It’s Called the “War on Women”.

Since the “war” metaphor is used so often in conservative Christian politics, it seems fair to use it against them.  That, even though I’d prefer the term war be limited to armies shooting at one another.

It would not be so easy to label conservative Republican politics as a war on women were it not for the clueless men who wage it.  Representative Akin of Missouri, and a supporting cast which included previously Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan, say things so absurd it is impossible to conclude otherwise.

Today a Christian physician disputed the Akin claim that rape seldom results in pregnancy.  He disputed, as well, the Akin claim there is something in the female mind or body that discourages or prevents pregnancy when she is raped.

There is no science-based evidence either of these is true.  Yet, these falsehoods are accepted in right-to-life political circles as legitimate information.

In my own family’s history is a case of a rape that caused a pregnancy.  The teenage girl died in child birth.

The world of white male conservative Christians seems to be one filled with concern about women’s issues.  I recall the first time I saw this personally.

I remember a chill going over me as I heard a rancher legislator in cowboy boots say, “I’m just sick about this, allowing an abortion because there was a rape. No moral person should have to accept this compromise.”

I think it would be good for white Christian men to let women decide this issue.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/rape-pregnancies-not-rare-ob-gyn-says-80369/

56 thoughts on “It’s Called the “War on Women”.

  1. Jon: “I think it would be good for white Christian men to let women decide this issue.”

    Jon expects a certain race of people to behave in a manner of his choosing. I call that racist.

  2. Jon: “In my own family history is a case of a rape that caused a pregnancy. The teenage girl died in child birth.”

    If every pregnant teenage girl were to be given an abortion, quite a few of us wouldn’t be around.

    Sounds like the rapist killed your relative. Smoke him for his crime, not the “white Christian men”.

  3. Jon; When did this tragedy happen in your family history? 1920-1930-40? Then or before, death during, or due to childbirth was not uncommon. Much less now with proper prenatal, and delivery advancements. I don’t believe her rape, as unfortunate as it was, nor her age would have been much of a contributing factor.

    • Wanna “When did this tragedy happen…?”
      It doesn’t matter when it happened, the point being it was a rape the resulted in a pregnancy.

      It was in the 1920’s. The girl was a dwarf and thus unable to give birth. She would have survived in today’s world because, probably, she would have had an abortion.

      • The ” dwarf” would be a contributing factor. My point was that under normal circumstances, rape wouldn’t result in death of the mother. This was not a normal situation then. When it happened under normal circumstances in many years past, the death of the mother was not unusual, due to lack of prenatal care, no antibiodics from infections, or better procedures, etc.

        • So,,,,When it happened, minus the “dwarf” factor, then would indeed matter. 1920 vs. 2012? You bet. My 1:29 still stands. I did mention “rape”, and age as not being a factor for death. In this case, there were other considerations you did not feel necessary to reveal to help bolster your position.

    • Wanna, you get further from reality all of the time.
      No rape no pregnancy.
      Now which part do you not understand.
      to quote your own words it is hard to have a rational conversation with you.

      • Entech; You get farther away from understanding the subject matter at hand. It would be best for you to read and understand what Jon said. His incomplete insertion of family history, is a clear attempt at distortion. Interesting practice from the camp that brags about requiring all the facts in a scientific manner to arrive at the “real” truth. Your definition of transparency would be through a warped mirror, and “rational” would be to use anything that might work if you don’t get caught.
        Any damn fool knows that rape can result in pregenancy. May I recommend you go back to the beginning, and re-read over everything in context. (A thing you quite often fail to do.) Then off to beddie by.

        • My question is: what was she wearing that enticed this poor man to rape her? (sarcasm)

          It makes me puke to hear that a dwarf in the 20’s should expect to die in childbirth; thus this rape discussion is moot.

          It was not her fault to be born before medical advances would have made other treatment options available.

          And as is common in discussions with conservatives on this topic: absence of accountability to the man who destroyed this young woman’s life.

