First we had 'Legitimate Rape', now there's 'Rape creates Extraordinary People'

Millicent

Millicent wrote: »

They're not inherently good either, are they? It's a bit of a moot point to throw into the debate. I'm sure some children of rape are lovely people. I'm just as sure others are pure assholes. It's not really relevant to the debate.

It is when the whole "except in cases of rape and incest" bit is thrown into the abortion debate. If someone accepts the premise that all human life, including foetuses, deserves protection under the law (as most "pro-lifers" do) then I can see how making exceptions for such cases may offend.

philologos

Millicent wrote: »

They're not inherently good either, are they? It's a bit of a moot point to throw into the debate. I'm sure some children of rape are lovely people. I'm just as sure others are pure assholes. It's not really relevant to the debate.

My point is - I don't see what's wrong with Huckabee's point. In fact, I'd say it's quite welcome in some ways. There are difficulties when it comes to life and death, and the reality of the child being nonetheless innocent is one of those things.

For the record, I can't say I have much objections with the man at all and how he's conducted himself in previous election campaigns.

Honestly, I'm a bit tired of the clichéd nonsense of calling people "nutjobs" because they disagree with you.
EDIT: Saying ^^ in a general rather than a specific sense.

Millicent

Deleted User wrote: »

It is when the whole "except in cases of rape and incest" bit is thrown into the abortion debate. If someone accepts the premise that all human life, including foetuses, deserves protection under the law (as most "pro-lifers" do) then I can see how making exceptions for such cases may offend.

I do understand that point. My point was that holding up "extraordinary people" who were born of rape is not relevant. I'm sure people on the other side of the debate could hold up some children born of rape who had done awful things. It's muddying the waters on either side.

philologos wrote: »

My point is - I don't see what's wrong with Huckabee's point. In fact, I'd say it's quite welcome in some ways. There are difficulties when it comes to life and death, and the reality of the child being nonetheless innocent is one of those things.

For the record, I can't say I have much objections with the man at all and how he's conducted himself in previous election campaigns.

Honestly, I'm a bit tired of the clichéd nonsense of calling people "nutjobs" because they disagree with you.
EDIT: Saying ^^ in a general rather than a specific sense.

I never called anyone a nutjob. I think Akin is a spectacular idiot to not understand the basics of conception but I never described anyone as a nutjob.

Do you think Huckabee's point is muddying the waters a bit? It is a cry to sympathy, nothing more, and hinges on a "what if" rather than what is happening right now.

philologos

No, I don't think it's "muddying the waters" at all. It's a valid and helpful point to consider.

Ickle Magoo

philologos wrote: »

No, I don't think it's "muddying the waters" at all. It's a valid and helpful point to consider.

As useful as pondering as to whether a child borne out of rape might grow up to be a mass murderer and thus abortion should be considered, I'd have thought...

Millicent

philologos wrote: »

No, I don't think it's "muddying the waters" at all. It's a valid and helpful point to consider.

Is it valid and helpful to consider that there have been some evil gits born of rape then?

Millicent

Millicent wrote: »

I do understand that point. My point was that holding up "extraordinary people" who were born of rape is not relevant. I'm sure people on the other side of the debate could hold up some children born of rape who had done awful things. It's muddying the waters on either side.

Pretty hard to get clear waters on this topic.

philologos

Millicent wrote: »

Is it valid and helpful to consider that there have been some evil gits born of rape then?

The child irrespective of the circumstances of its conception is still nonetheless innocent. I think that's where Huckabee's coming from in a sense. But you're right, irrespective of whether the child is evil or good, what is up for discussion is whether or not the child has the right to life.

Bringing this up is the right thing to do I think.

MadsL

Here's the audio of the two muppets gentlemen discussing it; full 10 minutes as Akin apologises, tries to deflect onto the economy, and claims not to be a quitter. Gets emotional and teary at the end talking about 9/11 and people in wheelchairs ffs.

Fcking utterly obnoxious piece of sh.t, hope he crawls back under the rock he came from.

Let us not forget that Huckabee called for National Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.

GOP should expel him.



http://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F56954979&show_artwork=true&show_artwork=true&callback=reqwest_0&_=1345570792110

Dangerous Man

Millicent wrote: »

They're not inherently good either, are they? It's a bit of a moot point to throw into the debate. I'm sure some children of rape are lovely people. I'm just as sure others are pure assholes. It's not really relevant to the debate.

