If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   GOP Rep Trent Franks: "The incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low." Sounds legitimate   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 108
    More: Asinine, humans, The Arizona Republic, House Judiciary, Equal Pay Act, St. Louis Public Radio, Paycheck Fairness Act, Jerry Nadler, obstetrics  
•       •       •

854 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jun 2013 at 8:12 AM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-13 08:15:16 AM
third-wave.org
 
2013-06-13 08:17:09 AM
Oh fark you. Women are more likely to get pregnant from a rape since the vaginal trauma makes it more likely for a fertilized egg to implant.
/Of course I'm using big words that would just make him scream liberal at me.
 
2013-06-13 08:17:24 AM
Is this an inaccurate statement?
 
2013-06-13 08:18:29 AM
He could very well be right about that fact, but it's a stupid basis for his position. What the hell does the incidence rate have to do with anything?
 
2013-06-13 08:21:09 AM

randomjsa: Is this an inaccurate statement?


See my above post.
 
2013-06-13 08:21:53 AM
Another GOP politician that doesn't want to be re-elected, I see.
 
2013-06-13 08:22:03 AM
The incidence rate of people killing someone who's attempting to murder them is low, so there shouldn't be an exemption for that.
 
2013-06-13 08:22:52 AM

RussianPooper: He could very well be right about that fact, but it's a stupid basis for his position. What the hell does the incidence rate have to do with anything?


Well it would only be a few women that are forced to carry their rapist's baby. So it's basically no big deal.
 
2013-06-13 08:25:16 AM
I would guess it is lower than the incidence from mutually consensual sex.

Mainly because science says women are hornier when they are fertile, so this would probably make it more likely that they are having consensual sex at that time.  Where as rapes would happen at a random time in their cycle.

The source of all of this information is a vaguely recalled article and my ass.
 
2013-06-13 08:25:29 AM

randomjsa: Is this an inaccurate statement?


Simple answers, yes.
 
2013-06-13 08:25:46 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-13 08:26:21 AM

randomjsa: Is this an inaccurate statement?


Are you really asking that question? Even after all the threads we had about Todd Akins on this very subject?

Oh who am I kidding, of course you are.

/shouldn't feed the trolls
 
2013-06-13 08:26:29 AM

RussianPooper: He could very well be right about that fact, but it's a stupid basis for his position. What the hell does the incidence rate have to do with anything?


Exactly.  If this is true, then allowing the victims of rape the ability to control whether or not they go through the additional trauma of a 9 month pregnancy and prevent the government from forcing her to give birth to her rapist's baby should be even more of a no brainer, since it would occur "so rarely."

As for the "fact" that rape rarely results in pregnancy, you'd also have to look into how often pregnancies due to rape are prevented by the use of emergency doses of birth control which are given at the time rape kits are taken.  Birth control which many evangelicals would like to see outlawed.
 
2013-06-13 08:28:17 AM

MmmmBacon: Another GOP politician that doesn't want to be re-elected, I see.


It isn't the getting re-elected that's the issue.  Mostly it's that it, once again, confirms the status of the party when it comes to being wholly ignorant about a potential 50% of the voters.

I gotta wonder if the DNC offices are just closing early on Friday and they're going to play mini-golf and have a few rounds when things like this happen.
 
2013-06-13 08:28:32 AM

hobberwickey: randomjsa: Is this an inaccurate statement?

Simple answers, yes.


Simple answer, irrelevant. Arguing if the statement is true or not just gets on a tangent from the main point. His premise, true or not, does not support his conclusion.
 
2013-06-13 08:28:57 AM
I think the whole "rape exception" argument is beyond stupid.  Either you are allowed to abort or not.  Just because you don't like the father shouldn't change one thing about however you view an embryo and its relevance to the abortion question.  If it does you are a hypocrite.

The entire argument is ridiculous.
 
2013-06-13 08:31:33 AM

thatboyoverthere: Oh fark you. Women are more likely to get pregnant from a rape since the vaginal trauma makes it more likely for a fertilized egg to implant.
/Of course I'm using big words that would just make him scream liberal at me.


He didnt say that women who get raped are less likely to get pregnant. He said the incident of pregnancy resulting from a rape is low. There is a big difference there. I dont have the numbers so I have no idea how accurate of a statement it was, but youre just reading what you want to read with no regard to what was actually said.
 
2013-06-13 08:31:45 AM

Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 850x322]


I take issue with Paul Ryan being "defeated."  He kinda got brought along by Romney to sew up a major credibility issue he had.  It took the GOP so long to fall in line and even then they weren't wild about the decisions.

Once he isn't holding public office in D.C. then I would say he deserves the designation.  But he was just along for the ride.
 
2013-06-13 08:32:05 AM
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-13 08:32:27 AM

Slam Dunkz: I think the whole "rape exception" argument is beyond stupid.  Either you are allowed to abort or not.  Just because you don't like the father shouldn't change one thing about however you view an embryo and its relevance to the abortion question.  If it does you are a hypocrite.

The entire argument is ridiculous.


I can see why we might let someone avoid turning a single trauma into a nine month trauma.
 
2013-06-13 08:32:51 AM
What peer reviewed study is his opinion based on?

FTFA: "Like Akin's, Franks's claim is not supported by research. Medical experts agree that rape does not lower the incidence of pregnancy, and one study by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that more than 30,000 pregnancies result from rape in the United States each year."

well, 30,000 is a pretty low number...
 
2013-06-13 08:34:21 AM

I alone am best: thatboyoverthere: Oh fark you. Women are more likely to get pregnant from a rape since the vaginal trauma makes it more likely for a fertilized egg to implant.
/Of course I'm using big words that would just make him scream liberal at me.

He didnt say that women who get raped are less likely to get pregnant. He said the incident of pregnancy resulting from a rape is low. There is a big difference there. I dont have the numbers so I have no idea how accurate of a statement it was, but youre just reading what you want to read with no regard to what was actually said.


I would also guess the incidence of pregnancy from unprotected consensual sex is also low.  Some couples couples try for months and months.
 
2013-06-13 08:34:55 AM

Skarekrough: MmmmBacon: Another GOP politician that doesn't want to be re-elected, I see.

It isn't the getting re-elected that's the issue.  Mostly it's that it, once again, confirms the status of the party when it comes to being wholly ignorant about a potential 50% of the voters.

I gotta wonder if the DNC offices are just closing early on Friday and they're going to play mini-golf and have a few rounds when things like this happen.


I get that, but you would think the GOP would be extra-sensitive to statements like this, knowing it cost them many key races in 2012, and that the DNC will use these statements as a bludgeon every chance they can in 2014 and beyond. Any politician who would make such a foolhardy mistake is either deliberately trying to tank their own chances for re-election or too stupid to tie their own shoes.
 
2013-06-13 08:36:25 AM
You know what I find amazing?  It's not that he thinks how many women would have to carry their rapists baby to term makes a difference on whether ANY should be forced to.

No, what I can't fathom is why the National Republican Congressional Committee hasn't gone around to every Republican congressman, Senator, and candidate and waterboarded them until they develop a psychological block against saying the word 'rape' - in any context.

NRCC: Trent.  Say 'rape'.
Rep: It's a crime to rape.
NRCC: Douse him boys.
...
NRCC: Trent.  Say 'rape'.
Rep: .... potato?
NRCC: That's a good boy.  Have a cookie.
 
2013-06-13 08:37:52 AM
I honestly believe these people don't actually want bans on abortion because it would take away that arguing chip that makes them look like big men to their idiot supporters.

For all the taxpayer dollars wasted on bringing these proposals forward over the years, each state could receive small coffers to establish pregnancy resource centers. The one in my former town of Clearwater was self-reliant in 4 years - using thrift store sales and local donations to keep going.

They do a far better (and far more compassionate) job at reducing abortion numbers than these ridiculous proposals and slut-shaming could hope to do.

