Republican Senate Nominee: Victims Of ‘Legitimate Rape’ Don’t Get Pregnant

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

well I think the "intended to die" part could be debated, unless of course you are an advocate of smoking and drinking and doing crack during pregnancy....

I don't follow you there. You're saying that all premie births are the result of drug abuse? As pointed out there are now massive, expensive interventions being made for extremely premature births that until very recently in human history would have simply been considered normal miscarriages. A lot of those babies have serious health problems even if they do survive. Not every fetus was intended by nature to survive to become a baby even if the woman is taking care of herself.

No, of course not, but it does happen. The point, in case you missed it, was that a woman is responsible for caring for her unborn, and actions can hurt the baby. Before you go all ballistic on me, I believe that women generally have the instinct for helping the baby to survive, but there are women who are addicted to drugs who get pregnant. It is not malicious. If you feel like arguing this point, just research women's health issues and you will see there are plenty of advocates for helping women take better care of themselves during pregnancy.
We just can't assume that all premies are caused by a malfunction of genetic code.

Anyway, the whole point of my post was to give food for thought on the "intended to die" argument posed by another.
Are we "intended to die" by design when GMO foods gives us frankenfoods that cause illness?

Originally posted by pajoly

Originally posted by seagull
Let the stereotyping begin...

Oh, wait, it has...pity.

Yes the comments were outrageously stupid...god yes they were. Certainly worthy of a "WTF did he just say?" moment, or even two. He'd certainly have lost my vote...assuming for a moment I'd have been contemplating voting for him in the first place.

Honestly now... Dems don't say equally stupid things? Really? Honesty should compel some of you to at least pretend to search for living breathing examples of Dem stupidity...

Honestly? No they don't. There's a difference between a gaff and complete and total stupidity. I challenge you find me ONE quote example of any Democrat running for Congress or Senate in the last 20 years or currently occupying one of those elective offices that is even remotely as ignorant as that.

Second, admit it, you and your Right wing friends WILL (if you are residents of Missouri) vote for that guy before you'll vote for a Democrat. For members of the far Right, the good of the country never factors into decision making, only what is good for their insane tribe.

I don't like either party in general. I like candidates that want to end our wars, end the assault on our civil liberties, end globalism and the assault on the American worker. I don't care which side they may be on.

Yes, Virginia Democrats say some REALLY stupid things too. Here is Georgia Democrat congressman Hank Johnson who believes that the island of Guam will "tip over" with over population from adding a military base.

I mean really, is that man a moron? My apologies to any real moron that takes offense at being characterized as that stupid.

you tube Hank Johnson believes the island of Guam will tip over.

reply to post by Indigo5

As female I am very glad to see the attention this post is getting... The "what's wrong with this picture" is very clear.
This is not even so much a political issue as it is an ignorant zealot he feels the need to basically blame a female for her pregnancy from a rape, stating (legitimate) as if there are thousands of women running around crying rape everyday, which is quite the opposite, many are never reported due to the shame associated, the second is a woman's body has the capacity to take care of the problem if it is a real rape, stating basically that if the woman is raped she will not be pregnant if a woman claims to have been raped and is pregnant she is a liar. This whole thing is just #ing stupid. I would love to chat with the Dr.'s whom he claims to glean his insight from but I am pretty sure they don't have internet in Papua New Guinea

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Are you saying the definition of life is possession of a beating heart? Please cite the source where this is stated to be a universally accepted definition. Last I knew there has been no universally agreed definition of what "life" is. This statement is your opinion. It is not my opinion.

What about when doctors test an artificial heart before they perform surgery and it starts beating - is the heart now "alive" and an independent person because it is beating? What if we put an artificial heart into an inanimate object - is it now alive? Or do only real hearts count? In which case does that make a transplant patient no longer alive?

The heart test is a poor measure for what constitutes life. What is more certain is the viability of an embryo outside of the mother (zero viability) and the viability of a fetus prior to a certain number of weeks. These are universally accepted facts. It is no accident that the word "viable" comes from the Latin "vita" which means "life." Not viable = not life. It seems pretty straightforward to me. If the mother is able and willing to bring the fetus to a viable state then it becomes life. If she is not, than it doesn't. You can not like it but you can't force it to be any other way than the way nature designed. Unless you prefer women to be like sows in breeding pens, caged up to produce a litter for their breeders.

I am also a woman so I too get to say these things.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The point, in case you missed it, was that a woman is responsible for caring for her unborn,

Yes, that's the point exactly. A woman is responsible for caring for (or not caring for) her unborn and short of putting all fertile women in concentration camps there's nothing the government can really do about that regardless of what laws are passed.

