This Election is a Referendum on Rape.

Polls show the majority of Republican voters support abortion rights for women who have been raped.  However, the proportion of Republican House and Senate candidates who do not support this right is very large.

While publicity has gone to two or three Republican Senate candidates who have blurted this out, there are about 10 others.  In House races, I’ve read there are “dozens”, but I don’t know the number. The point is, it is not an uncommon view among Republican candidates abortion should be withheld from victims of rape.

I remember an experience some 30 years ago at a legislative hearing Bismark, ND.  I had never heard a person say, even in private, abortions should be withheld for rape or to save the life of the mother.  That day I heard it stated for the public record.

Today the unthinkable view abortion should be withheld from rape victims is  proclaimed from the mountaintops in the Republican Party.

If you are a pro-life person and believe human life begins at conception, but are appalled at the thought of abortion being withheld from rape victims, I’d suggest you do not pat yourself on the back.  You are an enabler of those who want to withhold the rape abortions.

That the fetus, even at the one cell conception stage, is a human being tells the rape abortion withholder he is right.  You have provided a reason for the rapist to get a pass and the woman to be further abused.  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/10/todd_akin_and_richard_mourdock_banning_abortion_for_rape_victims_is_the.html

 

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to This Election is a Referendum on Rape.

  1. Wanna B Sure says:

    If a victem of rape becomes pregenant, (or not), because of that rape, it is not my, or our place to prevent her from choosing to abort, (or not). Because the rape is a civil crime, subject to civil law, it is our place as citizens , to convict and punish the perpetrator to the fullest extent the law allows, Irregardless if the victim aborts or not. The DNA evidence of the even yet unborn child would be enough to convince of the activity. If there is no pregenancy, the rape kit DNA would provide the evidence of rape. I understand that if a condom is used during the rape, (which is rare), there is other evidence of the rape, (brusing, trauma, etc, and periferal evidence such as hair, saliva, finger prints, lack of alabi, history, etc. (the usual CSI tools). There is no reason or excuse for the rapist to get a pass either way. Then the only question would be; do you have the right guy. There may be other twists or turns due to the specific nature of each case, but in any circumstance, there is no reason whatsoever for the rapist to get a “Pass”.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      There is one other consideration; If, and I say if the sexual encounter was a mutually agreed and enjoyed experience, and neither one has exercised “protection”, and the woman later has regrets/ conscience issues, then decides to claim rape, the man/boy is the one who got/ is screwed. He would have little defense, and probably would pay the debt of a rapist. That should take the lead out of any man’s “pencil”, and lead him to take a pass on the opportunity of the moment. That is his risk. Better yet, wait for marriage, or is it mirage.

  2. Henry says:

    Jon:“That the fetus, even at the one cell conception stage, is a human being tells the rape abortion withholder he is right.”

    Your conflation is illogical. How the rapist is considered or treated is not a function of whether or not the “fetus” is considered a human.

    Jon, do you have any proof the “fetus” and “one cell” are not human?

    • entech says:

      Henry, a question, if I may. At what point of the cycle does the “soul” enter this scheme.

      I have been reading up on embryology, not something I know much about, from one site on the virtual Human Embryo it says, in part: Stage 1 is the unicellular embryo that contains unique genetic material and is an individually specific cell that has the potential to develop into all of the subsequent stages of a human being. I note the word potential, it goes on to say it is 4 to 5 days before the joining with the uterus begins. After about 9 days the attachment is well advanced and some maternal blood is found, at about 12 days aspects of the embryonic disc can be seen and implantation is becoming well established. Clearly by this stage the potential is beginning to be realised, it is no longer a free floating collection of cells. Is this when the soul enters, to complete the potential and make it actual, or does the soul enter at the moment the sperm first penetrates and fertilisation occurs. How many fertilised eggs even reach the very early stages, are many souls created and then do not become part of a human being what happens to them. Are souls created as needed, or where there so many at the moment of creation, do all souls reach their potential.

      If the soul is an early injection what happens to it if the embryo fails to develop into an actual person, heaven or hell? It has never been part of a sentient being, the ultimate way of not hearing the “good news” or anything.

      • Henry says:

        entech: “At what point of the cycle does the “soul” enter this scheme.”

        That is actually a great question.

        I don’t know. I’ll err on the side of life until someone can provide some scientific data which shows a fetus isn’t human,and there is no soul.

        I have been asking Dr. Jon. He hasn’t schooled me yet.

        • entech says:

          And what exactly is a soul, is that also a good question? Where does it live? is it part of the spiritual body, the physical body? Presumably even non-believers have one otherwise after physical death and decay there would be nothing left to punish. Is it a purely human concept attribute? Does a frog have a soul?

          http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/Mss/FROG.html

          • Henry says:

            entech”: “is that also a good question?”

