Post Reply
Page 3 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 4:28AM #21
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

Aug 31, 2009 -- 5:19PM, Bei1052 wrote:

Reporting a rape immediately after it happens serves two functions: 1.) The sooner it's reported the easier it is to catch the rapist and 2.) Anyone one who reports being raped is given an emergency contraceptive kit. If you don't report a rape when it occurs or a reasonable time afterwards, then you're up the proverbial creek without a paddle (Much like with any crime).




gosh, why would a woman not want to report a rape?


because reporting a rape can get you charged with false reporting:


www.post-gazette.com/pg/09093/960350-100...


www.feministing.com/archives/004748.html


and the rapist can then go around and rape other woman anyway:


thecurvature.com/2009/04/03/actual-rape-...


because reporting a rape can get you charged with drinking alcohol:


wweek.com/editorial/3424/10828/


because reporting a rape means admitting to having comitted "indecent acts":


www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/080107kv...


because falling victim to rape means you must have been 'negligent':


www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-web-...


Because taking a rape to trial means that your sexual past will be made public and/or exaggerated, that you will have to re-experience your rape, and that you will face unsympathetic (to say the least) legal mechanations:


www.feministing.com/archives/007727.html


www.feministing.com/archives/008950.html


www.feministing.com/archives/009206.html


because even if you submit to a humiliating rape exam, the kit might not be tested:


www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/03/31/testin...


Because if the assailant is a sports star or otherwise socially powerful, no one will believe you:


www.feministing.com/archives/016863.html...


 


Let's say you do report your rape, get an abortion, and then the rapist isn't convicted.  Does that mean that you're now guilty of 'illegal abortion' in Bei's ideal world?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 8:45AM #22
mountain_man
Posts: 38,746

Sep 1, 2009 -- 1:04AM, MysticWanderer wrote:

On the contrary MM your initial response was vague and I asked for clarification.  Therer are no loaded questons on this thread as I have n position to defend, I am seeking knowledge.



Yet in other replies you have claimed to be THEE expert, the one with the knowledge. I guess I'm just expecting a higher level of debate (discussion) than should be hoped for on a forum like this. I'll just have to lower my expectations in the future.


My response was not vague. It was short and simple. It was about the choice a woman makes being none of your business. I mentioned nothing about late abortions, so your reply was either a non sequitur or a loaded question.


 

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 9:25AM #23
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,328

Sep 1, 2009 -- 8:45AM, mountain_man wrote:


Sep 1, 2009 -- 1:04AM, MysticWanderer wrote:

On the contrary MM your initial response was vague and I asked for clarification.  Therer are no loaded questons on this thread as I have n position to defend, I am seeking knowledge.



Yet in other replies you have claimed to be THEE expert, the one with the knowledge. I guess I'm just expecting a higher level of debate (discussion) than should be hoped for on a forum like this. I'll just have to lower my expectations in the future.


My response was not vague. It was short and simple. It was about the choice a woman makes being none of your business. I mentioned nothing about late abortions, so your reply was either a non sequitur or a loaded question.




Well whether or not you like it or even acknowledge it in certain areas I am AN (not THEE as there is no sngle expert in any area of sxience or medicine).  This is what I did for a living for over thirty years and I keep up with the literature in the area and with friends still n practice.


And yes your initial response was vague.


"Yes. The reasons a woman ends a pregnancy are none of your business. As soon as you can take the ZEF into YOUR body, then it can be your decision. So, all your other questions are irrelevant."


Please note that you said nothing about ANY limits on a woman's choice of when to end the pregnancy so a liberal interpretation is as accurate as a conservative interpretation.  All I asked you to do was clarify and as usual you interpret it as an affront.

"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich von Schiller
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 11:15AM #24
Onlyme
Posts: 7

Aug 31, 2009 -- 5:19PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Reporting a rape immediately after it happens serves two functions: 1.) The sooner it's reported the easier it is to catch the rapist and 2.) Anyone one who reports being raped is given an emergency contraceptive kit. If you don't report a rape when it occurs or a reasonable time afterwards, then you're up the proverbial creek without a paddle (Much like with any crime).




