Some political parties just never learn...except to circle the wagons in other races.
QuoteA Republican Senate nominee found himself in hot water on Sunday for suggesting that instances of "legitimate rape" rarely results in pregnancy.
Rep. Todd Akin, a Republican who's locked in a hard-fought campaign in Missouri to unseat Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, was answering a question regarding his position on abortion rights in instances when a woman is a victim of rape.
"People always want to make it into one of those things — well, how do you slice this particularly tough ethical question," Akin said in an interview on KTVI-TV, video of which was circulated by the Democratic super PAC American Bridge.
"First of all, from what I understand from doctors, [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin said.
Regarding his opinion on whether to allow for an abortion in such instances, Akin added: "But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."
Akin's comments had an almost immediate impact on Missouri's Senate race. McCaskill wrote on Twitter: As a woman & former prosecutor who handled 100s of rape cases,I'm stunned by Rep Akin's comments about victims this AM
In a statement, Akin said that he had misspoken.
"In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it's clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year," he said.
Akin emerged earlier this month from a tough three-way primary in Missouri, where he rallied social conservatives behind his candidacy. Democrats actually spent during that primary to help Akin win, viewing the six-term congressman as a less formidable challenger in the general election.
McCaskill, who was first elected in 2006, has become a top target for Republicans this fall, given President Barack Obama's unpopularity in the state and successive statewide victories for the GOP.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's campaign issued a statement disagreeing with Akin.
"Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul.
Republicans need a net gain of four seats this fall in order to take over the Senate in the next Congress, and Democrats must defend 23 seats this fall. But unexpected Republican retirements and races that have become more competitive than expected have boosted Democratic hopes of maintaining their majority.
so, he said "Rape Rape" can't knock you up but "Rape" can?
The Republican War on Science by
Chris Mooney (//http://)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin
QuoteThe comment was widely criticized.[34][35][36] Related news articles cited a 1996 article in an obstetrics and gynecology journal, which found that 5% of women who were raped became pregnant, which equaled about 32,000 pregnancies each year in the US alone.[37]
My friend commented on this by saying we need to exterminate baby boomers. I'm inclined to agree - the modern day problems do not come from people having right-wing or left-wing views but because baby boomers are both in power and out of touch, today more than ever.
Quote from: Martinus on August 20, 2012, 07:38:13 AM
My friend commented on this by saying we need to exterminate baby boomers. I'm inclined to agree - the modern day problems do not come from people having right-wing or left-wing views but because baby boomers are both in power and out of touch, today more than ever.
If we start mass killings, you go first.
Nothing is funnier on the internet than the frothing rage at baby boomers. Shake your tiny impotent fists you dweebs.
Quote from: Martinus on August 20, 2012, 07:38:13 AM
My friend commented on this by saying we need to exterminate baby boomers. I'm inclined to agree - the modern day problems do not come from people having right-wing or left-wing views but because baby boomers are both in power and out of touch, today more than ever.
You just hate breeders and the very thought of men and women doing it makes you feel icky. Gay sex is icky, but I don't go about calling for the extermination of fags do I now.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2012, 08:00:08 AM
Nothing is funnier on the internet than the frothing rage at baby boomers. Shake your tiny impotent fists you dweebs.
you're old.
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2012, 08:14:41 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2012, 08:00:08 AM
Nothing is funnier on the internet than the frothing rage at baby boomers. Shake your tiny impotent fists you dweebs.
you're old.
Is that really the best you can do?
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2012, 08:15:36 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2012, 08:14:41 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2012, 08:00:08 AM
Nothing is funnier on the internet than the frothing rage at baby boomers. Shake your tiny impotent fists you dweebs.
you're old.
Is that really the best you can do?
the truth is all i need. that comment will eat at your very soul, just wait for it :P
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2012, 08:16:20 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2012, 08:15:36 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2012, 08:14:41 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2012, 08:00:08 AM
Nothing is funnier on the internet than the frothing rage at baby boomers. Shake your tiny impotent fists you dweebs.
you're old.
Is that really the best you can do?
the truth is all i need. that comment will eat at your very soul, just wait for it :P
I guess. :rolleyes:
I'll go take a shower so that eats away at me while I'm washing my balls, ok?
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2012, 08:17:26 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2012, 08:16:20 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2012, 08:15:36 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2012, 08:14:41 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2012, 08:00:08 AM
Nothing is funnier on the internet than the frothing rage at baby boomers. Shake your tiny impotent fists you dweebs.
you're old.
Is that really the best you can do?
the truth is all i need. that comment will eat at your very soul, just wait for it :P
I guess. :rolleyes:
I'll go take a shower so that eats away at me while I'm washing my balls, ok?
sounds like a plan :D
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2012, 08:17:26 AM
I guess. :rolleyes:
I'll go take a shower so that eats away at me while I'm washing my balls, ok?
Old man balls.
QuoteIf it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down
Hmmm...
Quote from: Syt on August 20, 2012, 08:24:35 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2012, 08:17:26 AM
I guess. :rolleyes:
I'll go take a shower so that eats away at me while I'm washing my balls, ok?
Old man balls.
What's wrong with that?
Oh, I meant it more as new name for Angerbutt. Old Man Balls.
5% of rapes result in pregnancy?
That cannot possibly be right, can it?
Why would the incidence of pregnancy be higher for rape than not rape?
Or is the overall pregnancy rate that high?
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2012, 08:35:46 AM
5% of rapes result in pregnancy?
That cannot possibly be right, can it?
Why would the incidence of pregnancy be higher for rape than not rape?
Or is the overall pregnancy rate that high?
:hmm: Yeah, sounded like BS to me too when I read it. With that kind of fertility advantage, just Darwinian pressures alone would ensure that very quickly all men would have a "rapist" gene. Hmm, maybe feminists have a point? :hmm:
My magic Balls of Power have a higher success rate than that :D
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html
QuoteIn 2006, there were 52 unintended pregnancies for every 1,000 women aged 15–44. In other words, about 5% of reproductive-age women have an unintended pregnancy each year.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 08:41:41 AM
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html
QuoteIn 2006, there were 52 unintended pregnancies for every 1,000 women aged 15–44. In other words, about 5% of reproductive-age women have an unintended pregnancy each year.
That would support the 5% figure, if every woman had unplanned unprotected sex exactly once a year.
This might help :
http://www.cks.nhs.uk/contraception_emergency/background_information/chances_of_becoming_pregnant_after_sex
In the middle ages, didn't people believe that rape couldn't result in pregnancy?
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2012, 08:35:46 AM
5% of rapes result in pregnancy?
That cannot possibly be right, can it?
Why would the incidence of pregnancy be higher for rape than not rape?
Or is the overall pregnancy rate that high?
Maybe there is a reporting bias?
Reminds me of Ken Clarke's 'rape rape' and 'proper rape' comments. The word Akin is looking for now is sorry.
It should be interesting to see how the Romney-Ryan campaign continues to distance themselves from Congressman Akin, considering how Akin and Ryan were the sole cosponsors from HR 3 last year, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act", which would've eliminated federal funding in cases of "forcible rape", differentiating it from "statutory rape".
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 20, 2012, 08:54:41 AM
Reminds me of Ken Clarke's 'rape rape' and 'proper rape' comments. The word Akin is looking for now is sorry.
I would think the words should be "congratulations to my opponent".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 08:55:29 AM
It should be interesting to see how the Romney-Ryan campaign continues to distance themselves from Congressman Akin, considering how Akin and Ryan were the sole cosponsors from HR 3 last year, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act", which would've eliminated federal funding in cases of "forcible rape", differentiating it from "statutory rape".
Why should they need to continue if they've already said they do not agree with his comments?
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:00:10 AM
Why should they need to continue if they've already said they do not agree with his comments?
Because it's the top of the news cycle for the week, and it's going to be driven into the ground Berkut-style by everyone, from Democrats to the media to Akin's Mittenesque deflection, simply saying he "misspoke".
You think a single paragraph news release on a Sunday night is going to do the trick on this clusterfuck? I know you're not that fucking naive, so drop the Yicratic Method. There's only one person good at that bullshit around here.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 09:08:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:00:10 AM
Why should they need to continue if they've already said they do not agree with his comments?
Because it's the top of the news cycle for the week, and it's going to be driven into the ground Berkut-style by everyone, from Democrats to the media to Akin's Mittenesque deflection, simply saying he "misspoke".
You think a single paragraph news release on a Sunday night is going to do the trick on this clusterfuck? I know you're not that fucking naive, so drop the Yicratic Method. There's only one person good at that bullshit around here.
What's sad is that you're acting as though this is really relevant to the campaign and that they are stumbling around for an answer. They've already established that they don't agree with his comments so isn't hard to imagine that they'd continue in that vein...and that's hardly interesting.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:12:08 AM
What's sad is that you're acting as though this is really relevant to the campaign and that they are stumbling around for an answer. They've already established that they don't agree with his comments so isn't hard to imagine that they'd continue in that vein...and that's hardly interesting.
They're going to be playing damage control all week; they're not going to have a choice in the matter.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 09:22:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:12:08 AM
What's sad is that you're acting as though this is really relevant to the campaign and that they are stumbling around for an answer. They've already established that they don't agree with his comments so isn't hard to imagine that they'd continue in that vein...and that's hardly interesting.
They're going to be playing damage control all week; they're not going to have a choice in the matter.
Damage control with the response already formulated isn't interesting - so I don't see why you are so excited.
After all this isn't one of those cases where Obama needed months to distance himself from hateful things said by associates.
My Health teacher in high school (a really nice guy but very religious) tried to tell us that rape doesn't result in pregnancy because the rapist almost never ejaculates.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 09:29:09 AM
My Health teacher in high school (a really nice guy but very religious) tried to tell us that rape doesn't result in pregnancy because the rapist almost never ejaculates.
:lol:
That's pretty funny. Pretty sad, but pretty funny.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 09:33:09 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 09:29:09 AM
My Health teacher in high school (a really nice guy but very religious) tried to tell us that rape doesn't result in pregnancy because the rapist almost never ejaculates.
:lol:
That's pretty funny. Pretty sad, but pretty funny.
The few of us in class who were listening looked at each other as if to say 'WTF' but nobody said anything. Coach May was a nice guy until you pushed on of his buttons, and that was likely to have been one of them.
edit: He had a really hott daughter one year younger than me, but hardly anyone wanted to date her out of fear (or possibly respect) of him.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 09:29:09 AM
My Health teacher in high school (a really nice guy but very religious) tried to tell us that rape doesn't result in pregnancy because the rapist almost never ejaculates.
Maybe your teacher had performance anxiety?
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 09:29:09 AM
My Health teacher in high school (a really nice guy but very religious) tried to tell us that rape doesn't result in pregnancy because the rapist almost never ejaculates.
It's not funny, this is disgusting. He is doing what the mormons call lying for the lord. And yes, it is doctrine. He is lying or somebody else he trusts is lying vicariously through him so that people don't use condoms and to try to justify to himself that rape babies aren't really rape babies, but lying jezibel babies.
"Believe me kids, and I speak from years of experience - rape ain't worth it. Doesn't get you off most of the time."
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:28:14 AM
After all this isn't one of those cases where Obama needed months to distance himself from hateful things said by associates.
Are you talking about the priest from the church Obama used to go to? Because if so, it is a really shitty case of intellectual dishonesty to compare that to actual stuff said by a political nominee running for the office from the same party as you do.
Quote from: Martinus on August 20, 2012, 09:48:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:28:14 AM
After all this isn't one of those cases where Obama needed months to distance himself from hateful things said by associates.
Are you talking about the priest from the church Obama used to go to? Because if so, it is a really shitty case of intellectual dishonesty to compare that to actual stuff said by a political nominee running for the office from the same party as you do.
Well, I would imagine someone would have a closer relationship with his pastor than some guy who just happens to have the same party affiliation.
I'm not sure what you expect Romney to do. Romney's not the boss of the GOP, and even if he were it's not like he could kick the guy off the ballot with the snap of his fingers.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 09:55:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 20, 2012, 09:48:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:28:14 AM
After all this isn't one of those cases where Obama needed months to distance himself from hateful things said by associates.
Are you talking about the priest from the church Obama used to go to? Because if so, it is a really shitty case of intellectual dishonesty to compare that to actual stuff said by a political nominee running for the office from the same party as you do.
Well, I would imagine someone would have a closer relationship with his pastor than some guy who just happens to have the same party affiliation.
I'm not sure what you expect Romney to do. Romney's not the boss of the GOP, and even if he were it's not like he could kick the guy off the ballot with the snap of his fingers.
Indeed.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 09:55:37 AM
I'm not sure what you expect Romney to do. Romney's not the boss of the GOP, and even if he were it's not like he could kick the guy off the ballot with the snap of his fingers.
Yeah, actually he is the new boss of the GOP. That's part of the perks being the party's presidential nominee.
But the nice thing about Mittens inexperience of being a politician is that he refuses to take a leadership position with his party, allowing the Democrats to define him instead.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 10:16:30 AM
Yeah, actually he is the new boss of the GOP. That's part of the perks being the party's presidential nominee.
But the nice thing about Mittens inexperience of being a politician is that he refuses to take a leadership position with his party, allowing the Democrats to define him instead.
He won't be be the party leader until/unless he wins the general election.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 10:19:43 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 10:16:30 AM
Yeah, actually he is the new boss of the GOP. That's part of the perks being the party's presidential nominee.
But the nice thing about Mittens inexperience of being a politician is that he refuses to take a leadership position with his party, allowing the Democrats to define him instead.
He won't be be the party leader until/unless he wins the general election.
Bullshit.
But if you want to be happy thinking it's Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor or Reince Priebus, be my guest.
It doesn't matter whether or not Seedy considers him the party leader.
The issue is a flash in the pan. Some random Republican saying something stupid has at best minor impact on the Presidential nominee, just like the reverse has minimal impact.
You do your damage control, and move along. The guy doesn't have any direct connection with Romney.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 10:25:37 AM
Bullshit.
But if you want to be happy thinking it's Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor or Reince Priebus, be my guest.
I'm okay with them. Not "happy", strictly speaking, but okay.
I don't recall any demands that Obama censure Harry Reid for his no taxes paid comment.
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 09:43:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 09:29:09 AM
My Health teacher in high school (a really nice guy but very religious) tried to tell us that rape doesn't result in pregnancy because the rapist almost never ejaculates.
It's not funny, this is disgusting. He is doing what the mormons call lying for the lord. And yes, it is doctrine. He is lying or somebody else he trusts is lying vicariously through him so that people don't use condoms and to try to justify to himself that rape babies aren't really rape babies, but lying jezibel babies.
:blink:
You can tell all that about him based on two lines from derspeiss' post?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 10:39:25 AM
I don't recall any demands that Obama censure Harry Reid for his no taxes paid comment.
That's the Senate's job, not the Presidizzle's.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 11:02:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 09:43:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 09:29:09 AM
My Health teacher in high school (a really nice guy but very religious) tried to tell us that rape doesn't result in pregnancy because the rapist almost never ejaculates.
It's not funny, this is disgusting. He is doing what the mormons call lying for the lord. And yes, it is doctrine. He is lying or somebody else he trusts is lying vicariously through him so that people don't use condoms and to try to justify to himself that rape babies aren't really rape babies, but lying jezibel babies.
:blink:
You can tell all that about him based on two lines from derspeiss' post?
derspeiss mentioned that the guy was religious, so that means that Viking will automatically appear to fling shit. It's just his way.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 11:08:07 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 10:39:25 AM
I don't recall any demands that Obama censure Harry Reid for his no taxes paid comment.
That's the Senate's job, not the Presidizzle's.
No it isn't. Obama needs to show some leadership of the party that he is leader of.
Quote from: Neil on August 20, 2012, 11:14:22 AM
No it isn't. Obama needs to show some leadership of the party that he is leader of.
He hasn't started yet, so why start now?
But, if the GOPtards want to continued equating a call-out on Mittenses' tax returns with yet another GOP brush fire fuck up on abortion by a midwestern douchebag attached legislatively to the veep candidate, then hey, they can continue to fuck with women in an election year at their peril. I hope they continue the theme.
A "call out?" :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 11:21:22 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 20, 2012, 11:14:22 AM
No it isn't. Obama needs to show some leadership of the party that he is leader of.
He hasn't started yet, so why start now?
But, if the GOPtards want to continued equating a call-out on Mittenses' tax returns with yet another GOP brush fire fuck up on abortion by a midwestern douchebag attached legislatively to the veep candidate, then hey, they can continue to fuck with women in an election year at their peril. I hope they continue the theme.
Nice that the "party leader" is only responsible if he's not on your side. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 11:22:31 AM
A "call out?" :lol:
Yeah, man. Harry called him out. Mittens dodged and weaved, and left it up to Mrs. Mittens to get all defensive and upset on national television.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 11:23:48 AM
Nice that the "party leader" is only responsible if he's not on your side. :D
We've had an entire presidential administration to see how Obama leads a party. One would think the contenders would take a bigger leadership stake in an election, considering how much more fractured the GOP is.
But, let Mittens continue to do the passive CEO thing. The Teabaggers on the Board of Directors demand it.
Seedy = hilarious
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 11:28:43 AM
Seedy = hilarious
derfetuss = opposed to handing out whore pills like Flintstones vitamins
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 11:24:41 AM
Yeah, man. Harry called him out. Mittens dodged and weaved, and left it up to Mrs. Mittens to get all defensive and upset on national television.
:lmfao: Like the birthers called out Obama on where he was born.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 11:33:57 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 11:24:41 AM
Yeah, man. Harry called him out. Mittens dodged and weaved, and left it up to Mrs. Mittens to get all defensive and upset on national television.
:lmfao: Like the birthers called out Obama on where he was born.
You say that in past tense, like it actually stopped or something.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 11:34:45 AM
You say that in past tense, like it actually stopped or something.
Harry hasn't recanted either, last time I checked.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 11:28:09 AM
We've had an entire presidential administration to see how Obama leads a party. One would think the contenders would take a bigger leadership stake in an election, considering how much more fractured the GOP is.
But, let Mittens continue to do the passive CEO thing. The Teabaggers on the Board of Directors demand it.
Why? Obama never had to take leadership of his party, and never seemed poised to (even during the election) - so why is it only Repubs that would need to do so?
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 11:39:17 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 11:28:09 AM
We've had an entire presidential administration to see how Obama leads a party. One would think the contenders would take a bigger leadership stake in an election, considering how much more fractured the GOP is.
But, let Mittens continue to do the passive CEO thing. The Teabaggers on the Board of Directors demand it.
Why? Obama never had to take leadership of his party, and never seemed poised to (even during the election) - so why is it only Repubs that would need to do so?
QuoteWe've had an entire presidential administration to see how Obama leads a party. One would think the contenders would take a bigger leadership stake in an election, considering how much more fractured the GOP is.
The GOP is more fractured than the Democrats? Just because they have one faction that has broken away that demands the destruction of America doesn't mean that they're more fractured than the Democrats. Hell, the Democrats wish they only had one crazy faction, rather than having to deal with labour, blacks, hippies and environmentalists.
Quote from: merithyn on August 20, 2012, 11:48:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2012, 08:35:46 AM
5% of rapes result in pregnancy?
That cannot possibly be right, can it?
Why would the incidence of pregnancy be higher for rape than not rape?
Or is the overall pregnancy rate that high?
No time for a condom, I'd guess, unlike consensual sex.
Plenty of rapists do in fact use condoms because they know about the risk of leaving a DNA sample. I knew of one guy show shaved his body hair and wore gloves, to try and avoid capture.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 11:53:07 AM
Plenty of rapists do in fact use condoms because they know about the risk of leaving a DNA sample. I knew of one guy show shaved his body hair and wore gloves, to try and avoid capture.
