He may have a valid point, however: after all, I've never seen a fetus apply chest compressions or a safety breath. LOL CLEAR
QuoteRep. Joe Walsh: Abortion never saves mom's life
Abortion bans don't need exceptions for the life of the mother because of "modern technology and science," Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) said Thursday.
"With modern technology and science, you can't find one instance" of an abortion necessary to save the life of the mother, Walsh said after a debate with Tammy Duckworth, his Democratic opponent, according to the Chicago Tribune. "... There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing."
Walsh's comments bring to mind Missouri GOP Rep. Todd Akin's assertion that rape exceptions aren't necessary in abortion bans because the female body can't get pregnant in cases of "legitimate rape." Akin's comments have severely damaged his effort to unseat Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill.
Walsh, whose cable news appearances and tea party rhetoric have frequently drawn headlines, was trailing Duckworth 52 percent to 38 percent in September, according to the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling. A We Ask America poll conducted earlier this week found a tiny lead for Walsh, 47 percent to 46 percent.
Walsh and Duckworth are running in the 8th Congressional District, which covers portions of Chicago's northern suburbs.
Stop this nonsense, CdM. It's quite clear female voters are less threatened by a man heading the party that will nationalize their vaginas and deprive them of basic human rights than a black man who points fingers.
I wonder how they get a hold of these scientific facts. :D
Quote from: garbon on October 20, 2012, 05:52:15 AM
I wonder how they get a hold of these scientific facts. :D
Unless you want to start a religion flame war in this thread stop asking stupid questions with obvious answers.
Quote from: Martinus on October 20, 2012, 02:58:06 AM
Stop this nonsense, CdM. It's quite clear female voters are less threatened by a man heading the party that will nationalize their vaginas and deprive them of basic human rights than a black man who points fingers.
No fetal rescue breaths for you.
Quote from: Martinus on October 20, 2012, 02:58:06 AM
Stop this nonsense, CdM. It's quite clear female voters are less threatened by a man heading the party that will nationalize their vaginas and deprive them of basic human rights than a black man who points fingers.
Hey, Marty want to make a bet? A hundred bucks says Obama wins the majority of female voters.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 20, 2012, 08:54:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 20, 2012, 02:58:06 AM
Stop this nonsense, CdM. It's quite clear female voters are less threatened by a man heading the party that will nationalize their vaginas and deprive them of basic human rights than a black man who points fingers.
Hey, Marty want to make a bet? A hundred bucks says Obama wins the majority of female voters.
Aren't American votes secret?
There are exit polls. /shrug
You'd think he do better in a race against a woman with no legs.
This guy is fucking retarded. If a woman has pulmonary hypertension or significant valvular heart disease she's very likely to die from the pregnancy. When you're pregnant there's a 50% increase in your blood volume. It puts significant strain on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems.
Not to mention severe hypertension or serious gestational diabetes.
Yeah, this guy's a real winner....
QuoteIn April, Walsh resolved a lawsuit with his ex-wife in which she claimed he owed $117,437 in overdue child support and interest. As part of the settlement, the two sides declared that Walsh was never "a deadbeat dad." He has also settled a suit with a former campaign manager, who claimed Walsh owed him $20,000. That's on top of a 2009 home foreclosure, tax liens and numerous driving suspensions that troubled his election bid two years ago.
Walsh said he is starting to turn his personal finances around, but "like a lot of people, I still have debt. Like a lot of people, I don't have a lot of assets." Tax returns Walsh released to the Tribune show that his income has jumped from $25,524 in 2008 to $174,210 in 2011, largely due to his congressional salary. Walsh said he didn't take the job to get rich, noting he would limit himself to three terms in office.
OMFG guys elect me to congress.
Quotenationalize their vaginas
And I think we have the name of my first bill.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 20, 2012, 10:21:14 PM
OMFG guys elect me to congress.
Quotenationalize their vaginas
And I think we have the name of my first bill.
Send them to penal battalions.
I love these guys. Shame they're so dangerous.
QuoteMourdock: Pregnancy from rape can be 'something that God intended to happen'
Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Tuesday that pregnancy that results from rape can be "something that God intended to happen."
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God," Mourdock said at a debate. "And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
(Video of the remark has been removed from YouTube but is available here from CSPAN.)
