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

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by de_Genova

 

Is it in the Democratic Party Platform? If not, it's just one guys' opinion, as people are TRYING to say about Akin, but they are wrong. Akin's position (Rape is not a good reason for abortion) is the GOP official platform.

My post had nothing to do with what you doublespeak of..........

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Uhhh Ryan has legislation out with this guy that says only FORCIBLE rape means you can't get federal assistance for abortions to poor people. If you support that then you're just sad.

Rape is rape, do you think date rape isn't rape?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Here's more of Holdren's book

In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

So I would like to know why Progressives embrace these ideas.
zombietime.com...

Apparently, the likes of Glenn Beck are correct in assuming that their audience is too lazy to do any sort of reading, research and is completely liable to swallow any sort of fear mongering that they practice with amazing industriousness.

I went as far to go and read (admittedly in a percursory manner) two chapters of this book. Nowhere does Holdren espouses views ascribed to him by the rabid right. The book is a pretty deep analysis of the interplay of economy, ecology, culture and population growth. Holdren and co-authors do mention the more radical ways to slow down or reverse population growth (and do an analysis of the situation in China, for that matters), but they simply never endorse any of these radical measures. If anything, they comment that a whole bunch of approaches are simply not palatable.

I hope I helped to scatter some of the ignorance that the rabid right like to spread around.

Originally posted by de_Genova

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorusHere's more of Holdren's book

In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that: Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

So I would like to know why Progressives embrace these ideas.

Glad to see a reasonable post on this horrid topic.

Do you even realize that the "reasonable post" is based on a lie?

Some people...

Seriously, go read the book. Holdren does mention a lot of nasty stuff while insisting that it's just that, nasty. What you are saying is like that anyone who writes an article about rape is a rapist.

DUH.

edit to add:

...and what you call a "reasonable post" is a plain deflection attempt. Was this post about Akin? No it was now.

How "horridly" lame.

HUMANS AREN'T DUCKS!!!

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Uhhh Ryan has legislation out with this guy that says only FORCIBLE rape means you can't get federal assistance for abortions to poor people. If you support that then you're just sad.

Rape is rape, do you think date rape isn't rape?

edit on 22-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

Noting first that I have explained this more than once now.....

First..... I've yet to see anything about Ryan or Romney that is WORSE than Obama....not even remotely close, actually. Obama is the worst president, by far, this nation has ever had. Period. We've had idiots... We've had warmongers and we've had outright crooks who even got caught! Nixon fills those shoes.

Obama is the first President I've lived through and the only one I'm personally aware of that seems to come from a position of honest DISLIKE for the core values this nation stands for. Capitalism.....Freedom of choice, expression, travel and self-determination.

Some hate those values.... I personally find them to be what made this nation great. Romney and Ryan don't strictly represent them....and Romney will never be a man I'm happy with ....but, Alfred P. Newman would get my vote before Obama. Twice.

I can't write Paul in (By my state's law) and I am not hiding at home on election day, telling everyone I wouldn't even participate. So....I've made my choice, barring any MAJOR developments.


On the Forcible Rape..... Sure Date Rape is Rape.... Statutory Rape IS NOT. ..In my opinion..and that isn't the ONLY thing in the penal code of various States and the Feds which IS classified as Rape but had absolutely nothing to do with CONSENT, Force or willingness by anyone involved. In THAT way, YES.... Rape DOES need to be defined until these idiot lawmakers stop trying to expand very legitimate crimes and descriptions to cover things they SHOULD NOT.

If we want to disqualify people over a single issue...or perhaps a bill they signed.... Your boy Obama gets strikes running clear off the page....while So far, I've only heard a couple on Ryan from even the MOST vicious critics. That's a hell of an endorsement in this day and age where every politician is dirty. I wish Ryan were #1 and not #2. My only MAJOR regret in how it's going.

A metaphor...

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Obama is the first President I've lived through and the only one I'm personally aware of that seems to come from a position of honest DISLIKE for the core values this nation stands for. Capitalism.....Freedom of choice, expression, travel and self-determination.

Wow, some quality brain-wash right there.

You see, I would like to see Obama just a little more pro-socialist. Alas, he's bending backward to be pro-capitalist every time I check. And just recently, I've traveled to multiple locations around the world, and from that relatively effortless and enjoyable experience I can tell that "Obama restricting my freedom of travel" is dangerously close to a hallucination, scratch that, that's pure unadulterated nonsense.

