Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
arcadesonfire

Alabama wants to go to the SCOTUS (abortion ban passed)

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Alabama’s legislature passed the new ban tonight at least. Governor hasn’t signed it yet. Terrible. Obviously. By my judgment. Now we might see what Gorsuch thinks about the importance of precedence in this specific case.

 

Setting aside the SCOTUS, I’d like to pose a narrow question to pro-lifers supporting the law: Why do pro-life laws like this usually have an exception for cases of rape and incest?

 

!! EDIT: Alabama’s law does not have these exceptions. I was confusing different states’ bills last night. We can still discuss my question, but I’ll say that Alabama’s law seems more intellectually consistent/integritous to me, though still regressive, religious, unfair, inhumane, insensitive, self-serving, unnecessary, cruel, short-sighted, uninformed, and *misogynistic.

 

(I’ll use the word “child” here to refer to zygote/embryo/fetus/baby.)

 

In your view, if a new child is conceived by rape or incest, is it any less worthy of the right to life that you believe other conceived children have?

 

Back when I was religious and thoroughly opposed abortion, I didn’t think that exception made sense. I couldn’t find anything in the Bible suggesting that a child of rape or incest in the womb was any less human than others, so it was just as murderous and wrong to abort following rape in my old view. I THINK I WAS TERRIBLY WRONG AT THE TIME, but I think my view was consistent, and it still seems illogical to me for pro life voters to make those exceptions.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

*They could at least try to address this aspect by including in the bill some kind of responsibility or penalty for the man who impregnated the woman, such as making him pay for prenatal care (while the woman pays the price in the form of pain, labor, and permanent changes to physique and mentality), child support, and restitution for the woman’s pains... though of course poorer men wouldn’t be able to pay and may end up in jail, leaving the state to pay all costs... Or we could simply avoid all these costs by allowing early abortion, duh.

Edited by arcadesonfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought it was weird as well. Either you value the unborn life or you don’t.

 

The best (most honest) answer I could get out of pro-lifers is they were taking what they could get.

 

But as it is, being for the “exceptions” is simply another way of saying you are more interested in punishing bad behavior. IMO.

 

As far as the SCOTUS goes? They overturned a precedent this week that many (including Justice Breyer) believe is a precursor to them overturning Roe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alabama’s legislature passed the new ban tonight at least. Governor hasn’t signed it yet. Terrible. Obviously. By my judgment. Now we might see what Gorsuch thinks about the importance of precedence in this specific case.

 

Setting aside the SCOTUS, I’d like to pose a narrow question to pro-lifers supporting the law: Why do pro-life laws like this usually have an exception for cases of rape and incest?

 

(I’ll use the word “child” here to refer to zygote/embryo/fetus/baby.)

 

In your view, if a new child is conceived by rape or incest, is it any less worthy of the right to life that you believe other conceived children have?

 

Back when I was religious and thoroughly opposed abortion, I didn’t think that exception made sense. I couldn’t find anything in the Bible suggesting that a child of rape or incest in the womb was any less human than others, so it was just as murderous and wrong to abort following rape in my old view. I THINK I WAS TERRIBLY WRONG AT THE TIME, but I think my view was consistent, and it still seems illogical to me for pro life voters to make those exceptions.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Well in the case of rape, the mother has done nothing to create the life developing inside her and therefore, it can be argued, has no obligation to it, or at least no more obligation than anyone has to a stranger. As far as incest goes, I suppose it's another symptom of the rampant polyphobic/homophobic bigotry that pervades society. ;)

 

Or if you prefer to look at it more cynically, were those exceptions not present the chants of "forced to have rape babies" would drown everything else out, so it's a necessary compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Alabama. :rolleyes2:

 

No kidding. On this board, you guys see me as a conservative. When I lived in Alabama, I was seen as a radical liberal.

 

On this topic, I view abortion as a purely loathesome, detestable practice.

 

That said, I view government intervention in the doctor -patient relationship as even more detestable. Overturning Roe without addressing governmental limits of authority in this area would open the door to banning tuings like stem cell research.

Edited by SteinbergerHack
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alabama’s legislature passed the new ban tonight at least. Governor hasn’t signed it yet. Terrible. Obviously. By my judgment. Now we might see what Gorsuch thinks about the importance of precedence in this specific case.

 

Setting aside the SCOTUS, I’d like to pose a narrow question to pro-lifers supporting the law: Why do pro-life laws like this usually have an exception for cases of rape and incest?