Mourdock appeared to be choking up as he made the comments. He also noted that, while he doesn't believe in abortion in the case of rape and incest, he does believe it should be used to save the life of the mother.
Democrats immediately pounced on the comment, suggesting that Mourdock was saying God intended for rapes to occur.
"The God I believe in and the God I know most Hoosiers believe in, does not intend for rape to happen — ever," Mourdock's opponent, Rep. Joe Donnelly (D), said in a statement. "What Mr. Mourdock said is shocking, and it is stunning that he would be so disrespectful to survivors of rape."
Mourdock's campaign clarified after the debate that Mourdock was not saying that God intends for rapes to occur.
"God creates life, and that was my point," Mourdock said in the statement. "God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that he does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick."
Democrats also noted that Mitt Romney cut an ad for Mourdock this week, attempting to tie the GOP presidential candidate to Mourdock's comment. Romney's campaign quickly distanced itself from the remark.
"Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock's comments, and they do not reflect his views," Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said.
While about half of Americans oppose abortion, many who do also support exceptions in the case of rape and incest.
Mourdock, who beat longtime Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) in a primary earlier this year, is locked in a tight race with Donnelly despite Indiana's Republican lean.
For the national GOP, it's a potential case of deja vu. The party's chances in the Missouri Senate race plummeted when newly minted nominee Rep. Todd Akin remarked in August that "legitimate rape" rarely causes pregnancy.
Akin has since apologized for the comment but is struggling both in the polls and in fundraising. GOP leaders tried unsuccessfully to push him out of the race so they could get a different candidate.
Quote"The God I believe in and the God I know most Hoosiers believe in, does not intend for rape to happen — ever," Mourdock's opponent, Rep. Joe Donnelly (D), said in a statement.
I think it's cool that you're giving idiot Democrats equal exposure here CD. :D
Great, now we are going to have Viking come in here and start frothing.
But wait: there's more!
lol, "the rape thing".
QuoteRepublican candidate John Koster calls aborting rapist's child "more violence on woman's body"
The Tea Party politician, currently running for a congressional seat in Washington state, says he believes abortion is wrong even in cases of 'the rape thing'
Tea Party politician John Koster, the Republican nominee for a hotly contested congressional seat in Washington state, says he opposes abortions, even in cases of "the rape thing," because it is tantamount to inflicting "more violence onto a woman's body."
The Snohomish County councilman made the comments during a weekend fundraising appearance in the Puget Sound city of Everett, north of Seattle, that was captured in a recording released on Wednesday by the liberal activist group Fuse Washington.
Long known as an opponent of abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, Koster was asked if there were any circumstances under which he would approve of terminating a pregnancy.
"When a mother's life is in danger ... I'm not going to make that decision," he replied, before going on to talk about incest and rape.
"Incest is so rare, I mean, it's so rare. But the rape thing, you know, I know a woman who was raped and kept her child, gave it up for adoption. She doesn't regret it. In fact, she is a big pro-life proponent," he said in the recording.
He continued by asking a rhetorical question: "But on the rape thing, it's like, how does putting more violence onto a woman's body and taking the life of an innocent child that's a consequence of this crime, how does that make it better?"
The remarks drew sharp criticism from the campaign of his Democratic foe, former Microsoft executive and state revenue director Suzan DelBene - a spokesman said it showed Koster to be "out of touch" - and from abortion-rights supporters.
"There are far too many extreme politicians out there that are trying to be involved in a woman's personal medical decisions about her pregnancy," Sara Kiesler of Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
The flap marked the latest instance of a Republican congressional candidate stirring controversy with comments about abortion and rape.
Richard Mourdock, the Republican nominee for a U.S. Senate seat in Indiana, said during a debate last Tuesday that pregnancy from rape was "something that God intended to happen." And Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin in August caused an uproar by saying women have natural defenses against pregnancy from "legitimate rape."
In a statement posted on its website on Wednesday, Koster's campaign accused DelBene supporters of engaging in "dirty tricks" by circulating the recording of his remarks, and suggested his words were taken out of context.
"The recording was done secretly, then edited to suit DelBene's agenda," campaign manager Larry Stickney said. "The insinuation that John Koster is in some way 'callous or 'cavalier' when it comes to the subject of rape is another example of the vicious and desperate tactics ... employed to slander the good name of John Koster."
