Interesting view on Abortion - Please Participate (FOR EVERY MEMBERS OF THE FORUM)

[slayer-2004]

And as for your attempt to say "Women never lie about rape" I am finding it very rediculous . It seems to me like if anyone is sexist here , it is you , but your sexist against men . Although you have not stated it directly you are claiming women would never do the terrible things men do and are implying women have some kind of superiority over men when it comes to honesty . Sexism and feminism is very naive . Men who think women are inferior and women who think men are inferior need to grow up .

Anyways ...

http://www.salon.com/news/1999/03/cov_10news.html

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/SHAKE/ShakeStories/NMcCorveyPro.asp

 

[justaman]

Do we, as human beings, recognize the "thing" inside the womb as life?
When does a human being become recognized as person? and during what process of pregnancy do we define this blob of blood as life?

There's two completely seperate questions here. The first is yes, the thing in the uterus is unequivocally a life form. But, then, so is every egg and sperm we have swimming around inside of us. That's important.

I do not, however, agree that it is a 'person' at this point.

So does the "mother's right to choose" over-rule the fetus' human rights?(assuming the fetus is a life)
Which is greater?

Same mistake. Just because it is life does not mean that it is a human. A sperm cell isn't a human.

Consider this, though it may sound awfully silly. Does a mother have a choice to "abort" a 5 year old boy? If the fetus is infact life, does it not have the same right as would a 5 year old boy? If so, then the difference between the 5 year old boy and the fetus would be the location. One being inside the womb and one out in the field.

My personal definition (and the only sound one I've come across) is that 'personness' begins at the point where awareness is formed. 5 years old is clearly far too old to be considered prior to this time. A pre-22 week fetus very definitely does not have awareness yet. I would also argue that new-borns do not have awareness either, but that is more of an illustrative point. I am happy with a third-trimester limit on abortion.

 

[justaman]

Most women are intimately acquainted with rape because one-third of them are victims of it at least once ion their lives.

Whoooooa, I don't exactly agree with most anything slayer is saying, but one in three?? Don't think so, champ. Perhaps in some particularly nasty african countries, but I'm a little skeptical about this statistic in the manner that you've used it. Do you have a source?

 

[Nycky]

In no way whatsoever was I saying that all the blame for sexual immorality falls on that of females . I am not a sexist ******* . I ment that she shifts the part of the blame that is hers onto others . I am not saying all the blame goes to her at all .

What makes you want to defend the stance that all women are trustworthy ? They are not . All men are not trustworthy either .

Just because you trusted every girl that came to you doesnt mean that all girls tell the truth .

What I am picking up is that this is not an academic excersice for you Slayer. It would appear that you have been personally impacted by this topic.

The reality is, that there are always two parties involved in a pregnancy that ultimately results in an abortion. If both partners in the sex act are living up to their responsibilities with regard to contraception, ie, he wears a condom and she uses the pill, there would be very few abortions necessary and most of those would be to protect the health of the mother. So when you speak only of women shifting responsibility you do sound like a sexist.

I have never suggested that all women are trustworthy. When I said poppycock, I was referring to your suggestion that women in college lie about sexual assault more than any other women. I have never seen any evidence to suggest this. I have seen evidence that proves that college-aged women are victims of sexual assault more often than any other age group.

Nyc

 

[slayer-2004]

actually it seems I made a few unclear statements and all the women here assumed I ment the worst .

 

[Nycky]

Whoooooa, I don't exactly agree with most anything slayer is saying, but one in three?? Don't think so, champ. Perhaps in some particularly nasty african countries, but I'm a little skeptical about this statistic in the manner that you've used it. Do you have a source?

Why can't you belive it? I am sincere in this question and would like a response.

I have tucked in a few stats below but before you get to them I want to point out a couple things that may skew information about sexual assault.

First, very few people are convicted of "rape," even when convicted of sexual assault. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania where I live, for instance, to be convicted of rape, there must be a physically violent attack or coercion and there must be penile penetration of the vagina. Everything else with anal or oral penetration and is Deviant Sexual Intercourse, a lesser felony; No bruising, sexual assault in any one of four degrees. I say this to make the point that the federal stats track the crime of rape which differs depending on where you live. While both Rape and Deviant Sexual Intercourse may be included in the stats, other non-felony sexual assaults are not counted. For example, only seventeen states call it a crime when a man forcibly rapes his wife. This man may be charged and convicted of asault and battery but no rape charge could be applied. A woman's or man's for that matter, perception of rape is often different than the law's interpretation.


