So first off, actually read the whole article. Nope before you comment go read it makes shooing motion Now that you've read it, what do you think? I thought it was interesting. I, myself, am "Pro Choice" in that I believe as a man I shouldn't make a broad choice for all women. I think it's silly for anyone to think so. When it comes down to any one event, by my figuring, everyone who matters should express in opinion. Anywho I'll just get off my soapbox now.
This line of thinking still has a fundamental flaw - it assumes that any women forced to carry a rape pregnancy to term is acceptable. It is not. It could be 1 in a hundred thousand and I'd demand the provision be in place to allow a woman to abort a pregnancy as a result of rape (or any pregnancy, but I'll stick to the topic). The article says that there is a lack of compassionate support, and that abortion is aggressively pushed to women who are pregnant as a result of rape. Is that so? Well I'm very glad all the protests outside of abortion clinics are so kind and supportive of a woman's choice about her body. I think that this author confuses "aggressively pushing abortion" with "reminding a woman that it's her choice no matter what people say about her." lil has already pointed out in another post that the studies in this article are quite dated and used dubiously, so I won't get into that. What I will get into is that this author is quite plainly skewing facts to make us more dubious of women who are survivors of rape. The first paragraph is insinuating, I felt, that the only rape that really 'counts' is violent or forcible rape, and is immediately discounting these newfangled ideas about "women being allowed to choose who to have sex with" and dismissing the idea of date or statutory rape. (I won't even ask what he thinks about sex with someone who is under the influence of alcohol). I'm also going to object to his attitude that says, essentially, "some women are raped and don't report it, but some also aren't and lie about it," thus implying that it all comes out as a wash and we shouldn't even think about it. That is insane and, frankly, snide to survivors of rape who aren't able to come forward because of judgement and scrutiny from people like him who, apparently, think it's a toss-up that she's just making it up. Again, we've already seen from other posts that the bullet-point facts are misrepresenting the (aged) data and should be held in the highest scrutiny, so we should move on to the last part of the article. "No one knows" the effects of physical and emotional stress on pregnancies, so the author decides, let's just call it an even 50/50 chance now and pulls his (already likely fraudulent) number out of the air and says QED, it is proven. Then, for the epic conclusive coup-de-grace of the article, I'll just let him use his own words:
Lack of compassionate support indeed.And so while each assault rape pregnancy is a tragedy for the mother (not for the baby, though)...
Truly, he is a master of sensitivity. Really, putting a bright spin on it. "Well" he says with a smile, "you may have been born as a result of a violent assault on your mother who may be too young, or poor, or disabled, or otherwise not able to take care of you, and your life may as a result be fraught with financial, emotional, or physical trauma for both you and your mother, but cheer up! At least things worked out for one of you!"
I saw this statistic. What it actually said was this: Of women who use birth control 27% rely on female sterilization for birth control. and 9.2% of women who use birth control rely on the vasectomy of their partners. This is not 25% of all women of child-bearing age. The study was done on couples using birth control. The one footnote for all these "statistics" was from a study done in 1977
Where do the rest of the claims come from? Perhaps there's a fact-checker here. It looks like the opposite is true.One-fourth of all women in the United States of childbearing age have been sterilized, so the remaining three-fourths come out to 10,000 (or 15,000).
Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina,(1) so let's cut the remaining figures in half. This gives us numbers of 5,000 (or 7,500).
Fifteen percent of men are sterile, that drops that figure to 4,250 (or 6,375).
Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600 (or 5,400).
Another fifteen percent are on the pill and/or already pregnant. That reduces the number to 3,070 (or 4,600).
I thought it was the type of piece that could spawn discussion. Looks like I was right.
Heh that was my goal. I thought I had remembered that you wanted more of that. You can thank my friend Kirby for this piece. He sent this to me when I'd mentioned that I didn't get/understand the viewpoint. I think he may've been trying to tweak my nose. shrugs I found it fascinating regardless.
I never got around to checking their facts. I generally try to do that though. You've got to be careful about it though. So sorry about that. I'd have put a note if I had noticed that. Even so, I thought it was an interesting way to try and justify the point of view. I've never understood the thought behind it. I think I can glimpse, though, what they're trying to get at. Interesting, isn't it?
Below, NP replies to my post with this statement: Normally I would ignore any publication by Christian Life Resources and their ilk - In this case, I was curious why thenewgreen would share it. I don't think he wanted to make me crazy (although you never know). I did say elsewhere on Hubski to occasionally subscribe to people who don't agree with you, to go beyond your comfort zone. It's good to have one's beliefs challenged. The abortion debate may never be put to rest. At least in Canada, for the time being, our conservative right-leaning government has kept social issues decided by previous governments off the agenda. It doesn't take much to change the agenda though. I will share this kind of post once - just so interested parties can see the discussion that ensued.I never got around to checking their facts.
So-called facts are hard to trust one way or another. The real and best arguments against that article are the ones offered by Hein and MattholomewCup below.
Generally I check facts by checking the validity of the sources. For example if all the sources are from the same place or by the same person/group than that generally raises flags. I've also found that its a good idea to check the date on your source. Some issues move quickly enough that older sources probably aren't too accurate to today. Also, I've found that if you can find someone you disagree with that you can stand to talk to about all sorts of things more informative than people you agree with.
Also, I've found that if you can find someone you disagree with that you can stand to talk to about all sorts of things more informative than people you agree with.
Hi NP, that sentence is difficult to read, but I think I understand what you mean. Disagreeing respectfully is something hubski encourages. I occasionally come across disrespect when an unappreciative commentator responds to a passionate poster who resents that his or her post was taken poorly. When that happens, I want to say something parental, like "play nice." It's a good idea to thank someone for their comments, even if they disagree with you.
Yea... The Internet is kinda bad about that. Passion and anger generally come hand and hand, it seems. Kinda what I was aiming for too. I was asked to "post something controversial to stir up a debate" and voila it worked. Also about time for me to find something else to post. Hmm, I haven't decided what. Any suggestions?
Any suggestions?
Since you asked, what is your area of specialty? What do you mean by NuclearParadox, for example? Are you a writer? Have you ever been to a writing workshop?
Heh being a Highschool Student. So slacking off, being a dumbass, and doing my best not to drown in Schoolwork. Joking aside I'd call myself a gamer. I also make some artwork. Not too often though. School keeps me pretty busy. NuclearParadox is what I usually use as my gamertag. Not common enough to be taken quickly and not completely lame. There's a long story behind but it's effectively me and some friends. Writing is not really my thing. I can do it. I've spent a lot of time doing it. I've written somethings just for fun. I'd rather read than write just about every time.
Hubski is a great place for slacking off, but NOT a good place to be a dumbass. You're following some good people though. It will make you smarter and maybe broaden your interests. There's some people on the site asking big metaphysical questions. Maybe you don't see them in your feed though.
Ehh, everyone can be a dumbass sometimes. Teenagers are just predisposed to being one. It's the way our brains are wired. It affects our ability to understand and think about long term consequences. Its actually safety mechanism of all things. It helps you leave the "nest" and strike out on your own. I've not had too much chance to play with who I'm following yet to get quite what I'm looking for. I haven't put in enough time to do that. I've got a other responsibilities and distractions keeping me away.