Well the fact is, like anyone else, he may have gone either way. But a traumatic experience early in life forced his hand on making a decision. At that point he still could have gone either way. But as a victim a few things happen.

First it makes him question whether he is or isn't long before his body or emotions are able to deal with this kind of mature decision. Second, he is a victim, which means it's natural to rebel against that which assaulted him. And as he matures, it's natural to form some hate against that assault.

What he needs to learn is to disassociate. He has made an association between a gay person and a person that sexually assaults other people, particularly pedophiles. He doesn't see clearly as the trauma of his assault is still blinding him. To let his traumatic childhood carry over as an assault on an entire group of people is not only wrong, it's clinically incompetent.

Also at the end of the video, the narrator says that "although [Beth had made progress, she would still need extensive therapy." I do agree that loving support was an important part of how and why she got the help she did, but it was the treatment that helped her. There's just no way she would have recovered if her parents just focused their love and support on her and hoped for the best; a mind with this kind of pathology needs more than that.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^RhesusMonk:
This is a nice thought, and while I agree that this may be applicable to most, this story seems to be about kids (Beth and the others in the home she eventually moved into) who have a programming defect. The trauma so early in her life stifled an essential step in the socialization of the brain as it developed biologically. Love isn't enough to get past that.>> ^Yogi:


I agree but I think we can also fix ourselves and find our love to become well adjusted. Different people react differently, some go through the horrors of hell and come out better than most would. We should work hard at helping people find their love rather than writing them off as "spoiled" (Not that I'm suggesting you did that I just see that some people do).


If you catch the end of the documentary, Beth does respond to the love and care of others, develops a conscience and self-awareness of her behavior, and is repentant of her former actions. As it mentioned, she still needed extensive help, but the concerted effort by caring individuals, and the steady support of her loving family, was turning Beth around.

>> ^RhesusMonk:
This is a nice thought, and while I agree that this may be applicable to most, this story seems to be about kids (Beth and the others in the home she eventually moved into) who have a programming defect. The trauma so early in her life stifled an essential step in the socialization of the brain as it developed biologically. Love isn't enough to get past that.>> ^Yogi:


I agree but I think we can also fix ourselves and find our love to become well adjusted. Different people react differently, some go through the horrors of hell and come out better than most would. We should work hard at helping people find their love rather than writing them off as "spoiled" (Not that I'm suggesting you did that I just see that some people do).



If you catch the end of the documentary, Beth does respond to the love and care of others, develops a conscience and self-awareness of her behavior, and is repentant of her former actions. As it mentioned, she still needed extensive help, but the concerted effort by caring individuals, and the steady support of her loving family, was turning Beth around.

This is a nice thought, and while I agree that this may be applicable to most, this story seems to be about kids (Beth and the others in the home she eventually moved into) who have a programming defect. The trauma so early in her life stifled an essential step in the socialization of the brain as it developed biologically. Love isn't enough to get past that.>> ^Yogi:


I agree but I think we can also fix ourselves and find our love to become well adjusted. Different people react differently, some go through the horrors of hell and come out better than most would. We should work hard at helping people find their love rather than writing them off as "spoiled" (Not that I'm suggesting you did that I just see that some people do).

Sorry, like I told Jimms I have OCD and now that I have the free time I am going through un-replied comments... Its 5 AM and I can't sleep! I have issues...

The only part that I am confused about here is that Paul's position on abortion is like the elderly family members you mention shoving their point of view down your throat but not passing and not enforcing laws on everyone elses' behalf. He would advocate for State's to make "moral" laws but would not provide a federal law to blanket everybody.

In other words, if the federal government banned abortion like they did gay marriage, Paul would seek to rescind that law. And conservatives would be in an uproar because some States would make abortion legal. (California's laws on Pot sound an awful lot similar to the argument I make here... He would lift the ban.) He would be termed very liberal for that opinion. So it stands that I am confused...