If legislators truly cared about life, they would work in that direction. They don't. They care about getting reelected.

Very sad.
 
2013-06-13 08:39:48 AM
www.contractortalk.com
 
2013-06-13 08:39:59 AM

thatboyoverthere: Oh fark you. Women are more likely to get pregnant from a rape since the vaginal trauma makes it more likely for a fertilized egg to implant.
/Of course I'm using big words that would just make him scream liberal at me.


I'm no doctor, but how is it easier for a fertilized egg to implant itself within the uterus when the vagina has all the trauma?

/legit question, I don't understand how that would work.
 
2013-06-13 08:40:12 AM

EvilEgg: Slam Dunkz: I think the whole "rape exception" argument is beyond stupid.  Either you are allowed to abort or not.  Just because you don't like the father shouldn't change one thing about however you view an embryo and its relevance to the abortion question.  If it does you are a hypocrite.

The entire argument is ridiculous.

I can see why we might let someone avoid turning a single trauma into a nine month trauma.


If you're pro-choice it's a moot point.  The whole "rape exception" thing is used in cases where people think abortion is wrong and they are providing an exception for rape/incest.  If you think abortion is wrong because it's a life and should be allowed to live, even in cases of rape/incest it's *still* a life.  That doesn't change.  That's where the hypocrisy comes in.
 
2013-06-13 08:40:19 AM

randomjsa: Is this an inaccurate statement?


Since you're too malicious to care that he's minimizing rape victims you could at least try being smart enough to care that the only reason you had to ask that question is because he didn't back up the claim with any facts.

/ haha... facts and randomjsa... funny joke....
 
2013-06-13 08:40:21 AM

thatboyoverthere: Oh fark you. Women are more likely to get pregnant from a rape since the vaginal trauma makes it more likely for a fertilized egg to implant.
/Of course I'm using big words that would just make him scream liberal at me.


And it's a fact that per encounter male potency is higher for a first/single encounter than in a long term relationship (look up the concept of "sperm warfare") so even without the trauma factor a rape is more likely to lead to pregnancy than if the woman slept with a long-term partner.

It's true that rape doesn't usually lead to pregnancy, but that's just because the likelihood of any single sexual encounter leading to a successful birth is very low. Considering there are ~200,000 sexual assaults in this country every year, trying to say "it's more likely you won't get pregnant than you will from a rape!" doesn't mean that pregnancy from rape is a non-issue.
 
2013-06-13 08:42:43 AM

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: thatboyoverthere: Oh fark you. Women are more likely to get pregnant from a rape since the vaginal trauma makes it more likely for a fertilized egg to implant.
/Of course I'm using big words that would just make him scream liberal at me.

I'm no doctor, but how is it easier for a fertilized egg to implant itself within the uterus when the vagina has all the trauma?

/legit question, I don't understand how that would work.


It doesn't.  This is someone parroting bullshiat they read somewhere.  The research showed no discernible effect on pregnancy rates due to rape.
 
2013-06-13 08:45:15 AM

Grungehamster: It's true that rape doesn't usually lead to pregnancy, but that's just because the likelihood of any single sexual encounter leading to a successful birth is very low. Considering there are ~200,000 sexual assaults in this country every year, trying to say "it's more likely you won't get pregnant than you will from a rape!" doesn't mean that pregnancy from rape is a non-issue.


tl;dr: it's at least no lower than any consensual sexual encounter and that number is non-zero.

Conclusion: Rep. Trent Franks is provably ignorant, possibly stupid and likely a misogynist.
 
2013-06-13 08:45:49 AM
The pro-rape party speaks again.
 
2013-06-13 08:45:52 AM

RyogaM: RussianPooper: He could very well be right about that fact, but it's a stupid basis for his position. What the hell does the incidence rate have to do with anything?

Exactly.  If this is true, then allowing the victims of rape the ability to control whether or not they go through the additional trauma of a 9 month pregnancy and prevent the government from forcing her to give birth to her rapist's baby should be even more of a no brainer, since it would occur "so rarely."

As for the "fact" that rape rarely results in pregnancy, you'd also have to look into how often pregnancies due to rape are prevented by the use of emergency doses of birth control which are given at the time rape kits are taken.  Birth control which many evangelicals would like to see outlawed.


You miss that the point they want to make is that they want people to believe pregnancy is evidence of consensual sex and as a result women claiming they need an abortion as a result of being raped are probably lying to try to justify their poor decisions.

Because as we all know, the problem with rape is that women are far too prone to reporting it when it doesn't happen, am I right?
 
2013-06-13 08:46:53 AM

phenn: I honestly believe these people don't actually want bans on abortion because it would take away that arguing chip that makes them look like big men to their idiot supporters.

For all the taxpayer dollars wasted on bringing these proposals forward over the years, each state could receive small coffers to establish pregnancy resource centers. The one in my former town of Clearwater was self-reliant in 4 years - using thrift store sales and local donations to keep going.

They do a far better (and far more compassionate) job at reducing abortion numbers than these ridiculous proposals and slut-shaming could hope to do.

If legislators truly cared about life, they would work in that direction. They don't. They care about getting reelected.

Very sad.


That would be believable if there hadn't already been a lot of Republican led state legislatures that have passed, or are trying to pass, legislation to make getting an abortion harder or impossible.  Look at the states that have passed mandatory ultrasounds, 2-3 day waiting periods, and laws specifically created to target women's health clinics that MAY provide abortion services.

No, I think they want it to happen, but there are still some people with a shred of sense that are trying their damnedest to stop them.
 
2013-06-13 08:50:03 AM
I didn't see in the article where Trent went to medical school. He is a doctor? Right?
 
2013-06-13 08:52:50 AM
What he said was not what he meant, and how dare you criticize what he meant based on what he said. So what he said is clearly valid because of what he meant. Liberals just can't stand someone who stays consistent on what they say, err meant to say. Look, it's all about what our morals mean not what we say. So ha!
 
2013-06-13 08:53:53 AM

phenn: For all the taxpayer dollars wasted on bringing these proposals forward over the years, each state could receive small coffers to establish pregnancy resource centers. The one in my former town of Clearwater was self-reliant in 4 years - using thrift store sales and local donations to keep going.


I've come to believe that the real reason they push these sorts of things is that they want to punish what they perceive to be "immoral" women.

I think these idiots and their supporters earnestly believe that women are raped because either:

a) They don't have a man around to protect them or
b) They "dress like sluts" and engage in activities that make them "deserving" of rape

I honestly don't believe people like Franks see rape victims as victims. I think they see rape victims as women who got what was coming to them and that now they're just looking to further destroy "moral fabric" by killing a "child".

I don't believe these.... things.... like Franks, see women as equals and they're taking their frustrations over modern views of a woman's place in society out by pushing this sort of malicious legislation. I think they believe women should be subservient to men in all facets of life and they're quietly boiling with rage that their troglodyte views on the matter are dying.

The GOP simply hates any woman who doesn't fit into their bullshiat views of the picturesque 1950s America that never actually existed anywhere but their own twisted brains.
 
2013-06-13 08:54:58 AM

EvilEgg: I would guess it is lower than the incidence from mutually consensual sex.

Mainly because science says women are hornier when they are fertile, so this would probably make it more likely that they are having consensual sex at that time.  Where as rapes would happen at a random time in their cycle.

The source of all of this information is a vaguely recalled article and my ass.


This is exactly how the GOP spreads it's message, by starting with something completely inaccurate, and having enough idiots repeat it until people who can't be bothered to actually research what they're saying (and why would they research something so stupid) start to try to figure out why so many people are saying this seemingly stupid thing. Our brains are very good at rationalizing things even when they don't make sense, so once people start to think about 'why are so many people saying this' they come up with some stupid reason why it could possibly be true and from there, as the lie is repeated over and over that 'possibly true' becomes 'I don't know' becomes 'the science is still out' becomes 'DERP THE GOVERNMENT IS KEEPING THIS FROM US DERP'.