The point is completely relevant - indeed it's central to his argument.

What he's doing is acknowledging what an horrific experience rape is but also pointing out, in accord with his belief system, that the end result (a baby being born) isn't necessarily a continuation of that same horrific experience. Indeed, it can be a wonderful experience, as unpalatable as that might seem to you.

You don't want it to be relevant because if it's not then the only part of the argument that you need to deal with is the fact of rape and pregnancy; this then makes Huckabee seem like a bit of a monster because his argument then more closely resembles this:

'Sure rape is terrible, but if a baby conceived, it can't be all that bad.' And that, of course, doesn't look very good. But the truth is that's not what he's saying and it's unfair to pick and choose parts of what he says to suit your ends.

SocSocPol

Dangerous Man wrote: »

The point is completely relevant - indeed it's central to his argument.

What he's doing is acknowledging what an horrific experience rape is but also pointing out, in accord with his belief system, that the end result (a baby being born) isn't necessarily a continuation of that same horrific experience. Indeed, it can be a wonderful experience, as unpalatable as that might seem to you.

You don't want it to be relevant because if it's not then the only part of the argument that you need to deal with is the fact of rape and pregnancy; this then makes Huckabee seem like a bit of a monster because his argument then more closely resembles this:

'Sure rape is terrible, but if a baby conceived, it can't be all that bad.' And that, of course, doesn't look very good. But the truth is that's not what he's saying and it's unfair to pick and choose parts of what he says to suit your ends.

Yes, Im sure that pregnant rape victims ust cant find words to describe the thought of the oys of the child birth that might follow!

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

I don't see why. He's not saying rape is a good thing, but is acknowledging that children that are born through those means aren't bad.

Simple point. He's not applauding rape.

He also said women are magically capable of stopping themselves getting pregnant.

It actually is a throwback to medieval ages when people really did think a woman also had to orgasm in order to get pregnant. Therefore a woman wasn't raped because she enjoyed it.

It's nonsense and you know it.

Dangerous Man

SocSocPol wrote: »

Yes, Im sure that pregnant rape victims ust cant find words to describe the thought of the oys of the child birth that might follow!

Read what I wrote again. Read it several times if you have to and then come back with a point against what I actually wrote and not what you think I wrote.

Thanks.

dr.bollocko

Huckabee had Akin on his show. To be fair even the majority of Republicans are distancing themselves from Akin's comments.

The manner in which Huckabee chose to phrase his argument is somewhat of a sideshow. They're trying to move away from Akin's medical claims that women who get forcibly raped don't get pregnant.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Aug21.html#item-1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-repugnant-code-behind-todd-akins-words/2012/08/20/7e91ed12-eb08-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage&tid=pp_widget

There was a vote on a bill before which would have redefined rape in terms of US law. Romney's vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan voted on this.

Akin later apparently qualified his remarks further on his facebook page:

"As a member of Congress, I believe that working to protect the most vulnerable in our society is one of my most important responsibilities, and that includes protecting both the unborn and victims of sexual assault. In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it's clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year. Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve.

I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-missouri-rep-todd-akin-says-he-misspoke-on-rape-and-pregnancy-20120819,0,512566.story

Which is nice, but it merely seeks to deflect away from the enormity of his original comments attempting to grade rape and not-really-rape.

He (Akin) was asked this:

"If abortion could be considered in case of, say, a tubal pregnancy [which threatens the mother’s life], what about in the case of rape?"

He replied:

"It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare,” Akin said, referring to conception following a rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."

What I don't understand without the context of listening to the full interview is whether or not Huckabee didn't understand what it was that everyone was so upset about or whether he was trying to spin the story to make the story an abortion debate at its most murky.

Because he was surely doing one or the other.

If you look at it as simply a pro-life vs. pro-choice debate taken to its logical extremes then you could see that what Huckabee is saying is "two wrongs (at least in Huckabee's and Akin's mind they're wrongs) don't make a right"

However in the context of what Akin said, this whole thing is just a side debate attempting to steer the shrapnel away from one issue and towards another issue.

If you look at the replies in this thread you can see how that would be successful.