And plenty of rapists shoot their load in no time, because they're sexual deviants at the height of their frenzy.
:w00t: :blush:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 11:41:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 11:39:17 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 11:28:09 AM
We've had an entire presidential administration to see how Obama leads a party. One would think the contenders would take a bigger leadership stake in an election, considering how much more fractured the GOP is.
But, let Mittens continue to do the passive CEO thing. The Teabaggers on the Board of Directors demand it.
Why? Obama never had to take leadership of his party, and never seemed poised to (even during the election) - so why is it only Repubs that would need to do so?
QuoteWe've had an entire presidential administration to see how Obama leads a party. One would think the contenders would take a bigger leadership stake in an election, considering how much more fractured the GOP is.
:lol:
I can give you two years tops. Obama was not in charge during the Pelosi-Reid interlude.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 11:55:48 AM
I can give you two years tops. Obama was not in charge during the Pelosi-Reid interlude.
Dude, what the fuck do you think I've been saying? We've seen how he runs his party; he doesn't. Christ.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 11:54:17 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 11:53:07 AM
Plenty of rapists do in fact use condoms because they know about the risk of leaving a DNA sample. I knew of one guy show shaved his body hair and wore gloves, to try and avoid capture.
And plenty of rapists shoot their load in no time, because they're sexual deviants at the height of their frenzy.
Even barring that, sperm can be present in pre-seminal fluid.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 11:58:12 AM
Even barring that, sperm can be present in pre-seminal fluid.
Yup.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 11:57:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 11:55:48 AM
I can give you two years tops. Obama was not in charge during the Pelosi-Reid interlude.
Dude, what the fuck do you think I've been saying? We've seen how he runs his party; he doesn't. Christ.
So again - why should the Repub candidates need to so? We survived 4 years without leadership.
I'm ignoring the bit about the GOP being more fractious as that's just patently false.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 11:58:12 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 11:54:17 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 11:53:07 AM
Plenty of rapists do in fact use condoms because they know about the risk of leaving a DNA sample. I knew of one guy show shaved his body hair and wore gloves, to try and avoid capture.
And plenty of rapists shoot their load in no time, because they're sexual deviants at the height of their frenzy.
Even barring that, sperm can be present in pre-seminal fluid.
Contested, especially with regards to amount and and likelihood of conception.
Btw, clearly this incident Seedy is a non-starter as an attack on Romney:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-calls-akin-rape-insulting-inexcusable-142622223.html
Quote"Congressman's Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable and, frankly, wrong," Romney said. "Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive."
"I have an entirely different view," Romney told National Review. "What he said is entirely without merit, and he should correct it."
Don't think Romney could be more clear there. :lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 12:03:27 PM
Contested, especially with regards to amount and and likelihood of conception.
Quotein March 2011 a team of researchers assembled 27 male volunteers and analyzed their pre-ejaculate samples within two minutes after producing them. The researchers found that 11 of the 27 men (41%) produced pre-ejaculatory samples that contained sperm, and 10 of these samples (37%) contained a "fair amount" of motile sperm (i.e. as little as 1 million to as many as 35 million). As a point of reference, a study showed that, of couples who conceived within a year of trying, only 2.5% included a male partner with a total sperm count (per ejaculate) of 23 million sperm or less. However, across a wide range of observed values, total sperm count (as with other identified semen and sperm characteristics) has weak power to predict which couples are at risk of pregnancy.
I'm not trying to attack your withdrawal method. ;)
They do need bigger studies, but the latex-pharmaceutical complex isn't interested in funding them. That's why we need government to fund pure research!
I don't see why. There's little health benefits that will come from such research unless you are also suggesting that STDs won't be spread using the withdrawal method.
Research that encourages individuals to act irresponsibly sounds like bad public policy.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 11:59:13 AM
So again - why should the Repub candidates need to so? We survived 4 years without leadership.
Because--and I'll fucking say it again for the cheap seats--in a tight election, Mittens has the opportunity to actually take a leadership stance weeks before his party's convention, further separating himself from the mere "I'm not Obama" position he's taken. You have a Senate race that could determine the majority, with a big ol' snafu at the top of the week's news cycle that the entire media is chewing on, and there's an opportunity to put your stamp on the party.
Call me kooky, but I would think that would be a substantial improvement in his campaign, one that has not demonstrated him accepting any sort of leadership in his party. Certainly beats trying to look presidential by going to London and insulting the Olympics.
But, if you don't see it as the opportunity he has before him, then hey.
QuoteI'm ignoring the bit about the GOP being more fractious as that's just patently false.
C'mon, man...you've got a bunch of out-of-control freshman House Republitards going in different directions between eliminating the deficit to eliminating women to eliminating fags, with a Speaker that can't control his causcus, old line GOP Senators distancing themselves from the Housetards, you've got birthers from Donald Trump to Sheriff Arapiao running their mouths, Rush doing one thing from the bully pulpit and Karl Rove doing something else with his megamillions...and even after this past primary season, you don't think the GOP's more fractured now over its own identity as a party for the first time since Watergate?
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 12:03:35 PM
Don't think Romney could be more clear there. :lol:
And like I said before, a Sunday night press release isn't going to cut it. He'll be dealing with this all week.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 12:15:20 PM
But, if you don't see it as the opportunity he has before him, then hey.
Forgive us for not taking advice from you to be objective.
Garbs:
I limit my argument to contraception only, of course. :mellow:
Besides advancing human knowledge, a worthwhile goal in itself, it would also be useful to know if birth control pills are necessary rather than simply useful. People that are likely to use coitus interruptus when they can't are probably already doing it because they're living in a delusional, magical world. People that can and do, as well as people that can and don't, however, could use the information to make better-educated decisions; and if science says that CI is as effective as its practicioners want it to be, the benefits are not just saving money but also avoiding the complications involved in taking chemicals, e.g. the CV effects of Yaz and Yasmin.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 12:23:33 PM
Garbs:
I limit my argument to contraception only, of course. :mellow:
Besides advancing human knowledge, a worthwhile goal in itself, it would also be useful to know if birth control pills are necessary rather than simply useful. People that are likely to use coitus interruptus when they can't are probably already doing it because they're living in a delusional, magical world. People that can and do, as well as people that can and don't, however, could use the information to make better-educated decisions; and if science says that CI is as effective as its practicioners want it to be, the benefits are not just saving money but also avoiding the complications involved in taking chemicals, e.g. the CV effects of Yaz and Yasmin.
:hmm: Deciphering your post would be quite a feat in advancing human knowledge in itself.
Seemed pretty straightforward to me. The only bit I don't get is "the CV effects of Yaz and Yasmin."
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 12:23:33 PM
I limit my argument to contraception only, of course. :mellow:
That's foolish then. Contraception doesn't happen in a vacuum.
As to the rest, I thought the common line was that withdrawal is as effective as condoms, not that it was as effective as birth control pills.
Cardiovascular. It has an FDA black box warning, which is bad. It also causes liver problems, hypertension, and THROMBOSIS, which is like my favorite word now.
(Just to say, I do not do work for Bayer.)
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 12:23:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 12:15:20 PM
But, if you don't see it as the opportunity he has before him, then hey.
Forgive us for not taking advice from you to be objective.
I hope you're forcibly raped with whore pills the size of bread dishes.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 12:31:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 12:23:33 PM
I limit my argument to contraception only, of course. :mellow:
That's foolish then. Contraception doesn't happen in a vacuum.
As to the rest, I thought the common line was that withdrawal is as effective as condoms, not that it was as effective as birth control pills.
Is it? The conventional wisdom seems more to me that withdrawal barely works at all, due to assumptions about pre-ejaculate and control issues.
Anyway, condoms aren't the proper comparator, since condoms should be used in new sexual relationships always anyway, regardless of other birth control method. In that limited arena, contraception is not the only factor. However, in a long-term monogamous relationship, contraception is ordinarily far more of a concern than disease transmission. Unless you expect people to use condoms forever? :unsure:
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 12:37:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 12:31:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 12:23:33 PM
I limit my argument to contraception only, of course. :mellow:
That's foolish then. Contraception doesn't happen in a vacuum.
As to the rest, I thought the common line was that withdrawal is as effective as condoms, not that it was as effective as birth control pills.
Is it? The conventional wisdom seems more to me that withdrawal barely works at all, due to assumptions about pre-ejaculate and control issues.
Anyway, condoms aren't the proper comparator, since condoms should be used in new sexual relationships always anyway, regardless of other birth control method. In that limited arena, contraception is not the only factor. However, in a long-term monogamous relationship, contraception is ordinarily far more of a concern than disease transmission. Unless you expect people to use condoms forever? :unsure:
Whenever anyone suggests that withdrawal method has benefits - the comparison is to condoms.
Is there anyone out there suggesting that the withdrawal method is as effective birth control (medicine form)? :blink:
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 12:48:02 PM
Whenever anyone suggests that withdrawal method has benefits - the comparison is to condoms.
Is there anyone out there suggesting that the withdrawal method is as effective birth control (medicine form)? :blink:
I know plenty of Catholics who swear by it. And no, they don't have 15 kids. :P
Here's what Planned Parenthood says:
QuoteEach year, 2 out of 100 women whose partners use condoms will become pregnant if they always use condoms correctly.
Each year, 18 out of 100 women whose partners use condoms will become pregnant if they don't always use condoms correctly.
Less than 1 out of 100 women will get pregnant each year if they always take the pill each day as directed.
About 9 out of 100 women will get pregnant each year if they don't always take the pill each day as directed.
Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 4 will become pregnant each year if they always do it correctly.
Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 27 will become pregnant each year if they don't always do it correctly.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 12:56:11 PM
Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 4 will become pregnant each year if they always do it correctly.
Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 27 will become pregnant each year if they don't always do it correctly.
[/quote]
:lol:
I've seen 4% vs. .3% for perfect compliance, so yeah, I guess it's not as effective. But that 4% seems really high to me.
An interesting factoid--did you know that birth control pills only became legal in 1999 in Japan? And that only 1% of people use them? I'm pretty sure that 1% is entirely the cast of the movies I've seen.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5726375/ns/health-womens_health/t/japanese-women-shun-birth-control-pill/
Also, I'd think compliance would be easier for doing one really obvious thing than remembering to take a pill every day.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 01:01:31 PM
Also, I'd think compliance would be easier for doing one really obvious thing than remembering to take a pill every day.
I disagree. I think compliance would probably be easier for a pill rather than pulling out as only one of the two involves a person, in the moment, who isn't thinking clearly.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 12:16:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 12:03:35 PM
Don't think Romney could be more clear there. :lol:
And like I said before, a Sunday night press release isn't going to cut it. He'll be dealing with this all week.
Again not really dealing if you've already strongly condemned it. Sure a few outlets might continue to harangue his campaign about this, but the answer is already in hand. Therefore as Berk said it's a flash in the pan issue.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 01:06:08 PM
I think compliance would probably be easier for a pill rather than pulling out as only one of the two involves a person, in the moment, who isn't thinking clearly.
Yeah, I would think so, too; and guys aren't the only ones that don't think clearly in those situations, either.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 01:15:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 01:06:08 PM
I think compliance would probably be easier for a pill rather than pulling out as only one of the two involves a person, in the moment, who isn't thinking clearly.
Yeah, I would think so, too; and guys aren't the only ones that don't think clearly in those situations, either.
Yep to that second bit.
Figured CdM would pick this one up. Akin is just dumb, that's his problem. I'm surprised he doesn't think babies come from storks or something. And just you watch, he'll win the Senate race. A lot of money is coming in out of state to help him. Strangely from Iowa. Yi is probably involved.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 11:37:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 11:34:45 AM
You say that in past tense, like it actually stopped or something.
Harry hasn't recanted either, last time I checked.
Why should he?
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 11:02:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 09:43:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 09:29:09 AM
My Health teacher in high school (a really nice guy but very religious) tried to tell us that rape doesn't result in pregnancy because the rapist almost never ejaculates.
It's not funny, this is disgusting. He is doing what the mormons call lying for the lord. And yes, it is doctrine. He is lying or somebody else he trusts is lying vicariously through him so that people don't use condoms and to try to justify to himself that rape babies aren't really rape babies, but lying jezibel babies.
:blink:
You can tell all that about him based on two lines from derspeiss' post?
Because it represents a real trend in american society.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/08/20/todd_akin_s_legitimate_rape_comment_not_a_misstatement_but_a_worldview_.html
QuoteRep. Todd Akin of Missouri, the Republican candidate for the Missouri Senate race, told a St. Louis news station on Sunday that “legitimate rape” rarely causes pregnancy: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
He later took it back, but this wasn’t a misstatement. It wasn’t a gaffe or a stray bit of medical misinformation that could have attached itself to any one of us. The statement was a crystallization of Akin’s worldview: sexist, blame-shifting, and profoundly ignorant.
In case anybody missed this dig at the “no means no” crowd, “legitimate rape” is a coded phrase meant to distinguish between a stranger attacking you in a parking garage, or, say, your date or your youth pastor doing the same. If you’re tipsy or wearing a short skirt, it’s not rape-rape, etc.
The statement was actually intended to soften Akin’s absolute opposition to abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. Why bother to have loopholes for such conditions when they’re going to be so rare, goes his thinking? As Talking Points Memo notes, the Congressman has long suspected that rape and abortion laws are less likely to protect women from abuse than to allow them to be abusive:
Akin’s past includes praising a militia group linked to anti-abortion extremism in the 1990s and voting against creating a sex-offender registry in 2005. Back in 1991, as a state legislator, Akin voted for an anti-marital-rape law, but only after questioning whether it might be misused “in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband,” according to a May 1 article that year in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (via LexisNexis).
The sexism is outrageous, but it’s the stupidity that really burns. It takes a lot of work for a member of the House science committee to cultivate an ignorance of science as profound as Todd Akin’s. It’s not accidental and it’s not incidental to his worldview—his belief system requires a rejection of science.
The thing about science, as Neil DeGrasse-Tyson says, is that it’s true whether you believe it or not. And the truth is that biology does not give a goddamn how sperm meets egg, whether it’s within the bounds of a sanctified marriage, in a test tube, or after a rape.
One of the great gifts of modern medicine is that we can control when and whether eggs are released (through the pill), whether sperm encounter the egg (condoms or vasectomy), whether a fertilized egg implants in the uterus (IUDs), and yes, whether it stays there (abortion). Trauma may increase the spontaneous miscarriage rate, but the effect is trivial, and tens of thousands of women are impregnated by rape annually.
But if you believe that the Bible is the “inerrant word of God,” as Akin apparently does, given his Master of Divinity from the Covenant Theological Seminary, then you can believe all kinds of things. That the world is 6,000 years old, for instance, and that evolution is a conspiracy organized by pretty much every biologist, geologist, paleontologist, ecologist, biochemist and geneticist working in the past century and a half, plus Satan. If God can produce Jesus through a virgin birth, he can certainly prevent a worthy-enough victim of “legitimate rape” from carrying her rapist’s child.
(And just to be clear, it’s not that he’s up on the latest evolutionary biology speculation about sperm priming and miscarriage. This idea has been bouncing around conservative circles for years as an excuse for defending an absolute ban on abortion.)
Akin and other Missouri conservatives are now trying to perpetuate this massive misinformation campaign on school children. Missouri’s “Right to Pray” amendment, which passed this month, allows kids to opt out of any educational assignments that conflict with their beliefs. As the National Center for Science Education has pointed out, that means children have a legal right to refuse to participate in biology class. Or, presumably, sex ed, where they would have to learn about basic reproductive biology, a class Todd Akin apparently skipped.
It is part of a long standing religiously motivated attempt at regulating the and controlling sexual activity in all of society. By pretending that being rape-raped can't get you pregnant means you don't have to accept the moral argument for abortion in the case of rape or incest, you just assert (contrary to the evidence of course) that since she got pregnant she was to blame.
This is the main reason that I think religion is bad and something should be done about it is people like Akin and his useful idiots who prance around claiming that faith is a good thing when the only thing it really does re-enforce and support mysogynists like Akin in his campaign to oppress women and take away their ability to use science, technology and knowledge to control their bodies.
There are no facts supporting any form of hypothesis on how condoms don't work or rape-rape can't make you pregnant or properly performed abortions are highly dangerous etc.etc. these are assertions de anus. The only purpose of which is to invent facts which supposedly support conclusions already gained from religious texts. Lying for the Lord, like you did when you claimed to have evidence for the existence of god which, when examined you did not.
Viking wall of text on religion : *presses ignore*
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 03:07:54 PM
Viking wall of text on religion : *presses ignore*
ad hom
Viking: :lmfao:
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:16:52 PM
Viking: :lmfao:
You asked the question I gave it a serious answer. Serves me right for thinking you were going to take anything I might say seriously.
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 03:20:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:16:52 PM
Viking: :lmfao:
You asked the question I gave it a serious answer. Serves me right for thinking you were going to take anything I might say seriously.
On the topic of religion, it does serve you right. :contract:
You lost all credibility with me on the topic long ago.
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 03:16:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 03:07:54 PM
Viking wall of text on religion : *presses ignore*
ad hom
About as relevant as your text and quotes to BB's question.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:23:37 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 03:20:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:16:52 PM
Viking: :lmfao:
You asked the question I gave it a serious answer. Serves me right for thinking you were going to take anything I might say seriously.
On the topic of religion, it does serve you right. :contract:
You lost all credibility with me on the topic long ago.
That's bogus. I stand by what I say and think, unlike you who lies with a straight face not only about what you say you can do but also about why you believe. I might be rude and obnoxious, but at least I'm honest.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 03:20:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 03:20:13 PM
And what reason is that?
Never mind.
That's what I thought. The birther analogy doesn't hold up, since Obama released his birth certificate and people simply claimed it was fake and that there was another "long form" which he hasn't released (which is exists but the state of Hawaii forbids from being released). Romney on the hand is not barred by the law to release his tax forms. He does not do so for either political or personal reasons.
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 03:27:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:23:37 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 03:20:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:16:52 PM
Viking: :lmfao:
You asked the question I gave it a serious answer. Serves me right for thinking you were going to take anything I might say seriously.
On the topic of religion, it does serve you right. :contract:
You lost all credibility with me on the topic long ago.
That's bogus. I stand by what I say and think, unlike you who lies with a straight face not only about what you say you can do but also about why you believe. I might be rude and obnoxious, but at least I'm honest.
:lmfao: Yes, because I lie about what I believe.
Credibility <> truthfulness. You believe the nonsense you spout, I'll give you that. You have no credibility because you have not one shred of objectivity when it comes to the topic.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 11:02:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 09:43:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 09:29:09 AM
My Health teacher in high school (a really nice guy but very religious) tried to tell us that rape doesn't result in pregnancy because the rapist almost never ejaculates.
It's not funny, this is disgusting. He is doing what the mormons call lying for the lord. And yes, it is doctrine. He is lying or somebody else he trusts is lying vicariously through him so that people don't use condoms and to try to justify to himself that rape babies aren't really rape babies, but lying jezibel babies.
:blink:
You can tell all that about him based on two lines from derspeiss' post?
As off-putting as the bug up his ass re: religion may be, Viking was actually close to getting it right. Coach May was a pretty strict Christian (Baptist, I beileve) and was very staunchly against abortion without any exceptions. It was pretty obvious to me that he wanted to believe that rape never results in pregnancy to make him sleep better at night.