Admittedly the science on this is a little tougher to dig up than on some other subjects since no one wants to talk about rape, but the science is out there and it's conclusive that there's no difference in chances of getting pregnant from being raped than from having consensual sex. Here's a great article on the actual science of it http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2012/08/20/ h ere-is-some-legitimate-science-on-pregnancy-and-rape/. Note the actual studies and real numbers.

Just for comparison's sake, here's a Christian "it doesn't happen that much" article.http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/rape-pregnancies -are-rar e-461. Note the numbers pulled almost entirely out of thin air. 

Basically the moral is that if you find yourself thinking, 'well I guess that could be true' take 20 minutes out of your day and look at the science behind this stuff and vote these idiots out of office.
 
2013-06-13 08:55:02 AM
I'm torn between PLEASE SHUT THE HELL UP FOR THE REST OF YOUR MISERABLE LIFE, and
"please proceed, keep pulling your party straight down the shiatter".

Just can't decide.
 
2013-06-13 08:55:07 AM

roadkillontheweb: I didn't see in the article where Trent went to medical school. He is a doctor? Right?


No, but he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once.
 
2013-06-13 08:57:04 AM

RussianPooper: hobberwickey: randomjsa: Is this an inaccurate statement?

Simple answers, yes.

Simple answer, irrelevant. Arguing if the statement is true or not just gets on a tangent from the main point. His premise, true or not, does not support his conclusion.


I disagree, holding elected officials to factually correct statements, especially on topics as important as this (can you imagine being forced to give birth to your rapists kid? I know I can't / don't want to) is never irrelevant. But yeah I agree that his premise doesn't support his conclusion either way.
 
2013-06-13 09:01:58 AM
Sure if your talking about two dudes.
 
2013-06-13 09:03:21 AM
Since about 10% of rapes are male on male, of course this true.
 
2013-06-13 09:03:25 AM

D135: What peer reviewed study is his opinion based on?

FTFA: "Like Akin's, Franks's claim is not supported by research. Medical experts agree that rape does not lower the incidence of pregnancy, and one study by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that more than 30,000 pregnancies result from rape in the United States each year."

well, 30,000 is a pretty low number...


Whoa, a GOP rep spouting off on a topic he knows nothing about?
I'm shocked......SHOCKED!
 
2013-06-13 09:08:37 AM

D135: What peer reviewed study is his opinion based on?

FTFA: "Like Akin's, Franks's claim is not supported by research. Medical experts agree that rape does not lower the incidence of pregnancy, and one study by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that more than 30,000 pregnancies result from rape in the United States each year."

well, 30,000 is a pretty low number...


Since the estimated occurance of sexual assaults is ~200,000 a year, that just means you have, what, a 15% chance of pregnancy resulting from rape? One in seven rapes ending in pregnancy means it's a non-issue!
 
2013-06-13 09:09:26 AM

MmmmBacon: Skarekrough: MmmmBacon: Another GOP politician that doesn't want to be re-elected, I see.

It isn't the getting re-elected that's the issue.  Mostly it's that it, once again, confirms the status of the party when it comes to being wholly ignorant about a potential 50% of the voters.

I gotta wonder if the DNC offices are just closing early on Friday and they're going to play mini-golf and have a few rounds when things like this happen.

I get that, but you would think the GOP would be extra-sensitive to statements like this, knowing it cost them many key races in 2012, and that the DNC will use these statements as a bludgeon every chance they can in 2014 and beyond. Any politician who would make such a foolhardy mistake is either deliberately trying to tank their own chances for re-election or too stupid to tie their own shoes.


The running theme for the GOP has largely been to not quash anything.

The first time the issue came up something from Reince should have gone out stating that anyone who uses the word "rape" in any context will no longer receive any funding ever again.  But it didn't.  And to make it worse their platform in 2012 confirmed what America collectively gasped in horror as to how they could be so ignorant about.
 
2013-06-13 09:20:32 AM
*Sigh*, yet another entry in the "You're not helping" column of the GOP...
 
2013-06-13 09:20:44 AM
RE:   randomjsa's post

Guys - thread dumps should be flushed.  Not played with in the bowl.
 
2013-06-13 09:21:27 AM

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: thatboyoverthere: Oh fark you. Women are more likely to get pregnant from a rape since the vaginal trauma makes it more likely for a fertilized egg to implant.
/Of course I'm using big words that would just make him scream liberal at me.

I'm no doctor, but how is it easier for a fertilized egg to implant itself within the uterus when the vagina has all the trauma?

/legit question, I don't understand how that would work.


From what I understand it's more surface area. Or it gets stuck into one of the microscopic tares in the uterine wall. Something like that. It's unlikely that only one time is able to fertizlie an egg properly but if it does get fertilized it's more likely to implant.
 
2013-06-13 09:27:53 AM
I guess he's technically right since a woman would have to be ovulating to get pregnant during a rape, and since rapes are more or less random occurances he's correct.  But it's such an obvious point that no politician in his right mind would even bring the subject up or use any language to "soften" the impact of a rape...

Oh, he's using it when trying to restrict abortion.  Sigh.  When will these guys ever learn?

Also, how in the hell do you consider a 20 week fetus to be a human being with all the civil and human rights owed to a human being and yet... legally, you think it's ok to kill them if there's a possibility of the mother coming to harm?  We don't summarily execute potential stalkers.  Why do this to what you consider to be a child?
 
2013-06-13 09:28:33 AM

hobberwickey: This is exactly how the GOP spreads it's message, by starting with something completely inaccurate, and having enough idiots repeat it until people who can't be bothered to actually research what they're saying (and why would they research something so stupid) start to try to figure out why so many people are saying this seemingly stupid thing.


I'd tend to disagree. Remember that the target audience for this drivel is primarily made up of authoritarian followers, who put full faith in whatever is said by their chosen and trusted authority figures. They won't research it because it a) confirms their worldview and beliefs, and b) is said by an "authority", and thus they believe it even more.
 
2013-06-13 09:29:39 AM

Slam Dunkz: I think the whole "rape exception" argument is beyond stupid.  Either you are allowed to abort or not.  Just because you don't like the father shouldn't change one thing about however you view an embryo and its relevance to the abortion question.  If it does you are a hypocrite.

The entire argument is ridiculous.


There's also the possibility that, when you make abortion illegal except in cases of rape and incest, it might encourage women who want abortions to falsely claim rape or incest.

Seriously, that could happen.
 
2013-06-13 09:33:05 AM
I assume the chance of pregnancy for any single act of sex to be low... so he is right. But I expect liberals to go full retard and link this guy to the taliban and such.
 
2013-06-13 09:34:50 AM

markfara: There's also the possibility that, when you make abortion illegal except in cases of rape and incest, it might encourage women who want abortions to falsely claim rape or incest.

Seriously, that could happen.


I guess the right thing to do would be just to allow elective abortion until 24 weeks or so and then keep exemptions for abortion due to medical emergency as a legal option to be decided by mom-to-be (or whoever makes medical decisions for her when she's not conscious) and doctor.
 
2013-06-13 09:35:08 AM

buckler: hobberwickey: This is exactly how the GOP spreads it's message, by starting with something completely inaccurate, and having enough idiots repeat it until people who can't be bothered to actually research what they're saying (and why would they research something so stupid) start to try to figure out why so many people are saying this seemingly stupid thing.

I'd tend to disagree. Remember that the target audience for this drivel is primarily made up of authoritarian followers, who put full faith in whatever is said by their chosen and trusted authority figures. They won't research it because it a) confirms their worldview and beliefs, and b) is said by an "authority", and thus they believe it even more.


