I'd like him to go to prison, and then just like any rape he'd have to report it and he'd have to prove it. So he couldn't just go and say, 'Oh yeah, I was ass-raped,' and get… well, nothing, butt sex doesn't make babies… but still, it has to be a legitimate rape.
src: http://goo.gl/DHn6y9 via Lacey on FB.
Good grief.. How is this guy??
Jeeeezus h Christ…..where do they find these guys???
+Joseph Shooken They walk around in the US… there they are wild and free.
I though that when it was a legitimate rape, the women's body had a way to protect themselves….
These people should meet this guy http://youtu.be/LxcOaOTLuIg?t=47s
And then open their mouths on "legitimate rape".
+Joseph Shooken sadly, in my home state of Missouri. This is the 2nd Missourian (the other being Todd Akin) to make retarded statements like that.
+Fabien Laurent That was the argument wasn't it? I wonder if his body would have a way to protect him from legitimate prison rape? ;O)
hmm..devils advocate here….with that quote alone the context might be different "legitimate" as in "actually happened" as opposed to the other guy where legitimate meant somehow it happened but didn't count.
I don't know this guy, just going by the quote its not necessarily the same.
There's one abortion clinic in Missouri, it's in Saint Louis, and under constant GOP attack +Thomas Wrobel. This guy is pushing a bill that says an abortion cannot take place without the consent of the father unless it was a "legitimate rape". It's just another attempt at making an already awful situation worse by creating more hoops (a Department of Justice survey found 60 percent of sexual assaults in the last five years were not reported). He differentiated his use of "legitimate rape" by saying that in his version you would have reported it to the police (http://goo.gl/j4Ml8v).
“I’m just saying if there was a legitimate rape, you’re going to make a police report, just as if you were robbed,” Brattin says.
“That’s just common sense.” Under his bill, he notes, “you have to take steps to show that you were raped … And I’d think you’d be able to prove that.”
One big problem… the bill contains no language for defining what can be claimed as rape or incest exceptions. (http://goo.gl/sVMx21)
He then goes on to state that his own vasectomy was the inspiration:
“When a man goes in for that procedure—at least in the state of Missouri—you have to have a consent form from your spouse in order to have that procedure done,” he told MoJo. “Here I was getting a normal procedure that has nothing to do with another human being’s life, and I needed to get a signed form … But on ending a life, you don’t. I think that’s pretty twisted.”
Except that is flatly false… I live in Saint Louis, I've had a vasectomy, and I didn't need the permission of anybody nor did my (at the time) spouse have to sign a consent form.
Oh and when asked what about if the father is abusive? Brattin says women can just put the child into protective custody after birth.
+Paul Spoerry Fair enough, I lacked context. Remember the other guy said a womans body auto-shuts down or some crap, so it was a pretty low bar to match.
That said, umm…I kinda think it should be reported no? Is the idea that a woman would open upto doctors more when she was abused then the police? That might be realistic, but itself is a huge problem.
Also, I am a bit slow on the uptake, but taking this at face value is also pretty disturbing; He is implying that a woman is now made so desperate to try to get an abortion that she has no choice but too claim her spouse raped her to do so. O_o
I was stunned for a moment until i realized, it was probably taken outta context. Politically motivated slam ads are designed to character assassinate.
But if i think any legitimate rape thing clam could from the clinton era, when women where taught by our modern way of thinking "anyone anytime, since theres no sin" so we turned our females into sluts, and let loose the men like wild dogs, that they would consent to any whim out of wedlock as long as they used protection for it (i was there, i see that disgusting message from clinton my teachers taught!)…then if they forget protection make up a story to get rid of their child since it was a mistake. That way any hippie can live a carefree life….women are also known for using rape clames falsely to use the system to attack people. Like against Herman Cane…after he pulled out of the race they sliped back into the shadows, not enough proof to continue…
REAL rape should be treated prosecuted to the full measure of the law! If you would go so far as to do such a thing to someone, you dont belong in our society! Yet some of them still seem to get elected so i guess rape is ok if its a candidate YOU like. -_-
Women who are with child, rape or not shouldnt snuff out the life, it deserves to live too! Murdering a helpless child especially your own is no less barbaric then the act that brought them there…if you still dont want it at least let another have and raise them up. You wouldnt of wanted to be called a mistake and snuffed out because you were inconvenient would u? ( i cant believe we have to argue such a point, my gosh how fall has out society fallen???)Lots and mean lots of church funded programs are there to help such victums during these kinda things too, they understand what you are going through and will help you the whole way.
