T1B

Van, if you want to post a link and trumpet it's conclusions, you better be able to back it up.

The OJoOG may have performed a survey, but their projections and estimates are complete BULLSHIT.

To begin with, out of 4008 random women, how many do you think get raped over the course of a three year period?

lol

They have no legitimate sample by which to make the overall U.S. projections they made.

M Club wrote:I'm not sure if you understand how the social sciences work but surveying 300,000,000 people isn't part of anyone's job description.

Who says it is?

M Club wrote:traumatic stress doesn't effect whether or not an egg's making its way down the fallopian slide toward some rape sperm.

Of course it does. That is what hormones do.

Your dumbfuck "raped broads don't get preggers"

I never said anything of the sort. I said they were less likely to get pregnant.

poptart wrote: To begin with, out of 4008 random women, how many do you think get raped over the course of a three year period?

the abstract doesn't say how the women were chosen and i'm not spending the $30 to find out. i'm going to go with it survived peer review, though.

mvscal wrote:

M Club wrote:traumatic stress doesn't effect whether or not an egg's making its way down the fallopian slide toward some rape sperm.

Of course it does. That is what hormones do.

Oh mah bad. I should have said already sliding down a fallopian tube. Otherwise, will have to weigh a doctor's word (with an agenda, no doubt) with a racist in his basement's word.

“If a woman’s ovaries have already released an egg, she’s just as likely to get pregnant from a rape as she would be from a voluntary encounter,” Dr. Barbara Levy, vice president for health policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told NBC News. “From the biological standpoint, a woman is at risk for pregnancy if she’s at a vulnerable point in her menstrual cycle when the rape occurs.”

Must be some evil liberal conspiracy against rapists or something.

And furthermore, how often women who are "legitimately" raped get preggers is completely irrelevant. Homeboy was justifying his no exceptions policy on abortion by claiming it doesn't happen very often, which is of little concern to a woman who's actually pregnant from rape.

M Club wrote:the abstract doesn't say how the women were chosen and i'm not spending the $30 to find out. i'm going to go with it survived peer review, though.

I didn't ask you how you think the women were chosen.

I said if 4008 random women were chosen, how many do you think would get raped over a three year period?


The left's hysteria over republican Akin's awkward and stupid comments are predictable.

They'll be going ape shit over it for years to come, yet their own VP sputters 'bout as stupid and inflammatory bit of rhetoric as possible ("They'll put y'all back in chains") and they pretend to barely notice.



I don't agree with Akin that rape victims should be forced to carry to term, but his view is infinitely more moral than the view the death freaks champion.

Death freak outrage over the view that rape victims should be forced to carry to term shows that their mind is completely warped and they are FAR beyond sickly deranged.

Let's assume that the numbers Van cited are valid and that 32,000 rape victims become pregnant each year.

It's cited in that same survey that 60% of these currently end up aborted - almost 20,000.

So we have 12,000 raped women a year that would be forced to carry to term if Akin had his way.

But we know that if abortion was illegal, what half or more of these women would abort illegally, anyway?

So we're down to around 6,000 rape victims a year who would be forced to carry to term if Akin had his way.


Shit, you ridiculous freaks, that many living fetuses are SLAUGHTERED in just two days.

Two friggin' days. lol

Jsc wrote:But don't try to force your fucking morals on the rest of us.

Stop forcing your fucking morals on us!

- 1 million of us each year

poptart wrote:

M Club wrote:the abstract doesn't say how the women were chosen and i'm not spending the $30 to find out. i'm going to go with it survived peer review, though.

I didn't ask you how you think the women were chosen.

I said if 4008 random women were chosen, how many do you think would get raped over a three year period?

680, apparently. Whoooo, math.

The left's hysteria over republican Akin's awkward and stupid comments are predictable.

Wow, profound observation. If it's cold outside people will wear coats. Soooooo predictable. Outrage is a totally invalid response since it was the second part of a causal relationship.

They'll be going ape shit over it for years to come, yet their own VP sputters 'bout as stupid and inflammatory bit of rhetoric as possible ("They'll put y'all back in chains") and they pretend to barely notice.

Biden's a transparent dumbfuck. That's not up for dispute. The difference is that he's just a rarely-used tie-breaking Senate vote trying to scare people into voting for his fuck-you-in-the-ass team rather than the other fuck-you-in-the-butt team whereas Akin sits on the House Committee on Science and is using pseudo-science to push his extreme social agenda on people who were, of all things, raped.

I don't agree with Akin that rape victims should be forced to carry to term, but his view is infinitely more moral than the view the death freaks champion.

There are generally zero morals behind any one-size-fits-all standard.

Death freak outrage over the view that rape victims should be forced to carry to term shows that their mind is completely warped and they are FAR beyond sickly deranged.

Let's assume that the numbers Van cited are valid and that 32,000 rape victims become pregnant each year.

It's cited in that same survey that 60% of these currently end up aborted - almost 20,000.

