Topic: GOP drinking the 'No such thing as Rape' Kool Aid

[Callie Del Noire]

I imagine that there are already folks lining up to take this to court. It's got so many corners to come from that I can imagine that we can hammer things flat from day one of enforcement.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Just wondering if this is how they propose to go after those female votes they missed in the last presidential election.

[consortium11]

I was hoping that you knew something about it, or someone else posting in the topic. It's something I have to do more research on, and I simply do not have time right now to hunt it down. *just sighs*

It's not much use in the US but the European Court of Human Rights has held that forced sterilisation is a breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, with the leading cases relating to the forced sterilisation of Roma women in Slovakia. That said it's been a long process... it was only earlier this year that Sweden finally stopped enforcing sterilisation for any transgendered person who wanted to legally change their gender.

[Callie Del Noire]

APPARENTLY that is a satire site.

http://www.freewoodpost.com/disclaimer/

[TheGlyphstone]

So we all just got Onion'd?


Also, Apparently none of us looked at the Date of the article, it was written in May 2012.

[meikle]

Poe's Law hard at work.

[Oniya]

Although it says something that people were more appalled than surprised.  >_>

[Ephiral]

Good to hear it's satire, but just to satisfy curiosities: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court seems to put this firmly in the jurisdiction of the ICC. Enforced sterilization is specifically cited as a war crime, and mutiliation, torture, humiliation, degradation, murder, and extrajudicial sentencing of persons not engaged in any sort of hostilities is also part of their baliwick even inf no state of war exists.

That said, the US has been kinda flouting that one for some time now, so I wouldn't rely too hard on it.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So we can put the pitchforks and torches down?

[Scribbles]

Ephiral,

I don't believe the US is a part of the ICC...

So we can put the pitchforks and torches down?

Aww, but I happen to like waving my pitchfork about...

[worthlessfem]

Okay.. I've seen a constant and steady torrent of anti-female reproductive right acts in the last year or so.. but to hear this sort of thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/todd-akin-rape_b_1810928.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/08/19/akin-says-you-cant-get-pregnant-from-legitimate-rape

Would someone tell me that I'm seeign things or it's being spun out of context.. this cannot be honestly be what these idiots think? Women secrete a hormone in 'true rape' that keeps them from getting pregnant? When did we roll back a century or more in our outlook?


And apparently the personhood movement has claimed at least one life in their rush to protect every unborn.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/17/world/americas/dominican-republic-abortion/index.html

I remember this idiot spouting off. I must admit that I've never heard a female pro-lifer (one of my best friends is one though I'm personally pro-choice) say anything so stupid. Only a man would come up with rubbish like that!

[Sel Nar]

I remember this idiot spouting off. I must admit that I've never heard a female pro-lifer (one of my best friends is one though I'm personally pro-choice) say anything so stupid. Only a man would come up with rubbish like that!

Don't lump us men in with that idiot. Just because one has, or does not have a penis does not make them more or less prone to making completely imbecilic statements, generalizations, or comments that spark outrage among any being with more than two braincells to rub together.

[Callie Del Noire]

Don't lump us men in with that idiot. Just because one has, or does not have a penis does not make them more or less prone to making completely imbecilic statements, generalizations, or comments that spark outrage among any being with more than two braincells to rub together.

Yes please... don't lump us all with the idiots.. don't even lump all us Republicans.. though I'm (GASP HORROR) am a MODERATE Republican.

[Chris Brady]

OK, I need to have something clarified.

What IS 'pro-life'.  I believe I am, but...  I need to make sure I'm working under the right assumptions.

[Scribbles]

Chris Brady,

Simply put, it's the belief that everyone has the right to life from the moment of conception. From there, it's only a question of how far you are willing to go to preserve that life. For example, some believe in allowing exemptions, such as if the mother is a victim of rape or if her life is threatened by the birth. Others take a more extreme, uncompromising stance. On another level, there are those who would argue that allowing a mother to abort because of rape is actually pro-choice.

[Healergirl]

When/how did this life begins at conception take hold, I wonder.  I was under the impression that Adam's soul entered his body with his first breath in Genesis.

[Lilias]

When/how did this life begins at conception take hold, I wonder.  I was under the impression that Adam's soul entered his body with his first breath in Genesis.

Adam was also created, not born.

[Oniya]

When/how did this life begins at conception take hold, I wonder.  I was under the impression that Adam's soul entered his body with his first breath in Genesis.

They usually use the line 'When you were in your mother's womb, I knew you' to imply that there was 'someone' - a person - for God to know before birth.  I believe this was in relation to John the Baptist's calling, but it's early for Bible hunting.