Bei,


You are operating under a false assumption that the majority of rapes are committed by strangers who grab a random woman and drag her into a dark alley and rape her. ("Catching" the rapist)  Unfortunately, stranger rape only accounts for about 20% of all rapes.  The rest are committed by someone a victim knows--sometimes just an acquaintance, but many times a boyfriend, husband, father, brother or other male relative.    A  great deal of women who are raped by an acquaintence or friend are often confused about it for several months or years before they are able to identify it as rape.  They don't want to believe someone they trusted could committ such a heinous act, when any physical evidence is long gone.  If a woman is raped by her husband, do you think she's going to feel safe to report it?  If a 16 or 17 year old is raped by her father or brother?  Girls who are sexually abused by  are groomed to be complacent--and they often carry a lot of guilt if their abuser is brought to justice. 


And, what do you say to people who feel that emergency contraception is abortion?  There are people who feel that many forms of birth control are tantamount to abortion.  The question is who gets to decide what is appropriate and what is not?  While there is nothing wrong with your arguments in general to limit abortion to what YOU deem is appropriate, there is a wide spectrum as to what people think--from unrestricted abortion on demand to the point of delivery (although very minute number) to people who feel birth control pills should be banned.  What makes your plan the "one"?  A fetus conceived in rape is no less a human than one that is not.  What makes her mental anguish special?  And while I don't personally understand it, there are a number of women who have gotten pregnant through rape and kept the child.  I just question that while you believe strongly in what you believe, which is entirely your right, why your way is "best"?   I don't want your usual laundry list of garbage, I want from your gut, why you're "right". 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 2:20PM #25
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Oi vey...


*takes a deep breath*


Okay. I'm ready. Bring on the anecdotal evidence.


...But, oh, before I do. I have one very important thing to say: Please, for the love of freakin' God, stop linking to Curvature and Feministing. If I have to read one more sensationalist article, I'm gonna' have a seizure.


Sep 1, 2009 -- 4:28AM, bluehorserunning wrote:

gosh, why would a woman not want to report a rape?



I have no idea.


because reporting a rape can get you charged with false reporting:


*snip link*



Anything can get you charged with false reporting. Does that mean you don't report it? I'd hope not, as that'd be utterly silly.


*second link*



See, this is why you don't just go to feministing. So, I'll recap the case for you. A 17-year old accussed three 18-year olds of raping her. The case went to court. The judge found that none of the four's stories were all that credible but that the three 18-year olds were more credible than the 17-year old, as did a few of the prosecutors. He then added in that the girl's story was questionable given her actions immediately following (I've searched for the actual case transcript, but I can't find it. Oh well...).


That last part was more than likely unwise, but largely irrelevant to the case. In the absence of evidence, what you're left with is a "He said, she said" situation, and in cases as those then the only thing one has to go on is personal testimony. Even though this was a criminal case (I believe), it takes the civil case road in having to prove that one's statements are more true than another's.


and the rapist can then go around and rape other woman anyway:


*snip link*



Which he most certainly will continue doing if a rape is never reported. See how that works?


(And this is a repost, too.)


because reporting a rape can get you charged with drinking alcohol:


*snip link*



...I get tired of asking this, but do you even read what you post? Please tell me, how was charged with underage drinking? The answer? No one. I'd really like to know what you're reading, 'cuz I totally can't find it. Hell, no one was even charged with rape, due to the fact that both parties were drunk at the time.


because reporting a rape means admitting to having comitted "indecent acts":


*snips link*



No. That's not what it means at all. I swear, you don't read things before you post them. You just post things and hope others don't read them.