I didn't say this is how the GOP convinces their followers. You're right they don't really have to do that. What I was describing was how their message disseminates through the larger culture of otherwise smart people. It's how we're always smelling their bullshiat.
 
2013-06-13 09:35:42 AM

MyRandomName: I assume the chance of pregnancy for any single act of sex to be low... so he is right. But I expect liberals to go full retard and link this guy to the taliban and such.


Well you'd be wrong.  So I'd be a bit more judicious in throwing around the retard label if I were you.
 
2013-06-13 09:36:37 AM

RussianPooper: He could very well be right about that fact, but it's a stupid basis for his position. What the hell does the incidence rate have to do with anything?


Do we really need laws to protect specifically against a rare incidence rate? What is the law om getting hit bya puano falling out a 4th story window in June?

The lawbooks are already big enough . How about a culling of the law to make it simpler again? No simgle person knows the entirety of the law anymore.
 
2013-06-13 09:38:40 AM

EvilEgg: Slam Dunkz: I think the whole "rape exception" argument is beyond stupid.  Either you are allowed to abort or not.  Just because you don't like the father shouldn't change one thing about however you view an embryo and its relevance to the abortion question.  If it does you are a hypocrite.

The entire argument is ridiculous.

I can see why we might let someone avoid turning a single trauma into a nine month trauma.


This bill allows the woman 5 months to decide. I so t get your ire. She can still abort her fetus.
 
2013-06-13 09:41:01 AM

hobberwickey: buckler: hobberwickey: This is exactly how the GOP spreads it's message, by starting with something completely inaccurate, and having enough idiots repeat it until people who can't be bothered to actually research what they're saying (and why would they research something so stupid) start to try to figure out why so many people are saying this seemingly stupid thing.

I'd tend to disagree. Remember that the target audience for this drivel is primarily made up of authoritarian followers, who put full faith in whatever is said by their chosen and trusted authority figures. They won't research it because it a) confirms their worldview and beliefs, and b) is said by an "authority", and thus they believe it even more.

I didn't say this is how the GOP convinces their followers. You're right they don't really have to do that. What I was describing was how their message disseminates through the larger culture of otherwise smart people. It's how we're always smelling their bullshiat.


Ah, I see. I'm still suffering from coffee deprivation. Carry on.
 
2013-06-13 09:42:57 AM

Slam Dunkz: Knight of the Woeful Countenance: thatboyoverthere: Oh fark you. Women are more likely to get pregnant from a rape since the vaginal trauma makes it more likely for a fertilized egg to implant.
/Of course I'm using big words that would just make him scream liberal at me.

I'm no doctor, but how is it easier for a fertilized egg to implant itself within the uterus when the vagina has all the trauma?

/legit question, I don't understand how that would work.

It doesn't.  This is someone parroting bullshiat they read somewhere.  The research showed no discernible effect on pregnancy rates due to rape.


He never said rape affected incidence rates.

Are liberals really this dumb? The bill is for abortion after 5 months. Do rape victims neef extra time to decide? Nobody is saying no abortions for rape victims. He didn't say rape doesn't cause pregnancy. Idiot liberals arr twisting both the law and what he said to make a stupid political point.
 
2013-06-13 09:47:03 AM

MyRandomName: Slam Dunkz: Knight of the Woeful Countenance: thatboyoverthere: Oh fark you. Women are more likely to get pregnant from a rape since the vaginal trauma makes it more likely for a fertilized egg to implant.
/Of course I'm using big words that would just make him scream liberal at me.

I'm no doctor, but how is it easier for a fertilized egg to implant itself within the uterus when the vagina has all the trauma?

/legit question, I don't understand how that would work.

It doesn't.  This is someone parroting bullshiat they read somewhere.  The research showed no discernible effect on pregnancy rates due to rape.

He never said rape affected incidence rates.

Are liberals really this dumb? The bill is for abortion after 5 months. Do rape victims neef extra time to decide? Nobody is saying no abortions for rape victims. He didn't say rape doesn't cause pregnancy. Idiot liberals arr twisting both the law and what he said to make a stupid political point.


5 months also may not be sufficient to determine fetal viability (regardless of the means of conception).  This bill would require women to carry non-viable fetuses to term.
 
2013-06-13 09:47:36 AM
I'm sorry but I was kinda distracted by the term "Sperm Warfare".  I guess that would be pretty nasty to take to the next level.....there are too many directions to take this in....
 
2013-06-13 09:48:27 AM

MyRandomName: RussianPooper: He could very well be right about that fact, but it's a stupid basis for his position. What the hell does the incidence rate have to do with anything?

Do we really need laws to protect specifically against a rare incidence rate? What is the law om getting hit bya puano falling out a 4th story window in June?

The lawbooks are already big enough . How about a culling of the law to make it simpler again? No simgle person knows the entirety of the law anymore.


He wants to put more restrictions on abortion. He's doing the opposite of making things simpler.
 
2013-06-13 09:51:46 AM

MyRandomName: EvilEgg: Slam Dunkz: I think the whole "rape exception" argument is beyond stupid.  Either you are allowed to abort or not.  Just because you don't like the father shouldn't change one thing about however you view an embryo and its relevance to the abortion question.  If it does you are a hypocrite.

The entire argument is ridiculous.

I can see why we might let someone avoid turning a single trauma into a nine month trauma.

This bill allows the woman 5 months to decide. I so t get your ire. She can still abort her fetus.


Combine that with all the other BS laws in various states and it becomes a big problem. Abortion clinics required to have admitting privileges at hospitals, waiting periods, being forced to listen to a heartbeat, get an ultra-sound, be given bullshiat phony information about risks of breast cancer.  It was funny reading you complain about there being too many laws on the books.
 
2013-06-13 09:54:14 AM

MyRandomName: Do rape victims neef extra time to decide?


I don't know. Having never been impregnated by a rapist I don't presume to know the emotional complexity of such a scenario.

Why, do you?

That said, I reject the initial assumption that there is any justification for setting the ban at all. Feel free to provide some objective defense.
 
2013-06-13 09:55:06 AM

Skarekrough: MmmmBacon: Skarekrough: MmmmBacon: Another GOP politician that doesn't want to be re-elected, I see.

It isn't the getting re-elected that's the issue.  Mostly it's that it, once again, confirms the status of the party when it comes to being wholly ignorant about a potential 50% of the voters.

I gotta wonder if the DNC offices are just closing early on Friday and they're going to play mini-golf and have a few rounds when things like this happen.

I get that, but you would think the GOP would be extra-sensitive to statements like this, knowing it cost them many key races in 2012, and that the DNC will use these statements as a bludgeon every chance they can in 2014 and beyond. Any politician who would make such a foolhardy mistake is either deliberately trying to tank their own chances for re-election or too stupid to tie their own shoes.

The running theme for the GOP has largely been to not quash anything.

The first time the issue came up something from Reince should have gone out stating that anyone who uses the word "rape" in any context will no longer receive any funding ever again.  But it didn't.  And to make it worse their platform in 2012 confirmed what America collectively gasped in horror as to how they could be so ignorant about.


To be fair, Priebus swore that if Akin didn't drop out he wouldn't see one penny from RNC, even if he was neck-and-neck with McCaskill. Then he refused to drop out and Priebus said "we owe it to our donors to win as many seats as possible, so we will fund him."
 
2013-06-13 09:56:34 AM

Mercutio74: I guess he's technically right since a woman would have to be ovulating to get pregnant during a rape, and since rapes are more or less random occurances he's correct.  But it's such an obvious point that no politician in his right mind would even bring the subject up or use any language to "soften" the impact of a rape...

Oh, he's using it when trying to restrict abortion.  Sigh.  When will these guys ever learn?

