true story
i attended my soccer league's annual meeting (we're up to 268 teams--largest league in the world until someone proves different) and had opportunity to hear a story from a couple of the older horses in the room about a well-known guy who (ironically) now participates as a referee. seems a few years back, while he was still playing, he had earned a well-deserved reputation for boundary-pushing violence. (think of rodney harrison going to nfl referee school for an imperfect analogy). well, anyway, the payoff to this particular series of stories was about the ultimate game of his playing career, during which he had taken down an opposing player with completely unreasonable and injurious force. he had escaped the deserved consequence of a red card and consequent 1-game suspension by the inaction of the referee, but instead of the usual escalation of unpleasantry that would have otherwise sprung from the righteous indignation of the victim's teammates, instead the misbehaving player's teammates acted first and pre-emptively to hound the offender from the field with not only the insistence that he leave that game, but also that he never play with them again. (in fact, to a man, they refused to ever take the field with him, and wrote him a letter during the following week that if he showed up to the next game, they would walk off the field and forfeit instead of bearing the shame of having him as a teammate). true story.
anyway, i can't help but think of todd akin's inexcusable assault upon the victims of rape this past week, and the question as to what degree other republicans deserve coincident culpability. i'd like to offer two salient points, if i may. (people are still talking about this, so why should i consider myself better than anyone else?) first of all, like joe paterno, if one of your guys does wrong, it's on you to bear responsibility for his place in your organization. second of all, like everyone seems to forget, this insistence that victims of rape be raped a second time by a government confiscation of their right to remain in control of their own body has been part of the republican party platform for DECADES, and was not invented by this one particular and dangerous idiot. required viewing should be rachel maddow's (i know, i know) recap of the history of "you can't get pregnant if you get raped" within the republican party (viewable here) in which she recounts a stunning litany of nonsense of akin's proportion and beyond. (notable being the number of these folks appointed to be federal judges and etc.). seriously--watch it for as long as you can stand it--it's good for you.
short answer is, yes, if you're a republican, you DO bear responsibility for akin's comments for these reasons and more. scott brown satisfied his responsibility by saying "as a husband and father of two young women, i found todd akin’s comments about women and rape outrageous, inappropriate and wrong. tere is no place in our public discourse for this type of offensive thinking. not only should he apologize, [which he has], but i believe rep. akin’s statement was so far out of bounds that he should resign the nomination for US senate in missouri.” i measure all others by the presence or absence of similar statements in the public record.
we all should.
if he's on your team, his behavior IS your team's responsibility, and yours for your being part of it. someone else may have said it and done it, but you still need to do the right thing.
anyway, i can't help but think of todd akin's inexcusable assault upon the victims of rape this past week, and the question as to what degree other republicans deserve coincident culpability. i'd like to offer two salient points, if i may. (people are still talking about this, so why should i consider myself better than anyone else?) first of all, like joe paterno, if one of your guys does wrong, it's on you to bear responsibility for his place in your organization. second of all, like everyone seems to forget, this insistence that victims of rape be raped a second time by a government confiscation of their right to remain in control of their own body has been part of the republican party platform for DECADES, and was not invented by this one particular and dangerous idiot. required viewing should be rachel maddow's (i know, i know) recap of the history of "you can't get pregnant if you get raped" within the republican party (viewable here) in which she recounts a stunning litany of nonsense of akin's proportion and beyond. (notable being the number of these folks appointed to be federal judges and etc.). seriously--watch it for as long as you can stand it--it's good for you.
short answer is, yes, if you're a republican, you DO bear responsibility for akin's comments for these reasons and more. scott brown satisfied his responsibility by saying "as a husband and father of two young women, i found todd akin’s comments about women and rape outrageous, inappropriate and wrong. tere is no place in our public discourse for this type of offensive thinking. not only should he apologize, [which he has], but i believe rep. akin’s statement was so far out of bounds that he should resign the nomination for US senate in missouri.” i measure all others by the presence or absence of similar statements in the public record.
we all should.
if he's on your team, his behavior IS your team's responsibility, and yours for your being part of it. someone else may have said it and done it, but you still need to do the right thing.
posted by kad barma at 12:07 PM
6 Comments:
OK, so we know that Todd Akin is an idiot—or very, very bad in picking his words. Do you want someone to put him in a room with a revolver and a single bullet? Wasn't there a movie where that was the solution?
Could you talk for a moment about this possible outcome regarding the rape—what if there is a pregnancy? Are you suggesting it is an automatic abortion? What about "date rape"? . Should that "thing" be aborted?
Todd Akin is an idiot who was helped along to win the primary by the forces of Clair McCaskil. So, was pushing this guy into the Senate contest on Senator McCaskil? What is her responsibility for creating this situation?
And, how far along does a conception have to be before the law says it is an actual human being, worthy of protection? And how far along for the majority of us to recognize its relationship to us as a fellow being.
Yes, Todd Akin should step down. Yes, almost all the Republicans I have read about agree with me. What is the metric here?
Thanks for listening,
Regards — Cliff
PS: THis version of Blogger Comments, in the print preview, tends to run off the right side of my screen, rather than doing "wrap around".