There are many mis-steps in this election year and every one of them is getting highlighted to the extreme on both sides.

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

He also said women are magically capable of stopping themselves getting pregnant.

It actually is a throwback to medieval ages when people really did think a woman also had to orgasm in order to get pregnant. Therefore a woman wasn't raped because she enjoyed it.

It's nonsense and you know it.

That wasn't Huckabee. Read the thread. I don't endorse that opinion and I never will.

Sonics2k

Genuine mistake there Phil, my apologies.

All the swapping between Huckabee and Akin got me mixed up

Millicent

Dangerous Man wrote: »

The point is completely relevant - indeed it's central to his argument.

What he's doing is acknowledging what an horrific experience rape is but also pointing out, in accord with his belief system, that the end result (a baby being born) isn't necessarily a continuation of that same horrific experience. Indeed, it can be a wonderful experience, as unpalatable as that might seem to you.

You don't want it to be relevant because if it's not then the only part of the argument that you need to deal with is the fact of rape and pregnancy; this then makes Huckabee seem like a bit of a monster because his argument then more closely resembles this:

'Sure rape is terrible, but if a baby conceived, it can't be all that bad.' And that, of course, doesn't look very good. But the truth is that's not what he's saying and it's unfair to pick and choose parts of what he says to suit your ends.

It's a bit rude to summarise my position for me. I don't want it to be relevant because I'm picking and choosing the parts to suit myself?

I never called him or implied he was a monster either. What is with people on this thread ascribing slurs to my position that I haven't made?

MadsL

Akin is all about deflection. That he has the balls to start waffling about how fireman didn't check the ID of people rescued in wheelchairs on 9/11. He's not fit to clean the boots of those firemen. Now lest I sound like a 9/11, Stars Stripes and Never Forget head, I'm not, but it sickens me that he even brings this up like there is some liberal conspiracy about the value of a person. Utterly repugnant.

"They don't check their ID to see whether they're important or not, they just take them to safety and run back for more," Akin said. "They, by their lives, speak as Americans of what we think about the value of human beings and how much respect we hold people with."

Excuse me??? Who is WE in this sentence?

Note the simpering end of this interview.

"Well, Mike I really appreciate you giving me that opportunity, to be able to say that personally to so many people, and also for the fact that you are a man with a big heart and you love this country too, thank you for all that you do for us"

In other words, you are a soft way of me getting out a sort of apology without having to ask any nasty questions. It is not often I agree with Piers Morgan (I'd rather see him boiled alive in sour bull semen) but after Akin bottled it when booked to appear on PMs show;

'Congressman, you have an open invitation to join me in that chair whenever you feel up to it, because if you don't keep your promise to be on the show, then you are what we would call in Britain a gutless little twerp,'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191310/Todd-Akin-Piers-Morgan-interviews-chair-Missouri-Congressman-ditches-interview.html#ixzz24DlZbtgd

Dangerous Man

Millicent wrote: »

It's a bit rude to summarise my position for me. I don't want it to be relevant because I'm picking and choosing the parts to suit myself?

I never called him or implied he was a monster either. What is with people on this thread ascribing slurs to my position that I haven't made?

It's not rude to summarize your argument. Besides, I didn't actually summarize it per se, I more paraphrased it and demonstrated why you want to omit certain elements of Huckabee's original point; the reason is because the implications of such a truncated argument would clearly undermine its potency. You didn't use the word monster but a lot of others would easily reach that conclusion independently if they were to abide by what you thought was a legitimate interpretation of Huckabee's original stance. That point is demonstrated, quite clearly, by how quickly people have jumped all over Huckabee in this thread already even though what he said bares zero relation to Akin's bizarre remarks.

All I'm saying, essentially, is if we're going to talk about what this guy said, let's do that - but let's do it truthfully - and as far as possible, put egos and agendas aside.