I know a group of people who do suffer a lot under Obama administration in terms of freedom to move, express themselves and actually pump blood through their cardiovascular system. That minority is called "suspected Islamist militants" who, because of Obama's ruthless oppression, are hiding in remote areas of Pakistan and have to watch the skies at all times, because of the drones, you know. I would agree with you that what Obama does to these people is not quite American. I'm very sure if Romney gets elected, Insha-Allah, this horrible practice will stop the very next day.

Having written all this, I have to ask, however, what does Obama have to do with the topic at hand? If you read press, it's about Akin and in fact position of GOP on this and similar issues.

I feel a bit sorry for the aware American. It must be hard living their if you have 1 ounce of intelligence. It gets frustrating here in the UK with the average joe becoming more like a zombie by the day, but in america even the leaders are morons.

More on Monster John Holdren and his comrade Cass Sunstein.............Warning: you should be close to the bathroom when reading (and viewing) this horrendous material...........

John Holdren, Obama's [Tyrannical] Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet.

The authors of the article below - Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva - are students of the inhuman eugenics of Holdren and Sunstein. -->

We are left to draw some rather terrifying conclusions to the horrors proposed by these so-called "philosophers" in declaring that this barbaric practice should be legalized for an unspecified period of time after the birth of any child (including those who are perfectly healthy). Their reasoning is that the newborn has the same mental capacity as a late-term fetus (which can be killed in the United States for any reason up until the point of birth). Since a fetus is not a person according to the U.S. Supreme Court,8 it logically follows that a newborn is, likewise, not a person under the law. Giubilini and Minerva contend that the desires of actual persons supersede the rights of "potential persons," including the "right" to kill a newborn for any reason. Although not stated in the article, this would include the "right" to kill a newborn simply to get back at the child's father. Although women currently have the sole right to abort their unborn babies against the wishes of the father, allowing this to happen to the father of a newborn would be an evil that is almost too extreme to imagine. Giubilini and Minerva claim that persons must "value their existence" and be able to express "aims" in order to be classified as persons. However, they provide no scientific evidence that newborns fail this made-up test of personhood.

After-Birth Abortion: This is the pro-choicers term and case for infanticide.They claim that they need to use this term rather that KILLING because the public will not accept their barbaric premises otherwise. They word their murderous scheme thusly:

[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Link[/ ex]

Eugenicists Say Babies are a Parasitic Burden on Society
theintelhub.com...
According to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, “after-birth abortion” is proposed as a form of “contraception” that would allow babies to be killed after they are born.

In a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics:
“[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child.
Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
Giubilini and Minerva believe that infants are a “threat” to parents because of their financial burden to their parents and that this justifies the murder of new-born babies.
In the Senate, Joe Pitts and Chris Smith spoke out against this ideology. Smith explains: “Giubilini and Minerva say the devaluation of new-born babies is inextricably linked to the devaluation of unborn children.”

edit on 23-8-2012 by de_Genova because: edited with additions

Umm... to the political bickerers...

Which part of politics backs up the claim that a womans body has a mechanism in it to stop her getting pregnant if she is "legitimately raped"?

Put the party politics polarisation aside, and focus on the stupidity of the notion.

Then ask yourself if someone with such a notion should be seeking to run as an elected representative.

Take the blinkered party tinted specs away, and look at the issue

reply to post by neformore


The real issue is that the education system is failing and the media are assisting...that and common sense in politics has now been replaced by money and religious agendas.

Watch this and you'll know why people make RIDICULOUS claims like Akin:



On a side note, I'm not sure US citizens realize how badly stuff like that hurts their image...you should read some of the foreign press articles about it, people are laughing at the stupidity of that statement. Not only that, they laugh even harder about some right-wing guys defending the statement.

The disputed medical roots of Akin’s rape remarks

What candidate Akin said is exactly what I've heard for decades from those who want RvW overturned. This belief is found in groups that label themselves "pro-life" or "right to life" or "anti-abortion". These groups are really protest groups, against the Roe v Wade decision giving women the right to a safe abortion.

Because they are protesting the right to a safe abortion, the goal, if not outright overturning, is to make it as difficult as possible to obtain an abortion.

And these groups disseminate false information, and, it turns out, false info based on Nazi experiments.