His few quirks aside (strangest for me was that he was a baseball coach that never cussed), he was actually a really nice guy.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 03:27:57 PM
That's what I thought. The birther analogy doesn't hold up, since Obama released his birth certificate and people simply claimed it was fake and that there was another "long form" which he hasn't released (which is exists but the state of Hawaii forbids from being released). Romney on the hand is not barred by the law to release his tax forms. He does not do so for either political or personal reasons.
I see. The difference is that Obama's place of birth is no longer in question, whereas the claim that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years is still plausible. :lol:
EDIT: never mind. Didn't happen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 03:38:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 03:27:57 PM
That's what I thought. The birther analogy doesn't hold up, since Obama released his birth certificate and people simply claimed it was fake and that there was another "long form" which he hasn't released (which is exists but the state of Hawaii forbids from being released). Romney on the hand is not barred by the law to release his tax forms. He does not do so for either political or personal reasons.
I see. The difference is that Obama's place of birth is no longer in question, whereas the claim that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years is still plausible. :lol:
No, the difference is that Obama released all the information he could legally release. Romney has chosen not to do so, which is a bit odd for a Presidential candidate.
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 03:39:53 PM
EDIT: never mind. Didn't happen.
LOLZ. I was gonna say it looks about as reliable as this: http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-murdered-jonbenet-ramsey-new-obama-campaign,29114/
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 12:59:55 PM
I've seen 4% vs. .3% for perfect compliance, so yeah, I guess it's not as effective. But that 4% seems really high to me.
An interesting factoid--did you know that birth control pills only became legal in 1999 in Japan? And that only 1% of people use them? I'm pretty sure that 1% is entirely the cast of the movies I've seen.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5726375/ns/health-womens_health/t/japanese-women-shun-birth-control-pill/
Looking at Japan's birth rate statistics, they must have replaced traditional sex with the tentacle kind almost completely.
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 03:20:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:16:52 PM
Viking: :lmfao:
You asked the question I gave it a serious answer. Serves me right for thinking you were going to take anything I might say seriously.
Vikes, you're fighting an uphill battle with these guys; as educated as they are, they're more than willing to accept the legislative rollback women's reproductive rights as long as it's packaged along with deficit reduction and union busting.
For a bunch of self-proclaimed libertarian-leaners, they certainly don't give a shit about liberties unless there's a penis attached. So don't even bother.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 03:41:42 PM
No, the difference is that Obama released all the information he could legally release. Romney has chosen not to do so, which is a bit odd for a Presidential candidate.
:yeahright: Let's see those transcripts.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:29:28 PM
:lmfao: Yes, because I lie about what I believe.
You said you had evidence to support your belief, you lied about that, you said you believed based on that evidence and you obviously lied about that.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:29:28 PM
Credibility <> truthfulness. You believe the nonsense you spout, I'll give you that. You have no credibility because you have not one shred of objectivity when it comes to the topic.
You call me a bigot while proudly announcing that you didn't read the text that you claim makes me one? Anticipating this kind of idiocy from you I posted an opinion piece from a credible source (Slate which is part of the Washington Post) which agreed with me on the facts and the interpretation.
It's your own bigotry and predjudice that is blinding you here.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 03:41:42 PM
No, the difference is that Obama released all the information he could legally release. Romney has chosen not to do so, which is a bit odd for a Presidential candidate.
Eric Holder has not released all the information he could legally release. Therefore I can claim he was bribed to run guns by Mexican drug lords and that Osama bin Laden put a mind control chip in his brain.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 03:43:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 03:41:42 PM
No, the difference is that Obama released all the information he could legally release. Romney has chosen not to do so, which is a bit odd for a Presidential candidate.
:yeahright: Let's see those transcripts.
What transcripts?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 03:44:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 03:41:42 PM
No, the difference is that Obama released all the information he could legally release. Romney has chosen not to do so, which is a bit odd for a Presidential candidate.
Eric Holder has not released all the information he could legally release. Therefore I can claim he was bribed to run guns by Mexican drug lords and that Osama bin Laden put a mind control chip in his brain.
I didn't know Eric Holder was running for President.
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 03:00:39 PMBecause it represents a real trend in american society.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/08/20/todd_akin_s_legitimate_rape_comment_not_a_misstatement_but_a_worldview_.html
QuoteRep. Todd Akin of Missouri, the Republican candidate for the Missouri Senate race, told a St. Louis news station on Sunday that "legitimate rape" rarely causes pregnancy: "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
He later took it back, but this wasn't a misstatement. It wasn't a gaffe or a stray bit of medical misinformation that could have attached itself to any one of us. The statement was a crystallization of Akin's worldview: sexist, blame-shifting, and profoundly ignorant.
In case anybody missed this dig at the "no means no" crowd, "legitimate rape" is a coded phrase meant to distinguish between a stranger attacking you in a parking garage, or, say, your date or your youth pastor doing the same. If you're tipsy or wearing a short skirt, it's not rape-rape, etc.
The statement was actually intended to soften Akin's absolute opposition to abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. Why bother to have loopholes for such conditions when they're going to be so rare, goes his thinking? As Talking Points Memo notes, the Congressman has long suspected that rape and abortion laws are less likely to protect women from abuse than to allow them to be abusive:
Akin's past includes praising a militia group linked to anti-abortion extremism in the 1990s and voting against creating a sex-offender registry in 2005. Back in 1991, as a state legislator, Akin voted for an anti-marital-rape law, but only after questioning whether it might be misused "in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband," according to a May 1 article that year in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (via LexisNexis).
The sexism is outrageous, but it's the stupidity that really burns. It takes a lot of work for a member of the House science committee to cultivate an ignorance of science as profound as Todd Akin's. It's not accidental and it's not incidental to his worldview—his belief system requires a rejection of science.
The thing about science, as Neil DeGrasse-Tyson says, is that it's true whether you believe it or not. And the truth is that biology does not give a goddamn how sperm meets egg, whether it's within the bounds of a sanctified marriage, in a test tube, or after a rape.
One of the great gifts of modern medicine is that we can control when and whether eggs are released (through the pill), whether sperm encounter the egg (condoms or vasectomy), whether a fertilized egg implants in the uterus (IUDs), and yes, whether it stays there (abortion). Trauma may increase the spontaneous miscarriage rate, but the effect is trivial, and tens of thousands of women are impregnated by rape annually.
But if you believe that the Bible is the "inerrant word of God," as Akin apparently does, given his Master of Divinity from the Covenant Theological Seminary, then you can believe all kinds of things. That the world is 6,000 years old, for instance, and that evolution is a conspiracy organized by pretty much every biologist, geologist, paleontologist, ecologist, biochemist and geneticist working in the past century and a half, plus Satan. If God can produce Jesus through a virgin birth, he can certainly prevent a worthy-enough victim of "legitimate rape" from carrying her rapist's child.
(And just to be clear, it's not that he's up on the latest evolutionary biology speculation about sperm priming and miscarriage. This idea has been bouncing around conservative circles for years as an excuse for defending an absolute ban on abortion.)
Akin and other Missouri conservatives are now trying to perpetuate this massive misinformation campaign on school children. Missouri's "Right to Pray" amendment, which passed this month, allows kids to opt out of any educational assignments that conflict with their beliefs. As the National Center for Science Education has pointed out, that means children have a legal right to refuse to participate in biology class. Or, presumably, sex ed, where they would have to learn about basic reproductive biology, a class Todd Akin apparently skipped.
It is part of a long standing religiously motivated attempt at regulating the and controlling sexual activity in all of society. By pretending that being rape-raped can't get you pregnant means you don't have to accept the moral argument for abortion in the case of rape or incest, you just assert (contrary to the evidence of course) that since she got pregnant she was to blame.
This is the main reason that I think religion is bad and something should be done about it is people like Akin and his useful idiots who prance around claiming that faith is a good thing when the only thing it really does re-enforce and support mysogynists like Akin in his campaign to oppress women and take away their ability to use science, technology and knowledge to control their bodies.
There are no facts supporting any form of hypothesis on how condoms don't work or rape-rape can't make you pregnant or properly performed abortions are highly dangerous etc.etc. these are assertions de anus. The only purpose of which is to invent facts which supposedly support conclusions already gained from religious texts. Lying for the Lord, like you did when you claimed to have evidence for the existence of god which, when examined you did not.
The US has moved a lot further along the path towards the world in
The Handmaid's Tale than I ever imagined.
QuoteThe US has moved a lot further along the path towards the world in The Handmaid's Tale than I ever imagined.
:)
I'll be Robert Duvall.
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 03:44:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:29:28 PM
:lmfao: Yes, because I lie about what I believe.
You said you had evidence to support your belief, you lied about that, you said you believed based on that evidence and you obviously lied about that.
You didn't like the evidence I presented. That hardly means I was lieing.
Quote from: Viking
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:29:28 PM
Credibility <> truthfulness. You believe the nonsense you spout, I'll give you that. You have no credibility because you have not one shred of objectivity when it comes to the topic.
You call me a bigot while proudly announcing that you didn't read the text that you claim makes me one? Anticipating this kind of idiocy from you I posted an opinion piece from a credible source (Slate which is part of the Washington Post) which agreed with me on the facts and the interpretation.
It's your own bigotry and predjudice that is blinding you here.
I did not call you a bigot. I said you lacked objectivity. Some may conclude that you are a bigot, but I couldn't possibly comment on that. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 03:46:22 PM
I didn't know Eric Holder was running for President.
:lol:
Your rule is getting narrower and narrower by the post.
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 03:46:29 PM
The US has moved a lot further along the path towards the world in The Handmaid's Tale than I ever imagined.
Except the dude is being rightly pilloried for his comments about "legitimate rape".
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 03:46:29 PM
The US has moved a lot further along the path towards the world in The Handmaid's Tale than I ever imagined.
Religious people do fucked up shit, but if anything american fundies would be abhorred by the idea of surrogacy of any kind. The Hagar bit of the bible is one they all consistently ignore.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 03:49:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 03:46:22 PM
I didn't know Eric Holder was running for President.
:lol:
Your rule is getting narrower and narrower by the post.
I thought we were discussing personal information released by Presidential candidate. I'm not asking for your personal information, Yi. Or anyone elses.
Anyway, don't you GOPtards make those sorts of claims about Eric Holder as it is? If Harry Reid apologizes for his statement does that mean Republicans will stop?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 03:55:25 PM
I thought we were discussing personal information released by Presidential candidate.
We were discussing unfounded allegations made against presidential candidates. You tried to change the subject to releasing personal information.
Which was probably the card poor Harry was trying to play. He just did it in the most fucked up way imaginable.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 03:57:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 03:55:25 PM
I thought we were discussing personal information released by Presidential candidate.
We were discussing unfounded allegations made against presidential candidates. You tried to change the subject to releasing personal information.
Which was probably the card poor Harry was trying to play. He just did it in the most fucked up way imaginable.
Oh, I can think of more fucked up ways. The unfounded allegations were based on unreleased personal information, that is the crux of the whole matter.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 04:00:35 PM
Oh, I can think of more fucked up ways. The unfounded allegations were based on unreleased personal information, that is the crux of the whole matter.
No they weren't. They were purportedly based on something a Bain investor said to Harry.
Now it would be accurate to say that the only way to conclusively refute this bizarre-ass allegation would be to release Romney's tax records. But with the exception of Harry Reid, you, Seedy, and maybe that nutcase from Vermont, no one thinks the allegation needs refuting.
Anyway, I've never been more proud to live in this hill-billy paradise.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 04:05:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 04:00:35 PM
Oh, I can think of more fucked up ways. The unfounded allegations were based on unreleased personal information, that is the crux of the whole matter.
No they weren't. They were purportedly based on something a Bain investor said to Harry.
Now it would be accurate to say that the only way to conclusively refute this bizarre-ass allegation would be to release Romney's tax records. But with the exception of Harry Reid, you, Seedy, and maybe that nutcase from Vermont, no one thinks the allegation needs refuting.
Really? I bet I could find one other person. If this is all about allegations made toward a Presidential candidate why the devil did you bring up Eric Holder? Tell me, what should we think about Romney's refusal to release his tax forms? And while we are on the subject, could you tell me what is so "Bizarre-ass" about the allegation?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 04:10:08 PM
Really? I bet I could find one other person. If this is all about allegations made toward a Presidential candidate why the devil did you bring up Eric Holder? Tell me, what should we think about Romney's refusal to release his tax forms? And while we are on the subject, could you tell me what is so "Bizarre-ass" about the allegation?
You're right, you could probably find at least one more person. There are still people who watch MSNBC.
I brought up Eric Holder because the devil you changed the subject from wacko allegations to unreleased information.
I've already answered Jacob's question on Romney's tax returns. He doesn't want to provide more grist for the Democratic demonization mill.
The bizarre-ass-edness of the allegations lies in the near metaphysical impossibility of having zero tax liability for 10 years in a row combined with the extreme unlikelihood of a person of Romney's wealth going unaudited for 10 years while claiming zero tax liability.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:51:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 03:46:29 PM
The US has moved a lot further along the path towards the world in The Handmaid's Tale than I ever imagined.
Except the dude is being rightly pilloried for his comments about "legitimate rape".
Guy is getting pilloried, but the legislation is still getting pushed in various ways in different states.
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 04:20:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:51:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 03:46:29 PM
The US has moved a lot further along the path towards the world in The Handmaid's Tale than I ever imagined.
Except the dude is being rightly pilloried for his comments about "legitimate rape".
Guy is getting pilloried, but the legislation is still getting pushed in various ways in different states.
He's getting pilloried for the "gaffe" of saying out loud how he justifies his otherwise immoral stance on forcing rape victims to give birth to their rapists child.
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 04:20:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:51:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 03:46:29 PM
The US has moved a lot further along the path towards the world in The Handmaid's Tale than I ever imagined.
Except the dude is being rightly pilloried for his comments about "legitimate rape".
Guy is getting pilloried, but the legislation is still getting pushed in various ways in different states.
Can you clarify what elements you think echo said novel?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 04:18:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 04:10:08 PM
Really? I bet I could find one other person. If this is all about allegations made toward a Presidential candidate why the devil did you bring up Eric Holder? Tell me, what should we think about Romney's refusal to release his tax forms? And while we are on the subject, could you tell me what is so "Bizarre-ass" about the allegation?
You're right, you could probably find at least one more person. There are still people who watch MSNBC.
I brought up Eric Holder because the devil you changed the subject from wacko allegations to unreleased information.
I've already answered Jacob's question on Romney's tax returns. He doesn't want to provide more grist for the Democratic demonization mill.
The bizarre-ass-edness of the allegations lies in the near metaphysical impossibility of having zero tax liability for 10 years in a row combined with the extreme unlikelihood of a person of Romney's wealth going unaudited for 10 years while claiming zero tax liability.
What could possibly be in those tax forms that hurt Romney? :goodboy: I've had zero tax liability for like 10 years, so it's not that impossible. And haven't people been able to avoid taxes for years without getting caught? Especially if you shift you money to off shore accounts. I bet that helps.
So basically you are saying Harry Reid is claiming there are bad things in Romney's taxes and he's a liar but Romeny shouldn't release those taxes because there potential bad things in there.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 04:31:31 PM
What could possibly be in those tax forms that hurt Romney?
I could swear I just answered that question again.
QuoteSo basically you are saying Harry Reid is claiming there are bad things in Romney's taxes and he's a liar but Romeny shouldn't release those taxes because there potential bad things in there.
At no time have I said Romney shouldn't release his tax records. I'm basically saying Reid can back up his bizarre allegation with proof, back down, or live with being a non-credible wingnut.
Reports are that Akin will officially withdraw by tomorrow evening. And apparent Ashcroft is one of the possible replacement candidates :lol:
Fuck legitimate rape.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 04:38:30 PM
Reports are that Akin will officially withdraw by tomorrow evening. And apparent Ashcroft is one of the possible replacement candidates :lol:
Frying Pan; Fire WTF?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 04:37:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 04:31:31 PM
What could possibly be in those tax forms that hurt Romney?
I could swear I just answered that question again.
QuoteSo basically you are saying Harry Reid is claiming there are bad things in Romney's taxes and he's a liar but Romeny shouldn't release those taxes because there potential bad things in there.
At no time have I said Romney shouldn't release his tax records. I'm basically saying Reid can back up his bizarre allegation with proof, back down, or live with being a non-credible wingnut.
How can Reid find proof? Did most Republicans regard Reid as credible before this?
I'd vote for a rock covered in shit before I'd vote for a woman.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 04:38:30 PM
Reports are that Akin will officially withdraw by tomorrow evening. And apparent Ashcroft is one of the possible replacement candidates :lol:
He just had a nasty primary race. I would think they would pick someone from that race to run. Probably Mr. "I'm a business man!" John Brunner.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 04:49:39 PM
How can Reid find proof? Did most Republicans regard Reid as credible before this?
I'm pretty sure he can't. No clue.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 04:38:30 PM
Reports are that Akin will officially withdraw by tomorrow evening. And apparent Ashcroft is one of the possible replacement candidates :lol:
Wow. What, Dick Rumsfeld wasn't available? Scooter Libby isn't available on work release now?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 03:42:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 03:20:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:16:52 PM
Viking: :lmfao:
You asked the question I gave it a serious answer. Serves me right for thinking you were going to take anything I might say seriously.
Vikes, you're fighting an uphill battle with these guys; as educated as they are, they're more than willing to accept the legislative rollback women's reproductive rights as long as it's packaged along with deficit reduction and union busting.
For a bunch of self-proclaimed libertarian-leaners, they certainly don't give a shit about liberties unless there's a penis attached. So don't even bother.
Yeah, one of the good things about being a Democrat is not having to deal with such cognitive dissonance.
Well, except with war. :(
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 04:20:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:51:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 03:46:29 PM
The US has moved a lot further along the path towards the world in The Handmaid's Tale than I ever imagined.
Except the dude is being rightly pilloried for his comments about "legitimate rape".
Guy is getting pilloried, but the legislation is still getting pushed in various ways in different states.
He's getting pilloried for the "gaffe" of saying out loud how he justifies his otherwise immoral stance on forcing rape victims to give birth to their rapists child.
Well, what's really important is whether his conclusions, being based on incorrect information, will change or at least be reevaluated.
Lol.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 05:37:52 PM
Yeah, one of the good things about being a Democrat is not having to deal with such cognitive dissonance.
Well, except with war. :(
Sigh, I have the same problem with socialists this side of the pond.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 05:37:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 03:42:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 03:20:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 03:16:52 PM
Viking: :lmfao:
You asked the question I gave it a serious answer. Serves me right for thinking you were going to take anything I might say seriously.
Vikes, you're fighting an uphill battle with these guys; as educated as they are, they're more than willing to accept the legislative rollback women's reproductive rights as long as it's packaged along with deficit reduction and union busting.
For a bunch of self-proclaimed libertarian-leaners, they certainly don't give a shit about liberties unless there's a penis attached. So don't even bother.
Yeah, one of the good things about being a Democrat is not having to deal with such cognitive dissonance.
Well, except with war. :(
Except that I'm not sure that any of "these guys" exist on the board.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 05:41:00 PM
Well, what's really important is whether his conclusions, being based on incorrect information, will change or at least be reevaluated.
Lol.
Actually it looks like he'll be forced out of politics and his conclusions will be irrelevant, just like him.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 05:44:26 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 05:41:00 PM
Well, what's really important is whether his conclusions, being based on incorrect information, will change or at least be reevaluated.
Lol.
Actually it looks like he'll be forced out of politics and his conclusions will be irrelevant, just like him.
OK, I'll admit it: too bad. :(
But I dunno, it's a question worth asking: would you vote for someone who would (and let's assume could) roll back Roe v. Wade, if you agreed with all their other policies and were assured that they would also be enacted?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 05:41:00 PM
Well, what's really important is whether his conclusions, being based on incorrect information, will change or at least be reevaluated.
Lol.
All those Family Research Council (http://www.frc.org/) affiliated and sponsored politicians and demagogues will continue pretending that condoms don't prevent AIDS, abstinence only education works and the ability to think critically is a bad thing. He might be gone but whoever replaces him will be identical in every way except for his ability to not say what he really thinks.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 05:44:26 PM
Actually it looks like he'll be forced out of politics and his conclusions will be irrelevant, just like him.
One Republican asshole in Missouri down, lots more Republican assholes in Virginia, Mississippi, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, the rest of the states that have passed over 83 anti-abortion legislation since 2011, and the US House of Representatives to go.
Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 05:49:10 PM
But I dunno, it's a question worth asking: would you vote for someone who would (and let's assume could) roll back Roe v. Wade, if you agreed with all their other policies and were assured that they would also be enacted?
Who gives a shit about Roe v Wade anymore? States have been running around it on their own for quite some time. Using Roe v Wade as a barometer is useless these days.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 05:55:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 05:49:10 PM
But I dunno, it's a question worth asking: would you vote for someone who would (and let's assume could) roll back Roe v. Wade, if you agreed with all their other policies and were assured that they would also be enacted?
Who gives a shit about Roe v Wade anymore? States have been running around it on their own for quite some time. Using Roe v Wade as a barometer is useless these days.
Look, you know what I meant by the God damned question. :lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 05:49:10 PM
OK, I'll admit it: too bad. :(
But I dunno, it's a question worth asking: would you vote for someone who would (and let's assume could) roll back Roe v. Wade, if you agreed with all their other policies and were assured that they would also be enacted?
I think you should write a law about it rather than have Scalia imagine what Thomas Jefferson would have thought about it. This is a problem best solved by writing a good law with the best possible knowledge we have on the issue today.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 05:00:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 04:49:39 PM
How can Reid find proof? Did most Republicans regard Reid as credible before this?
I'm pretty sure he can't. No clue.
Well, that's not very constructive criticism. Why should he listen to people like you?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 05:49:10 PM
But I dunno, it's a question worth asking: would you vote for someone who would (and let's assume could) roll back Roe v. Wade, if you agreed with all their other policies and were assured that they would also be enacted?
In this world of hypotheticals, no not unless there were some substantial policies that they could enact that would outshine the tarnishing or rolling back Roe v. Wade.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 05:52:39 PM
Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.
I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:07:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 05:52:39 PM
Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.
I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.
All of them?
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:06:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 05:49:10 PM
But I dunno, it's a question worth asking: would you vote for someone who would (and let's assume could) roll back Roe v. Wade, if you agreed with all their other policies and were assured that they would also be enacted?
In this world of hypotheticals, no not unless there were some substantial policies that they could enact that would outshine the tarnishing or rolling back Roe v. Wade.
You mean like the Bill Paul Ryan co-Sponsored with Todd Akin? The Sanctity of Human Life Act of 2009.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 06:00:45 PM
Well, that's not very constructive criticism. Why should he listen to people like you?
It's not criticism at all, constructive or otherwise. They're answers to your questions.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 04:29:50 PMCan you clarify what elements you think echo said novel?
See post 158 in this thread.
And also the fact that the reason Akin is in trouble is not because of what he believes - see the bill he co-sponsored on reproductive rights - but because he had the bad judgement to speak about his motivations behind it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2012, 06:23:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 06:00:45 PM
Well, that's not very constructive criticism. Why should he listen to people like you?
It's not criticism at all, constructive or otherwise. They're answers to your questions.
Oh.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:07:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 05:52:39 PM
Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.
I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.
More serious reporting on the issue
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/a-canard-that-will-not-die-legitimate-rape-doesnt-cause-pregnancy/261303/
QuoteThe thing is, his comments were hardly some kind never-before-heard gaffe. Arguments like his have cropped up again and again on the right over the past quarter century and the idea that trauma is a form of birth control continues to be promulgated by anti-abortion forces that seek to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. The push for a no-exceptions anti-abortion policy has for decades gone hand in hand with efforts to downplay the frequency with which rape- or incest-related pregnancies occur, and even to deny that they happen, at all. In other words, it's not just Akin singing this tune.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:07:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 05:52:39 PM
Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.
I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.
Paul Ryan does. Please see: HR 3, cosponsors Ryan R-WI, Akin R-MO
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2012, 06:15:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:07:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 05:52:39 PM
Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.
I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.
All of them?
When have all members of either party said something? :huh:
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 06:23:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 04:29:50 PMCan you clarify what elements you think echo said novel?
See post 158 in this thread.
And also the fact that the reason Akin is in trouble is not because of what he believes - see the bill he co-sponsored on reproductive rights - but because he had the bad judgement to speak about his motivations behind it.
Hmm? How do you see postnumber?
As to the 2nd bit - that's not really his motivation. I'd guess his motivation is that he doesn't want that which he thinks is a human being to be aborted. What he said is his bizarre attempt to work around what he considers the thorny issue of rape cases.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 06:37:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:07:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 05:52:39 PM
Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.
I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.
Paul Ryan does. Please see: HR 3, cosponsors Ryan R-WI, Akin R-MO
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/19/712251/how-todd-akin-and-paul-ryan-partnered-to-redefine-rape/
Quote
How Todd Akin And Paul Ryan Partnered To Redefine Rape
Earlier today, Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) claimed that "legitimate rape" does not often lead to pregnancy because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." This is not the first time the biologically challenged senate candidate tried to minimize the impact of rape. Last year, Akin joined with GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as two of the original co-sponsors of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill which, among other things, introduced the country to the bizarre term "forcible rape."
Federal law prevents federal Medicaid funds and similar programs from paying for abortions. Yet the law also contains an exception for women who are raped. The bill Akin and Ryan cosponsored would have narrowed this exception, providing that only pregnancies arising from "forcible rape" may be terminated. Because the primary target of Akin and Ryan's effort are Medicaid recipients — patients who are unlikely to be able to afford an abortion absent Medicaid funding — the likely impact of this bill would have been forcing many rape survivors to carry their rapist's baby to term. Michelle Goldberg explains who Akin and Ryan would likely target:
QuoteUnder H.R. 3, only victims of "forcible rape" would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they're over 18. And while "forcible rape" isn't defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don't involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. "It's basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape," says Keenan.
Although a version of this bill passed the GOP-controlled House, the "forcible rape" language was eventually removed due to widespread public outcry. Paul Ryan, however, believes that the "forcible rape" language does not actually go far enough to force women to carry their rapist's baby. Ryan believes that abortion should be illegal in all cases except for "cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother's life." So rape survivors are out of luck.
And, of course, as we learned today, Akin isn't even sure that "legitimate" rape survivors can get pregnant in the first place.
learn to link seedy
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 06:32:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:07:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 05:52:39 PM
Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.
I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.
More serious reporting on the issue
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/a-canard-that-will-not-die-legitimate-rape-doesnt-cause-pregnancy/261303/
QuoteThe thing is, his comments were hardly some kind never-before-heard gaffe. Arguments like his have cropped up again and again on the right over the past quarter century and the idea that trauma is a form of birth control continues to be promulgated by anti-abortion forces that seek to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. The push for a no-exceptions anti-abortion policy has for decades gone hand in hand with efforts to downplay the frequency with which rape- or incest-related pregnancies occur, and even to deny that they happen, at all. In other words, it's not just Akin singing this tune.
So we shouldn't care that it gets said now because it was said before? Similarly, we shouldn't care that several prominent Republicans have denounced said reasoning?
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:42:24 PMSo we shouldn't care that it gets said now because it was said before? Similarly, we shouldn't care that several prominent Republicans have denounced said reasoning?
It's good they've denounced it. It'd be better if they reversed the numerous state level initiatives that have come from that sort of reasoning (as per Seedy's post - the number is right below the thread title).
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 06:41:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 06:37:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:07:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 05:52:39 PM
Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.
I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.
Paul Ryan does. Please see: HR 3, cosponsors Ryan R-WI, Akin R-MO
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/19/712251/how-todd-akin-and-paul-ryan-partnered-to-redefine-rape/
Quote
How Todd Akin And Paul Ryan Partnered To Redefine Rape
Earlier today, Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) claimed that "legitimate rape" does not often lead to pregnancy because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." This is not the first time the biologically challenged senate candidate tried to minimize the impact of rape. Last year, Akin joined with GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as two of the original co-sponsors of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill which, among other things, introduced the country to the bizarre term "forcible rape."
Federal law prevents federal Medicaid funds and similar programs from paying for abortions. Yet the law also contains an exception for women who are raped. The bill Akin and Ryan cosponsored would have narrowed this exception, providing that only pregnancies arising from "forcible rape" may be terminated. Because the primary target of Akin and Ryan's effort are Medicaid recipients — patients who are unlikely to be able to afford an abortion absent Medicaid funding — the likely impact of this bill would have been forcing many rape survivors to carry their rapist's baby to term. Michelle Goldberg explains who Akin and Ryan would likely target:
QuoteUnder H.R. 3, only victims of "forcible rape" would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they're over 18. And while "forcible rape" isn't defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don't involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. "It's basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape," says Keenan.
Although a version of this bill passed the GOP-controlled House, the "forcible rape" language was eventually removed due to widespread public outcry. Paul Ryan, however, believes that the "forcible rape" language does not actually go far enough to force women to carry their rapist's baby. Ryan believes that abortion should be illegal in all cases except for "cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother's life." So rape survivors are out of luck.
And, of course, as we learned today, Akin isn't even sure that "legitimate" rape survivors can get pregnant in the first place.
learn to link seedy
I think that hooplah over the term "forcible rape" is just hooplah, given that it never actually had a definition. Isn't rape by definition - forcible?
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 06:44:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:42:24 PMSo we shouldn't care that it gets said now because it was said before? Similarly, we shouldn't care that several prominent Republicans have denounced said reasoning?
It's good they've denounced it. It'd be better if they reversed the numerous state level initiatives that have come from that sort of reasoning (as per Seedy's post - the number is right below the thread title).
Like I said the reason for these deplorable initiatives is not because babies can't be born of rape.
Anti-abortion laws are what it takes to be compared to the Handmaid's Tale? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:45:08 PMI think that hooplah over the term "forcible rape" is just hooplah, given that it never actually had a definition. Isn't rape by definition - forcible?
You tell that to the geniuses who are so keen on distinguishing between different types of rape for their various bits of legislation rolling back reproductive rights.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:46:43 PMAnti-abortion laws are what it takes to be compared to the Handmaid's Tale? :huh:
Anti-abortion laws and the spurious bullshit reasoning that place women as secondary to any fetus they might carry, yes. The more of that, and there's been more of it these last years, the more you're moving towards
the Handmaid's Tale.
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 06:49:59 PM
Anti-abortion laws and the spurious bullshit reasoning that place women as secondary to any fetus they might carry, yes. The more of that, and there's been more of it these last years, the more you're moving towards the Handmaid's Tale.
Well I suppose one has the right to use overblown rhetoric. Personally, I feel that's a poor citation of said dystopian tale.
Also the secondary bit seems odd given that one of the offenders, Ryan, allows for loopholes where the mother's health is endangered - per what Viking posted.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:42:24 PM
So we shouldn't care that it gets said now because it was said before? Similarly, we shouldn't care that several prominent Republicans have denounced said reasoning?
R&R disagreed with the statement and supported a right to abortion in the case of rape. This does not change the fact that religious republicans have for many decades now been inventing facts about biology that are not true and then using them to justify denying women abortions in the case of rape. Religious lobby groups have been repeating these untrue facts for this whole period. This attitude is central to Republican values as seen by Ryan (a plastic machine politician if there ever was one) not only tacetly accepting, but sponsoring laws for this very end.
This is a problem because, well, the first amendment and freedom of religion and stuff like that.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:53:44 PMWell I suppose one has the right to use overblown rhetoric. Personally, I feel that's a poor citation of said dystopian tale.
One can feel that, I suppose.
QuoteAlso the secondary bit seems odd given that one of the offenders, Ryan, allows for loopholes where the mother's health is endangered - per what Viking posted.
One should realize we're talking about movement in a continuum, and movement in a particular direction.
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 05:58:44 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 05:49:10 PM
OK, I'll admit it: too bad. :(
But I dunno, it's a question worth asking: would you vote for someone who would (and let's assume could) roll back Roe v. Wade, if you agreed with all their other policies and were assured that they would also be enacted?
I think you should write a law about it rather than have Scalia imagine what Thomas Jefferson would have thought about it. This is a problem best solved by writing a good law with the best possible knowledge we have on the issue today.
Any law has to be constitutional. For all the faults of originalism (basically, all of it), saying originalism sucks does not avoid the question of constitutionality, it simply transfers it to a different interpretive scheme.
But the hypo isn't really about RvW--nor was it entirely directed at garbs--it's about whether one would vote against beliefs in order to vote for one's interests, and to what extent.
I mean, I'd have to give it some thought myself. I probably wouldn't, because I know any party that took away procretive rights would be on my ass any time now, for liking bukkake movies or Soviet flags or fucking a proud woman of color. But take away the slippery slope (and, I suppose, the tangential personal interest I have in potential mothers of my zygotes having the option), and I'd definitely consider selling another group out for my own well-being.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:45:08 PMI think that hooplah over the term "forcible rape" is just hooplah, given that it never actually had a definition. Isn't rape by definition - forcible?
Depends upon how the adjective is construed.
Fwiw, statutory rape is not by definition forcible; if it is, it's just rape.
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 06:48:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:45:08 PMI think that hooplah over the term "forcible rape" is just hooplah, given that it never actually had a definition. Isn't rape by definition - forcible?
You tell that to the geniuses who are so keen on distinguishing between different types of rape for their various bits of legislation rolling back reproductive rights.
The point is that if you get raped and get pregnant then it wasn't rape and consequently you can't claim being a victim of rape as an excuse to get an abortion.
That's fucking evil if you ask me.
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 06:41:17 PM
learn to link seedy
Why, none of these guys are going to read it.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:45:08 PM
I think that hooplah over the term "forcible rape" is just hooplah, given that it never actually had a definition. Isn't rape by definition - forcible?
I know you're all up on gay issues and whatnot, and don't really have a dog in the abortion fight, but you should really pay more attention to what your fave-raves on the right have been trying to do in legislatively qualifying the act of rape in recent years.
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 07:02:49 PM
The point is that if you get raped and get pregnant then it wasn't rape and consequently you can't claim being a victim of rape as an excuse to get an abortion.
That's fucking evil if you ask me.
You do know this Todd Akin guy is on the House Science and Technology Committee, don't you?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 07:05:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 06:41:17 PM
learn to link seedy
Why, none of these guys are going to read it.
I read it, now I want to know WTF "sperm priming" is. This seems to fall within my range of interests.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 07:10:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 07:02:49 PM
The point is that if you get raped and get pregnant then it wasn't rape and consequently you can't claim being a victim of rape as an excuse to get an abortion.
That's fucking evil if you ask me.
You do know this Todd Akin guy is on the House Science and Technology Committee, don't you?
That just makes it worse.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 06:57:51 PM
Any law has to be constitutional. For all the faults of originalism (basically, all of it), saying originalism sucks does not avoid the question of constitutionality, it simply transfers it to a different interpretive scheme.
But the hypo isn't really about RvW--nor was it entirely directed at garbs--it's about whether one would vote against beliefs in order to vote for one's interests, and to what extent.
I mean, I'd have to give it some thought myself. I probably wouldn't, because I know any party that took away procretive rights would be on my ass any time now, for liking bukkake movies or Soviet flags or fucking a proud woman of color. But take away the slippery slope (and, I suppose, the tangential personal interest I have in potential mothers of my zygotes having the option), and I'd definitely consider selling another group out for my own well-being.
The problem is that it is a rights issue rather than a medical ethics issue.
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 07:19:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 07:10:49 PM
You do know this Todd Akin guy is on the House Science and Technology Committee, don't you?
That just makes it worse.
That's part of the perks of your party winning the House; that's how you wind up with Michelle Bachmann on the House Intelligence Committee, and Dan Issa as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Paul Ryan as Chairman of the Budget Committee, and on, and on.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 07:29:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 07:19:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 07:10:49 PM
You do know this Todd Akin guy is on the House Science and Technology Committee, don't you?
That just makes it worse.
That's part of the perks of your party winning the House; that's how you wind up with Michelle Bachmann on the House Intelligence Committee, and Dan Issa as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Paul Ryan as Chairman of the Budget Committee, and on, and on.
Managing crazy, corrupt, stupid and luddite is part of the House Rep leaderships most important tasks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 07:08:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:45:08 PM
I think that hooplah over the term "forcible rape" is just hooplah, given that it never actually had a definition. Isn't rape by definition - forcible?
I know you're all up on gay issues and whatnot, and don't really have a dog in the abortion fight, but you should really pay more attention to what your fave-raves on the right have been trying to do in legislatively qualifying the act of rape in recent years.
But I already said what they've been doing was/is deplorable. Even recently in this thread. :mellow:
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 06:56:44 PM
One should realize we're talking about movement in a continuum, and movement in a particular direction.
I don't think it is anything new.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 07:54:58 PM
But I already said what they've been doing was/is deplorable. Even recently in this thread. :mellow:
Then do something about it.
I support whatever Rush Limbough's opinion is on this case.
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 06:48:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:45:08 PMI think that hooplah over the term "forcible rape" is just hooplah, given that it never actually had a definition. Isn't rape by definition - forcible?
You tell that to the geniuses who are so keen on distinguishing between different types of rape for their various bits of legislation rolling back reproductive rights.
Garbon - no, not every kind of rape is "forcible rape". See so-called "date rape". Which apparently is the kind of rape Akin was trying to distinguish.
This segues into a Canadian debate on whether there are 'different types of sexual assaults'. The Alberta court of appeal has a couple of times come up with a judicial definition of "major sexual assault". It's not a new or separate offence, but is rather a sentencing regime. In Canada any unwanted sexual touching is a sexual assault, but a "major sexual assault" is one that is penetrative. It is to distinguish between unwanted vaginal sex, and an unwanted ass grab. Both might be offences, but clearly one is much more invasive to a victim. And note - how well the accused knows the victim does not distinguish between a major sexual assault, and one that is not.
So no - not all rapes are forcible rapes, and that distinction is really not helpful, but one can indeed be a genius by wanting to differentiate between different kinds of offences.
Quote from: Siege on August 20, 2012, 08:51:22 PM
I support whatever Rush Limbough's opinion is on this case.
He wants you to convert to Christianity.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 10:37:32 PM
Garbon - no, not every kind of rape is "forcible rape". See so-called "date rape". Which apparently is the kind of rape Akin was trying to distinguish.
He likes to distinguish it from statutory rape as well.
But Mr. Akin didn't use "forcible"; he used "legitimate", which is an entirely different type of uneducated bullshit.
Yeah, I think it also doesn't help that there seems to be a conscious desire to avoid using the word "rape", with the unintended effect of having "sexual assault" taken on a too wide range of behaviors. It naturally introduces a desire to differentiate between "taken down by six guys and penetrated twenty times in total" sexual assaults and "pinched in the butt on the bus" sexual assaults, and that can easily get you in trouble if you do it with anything other than utmost sensitivity.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 10:37:32 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 06:48:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 06:45:08 PMI think that hooplah over the term "forcible rape" is just hooplah, given that it never actually had a definition. Isn't rape by definition - forcible?
You tell that to the geniuses who are so keen on distinguishing between different types of rape for their various bits of legislation rolling back reproductive rights.
