Abortion: What's your opinion?

[lukeiamyourdad]

DI can correct me if I'm wrong here, but you did notice the word ALLOW? Women are responsible in as far as that is absolutely true. However, I agree that rape is different in as far as no normal woman seeks that kind of end. Just the same, his first statement isn't invalid. Just as a person who walks into a clearly marked minefield is partially responsible for their fate, so are women who dress provacatively in less than secure situations. This does NOT mean that the rapist (assuming he's found guilty) gets a pass. But it does raise a legitimate question in those situations as to how competent she is to make responsible decisions. If I call you the "n" word, and you're black, does that excuse your pummeling me? No. However, I draw unnecessary attention to myself by, frankly, being that stupid/indiscreet.

---------------------------------------

 

Jae said it best. What is a less then secure situation? Does rape only happen in dark alleys? Is the word "rapist" written on people's forehead? Your two examples are clearly invalid since in both cases, there's a clear and certain danger. No one knows if the guy walking behind them wants to commit a crime.

Even then, what is dressing provocatively? The definition would depend from one person to another. For some, showing a bit of cleavage is provocative. For others, it's showing their ankles. Hell, some get turned on by nothing. So this is a very "in-your-face" thing. You can't predict it. So you don't know if you're going to run through a minefield or not.

 

 

 

Well, I certainly hope rape laws are not as elastic as sexual harrassment laws. DI doesn't shoot himself in the foot insofar as that he's merely pointing out that the methodology for compiling such stats is rarely transparent. Frankly, we're often forced to make assumptions about the original data upon which the studies/reports are based, almost always knowing nothing about the primary source of the stats in the first place.

 

------------------------------------------

 

First of, we can only hope that laws are well made. If they're bad, try and elect people who will change them. That's it.

In the case of statistical analysis, you can only trust the credibility of the scientific source. Generally, the whole study is not offered on the internet (sometimes, it can be a few hundred pages long). However, there are other scientists who verify and proof read the study. I don't know if that's the case here, but if it is, the methodology probably respects all the established norms.

 

 

 

Ah, but in the case of "he said/she said" (Duke rape case for instance), it becomes a case of not resorting to divining the meaning of "roughly" in addressing that situation. Given the elasticity with which you approach the topic ("it's whatever society says it is"), that can also become the case for rape. Depending on who's making the rules, rape, like sexual harrassment, can become very loosely defined. While these things may get fairly ajudicated in the end, that's cold comfort for the falsely accused.

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

That's up to the legislative corp to provide those definitions. Usually, those definitions come from a consensus on what it is. To know more about policy making, read what Charles Lindblom wrote about incrementalism.

 

 

It's obvious that his point here is that just taking a claim at face value can lead to warping statistics. I'm also somewhat curious as to whether they merely compile all CLAIMS of rape or just those that are credibly documented when reporting the number of alleged/proven rapes.

--------------------------------------------------

 

 

ET said it anyway. Even if the number was lower, lower is still too high. Now, I realize that you can't eradicate raping, but if people decided that at 10 000 rapes per year, we stop fighting it...

Again, false accusations are probably marginal. They make a lot of noise when in the news, but that's it. It might change the number by an insignificant number.

I concede that we need to know what they're compiling, but it comes back to my scientific work argument. If it was proof read by the community, it's probably reliable.

 

 

(1)The drinking age was changed from 18 to 19 and then 21 because it was too easy for 18 year old high school students to get alcohol for their not-yet-18 year old high school buddies.(2) In addition, the motor vehical accident rate was higher when the legal drinking age was 18.(3) Also, the impulse-control centers of the brain don't quite fully develop until very late teens and into the early 20's. 20+year-olds theoretically have more control over drinking behaviors than teens as a result.(4) So in this case, it wasn't a matter of an arbitrary 'because society said so', it was a matter of 'when we have 18 year olds drinking, they drink to excess more often and get in accidents more often than those who are several years older'. That decision was based on morbidity/mortality stats.

 

1- I would bet that it's because at 18, you're still stuck in high school. In different education systems, this would probably be different.

2- I'd like to see that actual statistics on this. It could be a matter of interpretation. You need to look at long periods of time to conclude anything and it the accident rate has not risen again.

3- Alright, I got nothing to say.

4- Then why does the whole world, considering rationality, not push the legal drinking age up to 21? Why is it 16 in Belgium, 18 in other places and 21 in the US? If it was so evident and rational, why not? In most Canadian provinces, society considers that at 18, you're old enough to decide everything for yourself and that includes the decision to drink or not. It's totally arbitrary. You pointed out that the impulse control center didn't fully develop until the late teens to early 20's. However, why 21? Why not 22? Or 23?

[JediMaster12]

A lot of women will not report it to the cops for fear of retribution (the assailant threatens to hurt her again or hurt her family if she reports it), but will respond honestly on an anonymous survey.

Jae you left out the part that women tend to feel ashamed and that it is their fault that they were raped.

 

It takes a remarkable amount of audacity to claim that the victim somehow invites the crime because the assault has a sexual component to it. The rapist is in control of his own actions and has sole responsibility for those actions, not her. It is this stereotype that actually stifles reporting of rape, because women are afraid they won't be taken seriously, or that the cop they're reporting it to will make them think that it was somehow their fault.

It is not the woman's fault. When you force someone against their will, it is a crime. In fact rape in the US is a strict liability crime, especially statutory rape of a minor. It is a felony with a penalty of serving 1+ years in a state prison. That boy you mentioned should have had his butt thrown in prison for that since she was a minor. Again what you said about it being the victim's fault is plain cruelty. It goes to show how our morals have declined within the last decade. It never ceases to anger me how little compassion people have for others who have been the victim of a crime. I was part of an armed robbery and the guy had the gun in my face telling me to get down on the ground. I know what it feels to be vulnerable and I sympathisze with the victims.

 

Quite. But how do you count the number of invisible people? Yes, I don't deny that crime goes unreported, but if its unreported, how do you find out about it?

Also you can look at the UCR, the crime report that the FBI puts out yearly. It has percentages of eight felonies based on the reports given by over 17,000 law enforcement departments around the US. It also has stats on Part II crimes bassed on the arrest record. The eight felonies are Part I crimes. There is a change over to NIBRS where it does the same thing. And like Jae said about surveys and the like.

[Totenkopf]

Jae said it best. What is a less then secure situation? Does rape only happen in dark alleys? Is the word "rapist" written on people's forehead? Your two examples are clearly invalid since in both cases, there's a clear and certain danger. No one knows if the guy walking behind them wants to commit a crime. Even then, what is dressing provocatively? The definition would depend from one person to another. For some, showing a bit of cleavage is provocative. For others, it's showing their ankles. Hell, some get turned on by

nothing. So this is a very "in-your-face" thing. You can't predict it. So you don't know if you're going to run through a minefield or not.

 

Well.....if you're walking alone through Central Park (or any dangerous neighborhood) in a tube top and daisy dukes, it's a pretty good bet that you've just displayed verrrry poor judgement. It's no smarter than walking alone through a high crime neighborhood flashing your wealth ostentatiously. In neither case are the perps excused for their behavior, but your own stupidity is numbing. I don't discount that rapes are unpredictable, but they usually take place in dark or dangerous areas or somewhere with as few witnesses as possible. The unpredicability of rape doesn't invalidate my examples. You'd be closer to correct if you asserted they only took part of the problem into account.

