The Paul File

[Balerion]

There were six or seven black college girls active in the CIVIC interest group and two intelligent, socially concerned, black guys, both of whom were dating very liberal white girls in the group. My 100% is based on that limited sample but if you had experienced the intensity of their anger, you would not question how general their POV on this was.

So you admit what we already knew, because it is true of all bigoted beliefs: that it is based on a very small, very parochial experience that you've projected on the entire race (or race and sex, as is the case here). This is no different than an earlier poster who claimed to know "several women who lied about being raped," but only made direct reference to one, and how 786 or whatever his name is talks about "knowing more black racists than white racists." These generalizations are almost exclusively based on one or two (or a few) examples that the bigot has then turned into "several" or in your case, "all."

In no way does the intensity of their racism speak to a general consensus among black women. If that were true, then the intensity of the neo-Nazi movement should speak to a general consensus among all white Americans of their superiority over other races and ethnicities.

[Chipz]

There appear to be problems with that in general, and specifically in Dr. Paul's argument.

To start with the specific:

... an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem. If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it, it's a little bit different story.

—Rep. Ron Paul

Can you make the requisite distinction in an hour, or a day?

No, you can't. And that's the main reasons many people support abortion at all, that the behavior which occurs in its absence is arguably worse. Principally I am anti-abortion, though I'd wouldn't take legal action to support its barring until we can eliminate nearly all of the risk with contraceptive's or somehow convince everyone not to try the sick alternatives in desperation. That's a bit off topic. Semantically the phrase "true rape" is not misogynist in its application, but rather pretty practical.

[786]

Ah, my apologies. I hadn't recognized the subtlety of being born.

So its okay to abort and 'do stuff' to the vagina/uterus that would harm (even kill) the baby 5-10mins before birth or even an 1hr?

[Balerion]

No, you can't. And that's the main reasons many people support abortion at all, that the behavior which occurs in its absence is arguably worse. Principally I am anti-abortion, though I'd wouldn't take legal action to support its barring until we can eliminate nearly all of the risk with contraceptive's or somehow convince everyone not to try the sick alternatives in desperation. That's a bit off topic. Semantically the phrase "true rape" is not misogynist in its application, but rather pretty practical.

In this context it is not at all "pretty practical."

[786]

One would imagine so. Until you look at the whole sentence. What he says is that in an "honest rape", the victim goes to the hospital straight away. As though to indicate those who do not weren't really raped and are faking it. The reality is that many rape victims take days if not longer before they actually tell anyone the trauma they suffered and what had happened to them. It is common. Many find going to the hospital to have a rape kit done on them to be invasive and just as traumatic. What Ron Paul is saying is that if someone does not put themselves through the trauma of going through the internal exam and the scraping and questioning immediately, then that individual wasn't really raped as such, or it was not an "honest rape".

Who said anything about going through the 'rape process'? Things CAN be done differently, get your 'abortion' first (no sign of pregnancy).. You can go through the 'rape' thing at a later time..

Now if someone dies in front of you and you drop your 8lb baby in boiling water, and the baby dies after a few min, you can't say 'oh i was in trauma and shock' I lost my senses. I know its insensitive, but once raped, the girl should equally be concerned about pregnancy. I will give you that I don't know how it feels to be raped and so on, and my words here are DEFINITELY insensitive. But then again I have no reason to be political correct. She should get her abortion within a few days, whether she can 'face up to it' that quickly or not is a decision he is making when she would know that pregnancy could have occurred.

The man is running for President. If he cannot string two sentences together and not come out sounding like a misogynistic prick, maybe he should not be running for President.

You added way more detail than was required to come to the conclusion. I really don't see the need of doing everything you said. She's not going to the hospital to prove she has been raped, but that she is and needs an abortion at the time.

Wow.. that's what you're going with here?

As I said a 'side note'- which is true as it also 'does happen'.

[786]

In this context it is not at all "pretty practical."

Even if you think it is, you are assuming the answer was a direct response to the question itself. I happen to answer questions with generalities sometimes.

Morgan said 'these things do happen', Ron just reminded him 'other things do happen to', why don't you like that as a part of the answer? he's not obligated to answer the question the way you want, he can expand the question if he so wishes.

[Balerion]

Who said anything about going through the 'rape process'? Things CAN be done differently, get your 'abortion' first (no sign of pregnancy).. You can go through the 'rape' thing at a later time..

Now if someone dies in front of you and you drop your 8lb baby in boiling water, and the baby dies after a few min, you can't say 'oh i was in trauma and shock' I lost my senses. I know its insensitive, but one's raped the girl should equally be concerned about pregnancy. I will give you that I don't know how it feels to be raped and so on, and my words here are DEFINITELY insensitive. But then again I have no reason to be political correct.



