Todd Akin - "Women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape"" (See MOD REMINDER!

jank

K-9 wrote: »

Men have a say but don't have the final right because it's up to the woman if she wants to give birth or not. Otherwise men could force a woman involuntarily to give birth or abort and I'm not really comfortable with myself.

Excellent point.

Therefore shouldn't women given that they are the person giving birth, if they become pregnant, exert more control and responsibility over their own bodies before they get pregnant?

jill_valentine

jank wrote: »

Excellent point.

Therefore shouldn't women given that they are the person giving birth, if they become pregnant, exert more control and responsibility over their own bodies before they get pregnant?

By "shutting that whole thing down"?

K-9

jank wrote: »

Excellent point.

Therefore shouldn't women given that they are the person giving birth, if they become pregnant, exert more control and responsibility over their own bodies before they get pregnant?

Well women I know do tend to take it seriously!

molloyjh

jank wrote: »

I never said that either. In fact I admitted twice that personal responsibility is the role of the man and the woman.

However, in the context of women's rights and their right to choose will the woman ever admit to personal responsibility or will it be shoved under a joint responsibility of both parties.

Can a woman ever be irresponsible only by her actions?

You can't be irresponsible by someone else's actions so of course she can. But in a situation where an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy occurs the responsibility lies jointly with both parties. She is as much to blame as him and vice versa. What happens after that is irrelevant to that particular question.

K-9

Is it just abortion you have an issue with jank or are you against free contraception as well?

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

So fine, don't answer the question.

What was the question?

You made a statement about women's sex lives and unwanted pregnancies. I pointed out that men are involved.

You made a statement that men do not have the right to choose - I responded that that depends on where one lives. If you had bothered to follow the link I supplied you would have read the following:

Whether a male has a legal right to advance his personal interest, whether it be toward abortion, fatherhood, or adoption, over that of the female partner in the relationship differs by region.
Egypt, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Malawi, Morocco, Nicaragua, Syria, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates all have laws which require that an abortion first be authorized by the woman's husband. However, in some countries, this stipulation can be bypassed or overridden if there is genuine concern for maternal health

Now - since the purpose of this thread is discussing pregnancy as a result of rape, perhaps you would answer this:

Do you believe a rapist should be able to prevent his victim aborting a child that was conceived as a result of his assault? He would, after all, be that child's biological father...

jank

Free contraception is not something I have an issue with. Its not as if its expensive anyway.

jank

K-9 wrote: »

Well women I know do tend to take it seriously!

Definately, but statistics like the one Permabear stated indicates that there are many women who don't.

I know personally of two girls who got drunk, had a one night stand with a random guy, ended up getting pregnant and crossed the channel for an abortion, without ever telling the guys.

The guys were irresponsible of course, they were to blame as well but I couldn't understand why the girls didn't acknowledge the huge risk they were taking in the first place.

molloyjh

jank wrote: »

Definately, but statistics like the one Permabear stated indicates that there are many women who don't.

I know personally of two girls who got drunk, had a one night stand with a random guy, ended up getting pregnant and crossed the channel for an abortion, without ever telling the guys.

The guys were irresponsible of course, they were to blame as well but I couldn't understand why the girls didn't acknowledge the huge risk they were taking in the first place.

The same reason the guys didn't. Stupidity. If the girls had decided to keep the kids the guys could have found themselves in a spot of bother themselves.

Does anyone here actually agree with free abortions in these cases?

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What was the question?

You made a statement about women's sex lives and unwanted pregnancies. I pointed out that men are involved.

You made a statement that men do not have the right to choose - I responded that that depends on where one lives. If you had bothered to follow the link I supplied you would have read the following:


Now - since the purpose of this thread is discussing pregnancy as a result of rape, perhaps you would answer this:

Do you believe a rapist should be able to prevent his victim aborting a child that was conceived as a result of his assault? He would, after all, be that child's biological father...

Clearly you are not going answer the question if women (as well as men) are responsible for their actions. But I will answer yours out of good will.