Also, how in the hell do you consider a 20 week fetus to be a human being with all the civil and human rights owed to a human being and yet... legally, you think it's ok to kill them if there's a possibility of the mother coming to harm?  We don't summarily execute potential stalkers.  Why do this to what you consider to be a child?


You don't have to be ovulating at the time to get pregnant. You could ovulate a few days later and still get pregnant.

He's only technically right though if you were to compare the incidence of pregnancy from rape, to the incidence of pregnancy of individuals who are trying to get pregnant, and therefore would attempt to increase their sexual behavior during times of fertility, therefore leading to a higher incidence of pregnancy. If instead, you were to compare the incidence of pregnancy from rape to the incidence of pregnancy from people having sex at any given time of the month, then the rates would likely be similar.
 
2013-06-13 09:59:24 AM
My girlie parts are nobody's bee's wax but my own.
 
2013-06-13 10:00:14 AM

Bill the unknowing: I'm sorry but I was kinda distracted by the term "Sperm Warfare".  I guess that would be pretty nasty to take to the next level.....there are too many directions to take this in....


Sorry for that, but it is honestly a fascinating study when you find out that there are several "categories" of swimmers and that human physiology can be that responsive to social behavior (sort of like the male refractory period speeding way the hell up in the presence of a novel mate.)
 
2013-06-13 10:00:59 AM
Another thing I don't understand is this.  Conservatives generally have refused to look at any scientific data when determining when abortion should be legal.  However, recently, it seems there's been a move to adopt the approach that "When the fetus feels pain" should be the benchmark.

Since when does the firing of pain neurons constitute sentience or essential "humanity" to a fetus?  If I were to suggest a benchmark, I'd probably be interested in saying it's when there's a detectable, recognizable and constant brainwave pattern, which is somewhere in the 25 week ballpark if I recall.  That being said, I would at that point only want to restrict elective abortion... abortion out of medical necessity should be on the table up until birth.
 
2013-06-13 10:01:53 AM

kidgenius: You don't have ...  likely be similar.


Agreed.
 
2013-06-13 10:03:49 AM
Look, if you are a Republican running for office, let me give you the top 10 things you should never mention, if you want to win.

1 - Rape.  Never say the word, unless it is followed by the phrase 'is a terrible, unimaginable thing for a woman to go through'.  Don't qualify it, don't add your own flair.  End the statement, drop the mic and walk away.
2 - 10.  SEE NUMBER 1!!!!!
 
2013-06-13 10:06:13 AM
We need to test that theory.  Let's rape Trent Franks for awhile and see if he gets pregnant.
 
2013-06-13 10:08:21 AM

Mercutio74: abortion out of medical necessity should be on the table up until birth.


Which is really the part of all this where the GOP has decided not only to shoot itself in the foot, but to continue on up the entire leg.

Few people really support completely unfettered access to abortion. Most people view elective abortion in general as seedy and irresponsible but specifically view it past viability as an outright affront.

But the GOP is rapidly radicalizing people against any abortion controls by putting forward these absolutely insane bills that completely ignore all sensible health and wellness concerns in favor of letting some old, white men yell and screech on a chamber floor.

As far as I'm concerned at this point, all attempts to restrict any abortion at all should be vigorously opposed just because these assholes have proven so completely untrustworthy on the matter.
 
2013-06-13 10:10:02 AM

D135: What peer reviewed study is his opinion based on?


It's based on Nazi research. No, really.

And it's been thoroughly discredited. (Warning: PDF) Women who are assaulted are more likely to ovulate out-of-cycle than women in a random sexual encounter. And women who partake of random sexual encounters are more likely to have some form of protection.
 
2013-06-13 10:10:26 AM

EvilEgg: I would guess it is lower than the incidence from mutually consensual sex.

Mainly because science says women are hornier when they are fertile, so this would probably make it more likely that they are having consensual sex at that time.  Where as rapes would happen at a random time in their cycle.

The source of all of this information is a vaguely recalled article and my ass.


Minors are incapable of legal consent.  So every time a minor gets pregnant it is technically from rape.
 
2013-06-13 10:12:24 AM

Mercutio74: Another thing I don't understand is this.  Conservatives generally have refused to look at any scientific data when determining when abortion should be legal.


Because they don't care about science. They routinely criticize Liberals as being "too emotional" and lacking "logic" when forming their viewpoints. Yet, when abortion comes up, they turn on the waterworks and bemoan the holocaust of slaughtered fetuses denied their opportunity to live and how women should surrender all control over their bodies because they became pregnant.

The preoccupation these people have with the reproductive issues of complete strangers truly baffles me. They are all about saving fetuses, but once it's born it becomes the parasitic product of an irresponsible welfare whore who lives only to suck up the tax dollars of hard working bootstrappy Conservative "Real Americans". They will move heaven and earth to make sure every child hits the atmosphere but they are steadfastly against assistance programs for single moms trying to make ends meet, they are against programs like Head Start and they defund schools to give tax breaks to millionaires who don't need them.

Pro Life? Fark you...
 
2013-06-13 10:20:54 AM

MmmmBacon: Another GOP politician that doesn't want to be re-elected, I see.


As long as they gerrymandered enough crazies into his district, he will be fine.
 
2013-06-13 10:22:17 AM
Trent Franks really needs a motility test. He may just be shooting blanks. Perhaps the all the women he raped, since he speaks only the truth from personal experience, lied and went elsewhere to deal with it.
 
2013-06-13 10:26:01 AM
 
2013-06-13 10:31:04 AM

randomjsa: Is this an inaccurate statement?


Do Republicans ever use *accurate* statements?

Heck, you're one of them, you should know the answer to this.

Oh, that's right. If you told the truth, that would be an accurate statement, so I guess not.
 
2013-06-13 10:41:46 AM
 For the love of American flag wavin baby Jesus, can't you understand that if your whore daughter get's pregnant from that "rape" then it means she really wanted it and probably needs to be sent to a convent for her whore ways.

Well that seems  to be what their driving at anyway, just don't have to balls to do anything more than insinuate this.
 
2013-06-13 10:50:30 AM
Republicans are against rape in much the same way Jerry Garcia was against weed.
 
2013-06-13 10:57:35 AM

HypnozombieX: For the love of American flag wavin baby Jesus, can't you understand that if your whore daughter get's pregnant from that "rape" then it means she really wanted it and probably needs to be sent to a convent for her whore ways.

Well that seems  to be what their driving at anyway, just don't have to balls to do anything more than insinuate this.


At least it would be more honest than Trent's dumbass argument.
 
2013-06-13 11:08:54 AM

MyRandomName: I assume the chance of pregnancy for any single act of sex to be low... so he is right. But I expect liberals to go full retard and link this guy to the taliban and such.


1) don't talk about rape
2) if do talk about rape and sound like an idiot, you are an idiot
 
2013-06-13 11:55:15 AM
That's very close to saying that because the ratio of pregnancies to farking is so low, there are no babbys being formed.
 
2013-06-13 12:11:21 PM

Karac: You know what I find amazing?  It's not that he thinks how many women would have to carry their rapists baby to term makes a difference on whether ANY should be forced to.

No, what I can't fathom is why the National Republican Congressional Committee hasn't gone around to every Republican congressman, Senator, and candidate and waterboarded them until they develop a psychological block against saying the word 'rape' - in any context.

NRCC: Trent.  Say 'rape'.
Rep: It's a crime to rape.
NRCC: Douse him boys.
...
NRCC: Trent.  Say 'rape'.
Rep: .... potato?
NRCC: That's a good boy.  Have a cookie.


They really should fit them all with powerful shock collars set to drop them immediately if they say the word rape. A tazed candidate twitching on the ground pissing himself would be more coherent than these idiots (and do far less damage to the party.)
 
2013-06-13 12:25:04 PM
I though rape babies were a gift from God.  What did these rape victims who didn't get pregnant do to anger   God so much that he withheld this gift from them?
 