* One in three women will be a victim of rape during her lifetime. ("Sexual Assault is Everyone's Problem." D.C. Rape Crisis Center, 1990).

* Every hour, 16 women confront rapists; every six minutes a woman is raped. (Uniform Crime Report, 1989; National Crime Survey, 1989).

* A woman is 20 times more likely to be raped in the United States than in Japan; the U.S. rape rate is 13 times higher than Great Britain's and four times higher than Germany's. (U.S. Department of Justice, 1988).

* According to the FBI Crime Clock for 1997, one forcible rape occurred every 6 minutes. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 15 October 2000. Crime in the United States, Uniform Crime Reports, 1997. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice

I have to say that I was very offended when you suggested that only in some "nasty" place in Africa could sexual assault occur in these numbers. The US leads all other industrialized countries in sexual assault by a pretty wide margin. Yes, rape is currently being used as a tool of war in parts of Africa. The numbers, of war rapes coming out of the Balkans a few years ago, however were much higher. And we can also look at the numbers of child rapes committed by European men in countries like Cambodia. Black men have no greater propensity for rape than their white counterparts.

Nyc

 

[justaman]

You can stop being insulted. You made a claim which I didn't - and still don't - believe. That has exactly nothing to do with my attitude towards rape and rape victims.

I'll rely on your resources right now. You said "one in three". Then you cite a couple of sources which state "one rape every six minutes". Let's do some math.

1 rape every 6 minutes = 10 rapes an hour
= 240 rapes a day
= 87600 rapes a year.

Assuming an average life span of 70 years with the same 6 billion population

= 6 132 000 rapes over a population's life time.

So just over 6 million women out of approx 3 billion are raped (this, of course, ignores multiple victims). 6 million is not 1 in 3.

6 million is about 1 in 500, which I find far more likely.

 

[Nycky]

You can stop being insulted. You made a claim which I didn't - and still don't - believe. That has exactly nothing to do with my attitude towards rape and rape victims.

I am not insulted, I am offended that you suggest that large numbers of sexual assaults can only happen in an African country.

but one in three?? Don't think so, champ. Perhaps in some particularly nasty african countries, but I'm a little skeptical about this statistic in the manner that you've used it.

Your statement was, in my opinion, racist, in a pretty off-handed way, given the well publised use of rape as a tool of war during the conflicts in the Balkans. I made no comment on your beliefs about rape or its victims.

I'll rely on your resources right now. You said "one in three". Then you cite a couple of sources which state "one rape every six minutes". Let's do some math.

1 rape every 6 minutes = 10 rapes an hour
= 240 rapes a day
= 87600 rapes a year.

Assuming an average life span of 70 years with the same 6 billion population

= 6 132 000 rapes over a population's life time.

So just over 6 million women out of approx 3 billion are raped (this, of course, ignores multiple victims). 6 million is not 1 in 3.

6 million is about 1 in 500, which I find far more likely.

I live in the US now and have adopted some of the ethnocentrism seemingly bred into Americans, The statistics, and my statements, are limited to the US. Worldwide, if I recall correctly, the stats say that one in five women are victims of sexual violence. If you have information that says something significantly different please share them.

By the way, Australia is third behind the US and New Zealand in the number of rapes (completed and attempted) reported coming in at approximately half the rate of the US.

I asked you earlier why you have trouble believing these statistics; you chose not to respond. Would you have as much trouble believing that 1 in 3 men are mugged in their lifetime?

Nyc

 

[justaman]

I am not insulted, I am offended that you suggest that large numbers of sexual assaults can only happen in an African country.
Your statement was, in my opinion, racist, in a pretty off-handed way, given the well publised use of rape as a tool of war during the conflicts in the Balkans. I made no comment on your beliefs about rape or its victims.