No I do not. Do you think its OK for a woman under ANY circumstances to abort a child no matter the wished of the father?

jank

molloyjh wrote: »

The same reason the guys didn't. Stupidity. If the girls had decided to keep the kids the guys could have found themselves in a spot of bother themselves.

Does anyone here actually agree with free abortions in these cases?

Oh I would say plenty would agree that they should have gotten free abortions.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Clearly you are not going answer the question if women (as well as men) are responsible for their actions. But I will answer yours out of good will.

No I do not. Do you think its OK for a woman under ANY circumstances to abort a child no matter the wished of the father?

That is too broad a question and you know it. Life is never so cut and dried.

Is the father willing to be the sole parent of the child, bare all responsibility and financial cost?

or

Does the father wish the woman to take equal responsibility for a child she does not want?

or

Will the father only have limited access so the mother will have to be primary carer for a child she does not want?

I pity the child whose mother was forced to have it.

jill_valentine

jank wrote: »

Free contraception is not something I have an issue with. Its not as if its expensive anyway.

Well, that depends. A year's supply of birth control costs on average about $200 dollars, but that can shoot right up to and right past about seven hundred dollars a year depending on what pill your body agrees with, and where you are in the States. That's not including doctor's visits, and before you start talking about the uninsured:



That may give you some idea of why it's so easy for Republicans to attack reproductive liberties by a financial channel, and why it matters if your employer is able to decide it's not covered under your health plan, for instance.

Women of reproductive age spend 68% more than their male counterparts on contraception. That has real consequences.

In addition, the survey found that access to affordable birth control is a serious issue. The survey reports that one in three women voters (34 percent) have struggled with the cost of prescription birth control at some point in their lives. For young adult women, who are most likely to experience an unintended pregnancy, more than half (55 percent) experienced a time when they could not afford to use birth control consistently.

But that's not all. Ryan, Akin and friends' personhood nonsense would, in fact, have had implications for effectively all of the hormone based methods that prevent implantation into the uterus. They wouldn't just be costly, they'd be effectively outlawed. This had to be explained over and over to many of the Reps embracing the personhood notion who, by some bafflingly, shockingly, wholly unexpected happenstance, apparently did not understand the full consequences their desired legislation would have for women before they started pushing it. Romney among them, incidentally.

So Republicans - it's always Republicans - oppose useful education on this stuff in schools. Then they oppose as many avenues to contraception as possible, either by undermining them financially or by trying to slip innocuous sounding little stingers into bills and laws. And finally, they oppose abortion at all opportunities and want to punish women for seeking them.

Let's go completely mad altogether and - for the sake of argument - pretend for a second that I don't give a fiddler's about the Democrats, which I don't. And that nobody wants to hear about some vaguely similar incident by another party on a completely unrelated subject or in another country.

Objectively, how are American women supposed to interpret this infuriatingly persistent pattern of noisy ignorance from the GOP, aimed in their direction? Why do you think it's such a persistent trend? What response do you think is appropriate for example after example of same?

molloyjh

jank wrote: »

molloyjh wrote: »

The same reason the guys didn't. Stupidity. If the girls had decided to keep the kids the guys could have found themselves in a spot of bother themselves.

Does anyone here actually agree with free abortions in these cases?

Oh I would say plenty would agree that they should have gotten free abortions.

You believing it doesn't make it so. If there are so many surely we'll get one answer in the positive here. If people do believe it I'd personally like to hear it from them.

jank

You may well be right. However, anytime the GOP go after tax funded abortion the drums start rolling on the "War on Women".

In Ireland we sweep all this under the carpet.

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That is too broad a question and you know it. Life is never so cut and dried.
.

Of course, then why do you ask similar questions of me? :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is the father willing to be the sole parent of the child, bare all responsibility and financial cost?

or

Does the father wish the woman to take equal responsibility for a child she does not want?

or

Will the father only have limited access so the mother will have to be primary carer for a child she does not want?

I pity the child whose mother was forced to have it.