B0jangles

Hey, here's a little story for everyone saying that Mike Huckabee takes rape seriously and is just trying to defend unborn babies - when he was governer of Arkansas he forcefully lobbied to get a convicted rapist released 25 years early, a man who went on to rape and murder two more women before being rearrested. Huckabee pursued this man's release despite receiving letters from several of his earlier victims begging him not to do so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/documents-expose-huckabee_n_75362.html

Quote:

"Little Rock, Ark -- As governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee aggressively pushed for the early release of a convicted rapist despite being warned by numerous women that the convict had sexually assaulted them or their family members, and would likely strike again. The convict went on to rape and murder at least one other woman."

quote:

""There's nothing any of us could ever do," Huckabee said Sunday on CNN when asked to reflect on the horrific outcome caused by the prisoner's release. "None of us could've predicted what [Dumond] could've done when he got out."

2007-12-05-seefulldocuments.jpgBut the confidential files show that Huckabee was provided letters from several women who had been sexually assaulted by Dumond and who indeed predicted that he would rape again - and perhaps murder - if released.

In a letter that has never before been made public, one of Dumond's victims warned: "I feel that if he is released it is only a matter of time before he commits another crime and fear that he will not leave a witness to testify against him the next time." Before Dumond was granted parole at Huckabee's urging, records show that Huckabee's office received a copy of this letter from Arkansas' parole board.

The woman later wrote directly to Huckabee about having been raped by Dumond. In a letter, she said that Dumond had raped her while holding a butcher knife to her throat, and while her then-3-year-old daughter lay in bed next to her. Also included in the files sent to Huckabee's office was a police report in which Dumond confessed to the rape. Dumond was not charged in that particular case because he later refused to sign the confession and because the woman was afraid to press charges."

So Mike Huckabee is really into defending fetuses, rapists. Women... not so high on the list.

SamHarris

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/20/george-galloway-julian-assange-rape

And yet another.

MagicSean

Thought this was a good summation of the current situation

SamHarris

Deleted User wrote: »

People look at North Korea as being messed up and often forget just how screwed up America is. It's genuinely frightening to think.

Just to be clear - people dont think N. Korea is "being messed up" because some of its politicians say wacky things, or even hold terrible opinions...

The Sweeper

Wibbs wrote: »

While I agree with the rest of your post, especially your last line I'd disagree here, or at least consider degrees of rape. We consider degrees in assault and unlawful killing, but not rape. Rape is another crime against the person and as such those degrees must objectively exist.

The problem with categorising rape is that you cannot reasonably place a restriction on the degree of injury felt by a victim. To categorise a rape is to somehow place a stricture around the degree of upset that's allowable to someone who has been raped.

Physical and emotional trauma have recovery rates that are individually dependent on a person's ability to get over what happened to them. That ability should never be scorned or criticised. I've seen long-term sexual abuse victims interviewed and found their account of the extended, multiple rapes they were subjected to by family members, and their subsequent recovery from that abuse, absolutely inspiring because of the beacon of hope, forgiveness and strength thoese people have become.

And I've seen people who were sexually assaulted for 30 seconds on a bus as a child, by some dirty aulfella, still break down and sob and shake as adults when recounting the story.

Categorising degrees of rape, however logical it may seem (after all, we have assault, assault with a deadly weapon, murder, premeditated murder, manslaughter, so on), will never seem logical to a victim. It will simply seem like an attack on the validity of their emotional response to their rape. (And in the case of 'real rape not making you pregnant', it'll seem like an attack on the validity of their physical response to their rape too.)

Rape is beyond a physical assault because it makes such a parody of what should be an intimate, loving act. It is violence but not just violence; it is violence with cruelty, sadism, control, humiliation and objectification thrown in for good measure. It may be logically categorised - rape, rape with a beating, rape using an object, but what of the other features of a rape? Rape that involves only vaginal penetration but goes on for four or five hours because the rapist wants to play love songs while dousing you with petrol and threatening to set you on fire? Is that better or worse than gang rape with sodomy?

...see, and now I've started to think about it, and all logic is accelerating out the window and I'm getting to the stage where I cannot see how anyone, in their right mind, could possibly categorise sexual assaults on a sliding scale of what might be 'better' or 'worse' for the victim.

Wibbs

Great post TS and points well taken, however;

The Sweeper wrote: »

The problem with categorising rape is that you cannot reasonably place a restriction on the degree of injury felt by a victim. To categorise a rape is to somehow place a stricture around the degree of upset that's allowable to someone who has been raped.

