Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Newbunkle]

I really doubt most absolutists would fall into line with that sort of comment. It's one thing to be against abortion, but something else entirely to blame a victim.

Blaming victims is something that goes on all the damn time.
"Fucking lazy welfare bums"
"Fucking fatass disability leeches"
"Fucking ghetto crack-whore babymommas"

It's all about finding a convenient fiction to remedy the cognitive dissonance that comes of having your worldview run into those irksome gray areas where what you hold to be a universal truth might wind up making you out to be an asshole. It's the same reason that soldiers in ANY conflict will dehumanize the enemy.

This is the truth. The cognitive bias concerned is called the just-world fallacy, for anyone who might be interested.

[Lord Shonus]

It is not only a women's rights concern but a very real public health concern.

This, of course, is the logical disconnect. Anti-abortionists see abortion as exactly the same as braining a toddler with a rock, which makes it impossible to comprehend why someone would call it a women's rights issue (after all, men aren't legally entitled to murder babies either.) Likewise, those who don't see it as murder (on the grounds that it isn't a human until after birth) have difficulty comprehending it as anything but a rights issue.

As for "on a whim", I was meaning an abortion taking place with no counseling, no "take some time to think about it," and no "shouldn't you explore other options before doing something irreversible?" Opposition to late-term abortions (an extremely thorny issue itself, considering the degree to which preemie survivablity rates have jumped) isn't part of that.

It may be that the lockstep for Democrats is looser than that of the Democrats on social issues, but I'm not convinced of it. Pretty much every major issue has partisans on both sides, but that doesn't change the party line or what national candidates can get away with while keeping the faithful.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Two words. Robert Winston.

If you medically raped him and he got pregnant, he must have wanted it. Would he be a hyprocrate and abort to save his life, or would he carry the baby to term?

[kaenneth]

I once read that a large part of the republican agenda is to punish women for having sex.

I have seen nothing to disprove that.

[scriver]

Let's not confuse the in-/direct consequences of their viewpoints with their agenda, now.

Two words. Robert Winston.

If you medically raped him and he got pregnant, he must have wanted it. Would he be a hyprocrate and abort to save his life, or would he carry the baby to term?

...What?

[darkrider2]

I once read that a large part of the republican agenda is to punish women for having sex.

No they are perfectly fine with sex. Its birth control and abortion they hate. And at one point there were even protests against the use of condoms.

Its pretty simple, they despise people for trying not to have children.

[Sirus]

I once read that a large part of the republican agenda is to punish women for having sex.

No they are perfectly fine with sex. Its birth control and abortion they hate. And at one point there were even protests against the use of condoms.

Its pretty simple, they despise people for trying not to have children.

But aren't Republicans big proponents of abstinence-only sex education? That's practically the opposite of being fine with sex.

[nenjin]

I once read that a large part of the republican agenda is to punish women for having sex.

No they are perfectly fine with sex. Its birth control and abortion they hate. And at one point there were even protests against the use of condoms.

Its pretty simple, they despise people for trying not to have children.

But aren't Republicans big proponents of abstinence-only sex education? That's practically the opposite of being fine with sex.

That's because of the push from the left for sex education. Instead of telling kids "if you're going to have sex, do it safely and wear a condom so you don't ruin your life", Republicans would prefer "Just don't have sex until you're ready to have a kid."

What they refuse to acknowledge is that, for a large segment of the non-religious teen population (and even portions of the religious teen population) that doesn't work. Has it had an effect on their thinking? Absolutely not. They'd rather have kids remain ignorant and uninformed (and getting pregnant) than informed and not getting pregnant. They argue that teaching kids about safe sex results in more sex. Which just goes to show how far out of touch ideology is with reality on the ground. Fuckin' is gonna happen one way or another, it's just a matter of how much information you give them before they choose to do it anyways.

And it's at least partly due to the Catholic roots of Conservative Republican ideology, where wearing a condom is considered on the same level as abortion. That doesn't reflect the majority of Republican beliefs about sex, but it underpins them.

[kaijyuu]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree that part of the republican agenda is pushing "sex is evil!" Though TBH it's a bit bi-partisan; both sides go all "think of the children" when it comes to censorship of sexual content.

[Aqizzar]

I once read that a large part of the republican agenda is to punish women for having sex.

No they are perfectly fine with sex. Its birth control and abortion they hate. And at one point there were even protests against the use of condoms.

Its pretty simple, they despise people for trying not to have children.

But aren't Republicans big proponents of abstinence-only sex education? That's practically the opposite of being fine with sex.

I had the great displeasure of having a conversation with a man who pretty well elucidated the bald-faced standards at the heart of this ideology.  It is perfectly normal, if not actually virtuous, for all men to want to have sex with any women all the time, the virtue part being not acting on it.  It is utterly immoral for women to so much as think about sex at any time, and should only have sex with their husband so he doesn't go crazy.  Any deviation from this pattern is ultimately the woman's fault for wanting it in the first place on some level and therefor not doing enough to stop it from happening, up to and including rape.  And because all (human) life is sacred and God always finds a way if you deserve it, and there is no such thing as medical complications (because any doctor who says there is just hates life) carrying the pregnancy is always the only real option.

That's certainly an absolutist position that would frighten many conservative people when you fully elucidate it like that, but when you start poking people for what they actually hold true, you find out lots of people really do hold absolutist positions.  They just don't realize it because they've never had a reason to voice out loud everything they believe about one subject and follow through all the implications.

What they refuse to acknowledge is that, for a large segment of the non-religious teen population (and even portions of the religious teen population) that doesn't work. Has it had an effect on their thinking? Absolutely not. They'd rather have kids remain ignorant and uninformed (and getting pregnant) than informed and not getting pregnant. They argue that teaching kids about safe sex results in more sex.

Actually, ever statistical analysis taken of the results of different sex-education curriculum over the last fifteen years or so has shown that people who get abstinence-only education are considerably more likely have pre-marital sex and higher rates of teen pregnancy.  I'm willing to grant that it's probably not a 1:1 correlation, abstinence-only attitudes are most common in low-income areas where teen-pregnancy and such would be more common regardless.  But yeah, it's hideously short-sighted and almost effortless to disprove.  Try to do so with one of its proponents, and you'll get an answer with some variant of, "Well it doesn't matter how bad every other parent in the world is, my kid's going to grow up right like I did(n't)."

[Kogan Loloklam]

...What?

Citation Needed.
Phone copypasta sucks. This was all entered in manually. I hope you appreciate the efforts I went through. Or at least laughed, because I wasn't serious. Unless you got access to a fertilized egg and a dart gun.

That's-when-things-got-out-of-con-trol!

[Nadaka]

"Being fine with sex"

Only between a man and woman.
Who are married.
To each other.
For the sole purpose of procreation.
In the privacy of their own bedroom.
In the missionary position.
With the lights out.
After this one I usually veer into humor because shits already gotten absurd.

[Eagle_eye]

...What?

Citation Needed.
Phone copypasta sucks. This was all entered in manually. I hope you appreciate the efforts I went through. Or at least laughed, because I wasn't serious. Unless you got access to a fertilized egg and a dart gun.

That's-when-things-got-out-of-con-trol!

Link doesn't work for me :\

[Sirus]

"Being fine with sex"

Only between a man and woman.
Who are married.
To each other.
For the sole purpose of procreation.
In the privacy of their own bedroom.
In the missionary position.
With the lights out.
After this one I usually veer into humor because shits already gotten absurd.

Blindfolded, with as much clothing as possible, through a hole in the sheet.
Alright, I'll stop

[palsch]

I really doubt most absolutists would fall into line with that sort of comment. It's one thing to be against abortion, but something else entirely to blame a victim.

I'd say there are two camps of anti-abortion absolutists who this could put off.

The first aren't victim blamers but believe that abortion is never allowable, even in cases of rape. Romney is having to distance himself from this position immediately after selecting a VP candidate who holds it. Call this the Ryan position.

The second are those who genuinely believe what Akin said. There are whole organisations - of physicians no less - who actively spread this idea. The fact that it's getting a very public airing and debunking should hopefully reduce this category, but from experience it's not going to eliminate it.

The latest polling on this shows ~17% of the nation being flat opposed to abortion with absolutely no exceptions. That's a not insignificant chunk of the population who the Republican party are dedicated to courting. The Democrats can never win them over but they don't have to turn out.

As I said, I feel this could flatten out any positive effects that Ryan might have brought the ticket. Obama was already ready to make abortion an active issue and letting the absolutist anti-abortion position take the spotlight - when the Republican candidate can't benefit from it because he is running the other way - is not a bad plan. Anyone who is vaguely pro-choice is going to be pushed towards the Democratic default, which is basically just 'don't overturn Roe v. Wade'.