Could someone explain the birds & the bees to the GOP?

[Tricky]

Did he say either of those two things?

No, he did not.

Read his comments again, because you clearly haven't grasped what he's saying. If you still can't figure it out, come back and ask, but at least put in a little effort first.

It is you who is not grasping it. He suggests that a woman who is "really raped" should go to the hospital right away and have the pregnancy terminated, and failure to do so suggests that she wasn't "really" raped. So his plan must include some instant detection kit for "real" rape. It looks like the only consideration he has is "how long before she reported it". Do you think that is a reliable indicator? Having known several women who were raped and were so scarred by it that they wouldn't even talk about it at first, I can assure you that Dr. Paul's method is a bunch of hogwash.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is you who is not grasping it. He suggests that a woman who is "really raped" should go to the hospital right away and have the pregnancy terminated

Yes, they should. The sooner it's terminated, the simpler and safer that termination is, as well as the sooner they can get tested and treated for any possible STD's.

and failure to do so suggests that she wasn't "really" raped.

Objectionable as that may be, that does not match your earlier claim about his position.

So his plan must include some instant detection kit for "real" rape.

Uh, no. That's rather the point. He's relying on when the woman seeks an abortion as the method of sorting. Which doesn't in any way resemble your claim that he was claiming to be able to tell by looking at a woman.

It looks like the only consideration he has is "how long before she reported it".

Yes. Which is not what you claimed before.

Do you think that is a reliable indicator?

No, I don't. Nor did I ever say it was. But that's still not what you claimed. Which was my point.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Watching the Ron Paul interview it actually looks like his stance on allowing immediate abortions for rape victims is because you cannot determine right away if there is a pregnancy or not. He is actually, legally, in favor of allowing the morning after pill in all instances even though he is morally against it. Had to cross reference ontheissues.com for confirmation of that. However, he also pushes for a Sanctity of Life Amenment which would grant full personhood and rights at conception, which legally would currently conflict with allowing the morning after pill and similar birth control methods. Under current legal principles if there is a reasonable chance someone could be harmed by your actions you are still responsible for it. Such an amendment would put the forms of birth control he says he is legally for in the realm of suspicion of negligent homicide

 

[Halfcentaur]

I'm beginning to believe the Dunning-Kruger Effect is the most powerful influence on the course of human history. We have people in office, and trying to get into office, who honestly believe they have a good grasp of history, economics, and science. They are very wrong but don't know it, and will not be educated because they think any attempt to enlighten them is politically motivated. Which of course it would be, because it's bad politics to have too many idiots in charge.

I think by virtue of sheer volume that DK Effect is actually a benefit for passing on your genes. As long as you don't apply this false confidence in all parts of your life, like the ability to take down a mammoth in hand to hand combat, believing you're better and know things that you don't, when applied to large herds, sees eventual numbers thriving after they trample the poor bastards who fell down in front of them.

Like zombies, slowly piling up in a moat, eventually creating a bridge.

 

[BenBurch]

I think by virtue of sheer volume that DK Effect is actually a benefit for passing on your genes. As long as you don't apply this false confidence in all parts of your life, like the ability to take down a mammoth in hand to hand combat, believing you're better and know things that you don't, when applied to large herds, sees eventual numbers thriving after they trample the poor bastards who fell down in front of them.

Like zombies, slowly piling up in a moat, eventually creating a bridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

 

[Kahalachan]

Could someone explain the birds & the bees to the GOP?

Please don't. We don't need them reproducing.

 

[TheSapient]

Not a fake rape where the woman only later claims that consensual sex was rape.

Do you think that never happens? Because it does.

Paul doesn't talk about "honest accusation of rape". He talks of "honest rape". A rape that never happened is not a type of rape, and is therefore not the alternative to an "honest rape".

 

[Ziggurat]

Paul doesn't talk about "honest accusation of rape". He talks of "honest rape".

I have no reason to think he doesn't mean the former when he says the latter, and you have not presented any reason.

A rape that never happened is not a type of rape, and is therefore not the alternative to an "honest rape".

First off, that's linguistically wrong. Fake fruit isn't fruit, but it's still called fake fruit. "Real diamonds" isn't nonsense, even though if it's not real it's not a diamond. English is full of such examples. Second, and more importantly, while this may be a reason to dislike the term, it is not reason to think he means anything by it other than what I suggested he means by it.

 

[TheSapient]

I have no reason to think he doesn't mean the former when he says the latter, and you have not presented any reason.