2013-06-13 12:30:54 PM
Even as a far right conservative I have to say - WTF and STFU to these guys.
 
2013-06-13 12:57:36 PM
i43.tinypic.com
 
2013-06-13 01:16:55 PM

skozlaw: randomjsa: Is this an inaccurate statement?

Since you're too malicious to care that he's minimizing rape victims you could at least try being smart enough to care that the only reason you had to ask that question is because he didn't back up the claim with any facts.

/ haha... facts and randomjsa... funny joke....


I think it is to the stage that randomjsa is so wrong on everything, if he proclaimed the sky was blue, the sky would instantly change colour to orange to nullify the impossibility of a correct fact.
 
2013-06-13 01:36:08 PM
TL;DR version: Pregnancy resulting from rape is not an uncommon or rare occurrence. It happens fairly frequently, actually. When statistically analyzing the data and takes into consideration confounding variables such as use of contraception and age or whether the incident involved penile-vaginal penetration, it appears to actually be more likely to end up pregnant as a result of being raped than as a result of consenting sexual activity. And, it appears that even something like ovulation can be temporarily triggered by an acute stressor event, such as sexual assault. Unsurprisingly, it seems this politician is simply wrong on multiple levels... as seems to be the case whenever politicians, particularly ones of a conservative stripe, decide to start talking about women's health issues such as pregnancy, rape, and abortion.

Below are a few good sources on pregnancy, resulting from either consenting sexual intercourse or forced sexual intercourse. It is from these (and a few other related, but only tangentially so) references that I base my above statements on. I've included abstracts for those who want the gist of it, but either don't have time or cannot access the full articles.

1) Gottschall, J. A., & Gottschall, T. A. (2003). Are per-incident rape-pregnancy rates higher than per-incident consensual pregnancy rates?. Human Nature, 14(1), 1-20.
Abstract: Is a given instance of rape more likely to result in pregnancy than a given instance of consensual sex? This paper undertakes a review and critique of the literature on rape-pregnancy. Next, it presents our own estimation, from U.S. government data, of pregnancy rates for reproductive age victims of penile-vaginal rape. Using data on birth control usage from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, we then form an estimate of rapepregnancy rates adjusted for the substantial number of women in our sample who would likely have been protected by oral contraception or an IUD. Our analysis suggests that per-incident rape-pregnancy rates exceed per-incident consensual pregnancy rates by a sizable margin, even before adjusting for the use of relevant forms of birth control. Possible explanations for this phenomenon are discussed, as are its implications to ongoing debates over the ultimate causes of rape.

2) Colombo, B., & Masarotto, G. (2000). Daily fecundability: first results from a new data base. Demographic research, 3(5), 805.
Abstract: This multicentre study has produced a database of 7017 menstrual cycles contributed by 881 women. It provides improved knowledge on length and location of the "fertile window" (identified as up to 12 days duration) and the pattern and level of daily conception probability. The day of ovulation was identified in each cycle from records of basal body temperature and mucus symptoms. By referencing days of intercourse to the surrogate ovulation markers, estimates of daily fecundability were computed either directly or by the Schwartz model, both for single and multiple acts of intercourse in the fertile window. The relationship between coital pattern and fecundability has been explored. Univariate analysis underlines the significant link with fecundability only of the woman's reproductive history.

3) Holmes, M. M., Resnick, H. S., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Best, C. L. (1996). Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 175(2), 320-325.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: We attempted to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from rape. STUDY DESIGN: A national probability sample of 4008 adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes. RESULTS: The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion. CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.

4) Tarín, J. J., Hamatani, T., & Cano, A. (2010). Acute stress may induce ovulation in women. http://www.rbej.com/content/8/1/53
Abstract: Background This study aims to gather information either supporting or rejecting the hypothesis that acute stress may induce ovulation in women. The formulation of this hypothesis is based on 2 facts: 1) estrogen-primed postmenopausal or ovariectomized women display an adrenal-progesterone-induced ovulatory-like luteinizing hormone (LH) surge in response to exogenous adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) administration; and 2) women display multiple follicular waves during an interovulatory interval, and likely during pregnancy and lactation. Thus, acute stress may induce ovulation in women displaying appropriate serum levels of estradiol and one or more follicles large enough to respond to a non-midcycle LH surge. Methods A literature search using the PubMed database was performed to identify articles up to January 2010 focusing mainly on women as well as on rats and rhesus monkeys as animal models of interaction between the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) and hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axes. Results Whereas the HPA axis exhibits positive responses in practically all phases of the ovarian cycle, acute-stress-induced release of LH is found under relatively high plasma levels of estradiol. However, there are studies suggesting that several types of acute stress may exert different effects on pituitary LH release and the steroid environment may modulate in a different way (inhibiting or stimulating) the pattern of response of the HPG axis elicited by acute stressors. Conclusion Women may be induced to ovulate at any point of the menstrual cycle or even during periods of amenorrhea associated with pregnancy and lactation if exposed to an appropriate acute stressor under a right estradiol environment.
 
2013-06-13 01:51:07 PM

Kome: Unsurprisingly, it seems this politician is simply wrong on multiple levels...


Biologically speaking, conception from rape would be a mechanism for expanding the gene pool, genetic diversity of a group.  It would be advantages for a tribe or a village to have new gene stock introduced by raiders/attackers/guests.
 
2013-06-13 02:06:02 PM

mrshowrules: Kome: Unsurprisingly, it seems this politician is simply wrong on multiple levels...

Biologically speaking, conception from rape would be a mechanism for expanding the gene pool, genetic diversity of a group.  It would be advantages for a tribe or a village to have new gene stock introduced by raiders/attackers/guests.


Considering that something like over 95% of the entire genetic diversity present in humans can be found within any group, I fail to see how that makes any sense. Pregnancy from consenting sexual intercourse serves exactly the same purpose (in terms of the level of genetic heterogeneity continuing into the next generation).
 
2013-06-13 02:44:34 PM

D135: What peer reviewed study is his opinion based on?

FTFA: "Like Akin's, Franks's claim is not supported by research. Medical experts agree that rape does not lower the incidence of pregnancy, and one study by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that more than 30,000 pregnancies result from rape in the United States each year."

well, 30,000 is a pretty low number...


I wonder if that factors in the likelihood of a rape victim taking a morning-after type pill.
 
2013-06-13 02:54:19 PM

Kome: mrshowrules: Kome: Unsurprisingly, it seems this politician is simply wrong on multiple levels...

Biologically speaking, conception from rape would be a mechanism for expanding the gene pool, genetic diversity of a group.  It would be advantages for a tribe or a village to have new gene stock introduced by raiders/attackers/guests.

Considering that something like over 95% of the entire genetic diversity present in humans can be found within any group, I fail to see how that makes any sense. Pregnancy from consenting sexual intercourse serves exactly the same purpose (in terms of the level of genetic heterogeneity continuing into the next generation).


Many communities today suffer from health problems and birth defects associated with a closed off gene pool.   Historically, prehistorically this would be even more problematic.  You would have small communities geographically separated by huge distances over multiple generations.  A community being able to accept introduction of new genetic code might give an advantage.  Entire tribes/communities surviving/dying was what drove evolution.  This is less the case today but might have been important in the past.

A army of attackers raping/impregnating women in a village might be horrific but biologically it might have some advantages.
 
2013-06-13 03:33:49 PM
But God intends for woman to carry their rape babies to term.  I was told so by the nice man on Fox News.
 
2013-06-13 03:46:56 PM

mrshowrules: A army of attackers raping/impregnating women in a village might be horrific but biologically it might have some advantages.


No more so than serial monogamy, polygamy, or extra-relational (not sure if the term "extra-marital" would apply generally) affairs though, and each of those confers extra survival advantages that raping / being raped does not. I find the evo-psych and sociobiological theories for why rape persists to be interesting, but the more I read into them the more I realize the claims are backed up by such a disturbing lack of data that I can no longer entertain them as anything but just-so stories.

