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

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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.

And here is about as complicaetd an answer as I can give. I do guess, but also acknowledge it is opinion without certaintity either religious or scientific. I also agree with the latter part of your statement, though I do believe that is likely ending a sentient life. Women were given this role, responsibility, authority by devine forces older than time itself. It is thier choice to make whatever the implications. That said, it is still my opinion that life begins at the 12/13 week mark.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I am aware of the debt and the money borrowed, and more than you apparently, since you think we only borrow from China.

And only 1% goes to foreign aid, hardly enough to make a dent.

I still don't see what that has to do with conservative hypocrisy that we want fetal rights, but forget about child rights.

Originally posted by Indigo5

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.

It has the full potential for life of a human being and everyone knows this. But at any rate, at 9 weeks it has a beating heart and that is the typical time when a woman realizes she is pregnant(due to obvious changes in her body such as not having a period, and various other changes that the pregnancy causes directly.

reply to post by neo96

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by neformore

 

The guy is anti abortion who is trying to save the life of a child(many of them) that has no capacity to fight back which makes him stupid,extremist etc.

Where a child was created by an act of violence then get's destroyed by another act of violence then condemned for having an opinion on the subject.

The guy has a right to have opinions just like anyone else is people are free to agree or disagree.

edit on 19-8-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

I agree that he has his right to his opinions. I will leave the morality or ethics of abortion aside for the purposes of this response. However, he is more than a private citizen with an opinion.

He has the potential to be given a position of power. A position from which he will most assuredly try to force his...views(I use that word as mildly as possible) into legislation. That is despicable. His personal religious beliefs need to be left at his home. He needs to put the views of the people he represents ahead of his own convictions. If he would support the constituents that believe they need or want an abortion regardless of his private beliefs.....I would support him. Unfortunately, this is the Catch-22 of politics today. I don't think I have encountered a politician that puts the needs or wants of others above them self.


P.S.
I am adding this extra bit of text to say that all elected individuals should put their constituents ahead of themselves. I am not singling out Akin with my above statement.

reply to post by Blaine91555


And rape... isn't evil?

The woman in this case has no choice in the matter. She won't have wanted the rapists child. Its literally been forced on her.

Tell me how that's right. Tell me how you justify that to a woman who's life has just been completely and utterly ripped to shreds.

Could you honestly look a woman in the eye who had been raped and then found out she was pregnant and explain that to her, and call her a murderer?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


It has the full potential for life of a human being and everyone knows this.

"Potential" really has no bearing on the issue. There are billions of sperm and unfertilized eggs with "full potential for life of a human being" flushed down the toilet every month. Only a fraction fulfill their "potential" to become human beings.

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


It has the full potential for life of a human being and everyone knows this.

"Potential" really has no bearing on the issue. There are billions of sperm and unfertilized eggs with "full potential for life of a human being" flushed down the toilet every month. Only a fraction fulfill their "potential" to become human beings.

No, because when the sperm fertilizes the egg, new life begins with a complete set of DNA and chromosomes donated by the sperm and combined with the egg. That and the fact that a women rarely has an abortion at one day, it is usually around the 9 week plus time. To say that the fetus does not have a right to life because it cannot exist outside the womb is just flat out ludicrous. Would you take a pregnant dog and do the same? In fact I bet you could get arrested for being inhumane to the dog. (neutering is different).
In fact, I would wager animal rights activists will not give a hoot whether the dog was "raped" by an unkown father dog or not.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

It has the full potential for life of a human being

Right. "Potential." Meaning possible as opposed to actual. You cannot claim something is both a life and a potential life at the same time. It is either one or the other. As I argued it is NOT life. Not viable = not life. It is built into the definition of the word. And yes I realize we are talking about "potential" future humans but we are also talking about "actual" humans as well. I would think an actual human should take precedence over a potential one, unless the mother decides to give her life up for the potential human. But again that is her choice.

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

It has the full potential for life of a human being

Right. "Potential." Meaning possible as opposed to actual. You cannot claim something is both a life and a potential life at the same time. It is either one or the other. As I argued it is NOT life. Not viable = not life. It is built into the definition of the word. And yes I realize we are talking about "potential" future humans but we are also talking about "actual" humans as well. I would think an actual human should take precedence over a potential one, unless the mother decides to give her life up for the potential human. But again that is her choice.

