Rob's House

Before I address the substance of your post, I want to thank you for being the first person to explain why you find this offensive. I actually agree with a lot of what you say here. And before we got into the abortion debate I acknowledged that this Akin guy's statement was poorly worded and stupid to say. I don't, however, find anything truly malicious about what I think he was trying to say. I realize the crux of this is understanding what he meant by "legitimate". Perhaps he meant actual rape, as opposed to bogus allegations. Or perhaps he was differentiating sexual offenses that often fall under a broad heading of rape that differ from what one would typically think of as rape, like sleeping with a girl who is conscious enough to say no, but drunk enough that you know you're taking advantage of her, or when the girl doesn't really want to and the guy know it but pressures her into it - these things are unethical but not necessarily "rape" as I would define it. Or maybe he was discounting situations when she says no but you know by how she's dressed that she really wants it. I don't know. There's a lot he could have meant. That's the point of my question to The Big Kitten. Since we don't know what falls inside or outside his idea of "legitimate rape" it seems a bit presumptuous to accuse him of minimizing the effects on legitimate victims of rape. That's why I ask, who are the people who were victimized who fall outside of his definition. If we don't know, then who is to be offended? I normally hate using anecdotal evidence, but I was talking to a girl who has been a victim of date rape and she agreed with my take, so I don't think I'm being terribly insensitive here.

100% of people die. Therefore...

So it's offensive to rape victims that weren't legitimately raped? Which rape victims fall into that category? I think we need to establish this so we know who should feel marginalized.

They already control your body in so many other ways, many of which I oppose (like drug prohibition) but I can't dismiss out of hand the interest of the child, which to me is a far more substantial concern than anything currently used to justify government intrusion. I'm going to call it a night because it's taken me two hours to get through half an episode of Burn Notice & I want to finish it before I crash, & I think we've fleshed this issue out pretty thoroughly. Perhaps we can pick it up on the other side. And BTW, the Jesus reference had absolutely nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

Dude, I have it on good authority that I'm the biggest ass hole on this board. You're never going to win me over with that. I really hope it does work (kind of like I hoped Jasper would be the next Ted Washington) but government bureaucracies & price controls have a really bad track record. I just don't have a lot of faith in them.

I'll give you credit. You're a good lawyer. You twist the words well & I'm sure you could slide that one by the !@#$s in the league office, but you don't fool Jesus. There's a fine line (& by fine line I mean big, gaping canyon) between "control your body" and "prohibit you from intentionally killing a [potentially] living being that has come to live in your womb as a result of your decisions".

I'm not necessarily saying congress should ban abortion; I'm torn. But it seems reasonable to me that people should accept the responsibility of their actions & since the baby (it's no longer an egg by the time this question is relevant) can't speak for itself it seems very reasonable for the government to step in & protect the life of a potentially innocent child just as it would protect that child if after birth, when it is still essentially a parasite (might be out of the body but requires a parent to provide for ALL its needs), the mother decided to toss it off a cliff.

Well at least we have that in common. (no offense meazza)

Actually, you're advocating allowing the person who created the situation to be the final arbiter on the issue. Edit: And I've never acknowledged my divinity status one way or another.

I happen to think birth control is a wonderful thing & I think the Catholic stance is a little loony, but I don't see why they should be compelled to provide it. I just don't see any justification for making that kind of an imposition.

Let's look at it another way. Except in cases of rape, the woman, rather than the "parasite", is the one responsible for the situation. It hardly seems just to give her exclusive authority to decide whether or not to kill it. You get pregnant, it's your responsibility to care for the child. Unless of course you're arguing that it's not a baby, but rather a mass of cells not dissimilar from a tumor, in which case all ethical questions become moot.

The lack of a male equivalence does not thereby make two dissimilar thing similar. I already explained the female equivalence & summarily defeated your argument, but you persist on in defiance of logic without even addressing the rebuke because you'd rather validate something you previously thought than pursue truth.