Garbon - no, not every kind of rape is "forcible rape". See so-called "date rape". Which apparently is the kind of rape Akin was trying to distinguish.
Depends on how you define forcible (and date rape). Non-consensual sex involving the threat of force can still be found under the rubric of date rape. Unless you mean date rape to mean, solely, non-sensual sex involving unconsciousness or diminished capacity (of course I could have just said "sex involving unconsciousness or diminished capacity" and not been redundant THANKS SUPREME COURT OF CANADA). And having sex with an unconscious person (who didn't establish their consent prior, or maybe even if they did--once again thanks SCC you fucking monsters), you may argue, is certainly "forcible." Leaving someone stranded on the side of the road "unless" is force, too.
Date rape is going to involve some method of either overcoming resistance or obviating concent, because it still has to be rape, and generally this is going to involve force of one kind of another. The only exception to rape being forcible that I can think of involves those held to legally be unable to consent: minors, and, in many jurisdictions, the mentally handicapped (which is a whole other brand of fucked up but the right of tards to experience love is outside the scope of our discussion). You can also add 18 year old students to that list if you're in Texas (or in South Carolina :rolleyes: ), I suppose.
However, annoying someone into having sex isn't rape. At least I hope not. For all our sakes.
But again I guess it depends on what is meant by
forcible.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/pregnant-woman-relieved-to-learn-her-rape-was-ille,29258/
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 10:44:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 10:37:32 PM
Garbon - no, not every kind of rape is "forcible rape". See so-called "date rape". Which apparently is the kind of rape Akin was trying to distinguish.
He likes to distinguish it from statutory rape as well.
But Mr. Akin didn't use "forcible"; he used "legitimate", which is an entirely different type of uneducated bullshit.
On Mike Huckabees show, in order to try and save himself, he clarified that by "legitimate" he meant "forcible". Which doesn't really help him much.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 11:07:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 10:44:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 10:37:32 PM
Garbon - no, not every kind of rape is "forcible rape". See so-called "date rape". Which apparently is the kind of rape Akin was trying to distinguish.
He likes to distinguish it from statutory rape as well.
But Mr. Akin didn't use "forcible"; he used "legitimate", which is an entirely different type of uneducated bullshit.
On Mike Huckabees show, in order to try and save himself, he clarified that by "legitimate" he meant "forcible". Which doesn't really help him much.
Right, which is another of he and Ryan's made up terms used to frame the abortion debate in their favor.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 07:55:37 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 06:56:44 PM
One should realize we're talking about movement in a continuum, and movement in a particular direction.
I don't think it is anything new.
According to the BBC
Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19326666In 2011, he co-sponsored a bill that would have limited the government help available to women seeking abortions in the case of rape to cases of "forcible rape".
After a public outcry, the House Republican party changed this language.
I understand the list of cosponsors include the following:
QuoteAderholt, Robert [R-AL4]
Akin, Todd [R-MO2]
Alexander, Rodney [R-LA5]
Austria, Steve [R-OH7]
Bachmann, Michele [R-MN6]
Bachus, Spencer [R-AL6]
Barletta, Lou [R-PA11]
Bartlett, Roscoe [R-MD6]
Barton, Joe [R-TX6]
Benishek, Dan [R-MI1]
Bilirakis, Gus [R-FL9]
Bishop, Rob [R-UT1]
Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN7]
Bonner, Jo [R-AL1]
Boren, Dan [D-OK2]
Boustany, Charles [R-LA7]
Brady, Kevin [R-TX8]
Brooks, Mo [R-AL5]
Broun, Paul [R-GA10]
Buchanan, Vern [R-FL13]
Buerkle, Ann Marie [R-NY25]
Burgess, Michael [R-TX26]
Burton, Dan [R-IN5]
Calvert, Ken [R-CA44]
Canseco, Francisco "Quico" [R-TX23]
Cantor, Eric [R-VA7]
Carter, John [R-TX31]
Cassidy, Bill [R-LA6]
Chabot, Steven "Steve" [R-OH1]
Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT3]
Coffman, Mike [R-CO6]
Cole, Tom [R-OK4]
Conaway, Michael [R-TX11]
Costello, Jerry [D-IL12]
Cravaack, Chip [R-MN8]
Crawford, Rick [R-AR1]
Crenshaw, Ander [R-FL4]
Critz, Mark [D-PA12]
Davis, Geoff [R-KY4]
DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN4]
Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL21]
Donnelly, Joe [D-IN2]
Duffy, Sean [R-WI7]
Duncan, Jeff [R-SC3]
Duncan, John "Jimmy" [R-TN2]
Ellmers, Renee [R-NC2]
Emerson, Jo Ann [R-MO8]
Fitzpatrick, Michael [R-PA8]
Flake, Jeff [R-AZ6]
Fleming, John [R-LA4]
Forbes, Randy [R-VA4]
Fortenberry, Jeffrey [R-NE1]
Foxx, Virginia [R-NC5]
Franks, Trent [R-AZ2]
Gardner, Cory [R-CO4]
Garrett, Scott [R-NJ5]
Gerlach, Jim [R-PA6]
Gibbs, Bob [R-OH18]
Gingrey, John "Phil" [R-GA11]
Gohmert, Louis [R-TX1]
Goodlatte, Robert "Bob" [R-VA6]
Gowdy, Trey [R-SC4]
Granger, Kay [R-TX12]
Graves, Samuel "Sam" [R-MO6]
Grimm, Michael [R-NY13]
Guthrie, Brett [R-KY2]
Hall, Ralph [R-TX4]
Harper, Gregg [R-MS3]
Harris, Andy [R-MD1]
Hartzler, Vicky [R-MO4]
Hensarling, Jeb [R-TX5]
Herger, Walter "Wally" [R-CA2]
Huelskamp, Tim [R-KS1]
Hunter, Duncan [R-CA52]
Hurt, Robert [R-VA5]
Jenkins, Lynn [R-KS2]
Johnson, Samuel "Sam" [R-TX3]
Johnson, Timothy [R-IL15]
Jones, Walter [R-NC3]
Jordan, Jim [R-OH4]
Kelly, Mike [R-PA3]
King, Peter "Pete" [R-NY3]
King, Steve [R-IA5]
Kingston, Jack [R-GA1]
Kinzinger, Adam [R-IL11]
Kline, John [R-MN2]
Lamborn, Doug [R-CO5]
Landry, Jeff [R-LA3]
Lankford, James [R-OK5]
LaTourette, Steven [R-OH14]
Latta, Robert [R-OH5]
Lee, Christopher [R-NY26]
Lipinski, Daniel [D-IL3]
LoBiondo, Frank [R-NJ2]
Long, Billy [R-MO7]
Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R-MO9]
Lungren, Daniel [R-CA3]
Manzullo, Donald [R-IL16]
Marchant, Kenny [R-TX24]
Marino, Thomas [R-PA10]
McCarthy, Kevin [R-CA22]
McCaul, Michael [R-TX10]
McClintock, Tom [R-CA4]
McCotter, Thaddeus "Thad" [R-MI11]
McHenry, Patrick [R-NC10]
McIntyre, Mike [D-NC7]
McKeon, Howard "Buck" [R-CA25]
McKinley, David [R-WV1]
McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R-WA5]
Miller, Candice [R-MI10]
Miller, Gary [R-CA42]
Miller, Jeff [R-FL1]
Mulvaney, Mick [R-SC5]
Murphy, Tim [R-PA18]
Neugebauer, Randy [R-TX19]
Noem, Kristi [R-SD0]
Nunnelee, Alan [R-MS1]
Olson, Pete [R-TX22]
Paul, Ronald "Ron" [R-TX14]
Pence, Mike [R-IN6]
Peterson, Collin [D-MN7]
Pitts, Joseph [R-PA16]
Pompeo, Mike [R-KS4]
Posey, Bill [R-FL15]
Price, Tom [R-GA6]
Rahall, Nick [D-WV3]
Ribble, Reid [R-WI8]
Rigell, Scott [R-VA2]
Roe, Phil [R-TN1]
Rogers, Harold "Hal" [R-KY5]
Rogers, Michael "Mike" [R-MI8]
Rokita, Todd [R-IN4]
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL18]
Roskam, Peter [R-IL6]
Ross, Mike [D-AR4]
Royce, Edward "Ed" [R-CA40]
Ryan, Paul [R-WI1]
Scalise, Steve [R-LA1]
Schilling, Robert "Bobby" [R-IL17]
Schmidt, Jean [R-OH2]
Scott, Austin [R-GA8]
Scott, Tim [R-SC1]
Sensenbrenner, James [R-WI5]
Shimkus, John [R-IL19]
Shuler, Heath [D-NC11]
Shuster, William "Bill" [R-PA9]
Simpson, Michael "Mike" [R-ID2]
Smith, Lamar [R-TX21]
Stutzman, Marlin [R-IN3]
Sullivan, John [R-OK1]
Terry, Lee [R-NE2]
Thompson, Glenn [R-PA5]
Tiberi, Patrick "Pat" [R-OH12]
Turner, Michael [R-OH3]
Westmoreland, Lynn [R-GA3]
Whitfield, Edward "Ed" [R-KY1]
Wilson, Addison "Joe" [R-SC2]
Wittman, Rob [R-VA1]
Wolf, Frank [R-VA10]
Woodall, Rob [R-GA7]
Young, Bill [R-FL10]
Amash, Justin [R-MI3]
Coble, Howard [R-NC6]
Gosar, Paul [R-AZ1]
Griffith, Morgan [R-VA9]
Mack, Connie [R-FL14]
Petri, Thomas "Tom" [R-WI6]
Rivera, David [R-FL25]
Roby, Martha [R-AL2]
Ross, Dennis [R-FL12]
Smith, Adrian [R-NE3]
Walberg, Timothy [R-MI7]
Walden, Greg [R-OR2]
Black, Diane [R-TN6]
Campbell, John [R-CA48]
Denham, Jeff [R-CA19]
Farenthold, Blake [R-TX27]
Fincher, Stephen [R-TN8]
Fleischmann, Chuck [R-TN3]
Flores, Bill [R-TX17]
Gallegly, Elton [R-CA24]
Huizenga, Bill [R-MI2]
Lance, Leonard [R-NJ7]
Latham, Thomas "Tom" [R-IA4]
Myrick, Sue [R-NC9]
Palazzo, Steven [R-MS4]
Pearce, Steven "Steve" [R-NM2]
Platts, Todd [R-PA19]
Poe, Ted [R-TX2]
Quayle, Ben [R-AZ3]
Rogers, Michael "Mike" [R-AL3]
Schock, Aaron [R-IL18]
Schweikert, David [R-AZ5]
Sessions, Peter "Pete" [R-TX32]
Southerland, Steve [R-FL2]
Stearns, Clifford "Cliff" [R-FL6]
Thornberry, William "Mac" [R-TX13]
Walsh, Joe [R-IL8]
Womack, Steve [R-AR3]
Young, Todd [R-IN9]
Berg, Rick [R-ND0]
Griffin, Tim [R-AR2]
Hultgren, Randy [R-IL14]
Lucas, Frank [R-OK3]
Stivers, Steve [R-OH15]
Johnson, Bill [R-OH6]
Labrador, Raúl [R-ID1]
Nunes, Devin [R-CA21]
West, Allen [R-FL22]
Issa, Darrell [R-CA49]
Yoder, Kevin [R-KS3]
Adams, Sandy [R-FL24]
Bilbray, Brian [R-CA50]
Bucshon, Larry [R-IN8]
Culberson, John [R-TX7]
Heck, Joe [R-NV3]
Lummis, Cynthia [R-WY0]
Mica, John [R-FL7]
Reed, Tom [R-NY29]
Rehberg, Dennis "Denny" [R-MT0]
Rooney, Thomas [R-FL16]
Guinta, Frank [R-NH1]
Holden, Tim [D-PA17]
Lewis, Jerry [R-CA41]
Graves, Tom [R-GA9]
Nugent, Richard [R-FL5]
Upton, Frederick "Fred" [R-MI6]
This is nothing new?
And I still want to know what "sperm priming" is. Google is no help. Viking, you're the expert. I like kooky hypotheses that (either accidentally or by design) get embraced by the right wing.
I still say that an abiogenic origin of petroleum (some, if not all) makes a lot of sense, even if it's biggest backers are preposterously biased oilheads and crazy creationists. Thomas Gold figured out neutron stars, you savages.
Anyway, does anyone think Paul Ryan's previous support for this kind of nonsense will hurt him and Romney? Yi, would you like to pay me now? It's cheaper if you don't wait.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 11:16:27 PM
Anyway, does anyone think Paul Ryan's previous support for this kind of nonsense will hurt him and Romney?
No.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 11:14:37 PM
And I still want to know what "sperm priming" is. Google is no help. Viking, you're the expert. I like kooky hypotheses that (either accidentally or by design) get embraced by the right wing.
I still say that an abiogenic origin of petroleum (some, if not all) makes a lot of sense, even if it's biggest backers are preposterously biased oilheads and crazy creationists. Thomas Gold figured out neutron stars, you savages.
http://www2.fz-juelich.de/isb/isb-1/Sperm_Physiology/
QuoteThe first process - control and recognition between sperm and egg - is the focus of our research. A complex interaction exists between egg and sperm. The egg is able to control the physiology of sperm, priming it for fertilization, and the sperm reciprocates by activating the egg metabolism needed for the commencement of development. Albeit more than a century has gone by since scientists began to study the sperm-egg dialogue, the underlying molecular mechanisms still remain elusive.
Basically sperm priming is part of the interaction between egg and sperm when they come into contact. The theocratic bs is that the stress of the rape on the body causes the egg to not prime the sperm to pass through the external membrane and fertilize the egg. This is not the case, the priming happens when there is contact between a living egg and a living sperm cell.
Abiogenic oil makes no sense at all. It is creationist oil. I could go into depth if you want. I'll deposite a garbonite wall of words on your doorstep if you want.
The Soviets were big on abiogenic oil, and they were hardly a bunch of creationists. Not saying it's right, the current theory has provided results and is useful, while abiogenic oil hasn't and isn't.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 11:16:27 PM
Anyway, does anyone think Paul Ryan's previous support for this kind of nonsense will hurt him and Romney?
As long as he keeps his mouth shut, and he will, because he's good at it.
And, just like every other GOP convention since the 80s, they'll downplay the entire abortion stance, because they know how shitty it plays to independent voters on the national level.
Hell, even Bob McDonald, Governor Transvaginal Ultrasound himself, who happens to be the GOP chairman for the convention platform this year, will be getting a prime time slot to speak, but not on abortion: it'll be on small government and small business.
As usual, they'll keep it quiet. They've got no problem jamming the abortion and contraceptive issues down the throats any other time, until it's scrutiny time on the national stage. And afterwards, when their candidate wins the White House, they'll be right back at it.
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 11:13:17 PM
This is nothing new?
That was unnecessary. And no I don't think it new that Republicans are against abortion.
Quote from: Viking on August 21, 2012, 03:29:52 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 11:14:37 PM
And I still want to know what "sperm priming" is. Google is no help. Viking, you're the expert. I like kooky hypotheses that (either accidentally or by design) get embraced by the right wing.
I still say that an abiogenic origin of petroleum (some, if not all) makes a lot of sense, even if it's biggest backers are preposterously biased oilheads and crazy creationists. Thomas Gold figured out neutron stars, you savages.
http://www2.fz-juelich.de/isb/isb-1/Sperm_Physiology/
QuoteThe first process - control and recognition between sperm and egg - is the focus of our research. A complex interaction exists between egg and sperm. The egg is able to control the physiology of sperm, priming it for fertilization, and the sperm reciprocates by activating the egg metabolism needed for the commencement of development. Albeit more than a century has gone by since scientists began to study the sperm-egg dialogue, the underlying molecular mechanisms still remain elusive.
Basically sperm priming is part of the interaction between egg and sperm when they come into contact. The theocratic bs is that the stress of the rape on the body causes the egg to not prime the sperm to pass through the external membrane and fertilize the egg. This is not the case, the priming happens when there is contact between a living egg and a living sperm cell.
Shame that isn't the case. It's stuff like this that makes me wonder where creationists get their ideas, given how many minor and major improvements could be made to the human body.
QuoteAbiogenic oil makes no sense at all. It is creationist oil. I could go into depth if you want. I'll deposite a garbonite wall of words on your doorstep if you want.
Abiogenic hydrocarbons, including some rather long chain ones, are evident in the solar system. That said, the formation of Titan and the formation of Earth occurred under somewhat different circumstances. It's not so much that I believe it (the hypothesis has been bolstered by little evidence) but it has been and to an extent still is worth investigating.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2012, 11:17:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 11:16:27 PM
Anyway, does anyone think Paul Ryan's previous support for this kind of nonsense will hurt him and Romney?
No.
Which makes me sad. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on August 21, 2012, 08:53:18 AM
Shame that isn't the case. It's stuff like this that makes me wonder where creationists get their ideas, given how many minor and major improvements could be made to the human body.
My personal easy small design that would massively improve the human, is to move the birth canal from below the pelvic bone to above it so that we can have bigger heads. Right now the size of our heads and the size of our pelvic bones are in a precarious triangular balance from the stone age where the risk of death in child birth is balanced with the cost in resources and fitness of having a wider pelvis in women and the benefit you get from having a bigger brain.
In addition to the obvious ones of using the same hole for breathing, eating and drinking as well as the same hole for pissing and fucking. The coxxyx the appendix the petuitary gland etc.etc.
They make this shit up quote mining and twisting anything they can so that they do not have to abandon their cherished idea.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 21, 2012, 08:53:18 AM
Abiogenic hydrocarbons, including some rather long chain ones, are evident in the solar system. That said, the formation of Titan and the formation of Earth occurred under somewhat different circumstances. It's not so much that I believe it (the hypothesis has been bolstered by little evidence) but it has been and to an extent still is worth investigating.
Not just the solar system. Apparently organic molecules (depending where you draw the lower limit) outnumber all other large molecules in nearby space. As they do on earth. But, compared to methane there is a difference of many hundreds of orders of magnitude, unlike earth where it is maybe as high as 5. What the astronomers have found is that benzene rings survive in space, thats it really. extra-terrestrial complex hydrocarbons do not mean abiogenic hydrocarbons, they might mean life.
The reason this is comparable to creationism is that the hypothesis explains nothing, makes no predictions and solves no problems. Basically the theory is "oil can magically happen". The problem is that all the oil that has been found has been found to happen by natural processes.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 03:41:18 AM
The Soviets were big on abiogenic oil
They also pushed lysenkoism. The USSR was prone to pseudo-scientific boondoogles because of the potential of convincing the right party members to make it socialist doctrine.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 21, 2012, 10:25:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 03:41:18 AM
The Soviets were big on abiogenic oil
They also pushed lysenkoism. The USSR was prone to pseudo-scientific boondoogles because of the potential of convincing the right party members to make it socialist doctrine.
Politics often trump science.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 10:57:35 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 09:07:04 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2012, 11:17:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 11:16:27 PM
Anyway, does anyone think Paul Ryan's previous support for this kind of nonsense will hurt him and Romney?
No.
Which makes me sad. :(
:nelson:
Of course if one buys the argument that said fetuses are people, allowing for abortion in rape cases that are not life-threatening to the mother seems solely the result of political compromise.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 10:57:35 AM
:nelson:
You understand that the part that makes me sad is that in this country, it isn't beyond the realm of belief that abortion will become illegal. That someone - someones - who believe this can not only win an election, but become the Vice-President saddens me immeasurably.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 11:01:42 AM
Of course if one buys the argument that said fetuses are people, allowing for abortion in rape cases that are not life-threatening to the mother seems solely the result of political compromise.