I would suggest that the words he chose to say provide a reason for believing he meant to convey the meaning of those words.

First off, that's linguistically wrong. Fake fruit isn't fruit, but it's still called fake fruit. "Real diamonds" isn't nonsense, even though if it's not real it's not a diamond. English is full of such examples. Second, and more importantly, while this may be a reason to dislike the term, it is not reason to think he means anything by it other than what I suggested he means by it.

"Real diamonds" is commonly used to distinguish diamonds from fake diamonds. I've never heard is used to remind us that women can lie about the existence of a specific diamond.

ETA: There is context to his comment. He was not asked about a woman claiming to have been raped. He was asked about a woman who had been raped.

 

[Ziggurat]

I would suggest that the words he chose to say provide a reason for believing he meant to convey the meaning of those words.

Um... that's ironic. I can deduce neither the "reason" nor the "meaning" you attribute to Ron Paul from anything contained in the above sentence.

"Real diamonds" is commonly used to distinguish diamonds from fake diamonds.

Under your logic, "fake diamonds" aren't diamonds at all and so should not be called diamonds of any kind. And "real diamonds" is redundant, because if they are diamonds then they are by definition real.

I've never heard is used to remind us that women can lie about the existence of a specific diamond.

Like I said, all you've presented is reasons to not like the term. And I actually sympathize with that position. But that's not a reason to think he means something else, something you have yet to actually specify, I might note.

 

[TheSapient]

First, there was a badly timed edit to my post above. "There is context to his comment. He was not asked about a woman claiming to have been raped. He was asked about a woman who had been raped."

Um... that's ironic. I can deduce neither the "reason" nor the "meaning" you attribute to Ron Paul from anything contained in the above sentence.

Under your logic, "fake diamonds" aren't diamonds at all and so should not be called diamonds of any kind. And "real diamonds" is redundant, because if they are diamonds then they are by definition real.

Like I said, all you've presented is reasons to not like the term. And I actually sympathize with that position. But that's not a reason to think he means something else, something you have yet to actually specify, I might note.

Ron Paul was asked what he would do if a woman was raped. He explained what should be done if the rape was honest. My interpretation of "honest rape" is "honest rape", and not "a truthful claim of rape". Do I know what distinguishes an "honest rape" from other kinds of rape in Paul's mind? No. I think Paul's comment points to him having a view of rape that is out of the mainstream.

I accept you take a more liberal interpretation of his comment. But I don't think that your view of his phrasing is common in the English language.

"Do you want to borrow my car?"
"If it is an honest car, yes."
Because people can lie about owning a car.

 

[elbe]

Ron Paul was asked what he would do if a woman was raped. He explained what should be done if the rape was honest. My interpretation of "honest rape" is "honest rape", and not "a truthful claim of rape". Do I know what distinguishes an "honest rape" from other kinds of rape in Paul's mind? No. I think Paul's comment points to him having a view of rape that is out of the mainstream.

I accept you take a more liberal interpretation of his comment. But I don't think that your view of his phrasing is common in the English language.

"Do you want to borrow my car?"
"If it is an honest car, yes."
Because people can lie about owning a car.

I have to agree with Ziggurat (I'm sure he'll be thrilled at that), I think Paul was likely talking about honest accusation of rape. My understanding is that there are many men who believe that a not insignificant number of rape claims are lies from regret.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Personally I think Ron Paul's response was equivocating and too vague to determine what he meant by what he said. I think there are other problems with his response.

For instance, he mentioned giving a shot of estrogen which is by far not the preferred form of emergency contraceptive and not even listed as a primary purpose for estrogen shots. Combined estrogen shots are considered much less effective than other shots for emergency purposes and the same remains true for pill forms as well. Then again, he is out of date considering his focus on politics over medicine for the past few decades.

Still, I think people should avoid using modifiers when referencing rape in these discussions unless they really do mean to clasify rapes into different categories of acceptable abortions. It only adds confusion at best, and seen as code for less respected positions at worse.

 

[TheSapient]

Oh, I don't find Ziggurat's interpretation outlandish. I'm explaining my own.

If we do accept Ziggurat's interpretation, I don't think it makes Paul look very good. Why the need to qualify "rape"? If he were asked how he would treat someone who had been shot, would he feel the need to point out his answer doesn't apply to someone who was lying about being shot?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

HIV: myths versus reality

So.....we don't care about the guy who thinks heterosexuals can't get HIV or AIDS?