Regardless of your stance on the position, there is no equivalence here. Whether you consider it deserving of life, a developing baby is killed by abortion. Giving yourself a vasectomy kills nothing. A valid comparison would be a woman having her tubes tied, yet there are no activists, right-wing or otherwise that I know of, seeking governmental intervention in such cases. That's not accurate either. Pro-life doesn't impose itself on how people reproduce; it imposes itself on those who want to kill the baby after the fact. Pro-choice wants to allow people to impose their will on a baby against its will. Can't we just be honest & accept the undeniable truth that the answer turns exclusively on whether or not you believe the fetus is a baby? Playing out someone else's philosophy after subbing in your underlying premise for theirs is bull ****.

The point is, when talking hypocrisy in this case you are discussing an internal contradiction between beliefs. If a person believes that baby is alive, protecting that baby's right to life in no way contradicts the belief that people should be free to make their own personal decisions because based on the premises of those beliefs, which are not mutually exclusive, the woman's right to kill the child inside her is superseded by the child's right to live. This aspect isn't that complicated. Anyone who understands this point of view & persists in claiming hypocrisy is either dishonest or incredibly stupid. I don't think you are either & I'm therefore baffled that I'm having this discussion with you.

I agree it's a very sticky subject & I don't claim to know the proper role of government on the issue. I'm merely stating why the hypocrisy argument doesn't wash.

Come on, man. That's weak. You're conflating accuracy with hypocrisy. Not even accuracy really. In fact, you have an even weaker argument because the other option is when in doubt err on the side of killing a little baby. You can make the same principled arguments of incarceration, the only difference is severity. Back to the original topic, please answer the previous question I asked. I honestly want to hear the rationale.

Are we really going to pretend the killing of a brutal preditor is equivalent to killing an innocent baby?

Whoa. How do you get from "unlikely to conceive" to "it's your fault if you do"?

If you're trying to find irony in people who believe in small government and personal autonomy opposing abortion you've failed miserably. If you believe it is a baby being killed you're essentially calling for the government to protect a defenseless child. So unless conservatives start calling for legalized murder I'm afraid you don't have a point. I know this particular situation touches on some more complicated issues, but that's irrelevant to the issue of hypocrisy you were attempting to establish.

Attacked by what? An assertion that she's unlikely to get pregnant under the circumstances?

1st bold - I see. Your response does seem less crazy now, although I don't think he was being dishonest. 2nd bold - To be fair, Obama's cutting of Medicare is just shuffling the spending around. It's kind of like my wife telling me she's reduced her spending on the Visa card when all she's done is switch to the Discover card. And a reduction in the increase is preferable to not reducing the increase IMO. BTW, speaking of intellectual dishonesty, Politifact is getting that down to a science.

Don't worry. I didn't expect anyone to be able to articulate a logical response. I wasn't trying to single you out, you just said what it seems many were thinking. I'm just wishing someone would explain the steps in the logical deduction that arrives at that particular conclusion.

Granted, the way he described it was idiotic (although I think had he said trauma & the ensuing stress reduces the likelihood of pregnancy it would have been reasonably plausible - I'd want to see supporting data regardless), but I still don't get how claiming a raped woman is unlikely to be impregnated by her rapist translates to a lack of empathy for her suffering. Can you explain?

This situation reminds me how stupid my fellow Americans are. Granted the comments were stupid, especially for a politician, and the guy should get out of the race for the good of everyone, but the consensus seems to blindly follow that the words somehow amount to the bolded assertion above, but I have yet to hear ANYONE explain how this guy somehow marginalized or was dismissive of the suffering of rape victims. I haven't followed this story closely so I'm hoping there's something I've missed that suddenly makes this outrage sensible & not the rantings of a bunch of morons trying to scream "I think rape is bad" the loudest, as though there's some large unknown contingency claiming it's really not that big of a deal. Anyone got anything?

Fixed. Because, let's be honest. You guys don't give a **** about allowing individuals to make their own choices.