Yes, that's true. Interestingly, the loudest voices on this appear to be men. I wonder where the women are.
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:13:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 10:57:35 AM
:nelson:
You understand that the part that makes me sad is that in this country, it isn't beyond the realm of belief that abortion will become illegal. That someone - someones - who believe this can not only win an election, but become the Vice-President saddens me immeasurably.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 11:01:42 AM
Of course if one buys the argument that said fetuses are people, allowing for abortion in rape cases that are not life-threatening to the mother seems solely the result of political compromise.
Yes, that's true. Interestingly, the loudest voices on this appear to be men. I wonder where the women are.
I don't know. It saddens me that this issue gets put in such stark "you're with us or you're against us" terms, when it seems to me that both sides have fairly compelling arguments.
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:13:49 AM
Yes, that's true. Interestingly, the loudest voices on this appear to be men. I wonder where the women are.
In the kitchen baking pie.
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 11:21:41 AM
I don't know. It saddens me that this issue gets put in such stark "you're with us or you're against us" terms, when it seems to me that both sides have fairly compelling arguments.
Yeah, pick a side, dude. You can *say* you're both pro-life and pro-choice, but that really just means you're pro-choice when you get down to brass tacks.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 11:29:35 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 11:21:41 AM
I don't know. It saddens me that this issue gets put in such stark "you're with us or you're against us" terms, when it seems to me that both sides have fairly compelling arguments.
Yeah, pick a side, dude. You can *say* you're both pro-life and pro-choice, but that really just means you're pro-choice when you get down to brass tacks.
I've said before I believe in the Bill Clinton formula when it comes to abortion - that is should be safe, accessible, and rare.
It should be easily accessible. There should be parental notification, only done in probably the first trimester, or maybe first 20 weeks. Legitimate, unbiased counselling on alternatives is probably a good idea.
Is it cutting the baby in half? I don't think so, but it is a compromise between two legitimate interests.
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 11:21:41 AM
I don't know. It saddens me that this issue gets put in such stark "you're with us or you're against us" terms, when it seems to me that both sides have fairly compelling arguments.
I agree. But the problem with one side is that it stops the other from doing what they feel is right. Because of that, it has to be "for" or "against".
Anti-Choicers believe that the babies deserve protection, and the mothers are at fault for getting pregnant. Pro-Choicers believe that the mothers deserve the right to protect themselves and their futures, and the embryos don't have any protective rights yet.
How do you sit on the fence in a situation like that?
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 11:29:35 AM
Yeah, pick a side, dude.
:lol: THEN HOW ABOUT GETTING WITH THE PROGRAM JUMP ON THE TEAM AND COME ON IN FOR THE BIG WIN
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 11:34:08 AM
I've said before I believe in the Bill Clinton formula when it comes to abortion - that is should be safe, accessible, and rare.
It should be easily accessible. There should be parental notification, only done in probably the first trimester, or maybe first 20 weeks. Legitimate, unbiased counselling on alternatives is probably a good idea.
Is it cutting the baby in half? I don't think so, but it is a compromise between two legitimate interests.
I agree on all points except parental notification (and don't bother to try to convince me on that one; it will never happen).
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:39:18 AM
I agree on all points except parental notification (and don't bother to try to convince me on that one; it will never happen).
Albeit outpatient, it's still a surgical procedure for minors. Just like a tonsillectomy, except with an Oreck.
Although petitioning a judge in lieu of parental notification in a closed hearing is a fine alternative.
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 11:34:08 AM
I've said before I believe in the Bill Clinton formula when it comes to abortion - that is should be safe, accessible, and rare.
It should be easily accessible. There should be parental notification, only done in probably the first trimester, or maybe first 20 weeks. Legitimate, unbiased counselling on alternatives is probably a good idea.
Is it cutting the baby in half? I don't think so, but it is a compromise between two legitimate interests.
The Bill Clinton formula is simply a pro-choice stance with BS platitudes thrown in to make it appear softer. From what I can recall from his presidency, he favored zero restrictions on abortion.
Now if I'm reading correctly you're saying you'd favor a ban abortion in the 2nd & 3rd trimester and would put restrictions or qualifications of some sort even on the first trimester. To me that sounds like a pro-life stance, if maybe a soft one.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 07:43:04 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2012, 11:13:17 PM
This is nothing new?
That was unnecessary. And no I don't think it new that Republicans are against abortion.
How about criminalizing miscarriages?
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/31965
... erh, I mean "prenatal murder".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2012, 11:38:58 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 11:29:35 AM
Yeah, pick a side, dude.
:lol: THEN HOW ABOUT GETTING WITH THE PROGRAM JUMP ON THE TEAM AND COME ON IN FOR THE BIG WIN
IS THAT SOME KIND OF SICK JOKE?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2012, 11:41:36 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:39:18 AM
I agree on all points except parental notification (and don't bother to try to convince me on that one; it will never happen).
Albeit outpatient, it's still a surgical procedure for minors. Just like a tonsillectomy, except with an Oreck.
Although petitioning a judge in lieu of parental notification in a closed hearing is a fine alternative.
And when one of those girls have a father like Paul Ryan who forces them to have the child against their will, then what? Sorry, but no.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2012, 11:38:58 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 11:29:35 AM
Yeah, pick a side, dude.
:lol: THEN HOW ABOUT GETTING WITH THE PROGRAM JUMP ON THE TEAM AND COME ON IN FOR THE BIG WIN
Bruce Boa might have been my favorite part of that movie that wasn't Hartmann or Animal Mother.
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:45:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2012, 11:41:36 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:39:18 AM
I agree on all points except parental notification (and don't bother to try to convince me on that one; it will never happen).
Albeit outpatient, it's still a surgical procedure for minors. Just like a tonsillectomy, except with an Oreck.
Although petitioning a judge in lieu of parental notification in a closed hearing is a fine alternative.
And when one of those girls have a father like Paul Ryan who forces them to have the child against their will, then what? Sorry, but no.
You're utterly and completely wrong on this one.
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:36:20 AMI agree. But the problem with one side is that it stops the other from doing what they feel is right. Because of that, it has to be "for" or "against".
Anti-Choicers believe that the babies deserve protection, and the mothers are at fault for getting pregnant. Pro-Choicers believe that the mothers deserve the right to protect themselves and their futures, and the embryos don't have any protective rights yet.
How do you sit on the fence in a situation like that?
I find it a little weird how the average Republican pro-lifer cares so much for the life of the child before it's born, but after it's born it can starve to death or die from easily preventable illnesses for all they care.
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:45:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2012, 11:41:36 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:39:18 AM
I agree on all points except parental notification (and don't bother to try to convince me on that one; it will never happen).
Albeit outpatient, it's still a surgical procedure for minors. Just like a tonsillectomy, except with an Oreck.
Although petitioning a judge in lieu of parental notification in a closed hearing is a fine alternative.
And when one of those girls have a father like Paul Ryan who forces them to have the child against their will, then what? Sorry, but no.
Notification doesn't have to mean permission.
I suspect (and I might be talking out of my ass here) that one of the big motivations in a pregnant teen getting an abortion is to not tell mom and/or dad. Once that is done, there may be a little more room to look at alternatives.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 11:48:14 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:36:20 AMI agree. But the problem with one side is that it stops the other from doing what they feel is right. Because of that, it has to be "for" or "against".
Anti-Choicers believe that the babies deserve protection, and the mothers are at fault for getting pregnant. Pro-Choicers believe that the mothers deserve the right to protect themselves and their futures, and the embryos don't have any protective rights yet.
How do you sit on the fence in a situation like that?
I find it a little weird how the average Republican pro-lifer cares so much for the life of the child before it's born, but after it's born it can starve to death or die from easily preventable illnesses for all they care.
We're just crazy that way, Jake.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 11:48:14 AM
I find it a little weird how the average Republican pro-lifer cares so much for the life of the child before it's born, but after it's born it can starve to death or die from easily preventable illnesses for all they care.
Not sure I'd play that card. After all:
I find it a little weird how the average Democrat pro-lifer cares so much for the life of the child after it is born, but before it's born it can be surgically destroyed (murdered) for all they care.
Depending on your audience, what I wrote is equally valid.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 11:44:44 AM
How about criminalizing miscarriages?
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/31965
... erh, I mean "prenatal murder".
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/31965
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 11:50:45 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:45:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2012, 11:41:36 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:39:18 AM
I agree on all points except parental notification (and don't bother to try to convince me on that one; it will never happen).
Albeit outpatient, it's still a surgical procedure for minors. Just like a tonsillectomy, except with an Oreck.
Although petitioning a judge in lieu of parental notification in a closed hearing is a fine alternative.
And when one of those girls have a father like Paul Ryan who forces them to have the child against their will, then what? Sorry, but no.
Notification doesn't have to mean permission.
I suspect (and I might be talking out of my ass here) that one of the big motivations in a pregnant teen getting an abortion is to not tell mom and/or dad. Once that is done, there may be a little more room to look at alternatives.
Are you hinting at adoption? YOU MONSTER.
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 11:50:45 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:45:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2012, 11:41:36 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:39:18 AM
I agree on all points except parental notification (and don't bother to try to convince me on that one; it will never happen).
Albeit outpatient, it's still a surgical procedure for minors. Just like a tonsillectomy, except with an Oreck.
Although petitioning a judge in lieu of parental notification in a closed hearing is a fine alternative.
And when one of those girls have a father like Paul Ryan who forces them to have the child against their will, then what? Sorry, but no.
Notification doesn't have to mean permission.
I suspect (and I might be talking out of my ass here) that one of the big motivations in a pregnant teen getting an abortion is to not tell mom and/or dad. Once that is done, there may be a little more room to look at alternatives.
:blink:
I'd think one of the big motivations in a pregnant teen getting an abortion is that they don't want to fuck up their lives.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 11:51:53 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 11:44:44 AM
How about criminalizing miscarriages?
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/31965
... erh, I mean "prenatal murder".
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/31965
http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/04/18/ann-romney-why-should-women-be-paid-equal-to-men/
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 11:51:34 AMNot sure I'd play that card. After all:
I find it a little weird how the average Democrat pro-lifer cares so much for the life of the child after it is born, but before it's born it can be surgically destroyed (murdered) for all they care.
Depending on your audience, what I wrote is equally valid.
I'll assume you mean "pro-choicer".
But yeah, I'll own up to that 100% since the inverse you propose make no sense. A fetus is not a child, especially in the early stages of development.
Are you merely playing at sophistry here, or do you genuinely believe an early stage fetus is a child?
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 11:53:02 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 11:51:53 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 11:44:44 AM
How about criminalizing miscarriages?
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/31965
... erh, I mean "prenatal murder".
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/31965
http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/04/18/ann-romney-why-should-women-be-paid-equal-to-men/
That's a satire site, dear.
If only the Georgia state legislature was satire. It's not. Hence my point about
the Handmaid's Tale that garbon is having such difficulties with.
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 11:34:08 AM
Is it cutting the baby in half?
:pinch: :pinch: :pinch:
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 11:52:36 AM
:blink:
I'd think one of the big motivations in a pregnant teen getting an abortion is that they don't want to fuck up their lives.
I think he has a point, though. I would have to think that a certain percentage (however small) of underage girls getting abortions would look at other options if their parents were going to know one way or the other. Kids do stuff they don't want to do all the time just to keep mom & dad from finding out.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 11:51:34 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 11:48:14 AM
I find it a little weird how the average Republican pro-lifer cares so much for the life of the child before it's born, but after it's born it can starve to death or die from easily preventable illnesses for all they care.
Not sure I'd play that card. After all:
I find it a little weird how the average Democrat pro-lifer cares so much for the life of the child after it is born, but before it's born it can be surgically destroyed (murdered) for all they care.
Depending on your audience, what I wrote is equally valid.
Ooooh, ooooh, I got one!
I find it weird how Republicans refuse to allow the abortion of the severely prenatal handicapped, but have no problem applying the death penalty to them for committing crimes they can't comprehend.
I can do this all day.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 11:54:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 11:51:34 AMNot sure I'd play that card. After all:
I find it a little weird how the average Democrat pro-lifer cares so much for the life of the child after it is born, but before it's born it can be surgically destroyed (murdered) for all they care.
Depending on your audience, what I wrote is equally valid.
I'll assume you mean "pro-choicer".
But yeah, I'll own up to that 100% since the inverse you propose make no sense. A fetus is not a child, especially in the early stages of development.
Are you merely playing at sophistry here, or do you genuinely believe an early stage fetus is a child?
Do you think a late stage fetus is a child?
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 11:54:58 AM
I'll assume you mean "pro-choicer".
But yeah, I'll own up to that 100% since the inverse you propose make no sense. A fetus is not a child, especially in the early stages of development.
Are you merely playing at sophistry here, or do you genuinely believe an early stage fetus is a child?
Yes meant pro-choicer.
The point of my sophistry is to point out that both sides can make nonsensical statements that appeal to their partisans while making little sense to those in the other camp.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 11:55:29 AM
That's a satire site, dear.
Glad you figured that out :P :hug:
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 11:52:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 11:50:45 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:45:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2012, 11:41:36 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 11:39:18 AM
I agree on all points except parental notification (and don't bother to try to convince me on that one; it will never happen).
Albeit outpatient, it's still a surgical procedure for minors. Just like a tonsillectomy, except with an Oreck.
Although petitioning a judge in lieu of parental notification in a closed hearing is a fine alternative.
And when one of those girls have a father like Paul Ryan who forces them to have the child against their will, then what? Sorry, but no.
Notification doesn't have to mean permission.
I suspect (and I might be talking out of my ass here) that one of the big motivations in a pregnant teen getting an abortion is to not tell mom and/or dad. Once that is done, there may be a little more room to look at alternatives.
:blink:
I'd think one of the big motivations in a pregnant teen getting an abortion is that they don't want to fuck up their lives.
Does adoption "fuck up their life"? :unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 11:59:20 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 11:54:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 11:51:34 AMNot sure I'd play that card. After all:
I find it a little weird how the average Democrat pro-lifer cares so much for the life of the child after it is born, but before it's born it can be surgically destroyed (murdered) for all they care.
Depending on your audience, what I wrote is equally valid.
I'll assume you mean "pro-choicer".
But yeah, I'll own up to that 100% since the inverse you propose make no sense. A fetus is not a child, especially in the early stages of development.
Are you merely playing at sophistry here, or do you genuinely believe an early stage fetus is a child?
Do you think a late stage fetus is a child?
No-- he just thinks it's "especially not a child" early-on :D
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 11:57:51 AM
I think he has a point, though. I would have to think that a certain percentage (however small) of underage girls getting abortions would look at other options if their parents were going to know one way or the other. Kids do stuff they don't want to do all the time just to keep mom & dad from finding out.
So we've gone from big motivations now to isolated cases?
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 12:00:39 PM
Does adoption "fuck up their life"? :unsure:
Totally possible. For one, just recently we had a charter school whose rules had them kick out pregnant students (yay GED!).
Secondly, said student is probably not going to be doing so hot academically which can affect future outcomes.
Thirdly, how many of those mothers would actually end up giving up their child vs. trying to raise it with the subpar quality of life that they can provide? After all 9 months is a long time.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 12:01:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 11:57:51 AM
I think he has a point, though. I would have to think that a certain percentage (however small) of underage girls getting abortions would look at other options if their parents were going to know one way or the other. Kids do stuff they don't want to do all the time just to keep mom & dad from finding out.
So we've gone from big motivations now to isolated cases?
I don't know. I'd guess somewhere in between.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 12:05:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 12:01:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 11:57:51 AM
I think he has a point, though. I would have to think that a certain percentage (however small) of underage girls getting abortions would look at other options if their parents were going to know one way or the other. Kids do stuff they don't want to do all the time just to keep mom & dad from finding out.
So we've gone from big motivations now to isolated cases?
I don't know. I'd guess somewhere in between.
So we should add parental notification requirements on gut feeling?
And to agree in sentiment to what Jacob said (though not the format) - why are we pushing so much to scare teen girls into giving birth when we don't even have the ability to care for the children that are currently born?
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 12:00:39 PM
Does adoption "fuck up their life"? :unsure:
Pregnancy certainly can. And while I'm a huge proponant for adoption before abortion, I could never presume to tell a woman to give up her body for nine months and risk serious health issues during that time simply because I believe that's what's right.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 12:06:09 PM
So we should add parental notification requirements on gut feeling?
Ask Beeb.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 12:08:15 PM
And to agree in sentiment to what Jacob said (though not the format) - why are we pushing so much to scare teen girls into giving birth when we don't even have the ability to care for the children that are currently born?
We don't?
Isn't there something of a demand for healthy white babies to adopt?
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 12:13:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 12:00:39 PM
Does adoption "fuck up their life"? :unsure:
Pregnancy certainly can. And while I'm a huge proponant for adoption before abortion, I could never presume to tell a woman to give up her body for nine months and risk serious health issues during that time simply because I believe that's what's right.
That's true, I forgot health complications and risk of death.
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2012, 12:15:09 PM
Isn't there something of a demand for healthy white babies to adopt?
Not sure of the relevance considering that non-white teens have high rates of pregnancy and abortion.
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 12:13:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 12:00:39 PM
Does adoption "fuck up their life"? :unsure:
Pregnancy certainly can.
:yeahright:
While pregnancy
can have serious and long-term health consequences, it is pretty rare, and is pretty much confined to people with pre-existing medical conditions. A healthy female, who receives appropriate medical supervision during pregnancy, has little to worry about.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 12:14:46 PM
We don't?
Considering the number of children living in poverty/suffering from malnutrition (/dying of it)/poor education and life outcomes - I'd think we don't.
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2012, 12:15:09 PM
Isn't there something of a demand for healthy white babies to adopt?
Pretty sure there's a demand for healthy babies of all colours to adopt. People generally aren't flying over to China to adopt because they specifically want a Chinese baby.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 12:20:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 12:14:46 PM
We don't?
Considering the number of children living in poverty/suffering from malnutrition (/dying of it)/poor education and life outcomes - I'd think we don't.
Man-- I didn't know things were so shitty here :(
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 11:51:10 AMWe're just crazy that way, Jake.
I don't think crazy is the best word here.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 12:21:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 12:20:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 12:14:46 PM
We don't?
Considering the number of children living in poverty/suffering from malnutrition (/dying of it)/poor education and life outcomes - I'd think we don't.
Man-- I didn't know things were so shitty here :(
I'm not sure how you missed that.
Also, as I pointed out pregnancy/abortions are higher amongst non-whites which are also the groups that are heavily affected by those metrics. Not sure how the solution is to have more individuals raise children in subgroups that already have issues raising children.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 12:00:03 PMYes meant pro-choicer.
The point of my sophistry is to point out that both sides can make nonsensical statements that appeal to their partisans while making little sense to those in the other camp.
Mine wasn't a nonsensical statement, though.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 12:25:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 12:00:03 PMYes meant pro-choicer.
The point of my sophistry is to point out that both sides can make nonsensical statements that appeal to their partisans while making little sense to those in the other camp.
Mine wasn't a nonsensical statement, though.
"hypocrisy" is really a poor form of political argument, and ultimately becomes an excuse to do nothing at all.
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 12:19:35 PMWhile pregnancy can have serious and long-term health consequences, it is pretty rare, and is pretty much confined to people with pre-existing medical conditions. A healthy female, who receives appropriate medical supervision during pregnancy, has little to worry about.
And you, a healthy white male, has even less to worry about. So clearly you should make the decision on her behalf.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 12:19:23 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2012, 12:15:09 PM
Isn't there something of a demand for healthy white babies to adopt?