I didn't know they did. I've argued for decades that in cases of incest and rape the baby is innocent and therefore it is irrelevant how the baby was conceived.

 

If a law does make that distinction, I rack it up to compromise to get the law passed. It becomes a loophole that one could drive a truck through, though. It means all a woman has to do is file a police report saying she was raped, and, presto, baby is killed. Legally.

 

It would create a HUGE uptick in alleged rape cases, IMO.

 

I think you will find that most pro-life people you talk to are against abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

 

And, truth be told, the issue is a red herring anyway. I believe only a fraction of aborted babies were a result of proven rape or incest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No kidding. On this board, you guys see me as a conservative. When I lived in Alabama, I was seen as a radical liberal.

 

On this topic, I view abortion as a purely loathesome, detestable practice.

 

That said, I view government intervention in the doctor -patient relationship as even more detestable. Overturning Roe without addressing governmental limits of authority in this area would open the door to banning tuings like stem cell research.

 

That is how I see you - I see you as quite conservative on some issues and more liberal on others. You are one of the few that I don't put on the left or right. Phil is another one. You guys seem to be able to support your position pretty soundly with solid logic - even when we disagree. I can deal with that. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will find that most pro-life people you talk to are against abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

 

And, truth be told, the issue is a red herring anyway. I believe only a fraction of aborted babies were a result of proven rape or incest.

Yikes. Good thing the pro-life stance isn't the law of the land. :freak:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes. Good thing the pro-life stance isn't the law of the land. :freak:

 

 

Make of it what you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a good situation. I do not support third term or post birth abortions. Feel the decision needs to be made very soon after finding out they are prego. But something of this matter will put things underground again and dangerous. I don't think it has been signed yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some places in the U.S., more African American babies are aborted than born.

 

https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/nov/25/cynthia-meyer/cynthia-meyer-says-more-black-babies-are-aborted-n/

 

Makes me wonder if pro-choice folks have more sinister intentions than just being "pro-choice".

 

Regarding Alabama, folks will just go across state lines until the SCOTUS shoots this down....and they will.

 

Nothing is more sacred in this country than guns and abortion.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: WHOOPS!!!! There is no exception for rape or incest in the Alabama bill. I got my state bills confused last night. The only exception for Alabama is if there’s a threat to the woman’s life (even though pregnancy in general poses health risks).

 

My question is moot in the case of Alabama. One Republican representative I heard on NPR just now said this bill is directly designed to go to the Supreme Court to establish a pre-birth right to life. That makes good sense given Republicans’ traditional opposition to activist judges writing legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In some places in the U.S., more African American babies are aborted than born.

 

https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/nov/25/cynthia-meyer/cynthia-meyer-says-more-black-babies-are-aborted-n/

 

Makes me wonder if pro-choice folks have more sinister intentions than just being "pro-choice".

 

Regarding Alabama, folks will just go across state lines until the SCOTUS shoots this down....and they will.

 

Nothing is more sacred in this country than guns and abortion.

 

 

 

:bangheadonwall:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know they did. I've argued for decades that in cases of incest and rape the baby is innocent and therefore it is irrelevant how the baby was conceived.

 

If a law does make that distinction, I rack it up to compromise to get the law passed. It becomes a loophole that one could drive a truck through, though. It means all a woman has to do is file a police report saying she was raped, and, presto, baby is killed. Legally.

 

It would create a HUGE uptick in alleged rape cases, IMO.

 

I think you will find that most pro-life people you talk to are against abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

 

And, truth be told, the issue is a red herring anyway. I believe only a fraction of aborted babies were a result of proven rape or incest.

 

If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.

 

Do you know what was meant by "legitimate rape" when that statement was made? If you don't, you either know English as a second language or you are an idiot.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you know what was meant. i.e. the speaker is guilty of a poor choice of words.

Edited by Easy Listener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you know what was meant by "legitimate rape" when that statement was made? If you don't, you either know English as a second language or you are an idiot.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you know what was meant. i.e. the speaker is guilty of a poor choice of words.

 

Would you care to explain how “the body has a way to shut the whole thing down” was just a “poor choice of words”?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No kidding. On this board, you guys see me as a conservative. When I lived in Alabama, I was seen as a radical liberal.

 

On this topic, I view abortion as a purely loathesome, detestable practice.