"The major route of HIV transmission worldwide is heterosexual sex, but risk factors for HIV vary around the world." This statement is from a Kaiser Foundation fact sheet from 10 years ago, found in a pdf file called "HIV/AIDS Policy Fact Sheet: The Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic"

“HIV only affects gay men or drug users.” is classified as a myth at this site. Once a woman becomes infected and bears a child, the child may also be infected: "Without treatment, an HIV positive woman will transmit HIV to her child during pregnancy or childbirth about 25% of the time. Babies also become positive through breastfeeding."

 

[elbe]

Oh, I don't find Ziggurat's interpretation outlandish. I'm explaining my own.

If we do accept Ziggurat's interpretation, I don't think it makes Paul look very good. Why the need to qualify "rape"? If he were asked how he would treat someone who had been shot, would he feel the need to point out his answer doesn't apply to someone who was lying about being shot?

Why should it make Paul look good (seriously, does anything he say make him look good)? Misogyny is far from dead and the idea that "slutty" women may lie to send a poor boy to prison seems popular in many men.

'Oh, rape? Yeah, of course rape is bad! If it's real rape, of course' *wink*

It's not even just a right wing problem (though many misogynists likely lean right). It's weird to see so much push back against women wanting to be treated with the barest of respect.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

hard to fathom

Misogyny is far from dead and the idea that "slutty" women may lie to send a poor boy to prison seems popular in many men.

I agree with the first part of your sentence. However, the rest is baffling. What about the Brian Banks' case, which was the subject of a thread at JREFF. Estimates vary widely of the extent of false rape claims (2% to 40%, IIRC), but they do happen.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I have to agree with Ziggurat (I'm sure he'll be thrilled at that), I think Paul was likely talking about honest accusation of rape. My understanding is that there are many men who believe that a not insignificant number of rape claims are lies from regret.

Or revenge. Or a badger game. Or...whatever motivated Ariadne, Tawana Brawley, and Crystal Mangum. And they don't have to be lies, just differences about "informed consent" ("He knew I had had to much to drink"). Fraud is to theft as seduction is to rape. Fraud has the same effect as theft and salesmanship blends smoothly into fraud. Wherever you stand, slippery slopes fall away in all directions. Read Germaine Greer: "Seduction is a four-letter word".

Akin has an engineering degree. That's a credible certification of intelligence. The notion that (some) women will shut down the reproductive system after traumatic intercourse is not logically impossible (stranger things happen: cats are reverse ovulators; they have to be penetrated to ovulate). It's just not supported by any evidence. Abortion is a real problem for people who believe in a soul. It's easier to support the "no exceptions" doctrine if there are few exceptions, so he lied. Akin is not stupid. He's a liar.
But aren't we all?

 

[Ziggurat]

If we do accept Ziggurat's interpretation, I don't think it makes Paul look very good.

I didn't offer it because I wanted to make Paul look good. And plenty of other stuff makes him look plenty bad already. But that doesn't mean he meant anything different than what I think he meant.

Why the need to qualify "rape"? If he were asked how he would treat someone who had been shot, would he feel the need to point out his answer doesn't apply to someone who was lying about being shot?

First off, the parallel here would not be to someone lying about being shot, but someone lying about how they were shot (for example, battery vs. self-inflicted wounds). As for the need to clarify the difference, well, if you want to make an exception to the rule prohibiting abortion in the case of rape, then obviously the difference will matter. No such issue arises in the medical treatment of gunshots because nobody holds the position that treatment should change based on the cause, though it's worth noting that police response will depend on that.

Now, if you think that abortion should be legal regardless of the cause of pregnancy, then this is irrelevant. If you think that abortion should be illegal regardless of the cause of pregnancy, than it is likewise irrelevant. So I've got no problem with people concluding that they disagree with Ron Paul's position, from either side. But keep in mind that he's not the only one making this distinction. As I pointed out before, plenty of pro-choice advocates have pushed the idea that the distinction in the cause of pregnancy matters for abortion. So it's not some crazy right-wing idea, in fact I think it's being pushed by abortion advocates precisely because it appeals to centrists.

 

[Ziggurat]

Estimates vary widely of the extent of false rape claims (2% to 40%, IIRC), but they do happen.

Furthermore, if abortion is made only available to rape victims, then that will create a massive new incentive to falsely claim rape. So we can expect that whatever the current number is, it would go up if abortions were outlawed except in cases of rape.