Are any of those options legislated for in the US? Dont think so.

From your link.

Since Roe v. Wade, some states in the United States have attempted to enact laws requiring spousal notification or consent. All of these laws have been ruled unconstitutional, spousal consent in the 1976 decision Planned Parenthood v. Danforth and spousal notification in the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Judging from who funded these court cases the pro-choice lobby don’t care what so ever about the wishes of the father, preferring to keep abortion law strictly the domain of women. Yet see it suitable to purport blame to a man when it sees fit.

So even if a father wanted to keep a child, would pay for everything to raise the child and would raise it alone by himself where the mother would never be obliged to do anything after the child is born, he would not have any legal say in stopping the mother from not having the child. Do you think that is OK?

K-9

jank wrote: »

You may well be right. However, anytime the GOP go after tax funded abortion the drums start rolling on the "War on Women".

In Ireland we sweep all this under the carpet.

In fairness I'd be uncomfortable at cost being a factor as it seems to be to you. If abortion is legal I don't think affordability should be a huge factor at all, it's one of those things that should be outside money if it is legal.

It's one of the reasons I hate our laws, people on low incomes might struggle to get to England and don't have the same choice as people with disposable income, yet those not able to avail of it will get criticised for not doing so, if that makes sense.

K-9

jank wrote: »

So even if a father wanted to keep a child, would pay for everything to raise the child and would raise it alone by himself where the mother would never be obliged to do anything after the child is born, he would not have any legal say in stopping the mother from not having the child. Do you think that is OK?

I completely agree with your sentiment, I'd want to do the same faced with that predicament, but if a woman is against giving birth, how do you propose to deal with that, practically?

jank

K-9 wrote: »

I completely agree with your sentiment, I'd want to do the same faced with that predicament, but if a woman is against giving birth, how do you propose to deal with that, practically?

Well abortion is a complex and tricky topic. A true moral dilemma. As Bannasidhe said, I would pity the mother forced into it, but I would also pity the father who had no say or rights, or the unborn child itself. Those voices sometimes get lost in the battle of abortion and the woman's right to choose.

Amerika

If it is fair game to tie Akin’s comments on "legitimate rape" (which has transcended itself into the assault against women) to the Republican party... can we then also claim the Democratic party is in favor of legalizing infanticide, by allowing babies born alive from a botched abortion to be treated as medical waste?

jank

Amerika wrote: »

If it is fair game to tie Akin’s comments on "legitimate rape" (which has transcended itself into the assault against women) to the Republican party... can we then also claim the Democratic party is in favor of legalizing infanticide, by allowing babies born alive from a botched abortion to be treated as medical waste?

Now you have done it!;)

molloyjh

Amerika wrote: »

If it is fair game to tie Akin’s comments on "legitimate rape" (which has transcended itself into the assault against women) to the Republican party... can we then also claim the Democratic party is in favor of legalizing infanticide, by allowing babies born alive from a botched abortion to be treated as medical waste?

Source?

Amerika

molloyjh wrote: »

Source?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292204/obama-s-infanticide-votes-patrick-brennan

Memnoch

jank wrote: »

Now you have done it!;)

Yes. Once you ignore the context of Akin's remarks and all of the policies and agendas pushed by the republican party where women's reproductive rights are concerned.

Then you take remarks that are beyond the pale and compare them to a complex and nuanced issue of what should happen in botched abortions.

Then you use an article that takes a very particular slant on the second issue, ignoring all the context of the actual arguments involved and finally summarise them in a suitable manner to ONCE more resort to whataboutry and divert the argument away from the point that was being discussed.

False Equivalance. I salute thee.

Then again... there aren't many who would expect honest debate from those trying to defend Akin and the GOP when it comes to these issues.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

False Equivalance.

I agree. An actual Senatorial vote is far far worse than an off-the-cuff stupid comment.