            No. That is not a very good question. That information is available.

            Jon, do you have any proof the “fetus” and “one cell” are not human?

          • entech says:

            But the Internet gives so many, mostly differing one from the other.
            So needing something definitive I turn to you.
            You don’t know when it comes into existence, that is fine, I like people that admit they don’t know things, I know so little myself and that is why I am asking you. The rest of it comes down to what is it and where does it reside? A corollary to that is the question of materialism/dualism, assuming you hold a dualist position, a material and a spiritual part, separate but united (a kind of Binatarian view), does it exist in both parts? Does part of it die with the body, or just remain in the body until resurrected on judgement day and what precisely is it?

          • Henry says:

            You have drifted off again. It must be frustrating for you. Huxley struggled a little as well.

            You don’t need the internet. Just book a stay at a hotel, and pull a Gideon Bible out of the dresser drawer. When you get to that point, please advise, and I can further advise.

          • entech says:

            No need, I still have the leather bound job my Grandmother gave me and that I used all the way through religious instruction at school. I wonder if it was the quality of teaching or the subject matter that turned me off? Many different teachers one subject – the singer nor the song.

            Not drifting so far, I mentioned soul in terms of its injection time and relationship to being human, you responded, I ask further.

          • Henry says:

            Very good compliments of your grandmother. Review 1 Corinthians 15.

          • entech says:

            Giving the bible like religious education, my wife and I getting married in church and many other things, it is just what was done at the time, dictates of the social mores.
            Thinking back on it, can’t remember my Grandmother actually going to church or my mother or father, I do remember Sunday afternoon visits with all the Aunts and Uncles, cousins etc. Tea and scones and card games for small change.

            1 Corinthians 15, abbreviated version of verses 1 and 2 “… which I preached to you … in vain.” This seems to be me. The rest does describe some of the questions I asked, seems the soul was breathed in as part changing from dust verse 45.
            All of this is actually of no relevance, just the words of a new convert trying to justify his conversion, unless there is an outside source I see no reason to believe any of it, it is all “preaching to the choir”. Yeshua the Rabbi one can easily believe, your particular one, who would know there were many itinerant preachers: but turning Yeshua the Rabbi to Jesus the resurrected is for me a leap of faith I cannot make.

            I was once on a passenger ship for a few months (usually I was in “not passenger ship material” category). As part of his duties the Captain had to conduct a Sunday morning service, He would often refer to 1 Corinthians 15:55, especially as it went to another part of his duties on the previous day when 1 Timothy 5:23 was the order of the day.
            ” … a little wine for thy stomachs sake … ” leading to the plaintive cry ( probably first heard from Noah, when he overindulged in the product of his vineyard), ” … death where is thy sting … “.
            (Incidentally this was the Staff Captain whose job was mainly keeping the passengers happy, we had a ‘real’ Captain whose job was keeping the ship safe.)

          • Henry says:

            Then review 1 Thessalonians 5:23 indicating the distinctions.

          • entech says:

            Henry, you are usually very astute, picking on fine details to make any case you think fits you beliefs and motivations. Conversely at this time you are being very obtuse. Your appeal to Biblical authority epitomizes the “Appeal to Authority Fallacy”.
            Your scriptural texts are only a source of authority to those that accept their validity, what it says in any of them is inconsequential (which can be another class of fallacy) your quotations, could in many cases also be appeals to belief, emotion, fear, tradition, of course my rejection could sometimes descent to the appeal to ridicule , but I do honestly try to avoid that, difficult as it may be, :) sometimes!

            Your scriptural authority has no meaning to any one that does not believe that they have the authority of truth.

          • Henry says:

            You are correct. We have discussed before how you are likely an offender of the Holy Spirit in an unpardonable fashion (otherwise know as bound will). Therefore, He is not there for you.
            My mistake.

  3. Wanna B Sure says:

    I don’t think this election will be a referendum on rape. It will however be a referendum on the individual politicians that try to make the connection between rape and abortion.

  4. Michael Ross says:

    “Today the unthinkable view abortion should be withheld from rape victims is proclaimed from the mountaintops in the Republican Party.”

    It is not! The Republican establishment could care less about abortion. They are too busy starting wars and enriching their Wall Street cronies. There is a sizable voting block that care deeply about the unborn. Republicans are interested in votes, not unborn babies. We have had 20 years of supposedly pro-life presidents in the whitehouse and it has not prevented a single abortion but we are perpetully at war. If the Republicans were pro-life they would be anti-war. Abortion is death. War is death. Get on one side or the other.

    • Stan says:

      Wall street cronies, like the one contributing to the Obama campaign.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Michael 4:36 “The Republican establishment could care less about abortion.”

      What is the Republican establishment? Or, the Democrat Party establishment? There are ads paid for by the “Party”. There are conventions where Platforms are voted on. But, the Candidates have their own “Platforms” and often don’t conform. Candidates raise a lot of their own money. The Party doesn’t touch that money. Individual fat cats start their own ideology organizations and buy their own ads.

      I would agree with you that a big share of the Republican Party’s elected officiers and monied people, plus the 60 some % I mentioned in the blog, don’t have the strong anti abortion views you have. But, in terms of candidates, the facts speak for themselves. A big chunk of the Republican party’s candidates don’t care what the woman thinks if pregnant because of rape.

      I think it is about 15 states, all red states I believe, where the rapist father has legal visitation rights to the child, no matter how tramatized the mother is from the rape. For those who see no connection between anti abortion politics and rape-lite punishment, check to facts friends. They are birds of a feather.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        I have not heard of “…where the rapist father has legal visitation rights to the child,” and the ensuning…”no matter how tramatized the mother is from the rape. If this is so, it is terribly wrong. What states are they, where are they, how are the laws written, who and what was/is behind them, and how are they enforced? This sounds more like the result of the ACLU fighting against the ACLU. I can’t envision the “Hang’em high ” crowd promoting this when one of their sweet madens has been deflowered.

      • entech says:

        “Another survivor, a 14-year-old girl, decided to give up her baby for adoption. She was required by law to give notice of the adoption to the rapist, an adult man. While she was permitted by a court to give up her rights to the child, the rapist retained his and then sought child support payments from her,”
        Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news/rapists-can-claim-custody-visitation-rights-for-victims-babies-80656/#pjIq5gv3TpORQfHP.99

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        Did a little research, and it looks like much of the problem comes from laws being too vague, or not existing to prevent the rapist father’s rights. More so than specific laws preventing them. Appears to be in large part due to omission of specificity. Also there is the item of “must be convicted”. of the crime, not just accused, following the “innocent until proven guilty”. Some states have specific wording to the prevention of father rapist rights. Other states have work to do. Strange that this should slip through the floorboards. Wonder what they would have done in the wild west. I know what they would have done pre- civil war.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Everyone, including me; Live and learn.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Wanna 1:30 “looks like much fo the problem comes from laws being too vague..”

          You were referring to parental rights being given to rapist fathers. But, on the general problem of rape, including pregnancy, I think honesty would give us some suspicion for the role of religion.

          Now, I know it is not a simple matter to identify way men rape women. But, in my opinion, the Christian theme of male superiority plays a role. In Europe, which is far more secular than the U. S., what many would call “Christian family values” are followed more closely. There are half as many divorces. Women in the U. S. are three times more likely to be raped.

          I just have to repeat, when one makes the absolute judgement a single cell is a human being, it starts the ball rolling toward an unfortunate cliff.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Just going by what I see by going to several locations on the internet regarding the problem. Not speculation, I don’t see “one cell or two cells” being a factor in the laws, lack of laws, or abuse of the laws. That seems to be your area of expertise. Looks to me that we are talking about two seperate issues here, and you are trying to make them dependent on the other, for the sake of your agenda, when clarification of the laws would suffice. The mother and child would be protected, and the guilty held responsible…..OR just maby that isn’t what you desire?

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon ; As for those who wish to terminate a pregenancy due to rape, that is none of my business. (I think I said as much in my 1:11.). However, neither is it your business to mandate, recomend, or promote that they do. “As for me and my house…”

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; “Christian theme of male superiority plays a role.” Just a question; Do rapes happen in areas where Christianity isn’t present? Do non-Christians rape? A couple years ago I saw a documentary in- – Borneo? ? Where they caught a native that had raped a young girl. They beat the crap out of him, banned him from the village, and turned him to the jungle alone, with nothing. None of these were Christian, as they had their traditional totems, rituals and practiced some form of animism. As for Europe, If there are indeed less rapes, would this be the result of a more promiscuous society, thus reducing the practice of “rape”? (If it’s there, no need to force it?) I ‘spose that could take the “pressure” off. No need for self controll for anyone. Never heard of rape in the barnyard.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 8:59 “If there is indeed less rape, would this be the result of a more permiscuous socieity, thus reducing the practice of “rape”?

            Wanna, back a few pages ago you said about something I wrote it was the most riduculous thing you had ever seen. But, this one of yours would have to be the winner.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Any port in a storm.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; So, by your own admission, you admit that your earlier statement was rediculous. I really don’t know why people rape. some claim that it is hatred of women. There could be something to it, or power, or controll. I haven’t raped anyone, so I don’t know. Could it also be that they were obsessed, and horney at the same time? Whiskey? Timing? opportunity? A willing warm body just might” take the pressure off.”? ?

