is her right to evict the squatter.

Regardless of that, we as a society want equality, yet in every case the scale is tipped in the favore of the female. Look up the statistics on the percentage of custody cases awared to the mother. Women are not born with the right to murder their child, but I'll make a deal with you:

She can abort whatever she wants, but don't call me a dead beat dad when I choose to shrug the same responsibility. Don't throw me in prison when I miss the child support payment. Equality. Does that sound equal to you? After all, sitting in a cage for 18 years because I was forced to have a child I did not want could be detrimental to my health.

You don't want equality, you want a free pass to do whatever you want. You want equality it would be more along the lines of:

If you get an abortion without having been the victim of rape, incest or your life was at risk you get sterilized. If you impregnate a woman and refuse to accept responsibility for that child you are sterilized. Because really if you were born after 1970 and didn't know and understand how birth control works and aren't using it you are too stupid to be having sex to begin with. That would be a measure of equality.

As it currently stands it is simple. Don't want to support children you do not want then quit sticking your penis in places that you don't want it to spend a lifetime visiting.

Originally posted by Lannister
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Don't straw man me.

It's funny, the other day someone strawmanned me, then denied it, then denied I knew what it meant, then denied they knew what it meant, until I posted the meaning of logical fallacies with the definition of strawman. They said they only strawmanned once. They love to strawman because they have no logic to defend their statements.

Originally posted by Lannister

Is the man on life support still considered human? Is he still a member of our species?

Good point. I'd say he's human, a member of our species and incapable of surviving despite having a beating heart. And the social and moral consensus is that it's all right to let him die under those circumstances. So, a beating heart by itself is not sufficient criterion to determine viable human life.

Originally posted by Lannister
To say that a fetus isn't human until it can survive on it's own would basically be saying that abortion is acceptable until the age of what? 13?

Bit of a straw man there, don't you think? As you said, the question was when does human life begin. Certainly not at 13. But if we're going that way , this, of course, brings up the question of who is responsible for the hypothetical human life in question at the other age extreme. Does the government then intervene to assure all the human rights of the fetus/human being that the mother would not have otherwise chosen to carry to term? Does the government intervene to make sure the mother is eating right and providing the appropriate nourishment for the fetus/human being that is not able to eat on its own? Since any fertile female might unknowingly have an implanted fertilized egg is the government responsible for enforcing the diet and behavior of all women of child bearing age who might be risking the life of another human inside them? Etc.

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by neformore

 

If this guy really stated something as stupid as this, then he is officially the BIGGEST idiot I have ever heard of being allowed into a position of authority in the United States!

Maybe we should start making people take an I.Q. test before running for public office.

Yeh I guess it's as wild a statement as "it's just a bunch of cells" or "it''s just a lining of the uterus". I wonder how many of us would consider removing a lining in our stomach....

or how about this one.. "The fetus is really just a parasite and not a human being."

Anna met, first, with a nurse for a “consent interview.” She said, “The nurse told me that at this stage of the pregnancy the fetus is just a bunch of cells.

winteryknight.wordpress.com...

that particular example was at 9 weeks at which the "bunch of cells" has a beating heart.