Not sure of the relevance considering that non-white teens have high rates of pregnancy and abortion.
Just that adoption rather than abortion won't work for non-whites.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 12:21:44 PMMan-- I didn't know things were so shitty here :(
Possibly because you deliberately ignore any evidence on the matter?
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 12:27:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 12:19:35 PMWhile pregnancy can have serious and long-term health consequences, it is pretty rare, and is pretty much confined to people with pre-existing medical conditions. A healthy female, who receives appropriate medical supervision during pregnancy, has little to worry about.
And you, a healthy white male, has even less to worry about. So clearly you should make the decision on her behalf.
Barring people from public policy discussions based on gender or race isn't supposed to be kosher for you people, is it?
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 12:28:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 12:21:44 PMMan-- I didn't know things were so shitty here :(
Possibly because you deliberately ignore any evidence on the matter?
Or possibly because things really aren't that bad.
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 11:59:20 AMDo you think a late stage fetus is a child?
No, not really.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 12:27:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 12:19:35 PMWhile pregnancy can have serious and long-term health consequences, it is pretty rare, and is pretty much confined to people with pre-existing medical conditions. A healthy female, who receives appropriate medical supervision during pregnancy, has little to worry about.
And you, a healthy white male, has even less to worry about. So clearly you should make the decision on her behalf.
:mellow:
Speaking of hypocrisy, it is funny how you're berating the right for not caring about people, and then telling me "it's none of your business so buzz off".
And my wife and I had health concerns during our first pregnancy, and I can tell you I worried about it quite a bit. Thankfully everything turned out well, and the problem did not re-appear with out second pregnancy.
You have my position. Clearly there are times when we make decisions for other people - you aren't allowed a 4th trimester abortion, and so I see little problem in banning a third trimester abortion as well. However I do believe "you can be just a little bit pregnant", so it's not as if pregnant mothers don't have lots of options, including early-stage abortions.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 12:31:18 PMOr possibly because things really aren't that bad.
Exactly :lol:
Quotehttp://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/31965
http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/family_home/family/childcare/children_childcare/malnutrition+impairs+us+childrens+health+behavior+says+lsu+agcenter+food+and+nutrition+expert.htm
QuoteIlliteracy in the U.S.
Compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. is doing well. According to the latest International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), between 19% and 23% of American adults performed at the top levels for each of the three literacy scales: document literacy, prose literacy and quantitative (number) literacy. Sweden is the only country that scored higher.
Yet many Americans are being left behind. The same survey found that between 21% and 24% of U.S. adults performed at the lowest level for all three scales, a figure echoed by the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS). So what effect does this have on society in the United States?
Poverty & Employment
On average, adults at the lowest levels of literacy:
Earn about $230-$245 per week
Work only 18-19 weeks each year
Are more than three times as likely to receive food stamps (17%-19% as compared to 4% of those who read at the highest levels)
Are almost ten times more likely to be living below the poverty line (41%-44% as compared to 4%-8%)
Incarceration
Between 31% and 40% of prisoners read at the lowest literacy level, which is at least ten percentage points worse than the national average
Only four percent to seven percent of the prison population reads at the highest two literacy levels, compared to 18% to 21% of the rest of the population
http://education-portal.com/articles/Illiteracy_The_Downfall_of_American_Society.html
So either you don't think these levels of child malnutrition and what garbon terms "poor education and life outcomes" are "that bad" or you're ignoring them.
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 12:38:16 PM:mellow:
Speaking of hypocrisy, it is funny how you're berating the right for not caring about people, and then telling me "it's none of your business so buzz off".
I didn't say that, not at all. I'm merely restating my opinion that the person bearing the health risk, however miniscule you personally may deem it, should make those decisions.
QuoteAnd my wife and I had health concerns during our first pregnancy, and I can tell you I worried about it quite a bit. Thankfully everything turned out well, and the problem did not re-appear with out second pregnancy.
I am very happy for both you and your wife, and your children, that everything turned out well.
I'm not completely sure how it relates to the discussion at hand, however?
QuoteYou have my position. Clearly there are times when we make decisions for other people - you aren't allowed a 4th trimester abortion, and so I see little problem in banning a third trimester abortion as well. However I do believe "you can be just a little bit pregnant", so it's not as if pregnant mothers don't have lots of options, including early-stage abortions.
4th trimester abortion? Cute.
Would you ban 3rd trimester abortion if carrying the baby to term meant the death of the mother?
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 12:19:35 PM
:yeahright:
While pregnancy can have serious and long-term health consequences, it is pretty rare, and is pretty much confined to people with pre-existing medical conditions. A healthy female, who receives appropriate medical supervision during pregnancy, has little to worry about.
Oh? Well, as a woman who nearly died during two pregnancies, and then had serious and severe health complications after because of those pregnancies, I kind of feel as though I have a bit more right to have an opinion on this than someone who will never go through anything like this.
You don't know what will happen during a pregnancy until you go through it. It is not my right nor yours to force someone to deal with those because we feel it's the right thing to do. Period.
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 12:47:14 PMOh? Well, as a woman who nearly died during two pregnancies, and then had serious and severe health complications after because of those pregnancies, I kind of feel as though I have a bit more right to have an opinion on this than someone who will never go through anything like this.
You don't know what will happen during a pregnancy until you go through it. It is not my right nor yours to force someone to deal with those because we feel it's the right thing to do. Period.
Careful now, or Neil will suggest that you're not keeping to Jewish religious dietary laws.
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 12:47:14 PM
It is not my right nor yours to force someone to deal with those because we feel it's the right thing to do. Period.
Wrong. That's exactly how laws work.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 12:47:14 PMOh? Well, as a woman who nearly died during two pregnancies, and then had serious and severe health complications after because of those pregnancies, I kind of feel as though I have a bit more right to have an opinion on this than someone who will never go through anything like this.
You don't know what will happen during a pregnancy until you go through it. It is not my right nor yours to force someone to deal with those because we feel it's the right thing to do. Period.
Careful now, or Neil will suggest that you're not keeping to Jewish religious dietary laws.
No I wouldn't. If I detected 'You have a penis and so you don't get a say' from merithyn, I would respond with crude slurs.
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2012, 12:49:35 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 12:47:14 PM
It is not my right nor yours to force someone to deal with those because we feel it's the right thing to do. Period.
Wrong. That's exactly how laws work.
And when laws force someone to undergo a difficult, dangerous, and potentially life-threatening occurence to protect something that is nothing more than "potential", it is an unjust law.
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2012, 12:51:25 PM
No I wouldn't. If I detected 'You have a penis and so you don't get a say' from merithyn, I would respond with crude slurs.
Not saying you shouldn't get a say because you're a man. I'm saying that determing whether a woman should be forced to go through something as arduous as a pregnancy is not something either you or I should have a say in. Quite frankly, that's about as personal a choice as any one person could make, and it doesn't belong in the hands of anyone but the one carrying the baby.
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 12:52:35 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2012, 12:49:35 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 12:47:14 PM
It is not my right nor yours to force someone to deal with those because we feel it's the right thing to do. Period.
Wrong. That's exactly how laws work.
And when laws force someone to undergo a difficult, dangerous, and potentially life-threatening occurence to protect something that is nothing more than "potential", it is an unjust law.
Maybe, maybe not. I have a hard time feeling bad for someone who lets the process go along for seven or eight months before deciding to do something about it.
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 12:54:52 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2012, 12:51:25 PM
No I wouldn't. If I detected 'You have a penis and so you don't get a say' from merithyn, I would respond with crude slurs.
Not saying you shouldn't get a say because you're a man. I'm saying that determing whether a woman should be forced to go through something as arduous as a pregnancy is not something either you or I should have a say in. Quite frankly, that's about as personal a choice as any one person could make, and it doesn't belong in the hands of anyone but the one carrying the baby.
Exactly, and that's why I haven't responded with crude slurs. Nevertheless, I disagree. The regulation of medical procedures and the creation and destruction of humans are both legitimate issues for public policy.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 12:25:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 12:00:03 PMYes meant pro-choicer.
The point of my sophistry is to point out that both sides can make nonsensical statements that appeal to their partisans while making little sense to those in the other camp.
Mine wasn't a nonsensical statement, though.
It was though as I don't think that for all Republican pro-lifers do they basically don't care about children starving to death.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 12:40:33 PMSo either you don't think these levels of child malnutrition and what garbon terms "poor education and life outcomes" are "that bad" or you're ignoring them.
Yep.
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2012, 01:01:36 PM
Maybe, maybe not. I have a hard time feeling bad for someone who lets the process go along for seven or eight months before deciding to do something about it.
Agree completely. Cut off should be 16 weeks, in my opinion. If you can't figure out what to do in 2-4 months, then you'll be given another 5-6 months to work out what to do with the kid once it's born.
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2012, 01:03:35 PM
The regulation of medical procedures and the creation and destruction of humans are both legitimate issues for public policy.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DI4861950905942703%26amp%3Bpid%3D1.7%26amp%3Bw%3D215%26amp%3Bh%3D154%26amp%3Bc%3D7&hash=9182845495b18180c752ba4ea9ef876f50525108)
lol, Meri dropping memes on motherfuckers. U GO GIRL
Presdident Barack Hussein Obama comes out of hiding to talk about the rape comments.
Whjat the economy cannot make him do, the comments by Akin does.
I wonder.
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 01:08:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2012, 01:01:36 PM
Maybe, maybe not. I have a hard time feeling bad for someone who lets the process go along for seven or eight months before deciding to do something about it.
Agree completely. Cut off should be 16 weeks, in my opinion. If you can't figure out what to do in 2-4 months, then you'll be given another 5-6 months to work out what to do with the kid once it's born.
So why the fuck are you giving me such a hard time when we believe in the same damn thing?
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 11:55:29 AM
If only the Georgia state legislature was satire. It's not. Hence my point about the Handmaid's Tale that garbon is having such difficulties with.
Bobby Franklin's been prefiling that bill as HB 1 for about 15 years now. Usually he prefiles about 20 batshit crazy bills each session. You'll notice it didn't make it - and never has made it - out of committee.
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 02:13:14 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 01:08:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2012, 01:01:36 PM
Maybe, maybe not. I have a hard time feeling bad for someone who lets the process go along for seven or eight months before deciding to do something about it.
Agree completely. Cut off should be 16 weeks, in my opinion. If you can't figure out what to do in 2-4 months, then you'll be given another 5-6 months to work out what to do with the kid once it's born.
So why the fuck are you giving me such a hard time when we believe in the same damn thing?
UST?
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 02:13:14 PM
So why the fuck are you giving me such a hard time when we believe in the same damn thing?
:huh:
I told you that I agreed with what you said, except the bit about parental notification. I don't understand the confusion.
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 12:21:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2012, 12:15:09 PM
Isn't there something of a demand for healthy white babies to adopt?
Pretty sure there's a demand for healthy babies of all colours to adopt. People generally aren't flying over to China to adopt because they specifically want a Chinese baby.
They're flying over to China because they specifically do not want an African-American baby, at least here.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on August 21, 2012, 02:37:11 PM
They're flying over to China because they specifically do not want an African-American baby, at least here.
The cost may be more for an overseas adoption, but you often get a younger child and you don't risk the parents coming back and trying to take the kid.
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 02:36:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 02:13:14 PM
So why the fuck are you giving me such a hard time when we believe in the same damn thing?
:huh:
I told you that I agreed with what you said, except the bit about parental notification. I don't understand the confusion.
Do you recall:
Quote from: Meri
Oh? Well, as a woman who nearly died during two pregnancies, and then had serious and severe health complications after because of those pregnancies, I kind of feel as though I have a bit more right to have an opinion on this than someone who will never go through anything like this.
You don't know what will happen during a pregnancy until you go through it. It is not my right nor yours to force someone to deal with those because we feel it's the right thing to do. Period.
Meri's position is absurd. You could use the same argument (you didn't go through this, you have no right to make laws governing it!), with all sorts of shit.
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 02:49:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 02:36:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 02:13:14 PM
So why the fuck are you giving me such a hard time when we believe in the same damn thing?
:huh:
I told you that I agreed with what you said, except the bit about parental notification. I don't understand the confusion.
Do you recall:
Quote from: Meri
Oh? Well, as a woman who nearly died during two pregnancies, and then had serious and severe health complications after because of those pregnancies, I kind of feel as though I have a bit more right to have an opinion on this than someone who will never go through anything like this.
You don't know what will happen during a pregnancy until you go through it. It is not my right nor yours to force someone to deal with those because we feel it's the right thing to do. Period.
As well as I remember this:
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 12:19:35 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 21, 2012, 12:13:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 12:00:39 PM
Does adoption "fuck up their life"? :unsure:
Pregnancy certainly can.
:yeahright:
While pregnancy can have serious and long-term health consequences, it is pretty rare, and is pretty much confined to people with pre-existing medical conditions. A healthy female, who receives appropriate medical supervision during pregnancy, has little to worry about.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 02:54:43 PM
Meri's position is absurd. You could use the same argument (you didn't go through this, you have no right to make laws governing it!), with all sorts of shit.
Re-read what I posted, Raz. I'm pretty damn sure that I didn't say what you think I said.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 02:54:43 PM
Meri's position is absurd. You could use the same argument (you didn't go through this, you have no right to make laws governing it!), with all sorts of shit.
Meri's position is not absurd.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 02:54:43 PM
You could use the same argument (you didn't go through this, you have no right to make laws governing it!), with all sorts of shit.
And you should. Any law should be able to stand up to this challenge.
Quote from: Maximus on August 21, 2012, 03:26:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 02:54:43 PM
You could use the same argument (you didn't go through this, you have no right to make laws governing it!), with all sorts of shit.
And you should. Any law should be able to stand up to this challenge.
Why?
Regarding rape & pregnancy:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/semen-ovulation-fertility/
QuoteIf you're trying to avoid getting pregnant, here's another reason to mistrust the rhythm method of birth control: New research confirms that the fluid in semen, long dismissed as primarily a vehicle for sperm, contains a substance that can trigger ovulation and other pregnancy-supporting hormonal responses in female mammals.
That was a major find, Syt.
It changes everything I new about sex and reproduction for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: Siege on August 21, 2012, 03:54:23 PM
That was a major find, Syt.
It changes everything I new about sex and reproduction for the foreseeable future.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F8.mshcdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fhiggs-boson-memes%2Fhomer-higgs.jpg&hash=ea5c37fb70106f21c9b49133e8b938e330c3dc17)
The same science which makes your guns work proves that the rhythm method doesn't.
Same science that makes his enemies guns work as well.
I think that Missouri deserves the jackass politicians it wants. Let them choose between a moronic fascist and a time serving Democrat.
Quote from: Maximus on August 21, 2012, 04:10:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 03:29:34 PM
Why?
Because if it can't it's not a good law.
Uh, give me a little more. Why is it not a good law? I'm a little confused as Meri seems to be saying I don't know what I'm saying. So spell this one out for me.
Quote from: Scipio on August 21, 2012, 04:11:36 PM
I think that Missouri deserves the jackass politicians it wants. Let them choose between a moronic fascist and a time serving Democrat.
A term serving Democrat?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 04:10:05 PM
Same science that makes his enemies guns work as well.
Well, western science-fu gives rifles with 550 meter effective range, while non-western science-fu gives rifles with 400 meter effective range. So, Science works beeyotches.
Quote from: Viking on August 21, 2012, 04:15:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 04:10:05 PM
Same science that makes his enemies guns work as well.
Well, western science-fu gives rifles with 550 meter effective range, while non-western science-fu gives rifles with 400 meter effective range. So, Science works beeyotches.
Most firefights happen within 300 yards. It's extremely difficult to hit a target that is moving, hiding and shooting at you in over that range.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 04:15:28 PM
Quote from: Scipio on August 21, 2012, 04:11:36 PM
I think that Missouri deserves the jackass politicians it wants. Let them choose between a moronic fascist and a time serving Democrat.
A term serving Democrat?
She's a time server, a place holder, a professional politician without a single political accomplishment to her record. The biggest thing she did was give birth while in office, and forget to pay taxes on a plane owned by her husband.
Quote from: Scipio on August 21, 2012, 04:24:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 04:15:28 PM
Quote from: Scipio on August 21, 2012, 04:11:36 PM
I think that Missouri deserves the jackass politicians it wants. Let them choose between a moronic fascist and a time serving Democrat.
A term serving Democrat?
She's a time server, a place holder, a professional politician without a single political accomplishment to her record. The biggest thing she did was give birth while in office, and forget to pay taxes on a plane owned by her husband.
Which, granted, is more than her opponent.
Quote from: Scipio on August 21, 2012, 04:24:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 04:15:28 PM
Quote from: Scipio on August 21, 2012, 04:11:36 PM
I think that Missouri deserves the jackass politicians it wants. Let them choose between a moronic fascist and a time serving Democrat.
A term serving Democrat?
She's a time server, a place holder, a professional politician without a single political accomplishment to her record. The biggest thing she did was give birth while in office, and forget to pay taxes on a plane owned by her husband.
Oh, so she didn't do anything you consider important. Gotcha.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 04:13:16 PM
Uh, give me a little more. Why is it not a good law? I'm a little confused as Meri seems to be saying I don't know what I'm saying. So spell this one out for me.
It's not that complicated. If a law can't withstand a legitimate challenge it's not a good law. I'm not a law expert but I think this is the basis of a large part of the common law system.
Quote from: Maximus on August 21, 2012, 04:37:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 04:13:16 PM
Uh, give me a little more. Why is it not a good law? I'm a little confused as Meri seems to be saying I don't know what I'm saying. So spell this one out for me.
It's not that complicated. If a law can't withstand a legitimate challenge it's not a good law. I'm not a law expert but I think this is the basis of a large part of the common law system.
Umm, not really.
Parliament is supreme. It can pass any law they want, no matter how silly (as long as it is within their jurisdiction). It is up to Parliament to change bad laws.
Now in most of the world, there is the overlay of a Bill of Rights / Charter of Rights. Now, a law can be challenged. But it can't be challenged because "it is not a good law", but rather only if it violates specific enumerated rights of its citizens.
Quote from: Maximus on August 21, 2012, 04:37:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 04:13:16 PM
Uh, give me a little more. Why is it not a good law? I'm a little confused as Meri seems to be saying I don't know what I'm saying. So spell this one out for me.
It's not that complicated. If a law can't withstand a legitimate challenge it's not a good law. I'm not a law expert but I think this is the basis of a large part of the common law system.
What is a legitimate challenge?
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 04:50:51 PM
Umm, not really.
Parliament is supreme. It can pass any law they want, no matter how silly (as long as it is within their jurisdiction). It is up to Parliament to change bad laws.
Now in most of the world, there is the overlay of a Bill of Rights / Charter of Rights. Now, a law can be challenged. But it can't be challenged because "it is not a good law", but rather only if it violates specific enumerated rights of its citizens.
I think you are misreading what I said. Not that the law is challenged on the basis that it is not good. Rather, it is almost by definition no good if it can't withstand a legitimate challenge e.g. a bill of rights challenge.
This is also not intended to be a technical definition(see: I'm not an expert) but rather a simplified description of principle. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't courts struck down laws that don't show sufficient justification for the burden/restrictions they create? I'm thinking of Proposition 8 in California, but there may be better examples(or that may not be an example at all).
Given that having a charter of rights is a ridiculous infringement on the power of Parliament, I don't think laws that get struck down should be considered 'bad', per se. Rather, we should have every judge who strikes a law down hanged.