 

 

First of, we can only hope that laws are well made. If they're bad, try and elect people who will change them. That's it.

In the case of statistical analysis, you can only trust the credibility of the scientific source. Generally, the whole study is not offered on the internet (sometimes, it can be a few hundred pages long). However, there are other scientists who verify and proof read the study. I don't know if that's the case here, but if it is, the methodology probably respects all the established norms.

 

Man, if only it were that easy to actually change things. Every election cycle politicians are elected to change things, but change often never really comes. Laws set precedents, and there damned hard to turn around, especially b/c lawyers are in awe of/love with precedent. Also, the problem with collecting statistics is, like that with polls, you have to invest a certain amount of credulity into the process. The designers of studies create/follow a paradigm that often does little to confirm the validity of their results. Using the Duke case as one example, she says one thing and the men contend something very different. Although this case is in the process of being legally addressed (very poorly, btw), the designers of studies ultimately are at the mercy of their supposedly randomly chosen subjects' veracity.

 

 

That's up to the legislative corp to provide those definitions. Usually, those definitions come from a consensus on what it is. To know more about policy making, read what Charles Lindblom wrote about incrementalism.

 

Cold comfort given the penchant on the part of lawyers/policymakers to let the "offended" party determine the nature of the crime.

 

ET said it anyway. Even if the number was lower, lower is still too high. Now, I realize that you can't eradicate raping, but if people decided that at 10 000 rapes per year, we stop fighting it...

Again, false accusations are probably marginal. They make a lot of noise when in the news, but that's it. It might change the number by an insignificant number.I concede that we need to know what they're compiling, but it comes back to my scientific work argument. If it was proof read by the community, it's probably reliable.

 

Problem with that line of reasoning is that you're arguing on the one hand for rape victim's to be spared the "indignity" of having an unwanted child, but then pretending like this subset effectively represents all cases. The problem with making statements like "false accusations are marginal" is no different from saying that a much greater number of crime X goes unreported. It's guessing, to be kind. Thus, even if you make the exception for females that are raped, you can't justify anywhere between 80-95% of most abortions. Trusting the "experts", as you seem to suggest, does nothing but demonstrate blind faith in a process. Statistics, as DI pointed out are

invariably that third class of lies and are often massaged by whomever cites them, usually for a policy end. ET's two examples fail b/c he's using a narrow subset of circumstances to define the whole picture. Even if you subtract rape/incest cases, the vast majority of abortions take place b/c they are seen as furthering the socio-economic ambitions of the people involved. Kid's inconvenient? Fine, temrinate it. End of problem (but not really). Most abortions are simply a matter of punishing the innocent for the "crimes" of the guilty.

 

@ET--I did read your examples and they failed for the reasons basically cited. Each case relies completely on the victim being unwitting. In the violin case, the victim is basically kidnapped and forced to be the lifeline for someone not even remotely related to them (except insofar as they are of the same species). In essence, they did nothing to put themselves in that predicament, unlike most couples who simply refuse to use discretion and/or control their passions. In the second case, again like rape, you have no real control over who the burglar is going to rob. Unless, of course, you put out a big sign that says "burglars welcome, please close door behind you on the way out". In that case, you are much like people who find themselves in a "family way" b/c they were more intent on satisfying their hedonistic urges than in thinking through their situation. I said it before and it bears repeating. If you're going to be a lothario, check to make sure your gun is on safety (that may mean getting a vasectomy, they're reversable now). Otherwise, penetrating the target area may not be a viable option. BTW, that doesn't let the ladies off the hook.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Well.....if you're walking alone through Central Park (or any dangerous neighborhood) in a tube top and daisy dukes, it's a pretty good bet that you've just displayed verrrry poor judgement. It's no smarter than walking alone through a high crime neighborhood flashing your wealth ostentatiously. In neither case are the perps excused for their behavior, but your own stupidity is numbing. I don't discount that rapes are unpredictable, but they usually take place in dark or dangerous areas or somewhere with as few witnesses as possible. The unpredicability of rape doesn't invalidate my examples. You'd be closer to correct if you asserted they only took part of the problem into account.

 

I don't doubt that there's a percentage of people who are not very smart. That's not the issue. The unpredictability of rape is still valid. You still provided two examples assuming that the person had the ability to make a rational decision. To make a rational decision, you need all the information, which the fact that it's a clearly marked minefield and a black guy gives the person all that's needed.

Your example about going through a dark place assumes that the person knows it's a dark and dangerous place. Also, Jae's example does not fit this at all. By the way, if we can't trust statistics, how do you know most cases of rape happen in dark or dangerous places?

 

 

 

 

Man, if only it were that easy to actually change things. Every election cycle politicians are elected to change things, but change often never really comes. Laws set precedents, and there damned hard to turn around, especially b/c lawyers are in awe of/love with precedent. Also, the problem with collecting statistics is, like that with polls, you have to invest a certain amount of credulity into the process. The designers of studies create/follow a paradigm that often does little to confirm the validity of their results. Using the Duke case as one example, she says one thing and the men contend something very different. Although this case is in the process of being legally addressed (very poorly, btw), the designers of studies ultimately are at the mercy of their supposedly randomly chosen subjects' veracity.

 

 

I have no real qualms with my legal system. It seems to be working alright, no matter what people say.

In the case of statistics, you have to understand that many "extreme" results can influence the final study. You only have to read the whole thing, see what most results are, what the average, the most common result, etc.

 

 

Cold comfort given the penchant on the part of lawyers/policymakers to let the "offended" party determine the nature of the crime.

 

What does that have to do with Lindblom's incrementalism? The laws, made by the legislative corp, evolve slowly, through trial and error. We all wish that a rational model was possible. However, considering that you never have all of the information needed to make a law or change it, the rational model is impossible. The majority of the populace thinks that it should be rational though, but it isn't.

 

 

 

Problem with that line of reasoning is that you're arguing on the one hand for rape victim's to be spared the "indignity" of having an unwanted child, but then pretending like this subset effectively represents all cases. Thus, even if you make the exception for females that are raped, you can't justify anywhere between 80-95% of most abortions.

 

 

Wait. I never said anything about abortion. I never said anywhere in this thread that abortion because of rape was a norm. I never even stated my opinion on it. I only answered Jae's question about where we should consider someone a person. It was as close as I got to abortion. The rest was about raping.

 

The problem with making statements like "false accusations are marginal" is no different from saying that a much greater number of crime X goes unreported. It's guessing, to be kind.

 

So I'm sure that bringing an example of a false accusation and making it so it could be widespread is not guessing?

 

Trusting the "experts", as you seem to suggest, does nothing but demonstrate blind faith in a process. Statistics, as DI pointed out are invariably that third class of lies and are often massaged by whomever cites them, usually for a policy end.

 

Of course they can be massaged. Of course they can be misquoted. Of course they can be done by morons who don't know what they're doing. It happens all the time. That's why you have to use your brain and read about it. Statistics, when done right, are an excellent source of information. They can rarely demonstrate a causal relation but that's not the issue. If you care so much about the way the study has been done, you have to read it yourself. I study in political science so I know darn well how misleading they can be but also how useful they are. If all statistics are inherently bad, it could be impossible to have the bigger picture.