Given the media hysteria over Akin’s comment, I find it hard to believe most have never heard of this about Obama. (actually... no I’m not :rolleyes: )

molloyjh

Amerika wrote: »

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292204/obama-s-infanticide-votes-patrick-brennan

So Obama didn't vote into legislation something he deemed was already covered in law. How exactly is this the same thing?

Reindeer

Amerika wrote: »

I agree. An actual Senatorial vote is far far worse than an off-the-cuff stupid comment.

Given the media hysteria over Akin’s comment, I find it hard to believe most have never heard of this about Obama. (actually... no I’m not :rolleyes: )

The MSM's response to Akin's profoundly ignorant statement is quite short of hysterical. Even Fox news ran a damning editorial on Akin today, although some of it may have been in defense of the GOP.

He doesn’t understand—and may not have the current capacity (read here, empathy and sensitivity) to understand—that his candidacy is an unwanted intrusion on the Republican party; a political rape, if you will.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/23/inside-mind-todd-akin/#ixzz24QYgIzpe

His statement is indefensible, and the heat he is attracting is well-deserved.

Obama claimed, and rightly so, that a child born under abortion that has a chance of survival is protected under law.

My attitude, as a male, on abortion might be a bit biased and metaphysical, or perhaps just simply schizophrenic. I have always considered abortion murder, but it doesn't bother me that it is legal in many places. If there was no chance of a child being born, there would be no need for an abortion. My chances of becoming pregnant against my will are nil, and I do not feel I have the right to enforce the legality of it no matter which side the law leans because I don't feel I should be able to legislate that choice for a woman, even if she is with my child, as it has become such an integral part of her that any decision directly affects her profoundly, and likely for life. A woman should not be forced in to abortion, nor should she be forced to bear the child if she wishes not to, and has the options to pursue that goal. In other words, the woman is ultimately responsible for that child after she becomes pregnant. She is sovereign. I do not appeal to ancient writings, magic, or a political party for moral guidance. I just see it for what it physically is. Yes, I would prefer it was a mutual experience start to finish with both parties, with mutual responsibility, but I am not willing to go as far as to legislate that. Also, in case it is difficult to spot between the lines here, I would feel that any baby outside the womb of their mother that has a chance for survival is at that point a human being as well, deserving of all the protections a human may have under law..

Humans like to see every issue as black and white as possible. I do my best to sift through the good and the bad as well. However, we shouldn't dismiss or fear the gray areas we may travel in to. Sometimes there is no one right answer. Sometimes it's 50/50/90.

Bannasidhe

Reindeer wrote: »

The MSM's response to Akin's profoundly ignorant statement is quite short of hysterical. Even Fox news ran a damning editorial on Akin today, although some of it may have been in defense of the GOP.

He doesn’t understand—and may not have the current capacity (read here, empathy and sensitivity) to understand—that his candidacy is an unwanted intrusion on the Republican party; a political rape, if you will.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/23/inside-mind-todd-akin/#ixzz24QYgIzpe

His statement is indefensible, and the heat he is attracting is well-deserved.

Obama claimed, and rightly so, that a child born under abortion that has a chance of survival is protected under law.

My attitude, as a male, on abortion might be a bit biased and metaphysical, or perhaps just simply schizophrenic. I have always considered abortion murder, but it doesn't bother me that it is legal in many places. If there was no chance of a child being born, there would be no need for an abortion. My chances of becoming pregnant against my will are nil, and I do not feel I have the right to enforce the legality of it no matter which side the law leans because I don't feel I should be able to legislate that choice for a woman, even if she is with my child, as it has become such an integral part of her that any decision directly affects her profoundly, and likely for life. A woman should not be forced in to abortion, nor should she be forced to bear the child if she wishes not to, and has the options to pursue that goal. In other words, the woman is ultimately responsible for that child after she becomes pregnant. She is sovereign. I do not appeal to ancient writings, magic, or a political party for moral guidance. I just see it for what it physically is. Yes, I would prefer it was a mutual experience start to finish with both parties, with mutual responsibility, but I am not willing to go as far as to legislate that. Also, in case it is difficult to spot between the lines here, I would feel that any baby outside the womb of their mother that has a chance for survival is at that point a human being as well, deserving of all the protections a human may have under law..