During his term as a state lawmaker, Koster sponsored tough "two strikes, you're out" legislation to lock up violent sex offenders permanently, his website said.
The race between Koster and DelBene for Washington state's newly drawn first congressional district seat, vacated by Democrat Jay Inslee when he resigned to run for governor, is considered a tossup.
Koster, a former dairy farmer with close affiliations with and support from the Tea Party movement, has lost two previous bids for the U.S. House of Representatives.
Why have men always been so interested in controlling women's bodies? What would happen if they did as they felt?
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 06:41:48 PM
Why have men always been so interested in controlling women's bodies? What would happen if they did as they felt?
Good questions. derspiess? Care to answer?
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 06:41:48 PM
Why have men always been so interested in controlling women's bodies? What would happen if they did as they felt?
Evolution. They'd be conquered by a tribe that wasn't pussy-whipped.
Not sure what this has to do with abortion though.
He called abortion after tape more violence to a woman's body.
Yeah, people say some pretty inane things sometimes when they're trying to turn the opposition's argument around. I'm sure his stance has little to do with the effects of the abortion on the mother's own body though.
Ah gotcha we should just ignore what people say.
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 11:30:42 PM
Ah gotcha we should just ignore what people say.
That'd be a lot easier if they weren't trying to put what they say into Legislation.
Well according to P, they actually consider the woman's body irrelevant. Controlling it is just incidental.
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 06:41:48 PM
Why have men always been so interested in controlling women's bodies? What would happen if they did as they felt?
I don't know about men specifically but society has always been very interested in controlling women's bodies. The reason strikes me as obvious.
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2012, 11:45:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 06:41:48 PM
Why have men always been so interested in controlling women's bodies? What would happen if they did as they felt?
I don't know about men specifically but society has always been very interested in controlling women's bodies. The reason strikes me as obvious.
They'll spend all the men's money, that's why.
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2012, 11:45:33 PM
I don't know about men specifically but society has always been very interested in controlling women's bodies. The reason strikes me as obvious.
:unsure:
Clarify, por favor?
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2012, 11:50:01 PM
:unsure:
Clarify, por favor?
Unless those bodies are making a certain number of children society will perish. And typically society also had a strong interest beyond just that, also wanting the children to be born a certain way and be raised a certain way. So I think I think the result is pretty strict social controls have always been exerted on women's bodies. Naturaly this sort of thing is very counter to modern values, but the impulse is always there.
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2012, 11:56:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2012, 11:50:01 PM
:unsure:
Clarify, por favor?
Unless those bodies are making a certain number of children society will perish. And typically society also had a strong interest beyond just that, also wanting the children to be born a certain way and be raised a certain way. So I think I think the result is pretty strict social controls have always been exerted on women's bodies. Naturaly this sort of thing is very counter to modern values, but the impulse is always there.
Glad I asked you to clarify. That's not at all what I was thinking when I read your comment. I thought it was more of the "making sure that Daddy is actually Daddy". In other words, men choosing to control women had more to do with making sure that they were raising their own children and not those of another man.
Were it all what you were thinking, there would be more controls on men's bodies, too. As it is, those seem to be few and far between.
Yeah I thought the same, Meri.
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 11:35:24 PM
Well according to P, they actually consider the woman's body irrelevant. Controlling it is just incidental.
Case in point.
Meanwhile in the Tea Party . . . (courtesy of my sisters and brothers in law in the U.S. who are big tea party fans):
QuoteGolden oldie.........."I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" William Jefferson Clinton
And this is the best Obama could find to be his keynote speaker at the DNC convention?
LIKE and SHARE if Bill Clinton has a personal "war on women"
Quote from: merithyn on November 02, 2012, 12:03:32 AM
Glad I asked you to clarify. That's not at all what I was thinking when I read your comment. I thought it was more of the "making sure that Daddy is actually Daddy". In other words, men choosing to control women had more to do with making sure that they were raising their own children and not those of another man.
Were it all what you were thinking, there would be more controls on men's bodies, too. As it is, those seem to be few and far between.
And I guess the question I would ask is why men would be under societal pressure to ensure that that was the case. That is pointing to what I was saying. Unless you think men were just born naturally with the inclination.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2012, 12:26:25 AM
And I guess the question I would ask is why men would be under societal pressure to ensure that that was the case. That is pointing to what I was saying. Unless you think men were just born naturally with the inclination.