You added way more detail than was required to come to the conclusion. I really don't see the need of doing everything you said. She's not going to the hospital to prove she has been raped, but that she is and needs an abortion at the time.



As I said a 'side note'- which is true as it also 'does happen'.

Rape kits generally have to be done within three days of the event.

[786]

Rape kits generally have to be done within three days of the event.

Okay so lets get this straight..

1. You're claiming she'll go to the emergency room months later to get the abortion, and the same time you mention rape kits? Isn't that like very achronistic?

2. I'm saying you get the abortion, and screw the rape kit. Individual HAS A CHOICE. According to 'number 1' she doesn't want that to happen, she goes MONTHS LATER?


How the hell do you have it both ways? "She's traumatic doesn't go to the hospital, go MONTHS LATER and gets an abortion" (rape kits is where?)...

"She goes to the hospital, gets an abortion" OOH OOHH SHE MUST GET RAPE KIT. A simple pregnancy test (which won't show) is enough, and she can request the treatment just saying 'had intercourse don't want to have baby' give me the shot.

WTF?

[Balerion]

Even if you think it is, you are assuming the answer was a direct response to the question itself. I happen to answer questions with generalities sometimes.

Yes, like your scathing rant about the unfair advantages women and other ethnicities have over you as a white man. I noticed. And like your "generality," Paul's response was entirely out of place and spoke to a deep-seeded distrust of women, and a belief in the myth that rape does not actually occur.

Morgan said 'these things do happen', Ron just reminded him 'other things do happen to', why don't you like that as a part of the answer? he's not obligated to answer the question the way you want, he can expand the question if he so wishes.

He did not expand the question, he expanded his answer beyond the scope of the question. That his first instinct was to point out that women lie about rape speaks to his misogyny. Otherwise, why say it? The question presumed a "true rape," so why did he need to bring "false rape" into his answer? I'll tell you why: Because he distrusts women.

[786]

Yes, like your scathing rant about the unfair advantages women and other ethnicities have over you as a white man. I noticed. And like your "generality," Paul's response was entirely out of place and spoke to a deep-seeded distrust of women, and a belief in the myth that rape does not actually occur.

Seems to me your answer 'is out of place and spoke to a deep-seeded distrust' of people as a whole. You can't trust their intention. They ARE misogynist, racist, son of a bitches.

He did not expand the question, he expanded his answer beyond the scope of the question. That his first instinct was to point out that women lie about rape speaks to his misogyny. Otherwise, why say it? The question presumed a "true rape," so why did he need to bring "false rape" into his answer? I'll tell you why: Because he distrusts women.

No, because he understands those are ALSO cases reported AS rape.

Its because YOU distrust the answerer, in fact people.

Someone says something against a Jew, must be an anti-semite because you don't trust anyone.

The only one distrusting of people is you, as far as I can tell.

[Balerion]

[QUOTE=786;2900269]Okay so lets get this straight..

1. You're claiming she'll go to the emergency room months later to get the abortion, and the same time you mention rape kits? Isn't that like very achronistic?[/qoute]

I'm sorry, that sentence makes no sense whatsoever. And did you mean anachronistic?

Try phrasing the question properly, and I'll give it a shot.

2. I'm saying you get the abortion, and screw the rape kit. Individual HAS A CHOICE. According to 'number 1' she doesn't want that to happen, she goes MONTHS LATER?

Your neanderthal grammar is getting in the way of your point, so bear with me while I attempt to parse your meaning out of this mess.

I thought we were operating under the assumption that Paul's stance was put into law, where a woman could get an abortion in the case of a rape, and only in the day or so after the rape occurs (prior to conception). This is why I took exception to your assertion that the woman could get the abortion first than get the kit later.

But okay, if you didn't mean that, it still doesn't take into account the fact that rape victims often can't bring themselves to tell anyone for weeks, if they ever do. Getting an abortion might require admitting what happened, so requiring them to do it within the first day is extremely unfair.

How the hell do you have it both ways? "She's traumatic doesn't go to the hospital, go MONTHS LATER and gets an abortion" (rape kits is where?)...

Nobody's asking to having both ways, ALL-CAPS Guy.

"She goes to the hospital, gets an abortion" OOH OOHH SHE MUST GET RAPE KIT. A simple pregnancy test (which won't show) is enough, and she can request the treatment just saying 'had intercourse don't want to have baby' give me the shot.

WTF?

Because it's just that simple, is it?

[786]

I thought we were operating under the assumption that Paul's stance was put into law, where a woman could get an abortion in the case of a rape, and only in the day or so after the rape occurs (prior to conception).

Well your assumption was wrong. He's okay with morning after pills to, doesn't have to be rape does it?

As for the condition not admitting rape- as I said, you can regulate that in a fashion where a simple pregnancy test (negative) would be sufficient to allow the shot to be administered. Why she's getting a shot? For fun. Regulations can make the process to accomodate them.