          • Mac 1:17 “And as is common in discussions with conservative on this topic: absence of accountability..”

            So true. That she would have lived in today’s medical system means it really didn’t count as an evil deed.

          • I agree completely, and that is why Jon was foolish not to include her undisclosed situation into the conversation. Nor did he report what happened to the guy who raped her. Evidence that not only conservatives fail to consider all the facts around this. It would have been better if Jon would have been silent on this, but since he brought it up——-

          • Jon; your ” That she would have lived in today’s medical system means it really didn’t count as an evil deed”.—–Just plain silly. More “scientific evidence”?

        • If you will forgive the expression “Jesus wept”, if she was not raped she would not have become pregnant, if she was not pregnant there would have been no death in childbirth.
          your attempts at trying to make this fundamental point somehow contingent on other factors is incomprehensible, I can think of only one reason – anything Jon has to say must be countered in anyway possible, no matter how specious – this is because he has the audacity not believe as you do.

          • That’s not the point. Duh!! Failure to initally disclose all the relevant points, is a deception, which you are ignoring. She was raped and died because of it and other factors. If Jon had been forthcoming in all the factors, I don’t believe anything would have been said. But his wording hinted at a back story, which could and did have details to be considered. As someone has said, no mention of the rapist. I guessed about the 20’s. I’m guessing also a family member, (a brother, uncle, or cousin?)Some family. Oh well, it happens. But Jon’s attempt to bring up an incomplete story from 90 years ago, and you also to use it to defend today’s ” the war on women” is a stretch . Much like blaming the defeat at Bull Run on the bulls.

          • Wanna 12:26 “If Jon had been forthcoming..”

            Blaming me for not being forthcoming is humorous. You are using to oldest ploy in debate, when you are losing an argument, change the subject. What you don’t want to admit is that an abortion in my family history would have saved this girl’s life. It’s that simple. Anti abortion operatives always avoid admitting that by using various techniques.

            Often the technique is to focus on the woman, to somehow hint it was all her fault. By focusing on the woman, no matter the issue (in this case it was her small physical size) you can avoid admitting an abortion would have saved her life. It is so automatic for you I’m not even sure you are aware you are doing it.

          • Jon: “What you don’t want to admit is that an abortion in my family history would have saved this girl’s life.”

            Not necessarily. They were considerably more dangerous back then compared to the risk of complications that are possible even today. She likely would have died from the procedure.

            What was the rapist’s punishment?

          • Jon; You are entirely wrong in you assumption. Abortion was not/ isn’t even on the horizon as an issue to me. Your argument for the war on women” was lost when you resurected an unfortunate and terrible incident of the past.

            Now you bring up the topic if she had an abortion. Don’t be so sure it would have been successful. If she couldn’t have a vaginal birth, a C-section would have probably been the other option. In the 20’s? Remember, no antibiodics other than a sulpha drug? Might have been OK, might not. Now you seem to think today’s abortion technology would have been available back then. Not so. You can’t have it both ways. So you see the time frames are important. Today’s assumptions don’t work for 90 yr old situations. Rape is rape no matter when. Medical emergencies are a different matter. Tell that to wounded Civil War souldiers. If they got shot in the leg by a lead ball, and without penecillin, (which they didn’t even know about,) they just cut off the leg. Your import of abortion fuels your argument, and again different times require different considerations.

            Brother or uncle?

          • Wanna 1:55 Yes, abortion, like every kind of surgery, would have been more risky back then. But, according to what I’ve read, there were lots of abortions done. I have a friend here in Fargo, a former politican that I run errands for because he is in assisted living. He is 95 and grew up here in Fargo.

            He would have been born about 1917. He lived in an apartment in downtown so was a street wise kid. He told me that doctors back then had practices in the homes or in small offices located around town. The word on the street was if you got a girl pregnant, there were some doctors you could go to, some who would not help you.

          • Jon; Nor did I even consider the girl’s deficiencies, or the man’s advantage. How could I? You didn’t reveal that until later., and even then It wasn’t a consideration on my part. Next you will accuse me of claiming that her short legs couldn’t run as fast as his longer legs. Foolishness entirely. Time frames, time frames Jon. Your’s is a war on context. Always has been, and always will be. Look up the word Bigot in Wictionary, then look in the mirror.

            I’m done playing your silly games.

          • Jon; In general, the abortions of which your friend speaks were more than likely of the birth canal approach, not the full blown surgical procedure of which would have most likely been needed for your story. Much different. Again consider ALL the facts. This is what you brag about, but omit in your own arguments.

          • There were no relevant points in the context of the topic. Someone was raped and died in childbirth – in the context that is all that is needed. it has probably happened many times – I still contend that your making a case of it and rubbish about disclosure points at simply an excuse to denigrate Jon – the non believer.
            If you want disclosure why not ask all the priests and preacher to disclose all that they know about the lies in the bible.

  4. Men have 110% control over abortion. They chose not to exercise that control. However, the issue is a non-issue as in most cases a person who experienced rape is given the “morning after pill” in the hospital — end of story. Nobody knows if the person was pregnant or not, but no pregnancy will happen. In the mean time men, exercise your right to control ALL abortions. You do not have the right to run amuck creating pregnancies here, there, and every where.

    • June: “You do not have the right to run amuck creating pregnancies here, there, and every where.”

      Yes, I do have that right, licensed by the County of Cass just for that purpose, wherever my licensed wife and I decide to go, “here, there, and everywhere” in the appropriate setting.

      • I understand June’s observation to reffer to any man “boinking” any available “skirt,” “here, there, and everywhere”, not a wife in the field, in the car, or on the car.

        • It isn’t written “when she gets pregnant”, but is is understood (right or wrong,) that you both have the right when not to get her pregnant.

          • Henry used “I” not “we”. Seems pretty clear to me what he wrote. I’d prefer to rely on a confirmation or modification from him rather than your imaginative reinterpretation of what he actually typed.

            Maybe this is just a silly semantic problem and Henry didn’t mean precisely what he wrote, but when the blog post we’re responding to is about the “war on women” and someone says, mistakenly or not, that the man has the right to decide, apparently unilaterally, when children come into a family, I think that’s an important thing to examine.

          • If you boink your wife, you don’t know for sure the outcome. If you don’t boink her, you know for sure. Not complicated.

          • Ott, if you get a license to hunt a deer (not dear), that gives you the right to shoot a deer. That doesn’t mean you can disregard all other laws and/or the wishes of the private landowner.

            I have the right to create a pregnancy through the license obtained by me. Does that make sense? It is not complicated.

          • Henry,

            I wasn’t aware that either party to a pregnancy needed a license at all, and I’d think that such a thing would be inherently offensive to the western conservative. Such a thing would amount to a population control policy.

          • Ott: “I wasn’t aware that either party to a pregnancy needed a license at all”

            Certainly not. You can obtain an illegitimate pregnancy if you so choose. The State of ND and counties do not care. They care about deer, not necessarily dear. I chose to legitimately have the right to a pregnancy.

    • June, you’re correct, but you must remember 2 things:

      #1 Men are pigs and often lose any and all forms of good judgment when there’s even a remote possibility of getting some sex.

      #2 Rape generally isn’t about sex, it’s about violence and control; most often directed at someone weaker, which generally ends up being a woman.

  5. Of course the GOP hacks and especially the Romney campaign jumped all over Akin.

    Does he not realize that as a Republican politician he is not to be actually concerned about unborn babies, rather should work to keep abortion rolling along as a lucrative campaign prop?

  6. I hope none of the usual idiots will take this as supporting Akin or his claim but lies are lies.
    Jon is being deceptive, as usual. “There is no science-based evidence either of these is true.”
    Your source actually sites one scientist claiming this and that is refuted with “Rudd said it was “statistical speculation; not science, not evidence to draw a conclusion.”

    So now statistics are not valid in determining the frequency of pregnancy after violent rape? That is a pretty straight forward use of statistics, much more so than many of the other “social science” uses of statistics, for instance proving that homosexuality is genetic, which of course is not proven but Jon has been saying it for years.

    “Yet, these falsehoods are accepted in right-to-life political circles as legitimate information.” Do you have some evidence for the frequency of this being accepted in right to life circle? You have taken an isolated incident and based only on speculation you have generated a whole story about how common this is among a group of people. Very scientific Jon. You are no better than Akin in that regard.

    • Mr. Akin’s position is ultra-extreme. Most on the right are condemning his position, even strident right-to-life politicians like the Republican’s Vice-Presidential nominee.

      I think if you follow the logic of their pseudo-scientific position that women don’t get pregnant from rape, something I heard 20 years ago in with my own ears at a christian retreat so lets dispense with the idea that this is an “isolated incident.” If you accept this as fact, what are right-to-life proponents giving up by allowing a rape exception? If zero women get pregnant from rape such in exception would result in zero additional abortions. So there must be something else going on here. Maybe they don’t really believe their own “science” and/or maybe some of them are less interested in the babies than they are in telling women what they can and can’t do.

    • Doubtful 5:05 No statistical evidence is available the suggests pregnancies from rape and any less frequent than those following non rape intercourse. No scientific evidence is available to suggest a woman’s mind or body rejects prenancy during rape. If a woman could control her pregnancy, there would be no need for birth control pills.

          • There is no science in the article but it does include a quote from the writings of an MD. Often, an MD is considered to be an authoritative person, who is presenting information they have gleaned scientifically. That is countered by the quote I gave above. My point was that Willke’s writing is at least as well supported as many things you regularly claim are scientifically established and the counter argument is pure BS. This is very typical of you and numerous others that claim you are supporting your position from science when in fact your grasp of the science involved comes from reading a newspaper.

          • Doubtful 4:39 “There is no science in the article..” As you say, there is a quote from an M. D. He does not publish in science journals or do research critiqued be other scientists. It was his opinion. That is why there is no science to support the notion a woman can turn off the pregnancy process because she was raped.

          • Lack of proof is not disproof. Have people looked for psychosomatic effects on fertility? From a quick look I do not find much but there certainly are indications that there might be some effect of a woman’s psychological state on her ability to conceive. Not exactly “woman can turn off the pregnancy process because she was raped.” as you so narrow mindedly present it but it is the effect that inhibits pregnancy from insemination during a traumatic event. There is certainly not science that disputes the psychosomatic effect of emotion on ability to conceive.
            Psychosomatic aspects in idiopathic infertility: effects of treatment with autogenic training.
            Psychosomatic aspects in idiopathic infertility: effects of treatment with autogenic training.
            As usual Jon , you are just talking as if what yo believe is supported by science when that is not the case and you really do not know.

    • Lies, damned lies and statistics.
      Old but true, the required result is often a contributing factor, especially when the desired effect is belittling the opposition or supporting an otherwise unsupportable proposition.

  7. Hey, did anybody notice that except for June, I think it’s all men who are discussing what women should be allowed to do in the event she becomes pregnant as a result of rape?

    Kind of says it all, doesn’t it?

  8. Jon: “It’s Called the “War on Women”.”

    Obamba has declared the war on women. The results of the Arab Spring in Egypt have not been pleasant:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/018a4fc6-eddd-11e1-8d72-00144feab49a.html#axzz24ZTgR8W9

    Obamba’s fingerprints have been on this from the beginning.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jackson-diehl-is-obama-to-blame-for-the-arab-springs-failures/2012/06/24/gJQAzF5O0V_story.html

    Now the result of the Obamba’s actions are instability and groping of females. Even with the shortcomings of Bush, I really miss Bush. I also miss Mubarak. There seem to be more civil rights violations without him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *