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: 16
66
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
what can ya really say
STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES, lol

i heard of this earlier on way to work and they had a clip from him saying that, and i almost slammed car into wall laughing at how hard our country has failed,(IM from us) seriously E P I C F A I L this is what happens when you loosen the education funding, you get complete morons on all levels of government, but hey we got BIG BOMBS
legitimate, is there an index i can read to see how far i can take my rape before its really rape,(sarc) wtf is this idiot talking about, even if 9999999.99 % of woman didn't get pregnant from rape, its still a freaking possibility
there is really only 3 options here
1 it was said to pull attention away from something else
2 he really is that stupid and should resign
3 a combination of both because even he was paid to say it, he was stupid for saying it lol
i hope hes already married, and can listen to his wife bish at him all day for what a freaking moron and imbecile he is lol, but then again considering where they come from, im sure it was her idea!!! BIGGER FAIL
i guess they didn't have rape orientation at his college or high school, or workplace lol




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I don't know if anyone has said it yet or not, but I think I understand the reason behind his statement.

When a woman is under a lot of stress, they can stop ovulating (its happened to me).
However, if a raped woman had already ovulated that wouldn't stop it from happening.

But they way he brushed it off as "not worrying about it cuz its unlikely to become a pregnancy" was really, really stupid.

Hope you guys don't vote this guy in.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I think these dumb statements by Republicans really does show a kind of war on women.

Or else they really do want to lose the house and senate and presidency and wait for 2016 because
this stupidity will follow them to the elections in November. The GOP without the women's vote don't stand a chance. Even conservative women are going to bail on them now that they see their true colors.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 


Unlikely believe it or not there are some really stupid people, women included (shocking I know) that will agree with this guy. There are just some people that are incapable of rational well reasoned thought. And yes as another posted the trauma can stop you from ovulating for a period of time any stressful situation can. But it does not mean that you will stop. People are different and react in different ways.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
www.physiciansforlife.org...

Take this for what it is worth.

Calling people stupid over it?

That is ones prerogative.


and yes people in america would gladly vote for this guy.

when will rapist try prove they're innocent of rape in court because the woman became pregnant?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
If one of you "pro-life" people's wife was brutally raped and got pregnant, surely you'd change your tune????

2nd line



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by homerJ
If one of you "pro-life" people's wife was brutally raped and got pregnant, surely you'd change your tune????

2nd line


if a "pro-life" persons daughter was raped by an illegal immigrant would they force their daughter to have the baby yet not allow the baby to be a us citizen?

would it even be rape if she got pregnant?
edit on 20-8-2012 by elitegamer23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


That man is a complete idiot (and I am a Republican), and he's killed any hope of being elected. No one supports that comment. He should be forced to remove himself from the election entirely.

Such a stupid thing to say, and so NOT true.

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.
edit on 20-8-2012 by LadyGreenEyes because: additional commentary



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Thunder heart woman
 


I do not agree with abortion but they should let women do whatever they want. However I do not want to pay for it. I really do not. Just like I do not want to pay for lipo operations or boob implants. You can control your weight and you can control your obsessiveness about your body. You can control your uterus just fine. Keep your legs closed. Any time I have sex as a man I take the following into account. Do I like this woman enough that I am okay being linked with her with a child?? If the answer is yes I have sex with her with protection mind you. Even with protection I ask myself this question because contraceptives fail.

Why am i like this?? because I am responsible. Sex is to procreate. yes it is fun but it is its function to make babies. If you do not want babies do not have sex. if you do you are playing russian roulette every time. If you want to whore around then expect preganancies and stds. DO NOT EXPECT ME TO PAY FOR YOUR STUPIDITY.

Rape on the other hand is a different story. If a woman is raped then it should be a no brainer that she should get help for that. There really is no debate about that.