 

Now there are two ways to make a study: one is qualitative and the other is quantitative. Many say qualitative is the only way to go. Many say quantitative is the only way to go. False debate since both complete each other. Qualitative study takes the form of interviews or observations and quantitative, you guessed it, statistics. More often then not, one comes in to confirm the results of the other.

 

 

ET's two examples fail b/c he's using a narrow subset of circumstances to define the whole picture. Even if you subtract rape/incest cases, the vast majority of abortions take place b/c they are seen as furthering the socio-economic ambitions of the people involved. Kid's inconvenient? Fine, temrinate it. End of problem (but not really). Most abortions are simply a matter of punishing the innocent for the "crimes" of the guilty.

 

It's fun that you say that statistics can't be trusted but you use words like "most" out of thin air. How do you know? I don't think you're wrong when you say that most abortions are a motivated by the person's socio-economic questions. I don't know in fact. It seems like it. However, just because it seems like it doesn't mean it is like it.

[Totenkopf]

I don't doubt that there's a percentage of people who are not very smart.

That's not the issue. The unpredictability of rape is still valid. You still provided two examples assuming that the person had the ability to make a rational decision. To make a rational decision, you need all the information, which the fact that it's a clearly marked minefield and a black guy gives the person all that's needed. Your example about going through a dark place assumes that the person knows it's a dark and dangerous place. Also, Jae's example does not fit this at all. By the way, if we can't trust statistics, how do you know most cases of rape happen in dark or dangerous places?

 

Actually, you're wrong, it is part of the issue. I know the cult of victimology is very much in vogue these days, but that doesn't change the fact that people need to use common sense. Hopefully you noticed that I didn't contest that rapes can be unpredictable. They can also be predictable if you take into account the risky behavior people engage in b/c they think they should be able to do whatever, whereever and whenever they want. Walking alone at night in poorly lit areas is always something a women should avoid if at all possible. Drinking to excess and heavy partying can also lead to unwanted attention. I'd say, btw, that it may be axiomatic that a large percentage of rapes don't occur in broad daylight in the presence of a slew of witnesses. The exception to this would most likely be a war zone (think Berlin, Shanghai, etc..). I'd also be willing to bet that an equally large number of "dumb" women get raped as "smart" women b/c they don't use any common sense.

 

I have no real qualms with my legal system. It seems to be working alright, no matter what people say. In the case of statistics, you have to understand that many "extreme" results can influence the final study. You only have to read the whole thing, see what most results are, what the average, the most common result, etc.

 

Not being Canadian, or especially familiar with Canadian law, I won't comment on your system.

 

 

What does that have to do with Lindblom's incrementalism? The laws, made by the legislative corp, evolve slowly, through trial and error. We all wish that a rational model was possible. However, considering that you never have all of the information needed to make a law or change it, the rational model is impossible. The majority of the populace thinks that it should be rational though, but it isn't.

 

I didn't cite Lindbolm b/c I was specifically dealing with "sexual crimes" and not laws in general. The problem here seems to be an elasticity in defining the crimes. Perhaps that trend doesn't exist in Canada?

 

Wait. I never said anything about abortion. I never said anywhere in this thread that abortion because of rape was a norm. I never even stated my opinion on it. I only answered Jae's question about where we should consider someone a person. It was as close as I got to abortion. The rest was about raping.

 

Actually, the overall topic is abortion (not just rape), you cited ET and his position could be fairly summed up, in part, as abortion should be allowable b/c no victim of rape (who would suffer if abortion were outlawed) should be exempted from such a choice. As far as I've noticed, no one here has stated that rape was ok or excusable, just not as unavoidable as you seem to suggest.

 

So I'm sure that bringing an example of a false accusation and making it so it could be widespread is not guessing?

 

 

I think DI's point, he can feel free to correct me, is that there is no way to verify if the people cited in studies are essentially lying and that guestimating that the numbers of crime x is 3-4x the # reported is an unsupportable supposition. Anybody can make those kinds of claims about anything. The anecdotal evidence gathered in the studies is basically accepted on faith if it follows the study's script. I would agree that such a statement can be classified as guessing also.

 

Of course they can be massaged. Of course they can be misquoted. Of course they can be done by morons who don't know what they're doing. It happens all the time. That's why you have to use your brain and read about it. Statistics, when done right, are an excellent source of information. They can rarely demonstrate a causal relation but that's not the issue. If you care so much about the way the study has been done, you have to read it yourself. I study in political science so I know darn well how misleading they can be but also how useful they are. If all statistics are inherently bad, it could be impossible to have the bigger picture.

 

Now there are two ways to make a study: one is qualitative and the other is quantitative. Many say qualitative is the only way to go. Many say quantitative is the only way to go. False debate since both complete each other. Qualitative study takes the form of interviews or observations and quantitative, you guessed it, statistics. More often then not, one comes in to confirm the results of the other.

 

I got my degree in Poly Sci and have to say somewhat cynically that the reason that stats and studies are useful is B/C they are so misleading and can be massaged so easily and spoonfed to an often gullible/guileless public.

 

It's fun that you say that statistics can't be trusted but you use words like "most" out of thin air. How do you know? I don't think you're wrong when you say that most abortions are a motivated by the person's socio-economic

questions. I don't know in fact. It seems like it. However, just because it

seems like it doesn't mean it is like it.

 

Well, if the studies you seem to trust so willingly are any indication, then the statements basically hold up. Nevertheless, I shall endeavor in the future to preface such comments with qualifiers like....if stats/studies are to be believed.....

[JediMaster12]

As far as I've noticed, no one here has stated that rape was ok or excusable, just not as unavoidable as you seem to suggest.

Rape isn't excusable. At large by societal consent it is not ok.

[Totenkopf]

You seem to misunderstand my statement. Luke appears to be stating that rape is unavoidable b/c it's somehow completely unpredictable. My contention is that people can avoid being raped, or signicantly reduce it's likelihood by using common sense. As we live in the real world, anything is POSSIBLE, but the PROBABILITY of something happening can be lessened by using common sense. Remember, I pointed out that the perp doesn't get a pass on his behavior regardless of the circumstances.

[Ray Jones]

Nonetheless, there are precautions you can take in both instances, and once again you assume that a woman has no choice in the matter. At the very least she can dress in a way that doesn't provoke unwanted interest. For the most part, no woman is completely inculpable when it comes to whom she allows to stick their bits into her.

That is wrong on so many levels. Firstly, every person is turned on by different things, heck, there are surely enough people who get "teh hawt" when they see someone wrapped up in a stinky yak-hair-wool-thinger. And secondly, what Jae said.

 

Do you really believe what you said?

[Jae Onasi]

Anyone, male or female, traveling alone in a dangerous setting increases their risk of any crime. However, the fact remains that the criminal has to make the decision to commit the crime.

While we're on the discussion of stats--they have their uses. There may be biases and mistakes, but you can't ignore the general trends of _good_ studies done on thousands of people.

While we're on the subject of rape and walking in dark alleys...this comes from the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network.