So we have 12,000 raped women a year that would be forced to carry to term if Akin had his way.

But we know that if abortion was illegal, what half or more of these women would abort illegally, anyway?

So we're down to around 6,000 rape victims a year who would be forced to carry to term if Akin had his way.


Shit, you ridiculous freaks, that many living fetuses are SLAUGHTERED in just two days.

Two friggin' days. lol

Your moral calculus makes no sense. Stop drinking so much wine at church.

Significant quantities of stupid in this thread.

M Club wrote:

poptart wrote:

M Club wrote:the abstract doesn't say how the women were chosen and i'm not spending the $30 to find out. i'm going to go with it survived peer review, though.

I didn't ask you how you think the women were chosen.

I said if 4008 random women were chosen, how many do you think would get raped over a three year period?

680, apparently. Whoooo, math.

Math fail.


http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?ei=U ... Wy3OqKmw--


The U.S. rape rate in 2011 was 27 rapes per 100,000 population.

If you took 1000 people, .27 rapes would be expected to occur among them in one year.

If you took 4000 people, just over 1 rape would be expected to occur among them in a given year.


680 rapes in 3 years?

LOL


The survey that Van posted does not make sense.

I mean, were all of the 4008 women they surveyed already rape victims?

It doesn't read that way, but it's the only way the numbers they have there make any sense.


OBJECTIVE: We attempted to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from rape. STUDY DESIGN: A national probability sample of 4008 adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes.

KC Scott wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:

KC Scott wrote:
You wonder why tax and spend libs win elections?

you mean as opposed to no tax and spend just as much conservatives?

well played

Except that he's completely wrong... as usual.


Under Bush, federal expenditures averaged 2.3 trillion a year.

Under Barry, federal expenditures have averaged 3.5 trillion a year.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts ... ?Docid=200

Can we get a [g][/g] up in this bitch? Poptard you are a real asshole.

Funny how all the Republitard politicians are distancing themselves from Akins' remarks without actually repudiating or even disagreeing with what he said. "A poor choice of words." Wow that's powerful.

So, let's summarize what we know so far. The mvscromagnonwagons believe that,

• There's no such thing as rape unless the woman is physically and violently forced into sex.
  If a woman shows no signs of physical injury after a "rape" she must have brought it on herself, in which case it's not a rape.
  If the act results in pregnancy, it couldn't have been rape because the reproductive system shuts down in the case of "real" rape.
  If a woman is pregnant she wasn't raped, therefore the whole issue of a rape exception in any abortion ban is moot.
  The only mistake Akins made was calling any rape "legitimate." A poor choice of words.
  We're not even discussing incest. In most cases it's the daughter's fault for tempting her old man.

poptart wrote: Math fail.

680 rapes in 3 years?

LOL

Er...

RESULTS:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion.

Seems pretty straight forward, from the study anyhow.

The survey that Van posted does not make sense.

I mean, were all of the 4008 women they surveyed already rape victims?

It doesn't read that way, but it's the only way the numbers they have there make any sense.

Which is why I said I'm not spending $30 to figure out their methodology.

http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?ei=U ... Wy3OqKmw--


The U.S. rape rate in 2011 was 27 rapes per 100,000 population.

If you took 1000 people, .27 rapes would be expected to occur among them in one year.

If you took 4000 people, just over 1 rape would be expected to occur among them in a given year.

You think only 80,000 rapes occur annually in the States? Brother-sister rape in Alabamar is probably double that. From your link:

According to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime.[4][5]

The most common reasons given by victims for not reporting rapes are the belief that it is a personal or private matter, and that they fear reprisal from the assailant. A 2007 government report in England says "Estimates from research suggest that between 75 and 95 percent of rape crimes are never reported to the police."

poptart wrote:The U.S. rape rate in 2011 was 27 rapes per 100,000 population.

OK, but that population includes both men & women. Assuming equal numbers of both sexes (even though females slightly outnumber males), and also assuming that all the rapes being counted are men raping women (even though men rape men, women rape men, and, I suppose, women rape women), you can probably also assume that the rate is closer to 54 per 100K women. Still, that doesn't yield the numbers in the study Van cited.

680 rapes in 3 years?

LOL


The survey that Van posted does not make sense.

I mean, were all of the 4008 women they surveyed already rape victims?

It doesn't read that way, but it's the only way the numbers they have there make any sense.

That's right, and it does read that way if you read the study's objective carefully. It has to be that way to compute the rate the study seeks to determine.

OBJECTIVE: We attempted to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from rape. STUDY DESIGN: A national probability sample of 4008 adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes.

To determine a rape-related pregnancy rate, the sample of the population being studied must meet the criteria of the study. In this case, all subjects would've had to have been raped.

Jsc810 wrote:When Republicans lose in November, and they will, remember this.

Hardly. Chick-fil-A is probably going to organize a "legitimate rape appreciation so let's get out the vote" rally for Repubz across the country.