I love people on soap-boxes

I do not make such comments because I am racist, you git, I make them because I have been quite affected by some off the horrific attrocities that occur in some third world countries. Sierra Leone is, arguably, one of the worst examples.

http://www.phrusa.org/research/sierra_leone/report_pr.html

This is not the case in the US, Australia, or any other western country. That is the truth. If you are still offended, I would suggest you get over it, as you have completely misconstrued what I've said.

I live in the US now and have adopted some of the ethnocentrism seemingly bred into Americans, The statistics, and my statements, are limited to the US. Worldwide, if I recall correctly, the stats say that one in five women are victims of sexual violence. If you have information that says something significantly different please share them.

Very well, the US. Female population is approx 140 million. 6 million is approx 1 in 25.

As for 'finding my own facts', a quick search came up with this. Here is 1 in 6 completed and attempted rapes throughout their lifetime. So the actual number of rapes would be significantly less than 1 in 6 (of course the higher percentage is shown because they are wanting the impact, which is completely understandable.) Since there is no ratio given between completed and attempted, it is difficult to know for sure what the true statistic is, and this is made worse by the lack of definition for what constitutes an attempted rape. Regardless, your 1 in 3 stat fails again.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm

By the way, Australia is third behind the US and New Zealand in the number of rapes (completed and attempted) reported coming in at approximately half the rate of the US.

I've no doubt. But I think those figures are not 1 in 3 for the US and 1 in 6 for Australia.

I asked you earlier why you have trouble believing these statistics; you chose not to respond.

The heck are you talking about? I told you I had trouble believing them because they sounded waaay off. I believe that because I know lots of women and would not say one in three of them have been raped. Nor one in 6. In fact of all the women I have met personally in my life to date, I know of only one who has. This is why I don't believe your statistic.

Would you have as much trouble believing that 1 in 3 men are mugged in their lifetime?

That seems more reasonable. But I'm unclear as to what you think you're highlighting here. Obviously you think I'm biased in some way. Care to illuminate me as to what regard?

There's nothing I respect more than individuals on this board reading one of my posts and thinking they instantly know all of my prejudices.

 

[Nycky]

I love people on soap-boxes

I do not make such comments because I am racist, you git, I make them because I have been quite affected by some off the horrific attrocities that occur in some third world countries. Sierra Leone is, arguably, one of the worst examples.

http://www.phrusa.org/research/sierra_leone/report_pr.html

It seems clear to me that you are intimately familiar with soap boxes. You are also familiar with tactics that advocate insulting the messenger when you are unable to provide a legitimate argument against the message. I am assuming that "you git" is not a compliment.

I am, sincerely, sorry for any pain that the sexual violence that is a part of the tribal and civil wars in Africa has caused you. My point simply is that this activity is not limited to Africa. Rape is a tool of war, full stop. And as war is not limited to third world countries, it has been found throughout Europe as well. The most recent example being the conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina, where women were horded into "rape-camps." Rape was a tool of the Germans in both World Wars, it was a tool of the Russians to retaliate against the Nazis. Rape was used by the Japanese and by Pakistan in their wars against the Chinese and the India, respectively. And rape was a tool of America in the war in Vietnam. While the situation in Africa is in the forefront right now, it is not the only example of huge numbers of rapes and other violence against women that occur in some geographical and/or cultural locus.

This is not the case in the US, Australia, or any other western country. That is the truth. If you are still offended, I would suggest you get over it, as you have completely misconstrued what I've said.

You are right, currently situations like the one you refer to in Sierra Leone are not occuring in any western country. Would you have considered the former Yugoslavia a western country before the war? Germany is a western country. And while this activity has never happened on American soil, the sons of this Western society had no trouble exporting sexual violence to the soils of its enemies.

Very well, the US. Female population is approx 140 million. 6 million is approx 1 in 25.

As for 'finding my own facts', a quick search came up with this. Here is 1 in 6 completed and attempted rapes throughout their lifetime. So the actual number of rapes would be significantly less than 1 in 6 (of course the higher percentage is shown because they are wanting the impact, which is completely understandable.) Since there is no ratio given between completed and attempted, it is difficult to know for sure what the true statistic is, and this is made worse by the lack of definition for what constitutes an attempted rape. Regardless, your 1 in 3 stat fails again.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm

I've no doubt. But I think those figures are not 1 in 3 for the US and 1 in 6 for Australia.

Just a few sentences later on the webpage you highlight the numbers say 1 in 4 college aged women are victimized during a four to six year period of their lives. As to completed or attempted rape, if a woman is forced to ground but her perp can't get it up and so get it in, does that lesson the impact on the victim. Where do you cross the line between an attempted mugging and a completed one. Is the man who is pushed to the ground and kicked any less a victim because somebody yells at his assailant and scares him away before he can get the wallet.

Further, as I pointed out earlier, the legal definition of rape differs from state to state in the US. Statistics say that one in seven women are the victims of marital rape. Marital rape often occurs with other types of domestic violence. These statistics are often not reported because only 17 states (USA) as of 2000, define rape by a spouse as a crime. Other situation, fondling instead of penetration, penetration with an object, oral penetration are not tracked as felony crimes. The detrimental impact on the victim is similar, but the impact on the law and reporting is not.

The heck are you talking about? I told you I had trouble believing them because they sounded waaay off. I believe that because I know lots of women and would not say one in three of them have been raped. Nor one in 6. In fact of all the women I have met personally in my life to date, I know of only one who has. This is why I don't believe your statistic.

Most women never tell anyone that they have been raped. And in my experience, eight years working with survivors, they rarely tell male friends and family memberrs. I have worked with married women who did not tell their spouses. I have heard two primary explanations for this -- one, they fear that their male friends/family would adopt vigilante justice and end up in jail, or two, they feel so dirty and so shameful that they assume that their male associates would blame them for the assualt. I have had reports of both those senarios playing out. Have you asked your female friends if they have been the victims of sexual violence? I am pretty certain that you would find that there is more than one of your female friends that has suffered sexual violence if you did.

Dont' believe the women, listen to the men:
8% of men admit committing acts that meet the legal definition of rape or attempted rape. Of these men who committed rape, 84% said that what they did was definitely not rape.

4.5% of men report forcing a woman to have sex.

More than one in five men report becoming so sexually aroused that they could not stop themselves from having sex, even though the woman did not consent.

35% of men report at least some degree of likelihood of raping if they could be assured they wouldn't be caught or punished.

Rapists commit approximately 14 rapes for each time the are caught.

Would you have as much trouble believing that 1 in 3 men are mugged in their lifetime?

That seems more reasonable [than 1 in 3 women being assaulted sexually]. But I'm unclear as to what you think you're highlighting here. Obviously you think I'm biased in some way. Care to illuminate me as to what regard?

So let me see -- 1 in 500 seems reasonable. But 1 in 25 also sounds reasonable. Hey, you can live with 1 in 6. But it absolutely could not be 1 in 3.

My guess is that you are a man who likes women and probably has male friends with similar values, and you can't comprehend that there are that there are many "civilized" men out there who hurt women sexually. It's odd, when we provided legal advocacy to women we usually prefered juries with more men than women (older women were the kiss of death.) We wanted men because men, as a general rule, more easily believe that men are capable of this kind of assault. Women don't want to believe that the handsome man, in the nice suit sitting so quietly and respectfully (who looks just like their nephew Charlie) could possibly do this bad thing.

There's nothing I respect more than individuals on this board reading one of my posts and thinking they instantly know all of my prejudices.

I have actually read several of your posts and I usually think that you make good sense. What do I know about your prejudices, nothing except that you have some. How do I know that? Because we all have some, none of us were raised in a vaccum.

If you took offense to my statement, and clearly you did, please believe me that none was intended. I said that I felt that you made a racist ( read, prejudiced) statement. That, for me at least, is not the same as being racist. I have made racist statements without thinking (maybe even one or two after thought,) but I would certainly not call myself a racist.

I think my statistics are pretty on the mark based on my experiences. You disagree based on yours. I hope we can agree that one rape is one too many.

Pax Christi,
Nyc

 

[pthalomarie]

And as for your attempt to say "Women never lie about rape" I am finding it very rediculous .

How does your invented quote above equate to my actual quote, which was, "I never stated that women never lie about sexual assault"?

It seems to me like if anyone is sexist here , it is you , but your sexist against men . Although you have not stated it directly you are claiming women would never do the terrible things men do and are implying women have some kind of superiority over men when it comes to honesty.