[Scribbles]

Either way, I feel the state of the soul is irrelevant. I understand the importance a lot of people put into a soul but it’s not something we can measure or understand and so I feel it only confuses the debate on abortion.

As far as “life” is concerned, I believe it’s best if we be blunt. Even if it’s just a spark, we cannot deny that abortion extinguishes life. The life is there, it’s developing and by our choices, we might find ourselves ending it…

It’s not pretty but it’s the unfortunate predicament many are put in thanks to the unforgiving world we live in.

That said, I also feel that we can’t deny the negative impact usually created by forcing an expectant mother to birth, often for both mother and child. I also don’t believe we can deny how anti-abortion legislators and picketers, who assemble outside clinics, only exasperate the situations for these (often desperate and distressed) people rather than work toward “saving a life”.

[ShadowFox89]

Imagine, a politician could create a bill which reads, "Should a legislator write a law which fails to meet constitutional muster, said legislator shall be forced to undergo surgery whereby his balls are handily lopped off and served to him on a silver platter."

 This.... this would be bad? I imagine that our politicians would be more willing to do their job than simply bask in the money gained from lobbyists if they had to worry about literally getting their balls handed to them.

[Tamhansen]

Pro lifers, like most hardline religious people are cherry pickers. Which, granted, isn't hard to do with a book that flip flops more than Mitt Romney, and does a near complete one eighty on most subjects between part one and part two.

Actually, there are several lines in the bible that specifically state that life begins at the first breath:

Genesis 2:7: He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.   Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

Job 33:4 : “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”

 Ezekiel 37:5&6: “Thus says the Lord God to these bones:   Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live.   And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live;   and you shall know that I am the Lord.”

And then there's the one that clearly states abortion isn't murder.

Exodus 21:22-25: “If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no misfortune follow, he shall be surely punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.And if any misfortune follow, then thou shalt give life for life, And if any misfortune follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

This clearly reads that the fruit departing from her is no misfortune upon itself. Simple and clear cut. if the bible is the word of god, then god thinks that destroying the fruit of a woman's womb does not equate to murder.

[Kythia]

And then there's the one that clearly states abortion isn't murder.

Exodus 21:22-25: “If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no misfortune follow, he shall be surely punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.And if any misfortune follow, then thou shalt give life for life, And if any misfortune follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

This clearly reads that the fruit departing from her is no misfortune upon itself. Simple and clear cut. if the bible is the word of god, then god thinks that destroying the fruit of a woman's womb does not equate to murder.

While I agree with you in general, you're actually mistaken here.  If the woman is hit and gives birth prematurely but to an otherwise healthy baby is what it means by "no misfortune".  The Hebrew word translated above as "depart from her" is "ytsa'" which always means give birth in that context not "shakal" - miscarry.  Sorry, I know its a tempting passage but its a dead end.

ETA:  Just been pointed to an interesting analysis of that passage giving a third view.  He argues it well.

[Tamhansen]

While I agree with you in general, you're actually mistaken here.  If the woman is hit and gives birth prematurely but to an otherwise healthy baby is what it means by "no misfortune".  The Hebrew word translated above as "depart from her" is "ytsa'" which always means give birth in that context not "shakal" - miscarry.  Sorry, I know its a tempting passage but its a dead end.

Sorry, but that is completely untrue. The line in hebrew reads "w˚yase û ye ladêhâ" Ytsa, meaning to finish is not part of the sentence. Also, if the child would be born otherwise healthy, hebrew law would not demand justice, even a fine.

Judaic courts as well as countless Rabbis and theologians have made the point over the centuries, and just because pro lifers twist the meaning of the text by using semantics does not invalidate the original meaning.

Again a point of cherry picking. And the argument used by the pro lifers itself shows how hypocritical they are in their approach.

The argument goes like this. :Yasa, in combination with yeled usually refers to living births. (genesis 25:25-26, jeremiah 1:5) except in numbers 12:12 which translates in english “Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!”

Now the pro lifers argue that in this case Yasa only refers to a stillborn because of the context. I can't fault that. But then, they flip flop when it comes to exodus 21:22 saying that even though the context clearly implies a dead baby, the context doesn't matter, only the literal meaning of Yasa must be taken into account.

According to hebraic law, the child being born healthy and alive would not be a cause for a trial. Therefor the fact that the man in 21:22 should pay a fine, can only be seen as a clear sign that there is a loss on the side of the woman's husband, for which he must be compensated. Ergo, the fruit of her womb is lost.




Now I know consistency has never been a strong point of Christian faith, but this is a very blatant attempt at perverting their own texts to justify their own behavior.