The young woman alleged that she as attacked and raped by three men. Of those three, one was formally charged. However, the woman refused to testify against him, so the charges of rape were dropped. The USAF later charged all four of them with "indecent acts". The men were given nonjudicial punishments for committing indecent acts in the presence of other airmen, a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. All three received suspended reductions in rank, but the penalties will be lifted if there is no further misconduct. One of the men was fined two months' pay; a second lost two months' pay, but the penalty was suspended; the third airman got 30 days of extra duties. All three were ordered not to have contact with Hernandez. Hernandez, on the other hand, later had the charges of indecent acts against her dropped, and was instead charged for underaged drinking and given a non-judicial punishment.


because falling victim to rape means you must have been 'negligent':


*snip link*



Because, as you can see, a court of law totally ruled she was negligent. It's not like the hotel she's suing is claiming she was negligent in order to shift the liability away from themselves. Nope. That's not the case AT ALL.


But, beyond that, the woman has no case against the hotel. Mariott can only be expected to provide a reasonable amount of security to its patrons, and going from the story it seems as if they did (Without having someone on patrol 24/7). Of course, I think calling the woman "negligent" is a mischaracterization, but no one is really at fault here except for the rapist.


Because taking a rape to trial means that your sexual past will be made public and/or exaggerated, that you will have to re-experience your rape, and that you will face unsympathetic (to say the least) legal mechanations:


*snip first link*



That's great for Scotland, but what's it got to do with the U.S.? Unfamiliar with U.S. law, are we?


*snip second link*



Did... Did you even read this? District Judge Jeffre Cheuvrontuse barred the use of the term "rape" under the assumption that it would sway an impartial jury and mar an otherwise fair trial-- The implication being that the word rape is so charged, it would automatically prejudice a jury against the defendant if used. What does this have to do with forcing a women to "re-experience her rape" or facing "unsympathetic" legal mechanisms (Which I would hope they would be, as the law isn't about dispensing 'justice').


*snip third link*



A little bit of snooping goes a long way. First of all, I'm just going to throw out the fact that the plaintiff plainly stated that she DIDN'T REMEMBER ANYTHING ABOUT THE ALLEGED ASSAULT and, being how this was a civil case, that's a big deal as it means that the plaintiff is giong to have a hell of a time proving that her story is probably more true than the defendants story. And if you can't prove that your story is more true than the other person's story, then you're not going to win your case. But, moving on. Aside from the whole "Not being able to remember thing", the allegations brought forth by the plaintiff was that the defendant engaged in anal sex with her against her will. There were no traces of date rape drugs in her system, the rape kit showed no evidence of anal sex occurring (Of which the plaintiff said it did. The defendant did, however, admit to having vaginal sex with the plaintiff) and the plaintiff had no witnesses to corroborate her story up.


Furthermore, the plaintiff did not have to disclose her entire sexual history-- Only the history with the defendant. I just thought I'd throw that out there.


because even if you submit to a humiliating rape exam, the kit might not be tested:


*snip link*



So rape examinations are "humiliating" now? That's a nice little spin on it. But, beyond that, your arguent is that women don't get a rape kit because the rapist might not be caught, anyway? Well, ignoring the point that rape kits also contain emergency contraceptives, the assertion that it's better to do nothing doesn't make no sense. When you don't report a rape, there's a 0% chance that the rapist is going to be caught because of it. When you do report a rape, there's a chance greater than zero that the rapist will be caught because of it. In case you can't do the math, that means there's an infinitely greater chance of a rapist being caught when you report a rape than when you don't.


Because if the assailant is a sports star or otherwise socially powerful, no one will believe you:


*snip link*



See, this is further reason why you should really avoid feministing and other such sites. I think people not believing her has a bit more to do with the woman's story, which is contradicted by her co-worker at the time's story in a sworn affadavit (Link than BB being "a socially powerful sports star".


And, with that, we're totally done with the anecdotal stuff. So... Are you now going to post reasons why a woman wouldn't want to report a rape? Because, oddly enough, you haven't, as in every single one of those "cases", and I use the term lightly, a woman did just that.


