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

The world is being "led'' by a bunch of inferiorites. Bugs that need to be squashed and fast.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

By the way, have to add that this is NOT a comment by "Republicans", nor any "war on women"; it's a comment by ONE GUY, that clearly has no brain, or, apparently, access to any valid data. Nor does anyone on the right support his idiotic comment.

Agreed. The guy is an idiot. He's also been repeatedly elected to Congress for a decade and has worked closely with your VP candidate neither of whom believe in abortion in cases of rape and both of whom tried to narrow the definition of rape. So, I'm not buying that he's not supported by anyone on the right.

reply to post by otherpotato


that i think is one of their goals but even this issue is not with out its contraversy as it seems that some christians think its bad as its messing with gods system,some feminists (and with this akin guy talking like a tard i can kind of understand it )seem to think that men will use this to subjugate women or turn them into "baby factories"
i try to focus on the good so i think that if the technology is allowed to be atvanced as long as its safe and ethical that some day the artificial womb could some day cure or solve the following problems

1 premie babies as with this tech they could be transfered until they come to term

2.make abortion irrelevant(assuming the surgery to transfer to the artificial womb is safe and ethical) by giving more options to those who are pregnant and dont want an abortion but dont want to carry it to term either.

3.help those who have problems conceiving have children of their own if they do not wish to adopt or pay for a surrogate.

4.while this one will probably anger some eventually this tech could let same sex couples have a child with out having to use a surrogate body to take baby to term and make marriage truly equal for them

5, one of the sources seemed to hint at it possibly being used in gene therapy to get rid of inherited gentic disease like cystic fibrosis etc

6.more out their but eventualy this could be used on colony ships going to other worlds
7. give males the option of keeping a child that their wife/gf/bed buddy does not want to carry to term giving males a small say in the matter(as with this tech someday it can be brought to term with out the motheres assistance)

on the ops main topic directly it seems that mr akin is most likely going to drop out of the race(unless hes an idiot) so it seems that soon we wont have to worry about this crazy guy ) so hopefully this gets some sense into people and gets them thinking what they say or at least not saying such hurt full things

reply to post by KilrathiLG


How are we going to pay for all that? The advanced health technology we have now is breaking the system as it is.

reply to post by DelMarvel


whats expensive and theoretical today is mainstream and normal in 10-20 years in most cases

as i am unsure of most aspects of medical billing i am un aware if procedures like this are covered by heath insurance or if they are having to pay out of pocket for such procedures perhaps a dr or some one smarter then me can clairfy your question

so far the tech has just led to the birth of sharks using artifical wombs but it is hinted at that a dr in japan MAY be doing human trials as currently he holds the reccord for the longest life form living in an artifical womb(goat) but he is being kind of vauge due to the controversy surrounding the matter

www.arachnoid.com... info from 2006 on the progress and goals of the program

www.buzzle.com... and this one talks about the cost of reproductive assistance

myweb.lmu.edu... very informative pdf on the matter

hope this helps

also so i dont completly go off topic again thehill.com...

thehill.com...

www.latimes.com...

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

jezebel.com... this one says it will eventualy bring down the costs but i know not very much about jezebell the site

CNN Link

Piers Morgan puts up empty chair after Akin cancels appearance

When the Republican Senate candidate who said "legitimate rape" rarely resulted in pregnancy canceled plans to appear on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight," the CNN chat show host did not hurriedly book another guest for his Monday night show.

Instead, the program turned its cameras on an empty chair.

"Congressman," the CNN host addressed Rep. Todd Akin, a Missouri Republican, "you have an open invitation to join me in that chair whenever you feel up to it.

"If you don't keep your promise to appear on the show, then you are what we would call in Britain a gutless little twerp."

reply to post by neformore


Do you remember here in the UK, a year or two ago, Kenneth Clark MP said that 'not all rapes are exactly the same.'
The amount of grief he had for that, calls for him to resign.
It was an ill advised comment. But NOTHING on what this guy has said.

George Galloway got into hot water just today with his remarks over the Julian Assange rape case (saying that the woman in question had already consented to sex with Mr Assange, and his having further (unconsentual) intercourse with her was not rape, rather 'bad sexual etiquette').

Not only is what Mr Akin said utterly absurd, but it displays a frightening level of ignorance.

You termed it right when you called it 'scary'.

What is it with religious stories on ATS over the past day or two? This and the Pakistani girl allegedly burning part of the Koran? SCARY!!!

Not wishing to insult any of our American friends on this site, or in general, but the fundamentalist Christians (if that is the correct label for this guy) scare the living **** out of me. And there seems to be an awful lot of them!

OMG I heard about Piers Morgan and the empty chair.
Was that this Akin clown?

Politics is bad enough here in the UK, it's about as ideal as a triangle with 28 sides, but we don't have these loons at least! If anything, over here, what people talk about is putting God BACK into politics.

Superintendent Chalmers had it right in The Simpsons, when Ned Flanders took over the school: God?! God has NO place within these walls!'

Surely plenty here are familiar with the Bill Hicks sketch when he is talking about having a fundamentalist Christian in the Oval Office with his finger on the nuclear button?

'I am ready to do your bidding Lord!' (Tell me when to fire)

If you're not familiar, I highly suggest you look it up on Youtube!