The innate desire - especially in earliest human tribes - was the continuation of a person's genes. In the animal kingdom, males will kill babies that don't look or smell right (not theirs), and it wouldn't surprise me if humans were similar. When you throw in the idea that women were often raped during wars in order to show virility, I can imagine those women and their offspring from such a situation being ejected from the tribe for bringing in "enemy blood". I'm trying to remember how the Scottish tribes handled that (I read a couple of books on them some time ago), and all that I can remember was most of the time, the women who survived the rapes were actually taken and not left behind. The blood of the mother was irrelevant; it was the blood of the father that mattered.
Quote from: Syt on November 02, 2012, 12:20:51 AM
Meanwhile in the Tea Party . . . (courtesy of my sisters and brothers in law in the U.S. who are big tea party fans):
QuoteGolden oldie.........."I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" William Jefferson Clinton
And this is the best Obama could find to be his keynote speaker at the DNC convention?
LIKE and SHARE if Bill Clinton has a personal "war on women"
Well I think even women's groups grudgingly admitted that Clinton was a dirtbag when it came to how he acted towards women in his private life. But of course they also pointed out that his "public morality" more than made up for that because he favored abortion rights and stuff.
Quote from: derspiess on November 02, 2012, 10:42:28 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 02, 2012, 12:20:51 AM
Meanwhile in the Tea Party . . . (courtesy of my sisters and brothers in law in the U.S. who are big tea party fans):
QuoteGolden oldie.........."I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" William Jefferson Clinton
And this is the best Obama could find to be his keynote speaker at the DNC convention?
LIKE and SHARE if Bill Clinton has a personal "war on women"
Well I think even women's groups grudgingly admitted that Clinton was a dirtbag when it came to how he acted towards women in his private life. But of course they also pointed out that his "public morality" more than made up for that because he favored abortion rights and stuff.
I think it honestly has more to do with his wife than with him. Women's groups decried Hillary staying with Bill, but now, 15 years later, the fact that Bill married (and managed to stay married to) such a strong, capable woman means that he must not be quite as much of a dirtbag as first thought.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 02, 2012, 12:13:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 11:35:24 PM
Well according to P, they actually consider the woman's body irrelevant. Controlling it is just incidental.
Case in point.
You said that first bit and the 2nd bit is certainly true if they don't want a woman to have a say in whether or not she stays pregnant
Quote from: merithyn on November 02, 2012, 10:34:05 AM
The innate desire - especially in earliest human tribes - was the continuation of a person's genes. In the animal kingdom, males will kill babies that don't look or smell right (not theirs), and it wouldn't surprise me if humans were similar. When you throw in the idea that women were often raped during wars in order to show virility, I can imagine those women and their offspring from such a situation being ejected from the tribe for bringing in "enemy blood". I'm trying to remember how the Scottish tribes handled that (I read a couple of books on them some time ago), and all that I can remember was most of the time, the women who survived the rapes were actually taken and not left behind. The blood of the mother was irrelevant; it was the blood of the father that mattered.
Well you are just talking about the Scots and Celtic traditions here, which seem to be extremely patrilineal. Heck there is sort of a controversy today about the British government recognizing as head of a clan a guy who holds the title but holds it from his mother and thus not legitimately according to Scottish traditions. But plenty of tribal societies considered the blood of the mother to be very important, take the Israelites. And it maybe possible that Jewish law is explicit that any child of a Jewish mother is a Jew just to cover the situation of the Assyrians rolling in and raping a bunch of women. Certainly the Greeks considered the Polis of the mother to be very important but I am not certain how they handled that case.
When it comes to the whole genes thing you cannot also ignore the role of animal husbandry here, the breeding of animals was taken very seriously and strictly controlled to get the best results and so naturally the inclination to extend that to humans. Hence again, society considering it a vital interest in controlling women's bodies. Naturally you do not want your enemies raping the women and polluting your breed of humans.
But more to my point it was not like if it was known that a man's wife was cheating on him and some of his kids were not his, that man could not just ignore it even if that was his inclination. The societal pressure on him would have been extreme. Heck it would be pretty extreme today.