I never implied that, either.

I take it that you're in college, right? Could you please do me a favor and take some courses in logic and reasoning?

Sexism and feminism is very naive .

Please provide your definition of "feminism."

As for your articles, I don't think you read them. The whole point of Roe is that the case took place while abortion was illegal.

You stated earlier that this whole phenomenon of women lying about assault to get abortions was fairly common. If you have to go all the way back to an era before it was legalized, then you've proven my point that your claim is false.

As for the other article, I'm not sure what the point of it is. At no point does it mention abortion.

 

[justaman]

If you took offense to my statement, and clearly you did, please believe me that none was intended. I said that I felt that you made a racist ( read, prejudiced) statement.

How silly of me to be offended then. Mostly what irks me is that you made a false interpretation of what I said, and then accused me with that interpretation, ignoring - in the process - the fact that those countries are the worst afflicted. What annoys me further is that you seem intelligent, yet you make a mistake I feel quite justified calling profoundly stupid, hence my calling you a git. I don't call stupid people stupid. I call smart people stupid because you'd think they'd know better.

I hope we can agree that one rape is one too many.

Which is ultimately the point and why I see little point in arguing with you anymore.

 

[slayer-2004]

I never implied that, either.

I take it that you're in college, right? Could you please do me a favor and take some courses in logic and reasoning?

I dont take ad hominum lightly ... please dont use it .

How does your invented quote above equate to my actual quote, which was, "I never stated that women never lie about sexual assault"?

sorry , I didnt notice that ... but why did you ask me to name one if you believe girls do lie about rape sometimes ? It seems odd .

Please provide your definition of "feminism."

Belief that all the problems of females are at the fault of males .

As for your articles, I don't think you read them. The whole point of Roe is that the case took place while abortion was illegal.You stated earlier that this whole phenomenon of women lying about assault to get abortions was fairly common. If you have to go all the way back to an era before it was legalized, then you've proven my point that your claim is false.

it was the first thing that came up on google . I made the assumption that women will lie about rape to get abortions mainly because they have lied about rape for stupider reasons . ( Revenge , ect . ) not to mention when I googled the idea thousands of pages popped up .

As for the other article, I'm not sure what the point of it is. At no point does it mention abortion.

the point was to show you girls have lied for even dumber reasons .

 

[pthalomarie]

I dont take ad hominum lightly ... please dont use it .

To point out that your discussion skills need work is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be if I said you weren't smart enough to understand the topic.

I'm serious about taking those courses, btw. Students shouldn't leave college without being able to explain why they believe what they believe in a formal, well-structured manner.

sorry , I didnt notice that ... but why did you ask me to name one if you believe girls do lie about rape sometimes ? It seems odd .

I don't think I've been ambiguous about this.

Think of it this way:

We may agree that politicians will lie to get elected. But if you said that politicians lie to get free candy, I'm going to doubt you and ask for evidence. If you show me a story that took place back in an era when politicians weren't allowed to have candy, I'm not going to be satisfied - especially if your point was that politicians nowadays lie to get candy all of the time.

The point is, the fact that some women have lied about rape for money or spite does not mean that women lie about rape for abortions.

Belief that all the problems of females are at the fault of males .

Now I understand where you're coming from. Your hostility is rooted in an erroneous understanding of what feminism is. Feminism is simply about equal rights, equal pay, and equal oppotunities for men and women.

it was the first thing that came up on google.

????

Don't you check articles before you cite them?

(If you don't, now you can see why you should.)

I made the assumption that women will lie about rape to get abortions mainly because they have lied about rape for stupider reasons .

Again, see above.

I'm glad though that you're now admitting that you've gone into this discussion by relying your own inexperienced assumptions.

not to mention when I googled the idea thousands of pages popped up .

So? If I do a search on "alien abduction" , I'll get thousands of pages. Heck, if I google "Bush is The Antichrist," I'll get over 45,000 pages! Does that mean he is the antichrist?

 

[Nycky]

So? If I do a search on "alien abduction" , I'll get thousands of pages. Heck, if I google "Bush is The Antichrist," I'll get over 45,000 pages! Does that mean he is the antichrist?

Duh, of course it does.

 

[jewishprincess613]

No, some people lives wouldn't be worth living if they had a child.