Humans like to see every issue as black and white as possible. I do my best to sift through the good and the bad as well. However, we shouldn't dismiss or fear the gray areas we may travel in to. Sometimes there is no one right answer. Sometimes it's 50/50/90.

Thank you for that considered response.
For me, Reindeer has hit the nail on the head when he wrote the highlighted part.

Should the State be able to force women to continue with pregnancies regardless of the circumstances?

What about the rights of the individual and protecting those rights from an overreaching State that is so important a part of Republican ideology?
Are women's rights to control over their own bodies flexible and dependant on the circumstances?

Let's say all forms of Federal funding for abortion is withdrawn - so now it is an economic issue. Abortions only for those who can afford it.

Let's say abortions are made illegal across the US which is the ultimate goal of the pro-Life groups. Ok, given their beliefs that makes perfect sense if one absolutely believes that all life is sacred and must be protected.

But....what about US military actions outside of it's own boarders that results in the loss of innocent lives? Is that not also Federal money being used to kill?

Amerika

How utterly pathetic and disingenuous the Democrats have become over Akin’s stupid comment.

Anderson Cooper of CNN took Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, to task over her lies used to forward the DNC agenda.

I think the attitude of the DNC in this election cycle can best summarized started around 2:45 in the video, when Cooper says she misinterpreted (nicest possible way of saying "LIED") a LA Times article about the Romney/Ryan abortion stance.

And the money quote from Debbie was here response… "It doesn’t matter"

Well, that just says it all... doesn’t it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8k-KuYJraEg

Amerika

Reindeer wrote: »

Obama claimed, and rightly so, that a child born under abortion that has a chance of survival is protected under law.

Come on... Obama was the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA.

Anyway, any reasonable person should ask how stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and then leaving them to die would "encroach on Roe v. Wade"?

MadsL

Amerika wrote: »

How utterly pathetic and disingenuous the Democrats have become over Akin’s stupid comment.

How do you feel about stupidity being encapsulated in State law then?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056738531

New law in Arizona states 'pregnancy begins two weeks before conception'

Amerika

MadsL wrote: »

New law in Arizona states 'pregnancy begins two weeks before conception'

If I’m reading it correctly, the law now prohibits abortions on demand once 20 weeks have passed since a woman’s last menstrual period, which is about 18 weeks after fertilization? Right?

MadsL

Amerika wrote: »

If I’m reading it correctly, the law now prohibits abortions on demand once 20 weeks have passed since a woman’s last menstrual period, which is about 18 weeks after fertilization? Right?

There's a thread on it here. Let's not do this here.

Duck Soup

The only thing worse than a Republican senatorial candidate making ugly, hamfisted remarks about rape and abortion on the eve of the Republican convention is another Republican senatorial candidate making ugly, hamfisted remarks about rape and abortion on the eve of the Republican convention.

Enter Tom Smith, the Republican senatorial candidate for Pennsylvania, speaking at a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon today.

Robert Vickers, Patriot News: In light of Congressman Akin’s comments, is there any situation that you think a woman should have access to an abortion?

Tom Smith: My stance is on record and it’s very simplistic: I’m pro-life, period. And what that Congressman said, I do not agree with at all. He should have never said anything like that.

Vickers: So in cases of incest or rape…

Laura Olson, Post-Gazette: No exceptions?

Smith: No exceptions.

Mark Scolforo, Associated Press: How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will? Do you have a way to explain that?

Smith: I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to.. she chose they way I thought. No don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape.

Scolforo: Similar how?

Smith: Uh, having a baby out of wedlock.

Scolforo: That’s similar to rape?

Smith: No, no, no, but… put yourself in a father’s situation, yes. It is similar. But, back to the original, I’m pro-life, period.

Here's the full transcript - with attempted clarification by Smith - with audio:

http://www.politicspa.com/smith-makes-abortion-gaffe-with-audio/40404/

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Come on... Obama was the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA.