Starring: Lisa Edelstein

Only decades ago women suffered through horrifying back alley abortions, or they used dangerous methods when they had no other recourse.

So when the Republican Party officially promotes forcing rape victims to bear the children of their attackers as part of its assault against a woman's right to choose--we had to ask:

Why is Romney & Ryan's GOP trying to send women back. . . to the back alley?

She makes a pretty valid point. The GOP seems hellbent on returning to women healthcare to the dark ages.

Originally posted by neformore
Umm... to the political bickerers...

Which part of politics backs up the claim that a womans body has a mechanism in it to stop her getting pregnant if she is "legitimately raped"?

Put the party politics polarisation aside, and focus on the stupidity of the notion.

GOP? Stupidity? Not so sure, but I think we've seen that before somewhere...

Originally posted by neformore
Umm... to the political bickerers...

Which part of politics backs up the claim that a womans body has a mechanism in it to stop her getting pregnant if she is "legitimately raped"?

Put the party politics polarisation aside, and focus on the stupidity of the notion.

Then ask yourself if someone with such a notion should be seeking to run as an elected representative.

Take the blinkered party tinted specs away, and look at the issue

I wish I could agree with the above, but I can't. The history of women's health/bodies in general had an interesting turn 40 years ago, which, by 1980, had taken a turn to the cultural conservative right.

It all started with a book, Our Bodies, Ourselves.

One cultural warrior, adopted by the Republican Party, had this to say about the book:

The women writers would also come under serious attack. The Moral Majority, led by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, once described the book as “obscene trash” and it’s authors as “liberals and advocates of pornographic sex education.” That charge was leveled in 1981. By then, despite being banned by some conservative schools and libraries,“Our Bodies, Ourselves” was a proven success with an expanded 1979 edition.

Revolutio nary women look back on 40 years of 'Our Bodies, Ourselves'

Read the first four paragraphs of the following for a historical background
The Politics of Reproductive Rights

Originally posted by de_Genova
More on Monster John Holdren and his comrade Cass Sunstein.............Warning: you should be close to the bathroom when reading (and viewing) this horrendous material...........

John Holdren, Obama's [Tyrannical] Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet.

Repeatedly in this thread, you are using the Big Lie tactics, which is when you repeat a notion many times, no matter how false and how stupid, it becomes anchored in public psyche and thus somewhat (or completely) legitimate. I want to see where Holdren went on record and used his "tyrannical" powers, whatever this silly notion is supposed to mean, to proclaim that he wants to institute forced abortions.

The authors of the article below - Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva - are students of the inhuman eugenics of Holdren and Sunstein. -->

Holdren does not promote eugenics, so you are lying again. You think it's OK because this has become the standard modus operandi of FOX and various dicks like Hannity, Beck etc. It's not OK. It's not.

If one read a book by XYZ, one is not necessarily a student, endorser or even influenced by same. I read books by Hitler, does it make me a Nazi? I also read stuff by Mother Theresa, does it make me a saint? If Mother Theresa read a book by Hitler, does she become a maniacal monster?

Your post is insulting because you clearly count on your audience being imbeciles. Sorry, but... Epic fail.

And the thread isn't even about Holdren, it's about that dickhead Akin and his many brothers in arms in the GOP.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


And an abortion isn't dark as it is? So sucking a baby out of a womb till it's little body shatters isn't just a slightly cleaner version of the coat hanger? Who's to say this isn't more Dark Ages. Why are liberals telling women the lie that it's just a bunch of cells in order to get them to abort? People here scream and yell about all the lobbies in Washington and all the corporate welfare and so on.... and yet I see here people who support the ABORTION LOBBY and would support our tax dollars going to it. So don't tell me how righteous you are in supporting this and then turn around and scream about corporate welfare and lobbies in Washington.
The ABORTION LOBBY Is sick as it gets.

Abortion lobby lawsuits cost South Dakota $377,735
PIERRE, July 30, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Planned Parenthood’s legal fight to overturn a South Dakota law that requires doctors to inform women about the risks of undergoing an abortion has cost the state’s taxpayers $377,735, according to Attorney General Marty Jackley.

On Tuesday, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the last contested portion of the 2005 pro-life law.
H.B. 1166 requires that doctors inform pre-abortive women that abortion increases their chance of hemorrhages, infertility, depression and suicide; describe fetal development at the unborn child’s gestational age; and state that abortion “will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

www.lifesitenews.com...
So in addition to costing the state money, this group wants to stop women from being informed about the phsyical complications, and mental and emotional distress resulting from their decision.