Doesn't matter. They should have been more responsible. And even if they were "protected", getting pregnant is STILL a consequence, and if one is not prepared to handle the consequences of an action, then one should not commit the action. Does that mean that the person should raise the child? No, adoption is a very good alternative. I believe abortion is okay only if the mother's life is in danger. Otherwise, I am against it. I keep hearing "the woman's right". What about the baby's right? It is my belief that if G~d did not want this child to exist, then G~d would not have allowed it to be created. Simple as that.

 

[Nycky]

How silly of me to be offended then. Mostly what irks me is that you made a false interpretation of what I said, and then accused me with that interpretation, ignoring - in the process - the fact that those countries are the worst afflicted. What annoys me further is that you seem intelligent, yet you make a mistake I feel quite justified calling profoundly stupid, hence my calling you a git. I don't call stupid people stupid. I call smart people stupid because you'd think they'd know better.

Righteous indignation is soooo refreshing. Condescension doesn't do as much for me, however. Thank you, I did not know what a git was.

I agreed with you that the issues with sexual violence in Seirra Leone that are a part of the tribal warfare there are horrible and most assuredly the worse situation for women in the world at the present time. What I asked is that you acknowledge that these mass rapes have not been limited to Africa. Because I know you to be an intelligent person, I know that you understand my point. I could not have made it any more plain. I am left to believe that you have your own reasons for refusing to acknowledge that mass rape is not an issue limited to

some particularly nasty african countries.

Which is ultimately the point and why I see little point in arguing with you anymore.

By your leave wonderous tyrant. I accept my dismissal oh great dictator [slinking away with tail twixt my legs.]

 

[Nycky]

Doesn't matter. They should have been more responsible. And even if they were "protected", getting pregnant is STILL a consequence, and if one is not prepared to handle the consequences of an action, then one should not commit the action. Does that mean that the person should raise the child? No, adoption is a very good alternative. I believe abortion is okay only if the mother's life is in danger. Otherwise, I am against it. I keep hearing "the woman's right". What about the baby's right? It is my belief that if G~d did not want this child to exist, then G~d would not have allowed it to be created. Simple as that.

Traditionally Judiasm associated life with breath. A person was not alive until the intial breath was taken.

What is you opinion on that tradition?

Nyc

 

[jewishprincess613]

Traditionally Judiasm associated life with breath. A person was not alive until the intial breath was taken.

What is you opinion on that tradition?

Nyc

Judaism does believe that life begins at first breath, however does this give us the right to kill a fetus? No! Why? Because it is a POTENTIAL LIFE! Traditional Judaism also teaches that there are many layers to the soul, and the fetus gets all but the last layer until it takes its first breath. So, you are still killing a soul when you have an abortion. But because the soul has not yet been completed, it is NECESSARY to kill the fetus if the mother's life is in danger as the mother is "higher" than the fetus. Any other reason, other than that, abortion is looked down upon because there is still the beginnings of a soul in that fetus. Therefore, if you aren't ready to deal with the consequences, then you should keep your pants on!

 

[justaman]

I agreed with you that the issues with sexual violence in Seirra Leone that are a part of the tribal warfare there are horrible and most assuredly the worse situation for women in the world at the present time. What I asked is that you acknowledge that these mass rapes have not been limited to Africa. Because I know you to be an intelligent person, I know that you understand my point. I could not have made it any more plain. I am left to believe that you have your own reasons for refusing to acknowledge that mass rape is not an issue limited to...

Please try and see this from my perspective. I was not giving you a detailed cross-section of the social-political climates based upon a collective census of 20th and 21st century surveys by degree of observed sexual and physical violence conducted by objective observers from UN chartered missions with precise records of abuse appropriately categorised and labelled into relevant components.

I was saying in some countries maybe, in the US not.

But you saw "nasty" and "African" in the same sentence and launched an animated, thoguh quite misdirected crusade. As I tried to end in my last post, I'm sure I ultimately agree with your point, so your statistic, while I continue to consider drastically over-inflated, is really neither here nor there, which is why I ignored much of your previous post.

By your leave wonderous tyrant. I accept my dismissal oh great dictator [slinking away with tail twixt my legs.]

Neato.