|
|
|
|
#1
06-05-2013, 05:07 AM
|
|||
|
Odd lingo used in abortion debate.
While I know this thread will devolve into the actual debate, I'm not posting this to argue towards or against abortion itself, I can't help but notice whenever the discussion of abortion happens you consistently see the subtopic brought up about "Victims of rape and victims of incest".
Why are these treated as two distinct separate categories? If someone is a 'victim' of incest and it results into a pregnancy is it a stretch to call that a subcategory of rape? If the incest was consensual then the female involved isn't a 'victim' so why is there the special categorization? Prease exprain. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#2
06-05-2013, 05:27 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
I've only heard this kind of language in a political context. Not a philosophical or legal one, where people define their terminology with much greater precision. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#3
06-05-2013, 05:41 AM
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
| ||||
|
|
|||||
|
#5
06-05-2013, 06:02 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Vanderbilt, Heidi. (1992, February). "Incest: A Chilling Report." Lears, p. 49-77. The reason is probably because a lot of people still equate rape with a guy jumping out of a dark alley and ripping cloths off a stranger (even though its a minority of rape cases). So specifying incest appears more broad. Politicians use language that sounds good to a huge unintellectual audience. They aren't going to bog themselves down with semantical technicalities. Generally they spend time trying to avoid stating specifics. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#6
06-05-2013, 06:05 AM
|
|||
|
You're right about the 'semantical technicalities' part for sure. Perhaps I should be less focused on the proper use of language and more focused on it being another example of politicians betting on the masses' ignorance and them consistently winning such bets.
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#7
06-05-2013, 09:31 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Anyway, Kagatob, keep your hands off the kids. Incest is regarded as especially heinous and receives special emphasis because its gross and produces genetically redundant babies no one will ever love. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#8
06-05-2013, 10:08 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
it also does not imply unwilling participants. there's another word for that: rape. therefore, incest does not imply "victims" when two adults agree to have consensual intercourse, whether for the purpose of recreation or procreation, it's still just that. whether the participants are related or not is irrelevant. the word incest is just a word used to add stigma and taboo to consensual intercourse. this is just an example of republicans controlling your mind through language in law. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#9
06-05-2013, 11:36 AM
|
|||||
|
Quote:
8-9 years ago when I first started at the company i worked for. I worked with a 40 year old woman who was inbred, her entire family lived on a farm and wouldn't leave. Several generations of inbreeding, they just kept to themselves and thats what it was eventually the state came and took the kids/seperated everyone. Anyway this women had loads of mental issues and was one of the "worst" clients of the agency, in terms of violence and unpredictability. She had a daughter, her brother raped her and impregnated her and she carried to term gave birth and around that time is when the state came in and took the child into custody. She told me that she didn't blame her brother, which to this day I don't understand, she said it wasn't his fault he didn't know what he was doing something along those lines. When I met her daughter I was beyond shocked after hearing about the family history, she was a normal 13 year old girl. I say normal as in after quite a bit of psychiatric testing they found she had no dysfunction, no mental illness, no emotional issues, a normal IQ for a 13 year old girl and looked physically normal you would never have known her parents were siblings if someone hadn't told you.
__________________
Quote:
| ||||
|
|
|||||
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