>> ^peggedbea:

I feel like I may have already addressed this a few comments up.
It's the pro-life rhetorical devices he's using. I get an innocent slip of the tongue. I make them constantly. But it's all adding up to a picture of a misogynistic, rascist old dinosaur. And maybe he's even misogynistic and rascist in the way my elderly family members are. I love them anyway and over look their archaic viewpoint an awful lot, but I don't want them making, passing and enforcing laws on everyone elses behalf.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I respect your opinion on this matter peggedbea, so I will ask. In my above comments I note that he probably messed up the wording--what do you think? We all use prefaces, or nervous words when speaking, especially about difficult subjects. And sometimes we come off wrong. Change his words around a bit and they sound fine--dopey, but not malicious.
Your boss probably said, "Well, if she is honestly sick" or a church goer "If he honestly tries to work hard and can't afford the bills then I don't mind helping."
(And if there is more in that 40 minute video that contradicts me, well, I do have a life and am not going to watch it, so point it out plz. That goes for anyone too.)
>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

See, this is why I love Louis CK. I remember watching this the first time (on my $5 copy of this show ) and thinking, "That's a bit wrong, because the baby will take your inflection and feeling and start feeling bad and.... Oooooh, look, he just mentioned that... tee hee, that's funny"

He does that extra bit of thinking that crap comics don't, and makes it funnier for it. A crap comic would just stop at the etch a sketch point, and ignore the deep, psychological trauma you're causing the baby. Louis doesn't, he acknowledges that and makes it hilarious

"It's obviously left a scar on his soul as he remembers it all quite vividly despite having been only 4 years of age when war broke out."

Or he filled in the blanks over the years with other stories and/or lies. Not saying it wasn't horrible and trauma inducing, just pointing out he's human.

Yet another example of a numinous experience caused by severe mental trauma. This is exactly what I theorise happened to you, as I mentioned in one of our previous conversations. This lends some support to it. We are genetically predisposed to seek guidance from authority figures, and the worse our condition, the more we seek it out. Being at death's door is the weakest condition possible, and add to that mental trauma, and the brain makes up whatever idea it needs to survive at that moment, and it seems real.

Also, if God wants us to know him so bad, why does he have to attack us with jellyfish first? He can either let us know outright he's there, or leave us a few clues and hope we put the pieces together ourselves. There's no need for torture.

It's all about marketing and that's what is so pathetic about the whole deal.

You can't know there is a god, and by the same token, you can't know that there isn't one. The only SANE answer is that we don't know. Which is the definition of agnosticism.

The problem is, in today's world, admitting you don't know something is perceived as a weakness, which is why, in my opinion, very few people would identify as an agnostic even though it more accurately describes what's going on.

American media loves conflict so they set it up as a fake battle. Theists and Atheists duking it out when it couldn't be further than the truth and it's set up in such a way that even if Atheists win, we're just going to trade one set of asshole tyrants for another. There are too many people out there who simply want revenge against Christianity for the trauma they've inflicted on a docile populace and if those types of people come into power, we're not really improving for the better. You're just trading one dogma for another.

I find it outrageous and appalling that individuals who have not had to go through this kind of heartbreaking trauma would try to interfere in the matter based on personal or religious bias.

As a parent of a 13 year old girl who has been diagnosed in a permanent vegetative teenage state, I know the pain these parents are going through. Although my wife and I still hold out hope that our daughter will some day overcome her persistent apathy and disgust of her parents and regain some level of conscious awareness, I can fully sympathize with the choice these parents have had to make.

I cannot accept that the instances of whining or antogonizing her little brother are just unconscious responses and not signs of awareness, as the medical professionals warn us. But still, there are doubts. I know there may yet come a day when we have to accept the reality that our daughter will never again be the vibrant and thoughtful person she once was and confront a painful decision. If we one day have to make the same medical choice these parents have, I hope that we can be allowed to do what must be done and deal with our grief without the interference of well meaning but misguided strangers.

I feel like I may have already addressed this a few comments up.
It's the pro-life rhetorical devices he's using. I get an innocent slip of the tongue. I make them constantly. But it's all adding up to a picture of a misogynistic, rascist old dinosaur. And maybe he's even misogynistic and rascist in the way my elderly family members are. I love them anyway and over look their archaic viewpoint an awful lot, but I don't want them making, passing and enforcing laws on everyone elses behalf.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I respect your opinion on this matter peggedbea, so I will ask. In my above comments I note that he probably messed up the wording--what do you think? We all use prefaces, or nervous words when speaking, especially about difficult subjects. And sometimes we come off wrong. Change his words around a bit and they sound fine--dopey, but not malicious.
Your boss probably said, "Well, if she is honestly sick" or a church goer "If he honestly tries to work hard and can't afford the bills then I don't mind helping."
(And if there is more in that 40 minute video that contradicts me, well, I do have a life and am not going to watch it, so point it out plz. That goes for anyone too.)
>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

>> ^spoco2:

It's a pretty indefensible position he's taking.
He's saying:
"If you can bring yourself to front up to a hospital/clinic fast enough that the sperm haven't even reached the egg yet, I'll be ok with you stopping the sperm being able to fertilise the egg"
"But in all other cases, well, you've obviously taken too long, it's now 'a life' and I've backed myself into a corner saying I can't condone that... so tough"
He's trying to make out like he has a heart and is giving an option for women who have been honestly raped.
Heaven forbid that they take some time to get over the trauma, or have a hard time building the courage to ask for the treatment... nope, in his world it's just a routine procedure they should get done after an apparent routine rape.
Fucking hell... why again do people think he's the messiah?