The other instances.. no just no. Unless you are into population control. I can just hear the arguement of.. "but if you bring a child into the world with a person who is not ready..." no one is ready for kids and you should have thought of that before you spread them. Even if the kid has a rough life they may turn out to be a good person but one will never know if you do not give them a chance. There are children who are born into great homes with great opportunites and end up being dead beets. .

I think women should take true control over their body by NOT whoring around and by showing true responsibility for themselves instead of having everyone else bail them out.


edit on 20-8-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-8-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-8-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by homerJ
If one of you "pro-life" people's wife was brutally raped and got pregnant, surely you'd change your tune????

2nd line


Actually, I used to know someone in that position. Young single girl at a church I attended (before I moved away). Raped, became pregnant, and had her baby. Most people (that didn't know her well) thought the child was her younger sister, as her parents wanted to protect her reputation, but her friends knew the truth. She stated that she didn't believe an abortion would be right, because that would be punishing the child for the crime of the father. So, does that answer your question?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Females with an 'anti pregnancy' mechanism when raped??


I see...




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by homerJ
If one of you "pro-life" people's wife was brutally raped and got pregnant, surely you'd change your tune????

2nd line


Actually, I used to know someone in that position. Young single girl at a church I attended (before I moved away). Raped, became pregnant, and had her baby. Most people (that didn't know her well) thought the child was her younger sister, as her parents wanted to protect her reputation, but her friends knew the truth. She stated that she didn't believe an abortion would be right, because that would be punishing the child for the crime of the father. So, does that answer your question?


The key detail in your story is that it was her decision to have the baby.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
turns out women may have higher incidents of pregnancy from rape than consensual sex

www.washingtonpost.com...

yeah ......ill just leave this here
edit on 20-8-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

I find this story hard to believe. They say 26 of the 405 reported a pregnancy that year. What does that mean? That has no bearing on the actual disparity in numbers of pregnant women, raped or not raped.
We are also talking about a very small sample size.

The whole story by the WashingtonPost feels cheap, capitalizing on the political fervor caused by Rep. Todd Akin. I mean look at the nuggets, quoted below. Clues for you and I to realize editing is not a priority.

women who were “legitimately raped” would rarely become pregnant. Study after study has proven that theory false.

The Gottschalls do acknowledge that their study was at odds with previous research, which showed a lower rate of pregnancy among rape victims



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Lol. Too sad for words.

These people run our world...

Need I say any more?


And people wonder why I drink so much



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 


i agree the sample size is small which is why i said may
however the reasons given do make a lot of sense
if you read the article carefully you would notice that they give percentages illustrating the disparity and those numbers were 6.3 percent of the rape victims became pregnant from having intercourse once and 3.1 percent of people who had consensual sex becoming pregnant from having intercourse once..... thats over double the rate of people who had consensual sex
and just because its at odds with previous research doesnt mean that it is not in line with many other studies
(it could be in agreement with for example 400 out of 401 studies and still be at odds with previous studies)
that is not a contradiction so i dont understand what point youre trying to make with that
edit on 21-8-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by igor_ats
 





All this talk about "life begins" and hearbeats is a red herring. When someone suggests that we should use heartbeat to decide when to restrict abortion, don't fall into their trap.


As opposed to "a bunch of cells" which have no heart....the typical argument of pro choice is that the baby is not "viable outside the womb", not that the baby is not alive. Typically when a woman goes for an abortion, the heart has developed. But when Pro choicers suggest that it's just a bunch of cells lining the uterus, they essentially trick unsuspecting women into believing the baby is not really a separate live being.


Again, Roe V Wade was not about a small developing heart. It was also not about whether or not a zygote is already alive.

The only reason viability is a factor is because the brain, the last thing to develop because it's so complex.

Most abortions are early term and at that stage is not close to a sentient person. An organism without a brain (and disconnected neurons do not amount to one) is not a human being - no more than a HeLa culture is a human being.

What is the PL definition of a human being? Anything with unique human DNA? Oh, it's Alive! Well, that includes HeLa cultures.

