It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 12
66
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 
'Just like a republican'




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 





Bit of a straw man there, don't you think?


No it is not, considering the heroic effort many doctors make keeping a premie alive.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
So somebody actually nominated this guy? What were they thinking when they nominated him. I suppose our politicians are specialists in raping the public so they should have knowledge of this kind of stuff. What he says may be the case sometimes but not always.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
What bothers me is the unresolved question of whether the guy is actually that slow, or whether he is pandering to his support base in this manner because he thinks that they are stupid.

Remember this?

Report: Members of Congress Speak Like High School Sophomores

That thread led me to believe that some politicians are fine-tuning their rhetoric based on their low estimation of our intelligence. If it turned out that this was a piece of calculated stupidity, and I'd voted for that guy; I'd be pretty pissed off.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
I've trouble getting past the word "legitimate" myself.

I'm fairly certain, though not completely, that he misspoke. Given the tone of the "apologies", his handlers probably had conniptions, and/or heart failure.


The problem I see here is that while a woman may have been "date-raped", that is raped by a man she knows, and maybe even knows well, what is the difference if she did not want this. But I think that must be where he was going with this, as compared to a woman alone on a street and some unkown guy comes up to her and forces her to the ground.
I am not sure if that little drug they put in drinks is considered part of "date-rape". I would think that the lines there can be blurry. I am sure that women can and do get pregnant from rape. It would be good to have some stats on it though.
In fact this writer also blurs the line between rape from an unkown person and rape within the context of a "domestic" situation. In other words, if you are married and don't want sex it is being considered rape.


Some statistics report that conception as a result of rape occurs in less than one percent of cases, while other studies indicate higher figures such as 4.7%. Rape-related Pregnancy may be more widespread than we know - many women are understandably reluctant to talk about it. Common contexts for conception in rape are war and domestic violence settings.

www.pandys.org...


food for thought here?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

No it is not, considering the heroic effort many doctors make keeping a premie alive.


The straw man was extending the "can't survive by itself" argument to a 13 year old. The discussion in point was does human life begin with a beating heart. As someone just pointed out a 9 week old embryo/fetus which is an inch long has a beating heart. There are no medical heroics that could keep it alive outside the womb. And as long as we're discussing the morality of child birth: going by Natural Law, God or what have you many of those premies were intended to die. That's certainly been the case throughout the other 99.9999 percent of human history.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by Thunder heart woman
 


I know its your body and whatnot your decision. Just like its the murder's decision to pull the trigger. Killing is killing there is no in between if you kill something it can't be not killing it. Just like murder is murder. But I guess people are not evolved enough to see what human life really means but whatever. Why do you people think there is so much violence in the world...because the majority of people are insane.


you can't "murder" a part of your own body...geez, please try and use comparisions that make sense.


It is a lie that the fetus is not a separate being. Unless you think your body has two beating hearts...The relationship is symbiotic, but it is ludicrous that feminists use such ideas in their arguments, when dependence on a governmental system is so embedded within the Progressive culture.
I'm a woman so I can say it.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx

Originally posted by Lannister
The child in question is NOT part of her body.
The child in question was not placed in her body by her own doing.
She does not OWN the child.

That is right it is a parasite however and as such she has the right to rid herself of it like any other parasite.
No it may not have been but is in her body nonetheless, if it were a parasite in your body you could get rid of it too.
Maybe, maybe not but she does own the house it is squatting in, it is her right to evict the squatter.


Regardless of that, we as a society want equality, yet in every case the scale is tipped in the favore of the female. Look up the statistics on the percentage of custody cases awared to the mother. Women are not born with the right to murder their child, but I'll make a deal with you:

She can abort whatever she wants, but don't call me a dead beat dad when I choose to shrug the same responsibility. Don't throw me in prison when I miss the child support payment. Equality. Does that sound equal to you? After all, sitting in a cage for 18 years because I was forced to have a child I did not want could be detrimental to my health.


You don't want equality, you want a free pass to do whatever you want. You want equality it would be more along the lines of:

If you get an abortion without having been the victim of rape, incest or your life was at risk you get sterilized. If you impregnate a woman and refuse to accept responsibility for that child you are sterilized. Because really if you were born after 1970 and didn't know and understand how birth control works and aren't using it you are too stupid to be having sex to begin with. That would be a measure of equality.

As it currently stands it is simple. Don't want to support children you do not want then quit sticking your penis in places that you don't want it to spend a lifetime visiting.
Men should have the same opt-out optionPERIOD If abortion is going to be legal, then a man should be able to opt-out of a childs life. Making up special laws for sterilization, doesn't make sense.

Also if you don't want to have a child, forget the abortion, you should quit visiting penis.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


None of this or any words from any individual changes the fact that Abortion is the taking of a human life.

Why is it so hard to understand that Pro-Life people believe it is murder? When you ask us to change our beliefs, you ask us to condone murder. To me it's the same as asking me to say it's OK to kill a child because the child is an inconvenience.