Beyond that, however, there are additional issues why even if true (a big if) the explanations are somewhat irrelevant. Morally, sexual assault is repugnant. And we can not condone or not encourage or not enable rape if we so chose. People have the ability and power to not rape, just as we have the ability and power to not murder, not steal, etc. Just because there may be some ancient evolutionary function served by sexual assault (which I'm not automatically discounting, as coerced procreation is observable in a few other species, I am just incredibly skeptical of to the point of continuing my lines of research under the assumption it serves none) doesn't mean anything else. It is still something we should prevent when possible and we should be doing what we can to mitigate the trauma it imparts on the victims. By passing these fiercely anti-abortion policies and using a factually inaccurate "well rape pregnancies are rare" argument to support doing so, what we are doing is collectively imposing an additional trauma on the rape victim. And that's even before we take into consideration that in over 60% of states in the US a rapist can sue for custody of children born from pregnancies resulting from rape, which victimizes the woman yet again.
 
2013-06-13 04:19:06 PM

Kome: mrshowrules: A army of attackers raping/impregnating women in a village might be horrific but biologically it might have some advantages.

No more so than serial monogamy, polygamy, or extra-relational (not sure if the term "extra-marital" would apply generally) affairs though, and each of those confers extra survival advantages that raping / being raped does not. I find the evo-psych and sociobiological theories for why rape persists to be interesting, but the more I read into them the more I realize the claims are backed up by such a disturbing lack of data that I can no longer entertain them as anything but just-so stories.

Beyond that, however, there are additional issues why even if true (a big if) the explanations are somewhat irrelevant. Morally, sexual assault is repugnant. And we can not condone or not encourage or not enable rape if we so chose. People have the ability and power to not rape, just as we have the ability and power to not murder, not steal, etc. Just because there may be some ancient evolutionary function served by sexual assault (which I'm not automatically discounting, as coerced procreation is observable in a few other species, I am just incredibly skeptical of to the point of continuing my lines of research under the assumption it serves none) doesn't mean anything else. It is still something we should prevent when possible and we should be doing what we can to mitigate the trauma it imparts on the victims. By passing these fiercely anti-abortion policies and using a factually inaccurate "well rape pregnancies are rare" argument to support doing so, what we are doing is collectively imposing an additional trauma on the rape victim. And that's even before we take into consideration that in over 60% of states in the US a rapist can sue for custody of children born from pregnancies resulting from rape, which victimizes the woman yet again.


Obviously I'm anti-rape and I'm also pro-choice.  Rape is something we should strive to eliminate in society.

My point was that biologically and also in terms of evolution, there would be no basis for a woman's fertility to prevent conception because of rape.  In other words (also based on the evidence you provided) of course women would get pregnant from rape.

Studies have also show that women are more likely to get pregnant in extra-marital relations.  That's another subject.  Historically/prehistorically with men who exercised complete control over their mates might not have allowed for as much for infidelity outside of marriage.  Rape from raiders/invaders might have been more common then willful infidelity for some communities.
 
2013-06-13 04:42:53 PM
GOP, weren't we over this? Really?
 
2013-06-13 04:44:38 PM

mrshowrules: Obviously I'm anti-rape and I'm also pro-choice. Rape is something we should strive to eliminate in society.


Right. I didn't think you were advocating anything else, and I apologize if I implied as much.

mrshowrules: My point was that biologically and also in terms of evolution, there would be no basis for a woman's fertility to prevent conception because of rape. In other words (also based on the evidence you provided) of course women would get pregnant from rape.


I'm simply disagreeing with the position you're taking that rape is a mating strategy that has evolved because it confers some sort of selective advantages. Based on my read of the literature there is no compelling reason (at this point) to hold that position as anything more than speculative and worth investigating further. I think the evidence that does exist is sufficient to make the point that women can and do get pregnant from sexual coercion without resorting to a speculative position that lacks any unambiguous empirical support. In terms of genetic diversity, for example, there hasn't been a study done to demonstrate that communities with a higher proportion of children born as a result of rape are more genetically diverse than communities with lower proportions of such children. Or rather, I should amend that to say if there has been such a study done I am not aware of it (and at least in my mind I imagine a study like that would have made headlines around the world). At the most abstract level, I think we're just having a disagreement on theory rather than a disagreement on the topic; that is pregnancy and rape. Which is fine, I don't mind those kinds of disagreements. I just don't want to get too abstract lest I start asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. =)
 
2013-06-13 06:10:32 PM

MmmmBacon: Another GOP politician that doesn't want to be re-elected, I see.


Not only is he stupid and insensitive, his sentence structure was incorrect as well.  (Should be is instead of are.)
 
2013-06-13 06:26:17 PM
It sounds like he believes the only down-side of rape for women is that there's a small chance they might get pregnant. But if she doesn't, then GOOD TIMES! Right?
 
2013-06-13 08:45:17 PM

Jackpot777: [i43.tinypic.com image 575x1330]


That's less good than you think. The third column isn't terrible but the second column generally is pretty poor:

The first row is relatively ok, although even today's laws are inconsistent (charging someone who kills a pregnant woman with two murders)

The second one is a non-sequitur. It's like arguing that, because we make knives legal, we are therefore endorsing murder. After all, almost 2000 people a year are stabbed to death. They're related, but not in the way that chart is claiming.

The third is right, but Republicans often get raked over the coals for saying this, even though it completely follows. Many of the others are operationalizing a slippery slope - a logical fallacy but an operational reality.

The fourth is simply wrong. First, what makes you think the other procedures wouldn't be banned once they made it past the first legal hurdle? Second, there's a reason other procedures aren't used, and any economist will tell you that it'll have a non-zero impact.

The fifth is bad logic for multiple reasons: 1) a large segment of the pro-life crowd (the Church) are very pro-welfare; 2) you can make the argument for ANYTHING relating to poverty: the GOP likes inner-city violence because poverty and unwanted children cause it; Democrats LIKE inner city violence or they'd make all drugs legal.

The sixth really contradicts the second. Incentives matter, and therefore any economist will point out that HPV vaccines will make people slightly more willing to have sex and therefore, all else equal, slightly more likely to get pregnant. Therefore, all the arguments of the second apply to the sixth, only here, the creator recognized the non-sequitur that they didn't recognize in the second.

The seventh is partly true, but even then, most people frown on vigilantism, and certainly frown about bombings that result in collateral damage. ESPECIALLY the likes of Eric Rudolph, who targeted first responders. Again, Gandhi even called for non-violence when facing Hitler. He didn't idolize people who slayed Nazis even though he considered what the Nazis did an abomination. I'm not saying pro-lifers tend to be Gandhi, I'm saying that the logic isn't automatic. (And finally, what makes you think a lot of pro-lifers DON'T worship abortion doctor killers?)

Finally, in the eighth, anything involving the U.N. is so distorted that people on the right pretty much assume anything the U.N. does is a threat to Texan sovereignty or something equally stupid. Their opposition is usually based on ignorance, and again, major players like the Church disagree with the opposition.

Ultimately, that chart is really a stretch and hardly demolishes anything other than its author's intellectual credentials.
 
2013-06-13 10:20:03 PM

vygramul: The second one is a non-sequitur. It's like arguing that, because we make knives legal, we are therefore endorsing murder. After all, almost 2000 people a year are stabbed to death. They're related, but not in the way that chart is claiming.


Except the primary purpose of knives is not to murder people. It's still relevant.

vygramul: The third is right, but Republicans often get raked over the coals for saying this, even though it completely follows. Many of the others are operationalizing a slippery slope - a logical fallacy but an operational reality.


