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

page: 3
66
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by pajoly
 


Whoa there, partner... First off, I'll admit to swinging to the right side of the political spectrum. I make no secret of that...

However, to say I'd vote for this crass little man, before I'd vote democrat is sadly mistaken. I am, however strange it may sound, a conservative democrat...have been for several years now. A rare beast, to be sure, but we're out there.

If you're old enough, you'll remember a gentleman by the name of Henry Jackson, Senator from Washington...or Sam Nunn from Georgia... Liberal on many fronts, and conservative on just as many others. So gently on the tarring and feathering.


Fair enough. My apologies. Indeed I remember Sam Nunn, a very good and decent man who, like most of his generation truly put country first and did not need to wear a lapel pin to authenticate his patriotism.

I am only scared of one thing politically, and I allow that to send me ranting, and that's the rapid ambition of the hard Right Christians. Sharia Law? What sane person actually fears that happening in the U.S.? A government ruled by theocrats serving oligarchs? Tell me that ain't a clear and present danger.




posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Hey, give the guy a break.
It's not like the senate has to do anything important.
Not like you guys have nuclear weapons or anything.

After all, if you did, there'd be rhetoric flying everywhere. Can't have nuclear weapons in the hands of idiots, can we.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


It took five pages on the Google... but I finally found an entry for the keywords "assault rape pregnancies are rare" that was not a pro-life group of any sort. And it simply says the following:


Pregnancy: Because rape, just like consensual sex, can lead to pregnancy, it is important for female victims to be tested after an assault. If you need additional information Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs): Victims of sexual violence are at risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections. • If you went to the emergency room for a rape exam, you should have been offered preventive treatment (antibiotics) for sexually transmitted infections and given information about where to go for follow-­‐up testing.


Source

But, really... minimizing rape on any level? I think that's a poor outlook for any public servant to have.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
This "medical factoid" has been around for decades, gaining widespread acceptance after 1980, with the increasing cultural push for conservative extremism, particularly religion/anti-abortion.

A letter written in 1980 to an Arkansas newspaper states

"conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami."


The letter writer, a GW Bush nominee, was confirmed as Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Arkansas in 2004.


Mr. Holmes criticized the argument that abortion should be available to rape victims as a red herring because "conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.

source

These intelligent extremists have been and are continuing to be placed/elected into positions of power.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by neo96
 


It took five pages on the Google... but I finally found an entry for the keywords "assault rape pregnancies are rare" that was not a pro-life group of any sort. And it simply says the following:


Pregnancy: Because rape, just like consensual sex, can lead to pregnancy, it is important for female victims to be tested after an assault. If you need additional information Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs): Victims of sexual violence are at risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections. • If you went to the emergency room for a rape exam, you should have been offered preventive treatment (antibiotics) for sexually transmitted infections and given information about where to go for follow-­‐up testing.


Source

But, really... minimizing rape on any level? I think that's a poor outlook for any public servant to have.

~Heff


Minimizing rape on any level?

Like the hatred for a Republican more than rapists?

Here is another one:

www.rainn.org...
edit on 19-8-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I don't hate Republicans - and have gone out of my way to say so!


In fact since the age of consent I've only voted for two non-Republican Presidential candidates. Perot and Obama.

Truth be told I have no hatred for the Mr Akin even... But it does trouble me that somebody with his drastic views holds such high office.

For me, who we elect is like a reflection of who we are as a country, This is one mirror image that I find rather unsettling.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
No wonder right wingers would LOVE to get rid of the public education system

dumber population = more GOP votes.

so so sad.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


See - I'm British

I don't give a monkeys whether he's a Republican or a Democrat. Makes no difference to me.

His viewpoint means he's simply an idiot. He's politicising a heinous act, and being stupid about it at the same time.

What bothers me is that people may choose to defend his viewpoint and vote for him because of it. Thats just damn scary.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


The guy is anti abortion who is trying to save the life of a child(many of them) that has no capacity to fight back which makes him stupid,extremist etc.

Where a child was created by an act of violence then get's destroyed by another act of violence then condemned for having an opinion on the subject.

The guy has a right to have opinions just like anyone else is people are free to agree or disagree.

edit on 19-8-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


+11 more 
posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
The guy is anti abortion who is trying to save the life of a child(many of them) that has no capacity to fight back which makes him stupid,extremist etc.


The man is an idiot who expects a woman to carry her rapists child. Do you have any idea of the concept of that from a woman's point of view?

Force into sex. Humiliated. Degraded. Violated.

And then some fool comes along and tells her she has to carry the child of the man who did that to her - a daily reminder of the event for 9 months of pregnancy, the whole birthing process and a lifetime reminder of the event afterwards.