You are trying now to tell me that the unborn baby is not alive???? Even plant cells have life. Maybe you better rethink your wording.
And if you have never been pregnant before, any pregnant woman can tell you what it is like to have a live baby moving around inside your tummy. If the baby does die accidentally before birth, what do you think has to happen?

I would think an actual human should take precedence over a potential one

Yes, and that would be in case the life of the mother was at hand. And that is also another ethical issue.

This has to be one of the dumbest things I have heard.......but he did come out publicly to apologize and admit that it was a dumb thing to say.

I am willing to forgive when people misspeak, but I do not have to forget. I also don't worry much until this man tries to force his personal religious beliefs onto my rights as a citizen.

If he tried to act on such belief....we will have a problem.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I am aware of the debt and the money borrowed, and more than you apparently, since you think we only borrow from China.

And only 1% goes to foreign aid, hardly enough to make a dent.

I still don't see what that has to do with conservative hypocrisy that we want fetal rights, but forget about child rights.

And here's a story on that

www.foxnews.com...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
To say that the fetus does not have a right to life because it cannot exist outside the womb is just flat out ludicrous.

Then call me ludicrous. If something inside my body depends on me for it's very life, I have no moral obligation to keep it alive. Rights are for persons born.

Would you take a pregnant dog and do the same? In fact I bet you could get arrested for being inhumane to the dog. (neutering is different).

It happens ALL THE TIME. Unwanted pregnancies in dogs are aborted all the time. Perfectly legal.

Pregnancy Termination in Dogs and Cats

It is not considered inhumane or wrong at all.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Yes, and that would be in case the life of the mother was at hand.

Pregnancy and childbirth put the woman's life at risk.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


The problem isn't that he just misspoke. The problem is he is trying to use the scientific understanding of conception to push his extreme agenda. What he said has some basis in truth, but he then tries to twist it into something it is not. The fact is that the female organs and fluids are designed so that it is difficult to get pregnant. Which makes conception a rare event. Cases of pregnancy by rape are therefore even more rare than conception by consensual sex. It to takes two rare events rape and conception to result in a pregnancy that is the result of rape.

This man has tried to use these facts to make a statement that states simply, if a woman doesn't really want to be pregnant as a result of rape the body will not allow it to happen. This is simply not true. There is no switch that a woman can flip in her head that will result in no pregnancy. If this were true there would be no need for contraceptives or abortion because you could simply just wish it were not so and it would not be so. Which is what makes what he said so deeply offensive. His statement implies that if you are pregnant as the result of being sexually assaulted, deep down you really enjoyed it and wanted to have his baby.

reply to post by seeker1963


I couldn't agree more with you. This is ridiculous.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


I can agree with that. Honestly, I do not want to get into the abortion debate at this time. Many of you are doing that just fine.

I just wanted to say that I think we need to be forgiving at times when these people say dumb crap. I say dumb things and would hope others would be as forgiving.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
This man has tried to use these facts to make a statement that states simply, if a woman doesn't really want to be pregnant as a result of rape the body will not allow it to happen. This is simply not true. There is no switch that a woman can flip in her head that will result in no pregnancy. If this were true there would be no need for contraceptives or abortion because you could simply just wish it were not so and it would not be so. Which is what makes what he said so deeply offensive. His statement implies that if you are pregnant as the result of being sexually assaulted, deep down you really enjoyed it and wanted to have his baby.

Exactly

And yet this... idiot... is running for senate. And people apparently want to vote for him...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

You are trying now to tell me that the unborn baby is not alive???? Even plant cells have life. Maybe you better rethink your wording.

Yes. Plant cells have life. And we kill plants all the time without moral objection. The question is the nebulous concept of when the life of a sentient human individual begins.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
This has to be one of the dumbest things I have heard.......but he did come out publicly to apologize and admit that it was a dumb thing to say.

He apologized because he ran into an immediate and gigantic s***storm of protest from his own party. He might have realized it was a dumb thing to say but not necessarily because he believes he was wrong.

Originally posted by DelMarvel
He apologized because he ran into an immediate and gigantic s***storm of protest from his own party. He might have realized it was a dumb thing to say but not necessarily because he believes he was wrong.

And this is why I personally doubt the sincerity of his apology. If he had a moderate voting record on the subject as a whole I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on it. Given his voting record in conjunction with his comments, I sincerely feel that he believes every word of what he said.