Yes, they get raked over the goals for saying it, because it's not about protecting the life of a fetus but about exerting control over the sex lives of women. They may be logically consistent in their position, but it's an immoral logic worthy of being raked over the coals for holding to.

vygramul: The fourth is simply wrong. First, what makes you think the other procedures wouldn't be banned once they made it past the first legal hurdle? Second, there's a reason other procedures aren't used, and any economist will tell you that it'll have a non-zero impact.


None of what you said indicates why you think it's wrong. Your justification is in fact non-sequitor itself, and I'm being generous in that interpretation. A less generous interpretation of it would be to say "yea, that sort of counters your own point about how wrong it is."

vygramul: The fifth is bad logic for multiple reasons: 1) a large segment of the pro-life crowd (the Church) are very pro-welfare; 2) you can make the argument for ANYTHING relating to poverty: the GOP likes inner-city violence because poverty and unwanted children cause it; Democrats LIKE inner city violence or they'd make all drugs legal.


Yea..... no. Look at the politicians who are instigating these anti-abortion measures and see how much legislation they pass (or even try to pass, or even mention casually as a good idea even if they never pursue it) that promotes social welfare programs to help the impoverished. You'll note a conspicuous lack of politicians who do both. That the church is, theoretically, pro-welfare is irrelevant since the church is not the organization making policies.

vygramul: The sixth really contradicts the second. Incentives matter, and therefore any economist will point out that HPV vaccines will make people slightly more willing to have sex and therefore, all else equal, slightly more likely to get pregnant. Therefore, all the arguments of the second apply to the sixth, only here, the creator recognized the non-sequitur that they didn't recognize in the second.


All of this is both incorrect and irrelevant. First, it doesn't contradict the second row. Second, people aren't not having sex for fear of HPV. People, of all ages, are quite sexually active. And in fact, sexual activity tends to increase for younger age groups in areas that enact policies like abstinence only education (which are themselves very much the same areas that are successfully eliminating abortion providers, contraceptive access for women, and things like HPV vaccines). Any economist who wants to claim that people will have sex more if they have access to HPV vaccines knows nothing about how human beings actually behave, because people like to f*ck regardless of the consequences because f*cking is f*cking fun.

vygramul: The seventh is partly true, but even then, most people frown on vigilantism, and certainly frown about bombings that result in collateral damage. ESPECIALLY the likes of Eric Rudolph, who targeted first responders. Again, Gandhi even called for non-violence when facing Hitler. He didn't idolize people who slayed Nazis even though he considered what the Nazis did an abomination. I'm not saying pro-lifers tend to be Gandhi, I'm saying that the logic isn't automatic. (And finally, what makes you think a lot of pro-lifers DON'T worship abortion doctor killers?)


In spite of you saying this is partly true, I would argue that it's entirely false and is the only one that doesn't belong on the list. People can be against abortion while condemning violence in the hopes of eliminating abortion through legislative means or educational means (turns out comprehensive sex education is inversely correlated with unwanted pregnancy rates), and their opinions on women are almost immaterial at that point.

vygramul: Finally, in the eighth, anything involving the U.N. is so distorted that people on the right pretty much assume anything the U.N. does is a threat to Texan sovereignty or something equally stupid. Their opposition is usually based on ignorance, and again, major players like the Church disagree with the opposition.


Not for nothing, but that almost implies that their opposition to abortion or their desire to control the sex lives of women aren't based in ignorance. I don't know if that's a cheap shot at you or not, but that's what the bold part strongly implies if you're only saying they oppose the UN as a knee-jerk reaction whereas their views on sex, abortion, pregnancy, and women are better thought out. And again, the church may be a "major player" but ultimately they aren't the ones in political power, so their position is only indirectly related.
 
2013-06-13 11:02:39 PM

Kome:
Except the primary purpose of knives is not to murder people. It's still relevant.


The primary purpose of condoms isn't to abort fetuses. It's still a logical fallacy.

Kome: Yes, they get raked over the goals for saying it, because it's not about protecting the life of a fetus but about exerting control over the sex lives of women. They may be logically consistent in their position, but it's an immoral logic worthy of being raked over the coals for holding to.


First, it is about the life of the fetus for Catholics. Second, you're straying from the issue. If you want to discuss the relative merits of the two sides, that's a conversation we can have.

Kome: vygramul: The fourth is simply wrong. First, what makes you think the other procedures wouldn't be banned once they made it past the first legal hurdle? Second, there's a reason other procedures aren't used, and any economist will tell you that it'll have a non-zero impact.

None of what you said indicates why you think it's wrong. Your justification is in fact non-sequitor itself, and I'm being generous in that interpretation. A less generous interpretation of it would be to say "yea, that sort of counters your own point about how wrong it is."


It's wrong because it presupposes no further action would be proposed by pro-lifers. One must assume that would be the end of it for the chart's complaint to be valid.

Kome: vygramul: The fifth is bad logic for multiple reasons: 1) a large segment of the pro-life crowd (the Church) are very pro-welfare; 2) you can make the argument for ANYTHING relating to poverty: the GOP likes inner-city violence because poverty and unwanted children cause it; Democrats LIKE inner city violence or they'd make all drugs legal.

Yea..... no. Look at the politicians who are instigating these anti-abortion measures and see how much legislation they pass (or even try to pass, or even mention casually as a good idea even if they never pursue it) that promotes social welfare programs to help the impoverished. You'll note a conspicuous lack of politicians who do both. That the church is, theoretically, pro-welfare is irrelevant since the church is not the organization making policies.


No, but the Church is a large driver of the abortion debate. This table isn't about "Congressional hypocrisies" but hypocrisies attributed to the entire movement. Therefore, again, it fails.

Kome:vygramul: The sixth really contradicts the second. Incentives matter, and therefore any economist will point out that HPV vaccines will make people slightly more willing to have sex and therefore, all else equal, slightly more likely to get pregnant. Therefore, all the arguments of the second apply to the sixth, only here, the creator recognized the non-sequitur that they didn't recognize in the second.

All of this is both incorrect and irrelevant. First, it doesn't contradict the second row. Second, people aren't not having sex for fear of HPV. People, of all ages, are quite sexually active. And in fact, sexual activity tends to increase for younger age groups in areas that enact policies like abstinence only education (which are themselves very much the same areas that are successfully eliminating abortion providers, contraceptive access for women, and things like HPV vaccines). Any economist who wants to claim that people will have sex more if they have access to HPV vaccines knows nothing about how human beings actually behave, because people like to f*ck regardless of the consequences because f*cking is f*cking fun.


Sorry, but you're wrong again. Incentives matter, and the aggregate incentive will still mage a difference in the long-run. It's marginal, but unavoidable. It's not only an economic truth, but a psychological one. That's not to say it's even an important factor. But a difference of 1 is, obviously, non-zero. In addition, it contradicts the second row's logic completely.

Kome:vygramul: Finally, in the eighth, anything involving the U.N. is so distorted that people on the right pretty much assume anything the U.N. does is a threat to Texan sovereignty or something equally stupid. Their opposition is usually based on ignorance, and again, major players like the Church disagree with the opposition.

Not for nothing, but that almost implies that their opposition to abortion or their desire to control the sex lives of women aren't based in ignorance. I don't know if that's a cheap shot at you or not, but that's what the bold part strongly implies if you're only saying they oppose the UN as a knee-jerk reaction whereas their views on sex, abortion, pregnancy, and women are better thought out. And again, the church may be a "major player" but ultimately they aren't the ones in political power, so their position is only indirectly related.


Poisoning the well by insisting the only opposition to abortion is driven by a desire to control the sex lives of women will make it impossible to have any constructive conversation. And I would say that, given the number of Catholics on the Supreme Court, their opinions are important to understand.
 
2013-06-14 07:58:25 AM

PsiChick: GOP, weren't we over this? Really?


This is the ride that never ends.
 
Displayed 108 of 108 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report