That's not politics. That's not even religion. That's just pure evil sadism.

No one has the right to say that to a woman when it can be prevented. No one.

Its 2012 dammit, not the stone age.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


The problem isn't that he's pro-life. The problem is that he is saying if you got pregnant from a rape it means you actually wanted to be raped. It doesn't matter if you're pro-life or pro-choice that is just an extremely stupid and horrific statement to make.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 




The man is an idiot who expects a woman to carry her rapists child. Do you have any idea of the concept of that from a woman's point of view?


Somewhat a few friends of mine have been raped.




And then some fool comes along and tells her she has to carry the child of the man who did that to her - a daily reminder of the event for 9 months of pregnancy, the whole birthing process and a lifetime reminder of the event afterwards.


So kill it when there are other options available like putting it up for adoption and giving a couple who can't have a child the opportunity to raise the child as there own.

That is pure sadism




No one has the right to say that to a woman when it can be prevented. No one.


Who has the right to tell a woman hey got raped kill it ?

Yeah it is 2012 in what most people called a civilized world that allows people to kill what they don't want.


For the record I do not agree with abortion and would not tell a woman what do.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Seems like you're telling a woman what she cannot do. Is there a difference?

~Heff



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
No wonder right wingers would LOVE to get rid of the public education system

dumber population = more GOP votes.

so so sad.


Originally posted by neformore
Take "Republican" out of the agenda for a minute, and ask yourself how an educated man in 2012 can make such a statement.

The guy is no spring chicken - he's obviously been around the block a bit - surely he must realise how crassly stupid and downright offensive what he says is?

oh this creepazoid knows he's talking crap

from the link i posted earlier
www.alternet.org...


David Hackett Fischer, whose Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways In America informs both Lind's and Woodard's work, described just how deeply undemocratic the Southern aristocracy was, and still is. He documents how these elites have always feared and opposed universal literacy, public schools and libraries, and a free press. (Lind adds that they have historically been profoundly anti-technology as well, far preferring solutions that involve finding more serfs and throwing them at a problem whenever possible. Why buy a bulldozer when 150 convicts on a chain gang can grade your road instead?) Unlike the Puritan elites, who wore their wealth modestly and dedicated themselves to the common good, Southern elites sank their money into ostentatious homes and clothing and the pursuit of pleasure -- including lavish parties, games of fortune, predatory sexual conquests, and blood sports involving ritualized animal abuse spectacles.

***
In the old South, on the other hand, the degree of liberty you enjoyed was a direct function of your God-given place in the social hierarchy. The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more "liberty" you could exercise -- which meant, in practical terms, that you had the right to take more "liberties" with the lives, rights and property of other people. Like an English lord unfettered from the Magna Carta, nobody had the authority to tell a Southern gentleman what to do with resources under his control. In this model, that's what liberty is. If you don't have the freedom to rape, beat, torture, kill, enslave, or exploit your underlings (including your wife and children) with impunity -- or abuse the land, or enforce rules on others that you will never have to answer to yourself -- then you can't really call yourself a free man.

When a Southern conservative talks about "losing his liberty," the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control -- and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from -- is what he's really talking about. In this view, freedom is a zero-sum game. Anything that gives more freedom and rights to lower-status people can't help but put serious limits on the freedom of the upper classes to use those people as they please. It cannot be any other way. So they find Yankee-style rights expansions absolutely intolerable, to the point where they're willing to fight and die to preserve their divine right to rule. Once we understand the two different definitions of "liberty" at work here, a lot of other things suddenly make much more sense. We can understand the traditional Southern antipathy to education, progress, public investment, unionization, equal opportunity, and civil rights. The fervent belief among these elites that they should completely escape any legal or social accountability for any harm they cause. Their obsessive attention to where they fall in the status hierarchies. And, most of all -- the unremitting and unapologetic brutality with which they've defended these "liberties" across the length of their history.

When Southerners quote Patrick Henry -- "Give me liberty or give me death" -- what they're really demanding is the unquestioned, unrestrained right to turn their fellow citizens into supplicants and subjects.

Ironically, though: it was that old Yankee commitment to national betterment that ultimately gave the Southern aristocracy its big chance to break out and go national. According to Lind, it was easy for the Northeast to hold onto cultural, political and economic power as long as all the country's major banks, businesses, universities, and industries were headquartered there. But the New Deal -- and, especially, the post-war interstate highways, dams, power grids, and other infrastructure investments that gave rise to the Sun Belt -- fatally loosened the Yankees' stranglehold on national power. The gleaming new cities of the South and West shifted the American population centers westward, unleashing new political and economic forces with real power to challenge the Yankee consensus. And because a vast number of these westward migrants came out of the South, the elites that rose along with these cities tended to hew to the old Southern code, and either tacitly or openly resist the moral imperatives of the Yankee canon. The soaring postwar fortunes of cities like Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta fed that ancient Barbadian slaveholder model of power with plenty of room and resources to launch a fresh and unexpected 20th-century revival.