Jsc810 wrote:If she doesn't give consent, it is rape. This should be a simple concept.

Except for statutory rape, correct?

Python wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:If she doesn't give consent, it is rape. This should be a simple concept.

Except for statutory rape, correct?

By legal definition, someone below the age of consent cannot legally consent, so technically, there is no exception.

mvscal wrote:Of course it does. That is what hormones do.

Women have been raped and beaten and owned and treated like chattle for 1000s of years so any argument that their bodies can somehow tell a violent rape from your everyday 14th Century sex encounter is absurd.

So statutory rape and forceable rape should be treated the same? Or are you saying there are degrees of punishment, based on the type of rape?

Python wrote:So statutory rape and forceable rape should be treated the same? Or are you saying there are degrees of punishment, based on the type of rape?

There are degrees of rape, for which the punishments vary. In many states, statutory rape is a felony only if one of the participants (usually a male) is at least three years older than the other; otherwise, it is a misdemeanor.

In some states, first degree rape may consist of rape accompanied by severe physical injuries. First degree rape carries a harsher punishment than second degree rape, which may involve no physical injuries beyond the rape itself.

So you can rape someone and it's only a misdemeanor. It's not rape-rape as Whoopi would say.

PS You know an awful lot about statutory rape. Just sayin'.
PSS I never thought I'd type the word rape so many times in one post.

Python wrote:So statutory rape and forceable rape should be treated the same? Or are you saying there are degrees of punishment, based on the type of rape?

Of course there should be different levels of punishment.

For statutory rape the girl should have to bear the child and then give it up for adoption.
For non-legitimate rape the woman must have at least consented or even used her feminine wiles to exert an irresistable sexual attraction, so she should be sentenced to bear the child and raise it.
For legitimate rape she won't (can't) get pregnant, so the injuries incurred when trying to fight off the rapist should be sufficient punishment.

Python wrote:So you can rape someone and it's only a misdemeanor.

Only if it's statutory; don't think there's such a thing as misdemeanor forcible rape. But wait...the law gets even more interesting. Ever see boxing footage where both fighters simultaneously land knockout punches? Well...

If two 16-year-olds engage in sexual intercourse, in many states each could be prosecuted for statutory rape.

Mutual rape. Hmmm...

It's not rape-rape as Whoopi would say.

I've seldom, if ever, found myself caring about anything Whoopi says.

PS You know an awful lot about statutory rape. Just sayin'.

Uh, yeah...right. A friend told me all about it. Yeah, that's it.

Smackie Chan wrote:I've seldom, if ever, found myself caring about anything Whoopi says.

Yep. And I don't give a flying flip what this Akin guy, or whatever his name is, says either. And I can't believe anybody else does either. You can't take the beliefs of one person and project them onto an entire group. I don't care if that person is a celebrity, a politician, a pastor or a painter. Unfortunately, that's what most people do.

Python wrote:You can't take the beliefs of one person and project them onto an entire group.

Sure I can. And so can you. After all, you even admitted...

that's what most people do.

So why deny yourself one of life's simple pleasures?

Smackie Chan wrote:So why deny yourself one of life's simple pleasures?

I still GMJO. I'm good.

Python wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:So why deny yourself one of life's simple pleasures?

I still GMJO.

I'm sure Whoopi will be flattered to know this.

I'm good.

So give yourself a hand.

Wait...too late.

Sudden Sam wrote:Her makeup artist

...should be fired.

Smackie Chan wrote:Mutual rape. Hmmm...

Hmmm? It's more like "Mmmmmm...."

Python wrote:You can't take the beliefs of one person and project them onto an entire group. I don't care if that person is a celebrity, a politician, a pastor or a painter.

Well, fuck. There goes that idea.

Python wrote: And I can't believe anybody else does either.

He's a voting congressmen you fucking halfwit.

Van wrote:

Python wrote:You can't take the beliefs of one person and project them onto an entire group. I don't care if that person is a celebrity, a politician, a pastor or a painter.

Well, fuck. There goes that idea.

-Jesus

Py didn't say anything about Jewish carpenters.

Moving Sale wrote:

Python wrote: And I can't believe anybody else does either.

He's a voting congressmen you fucking halfwit.

This thread is awesome.

Moving Sale wrote:He's a voting congressmen you fucking halfwit.

Unfortunately, there are tons of voting congressmen who are morons and I don't pay attention to any of them when they make idiotic statements.

That is because you are a fucking halfwit.

Van wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

Python wrote: And I can't believe anybody else does either.

He's a voting congressmen you fucking halfwit.

This thread is awesome.

Blow it out your ass fuckface.

Shit, I was complimenting you, ya moron!



And the expression goes, "Blow it out your ass, motorcycle man!"

I don't want a rep as a Van jockrider so I took the appropriate action.

KC Scott wrote:What about rape when all 6 parties are consenting adults 18 or over and one just happens to be a teacher

She is not charged with rape you cocksucking fuckhole.