 

Contrary to the belief that rapists are hiding in the bushes or in the shadows of the parking garage, almost two-thirds of all rapes were committed by someone who is known to the victim. 73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger – 38% of perpetrators were a friend or acquaintance of the victim, 28% were an intimate and 7% were another relative.

 

Most rapes are actually committed by someone the woman knows.

 

A '96 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Aug;175(2):320-4; discussion 324-5.) noted that 50% of women who got pregnant as a result of rape chose to abort. About 32% had and kept the baby, about 6% carried the baby and gave the baby up for adoption, and about 12% of these women miscarried.

Normal miscarriage rates for women less than age 35 is about 15%.

 

I certainly can understand the desire to abort after rape, and I honestly can't blame a woman for wanting to do that. Actually, I thought the statistic for abortion after rape would be higher. I haven't seen much of anything addressing the needs of those women who choose to keep their babies (though my research has been admittedly brief)--they have some unique issues and challenges to deal with that other parents won't ever experience.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Actually, you're wrong, it is part of the issue. I know the cult of victimology is very much in vogue these days, but that doesn't change the fact that people need to use common sense. Hopefully you noticed that I didn't contest that rapes can be unpredictable. They can also be predictable if you take into account the risky behavior people engage in b/c they think they should be able to do whatever, whereever and whenever they want. Walking alone at night in poorly lit areas is always something a women should avoid if at all possible. Drinking to excess and heavy partying can also lead to unwanted attention. I'd say, btw, that it may be axiomatic that a large percentage of rapes don't occur in broad daylight in the presence of a slew of witnesses. The exception to this would most likely be a war zone (think Berlin, Shanghai, etc..). I'd also be willing to bet that an equally large number of "dumb" women get raped as "smart" women b/c they don't use any common sense.

 

I was thinking about this in the morning and you assumed the fact that a causal relation or at least a statistical link exists between the way someone dresses and where they go, which I don't think there is, until you can provide something that proves at least a correlation. There was a series of rapes being committed here Montreal last year. Most of the victims were women, who came home late from a party or work who got raped in areas that you would never think a rape would occur. The study Jae quoted above seems to prove the contrary.

 

Can you lower the risks of getting raped? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. You know the irony of saying stats and studies are all biased and false? You're telling me that going alone in a dark place augments the chances of rape. In other words, if a study was made, it would show that more rapes occur in those areas. I know it seems like common sense, but even common sense assumes that some information is behind. You saying not to use statistics, but in your reasoning, you use them.

 

 

 

I didn't cite Lindbolm b/c I was specifically dealing with "sexual crimes" and not laws in general. The problem here seems to be an elasticity in defining the crimes. Perhaps that trend doesn't exist in Canada?

 

Except that sexual crimes require definitions, which are provided by the law. Talking about Lindblom was perfectly good. If there is elasticity in the definition, then it must be changed. To only way to do so is electing those who will or creating enough public outcry so that politicians don't have much of a choice but to start a social debate on the issue.

 

The problem in Canada of "mass-suing" for sexual harassment does not, at least currently, exist. The reason is that the legal system rarely gives a lot of money to the plaintiff. Considering that having a decent lawyer is still expensive and the gains are not worth the effort, unless you seriously have been sexually harassed, false accusations are not flung around so often. That's my take on it.

 

 

 

 

Actually, the overall topic is abortion (not just rape), you cited ET and his position could be fairly summed up, in part, as abortion should be allowable b/c no victim of rape (who would suffer if abortion were outlawed) should be exempted from such a choice. As far as I've noticed, no one here has stated that rape was ok or excusable, just not as unavoidable as you seem to suggest.

 

I think that I know it's about abortion. I can read thread titles.

 

I was actually not careful about what I quoted. I should definitely have been more clearer. I was specifically referring to these quotes:

 

...so if the numbers have dropped we can ignore the problem? I don't quite understand why the fact that rape number going down (while good news) should have any bearing on the fact that rape is still not an "uncommon problem".

 

Rape has been a human problem for as long as there is recorded history. It has nothing to do with 'western society' or the 'trivialization' of sex and life issues.

 

It was a bad mistake from my part.

 

 

I think DI's point, he can feel free to correct me, is that there is no way to verify if the people cited in studies are essentially lying and that guestimating that the numbers of crime x is 3-4x the # reported is an unsupportable supposition. Anybody can make those kinds of claims about anything. The anecdotal evidence gathered in the studies is basically accepted on faith if it follows the study's script. I would agree that such a statement can be classified as guessing also.

 

Of course people can lie. I've interviewed people who said they read a lot about some subject and proven that they don't know anything about it. You have to be able to discern the lies from the truths from the entire interview.

 

If they answered a survey, you can only hope that people are saying the truth because it's anonymous. It all comes down on how you build a survey. Racist people don't say that they're racist. In their heads, they aren't. You have to make your questions so they can indicate if the person is racist, based on what you defined as racist.

 

 

I got my degree in Poly Sci and have to say somewhat cynically that the reason that stats and studies are useful is B/C they are so misleading and can be massaged so easily and spoonfed to an often gullible/guileless public.

 

So you're trying to make me believe the fact that you got a degree in political science, without ever quoting a scientific article in any text you have written? No offense, but I doubt that you're such a genius that your word has strength of law.

 

They can be manipulated. Survey agencies have a tendency to say what their client want them to say. However, if it's published in a scientific journal with a review committee, I don't see how you can automatically conclude that it's a load of crap. You're basically saying that everything your colleagues have written is unreliable and useless.

 

Well, if the studies you seem to trust so willingly are any indication, then the statements basically hold up. Nevertheless, I shall endeavor in the future to preface such comments with qualifiers like....if stats/studies are to be believed.....

 

 

I trust studies when they're well done. Your statements hold up, indeed, if the studies are right. However, since you dispute them, using them only when it forwards your own point is, and I say this politely, hypocrisy.

[Jae Onasi]

OK, keep it civil, folks. The topic is hot enough, we don't need to make each other hot under the collar, too.

[Darth InSidious]

Hmmm....by counting the number of new calls to a rape crisis centres. By doing public surveys on the issue. By extrapolating figures on reported assaults against women where there is noted suspicion of a rape, but the victim was unwilling to co-operate further. And I'm sure if I wasn't feeling so incensed at the present moment, I could probably think of a few more methods for statistical investigation.

Fair enough, OK.

I'll admit that my cosmetic surgery analogy isn't of the same emotional and political scale, but I still think it is wrong for me to impose my standards of morality on others who may not share the same social or religious values that I do. Making abortion completely illegal is not going to stop someone from getting one if they really want to. It just makes a traumatic procedure more traumatic, hazardous, and more expensive.

True, but it does reduce the ability of those doing so purely for convenience to do so greatly.

Point in case, scores of Irish women cross the channel to come to the UK each year specifically to get an abortion as it's completely illegal in Ireland, proving that making the act illegal does not stop it from happening. It just happens someplace else and costs the woman more to do it. (I'd post a link for statistics on that particular factoid, but you can search the BBC website for them if you really feel the need.)

Ah, well, here of course there's the question of who is then guilty of what...I'm not going to start the personhood argument, but if there is even the possibility that a foetus is a living creature, and that we are wrong, do we have the right to risk what may be murder?