Anyway, any reasonable person should ask how stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and then leaving them to die would "encroach on Roe v. Wade"?

Here, let me help you with that.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/08/22/myths-and-falsehoods-regarding-obamas-votes-on/144543

jill_valentine

I... he... there's more....

http://gawker.com/5948459/in-a-2008-speech-todd-akin-said-doctors-give-abortions-to-women-who-are-not-actually-pregnant

"You find that along with the culture of death go all kinds of other law-breaking: Not following good sanitary procedure, giving abortions to women who are not actually pregnant, cheating on taxes, all these kinds of things."

"All of these things are common practice," Akin continued, "but all of that information is available for America."

Today, Buzzfeed's Rebecca Berg contacted Rep. Akin's campaign for comment and, guess what, they're standing by the comments, if not Akin's exact phrasing.

"There's ample evidence that abortion doctors on any number of occasions have deceived women into thinking that they're pregnant, and then collect money for a procedure that they don't perform," said Rick Tyler, a spokesperson for Akin's campaign. "And I say they don't perform it because obviously the women weren't pregnant."

Ample evidence, doncha know.

The first quote comes from a speech in 2008. The second quote is his response to questions about it this week, so he's standing by it.

Chap's a fruitcake.

Amerika

Why is it when a DEMOCRATIC State Representative (Joe Salazar) makes stupid comments about rape, there is no firestorm? (just a rhetorical question really… we all know the answer)

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvng-jSp60&feature=player_embedded



http://www.redstate.com/kforti/2013/02/19/colorado-democrat-says-women-cant-be-trusted-with-guns-backers-fail-to-rebuke/


And I love how the media is reporting now that Salazar later apologized for the comment. No he didn’t, he apologized if anyone was offended by his comment… BIG DIFFERENCE!

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Why is it when a DEMOCRATIC State Representative (Joe Salazar) makes stupid comments about rape, there is no firestorm? (just a rhetorical question really… we all know the answer)

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvng-jSp60&feature=player_embedded



http://www.redstate.com/kforti/2013/02/19/colorado-democrat-says-women-cant-be-trusted-with-guns-backers-fail-to-rebuke/


And I love how the media is reporting now that Salazar later apologized for the comment. No he didn’t, he apologized if anyone was offended by his comment… BIG DIFFERENCE!

It could be because there is a giant media conspiracy that is making the republicans look bad while not criticising democrats or that the comments are not really comparable. I'd go with the latter.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

It could be because there is a giant media conspiracy that is making the republicans look bad while not criticising democrats or that the comments are not really comparable. I'd go with the latter.

Call me crazy, but I believe women in general have the intelligence to know when they are getting raped.

I’d go with the former.

B0jangles

Amerika wrote: »

Call me crazy, but I believe women in general have the intelligence to know when they are getting raped.

I’d go with the former.

The Republican party needs no-one's help to look bad.

Amerika

B0jangles wrote: »

The Republican party needs no-one's help to look bad.

So... how do you feel about Joe Salazar's (Dem) comments?

B0jangles

Amerika wrote: »

So... how do you feel about Joe Salazar's (Dem) comments?

If the quotes are accurate then I think he's an idiot.

Amerika

B0jangles wrote: »

If the quotes are accurate then I think he's an idiot.

I agree. (But I forget to say it's a two part question.)

What do you think of the media hypocrisy regarding their handling of the two idiot's and their idiotic rape comments?

B0jangles

Amerika wrote: »

I agree. (But I forget to say it's a two part question.)

What do you think of the media hypocrisy regarding their handling of the two idiot's and their idiotic rape comments?

It is interesting that this has had such a low impact. I at first thought it might be because the presidential election is over, so the Dems Vs. Repubs stories don't have the same traction as they had, but then I went to Fox News to see how they reported on it.