 

That said, I view government intervention in the doctor -patient relationship as even more detestable. Overturning Roe without addressing governmental limits of authority in this area would open the door to banning tuings like stem cell research.

 

I might seem conservative on some issues to my younger hipster skinny-jeaned Brooklyn brethren!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Would you care to explain how “the body has a way to shut the whole thing down” was just a “poor choice of words”?

 

 

Seconded. (Maybe he was referring to "the body" sticking a sharp, dangerous object deep inside the vagina?)

Edited by arcadesonfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly good, though intellectually inconsistent, news is that the bill would not ban the Plan B (morning-after) pill. A woman takes that medication before being "known to be pregnant," and the bill draws the line at abortion once "known to be pregnant."

 

Depending on when taken and where the woman is in her cycle, fertilization may still occur, and the pill would end the start of pregnancy by preventing the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. If supporters of this bill believe life begins at fertilization, then they fail on this front. But don't tell them that. Some might not be aware of how Plan B works.

 

To quote Ohio state representative John Becker when asked about whether his state bill would ban the morning-after pill: "The bill is written 'if it causes abortion,' and people smarter than me can figure out what that means."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In some places in the U.S.' date=' more African American babies are aborted than born.[/b']

 

https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/nov/25/cynthia-meyer/cynthia-meyer-says-more-black-babies-are-aborted-n/

 

Makes me wonder if pro-choice folks have more sinister intentions than just being "pro-choice".

 

Regarding Alabama, folks will just go across state lines until the SCOTUS shoots this down....and they will.

 

Nothing is more sacred in this country than guns and abortion.

 

 

 

 

Hey, I see what you're getting at, ned.

So you think that the non-religious conservatives who hate taxes, and all the entitlement programs, and frankly, hate 'poor' people (no matter how you define them) are behind this; huh? The white nationalists, anti-immigrant MAGA group(s) definitely have the motive(s).

You just might be on to something there, ned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as the SCOTUS goes? They overturned a precedent this week that many (including Justice Breyer) believe is a precursor to them overturning Roe.

 

I checked that out. It was a decision regarding sovereign immunity for states in which the 5 justice majority tossed out 40 years of precedent because they didn't like it. When a previous Supreme Court opinion is overturned, they are supposed to articulate a clear Constitutional reason for why the precedent was wrongly decided. Justice Thomas couldn't find any clear evidence, so his arguments about sovereign immunity rest on emanations and penumbras from various parts of the Constitution and other documents.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Seconded. (Maybe he was referring to "the body" sticking a sharp, dangerous object deep inside the vagina?)

 

I've never known what the man who said that was trying to refer to with that statement. Did he ever explain himself?

 

I can only come up with two possible interpretations:

 

1) he believes that any woman who truly does not wish to have sex with the man forcing himself upon her can somehow either summon the strength to fight him off or can keep those body parts closed up tightly enough that he can't penetrate her and any woman who doesn't do this must have, at least on some level, wanted the intercourse to happen.

 

2) once raped, a woman can somehow prevent the egg from being fertilized or otherwise stop the pregnancy from going forward either by sheer mental will and/or somehow releasing chemicals inside herself to make it happen.

 

Both of those interpretations are, of course, insane. But are there any other possible interpretations of this 'poor choice of words'?

 

I'm open to suggestions.

Edited by Vito Corleone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
democrats are as sick as it gets

 

murder our own babies

let all illegals in

 

after all they can vote quicker

 

Sick as sick can get

 

OMG! You figured out our plan! Okay, who talked? Let's hope they don't find out about the plans to make everyone gay and own a Subaru.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I checked that out. It was a decision regarding sovereign immunity for states in which the 5 justice majority tossed out 40 years of precedent because they didn't like it. When a previous Supreme Court opinion is overturned, they are supposed to articulate a clear Constitutional reason for why the precedent was wrongly decided. Justice Thomas couldn't find any clear evidence, so his arguments about sovereign immunity rest on emanations and penumbras from various parts of the Constitution and other documents.

 

 

Yes. The case about being able to sue a state in another state's court.

 

Justice Breyer wrote in his dissent that once the door is open to overturning prior decisions without the clear evidence that a case was wrongly decided, that who knows what the future may bring. For most reading his statement, it seemed clear he was referring to Roe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is what seems likely to me:

 

the Alabama Law gets ruled unconstitutional in court.

 

Alabama appeals the ruling.

 

the appeals court affirms the ruling of the lower court that the law is unconstitutional.