You can say the exact same thing of assault without a sexual component, but people rarely do to nearly the same degree as with this crime. Again rape tends to be a special case. There are some out there who after a "minor" assault, even a non violent mugging, are so traumatised they become agaraphobic and afraid to leave their house, while others having suffered serious physical assaults are not nearly so affected, yet any reasonable person would conclude the latter incident is of a more serious nature, even if they feel empathy for the different responses of the victims. Hell an elderly neighbour of mine wasted away and essentially killed herself through self neglect after a burglary (very fcuking sad story that angers me to this day), yet one of her neighbours a few doors away burgled in the same local spate was significantly less traumatised and her response was "ah sure these things happen".

In any crime against the person, you can't reasonably place restrictions on degree of injury felt, nor would I do so in the vast majority of cases. To each their own response. Though I will fully admit that for me someone reacting to 30 seconds of being felt up in the same vein as someone who suffered through a sustained sexual abuse by a family member as approaching equal in severity would have me most certainly raising an eyebrow.

About the only, though most important difference in rape is as you say is that "Rape is beyond a physical assault because it makes such a parody of what should be an intimate, loving act."*. That most certainly does single it out as particularly traumatising for any victim. Though again(and apologies for wearing out your examples ) I'd certainly not regard 30 seconds of being felt up anywhere near the same ballpark as familial sexual abuse. I've just finished an interesting book on the immediate aftermath of Germany's surrender in WW2. Women from 9 to 90 were raped on a mass scale. Many threw themselves into oblivion in fast flowing rivers carrying their children with them because of the trauma and for me at least equating such crimes as somehow equal because of the individuals response to being felt up on a bus is damn near obscene to me. There is clearly an objective distinction to be made in cases of sexual assault/rape, regardless of the victims individual response.





*I'd add a couple more, in particular some of society's responses to rape victims, which add to the trauma, sometimes even when not intending to.

Colmustard

Its OK people the senator has found god and asked for forgiveness. So that is that then.

midlandsmissus

I just heard a bit about that the other day Wibbs. Who did that - the U.S army? I don't know if I'm correct there but it was some army anyway. Disgraceful - just shows how scary peer mentality is ...'when everyone else is doing itI can overlook thehorrendous crimes Im doing'.Thats why its so important that sexual crimes are stood up against.

Wibbs

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I just heard a bit about that the other day Wibbs. Who did that - the U.S army?

The Soviet army and their allies were by far and away the worst, though weren't the only ones. The French were particularly notable for it too. The Americans were far down the scale and the British were the lowest risk to the local women. The Soviets unofficially sanctioned the practice. They had suffered the most under German occupation so there was a large element of revenge involved. The others hadn't suffered nearly as much or not at all. Unbelievable level of it went on. Some women were raped by as much 20, 30 or more men and one estimate had around 100,000 babies born as a result. Strangely the Soviet troops were very taken and could show great kindness to german kids, even when they were raping their mothers. It's a period of the war and it's success for the allies that's rarely talked about. There's an 2008 German film translated as "A Woman in Berlin" that tackled the subject head on(based on memoirs IIRC).

tbh

Many German women made deals with Russian soldiers and slept with them in return for protection. I wonder is this the type of thing you're thinking of when you think of different grades of seriousness of rape?

Wibbs

tbh wrote: »

Many German women made deals with Russian soldiers and slept with them in return for protection. I wonder is this the type of thing you're thinking of when you think of different grades of seriousness of rape?

Not quite Teebs, that's more a case of survival in any way one can in such circumstances. However yes it was most certainly the lesser of two evils, so in that sense yes. Gang raped by dozens of men day after day with no sense of safety at all and a real risk of being murdered versus making a horrible bargain with one? I'd take the latter any day of the week. It might even feel more like a "choice". Certainly some of the voices of such women I've read said this. Some even imagined they were real affairs. Some even said they enjoyed the new attention. Ways for the soul to cope and survive such traumas I suppose. Hitlers secretary did just that. After being passed around about 20 men, she ended up "befriending" a Russian Captain IIRC. Funny enough last year I watched Downfall about the last days of herr hitler in his bunker and she featured as one of the main characters and voices, but at the end she's shown walking quietly clutching a childs hand magically unscathed through the passive waiting Soviet troops. An odd tableau, made odder by the film star beauty of the actress. No mention of what actually went down at all. Glossing over history.