Here's the handiwork of another representative of the abortion lobby

Amanda Marcotte’s latest diatribe against the pro-life movement for its concerns about so-called “emergency contraception” is an extraordinary piece of fiction. An attempt to deny any life-ending capacity of these drugs and devices, Ms. Marcotte’s article is an exercise in all the things she charges her opponents with: ignoring science, making unjustifiable emotional appeals, and lying.
Ms. Marcotte boldly contends that, “It has never once been in dispute that [emergency contraception] works by preventing pregnancy instead of terminating it.” The problematic use of hyperbole (her article is obviously designed to contribute to a “dispute” about how so-called “emergency contraception” works) is the least of her statement’s defects.

First, Ms. Marcotte’s claim is flatly false as it relates to the most recently approved “emergency contraceptive,” Ulipristal Acetate, or ella. A selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM) ella works the same way as the FDA-approved abortion drug, RU-486: it blocks progesterone, a hormone necessary to maintain a pregnancy.[1] By anyone’s definition of pregnancy, ella can “terminate” one.

Second, Ms. Marcotte’s statement tries to sweep under the rug the life-ending capacity of other FDA-labeled “contraceptives,” by only focusing on whether they work post-implantation. It is one of the favorite bait-and-switch tactics of abortion advocates: respond to concerns that some “contraceptives” do not merely prevent conception (the function that the term “contraception” implies) by stating they do not end “pregnancies.” Relying on a definition of pregnancy that begins at “implantation,”

www.aul.org...

Yep, the abortion lobby lies and misrepresents to get their way

reply to post by buddhasystem


Again, presenting yourself as a scientist to intimidate others on the forum? Well you may or may not be a scientist or a doctor, but you should jolly well know that eugenics is part of the de-population agenda beginning at least with Margaret Sanger and the Rockefeller clan, and that Hitler got his ideas from them. If you are a scientist, you know that eugenics and depopulation are tied together in an unholy alliance. Instead you choose to split hairs over the definition.
The plain fact of the matter is that Holdren is a diabolical person who thinks nothing of taking away the reproductive rights of an entire country through mass medication. It's just too jolly bad that doesn't fit neatly into your description of eugenics. And here you are splitting hairs about calling it eugenics because it doesn't fit into your idea of genetic research in a laboratory.

Early publications
Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."[21] In 1973, Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many."[22] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and discussed "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.[12][23] [24]

Other early publications include Energy (1971), Human Ecology (1973), Energy in Transition (1980), Earth and the Human Future (1986), Strategic Defenses and the Future of the Arms Race (1987), Building Global Security Through Cooperation (1990), and Conversion of Military R&D (1998).[14]

en.wikipedia.org...

So while Holdren's ideas may not be singling out particular races for extermination, and they may not be about changing genetic structure to reflect a stonger composition, it is nonetheless part of the eugenics programs of some pretty diabolical people.
Really what is the difference if you put a large group of people in ovens or you put medication into the water supplies of a huge mass of people?
Tell me doc



Oh yes, and the link with Holdren is about abortion in general. I find it distasteful you defend the abortion lobby by saying it's off topic. The point is that Holdren thinks nothing of taking away the reproductive rights of all men and women in this country for his sick ideas about global warming and over population.

There's even another thread where they have used exaggerated numbers of women pregnant from rape. Why would you overlook that and not call it a lie as well? Where's your defense of scientific truth? Selective reasoning is where it's at.

reply to post by igor_ats


My point is more or less that where he got his information from, not necessarily the accuracy of it, but then the abortion lobby lies and misrepresents deliberately, as I show in other posts. The media has spun this thing to death and Republicans threw the guy under the bus too to save their party from disgrace and preserve Romney's chance of winning the election. If you compare where Akin and his opponent McCaskill stand on all the various issues, not just the abortion issue, one can easily see that she's more liberal and he's more conservative, so this all really comes down to whether one is more liberal or more conservative.
I am against the Patriot Act and McCaskill is too, and Akin was for it, so I don't agree with him on all the issues. What does being moderate really mean? It means one doesn't vote exactly according to party lines. It doesn't necessarily mean the person is more logical.