 

Alabama appeals the ruling.

 

the United States Supreme Court declines to take the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alabama’s legislature passed the new ban tonight at least. Governor hasn’t signed it yet. Terrible. Obviously. By my judgment. Now we might see what Gorsuch thinks about the importance of precedence in this specific case.

 

Setting aside the SCOTUS, I’d like to pose a narrow question to pro-lifers supporting the law: Why do pro-life laws like this usually have an exception for cases of rape and incest?

 

!! EDIT: Alabama’s law does not have these exceptions. I was confusing different states’ bills last night. We can still discuss my question, but I’ll say that Alabama’s law seems more intellectually consistent/integritous to me, though still regressive, religious, unfair, inhumane, insensitive, self-serving, unnecessary, cruel, short-sighted, uninformed, and *misogynistic.

 

(I’ll use the word “child” here to refer to zygote/embryo/fetus/baby.)

 

In your view, if a new child is conceived by rape or incest, is it any less worthy of the right to life that you believe other conceived children have?

 

Back when I was religious and thoroughly opposed abortion, I didn’t think that exception made sense. I couldn’t find anything in the Bible suggesting that a child of rape or incest in the womb was any less human than others, so it was just as murderous and wrong to abort following rape in my old view. I THINK I WAS TERRIBLY WRONG AT THE TIME, but I think my view was consistent, and it still seems illogical to me for pro life voters to make those exceptions.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

*They could at least try to address this aspect by including in the bill some kind of responsibility or penalty for the man who impregnated the woman, such as making him pay for prenatal care (while the woman pays the price in the form of pain, labor, and permanent changes to physique and mentality), child support, and restitution for the woman’s pains... though of course poorer men wouldn’t be able to pay and may end up in jail, leaving the state to pay all costs... Or we could simply avoid all these costs by allowing early abortion, duh.

 

I dislike abortion and I feel for anyone that has to make that decision, but I am concerned even more so with government overreach regarding our bodies.

 

I would much rather see increased support at the state level going towards education and prevention as laws like this only stop legal abortions and do little to address the overall situation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
democrats are as sick as it gets

 

murder our own babies

let all illegals in

 

after all they can vote quicker

 

Sick as sick can get

I don't think you're allowed to post stuff like that any more.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The following is what seems likely to me:

 

the Alabama Law gets ruled unconstitutional in court.

 

Alabama appeals the ruling.

 

the appeals court affirms the ruling of the lower court that the law is unconstitutional.

 

Alabama appeals the ruling.

 

the United States Supreme Court declines to take the case.

 

What makes you think that the SC will punt on the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What makes you think that the SC will punt on the case?

 

There are several anti-abortion laws working their way through the courts. Most all seemed designed to try and get the SCOTUS to overturn Roe. It isn't just a coincidence that all these various state restrictions on abortion just started popping up now after the confirmation of Kavanaugh.

 

This law is the most extreme. I'm not sure if that makes it a better bet that this is the one the SCOTUS will decide to hear (if any at all) or a lesser bet.

 

At the end of the day, it appears the future of Roe will fall into the hands of John Roberts. He not only will be the biggest voice in deciding which cases they hear, but would almost certainly be the deciding vote on any decision.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are several anti-abortion laws working their way through the courts. Most all seemed designed to try and get the SCOTUS to overturn Roe. It isn't just a coincidence that all these various state restrictions on abortion just started popping up now after the confirmation of Kavanaugh.

 

This law is the most extreme. I'm not sure if that makes it a better bet that this is the one the SCOTUS will decide to hear (if any at all) or a lesser bet.

 

At the end of the day, it appears the future of Roe will fall into the hands of John Roberts. He not only will be the biggest voice in deciding which cases they hear, but would almost certainly be the deciding vote on any decision.

 

 

That is exactly my line of thought. I'm very concerned that certain elements of this current court would like to make this their swan song and the entire country is damaged because of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What makes you think that the SC will punt on the case?

 

Roberts

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is exactly my line of thought. I'm very concerned that certain elements of this current court would like to make this their swan song and the entire country is damaged because of it.

 

I would caution supporters of this to be careful what they wish for.

 

Overturning Roe would turn abortion laws back over to the states. For the majority of the normal states, like the one I live in, I wouldn't expect to see any change at all. The people here want abortion to be safe and accessible. For the women living in unfortunate places like Alabama? Life will obviously be different.