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Cassius666
Lady Dolphins can do that. They have a muscles behind the pleasurehole to shut out semen. Maybe if we genetically splice women with dolphins...

edit on 21-8-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

and with that statement, your avatar makes a great deal of sense

Reagan was a big fan of genetic engineering?

reply to post by Cassius666


Hehe, it was Reagan that Bill Hicks was referring to whilst joking about having a hardcore Christian in the White House. (Asking the Lord for guidance when and where he should fire his nuclear weapons)

As mentioned in the previous post (by me)

Small world! lol

In reply to all those pushing the "it's just one guy" meme, no it's not just one idiot who "misspoke", it's part & parcel of the christian taliban that run the GOP.

"Dominionism" is their goal & they have been working for decades to achieve their version of country.



livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com...
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...
firstread.nbcnews.com...

reply to post by aethertek


Exactly, I doubt he is a loose cannon, or a lone gunman.

Politicians tend to say things for a reason, more so than ever when they are up for election.

He said this because it will appeal to like minded people. (I use the word 'mind' in the loosest sense imaginable here).

I remember watching the 'Jesus Camp' documentary. Where kids are indoctrinated into the fundamentalist ideology. It was terrifying.

what was wrong with what the guy said?? he wants to force, with the penalty of imprisonment, 32,101 women to give birth to their rapists child....and you're confused?...my self-censured vulgarities does not permit me to answer your last question
and let's take his 5% number, that means 32,101 times 20 = 642, 200 rapes, but of course you don't see what all the commotion is, and why women would be upset...because according to you...they recieve all of these privledges, and special treatments.

First of all, calm down and learn how to answer someone's honest question dispassionately.

Second, I don't see where he said that women who seek abortions should be imprisoned. A lot of people who disagree with abortion (like myself) would never think of punishing the woman. However, I do think the abortionist (if abortion was outlawed, whether on the federal or state level) should be punished, and of course the rapist should be punished also.

Third, you know very little about me and my positions on the issue, so please do not paint me with the icy brush of judgement so quickly.

Thanks,
Cody

reply to post by neformore


Yah could be worse, could be an unelected czar in the WH who believes that depopulation must be achieved by medicating the water of millions of unsuspecting souls, without their knowledge and/or consent. Or it could be some guy who thinks we all need to paint our roofs white to deflect the sun to combat global warming.
Just sayin, compare and contrast

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

What next, euthanize the handicapped?

As a matter of fact, remember those bureaucratic payment advisory boards in Obamacare....the same people who advocate abortion also advocate government bureaucrats advising people on decisions regarding death. It is diiabolical and many people think it's for their own good.

I actually should have been clearer in my response to this topic in my post. I've never heard of this Congressman, but he clearly went to far in his statements.

Even though I'm opposed to abortion except in very rare circumstances, I'm also opposed to government involvement in moral decisions.

I think many are like me in that they they are literally pro-choice and pro-life at the same time. Morality is not an issue that should be legislated by government in this case. I believe it is wrong, but those who differ with me have the same right to their opinions. Government needs to drop this issue from the dialogue as it's just a tool to divide us further instead of unite us to common cause.

The predictions over the years are coming true. I am old enough to remember when it was argued that legalizing abortion would never lead to it being used for convenience or as birth control. Now birth control and convenience are the primary reason abortions are performed. It was also argued it would lead to a cheapening of the value of human life and we are seeing that play out as predicted now. Arguments from the medical community about the merits of euthanasia for those born less than perfect are quite common of late.

We need to get this out of our political discussions entirely and it should not be in a platform for any political party. It has nothing to do with the right / left paradigm or the debate about which is better. Most of my own family was or is pro-life and Democrat at the same time.

reply to post by DarkATi

Originally posted by DarkATi
What was so wrong with what this guy said?

The guy said that women who get raped have the ability to prevent conception. That's 100% false.

Obviously, that makes him misinformed, but why is he taking so much flack over this?

Todd Akin has an agenda. He wants to make abortion illegal. ALL abortion, even in the case of rape. So, he's suggesting that women who actually get raped (legitimately) won't get pregnant, so it follows that if a woman gets pregnant, and says she was raped, she's lying. Because women who are legitimately raped, don't get pregnant. Therefore, anyone who gets pregnant and "claims" they got raped, is lying, and should be forced to carry the baby to term.

But as the study you posted states, there are thousands of women who get pregnant from rape every year. He would force them all to bring the child to term.

He is an idiot with power. The most dangerous kind.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Keep God Out of Government.

In other words, let's move past abortion and focus on the economy for once, people.

I believe that Akin has no business holding political office.

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


Excuse me? Did I mention God? I'm not sure I understand.

I was answering a previous poster who didn't get his question answered.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I was agreeing with your point. I just failed to make it clearer.

Other people though think that it's acceptable to let the bible rule over the constitution. Put that bible down, folks for it's not ground in reality like the constitution (once was).

Todd Akin has an agenda. He wants to make abortion illegal. ALL abortion, even in the case of rape. So, he's suggesting that women who actually get raped (legitimately) won't get pregnant, so it follows that if a woman gets pregnant, and says she was raped, she's lying. Because women who are legitimately raped, don't get pregnant. Therefore, anyone who gets pregnant and "claims" they got raped, is lying, and should be forced to carry the baby to term.

But as the study you posted states, there are thousands of women who get pregnant from rape every year. He would force them all to bring the child to term.

He is an idiot with power. The most dangerous kind.

Thank you for a very thorough and respectful reply. I really appreciate it.

Personally, I am against abortion but I don't know where to stand regarding pregnancies resulting from rape. I feel like two wrongs do not make a right. I am also a Christian and so I believe that God can use the child for good, but I know that not all people are Christians (and do not hold my worldview) and so carrying the child of you rapist to term is probably going to cause you a lot of psychological distress and rightly so. I'm not sure how to deal with that.

Again, thanks for a really good reply.

Cheers,
Cody