[Balerion]

Seems to me your answer 'is out of place and spoke to a deep-seeded distrust' of people as a whole. You can't trust their intention. They ARE misogynist, racist, son of a bitches.

Trust their intentions? What does that even mean? Are you saying that people aren't misogynists, racists, or sons of bitches? You must be, because in your mind none of these things actually exist.

Just like rape.

No, because he understands those are ALSO cases reported AS rape.

Morgan did not ask about alleged rape. He asked about rape. I guess I shouldn't be surprised you can't quite grasp this concept, yet I still am.

Its because YOU distrust the answerer, in fact people.

Someone says something against a Jew, must be an anti-semite because you don't trust anyone.

The only one distrusting of people is you, as far as I can tell.

False dichotomy. I have never contended that an individual is above reproach because of their religion or ethnicity. I have contended that criticisms of those groups based on ignorance or hatred is bigotry. That is what you have participated in here. You have convinced yourself that rape is mostly a lie invented by opportunistic women, that racism is more prevalent among blacks than whites, and that Jews are somehow above reproach. This is the very definition of bigotry.

You can try to deflect my criticisms of you all you like, but your words speak for themselves.

[Balerion]

Well your assumption was wrong. He's okay with morning after pills to, doesn't have to be rape does it?

No it doesn't. It still doesn't excuse his opinion of women.

[786]

No it doesn't. It still doesn't excuse his opinion of women.

Lol. And it still doesn't excuse your opinion of humans

[786]

False dichotomy. I have never contended that an individual is above reproach because of their religion or ethnicity. I have contended that criticisms of those groups based on ignorance or hatred is bigotry. That is what you have participated in here. You have convinced yourself that rape is mostly a lie invented by opportunistic women, that racism is more prevalent among blacks than whites, and that Jews are somehow above reproach. This is the very definition of bigotry.

You can try to deflect my criticisms of you all you like, but your words speak for themselves.

I never said rape is mostly a lie. But if someone brings up that 'sometimes it' is, then for some reason it means automatically that 'mostly' it is?

racism is more prevalent amongst blacks? Has been my life experience, not that i'm 'convinced' it is.

And what is bigotry is that one can not talk in the neutral sense. One can't say 'If its a true rape' because the 'if' in-itself symbolizes distrust

I know how you think. You are sad people that can't trust people.

[Balerion]

I never said rape is mostly a lie. But if someone brings up that 'sometimes it' is, then for some reason it means automatically that 'mostly' it is?

Depends on the context. You seem to want to dismiss this as if it's unimportant, but in reality context is everything.

racism is more prevalent amongst blacks? Has been my life experience, not that i'm 'convinced' it is.

And yet you offered as evidence to that point. If you didn't mean to imply that racism is more prevalent among blacks, what was the purpose of yoru comment in that context?

And what is bigotry is that one can not talk in the neutral sense. One can't say 'If its a true rape' because the 'if' in-itself symbolizes distrust

Not at all. If Paul had been asked about a woman who had allegedly been raped, then his qualifier would have been perfectly understandable. Actually, it might have even been required for the sake of clarity. But that was not how the question was phrased, and that he immediately went to "if it's an honest rape" implies that his first instinct when hearing the word "rape" is skepticism.

I know how you think. You are sad people that can't trust people.

Utter nonsense.

[Tiassa]

So its okay to abort and 'do stuff' to the vagina/uterus that would harm (even kill) the baby 5-10mins before birth or even an 1hr?

What do you mean by "okay"?

[786]

What do you mean by "okay"?

You're trying awfully hard to not answer. If you don't agree with the wording of the question answer and clarify your answer, I won't hold the wording of my question against you

[Billy T]

I am not a woman, but think having an abortion is a very hard decision to take for most. Sort of against a woman´s very nature, unless well brainwashed by “radical Feminists,” I think. It is a judgment call, balancing the pros and the cons, not a question like is 7 greater or less than 5. I.e. is a weighted judgment of many factors, many of which only the woman can rule on, at least in the early stages.

I take the position that early term abortions (say before anyone else even knows she is pregnant unless she tells them) has to be (and in practice is except for the poor) hers alone. They certainly are if she is rich enough to fly to location offering abortions on demand, no questions asked.

As the fetus grows and shows it presence in her figure, then I think others, including the state, have some right to influence the decision. I.e. the “cons” steadily grow stronger and the pro option weaker with time. Eventually, the fetus a right to be born, unless allowing that is nearly certain to kill the woman is my POV.

Thus, without going deeply into many specific details, there is no general answer to question 786 is asking Tiassa. I.e. no number of hours, days, weeks, or months after which abortion can never be justified.

Sometimes even a fetus known to be a-cefletic should be carried to full term as they soon die and are the only source of heart transplants for tiny babies.