 

But such extreme changes in our culture would likely come at a political price. Less than 30% of Americans want to see Roe overturned. And when you remove the 'rape and incest' exceptions, you get down to only about 10% of Americans who agree with abortion being illegal.

 

http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

 

The backlash to a complete overturn of the ruling could very well end up setting back the conservative movement for years to come.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you know what was meant by "legitimate rape" when that statement was made? If you don't, you either know English as a second language or you are an idiot.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you know what was meant. i.e. the speaker is guilty of a poor choice of words.

 

OK, I'll bite. How does a woman's body 'shut the whole thing down'?

 

That's not 'a poor choice of words', that's complete blatant ignorance of reproductive biology at even a grade-school level.

 

Please, please, please - tell us all how this happens. Biology textbook editors all over the world are hanging on your next post.

 

(Oh, by the way, your 'English as a second language or you are an idiot' quote above is an ad-hominem attack on a fellow forumite, just so you can correctly identify one in the future. See https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ad%20hominem )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK, I'll bite. How does a woman's body 'shut the whole thing down'?

 

That's not 'a poor choice of words', that's complete blatant ignorance of reproductive biology at even a grade-school level.

 

Please, please, please - tell us all how this happens. Biology textbook editors all over the world are hanging on your next post.

 

(Oh, by the way, your 'English as a second language or you are an idiot' quote above is an ad-hominem attack on a fellow forumite, just so you can correctly identify one in the future. See https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ad%20hominem )

 

Do you know what was meant by "legitimate rape" when that statement was made? If you don't, you either know English as a second language or you are an idiot.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you know what was meant. i.e. the speaker is guilty of a poor choice of words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Do you know what was meant by "legitimate rape" when that statement was made? If you don't, you either know English as a second language or you are an idiot.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you know what was meant. i.e. the speaker is guilty of a poor choice of words.

 

Does it only count as “legitimate rape” if the rapist beats the uterus to the point where it’s permanently damaged? Or is it only legitimate rape if the rapist pulls out before ejaculation?

 

...No, I don’t know what “legitimate rape” meant.

 

I learned English first. 710 on SAT verbal (in English) and 720 on SAT writing (in English). So by Easy Listener’s statement, I must be an idiot. (Maybe the strokes really did cause serious brain damage?)

 

Care to enlighten me?

Edited by arcadesonfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no interpretation of "legitimate rape" that makes the statement not gibberish.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does it only count as “legitimate rape” if the rapist beats the uterus to the point where it’s permanently damaged? Or is it only legitimate rape if the rapist pulls out before ejaculation?

 

...No, I don’t know what “legitimate rape” meant.

 

I learned English first. 710 on SAT verbal (in English) and 720 on SAT writing (in English). So by Easy Listener’s statement, I must be an idiot. (Maybe the strokes really did cause serious brain damage?)

 

Care to enlighten me?

 

I was asking what the poster thought the speaker meant when they used the phrase, "legitimate rape".

 

I'll throw out my two cents regarding one, narrowly defined subject :what the speaker meant. ANd my answer has nothing to do with whether his conclusion is right or wrong. I can't speak to that because I've not studied it.

 

"Legiitimate rape" = "yes, she was raped. It was not a false claim." It could involve violence or not. In fact, it could even involve the woman having an orgazm, but it is still rape. Arousal does not equal consent for the simple reason that it can be involuntary.

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-body-reacts-sexual-assault/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

I was asking what the poster thought the speaker meant when they used the phrase, "legitimate rape".

 

I'll throw out my two cents regarding one, narrowly defined subject :what the speaker meant. ANd my answer has nothing to do with whether his conclusion is right or wrong. I can't speak to that because I've not studied it.

 

"Legiitimate rape" = "yes, she was raped. It was not a false claim." It could involve violence or not. In fact, it could even involve the woman having an orgazm, but it is still rape. Arousal does not equal consent for the simple reason that it can be involuntary.

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/ho...exual-assault/

 

So where is the poor word choice?

 

Of course I knew that Akin meant a woman was raped rather than choosing to have sex and then lying about it. Duh. The baffling part of his statement was the claim that the woman's body will automatically try to shut down impregnation on the basis that she was raped.

 

So Todd Akin said, "if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down." That's clearly wrong. The woman's body does not have a way to "shut the whole thing down." Females have been impregnated by forced sex (i.e., "legitimate rape") for millions of years; human women have been impregnated by "legitimate rape" for millennia.

 

 

Why is that when the quote was brought up, you accused people of misunderstanding the phrase "legitimate rape"? Why did you say Akin used poor word choice?

 

Do you agree that Todd Akin was wrong?

 

 

edit: Meh. Now I probably just sound mean. The conversation has been baffling, and I'm expressing frustration over people who admittedly don't know much about reproduction legislating abortion laws. It is similar to how a Steinbergerhack feels about AOC legislating economics.

Edited by arcadesonfire
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was asking what the poster thought the speaker meant when they used the phrase, "legitimate rape".

 

I'll throw out my two cents regarding one, narrowly defined subject :what the speaker meant. ANd my answer has nothing to do with whether his conclusion is right or wrong. I can't speak to that because I've not studied it.

 

"Legiitimate rape" = "yes, she was raped. It was not a false claim." It could involve violence or not. In fact, it could even involve the woman having an orgazm, but it is still rape. Arousal does not equal consent for the simple reason that it can be involuntary.

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-body-reacts-sexual-assault/

 

So how does understanding this to be the definition of "legitimate rape" (which is essentially the same one I used) change anything about what he said?

 

That you have repeatedly avoided talking about the "the body has a way to shut the whole thing down" part of this statement is what is telling here.

 

A) how does the body do this?

 

B) how does the rape being "legitimate" trigger its ability to do so?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you know what was meant by "legitimate rape" when that statement was made? If you don't, you either know English as a second language or you are an idiot.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you know what was meant. i.e. the speaker is guilty of a poor choice of words.

 

Nice :rolleyes:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So where is the poor word choice?

 

Of course I knew that Akin meant a woman was raped rather than choosing to have sex and then lying about it. Duh.

Good. You answered your own question.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. You answered your own question.

 

 

And you refuse to answer any.

 

Is this part of how this whole superior debate skills and unassailable positions of conservatives that liberals simply just can’t touch thing you always brag about works?

 

are you going to go back to one of “your” conservatives sites and chortle about how easily you dispatched all the weak liberal arguments at that “other” place you amuse yourself with now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And you refuse to answer any.

 

Is this part of how this whole superior debate skills and unassailable positions of conservatives that liberals simply just can’t touch thing you always brag about works?

 

are you going to go back to one of “your” conservatives sites and chortle about how easily you dispatched all the weak liberal arguments at that “other” place you amuse yourself with now?

 

It may be impossible for him to see it any other way. Maybe he misunderstands this whole conversation here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It may be impossible for him to see it any other way. Maybe he misunderstands this whole conversation here?

 

I guess you can’t ever lose a debate if you refuse to ever engage in one. :).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. You answered your own question.

 

 

Where was the poor word choice? Why did you say he used a poor choice of words?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By definition "poor choice of words" implies that had he chose some other words, the intended meaning would have been more clear. What do you think the better choice of words would have been and how it would have cleared things up?

 

Because I'm unable to think of ANY choice of words instead of "legitimate rape" or ANY definition of that term that helps clear up what he meant by "the body has a way of shutting the whole thing down".

 

You've been asked to explain this numerous times now by several people. Why are you avoiding the question? YOU'RE the one who brought up "poor choice of words" as a defense of his statement. At what point are you going to explain how this claim of yours actually makes ANY sense?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You gotta help me out, cuz I might be a legitimate idiot. Where in your post did you explain why “legitimate rape” was a poor choice of words by Aikin? You and I and everyone else understood what Aikin meant by “legitimate rape.” How is it that that is a poor choice of words??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You gotta help me out, cuz I might be a legitimate idiot. Where in your post did you explain why “legitimate rape” was a poor choice of words by Aikin? You and I and everyone else understood what Aikin meant by “legitimate rape.” How is it that that is a poor choice of words??

 

The best I can come up with is that it's a deflection point. "legitimate rape" is a 'poor choice of words' because it's probably a poor idea to put those two words so close to each other in ANY context.

 

But that being what it is doesn't take away from what was ACTUALLY the problem with his statement, which was the "body has a way to shut it down" part. Define "legitimate rape" any way you want or put any other words in their place and none of that absolves the core of his statement.

 

The only question that remains then, is why is EL trying to deflect away from (and ignore all questions about) the core of the statement and focus on two words no body is arguing about?

 

He can't actually believe that if only Akin had not used the phrase "legitimate rape" that he never would have gotten in trouble, does he? Only someone who uses English as a second language or is a complete idiot could believe that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...