My belief is based on pure logic. From the moment the egg is fertilized it is a separate distinct human being with the right to live. I am sicked that millions are being murdered as a form of birth control and for convenience.

I have no issue if a genuine health risk to the mother is involved but to kill a child for any other reason reaches the level of evil.

What next, euthanize the handicapped? That is being seriously discussed now in the medical community, so I'm not out of line with that remark. The value of human life is being cheapened and we are heading a very wrong direction.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

No it is not, considering the heroic effort many doctors make keeping a premie alive.


The straw man was extending the "can't survive by itself" argument to a 13 year old. The discussion in point was does human life begin with a beating heart. As someone just pointed out a 9 week old embryo/fetus which is an inch long has a beating heart. There are no medical heroics that could keep it alive outside the womb. And as long as we're discussing the morality of child birth: going by Natural Law, God or what have you many of those premies were intended to die. That's certainly been the case throughout the other 99.9999 percent of human history.


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....



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

It is a lie that the fetus is not a separate being. Unless you think your body has two beating hearts...The relationship is symbiotic, but it is ludicrous that feminists use such ideas in their arguments, when dependence on a governmental system is so embedded within the Progressive culture.
I'm a woman so I can say it.


And once again, what kind of massive governmental system would be required to protect the human rights of all the independent beings if you're defining a nine week old embryo as possessing full rights as a human?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

It is a lie that the fetus is not a separate being. Unless you think your body has two beating hearts...The relationship is symbiotic, but it is ludicrous that feminists use such ideas in their arguments, when dependence on a governmental system is so embedded within the Progressive culture.
I'm a woman so I can say it.


And once again, what kind of massive governmental system would be required to protect the human rights of all the independent beings if you're defining a nine week old embryo as possessing full rights as a human?



What kind of massive government was needed before abortion was considered legal?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by neformore
 

If this guy really stated something as stupid as this, then he is officially the BIGGEST idiot I have ever heard of being allowed into a position of authority in the United States!

Maybe we should start making people take an I.Q. test before running for public office.


Yeh I guess it's as wild a statement as "it's just a bunch of cells" or "it''s just a lining of the uterus". I wonder how many of us would consider removing a lining in our stomach....

or how about this one.. "The fetus is really just a parasite and not a human being."



Anna met, first, with a nurse for a “consent interview.” She said, “The nurse told me that at this stage of the pregnancy the fetus is just a bunch of cells.

winteryknight.wordpress.com...

that particular example was at 9 weeks at which the "bunch of cells" has a beating heart.


Okay, so am I not getting something here? It was my understanding that the idiot in question believes that if a woman is a victim of "real" rape some magical process occurs in her body that prevents her from becoming pregnant, which is completely ridiculous. What in the world has THAT got to do with people's beliefs for or against aborting fetuses- which is what I believe you are referring to?

Whether anyone supports or is against abortion has nothing to do with such an ignorant statement. It is a FACT of biology that a rape CAN and often DOES result in pregnancy.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Actually it is contrived to do exactly the opposite:


IPAB was created as a strengthened version of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), a body with no regulatory power that solely advises Congress, but can not enact regulations in and of itself. Since 1997, MedPAC had recommended cuts totaling "hundreds of billions of dollars" to Medicare that were ignored by Congress.[ Also, Congress has pressured Medicare administrators to cover "ineffective or needlessly costly methods of care", while Medicare's founding legislation says "Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine". Henry J. Aaron, a health care expert at the Brookings Institution, says that many observers see that some in Congress are "in thrall to campaign contributors and producers and suppliers of medical services" and most are not well enough informed to wisely use Medicare's buying power to reform health care.[3] The idea behind the IPAB was to take power away from Congress (and special interests) in order to give it to those knowledgeable in health care policy.


Source

They want to take the decision out of bureaucratic hands and put it into the hands of health care providers.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


I was just making a compare and contrast of wild and ridiculous statements.

oh yah needed a second line thanks for reminding
edit on 20-8-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
People are confusing independence (a 13-year-old) with viability. (talk about a straw man!)


A fetus is viable when it can breathe and exist outside the womb without the support of the host. Before that, it is dependent on the host for its very survival.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Ok, I gotcha.

Line 2 just for you!



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Maybe/maybe not


As currently existing, the IPAB cannot ration care. But that is precisely the destination toward which the monster is lurching. It isn’t even up and running yet, and already President Obama and the New England Journal of Medicine have called for expanding its powers–and in the NEJM’s case, urged that it be allowed to impose rationing. And now a big voice in Obamacare circles, Christina Romer has dittoed the call in the NYT. From, “Only the First Step in Containing Health Care Costs:”


Once the payment advisory board has a track record, for example, perhaps it could be empowered to suggest changes in benefits or in how Medicare services are provided — say, along the lines of successful demonstration projects.

Suggest? IPAB doesn’t suggest: It dictates and its fiats are all but removed from democratic checks and balances.


www.lifenews.com...

www.nytimes.com...

Slippery slope syndrome



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join