I hope you don't mind sharing some points to clarify. You're right, that he is on the team and the team needs to take responsibility for his words.
From those who practice Natural Family Planning, we fear that more people will misunderstand the science behind fertility awareness methods.
Akin perverted two issues in one gaffe, he minimized the trauma of rape and then cited the biological response to stress to dismiss the question at hand. Women, especially if they have just ovulated and the egg is in the viable stage of 12-24 hours for conception indeed can and do get pregnant from rape. Stress can postpone ovulation in a woman and extended stress may create an anovulatory cycle, if she has not yet ovulated.
Stress is a contributing factor, but a woman can not by choice postpone ovulation. You can only monitor and observe fertility patterns.
This may help clarify, the point I'm making.
The Science of Cervical Mucus
A little TMI, but us ladies really like our reproductive organs a lot.
"In an irregular cycle, it is usually the follicular phase (menstruation to ovulation) that varies. The ovarian follicles may mature quickly, with fertile mucus production (and therefore the potential for pregnancy if sexual intercourse occurs) beginning just a few days after menstruation begins, even while the woman is still bleeding. Alternatively, follicle maturation may be delayed and the fertile period may not begin for several weeks after menstruation. This can be caused by many factors, from hormonal imbalances that must be addressed by a gynecologist to simple, temporary problems like stress or illness. Even a perfectly healthy woman with perfect fertility may occasionally experience a delayed ovulation during times of high stress or if she becomes ill during the pre-ovulatory phase, even if fertile mucus production has already begun. If this is the case, the mucus may dry up temporarily without reaching a true Peak, or mucus production may simply continue for a few extra days before proceeding to a Peak. Therefore, it is important to learn to recognize a real Peak pattern and be alert to signs that ovulation has not yet occurred. A true Peak is usually characterized by a minimum of three days of fertile-type mucus that displays a changing, developing pattern ending in a slippery sensation, changing abruptly to a sensation of dryness or dampness. If ovulation is delayed by illness or stress and mucus production stops, it will usually resume within a few days of recovery."
Also to share there is a document from 2009 in regards to Catholic Teaching in treating victims of rape.
"A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization."
That means Plan B is acceptable even in the ER of Catholic Hospitals.
At this point in time pregnant can only be detected after implantation several days after conception. Even if we can confirm a woman has just ovulated, with a blood test that does not mean she will conceive. Anyone who has tried to get pregnant knows even if all the body parts are working, fertilization may not happen even if timing is perfect.
From a baby site... lost the original link.
"Only about 400 sperm will survive the arduous ten-hour journey to the egg, and only one will succeed in burrowing through its outer membrane."
-------------
There is a lot of discussion on the pro-life side of this, rape is rape and yet the product of rape can be life something we are called to defend in all stages until natural death. No one asks to be conceived, we do not will our own existence. We have no control, whether we are created out love or out of selfishness. And this is why rape is so heinous, compared to other forms of assault. The act of that brings on procreation has immense meaning and value, no one has the right to take advantage of it for personal gain.
I hope these two posts can clarify any concerns from the pro-life side.
I'm encouraged to learn certain American Catholic's position on Plan B in cases of rape, though I hesitate to presume that statement you offered would survive dogmatic review by the Pontiff. I'm adamant that, all religious interests aside, the decision of a woman should be inviolate regarding what she allows or doesn't allow the government to know about the proceedings between her and her physician. I respect the pro-life argument, and I share its premise and value of all life, but I reject wholly any presumption that such a belief should be forced upon any other. Yeah, it's hard, but it has to be that way or it's wrong.
And, it shall remain so for:
Seconds to minutes,
Minutes to hours,
Hours to days,
Post partum?
Just asking
Regards — Cliff
Cliff, Is it as much as when human life begins. I think there is a scientific consensus a human life begins at conception. A human blastocyst just doesn't magically appear implanted in the uterus.
The question is which one, mother or fetus has more rights?
For example, I'm a bone marrow match for one of kad barma's children. He can't force me to donate my bone marrow by court order, even if I'm fully aware that his child will die. Am I responsible for the child's death, because I refuse to give up my body for the child?
I have little to no obligation, because the government can not force me to do something with my body, aside to the fact I have no social obligation because it is not my child. Can we imagine a parent not donating their own bone marrow to their own child? The government has no recourse as well to force the parent to donate.
But parents do have legal obligations, and it does seem like a conflict that parents have an legal obligation for the child's well-being outside the womb but none inside.
I think this why partial-birth/late-term abortion is not socially approved, because once you get along to the point of 26 weeks of pregnancy why not just do an emergency c-section and let the child be adopted. Preemies have been increasingly good survival rates, but neo-natal ICU is very expensive so we just don't allow women to c-section as a matter of choice either once the point of vitality has been reached.
How many women who are tired of being pregnant at 38 weeks are told NO by their doctors, because even the last two weeks of a pregnancy is needed to improve lung maturity in an infant. It's not about the woman, when the pregnancy is a keeper, it is all about the baby.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home