More serious reporting
Mitt Romney joins calls for US candidate to quit race
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19339362
QuoteUS media reacts
A New York Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/new-frontiers-of-extremism-from-the-gop.html?ref=politics) says that while Republicans are distancing themselves from Akin's comments, his views "expose a widely held belief among many fierce abortion opponents that a rape exception will be abused by women whose rapes were not 'legitimate'".
The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-repugnant-code-behind-todd-akins-words/2012/08/20/7e91ed12-eb08-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html) expands on that argument, saying: "Unfortunately, Mr Akin's remarks are not the first, nor are they likely to be the last, in a long-running effort to downplay the horror of rape as a way to restrict access to abortion. What they're really saying is that not all rape victims are victims, and so we shouldn't worry if they have to deal with unwanted pregnancy."
And the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/garance-franke-ruta/) says proponents of no-exception anti-abortion policies have tried to downplay or deny the occurrence of rape- or incest-related pregnancies: "The idea that trauma is a form of birth control continues to be promulgated by anti-abortion forces that seek to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest."
Meanwhile, the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Todd-Akin-When-dumb-talk-is-inevitable-3802036.php) says Democrats are trying to link Mr Akin's comments to vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan's position on abortion: "This is the Democratic National Committee playbook: Delegitimize a respectable position - that abortion is the taking of innocent life - not by refuting it but by assessing guilt by association."
He can't. The deadline passed thirty minutes ago. Only way to get him off the ballot is a lawsuit.
Quote from: Maximus on August 21, 2012, 05:12:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2012, 04:50:51 PM
Umm, not really.
Parliament is supreme. It can pass any law they want, no matter how silly (as long as it is within their jurisdiction). It is up to Parliament to change bad laws.
Now in most of the world, there is the overlay of a Bill of Rights / Charter of Rights. Now, a law can be challenged. But it can't be challenged because "it is not a good law", but rather only if it violates specific enumerated rights of its citizens.
I think you are misreading what I said. Not that the law is challenged on the basis that it is not good. Rather, it is almost by definition no good if it can't withstand a legitimate challenge e.g. a bill of rights challenge.
This is also not intended to be a technical definition(see: I'm not an expert) but rather a simplified description of principle. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't courts struck down laws that don't show sufficient justification for the burden/restrictions they create? I'm thinking of Proposition 8 in California, but there may be better examples(or that may not be an example at all).
If, and only if, the court finds the Charter right has been breached, then you can look at whether that breach can be justified under section 1. Then you do have to balance the societal good against the infringment (I'm not going o run through the whole
Oakes test here). But this all comes up only when you find a Charter breach.
Plenty of silly or even bad laws that are ineffective, cumbersome, and don't meet their overall objective don't actually infring any Charter right, and are not reviewable by the courts.
And, by the way, plenty of 'good' laws have been struck down by the Courts. Tobacco advertising restrictions, for example.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 11:51:34 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 11:48:14 AM
I find it a little weird how the average Republican pro-lifer cares so much for the life of the child before it's born, but after it's born it can starve to death or die from easily preventable illnesses for all they care.
Not sure I'd play that card. After all:
I find it a little weird how the average Democrat pro-lifer cares so much for the life of the child after it is born, but before it's born it can be surgically destroyed (murdered) for all they care.
Depending on your audience, what I wrote is equally valid.
Examine the premises and you may find the difference that you're looking for.
I assume both factions define infants carried to term as humans.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 12:20:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2012, 12:14:46 PM
We don't?
Considering the number of children living in poverty/suffering from malnutrition (/dying of it)/poor education and life outcomes - I'd think we don't.
Gosh, I wonder how things might have gotten that way?
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 12:46:35 PM
4th trimester abortion? Cute.
Would you ban 3rd trimester abortion if carrying the baby to term meant the death of the mother?
You know, I'd actually like to have a scientific-philosophical discussion of what crucial differences there are between a three month old child and a nine month old fetus, and why it (may) be okay to destroy one but (as I'm sure the overwhelming consensus would be) not the other, but there ain't no way it's happening. OMG YOU SUPPORT INFANTICIDE
As I've said before, I favor the French law on abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France
Quote from: Ideologue on August 21, 2012, 11:23:52 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 12:46:35 PM
4th trimester abortion? Cute.
Would you ban 3rd trimester abortion if carrying the baby to term meant the death of the mother?
You know, I'd actually like to have a scientific-philosophical discussion of what crucial differences there are between a three month old child and a nine month old fetus, and why it (may) be okay to destroy one but (as I'm sure the overwhelming consensus would be) not the other, but there ain't no way it's happening. OMG YOU SUPPORT INFANTICIDE
You can cut down a tree that takes 20 years to grow but you can't kill a baby that takes 9 months to make. Fucked up priorities. :rolleyes:
Anyway, the whole abortion debate to me is a prop for a cultural war between two tribes that people want to belong to. I mean, 80% of people probably agree on abortion being allowed if there is a health risk for the mother or if it is a result of rape. The whole polarizing thing ("on demand" abortion) is essentially two retarded sides arguing with each other - one claiming that a lump of cells is a human being and the other that we should protect interests of someone too stupid or drunk to use contraception.
We should seriously focus our energy on something sensible. :rolleyes:
For the record, I am more and more inclined to think the same way about the gay marriage debate. Is this really so important for either side? Your shitty marriage to the wife you hate will really be destroyed and your snotty kids depraved if two dudes can marry? Will you really stop engaging in risky sex with strangers and settle down with another egoistic drama queen like you if the government gives you a paper slip?
It's all about making sure your "tribe" wins over the "enemy tribe" and you destroy something they care about. We can't pillage and rape anymore so we have stupid politics.
Have we done George Galloway's comments on the Assange case yet?
QuoteGalloway, the MP for Bradford West, had claimed that even if the complaints made against Assange by two women in Sweden were "100% true", they still could not be considered rape. "They don't constitute rape," he said in a video podcast on Monday. "At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it."
He went on: "Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them. It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said: 'Do you mind if I do it again?' It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape, or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2012, 03:05:55 AM
Anyway, the whole abortion debate to me is a prop for a cultural war between two tribes that people want to belong to. I mean, 80% of people probably agree on abortion being allowed if there is a health risk for the mother or if it is a result of rape. The whole polarizing thing ("on demand" abortion) is essentially two retarded sides arguing with each other - one claiming that a lump of cells is a human being and the other that we should protect interests of someone too stupid or drunk to use contraception.
We should seriously focus our energy on something sensible. :rolleyes:
Marty is making sense. Stop the presses.
You are right, I think. This, like a number of other issues is a manufactured controversy meant to mobilize the faithful and generate outrage. I have this vision of GOP and DNC members meeting in a club somewhere going oveer who will be saying what for the next few months so they can better coordinate things.
It's the best way to get idiots into the voting booth, since the dumber members of our society can't understand issues that actually matter.
Quote from: Brazen on August 22, 2012, 05:22:57 AM
Have we done George Galloway's comments on the Assange case yet?
QuoteGalloway, the MP for Bradford West, had claimed that even if the complaints made against Assange by two women in Sweden were "100% true", they still could not be considered rape. "They don't constitute rape," he said in a video podcast on Monday. "At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it."
He went on: "Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them. It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said: 'Do you mind if I do it again?' It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape, or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."
I was going to post it as an outrage based on the headline I had read, but to be honest after reading his comments I'm not 100% sure I disagree with him :ph34r:
Quote from: Ideologue on August 21, 2012, 11:23:52 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 12:46:35 PM
4th trimester abortion? Cute.
Would you ban 3rd trimester abortion if carrying the baby to term meant the death of the mother?
You know, I'd actually like to have a scientific-philosophical discussion of what crucial differences there are between a three month old child and a nine month old fetus, and why it (may) be okay to destroy one but (as I'm sure the overwhelming consensus would be) not the other, but there ain't no way it's happening. OMG YOU SUPPORT INFANTICIDE
That's a discussion worth having, but then again if you say anything indicating that you favor killing 3 month old babies then you deserve whatever crap you get.
Liberals are monsters.
They support killing children.
Quote from: Siege on August 22, 2012, 10:10:09 AM
Liberals are monsters.
They support killing children.
Funny, so do Zionist settlers. So we've got something in common.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2012, 10:11:13 AM
Quote from: Siege on August 22, 2012, 10:10:09 AM
Liberals are monsters.
They support killing children.
Funny, so do Zionist settlers. So we've got something in common.
Lying bastard, go and check your sources.
Quote from: Siege on August 22, 2012, 10:12:36 AM
Lying bastard, go and check your sources.
Stop dropping Palestinian fetuses down wells, you Mosaic nigger.
Quote from: Siege on August 22, 2012, 10:10:09 AM
Liberals are monsters.
They support killing children.
Plenty of conservatives do to if they happen to live in an enemy village.
Quote from: derspiess on August 22, 2012, 09:24:09 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 21, 2012, 11:23:52 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2012, 12:46:35 PM
4th trimester abortion? Cute.
Would you ban 3rd trimester abortion if carrying the baby to term meant the death of the mother?
You know, I'd actually like to have a scientific-philosophical discussion of what crucial differences there are between a three month old child and a nine month old fetus, and why it (may) be okay to destroy one but (as I'm sure the overwhelming consensus would be) not the other, but there ain't no way it's happening. OMG YOU SUPPORT INFANTICIDE
That's a discussion worth having, but then again if you say anything indicating that you favor killing 3 month old babies then you deserve whatever crap you get.
I don't disagree to the extent that having sex a second time with someone while you are still in bed after the first time is a pretty tough sell for "rape", but I don't think that is really the issue.
IIRC, the issue is that he had unprotected sex with the woman after she made it clear she was not willing to do so. I think a pretty good argument can be made that she made the bounds of her consent very clear, and he intentionally violated them.
I think you may have quoted the wrong post
Texas allowed to pull funding for legitimate abortion providers: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57497846/federal-appeals-court-allows-texas-to-defund-planned-parenthood/
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2012, 12:47:42 PM
Texas allowed to pull funding for legitimate abortion providers: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57497846/federal-appeals-court-allows-texas-to-defund-planned-parenthood/
Yeah, saw that a bit earlier. Gotta love eliminating funding for basic healthcare services for poor women in Texas because the organization that provides them performs abortions in Wisconsin.
No, there's no war on women or anything. Don't mess with Texas.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2012, 01:10:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2012, 12:47:42 PM
Texas allowed to pull funding for legitimate abortion providers: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57497846/federal-appeals-court-allows-texas-to-defund-planned-parenthood/
Yeah, saw that a bit earlier. Gotta love eliminating funding for basic healthcare services for poor women in Texas because the organization that provides them performs abortions in Wisconsin.
No, there's no war on women or anything. Don't mess with Texas.
Just keep writing bigger checks. You'll show 'em!
http://jezebel.com/5936679/rape-fatigue-and-you-when-theres-just-no-anger-left
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2012, 06:45:57 PM
http://jezebel.com/5936679/rape-fatigue-and-you-when-theres-just-no-anger-left
Jacob reads chick sites! :nelson:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 22, 2012, 06:48:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2012, 06:45:57 PM
http://jezebel.com/5936679/rape-fatigue-and-you-when-theres-just-no-anger-left
Jacob reads chick sites! :nelson:
Yup, sometimes. I read all kinds of things :)
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2012, 06:52:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 22, 2012, 06:48:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2012, 06:45:57 PM
http://jezebel.com/5936679/rape-fatigue-and-you-when-theres-just-no-anger-left
Jacob reads chick sites! :nelson:
Yup, sometimes. I read all kinds of things :)
:headshake:
As long as he doesn't read those comics that Phillip posted in the orgy thread.
Quote from: PDH on August 22, 2012, 06:54:08 PM
As long as he doesn't read those comics that Phillip posted in the orgy thread.
There should be a poll: Dinosaur comics or Military comics?
Article was difficult to read due to author being a shrill, irritating bitch.
Quote from: Neil on August 22, 2012, 07:10:17 PM
Article was difficult to read due to author being a shrill, irritating bitch.
That is the Gawker family of sites for you. Either whiny women or gay douchebags.
Quote from: derspiess on August 22, 2012, 01:17:48 PM
Just keep writing bigger checks. You'll show 'em!
We don't need the gubmint.
Quote from: Neil on August 22, 2012, 07:10:17 PM
Article was difficult to read due to author being a shrill, irritating bitch.
So basically like the average languish poster.
Yet nobody pays me for these posts. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2012, 11:27:48 PM
Yet nobody pays me for these posts. :(
Well, whaddya expect when ya give it away for free?
Quote from: PDH on August 22, 2012, 06:54:08 PM
As long as he doesn't read those comics that Phillip posted in the orgy thread.
Or My Little Stripper Pony sites. WTF was he thinking.
So did we cover this one? :D
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/tom-smith-rape_n_1834234.html
QuoteTrying to distance himself from the "legitimate rape" comment that Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) made last week, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith (R) stirred up further controversy by comparing a pregnancy caused by rape to "having a baby out of wedlock."
mith said Monday at the Pennsylvania Press Club that although he condemns Akin's comment, he agrees with Akin that abortion should be banned without any exceptions, including for rape and incest victims. Pressed by a reporter on how he would handle a daughter or granddaughter becoming pregnant as a result of rape, Smith said he had already "lived something similar to that" in his family.
"She chose life, and I commend her for that," he said. "She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn't have to ... she chose the way I thought. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't rape."
When a reporter asked Smith to clarify what kind of situation was similar to becoming pregnant from rape, the candidate responded, "Having a baby out of wedlock."
He added, "Put yourself in a father's position. Yes, it is similar."
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 05:30:26 PM
So did we cover this one? :D
You people are pretty consistent.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2012, 05:32:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 05:30:26 PM
So did we cover this one? :D
You people are pretty consistent.
Yes because I make statements like that all the time.
Or wait - were you just race bating? :angry:
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 05:35:03 PMYes because I make statements like that all the time.
Or wait - were you just race bating? :angry:
You people = Republicans
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2012, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 05:35:03 PMYes because I make statements like that all the time.
Or wait - were you just race bating? :angry:
You people = Republicans
Which again goes to my first bit.
Also, I've never even voted as a Republican.
He's more right than wrong. It only take a second or two to grant or deny consent. It takes at least a couple of minutes to produce a pregnancy. Weighted by time, getting pregnant by illegitimate rape is pretty much the same as getting pregnant with illegitimate child.
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 05:30:26 PM
So did we cover this one? :D
The tape sounds even funnier. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 05:44:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 05:30:26 PM
So did we cover this one? :D
The tape sounds even funnier. :lol:
Yeah the tape is better than the transcript. :D
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 05:40:46 PMWhich again goes to my first bit.
Also, I've never even voted as a Republican.
I don't follow. Is this some sort of "I'm not a Republican, I just vote for them" kind of thing?
Actually, garbs, I liked the last part.
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 05:30:26 PM
So did we cover this one? :D
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/tom-smith-rape_n_1834234.html
QuoteTrying to distance himself from the "legitimate rape" comment that Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) made last week, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith (R) stirred up further controversy by comparing a pregnancy caused by rape to "having a baby out of wedlock."
mith said Monday at the Pennsylvania Press Club that although he condemns Akin's comment, he agrees with Akin that abortion should be banned without any exceptions, including for rape and incest victims. Pressed by a reporter on how he would handle a daughter or granddaughter becoming pregnant as a result of rape, Smith said he had already "lived something similar to that" in his family.
"She chose life, and I commend her for that," he said. "She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn't have to ... she chose the way I thought. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't rape."
When a reporter asked Smith to clarify what kind of situation was similar to becoming pregnant from rape, the candidate responded, "Having a baby out of wedlock."
He added, "Put yourself in a father's position. Yes, it is similar."
I know, I know, but still :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2012, 06:07:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 05:40:46 PMWhich again goes to my first bit.
Also, I've never even voted as a Republican.
I don't follow. Is this some sort of "I'm not a Republican, I just vote for them" kind of thing?
To be honest, that pretty much applied to me when I lived in WV. I registered as a Democrat, but that was mostly so that I could vote in the Democratic primary in races for the legislature or in county elections (the Republican Party often didn't even bother to run a candidate in the general election in Fayette County). In the general election, for state-wide offices, I usually (but not always) voted for the Republican candidate.
I was planning to change my registration to Republican in 2008--you may remember me saying I was going to change my registration in order to vote for Guiliani in the Republican primary, plus by then I was living in Charleston, and Kanawha County, though still heavily Democratic, isn't nearly the one-party stronghold that Fayette County is. But by the time the 2008 election rolled around, we had already moved to North Carolina.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2012, 06:07:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 05:40:46 PMWhich again goes to my first bit.
Also, I've never even voted as a Republican.
I don't follow. Is this some sort of "I'm not a Republican, I just vote for them" kind of thing?
I only registered to be a Republican when I moved to New York.
Before that, I first registered to vote so that I could vote for Hillary in the primary and was a registered Dem (and got some sort of mass mailer invite for a social of young Dems in SF). Then in the general I did vote for McCain and a Repub to replace Pelosi but for all my other local positions, I voted for Dems.
QuoteLulli Akin compares treatment of husband by GOP bosses to 'rape'
By Diana Reese
Open mouth, insert foot. You'd think by now that members of Rep. Todd Akin's (R-Mo.) family would have learned to keep mum on rape metaphors. Not so.
Lulli Akin, the U.S. Senate candidate's wife, has compared his abandonment by party bosses to rape.
In an interview with "The National Journal," she first described the move to get her husband to step down from the Senate race in Missouri as "tyranny, a top-down approach."
She went on to say, "Party bosses dictating who is allowed to advance through the party and make all the decisions – it's just like 1776 in that way."
That was when colonists "rose up and said, 'Not in my home, you don't come and rape my daughters and my ... wife. But that is where we are again."
Yes, back to rape.
You remember it was Rep. Akin's comments during an August TV interview about a woman's ability "to shut down" to prevent pregnancy during a "legitimate rape" that caused this flap in the first place.
GOP leaders, from Mitt Romney on down, asked Akin to drop out of the race, after he'd won a close primary. The National Republican Senate Committee has pulled funds from Akin's campaign, which has managed to raise more than $400,000 in online donations. (There's even a bake sale on Facebook next week to raise money.)
Both President Obama and Romney "seem to be embodying" a British monarch, "with all the tactics that they've been revealing" toward her husband, Mrs. Akin said.
Although Rep. Akin, who does like to dress up in colonial outfits for the Fourth of July (is it wrong that I think this shows a sense of fun?), said comparing his situation to the American revolutionaries was "a little more grandiose" than how he would have described it.
But there is "this tremendous sense of uprising I feel among the people I talk to," he said.
That word "legitimate" pops up again as he refers to the primary race as "a legitimate race."
During a campaign rally in Nixa, Mo., last week, he brought up the topic of "party bosses" who were soundly booed by the crowd in the Christian County GOP headquarters.
"We had what's called an election," he said. He made it plain he did not feel obligated or loyal to the Republican leadership.
That message reverberated throughout "The National Journal" profile as well.
His priority now is "to do the right thing," he told the Nixa crowd to applause and a chorus of "amen's."
The right thing might be removing the word "rape" from any more comments – it's giving opponents way too much material to mock. And if they insist?
Just remember that "no means no."
Well rape would make for a compelling reason for Americans to overthrow the British.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 07:09:45 PM
Well rape would make for a compelling reason for Americans to overthrow the British.
Oooh, I smell a sequel:
The Patriot II--The War of 1812: Electric Rape-aloo.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:12:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 07:09:45 PM
Well rape would make for a compelling reason for Americans to overthrow the British.
Oooh, I smell a sequel: The Patriot II--The War of 1812: Electric Rape-aloo.
I'd watch that.