Let's say you do report your rape, get an abortion, and then the rapist isn't convicted.  Does that mean that you're now guilty of 'illegal abortion' in Bei's ideal world.



A rapist has to be convicted for a woman to have been raped by him? Sometimes I wonder what goes through that head of yours. No, of course not. If it's found that you're lying, then you'd be subject to the laws each state has set about concerning false accusations (Or lying under oath).

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 2:28PM #26
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

A lot of rape victims don't remember anything about their attack because they were under the influence of rophypnol or some other date rape drug at the time.  So I guess they get to be forced to give birth against their will in Bei's misogynistic world.


And yes, dear, the rape examination is humiliating and may even be painful if the rape was brutal enough, but we understand that you don't care about the already born and breathing, so never mind.


 

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 3:05PM #27
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Sep 1, 2009 -- 11:15AM, Onlyme wrote:

Bei,

You are operating under a false assumption that the majority of rapes are committed by strangers who grab a random woman and drag her into a dark alley and rape her. ("Catching" the rapist)  Unfortunately, stranger rape only accounts for about 20% of all rapes.  The rest are committed by someone a victim knows--sometimes just an acquaintance, but many times a boyfriend, husband, father, brother or other male relative.    A  great deal of women who are raped by an acquaintence or friend are often confused about it for several months or years before they are able to identify it as rape.  They don't want to believe someone they trusted could committ such a heinous act, when any physical evidence is long gone.  If a woman is raped by her husband, do you think she's going to feel safe to report it?  If a 16 or 17 year old is raped by her father or brother?  Girls who are sexually abused by  are groomed to be complacent--and they often carry a lot of guilt if their abuser is brought to justice.



First of all, I've no idea where you're getting the whole "I'm operating under a false assumption that the majority of rapes are committed by stragers" thing from, as I said nothing of the sort or even close to it. What I did say was that the sooner a rape is reported the easier it is to catch the perpetrator, as the sooner a rape is reported the more physical evidence of a rape there is. Whereas, the longer you wait the less evidence is available and the harder it is to prosecute, much less prove a rape occurred AT ALL. I thought it was pretty easy to understand the first time, myself.

...And, if you don't report a rape when it happens or a reasonable amount of time afterwards, then that's entirely on you, so to speak.

And, what do you say to people who feel that emergency contraception is abortion?



That it's not, and that the majority of EC's (Minus the IUD which isn't really an emergency contraceptive) are levanstrol (Or however you spell it) only, and most recent research shows that it has no effect on a fertilized ovum.

There are people who feel that many forms of birth control are tantamount to abortion.  The question is who gets to decide what is appropriate and what is not?



IUD's and RU-whatever the numbers are, as they mess with implantation either by making a zygote not implant or jarring it loose of the uterine wall.

While there is nothing wrong with your arguments in general to limit abortion to what YOU deem is appropriate, there is a wide spectrum as to what people think--from unrestricted abortion on demand to the point of delivery (although very minute number) to people who feel birth control pills should be banned. What makes your plan the "one"?



This has nothing to do with personal morals. That's a supremely pointless debate, because the only way one will ever be wrong is to admit that they are wrong, and since no one will ever do that, no one will ever be wrong. Therefore, we need something a bit more concrete. The law says that you cannot bring harm to another unless there is due cause. Given the fact that there's no due cause for the majority of abortions (Unless you deem convinience to be due cause), then abortion should be limited to those instances where there is a need for them.

(...And to anticipate the response from some people, I'm going to respond to the whole "Abortion doesn't harm another party" line. Obviously, abortion is considered to be a privacy issue, and the right to privacy only exists so long as one's actions do not harm another. Therefore, the only way abortion can be held as a right of privacy is to presuppose the fact that a fetus isn't a person or individual. But if you presuppose the fact that a fetus isn't a person or individual, then you're contradicting the entire "No one knows when a fetus becomes a person" argument, as you're presupposing an answer to the question you said is unanswerable. And, if you do that, then the entire argument stemming from not knowing when a ZEF becomes moot, henceforth meaning the entire rationale for abortion becomes non-existant.)  