 

[Kythia]

Sorry, but that is completely untrue. The line in hebrew reads "w˚yase û ye ladêhâ" Ytsa, meaning to finish is not part of the sentence. Also, if the child would be born otherwise healthy, hebrew law would not demand justice, even a fine.

EDIT: My apologies, working from memory.  Yasa, not ytsa.

The fine is for striking the mother, not for anything to do with the child.

Judaic courts as well as countless Rabbis and theologians have made the point over the centuries, and just because pro lifers twist the meaning of the text by using semantics does not invalidate the original meaning.

Judaic courts ....  hmmm.  I think they have doubtful relevance here.  The quote is being used, by both you, I , and others, as part of Christian tradition not Jewish.  Sure, its the same book.  Sure, the Jews had it first.  However, I think Judaic courts are only of peripheral relevance to the Christian interpretation, to be perfectly honest.  It's a wide point, I know, and defending it fully would take far more words than I think this tangent warrants. 

Theologians over the centuries I can't argue with, the classical view has certainly been "miscarriage" as opposed to "premature".  However, theological opinions change over time.  Arguing that previous theologians have thought that is precisely the sort of appeal to authority that Christianity is, rightly, attacked for.

The argument goes like this. :Yasa, in combination with yeled usually refers to living births. (genesis 25:25-26, jeremiah 1:5) except in numbers 12:12 which translates in english “Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!”

Now the pro lifers argue that in this case Yasa only refers to a stillborn because of the context. I can't fault that. But then, they flip flop when it comes to exodus 21:22 saying that even though the context clearly implies a dead baby, the context doesn't matter, only the literal meaning of Yasa must be taken into account.

Clearly.  The context clearly implies a dead baby.  This is where I disagree.  The fact that there are several other interpretations makes it not so clear, in my opinion.  You think it refers to a dead baby, others don't.  I think you're overstating your case here.

According to hebraic law, the child being born healthy and alive would not be a cause for a trial. Therefor the fact that the man in 21:22 should pay a fine, can only be seen as a clear sign that there is a loss on the side of the woman's husband, for which he must be compensated. Ergo, the fruit of her womb is lost.

Again, the fine is for the blow to the wife, not to do with the healthy infant.

I can't seem to stop myself derailing these threads.  I apologise.  Katataban - thankyou for your well thought out response.  Should we take this somewhere else?

[Tamhansen]

I don't mind taking this to a separate thread, though I'm unclear as to how you are derailing the thread.

EDIT: My apologies, working from memory.  Yasa, not ytsa.

The fine is for striking the mother, not for anything to do with the child.

There was no fine for striking the mother in hebraic law at that point, any more than there would be for say striking a goat, a cow or a tent, unless you caused irreparable damage. That's religious folks for ya I guess.

Judaic courts ....  hmmm.  I think they have doubtful relevance here.  The quote is being used, by both you, I , and others, as part of Christian tradition not Jewish.  Sure, its the same book.  Sure, the Jews had it first.  However, I think Judaic courts are only of peripheral relevance to the Christian interpretation, to be perfectly honest.  It's a wide point, I know, and defending it fully would take far more words than I think this tangent warrants. 

We are discussing laws laid down by Moses, a Hebrew man living some 2500 years before there was a Christianity. It means exactly the same then as it does now.

Theologians over the centuries I can't argue with, the classical view has certainly been "miscarriage" as opposed to "premature".  However, theological opinions change over time.  Arguing that previous theologians have thought that is precisely the sort of appeal to authority that Christianity is, rightly, attacked for.

See, and here is the main issue with Christians. They keep referring to the bible like it was the word of some almighty being or something. While in fact it was written by a lot of old men, and even women thousands of years ago. Then as soon as somebody points out that their bigoted views aren't supported by that book, they suddenly start blaming someone explaining it incorrectly, rather than accepting their views might be wrong.

Clearly.  The context clearly implies a dead baby.  This is where I disagree.  The fact that there are several other interpretations makes it not so clear, in my opinion.  You think it refers to a dead baby, others don't.  I think you're overstating your case here.

Again, the fine is for the blow to the wife, not to do with the healthy infant.

Again. Any view contrary to my point would be based on the assumption that striking a woman would be a fineable offense in Moses' time, which it wasn't. Therefor, the mention of a fine implies irreparable damage to the property of the husband.

I can't seem to stop myself derailing these threads.  I apologise.  Katataban - thankyou for your well thought out response.  Should we take this somewhere else?

Again, no problem with switching to a different thread if you prefer. Seeing as we can both debate using thought out arguments