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; I think that if were arguing over if a glass was half full, or half empty, you would bring up; “one, or two cells.” (Non related of course) to the subject.

          • Henry says:

            Jon: “I just have to repeat, when one makes the absolute judgement a single cell is a human being, it starts the ball rolling toward an unfortunate cliff.”

            Jon, what proof do you have that the “single cell” is not a human?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            For those who might have just tuned in, I asked Henry earlier to prove a sperm, with it’s DNA, is not a human. He has refused to answer that–so I will continue to ignore his request.

          • Henry says:

            My question has been a standing question before Jon asked his “sperm” question. I’ll await his answer and then respond. In the meantime, I’ll send reminders.

            I really don’t think Jon can answer it.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Anyone care to comment on the claim by some feminists that all sex is rape? It has been said.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        See; “The Good Men Project–”Are states giving custody to rapist fathers?”.

  5. Carlene Dean says:

    “A big chunk of the Republican party’s candidates don’t care what the woman thinks if pregnant because of rape.” As if I needed any more reason to dislike the Republicans, eh? This just adds fuel to the fire. I am rightly sick and tired of hearing those empty-headed, pompous windbag MALES spout off on something of which they know very little about. I am hoping the morons get run out of town on a rail, but since people are generally uninformed about candidates and their stands on issues — and since incumbents usually have a free pass back into office for said reason — they probably will be elected. Sigh …..

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Carlene 1:56 “they probably will be elected. Sigh..”

      Some of them will. HELP!

    • Henry says:

      Carlene: “I am rightly sick and tired of hearing those empty-headed, pompous windbag MALES spout off on something of which they know very little about.”

      Carlene, you may not know this, but you just spouted off a logical fallacy. Your appeal to your gender’s authority is noted.

      Carlene, I am one of those “pompous, windbag, males”. How do I get myself out of the supposed rut I am in and become more like you? I would like my vote to count, and would like your guidance on how to do it right.

      • entech says:

        Henry, The charge of an appeal to authority as being fallacious cannot be maintained when the claim is true.
        MALES spout off on something of which they know very little about, if anything this statement is, perhaps, a little too restrained.
        Being forcibly impregnated, obliged to suffer nine months of torment and , as some posts have shown, being exposed to the perpetrator of this horrific act under the name of parental rights – this is something that it is impossible for a man to to know anything about (as I said ‘very little’ is too restrained).
        However, your frequent referral to scriptural authority practically defines the fallacy of an appeal to authority.

        “pompous, windbag” a rare totally honest statement. Pity you had to spoil it with sarcasm.

        • Henry says:

          entech: “Being forcibly impregnated, obliged to suffer nine months of torment and , as some posts have shown, being exposed to the perpetrator of this horrific act under the name of parental rights –”

          This hypothetical scenario doesn’t seem plausible. A reasonable civil law judge wouldn’t stand for the assertion of the rapist’s parental rights…..but, perhaps there is indeed a problem. The judicial system is infested with liberal minded judges. Counting on a liberal judge as the last recourse for justice is rolling the dice even with the law on your side.

          • entech says:

            Of course, the answer to all problems blame the liberals.

          • Henry says:

            I didn’t provide an answer. I highlighted a problem (liberal judges) that makes your hypothetical perhaps possible.

          • entech says:

            Check it on the web.
            Definition of hypothetical: Henry doesn’t like it, it is probably not true.
            Definition of fact: its in the scriptures.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            entech “Definition of fact: It’s in the scriptures.”
            We see this often here.

          • entech says:

            By these definitions Evolution is not even a hypothesis, Noah’s flood on the other hand is definitive proven fact.

            Back on topic: rape and baby killing. Flood destroying everyone except one family? Rape who asked Mary if it was alright to impregnate her?

  6. Brad says:

    I wonder if some of these hard line Republicans have thought through the ramifications of forcing a rape victim to bear a child if they become pregnant? It means that the rape victim is forced by law to bear that child and all of the expenses that go along with raising a child. It also means that the rape victim would be forced by law to deal with her perpetrator for at least 18 years, and deal with all the issues of child support, custody, etc.

    It is absolutely stunning that anyone can even consider supporting this type of lunacy and injustice. If abortion were illegal even in the case of rape, which is a violently forced pregnancy, the rape victim would be punished by either forcing them to bear this child, or go to prison if they got caught terminating the pregnancy.

    These right wing people who support this madness are mentally ill, there is no other way to put it.

  7. Simple says:

    To me many(not all) of the pro-lifers are completely phony. They scream about killing fetuses but show absolutely no compassion for anyone else, including these babies after they are born.

Leave a Reply

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

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>