To forestall a Slippery Slope objection about the concept of "proper function", IMHO an organism without a brain (and disconnected neurons do not amount to one) is not a human 'being' - no more than a HeLa culture or those "little babies" in IVF clinics are human 'beings'.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
I don't understand what the big deal is here. Some guy said what the entire republican platform has been screaming and beating the podium has been saying for years now.
Someone explain to me why this is making news? Because he said direct what...the rest have more or less said indirectly anyhow?

whatever.

the only people whom are shocked by this guys statements are the people that simply haven't been paying attention.

Damn liberal media reporting on what people say!



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by igor_ats
 


Encyclopedia Britannica disagrees with you. It was about a woman's right to privacy of her body(and by the way the woman in the is now known to have lied and the attorneys picked her and used her for their own ends).

www.britannica.com...

Well I may have misread your post, but again, r v w did not prove the fetus was not alive in the womb nor the zygote, but suggested that it was not viable outside the womb and that viability outside the womb seems to have been important to them for some reason, though I'm not sure, as it doesn't indicate liveness but only an ability to survive outside the womb. It doesn't mean the baby doesn't feel pain, as we now know that fetuses react to prodding and poking. But the viability framework seems to be the arbitrary time Roe picked to stop when you can have an abortion, as viability determines per the court when you can no longer abort. For some reason, the court decided that the ability to survive outside the womb determined the baby's worth to society. For the court apparently, 7 months was the cut off date as that is the time when babies tend to become able to survive outside the womb. One can view it though as the court realizing that if the baby could survive outsidee the womb then it must be developed enough to feel pain. Pro lifers tend to view the fetus as sacred life from conception and not as a strictly materialistic thing. this is one thing that is rarely discussed though because secular scientific humanists don't respond to such arguments as the soul becoming entwined with the developing baby body. Doctors readily admit that new life begins at conception. The court introduced this idea of viabiilitlity outside the womb though. Ironically, if the baby could survive outside the womb then it was ready to be born, but it doesn't mean the baby is not alive or valuable. It is a shame society has so devalued life aborning in the womb in this manner.
wikipedia on roe v wade


Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimester of pregnancy.


The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 21-8-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by igor_ats
 


wseek 5 the baby's brain, spinal chord and nervous system are beginning to develop. A woman tends to be scheduled for abortions between 8 and 12 weeks.


The fifth week of pregnancy, or the third week after conception, marks the beginning of the embryonic period. This is when the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form.



Week 7: Baby's head develops
Seven weeks into your pregnancy, or five weeks after conception, your baby's brain and face are rapidly developing. Tiny nostrils become visible, and the eye lenses begin to form. The arm buds that sprouted last week now take on the shape of paddles.


www.mayoclinic.com...

www.buzzle.com...



Anything else you would like to splurt out without any research?
edit on 21-8-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 



beginning to develop and developed are two entirely different things so your point would be........?

and this is why reading comprehension is important

self awareness only occurs in very developed brains (bacteria is capable of reacting to external stimuli such as "prodding and poking")
and he specifically states it was not about whether or not the zygote was defined as alive

if technology developed to a degree that a human mind can be uploaded into a virtual environment emulating reality so that for all intents and purposes there are two of the same person the same in every way with the exception of one being digital (the person is self aware has the same memory personality etc.) which one of these people gets the soul?
if a person is cloned is a new soul created? (in this case the person may have the same genetics but be a different person)
and what do you consider a soul to be? is it the personality? is it what began the life? what is it? the term is thrown around a lot but nobody seems to have a clear idea of what its supposed to be only that its what makes us special (which i see as entirely ego driven)
do beluga whales have souls? (beluga whales have an average iq of 155 much higher than the average human)
and for that matter what do you consider "heaven" to be (because lets face it the desire for life after death is the reason for the theory of a soul)?
edit on 21-8-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join