I presumed they'd take the obvious opportunity to call out a democrat state representative on such stupid views but they hid the story under the bland headline:

Lawmaker apologizes for suggesting women fearful of rape should rely on whistle, not firearms

No mention of party affiliation until the second paragraph of the article.


Now, I think we can all agree that FoxNews is very committed to presenting the Republican party in the best possible light at all times, so the only explanation I can come up with is that the major U.S. news companies rely on presenting political stories that line up with the way people expect the 2 parties to behave; people generally want to hear things that they already know.



So a story where a republican politician is pro womens/minority rights, or a democrat politician is anti equal rights is opposed to the standard narrative of politics in the U.S. and has to be ignored to avoid disrupting the comfortable status quo.

clairefontaine

Amerika wrote: »

Call me crazy, but I believe women in general have the intelligence to know when they are getting raped.

I’d go with the former.

Ok, it's nearly getting comical now.

Back when I was in college I would call the "awareness raising" by liberals caused a certain amount or rape hysteria, where women were being told that a man looking at you in an elevator is a form of visual rape. No I'm not joking. It wouldnt suprise me if some of them didnt know to be honest, when radical feminists are telling them their boyfriends are raping them. katie Rophie wrote about this and got a lot of vitriol. This is just one example of the brainswashing that went on. I don't know if it still goes on. This is not to say that rape does not happen on campuses, we all know it does, but to what extent is another thing entirely. So all this fear raising hypersensitises people. As we all know when we are in a heightened state of fear our startle reflexes are more alert too.

So now you have a democrat who is acknoweledging inadvertantly the liberal brainwashing that goes on in campuses. But he won't come out and say it. The press is not going to tackle either of these issues.

Fox News is as full of **** as the rest of them.

Amerika

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ok, it's nearly getting comical now.

Comical?

I'd say frighteningly serious!

in 2010, the Department of Justice estimated that 25 percent of college women "will be victims of rape or attempted rape before they graduate within a four-year period." The study also estimated that women between the ages of 16 and 24, will experience rape "at a rate that's four times higher than the assault rate of all women."

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-co-host-bob-beckel-apologizes-rape-023300821.html

clairefontaine

Amerika wrote: »

Comical?

I'd say frighteningly serious!


http://tv.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-co-host-bob-beckel-apologizes-rape-023300821.html

Look there is frat boy mentality.

But there are also professors and womens groups convincing girls their boyfriends raped them. You end up with very confused girls.

So the high rate of assault is probably a combination of the two.

Its comical because the left is all over the shop.

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Why is it when a DEMOCRATIC State Representative (Joe Salazar) makes stupid comments about rape, there is no firestorm? (just a rhetorical question really… we all know the answer)

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvng-jSp60&feature=player_embedded



http://www.redstate.com/kforti/2013/02/19/colorado-democrat-says-women-cant-be-trusted-with-guns-backers-fail-to-rebuke/


And I love how the media is reporting now that Salazar later apologized for the comment. No he didn’t, he apologized if anyone was offended by his comment… BIG DIFFERENCE!

Because it is not in the middle of a hotly contested Senate race with huge implications for the balance of power in Washington?

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because it is not in the middle of a hotly contested Senate race with huge implications for the balance of power in Washington?

One would think that be the case, but in my opinion if it were a republican making these ridiculous comments instead of a democrat, there would be a systematic media outcry of "STOP THE PRESSES." Just look at the media response to the president’s State Of The Union address and the republican response. Mark Rubio’s awkward reach for a drink of water seemingly got as much press time as Obama’s entire speech.

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

One would think that be the case, but in my opinion if it were a republican making these ridiculous comments instead of a democrat, there would be a systematic media outcry of "STOP THE PRESSES." Just look at the media response to the president’s State Of The Union address and the republican response. Mark Rubio’s awkward reach for a drink of water seemingly got as much press time as Obama’s entire speech.

Because the State of the Union is a boring laundry list of policies, whereas a potential 2016 candidate bombed his first direct introduction to the American public? Which story do you think is more interesting? And didn't you guys learn anything from the Bobby Jindal disaster?