Seems politicians of all nations are on a different planet. Let's find this planet and blow it up

well played potato, well played

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by de_Genova

 

Oh sorry, I meant for other people to read your post and get educated....that's what I meant. No it wasn't backhanded I was being honest, your exactly right from what you said. My reply was more towards showing other people the truth even though they wont accept it.

edit on 20-8-2012 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)

Thank you............

reply to post by neo96


Such a noble man, so noble in fact that he was one of only 5 congressmen to vote against a program to give needy children, lunches in school.

That he thinks this rich country doesn't need to feed any needy children.

Usual hypocrite, wants a kid to be born to parents who can't afford to take care of them, but will remove any means to do so, so the child starves, is neglected, and lives a wretched life in the meantime.

It is not Christian to only worry about fetus rights.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I believe life begins at conception, therefor I wouldn't have an abortion (even in the case of rape), unless it threatened my health. But I want that choice for myself and I believe every woman should have it.

Somewhat agree, but have to ask...define your terms?

"Life"?...a cancerous tumor is alive, cell division and all, and as you pointed out germs? bacteria? ad infinium?

I think the more important question is how we differentiate "life" from sentient-human "life".

For me, personally...and I will ask no one to agree, ...almost all miscarriages occur in the first 12 weeks, about 25% of "known" pregnancies end in misscarriage, with many doctors pegging the rate closer to 50% since many miscarriages occur in the first 4 weeks and can are often missed or confused as a heavy period.

After the first 12 weeks the rate of miscarriage falls from 25-50% to less than one half of one percent.

That is a striking change IMO and is representitive of when the human body dramatically changes it's willingness to abort...form 25%-50% of conceptions to virtually zero, in the span of a week or so.

Where once the woman's body was very quick to abort via miscarriage for the slightest of imbalances, suddenly the body will do everything neccessary to support that "being"...even putting the mother at risk in certain circumstances.

If I had to guess I would say that the fetus becomes "sentient" life at that time. 12 weeks.

Again just my opinion..

reply to post by nixie_nox


You might want to revise that "rich" part of your statement, as we are currently borrowing money from China to give to other countries, including China.

reply to post by Indigo5


As far as I know, a cancerous tumor does not have a beating heart, and later on a brain, fingers and toes, genitalia....

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

You might want to revise that "rich" part of your statement, as we are currently borrowing money from China to give to other countries, including China.

Wonder if it is the "Christian" thing to do to borrow money from those who kill their children so that some can claim moral superiority to feed someone elses here.

reply to post by Indigo5

Originally posted by Indigo5
"Life"?...a cancerous tumor is alive, cell division and all, and as you pointed out germs? bacteria? ad infinium?

Yes.

If I had to guess I would say that the fetus becomes "sentient" life at that time. 12 weeks.

And I would decline to guess. Nor would I presume to make my guess (if I did guess) apply to anyone else. It is my opinion that as long as the fetus is dependent on the woman for its life functions, she can choose to stop supporting it.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Wan't my statement, was Akin's.
And the Federal Reserve holds the majority of US debt. A combination of investors hold an equal amount to China, and Japan is third in line.

I have no idea what you are referring too though.

reply to post by neo96


You are not making any sense.

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

You might want to revise that "rich" part of your statement, as we are currently borrowing money from China to give to other countries, including China.

Wonder if it is the "Christian" thing to do to borrow money from those who kill their children so that some can claim moral superiority to feed someone elses here.

Yes, and that, to borrow from their own children's children's children to do it.

Can't resist, forgive me

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Indigo5

 

As far as I know, a cancerous tumor does not have a beating heart, and later on a brain, fingers and toes, genitalia....

And niether does a Zygote at conception? and "later on" is an acknowledgement that "brains, fingers, toes, genitalia are not developed yet.

If you plan to define sentient human life based purely on future/potential qualities that do not yet exist and have a 25%-50% chance of being aborted through natural mechanisms in the first tri-mester... then...every sperm is sacred? Or God almost kills half of all babies on a whim? I don't buy it.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Wan't my statement, was Akin's.
And the Federal Reserve holds the majority of US debt. A combination of investors hold an equal amount to China, and Japan is third in line.

I have no idea what you are referring too though.

You don't know that we are so much in debt that we are borrowing from China? When we have to borrow from foreign countries and then turn around and give it to other countries as foreign aid, or to the UN to fight poverty, you must know something is wrong. Sure the Fed holds most of the debt, but if we could afford not to, why are we borrowing from China?
What I am saying is we can no longer afford to run up such large deficits. It is absurd to have so much borrowed debt without trimming our costs.