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

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Thanks for the genuine debate and the opportunity for me to clarify. I intended to compare and contrast two opposing candidates on all the issues to show that the media jumped on this to discredit the entire Republican party, just as people here are suddenly coming up with threads that Republican this and republican that said this or that stupid thing. To me it's nothing compared to the real lies of the ruling elite.

reply to post by Long Lance


Agreed, it was more about the effects of chronic stress, and therein lies the muddy waters of what is true and what is not. I was trying to point out that stress is known to cause hormonal changes and it would be nothing but lying for the abortion lobby to deny it. Contraception is based on changing hormones to prevent pregnancy, but they lie when they say it doesn't also terminate pregnancy in it's earliest stages. Make no mistake, the abortion lobby lies and misrepresents. I guess we will never see Occupy occupy the abortion lobby....

Candidates like Akin and Ryan would prefer that a Republican is in the White House who would nominate Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. Till then, they will come up with bills with language about rape, in order to continue to limit safe, legal abortions.

The following is from an essay in case anyone here does not remember what women (and the men who loved them) went through pre -RvW...caution, an entire reading of the essay will reveal an overview of gruesome details

It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.

What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.

from a physician who Repair[ed] the Damage [to women], Before Roe

Originally posted by DelMarvel

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.

The guy made one comment that was stupid. One comment, for which he's also apologized. Now, that said, I am NOT saying I disagree with the position on abortion, because I think it's wrong under any circumstances.

His comment was stated, by virtually everyone, to have been incredibly stupid. That is done. The position on abortion is NOT the comment.

Personally, I am a lot more concerned about this man here ...a nd where is the outcry for him to resign from the left...? to step out of the race than I am about Akin. One comment, which could have been based on something he was told by some medical person, versus an illicit act in a public rest stop, with a minor? No contest there.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Again, presenting yourself as a scientist to intimidate others on the forum?

Stop imagining things. I didn't mention anything related to my science background in my post, I was simply appealing to human decency in a poster (if any of that really remains).

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

What does it have to do with the topic of the thread? Start another thread on depopulation. This one is about a vile person and a platform that he represents, the name is Akin and the platform is the GOP.

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.

This is a false statement. The book that Holdren penned is a large tome on a variety of topics. One of the those is the issue of optimal size of the population. Never does he say anything in the book that indicates that he "is a diabolical person who thinks nothing of taking away the reproductive rights". I read the book. Did you? Or did you not?

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.

You keep repeating the same lie. Holdren does not "think nothing" and he's not plotting to sterilize the Galaxy.

Another right-wing lie: Holdren favors eugenics

reply to post by buddhasystem


You truly remind me of another person I had the misfortune to encounter through an irc client who loved to split hairs semantically the same way you do. Holdren has monstrous ideas and yes he is part of the eugenics movement of Progressives.
Stop trying to make conservatives out to be liars on this.
How can my statement on Holdren be a lie, unless he says he has remorse about his idea for mass medicating an entire population? The point is that Holdren is part of the movement and he wants to take away reproductive rights of citizens for the reasoning he believes, that is that we are overpopulating the planet. How is this any different from Margaret Sanger thinking blacks should be sterilized? What difference does it make what group is targeted? Rockefellers did finance Sanger too and they are part of the UN push to limit family size.
Here is a direct quote from his book, on p 838 and is it not eugenics to pick and choose who gets to reproduce based on some arbitrary condition one would imagine to be superior or not superior? After all, that is a definition of eugenics.

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

and then there's this

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

zombietime.com...

wait, what? He wants to FORCE women having children out of wedlock to give up their babies, especially if they are minors? Isn't that TOTALITARIAN?

Is a pregnancy from rape considered illegitimate? Just wondering. Only if it is born?

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
[
Personally, I am a lot more concerned about this man here ...a nd where is the outcry for him to resign from the left...?

Going by the article you've linked, Democrats in Minnesota are asking him to step down the same way that Republicans are asking Akin to step down.

It's just not a national story as he's only a state legislator in Minnesota, not running for the U.S. Senate.

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
[
Personally, I am a lot more concerned about this man here ...a nd where is the outcry for him to resign from the left...?

Going by the article you've linked, Democrats in Minnesota are asking him to step down the same way that Republicans are asking Akin to step down.

It's just not a national story as he's only a state legislator in Minnesota, not running for the U.S. Senate.

And why isn't it a national story? Because Democrats would have to face the fact that they have nasty people in office representing them and the complicit media outlets don't want to help ruin Bama's chance at re election because bama supports depopulation as much as any Rockefeller.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Stop trying to make conservatives out to be liars on this.

Why? They ARE lying:
scienceprogress.org...

In 1977, more than thirty years ago, Holdren was the third author (with Paul and Anne Ehrlich) of a textbook entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. It was a gigantic tome, fully 1,051 pages in length. In one vast 66 page chapter devoted to “Population Policies,” the authors surveyed a gamut of measures that had been undertaken or considered to control human population growth—including the most extreme. Those included coercive or “involuntary fertility control” measures, such as forced abortions and sterilizations. However, to describe these measures is different from advocating them. And in fact, the Ehrlichs and Holdren concluded by arguing that noncoercive measures were what they suppported: “A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences”—such as birth control and access to abortions.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

And why isn't it a national story?

Again, he's just a state lawmaker from the upper midwest. If the media reported on all the misfeasance of local politicians that's all that would be on the news.

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Stop trying to make conservatives out to be liars on this.

Why? They ARE lying:
scienceprogress.org...

In 1977, more than thirty years ago, Holdren was the third author (with Paul and Anne Ehrlich) of a textbook entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. It was a gigantic tome, fully 1,051 pages in length. In one vast 66 page chapter devoted to “Population Policies,” the authors surveyed a gamut of measures that had been undertaken or considered to control human population growth—including the most extreme. Those included coercive or “involuntary fertility control” measures, such as forced abortions and sterilizations. However, to describe these measures is different from advocating them. And in fact, the Ehrlichs and Holdren concluded by arguing that noncoercive measures were what they suppported: “A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences”—such as birth control and access to abortions.

Are you kidding? Oh theyhope that women won't use coat hangers but prefer they get abortions from a medical doc instead. They dont really want to mass medicate people, but prefer they voluntarily sterilize themselves instead, and also they hope they will voluntarily abort as well, but if they have to they will resort to more Totalitarian methods.....yah that's a real great choice they are giving.
I could say more here....

Oh, in case you think some of these drastic measures haven't already been instituted in certain population groups, look again, how about forced sterilization of indigenous women? This example happens to be British, but it is a worldwide program.

Two reports by the BCC this month raise the spectre that the United Nations Millennium Development Goals which include reducing maternal mortality and ensuring environmental sustainability may actually be undermining women’s sexual and reproductive rights.
The BBC has reported on the UK government’s Department for International Development is funding a program of forced sterilization of both men and women in India.
As happens all too often, poor tribal women seem to be particularly targeted for the forced sterilization.

And if being sterilized against your will is not bad enough, there are also reports of long term suffering because the procedures were botched.

The BBC also ran a shocking exposé on allegations of forced sterilization of women in Uzbekistan. In the report, an unnamed government official made the link between reducing fertility rates and the MDGs.

Since the world’s population topped 7 billion people toward the end of 2011, the language of “population control” has increasing crept back into the discourse. Implicit in the concept is a focus on preventing poor people from having a lot of children, echoing the ideas promoted by Thomas Malthus, a British clergy and economist in the late 1700s.

www.trust.org...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Long Lance

 

Agreed, it was more about the effects of chronic stress, and therein lies the muddy waters of what is true and what is not. I was trying to point out that stress is known to cause hormonal changes and it would be nothing but lying for the abortion lobby to deny it...

so, what you are saying is that a mechanism that prevents pregnancy by stress might theoretically exist, because some hormonal changes terminate pregnancy? In order to illustrate a point, i'll play devil's advocate and suggest a simpler mechanism would be physical ejection of the egg, after all, the uterus is a muscle. has it been observed? no. has acute stress rape been implicated in even reduced fertility? not that i know, but let's say that you'd require a 100% safe mechanism to make that guy''s statement legitimate (ha, ha... ).

the true problem here is that the entire party is as much unconditionally against abortion as the other is for it and both are certainly wrong - by design, it gives people something to hate while dividing them at the same time - radicalism at work, it gives you more air time. Statements like Akin's do make political sense in that context. would they actually pass such a law and make girls kill themselves rather than allow them to get an abortion ? i don't really know, tbh and that's exactly the problem, so that's a threat that's best averted asap.

other parties, different disorders, that was not the point of this thread, was it? wait, dems want to kill you while repubs want to force people to procreate by rape, maybe it really is that simple, which would show the repubs to be smarter crooks since they seem understand they couldn't rule an empty world.

reply to post by Long Lance


No, I said what I said. Don't try to paraphrase and introduce ideas I never said and never meant.

But then there is this

In a recent study lead author Dr. Pablo A. Nepomnaschy, from the National Institutes of Health in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and his colleagues examined the levels of a hormone in the urine of 16 women in a rural Guatemalan community.
The urine was checked three times a week for a period of one year for the stress induced hormone cortisol.

The researchers found that 90 percent of the women, whose ages ranged from 18 to 34, with elevated levels of the stress-induced hormone miscarried during the first three weeks of pregnancy, compared to 33 percent of those with normal levels.

www.news-medical.net...

So, is it really impossible for physical trauma and stress-induced hormones to cause a miscarry in a rape pregnancy? Maybe more studies are needed. But if contraception involves the suppression of the hormone progesterone, and stress induces cortisol, then perhaps the real outrage against the guy isn't bad science but bad table manners.

No, in fact the entire party is not against abortion. (unless Laura Bush is secretly Democrat?)

www.guardian.co.uk...
I would also like to point out that someone posted that pregnancies were possibly higher in rape than in normal pregnancies. I wonder why no one ridiculed that guy for an equally outrageous non scientific approach. What exactly would make pregnancy higher in a rape victim?????

reply to post by Long Lance

repubs want to force people to procreate by rape,

Wow forcing people to procreate? Last I checked the forced procreation was on the rapists part. No, if the pregnancy occurred then procreation is already in process. You mean Repubs want to force women to not terminate the pregnancy? Perhaps you could self-analyze your wording.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

No, in fact the entire party is not against abortion.