 

Aren't we forcing our doctors to cross their oathes, in taking life, even if only future life, rather than preserving it?

And as far as drawing a legal line? How about drawing it between when the foetus can viably survive on its own outside the womb and when it cannot?

What about the point at which it is conscious of its surroundings? Is that not a prime mark of life? Or the point at which it fulfils all the hallmarks of life?

 

Also, it is always tempting for politicians to creep such boundaries ever more loose...It is generally harder to start such a thing completely, than just to tweak it a bit...and then a bit more, and a bit more...you see what I mean?

It does nothing to erase the crime nor the memory of it. But had I ended up pregnant, an abortion would've given me some small measure of retribution against my attacker. I certainly would not have wanted to have been 'forced' to bear any child of his. Why should I? Why should he be allowed to spread his genes into the gene pool without my consent? I stand by what I said earlier. Had I fallen pregnant, (and thank God I didn't,) there is no question that I would have sought an abortion as soon as possible. Legally or not. In my mind, it would not be getting rid of 'my child' but rather 'his leftovers.' Apologies if that sounds harsh or graphic, but that's how I feel.

It has been argued that the body of the attacked is simply invaded twice in such an instance...

 

As for spreading his genes, this rather raises the nature/nurture thing again, IMO...

Oh, and I took a look at article in the link you posted. Thank you for posting it, but I'm rather disappointed that Dr. Reardon didn't site any references (bar one from 1987) prior to 1979 to support his article. A lot of things have changed since then, especially in the handling and counseling of sexual assault/incest victims.

True. I will try to find something a little more up-to-date.

And I still do not agree with your assessment that a woman is 'inviting' someone to assault her by wearing what someone else considers to be 'provacative' clothing. That's akin to saying someone is 'inviting' someone to mug them when they decide to take a large sum of money from a cash machine. In both instances, it is the criminal who is responsible for perpetrating the crime, not the victim.

See below, posted by Totenkopf.

 

While we are on this, I would like to say that I was NOT in ANY way shape or form defending rapists, or claiming that their victims are in any way shape or form guilty of anything.

But the topic here is abortion and the Portuguese vote on the 11th of February, so I'm not responding to anymore comments. (It's just making me angry.) I already voted in the poll and said my two plus cents. But I am, however, interested to see what the Portuguese people decide, being for the most part a Catholic country. Should prove interesting to see if their decision will affect other European countries.

I'm sorry it's making you angry, and you are quite correct on the issue at hand. Its been interesting discussing this with you

 

I'm not convinced I know how it is that you know these statistics are clearly skewed. You said yourself you didn't know who or how they made these studies...

A rash comment. Nonetheless, I found the sheer numbers somewhat unbelievable...

Here is a governmental source of rape statistics. If you want to ignore them, then I don't quite understand why you are trying to engage in debate...

Source

Governments are not immune to skewing figures, but I'll let that pass for the moment.

 

Assuming the figures are wholly correct, first off, that's a worryingly high statistic.

 

Secondly, would it not be better to focus on preventing the rapes in the first place?

 

Third, we come back to the moral issue here - does even rape excuse the removal of a person from society in the future?

 

I don't have the answer - I'd say no, but I've not been in that position.

...so if the numbers have dropped we can ignore the problem? I don't quite understand why the fact that rape number going down (while good news) should have any bearing on the fact that rape is still not an "uncommon problem".

My point was simply that it was in fact decreasing as a problem - nothing more.

Rape has been a human problem for as long as there is recorded history. It has nothing to do with 'western society' or the 'trivialization' of sex and life issues.

True. Glib comment. Ignore it, please.

What if it was all over the news? The Music Lovers society is preying on sleeping individuals, breaking into their homes and hooking them up to dying musicians! You know the risks of sleeping without putting bars on the doors and windows.

What if it wasn't? What if you didn't watch the news? What if your TV was stolen last week? What if you live miles away from anyone else in the countryside?

Except the 'environment' is not a living, thinking organism. It isn't an organism at all. It isn't analogous to pregnancy.

 

No, but I though that sentience was not necessarily relevant...?

 

Even if the deaths are a small risk, they are STILL A RISK. A woman should have the right to choose if she wants to put herself in that situation or not. And as for the part where I said it could destroy a woman's life, I meant very little about having bad children who make life hard. I was referring to a young woman who may have to drop out of high school because she cannot take care of a baby and go to classes. She will possibly be stamped with the label "slut" or "tramp" by anyone she interacts with. She may have difficulty finding a job that will allow her to work hours so she can still take care of her child, or they might just not hire her because "how can she be responsible enough to work if she can't even keep her pants on". I can come up with more examples if you really want.

In the instance of possible death, the principle of Double Effect comes into play.

 

As for the difficulties of being young and having a child, the social stigmas cannot be helped, although we can try to make people more open-minded...And the difficulties of classes and managing with a child are not lost on me. I don't know what the situation is like in the US, but here we do give benefits to young, single mothers who lack support. And as for jobs, AFAIK, our legal system would see that as discrimination. It's not perfect, but there are ways around it. No, its not easy, but no-one ever said it would be.

I agree with you on this. I don't agree with people promoting abortion as a superior choice to adoption or keeping the child. I also don't agree with people promoting adoption or keeping the child as superior choices to abortion. It is a personal choice to be made on a case by case basis.

Well, this brings us straight back to square one, doesn't it?

Personhood vs Choice, Right to Life vs. Quality of Life, Absolutism vs. Relativism...In the end, it comes down to conscience...

I love the what-if game! What if that person was going to be the next Hitler? What if they were going to cure cancer? What if they were going to create a nuclear explosive and detonate it in the middle of your home country? Of course, in the history of the world there was only one Albert Einstein, but there have been millions and millions of thieves, murderers, rapists, and all around bad people. So are you more likely to be aborting the next Einstein or the next mass-murderer?

Not the point I was trying to make, though I take yours

 

The point I was trying to make was that by doing this, you effectively kill a person, if not by their being in the womb, then you at least kill that person twenty years from now - their future self you destroy by allowing the abortion to go through, or by performing it.

 

Sure, here and now, the question of life is debatable, but that person who would have been is not.

 

@Ray: I wasn't very clear, sorry. Totenkopf is having much more luck in describing what I mean than I am...

 

@ET: Yep, you're right, that statistic was complete rubbish. Nonetheless, in terms of provable rapes in the UK (and I mean by that, cases where the full extent of the law has been used to test and weigh all the evidence impartially), the figure comes out at about 93%. It may well be lower, but ultimately, I cannot prove empirically that it is so. I don't deny any of the arguments put forward for their being a silent majority - there may well be one. But since their cases do not come to court to be tried, I cannot in all honesty say one way or the other that it is so - I may suspect one way or the other, but do I have the evidence of legal proceedings to go on? No.

[Totenkopf]

Gee, Luke, seems I've touched a nerve. Your petulant comment about my background notwithstanding, whether one cites an article as alleged proof of their point proves nothing either. Am I to take it that you're suggesting that I don't have a degree? Or is your sense of propriety offended b/c I don't go searching for a convenient article/study to buttress my views? I mean, equally politely of course (), that you've not exactly bowled me over with your towering intellect either.