A fetus conceived in rape is no less a human than one that is not.  What makes her mental anguish special?  And while I don't personally understand it, there are a number of women who have gotten pregnant through rape and kept the child.  I just question that while you believe strongly in what you believe, which is entirely your right, why your way is "best"?   I don't want your usual laundry list of garbage, I want from your gut, why you're "right".



*le sigh*

I 'spose I can explain this one more time :P

I never said it wasn't. Most PC'ers like to go on about "choice this" and "choice that", while ignoring the fact that-- Just like her male counterpart-- A woman exercises her "choice" when she lies down (Or stands up or engages in other various positions) to engage in an action which has explicit consequences (In this case, sex). A woman who is raped, however, gets no "choice" in the matter, as a second party makes it for her (The rapist). It's one thing to engage in an action which has explicit outcomes. It's another thing to be forced into an action against your will which has explicit outcomes. The law doesn't hold people responsible for things imposed upon them without consent of some form. And since a woman doesn't get a "choice" before the fact, then she has the opportunity to exercise one after the fact.

Isn't it wonderful? >_<


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 3:14PM #28
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Sep 1, 2009 -- 2:28PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

A lot of rape victims don't remember anything about their attack because they were under the influence of rophypnol or some other date rape drug at the time.  So I guess they get to be forced to give birth against their will in Bei's misogynistic world.



You do realize that date rape drugs account for the small percentage of rapes, correct? And you do realize that those women would still have been raped, meaning they could opt for an abortion in the case of them getting pregnant, don't you? 'Cuz, I don't think you do.


...And you know the ironic thing about you calling me a misogynist? The fact that's not only funny (I guess that means I hate my grandmother, my mother, my sister and my sorta'-kinda' girlfriend), but that you don't see the irony in you calling someone else a misogynist when you could be called a misandrist. I mean, how else would you categorize someone who doesn't believe that men can have a valid opinion on abortion (Which is odd, considering I don't see you up and screaming that RvW should be overturned see as it was decided by nine men).


And yes, dear, the rape examination is humiliating and may even be painful if the rape was brutal enough, but we understand that you don't care about the already born and breathing, so never mind.



Obviously, it can't be too humiliating nor painful as women continue to subject themselves to them. I guess it's less humiliating and painful than the latter option, huh? You know, it's always amazed me at the propensity of some to start throwing out the emotional rhetoric for things no matter what's being talked about. It's one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't kind of things.


Oh, and I care about all humans: Born, unborn and on a respirator :)

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 3:15PM #29
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

No, Bei, everyone knows (except possibly you) when a fetus becomes a person.  It becomes a person when it is born.


So it is NOT a party, and HAS no interests to be considered at any point during gestation.

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 3:22PM #30
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

I don't believe women have any right to have a say in a male's reproductive choices.  His are limited by biology.  Don't like it? Speak to the guy in charge.  Snip it or bag it.  


Sex selection belongs to the female and she can decide (under ordinary circumstances) whether she is willing to accept sex with a male unwilling or incapable of impregnating her under those circumstances.  The male can also ask a woman about her feelings on the issue of abortion, and not put himself into a position where 'his' fetus is likely to be aborted.  


What he doesn't have the right to do is interfere with her right to decide whether or not she will bring a particular pregnancy to term.  At all.  Ever.  It doesn't matter whether he is pressuring her TO abort or pressuring her NOT to abort.  He is taking no physical risk in the pregnancy, and simply doesn't have a say in it.


I don't know how you feel about your mother or about your sister or about your girlfriend.  Have you had the chat with her about her position on abortion? Since that IS your only option, you probably should.


 

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook