Scalzi on Rape and Abortion

[Darkwing Duck]

Missed the point and took a cheap shot all dressed up as babe missing the point. You're a tool.

And where do you pull "devolve conversation into a political talking point" from? The link in the OP was entirely political.

Not really on the first line, and merely the drawing pool in the second.

Back to the first. Not sure a "cheap shot" is pointing out that a comment about the article is not what the article is about. The author obviously wants to open discussion about a particular aspect of a philosophy. Babe ignored it and went off in a typical "liberal vs. conservative" topic. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. I guess I should continue the chain about you missing the point about missing the point and that you're an bigger tool, yo. Like the biggest screwdriver, yo.

As to the second, again, it's not about liberals versus conservatives. It's not about the overbearing concept of "victim's rights," which babe seemingly refers to pejoratively, or the logic of rights of the unborn. That's not the point of the satirical piece. It's not, at its surface, about political ideology. It's about how much control the government is willing to give rapists over their victims. It's not liberal or conservative, democrat or republican (despite being said by the latter). In the same vein, ask something on the economic front. Someone posts, "Well, the republicans don't care at all about the poor. They only want to cut taxes for the rich." Devolving into political point talk, and useless. Same thing happened here.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Babe often uses our logical inconsistencies as an argument to cast doubt on the utility of pure objectivity. He is wrong about that, but comparing one of our most thoughtful posters to PW is a bit absurd. And taking that name lightly also robs it of its meaning. Gays used that strategy to reappropriate the word 'queer'. We should only mention PearlWatson when we're talking about the most extreme levels of stupidity.

Which is why I was surprised to see such a post from him.

 

[babe]

Which is why I was surprised to see such a post from him.

Actually, I can see your point. And I understood the link in the OP as a very well-done, if satirical, expose of our absurdity in wanting the State to weigh in on whether a rape victim must be required to nurture the spawn of Satan, so to speak.

Sometimes people just don't have a pure or objective line of ideology they can use without the possibility of censure.

I reacted to the use of this issue by those of contemporary "liberal" views to degrade folks with Christian-based views on the sanctity of life. It would be a higher class of argument to try to claim the high ground about the value, if not sanctity, of human life.

And this is one point where I genuinely respect Pearl Watson. Like a lot of religious conservatives, she did learn something from Jesus about respect for life. Too bad a lot of progressives have thrown that baby out with bath water. Their cause would be much better if they could find a place for it in their world view.

 

[babe]

And, while this is partially off-topic, it sits in my head right next to my illogical and inconsistent set of values---wishing and hoping a few more women might be willing to set aside the trauma of their victimization and care for the baby, right along with my visceral hatred of State-forced morals (in some cases, not all), and my unwillingness to step up on a podium and preach hate against the victims who just won't or can't do that, and hand down the judgments of God or society against them----

I really just wish one or two victims in this circumstance would come knock on my door and ask me if I would take care of the kid.

Yes.

 

[franklin]

Back to the first. Not sure a "cheap shot" is pointing out that a comment about the article is not what the article is about.

The article was laced with political rhetoric and substanceless indictments.

The author obviously wants to open discussion about a particular aspect of a philosophy.

By not only writing an unenticing article 50 years behind current thought, but starting in the mud and flinging political attacks in a sensitive environment? Forgive me for not boiling motives down so purely as you have.

Babe ignored it and went off in a typical "liberal vs. conservative" topic.

You're being way to senstive over his use of convenient descriptives.

It's not about the overbearing concept of "victim's rights," which babe seemingly refers to pejoratively, or the logic of rights of the unborn. That's not the point of the satirical piece. It's not, at its surface, about political ideology. It's about how much control the government is willing to give rapists over their victims.

I'm curious why noone has taken this thread in that direction then. I questioned what the implications of these candidate's comments were and that fell to the wind. If the author really meant to spark what you've claimed then this article did a horrible job here.

In the same vein, ask something on the economic front. Someone posts, "Well, the republicans don't care at all about the poor. They only want to cut taxes for the rich." Devolving into political point talk, and useless. Same thing happened here.

You mean babe's response to the following was "devolving"? You accepted the author going there but have shunned the responses.

P.S.: I love it when you say that you “stand for innocent life” when it comes to denying abortions in cases of rape! It implicitly suggests that the women I rape are in some way complicit in and guilty of the crimes I commit on top of, and inside of, their bodies! Which works out perfectly for me. Keep it up!

 

[Darkwing Duck]

And, while this is partially off-topic, it sits in my head right next to my illogical and inconsistent set of values---wishing and hoping a few more women might be willing to set aside the trauma of their victimization and care for the baby, right along with my visceral hatred of State-forced morals (in some cases, not all), and my unwillingness to step up on a podium and preach hate against the victims who just won't or can't do that, and hand down the judgments of God or society against them----

I really just wish one or two victims in this circumstance would come knock on my door and ask me if I would take care of the kid.

Yes.

Now, given that 60 or so percent of the states allow visitation rights to the rapist, and convictions on rape that nullify those rights in most of those states aren't likely to occur until after the child is born, over a year of CONSTANT reminder that she was raped is perfectly acceptable when you take the moral stance that the woman should bear the child under all circumstances. Are you also going to reimburse her for the cost and time of prenatal care and other costs and time associated with pregnancy?

 

[babe]

Now, given that 60 or so percent of the states allow visitation rights to the rapist, and convictions on rape that nullify those rights in most of those states aren't likely to occur until after the child is born, over a year of CONSTANT reminder that she was raped is perfectly acceptable when you take the moral stance that the woman should bear the child under all circumstances. Are you also going to reimburse her for the cost and time of prenatal care and other costs and time associated with pregnancy?

One thing a lot of people don't know about the Mormons nowadays is how many children they adopt, making arrangements with distressed women to pay their costs in the pregnancy. In some areas, the fact that people from Utah are willing to do this has set up an avenue that is known to be an option, and is becoming more used as time goes on.

It does require the putative fathers to sign off on their parental rights as well.

If a putative father wanted to be as involved as you are suggesting is possible, I would begin to discuss constructive ways he could assume more responsibility.

 

[Hartsock]

There are probably at least 15 adopted african american kids in my parents neighborhood.