 

Frankly, common sense dictates a lot of things that don't necessarily have studies (or at least till the 20th century, I suppose) to back up the logic and or prudence of certain acts. For instance, you should not need a study to tell you that unprotected sex could give you an STD, a child or both. Common sense should also tell you that trolling through an unfamiliar area in the dark is a very dicey proposition, especially by yourself. However, I fail to see how on the one hand you're willing to cede that something makes a lot of sense, but then seem to have to wait for someone to tell you it's ok to believe something you inately recognize as true. I guess you'd call it "deferring to the experts".

 

Fact is, I've never said that all studies and stats are false. I said they are unreliable insofar as you usually know nothing about the source. Your apparent blind faith in the process makes about as much sense as someone saying several centuries ago...."well the 'pick an authority figure' said it was so, so it must be. They all seem to agree." Just because someone has a degree after their name doesn't absolve them of biases or ulterior motives.

 

Also, and you touch on this, your placing an awful lot of faith in someone elses interpretation of events/info to classify people properly. You suggest that the conductor of a study will decide if someone is, for example, racist based on the surveyor's concept of racism. That automatically predisposes the study to bias. If the people conducting the poll/survey/study hold to the belief that opposition to affirmative action, for example,is racist, how do you want to bet they will classify you if you don't support that agenda? Presto, magico....you're now a statistical racist.

 

Unlike you, apparently, I don't go running for the nearest study to figure out if something makes sense or is ok. I point out that if one is to rely on these statistics, they paint a picture that often doesn't support the view they're trying to promulgate. That is not being hypocritical, but it may be hoisting you/them on your/their own petard. I'm somewhat curious as to by what authority you are competent to judge just how well done the studies are that you believe in anyway. Did you do an overview personally? Or are you just deferring to others again?

 

As to the casual link argument of yours, I can't make you recognize common sense against your will. What are you going to do with yourself if you don't have a study to tell you how to behave?

 

I will say in closing here that one thing seems to be apparent here. Neither I nor DI have suggested that rape is ok or always preventable. It does appear that many of you have leapt to this erroneous conclusion. It's an imperfect world, and to suggest that certain behaviors don't have potentially disastrous results b/c some study hasn't given you that epiphany is both foolish and silly. So, is abortion to be made available to all women regardless of their circumstances or just to those that can prove they were raped? If your answer is the former, then rape is inconsequential as a rationalization for the right to abort as you've already decided it's largely irrelevant anyway. Basically put: she wants it dead, so off it goes, regardless of the reason.

 

BTW, for the record, this is NOT a trivialization of the emotional/physical pain rape victims endure and is not aimed at them. The point is that for those, like ET for example, that believe in the her body/her choice mantra, it is inconsequential to what degree rape is involved in what % of cases if there is to be no restriction on abortion in the first place. It's merely a tangential consideration in a much larger debate.

[Emperor Devon]

The fact that the baby cannot yet live on his or her own is not relevent to his or her personhood.

 

No... But its inability to even think is.

 

Where do you draw the line at personhood?

 

Since there's no clear line where that is and abortion should be an individual decision, I say leave that to the individuals.

 

If you've carried a child 38 weeks and decide you don't want the child, just have the baby and give it up for adoption.

 

When it's at the point where a woman has to give birth after 9 months either way, I agree with you on that. However, my personal views are irrelevant. If a woman decides she wants a late-term abortion, that's not my business.

 

(though citations are always good if you want your point taken seriously),

 

I disagree. There are quite a few instances in this debate where citation isn't need; you don't need to quote any renowned experts on the subject of relative morality to know that a Big Brother-style government is bad.

 

and we're not going to get hung up on British vs. English spelling (which is off topic).

 

That's 'off-topic'.

 

Fine, then. Point A: Personal freedom

I did already address this. A person does NOT have the freedom to harm another person.

 

If you're talking about rape, there are several other people here discussing this better than I probably could.

 

No, people who haven't been raped can talk about it. Surely you have an opinion, given how major a part of the abortion debate it is?

 

When a man and a woman get in bed together, they should remember that the reason sex exists is not for the pleasure of the man and woman. That's just a bonus.

 

Can you really expect people to remember that?

 

I mean, at least she knows the child is alive, and has a chance for a happy life elsewhere.

 

ET has addressed that part already... Orphanages are not always pleasant. And that's not even mentioning the trauma the mother might experience upon giving her child away.

 

What if the father of a child wanted the child to be born, but the mother didn't (for whatever reason)?

 

What if I wanted Jae to wear a t-shirt every day with 'I'm going to get PWNED on my duel with Devon!!!' printed on it? What if I'd made the shirt myself? I'd want that, but Jae's a separate person. The same instance applies to the father in this case - he's not the one who's going to give birth to it, and it's not growing in his body.

 

That said, the personal beliefs of abortion advocates say that a fetus isn't a person. But what if it is? It's better to err on the side of caution, or, as my mom says, err on the side of life, as the possibility remains that a fetus is a person.

 

We've already gotten into the person debate... Unless you can prove that souls exist, it has no bearing in this discussion.

 

Better to be safe than sorry, as the saying goes.

 

Better safe than sorry? Either impose your own views on people that can't be proven true, or take away their rights?

 

There, happy now?

 

No.

 

Any abortifacient contraceptive technology, such as abortion, the pill, etc. is morally unacceptable.

 

Again, we've gotten into that. Unless you can prove that souls exist, (which seems to be the prime reason you think life begins at conception) any arguments you have related to it possess no merit.

[Samnmax221]

Any abortifacient contraceptive technology, such as abortion, the pill, etc. is morally unacceptable.

I don't spose' you'd mind explaining the reasoning behind not using any sort of contraceptive, even condoms?

[lukeiamyourdad]

Gee, Luke, seems I've touched a nerve. Your petulant comment about my background notwithstanding, whether one cites an article as alleged proof of their point proves nothing either. Am I to take it that you're suggesting that I don't have a degree? Or is your sense of propriety offended b/c I don't go searching for a convenient article/study to buttress my views? I mean, equally politely of course (), that you've not exactly bowled me over with your towering intellect either.

 

No, I just want to know how you can get a degree without quoting other people. I'd love to know, it'll make it easier for me.

 

DI's original claim was that dressing provocatively was a highway to getting raped. Which he has not proven, nor you as matter of fact, the correlation. Unless you can provide a valid source, it remains inexistent for now.

 

I'm not saying that someone should rest their butt on studies alone. Your views, are your views and a view is not a verifiable fact. However, when claiming the women who dress provocatively have more chance of getting raped, I ask it again, where is the evidence?

 

Frankly, common sense dictates a lot of things that don't necessarily have studies (or at least till the 20th century, I suppose) to back up the logic and or prudence of certain acts. For instance, you should not need a study to tell you that unprotected sex could give you an STD, a child or both. Common sense should also tell you that trolling through an unfamiliar area in the dark is a very dicey proposition, especially by yourself.

 

The reasoning behind not doing either of those acts, is not motivated by some "common sense". For example, going through a dark alley and increasing the risk of crime against you. You don't know this for a fact. However, the information you have gathered points to it being more dangerous. Your parents have told you to avoid dark places. Your friends have been mugged in a dark place. The reasoning you made in your head, is based on these informations, tells you to avoid a dark place, because it looks like so. Is it really so? I'm sure that if I did a research, I'd find a study to back that up. However, this is not the issue. You speak of it as fact, without providing anything to back it up. The problem is that, hypothetically speaking, you could always find that studies made on the issue proved that going into dark alleys wasn't more dangerous.

 

For the unprotected sex example, the reasoning is the same. If nobody told you that you could get an STD, a child or both, you would not know. You do need a study to tell you what the chances are.

 

 

However, I fail to see how on the one hand you're willing to cede that something makes a lot of sense, but then seem to have to wait for someone to tell you it's ok to believe something you inately recognize as true. I guess you'd call it "deferring to the experts".

 

The problem with personal reasonings is that they're very much subjected to the person's bias. If you and everyone around you got mugged by black people, would "common sense" not dictate that black people commit more crimes then others?

 

I fail to see how you can interpret the infinitely complex reality so easily with this "common sense". In fact, I totally fail to understand how someone who is a political scientist, decides to rely on "common sense".

 

 

Fact is, I've never said that all studies and stats are false. I said they are unreliable insofar as you usually know nothing about the source. Your apparent blind faith in the process makes about as much sense as someone saying several centuries ago...."well the 'pick an authority figure' said it was so, so it must be. They all seem to agree." Just because someone has a degree after their name doesn't absolve them of biases or ulterior motives.

 

If they're unreliable, might as well be false. Might as well stop gathering statistics. Never did I say that a study could not be biased by the person who made it. That's why you need to check their methodology yourself. And to claim that an entire journal's scientific panel is totally biased, that's bold. It can be possible however. You can always detect the allegiance of the person in their text and their interpretation of the results. However, disputing the numbers, if the methodology has been correctly respected according to current scientific protocol is another thing. You'd have to make a counter study and try and find the opposite result, usually by following the same process.

 

Also, and you touch on this, your placing an awful lot of faith in someone elses interpretation of events/info to classify people properly. You suggest that the conductor of a study will decide if someone is, for example, racist based on the surveyor's concept of racism. That automatically predisposes the study to bias. If the people conducting the poll/survey/study hold to the belief that opposition to affirmative action, for example,is racist, how do you want to bet they will classify you if you don't support that agenda? Presto, magico....you're now a statistical racist.

 

Except that you forget that the definition is contestable. If the study included people who simply opposed affirmative action into the "racist" category, the methodology will be contested.

 

Of course, you can always point out the mistake, whether it was willful or not is unimportant, and point out in your "rebuttal" of sorts that the maker of the study included people that weren't racist because of your definition of racism. You point out the flaw and that's it.

 

Note that I never said that DI's questioning of ET's posted study were wrong, I even said that they were good questions, though I did consider them a futile exercise, considering the subject.

 

Unlike you, apparently, I don't go running for the nearest study to figure out if something makes sense or is ok. I point out that if one is to rely on these statistics, they paint a picture that often doesn't support the view they're trying to promulgate. That is not being hypocritical, but it may be hoisting you/them on your/their own petard. I'm somewhat curious as to by what authority you are competent to judge just how well done the studies are that you believe in anyway. Did you do an overview personally? Or are you just deferring to others again?

 

Then who are you to decide that something that makes sense is inherently true? Many things that seem to be common knowledge are not inherently true. For example, someone can say that the province of Québec is more to the left, if you consider the media and everything related. However, once you get out of the city of Montréal, you'll notice that it's not as left as the media portrays it.

 

You are subject to your own personal bias that stops you from seeing the larger picture, as we are all.

 

As for who I am to judge the studies, well, nobody. I just check out if it's well done, if the makers have well defined their...definitions, if they have respected their protocol (randomly chosen candidates, etc.), if it has been reviewed by a panel of scientists. Generally speaking, when they're published in scientific journals, they're well done. Doesn't mean that you can't find any criticism, but it does mean that it's reliable enough to quote.

 

 

As to the casual link argument of yours, I can't make you recognize common sense against your will. What are you going to do with yourself if you don't have a study to tell you how to behave?

 

I will assume you mean causal and not casual. I reiterate what I said above. You and DI suggested that women who wore provocative clothes were more prone to getting raped, which I ask again, where is the evidence? Common sense? You're a scientist, you should know better then to use that kind of argument in a debate.

 

Easy example. In Hungary, women are exhibitionists. Is the rape number higher there? I don't know, I don't have the stats. But it could be lower then in places where women are covered head to tow. The opposite is also true. Assuming that it's lower or marginally higher, using the same study with the same questions asked and the same definitions, it would mean that, against common sense, wearing provocative clothing does not incite raping.

 

A closer to political science example. Wilson and other institutionalists have long thought that giving a country the necessary democratic institutions was enough to consolidate democracy. However, against what seemed easy to understand, (after all, who doesn't want to be "free"?) the Weimar republic and the Taisho democracy disappeared, replaced by dictatorships supported by the people.

[Q]

I don't spose' you'd mind explaining the reasoning behind not using any sort of contraceptive, even condoms?

That's (generally) a Catholic thing. Hence the gigantic Catholic families. No disrespect intended towards Catholics, but most Protestants believe that contraception is acceptable when used by married couples.

[JediMaster12]

Better safe than sorry? Either impose your own views on people that can't be proven true, or take away their rights?

Don't go there ED with stripping away of rights. I had enough of that in history today with the Japanese Internment camps. What my understanding is that she is trying to emphasize that if two people are going to engage in sexual relations, they would be aware of the consequences. I believe she was trying to say that if you don't want pregnancy to happen then you should take measures to prevent it.

[Emperor Devon]

Don't go there ED with stripping away of rights.

 

It is the stripping away of rights, minor or major. The government telling people people whether they can get rid of a mass of cells in their bodies or not would constitute as that - the decision isn't being left in the hands of the people it affects.

[Darth InSidious]

@ED: It's not about rights, but beliefs, IMO.

 

You are forcing your moral code to override ours. Whether yours leaves room for 'you to believe what we want to believe' is neither here nor there. Your moral code, in this case, if I understand it correctly, saying 'believe what you will, and leave the questions open', is still a moral code, and is still overriding another person's.

 

I also have yet to see an answer to the question of temporal narrow-mindedness.

 

@LIAYD: Sorry, but 'women in Hungary are exhibitionists'? Very off-topic, but could you please explain your...conclusion in this regard?

[Emperor Devon]

You are forcing your moral code to override ours.

 

Far less so than the pro-life side of the issue in that case... If a woman gets raped and doesn't want to have an abortion because it goes against her beliefs, then great, she can have the kid.

 

Unless one of the principles of your moral code is forcing it upon others without their consent and whether they agree with it or not, you can hardly say that.

 

Your moral code, in this case, if I understand it correctly, saying 'believe what you will, and leave the questions open', is still a moral code, and is still overriding another person's.

 

...

 

I also have yet to see an answer to the question of temporal narrow-mindedness.

 

From me? Remind me what it was, in that case.

[Aurora Starfire]

No, people who haven't been raped can talk about it. Surely you have an opinion, given how major a part of the abortion debate it is?

Well, if you insist upon me saying something on the subject, let me recommend the article Darth InSidious mentioned earlier. There's nothing I could say, really, that isn't explained better there.

 

Can you really expect people to remember that?

Perhaps not while they're actually doing it, but they should bear it in mind beforehand and afterwards.

 

ET has addressed that part already... Orphanages are not always pleasant. And that's not even mentioning the trauma the mother might experience upon giving her child away.

You didn't even address the fact that most women are far more traumatized by abortion than giving up their child for adoption. In fact, many women feel a lot of guilt and regret over their abortions.

As for orphanages being unpleasant, perhaps you've been reading too much Oliver Twist On a more serious note, orphanages are a lot less common today than they were many years ago, at least in the US. And many children who are adopted live happy, healthy, normal lives with their adopted families. I have relatives who adopted children, at least one of whom was an arranged adoption (that is, arranged with the mother to legally adopt her child, who was not yet even born), and a good friend who was adopted, as well.

 

What if I wanted Jae to wear a t-shirt every day with 'I'm going to get PWNED on my duel with Devon!!!' printed on it? What if I'd made the shirt myself? I'd want that, but Jae's a separate person. The same instance applies to the father in this case - he's not the one who's going to give birth to it, and it's not growing in his body.

Er, that has very little correlation to the topic. A shirt is totally, completely, utterly and irrevocably different from a baby. And it doesn't change the fact that the baby is a part of the father, as much as it is a part of the mother. The mother supports the child while he is growing in her body, and the father supports the child while he is growing outside of the mother's body. At least, that's what happens when the father takes responsibility for his actions, including helping to create the child. Some fathers, notably the ones who claim that it's "the woman's choice" try to absolve themselves of any responsibility so that they don't have to support their child.

 

We've already gotten into the person debate... Unless you can prove that souls exist, it has no bearing in this discussion.

Better safe than sorry? Either impose your own views on people that can't be proven true, or take away their rights?

It has as much bearing as your "choice" argument. Can you see a decision? Can you touch it? Hear it? Smell it? Taste it? Sure, you can see/feel/hear/smell/taste the RESULTS of that decision, but not the decision itself. So, until you can prove that choice exists, it has no bearing in this discussion. (this is not to say that I disbelieve in free will or choice, but merely to point out one thing: All of you who say that the soul has no bearing unless you can prove its existence are not thinking logically. There are plenty of things you DON'T dispute the existence of, but you can't detect them any more than a soul)

As for imposing my views, I believe that Darth InSidious answered that very well.

 

Again, we've gotten into that. Unless you can prove that souls exist, (which seems to be the prime reason you think life begins at conception) any arguments you have related to it possess no merit.

Stalemate. Your arguments possess no merit either. (See my above statement) And actually, that's only part of the reason, though an important part. Another part is that any life that will be a human being that even you can recognise is a human life. And it is wrong to take a human life.

 

I don't spose' you'd mind explaining the reasoning behind not using any sort of contraceptive, even condoms?

No, I don't mind. What I said was that any abortifacient contraceptive technology is morally unacceptable. However, I also do not hold with artificial means to prevent conception, but those which merely prevent conception, not kill already conceived fetuses, are less morally wrong than abortifacient contraceptives. Still wrong, but less so.

My reasoning for it being wrong is that the act was created so that a man and a woman could create new life together. The preventives take that away from the act. Cheapen it. Few people realize what a sacred gift it is, to be able to create life. The irony is that man has been given the secret to the creation of new life, and instead of rejoicing in that gift, he cheapens it, and works to find other, more "scientific" ways of the creation and preservation of life.

[Totenkopf]

Easy example. In Hungary, women are exhibitionists. Is the rape number higher there? I don't know, I don't have the stats. But it could be lower then in places where women are covered head to tow. The opposite is also true. Assuming that it's lower or marginally higher, using the same study with the same questions asked and the same definitions, it would mean that, against common sense, wearing provocative clothing does not incite raping. A closer to political science example. Wilson and other institutionalists have long thought that giving a country the necessary democratic institutions was enough to consolidate democracy. However, against what seemed easy to understand, (after all, who doesn't want to be "free"?) the Weimar republic and the Taisho democracy disappeared, replaced by dictatorships supported by the people.

 

Basically same here as well. They were engaging in little more than wishful thinking in the hope of avoiding another world war in the future (or at least their own future). Common sense would have informed them that merely bestowing the mechanism without actually changing the culture itself would not give them the desired result. They were also, perhaps, guilty of neglect. They planted the seeds of democracy in rocky soil and basically left it to fend for itself. No wonder it failed. In the face of a vocal and militant plurality in both countries, democracy either died or became dormant.

 

Once again, though, as I said, if rape is to be considered a reasonable cause to allow abortion, it must be admitted by the other side that it is also the exception (unless your a militant feminist, who thinks all hetero sex is rape), as that is what the stats they rely on tell them. So, even if you allow such acts to result in abortion, you're still faced with the grand majority of abortions being little more than retroactive birth control b/c two people wouldn't control themselves responsibly. For those people, the robbery analogy doesn't hold up, unless they are robbing themselves. Same for violin society, because most women are not uwitting participants in their own pregnancies.

 

I snipped off topic comments. Discussion of common sense vs research vs. other stuff would make another fine thread or PM material. --Jae

[lukeiamyourdad]

Also, I was very careful to avoid making "foot down" statements. In other words, I did not say for fact that I knew that Hungarian women were less prone to getting raped. I'm just asking that if that was the case, there would not be a correlation between clothing and rape.

I snipped off topic comments. Discussion of common sense vs research vs. other stuff would make another fine thread or PM material. --Jae

[Jae Onasi]

No, I don't mind. What I said was that any abortifacient contraceptive technology is morally unacceptable. However, I also do not hold with artificial means to prevent conception, but those which merely prevent conception, not kill already conceived fetuses, are less morally wrong than abortifacient contraceptives. Still wrong, but less so.

My reasoning for it being wrong is that the act was created so that a man and a woman could create new life together. The preventives take that away from the act. Cheapen it. Few people realize what a sacred gift it is, to be able to create life. The irony is that man has been given the secret to the creation of new life, and instead of rejoicing in that gift, he cheapens it, and works to find other, more "scientific" ways of the creation and preservation of life.

 

I've heard in evangelical communities as well as Catholic that some think the Pill is an abortifacient. I find this very odd, since the Pill acts to prevent ovulation, so no egg is released. If there's no egg, there's no conception, and thus no baby is killed by the Pill. The medication does cause changes in the uterus that make it hostile for embryo implantation (which I think is what the pro-Life groups are concerned about in case an egg did for some odd reason get released), but that's irrelevent if egg fertilization never happens. I can't characterize this particular medication as an abortifacient.

 

The 'morning after' pill (aka emergency contraception or EC) could technically be characterized as an abortifacient since it will work to prevent implantation of an existing embryo. However, this medication, which is basically a souped up version of the Pill, still is designed to prevent ovulation more than anything else, rather than kill an embryo.

 

I disagree that "The Act" is designed merely for procreation. It also makes an important contribution to the depth of the marriage relationship as a whole.