According to historian Darren Dochuk, the author of From Bible Belt to Sunbelt: Plain-Folk Religion, Grassroots Politics, and the Rise of Evangelical Conservatism, these post-war Southerners and Westerners drew their power from the new wealth provided by the defense, energy, real estate, and other economic booms in their regions. They also had a profound evangelical conviction, brought with them out of the South, that God wanted them to take America back from the Yankee liberals -- a conviction that expressed itself simultaneously in both the formation of the vast post-war evangelical churches (which were major disseminators of Southern culture around the country); and in their takeover of the GOP, starting with Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964 and culminating with Ronald Reagan's election in 1980.

They countered Yankee hegemony by building their own universities, grooming their own leaders and creating their own media. By the 1990s, they were staging the RINO hunts that drove the last Republican moderates (almost all of them Yankees, by either geography or cultural background) and the meritocratic order they represented to total extinction within the GOP. A decade later, the Tea Party became the voice of the unleashed id of the old Southern order, bringing it forward into the 21st century with its full measure of selfishness, racism, superstition, and brutality intact.
edit on 19-8-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 

hiya heff, dont forget:[to paraphrase carlin]

he wants to take kids lunch money, for his criminal friends

from the link in the op: 2012.talkingpointsmemo.com...


Akin is perhaps the boldest among a crop of conservative 2012 nominees who could hamper GOP efforts to take back the Senate in the fall. Akin has called for an end to the school-lunch program and a total ban on the morning-after pill.



reply to post by neo96
 


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

Take this for what it is worth.

Calling people stupid over it?

That is ones prerogative.

from the ops link


A 1996 study by the American Journal of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found “rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency” and is “a cause of many unwanted pregnancies” — an estimated “32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.”
your link has the stink of agenda behind it, though i'm sure you believe the same of the American Journal of Obstetricians and Gynecologists




Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by seagull
 


Its not really a party politics thing...



It is on this thread? Quite a few ATS members are having trouble separating the person from the party. Rep. Akin isn't the only small-minded loon here.

/TOA
lol be careful with what's underfoot
edit on 19-8-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: fixed bbcode
edit on 19-8-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by neo96
 


Seems like you're telling a woman what she cannot do. Is there a difference?

~Heff


Really thought I was stating a personal opinion there is a difference of having an opinion on things that does not mean that ones wants to impose their beliefs on others.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by neo96
 


The problem isn't that he's pro-life. The problem is that he is saying if you got pregnant from a rape it means you actually wanted to be raped. It doesn't matter if you're pro-life or pro-choice that is just an extremely stupid and horrific statement to make.


Quote that from the article specifically please.

Direct quotation where he said if you got pregnant from a rape they wanted to be raped.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by neo96
 


The problem isn't that he's pro-life. The problem is that he is saying if you got pregnant from a rape it means you actually wanted to be raped. It doesn't matter if you're pro-life or pro-choice that is just an extremely stupid and horrific statement to make.


Quote that from the article specifically please.

Direct quotation where he said if you got pregnant from a rape they wanted to be raped.


not from atkins perhaps,
but you yourself posted on the "if you were raped, god wanted it to happen" thread if memory serves
so just check your own posting history

searching rape with ats search

seems to show that the ole patriarchal "right to rape" is alive and kicking in some parts of the us
edit on 19-8-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by neo96
 


The problem isn't that he's pro-life. The problem is that he is saying if you got pregnant from a rape it means you actually wanted to be raped. It doesn't matter if you're pro-life or pro-choice that is just an extremely stupid and horrific statement to make.


Quote that from the article specifically please.

Direct quotation where he said if you got pregnant from a rape they wanted to be raped.


not from atkins perhaps,
but you yourself posted on the "if you were raped, god wanted it to happen" thread if memory serves
so just check your own posting history

searching rape with ats search

seems to show that the ole patriarchal "right to rape" is alive and kicking in some parts of the us
edit on 19-8-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)


Link the post please:


“Let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something,” Akin said. “I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”


The "right to rape" ??????



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Uhg, I live in Missouri. This makes me sick!
He seems uninformed or is just ignoring facts to "help" his agenda, although statements like these will probably hurt it.





new topics
top topics
 
66
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join