Did I watch a different video then everyone here? He said at 7 months...its a bit different...vastly different than the way you note it. Seriously, wtf am I missing? And if someone says he implied something I got a problem with that.

Basically, "Emergency contraceptive okay even if it is a life. Don't wait till you're about to have the baby." That's it from this vid. He doesn't say anything about waiting a week to get the courage and lose out, or a month or two.

Otherwise he would (If I recall) leave it to the states (Which means, in effect, make it 1000% legal to have an abortion. Maybe a bit inconvenient for those who live in some states that outlaw it, but then crossing the border of one state to another isn't an outright prohibition.)

I respect your opinion on this matter peggedbea, so I will ask. In my above comments I note that he probably messed up the wording--what do you think? We all use prefaces, or nervous words when speaking, especially about difficult subjects. And sometimes we come off wrong. Change his words around a bit and they sound fine--dopey, but not malicious.

Your boss probably said, "Well, if she is honestly sick" or a church goer "If he honestly tries to work hard and can't afford the bills then I don't mind helping."

(And if there is more in that 40 minute video that contradicts me, well, I do have a life and am not going to watch it, so point it out plz. That goes for anyone too.)

>> ^peggedbea:

it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

I disagree. He's discussing what HE SEES as a way around a system that outlaws abortion period. A system that he is on record, in favor of, btw.

In the cases of "honest rape" he is not opposed to emergency contraception. The phrase "honest rape" is anti-woman, victim blamey, proto-fascist rhetoric. I have 0 problem with his stance on emergency contraception. I also have no problem with a system that disallows late term abortion, except in cases when the mothers life is in danger. Late term abortion is ghastly. I'm against it. But "late term abortion" is also another pro-life rhetorical device. To make the entire arena of reproductive choice emotionally repulsive. The instances of late term abortions are extremely rare, but there's tons of hype about it out of the mouths of pro-lifers.

So, his rhetoric is abhorrent. Add this to his revisionist speeches in front of confederate flags, insanely rascist newsletters with his name on it, and I find it hard to believe that it's all an accident. I'm no longer buying that he's just a doting, old, confused by stander instead of a misogynistic, racist old dinosaur from the 1950's.

Oh, and as an OB/GYN, he should be WELL aware of the various psychological and emotional states of victims of sexual assaults. He should be well aware that we all don't just immediately rush over to the emergency room screaming "rape". And that just because we didn't do that, it doesn't mean we weren't "honestly" violated.
>> ^aurens:

To be frank, I think you (and others) are missing the point.
Ron Paul, as I see it, is addressing an obvious problem with a system that would allow medical treatment (early-stage abortion, or the prevention of pregnancy) only for rape victims, namely that you'd have to have a way of turning away (EDIT: and identifying) women who sought abortions for reasons other than rape. He's not suggesting a rubric for doing so (I don't think the interview format would have allowed him to), nor is he making any assumptions about the nature of rape victims or rapists. (Remember: he's a trained obstetrician-gynecologist. I'd bet he knows more about sexual assault than most of us do.) The phrase "honest rape" (yes, a terribly chosen phrase) is part of an attempt to address the problem described above, one which he didn't adequately explain.>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

It's a pretty indefensible position he's taking.

He's saying:

"If you can bring yourself to front up to a hospital/clinic fast enough that the sperm haven't even reached the egg yet, I'll be ok with you stopping the sperm being able to fertilise the egg"

"But in all other cases, well, you've obviously taken too long, it's now 'a life' and I've backed myself into a corner saying I can't condone that... so tough"

He's trying to make out like he has a heart and is giving an option for women who have been honestly raped.

Heaven forbid that they take some time to get over the trauma, or have a hard time building the courage to ask for the treatment... nope, in his world it's just a routine procedure they should get done after an apparent routine rape.

Fucking hell... why again do people think he's the messiah?