+Paul Spoerry Maybe the consent form is new. See below website under the section of The vasectomy procedure:
"Both you and your spouse need to sign the consent form and bring it to the office with you. "
http://advancedurologicassociates.com/services-procedures/male-sterilization-vasectomy.php
+Thomas Wrobel If she wants an abortion, married or not, she has to either prove rape or get signed consent.
+CatStarSTO Except that it's not taken out of context. He said, "I’m just saying if there was a legitimate rape, you’re going to make a police report, just as if you were robbed, that’s just common sense." Except that it's NOT common sense and it's factually wrong.
* an average of 60% of assaults in the last five years were not reported – http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv11.pdf
* So 40 out of every 100 are even reported, of that only 10 will lead to an arrest (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats), of them only 8 will be prosecuted (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st229), 4 will get a felony conviction, and only 3 will serve a single day in prison (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fdluc02.pdf).
I have no idea what you're trying to say about the Clinton era, though it sounds like you're trying to put all the blame on women… it takes two to tango in which case there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy if both take precautions. If you're meaning a sort of free-love movement I suggest you look at history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love
For the record, I've always been the guy who said if I got someone pregnant and they didn't want it I'd ask them to carry to term and I'd take the baby. They wouldn't have to be involved. That said, a lot of what you just stated sounds crazy to me. At what point is aborting not ok? If you say at conception, or even simply fertilization, you need to take a science class because that's not how it works. I'm sorry but getting rid of an embryo isn't the same as a person, some abort at that stage naturally… are you suggesting when that happens the women is a killer? Fetal development (development… not fully developed) doesn't even begin until 2.5 months so I don't know that's the same either.
Well, if you believe the current scientific view sentience is an emergent property of the brain that forms in a non-boolean way as the fetus becomes a child, then of course, abortion in the early stages is fine.
People that believe that sentience comes from a wibbly-wobbly-souly-wouly thing that gets attached to it at some point arnt going to be convince by that though. The route of the argument is "when is it self-aware" and unfortunately that's hard to prove definitively. You got a educated guess vs faith basically.
+Paul Spoerry I know that, I was just thinking though the implication of his statement. If actually he did believe woman are lieing and their relationships with their partners is fine, it implies they were driven to this lie by the social pressure he created (or people like him)
+Jeremiah Dehner Just because one provider does that doesn't make it a law. There is no law in Missouri requiring a man to get another person’s permission for a vasectomy.
+Paul Spoerry I did a google search for Missouri Vasactomy consent form and there a multiple hits. This is also apparently a thing across the country. You are correct though not a law, but if the DR won't do it without consent does it have to be a law?
+Jeremiah Dehner Multiple hits doesn't equal law and considering you have many choices of doctors it makes all the difference. I live here and I've had a vasectomy, I was married at the time and she didn't have to sign any consent forms. It was all handled through my insurance provider and the surgeon/urologist office.
+Paul Spoerry I cant speak for him, let a republican do so im an independant, and stand by no party! If hes being a slime vote him out, its that simple.
I relate the clintons to a line he said during his presidential years, "its ok to have sex as long as you use protection." Speaking to youth…high schoolers. That was the thoughts of a dirty man obsessed with his free lifestyle trying to make a new generation of people who took no responsibility for their actions and acted only by primal desires like some sort of chimp! Yes absolutely its a 2 way street, as i said free lifestyle women are sluts and compared the guys to wild dogs ( that wasent a compliment!) But it begins at home, if a parent wants their kids to grow up with some bit of dignity and self respect they need to be taught that first…a short leash until they quit barking.
+Paul Spoerry as I stated maybe that form is new. There are multiple DR's in Missouri who come up in that search result as saying a consent form is required. It is not a law you are correct about that and I don't believe I ever said it was. What I took issue with was you saying that what he said about the form as being false. I think that I have given examples of that not being the case in the state of Missouri.
+CatStarSTO Sex IS ok if you use protection. It's a very natural thing and hiding it or masking if behind some sort of moral veil is not only ineffective but dangerous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education#Effectiveness
+Jeremiah Dehner OK first let's make a distinction here. ALL providers will require a consent form, regardless of the procedure. That's entirely different than a consent form that requires spousal approval.
As for what I said about his statement about the form being false… it IS false. When he was speaking about legislation he is proposing he stated, “When a man goes in for that procedure—at least in the state of Missouri—you have to have a consent form from your spouse in order to have that procedure done.” That's false. It's flatly false. You're NOT required to do that. What you've given is examples of some providers who may require that in their practice but that's not law. In this discussion the law is all that matters as that's the context with which he was speaking.
Yeah dats ryt dude
+Paul Spoerry Im going to have to strongly disagree with you on this point. The reason it was always tradition to be properly married and to have only one wife, was to avoid the shame of swinging. I know not everyone is Christian but that doesnt make it anyless wrong especially when children are involved. A child shouldnt have to grow up in a single parent house hold or a dad of the month club…2 parents, with a loving family will help greatly to avoid the shameless mess that is todays society. id rather my child grow up like leave it to beaver then Ozzborn Jr….dont be in such a hurry to make it like the times of Noah!
+CatStarSTO You can disagree but you'd be historically inaccurate in your statements. For the vast swath of human history marriage was a strategic alliance between families and had little to do with love. While monogamy may seem like the de facto now, polygamy was common throughout most of history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives.
According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Polygamy They do go on to say that while accepted it may not have always been practiced for a variety of reasons (managing multiple partners, wealth required to support multiple partners, etc).
Sociologically, the nuclear family where mom, dad, and the 2.5 kids lived in a house by themselves is a very NEW occurrence. Prior to very recent history we lived in big extended family structures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_family#Sociology) so the notion your presenting isn't "tradition" really at all but a very recent product of humanity.
+Paul Spoerry This country was patterned after certain values and morals explained in the new testiment. But I do understand your desire to stand up for ways of the flesh, since no one wants to take actual responsibility for their actions anymore. Its easier to hate and drive out the last remnants of moral discipline and live like hippies. Sex/drugs/violence!
Considering a large majority of the founders were Diets and not Christians that's not really reality +CatStarSTO. I already stated, "For the record, I've always been the guy who said if I got someone pregnant and they didn't want it I'd ask them to carry to term and I'd take the baby." so standing up for ways of the flesh don't really apply here (also.. who talks like that?!). Actual "responsibility for your actions" includes having a comprehensive knowledge of how reproduction works (ie, NOT abstinence education which has been proven to be a failure) , having a means to prevent pregnancy (if it you choose to do so) available to you (ie, contraception choices), and a society that doesn't run from normal biological urges but instead educates, informs, and discusses those going through them. The other options is to ignore the reality of humanity and call those who lack the education, resources, or just have a "oh shit movement", and castrate them for doing something natural and god given: the drive to procreate.
+Paul Spoerry Well there in is our difference, and why we wont see eye to eye on it….I believe it to be right to marry one woman and to take another is adultery. Divorce for only infidelity. To take a woman out of wedlock is adultery too. A child needs his 2 parents, and they need to teach their child or children responsibility and discipline while young so they learn to make better choices when on their own. Sleeping around is naturally a persons choice, but eventually people need to settle down, and spending your life with one and saving your whole life for that special one makes each day that much more better in your later years then living with one " " to the next. Those Robertson people really are a good example of how to do things, even if your not into the woods or guns, you have to admire their commitment to family and respect for one another. Thats a good an honorable goal I think for any family!
+CatStarSTO "I believe it to be right to marry one woman"… agreed, it's absolutely your right…. "and to take another is adultery" that depends on the people the perspective of those who are making a commitment. Again, it's NOT historically accurate to say that monogamy is "traditional"; because that's not born out by historical fact (not even Christian history). I'm not saying it's wrong to be monogamous. I am. That said, "Sleeping around is naturally a persons choice, but eventually people need to settle down, and spending your life with one and saving your whole life for that special one makes each day that much more better in your later years then living with one" isn't factual, it's just your opinion. (Sorry but I dont know who the Robertson people you are referring to are).
+Paul Spoerry Him-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhYbxCRcLCM