28
   

Republican Senate Nominee: "Legitimate" rape victims don't get pregnant

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Wed 24 Oct, 2012 11:14 am
@tsarstepan,
Quote:
Rugby fans heading through London's Waterloo station on their way to the England versus Wales game at Twickenham yesterday were the target of the first major advertising campaign by a male rape charity.
Source: The Observer, Sunday 26 February 2012
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 24 Oct, 2012 11:20 am
@revelette,
The argument is about when life begins and about the protection of that life when it does so, however caused. Those who think that life begins at some arbitrary point which they have decided to adopt, or had decided for them by a court, for various reasons in both cases, are then able to focus their attention on how the life was caused rather than on the fact of the life.

Those who think that life begins at conception have no other position to take than the one being vilified here. What other position can the man take if he believes that life begins at conception. Except that it is okay to take life, and a life that did nothing to deserve being ended and is unable to protect itself in the slightest degree. Its mother has evolved to provide its only protection.

Every emotional expression against the man equally applies to every person who thinks that life begins at conception. They all have no other position to take as well.

Thus it is common sense for people making these disparaging and impolite remarks to ask anyone they meet whether they think life begins at conception in order to avoid relationships with morons and pathetic throwbacks to the 13th century because it can be stressful only finding out that they are morons and throwbacks to the 13th century when the relationship has become a habit.

The man is simply being honest with the public because if he sincerely believes that life begins at conception, as I do along with many millions of others, he would be lying to the voters if he obfusticated about the matter. There is no other place he can go to if he sincerely believes that life begins at conception.

To believe life begins at some arbitrarily convenient point in time is patently ridiculous and how such a position can be entertained by an evolutionist, let alone be enthusiastically embraced sufficiently to derange the wits, passes by my comprehension.

One can't help feeling that both evolution and the unborn child are being used to plough some personal furrow by morons and throwbacks to the pram.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -2  
Wed 24 Oct, 2012 11:31 am
@Joe Nation,
FYI Joe, your childish and petulant insults mean nothing to me. Nothing in the scientific sense I mean. **** all.

If I had any knowledge of that **** I would take a look in a mirror and give myself a good talking to.

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Wed 24 Oct, 2012 11:42 am
It would be nice to drop this moron off at the state pen, and put him in the shower room with a half dozen lifers. Then he can tell us it was all a part of god's plan.
spendius
 
  -1  
Wed 24 Oct, 2012 11:42 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
advertising campaign by a male rape charity.


Aye-aye!! Ho Ho!!( he says feigning surprise), a charity. The application of business principles to areas of life to which business principles have not much been hitherto applied. A marketing niche.

Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Problem solved. Undermining that message causes the problems on which such fervid attention is being lavished and might easily be thought to be the motive for undermining it for those who enjoy lavishing their fervid attention on such matters.
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  2  
Wed 24 Oct, 2012 11:45 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

It would be nice to drop this moron off at the state pen, and put him in the shower room with a half dozen lifers.


They better give him soap on a rope Cool
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -2  
Wed 24 Oct, 2012 11:53 am
@Setanta,
It is a nice indulgence for Setanta to ignore my posts because then he might imagine that he has not made a fool of himself with his foolish post.

Only being prepared to listen to one side of an argument is childish and downright dangerous and not only unscientific but anti-scientific.

He needs to prove that life does not begin at conception to have a leg to stand on and he cannot do that. He has to assert it. Then his argument is based on his own assertion and thus palpably folly.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Wed 24 Oct, 2012 12:56 pm
Mourdock's position is the only sensible one to take if you believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is the equivalent of homicide. It's Mourdock's misfortune that most people don't share those views, or, at least, don't hold them as consistently as he does.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Wed 24 Oct, 2012 02:12 pm
@joefromchicago,
Life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen. Well, there are perhaps more than just "some" who disagree here ...
spendius
 
  -1  
Wed 24 Oct, 2012 03:01 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
What difference does that make Walt? Did you not read my post? And Joe's.

If the life has begun then the life has begun. It is of no consequence to that life how it began.

If the life has not begun you need to explain when it has done so with a stopwatch in your hand.

Even that is beside the point to anybody who thinks the life has begun.

spendius
 
  -2  
Wed 24 Oct, 2012 03:10 pm
@spendius,
On the stroke of midnight on a certain day of a certain number of weeks measured from an indeterminate starting point a miracle occurs. Non life becomes life. And the certain number of weeks varies in different places. And the number of weeks is subject to dispute.

What a hopeless intellectual position. A fix to reduce the lower orders by 50 million with the most important members of the cast not having a vote.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Wed 24 Oct, 2012 03:28 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
The lesson here is that we are no longer allowed to mention rape except to push some tripe about how horrible it is.
tenderfoot
 
  3  
Wed 24 Oct, 2012 04:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
I wish to your christ that you were born a woman.. you gutless arshole.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Wed 24 Oct, 2012 07:23 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
He needs to prove that life does not begin at conception to have a leg to stand on and he cannot do that. He has to assert it. Then his argument is based on his own assertion and thus palpably folly.


Life??? Hell the woman egg and the man millions of sperms are in themselves alive if that what you are talking about.

No need to wait until conception.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Thu 25 Oct, 2012 09:48 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Mourdock's position is the only sensible one to take if you believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is the equivalent of homicide. It's Mourdock's misfortune that most people don't share those views, or, at least, don't hold them as consistently as he does.

The issue is whether human life, and a human being, is formed at conception, and those, like Mourdock, who believe that is the case, are generally viewing the situation in terms of their religious beliefs and those views are not shared by everyone.

The problem is not that Mourdock holds such views, which he is entitled to, but rather that he believes others must share them and abide by them. The religious extremists/evangelists/orthodox are trying to obliterate the separation of church and state and turn government into a proselytizing agent for their particular religious views by imposing laws and regulations that conform to these beliefs. They wish to enact legislation that would give a fetus the full legal rights of a human being, a move that would place the civil rights interests of the fetus in direct competition with those of the woman carrying the fetus, and which would then force women to carry fetuses to term or risk being charged with murder--and the aim of enacting such legislation is part of the current Republican party platform.

No amount of religious mumbo jumbo about "God's plan" or "God's will" alters the fact that we are simply talking about a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy prior to the formation of a fully formed or viable human being, an action that pertains only to the woman's right to control her body, a body without which that fetus cannot exist or develop, and a decision which is only between a woman and her doctor and on which government should not intrude.
Neither a fetus nor the government has "a right" to hold that woman's body hostage for nine months.
firefly
 
  1  
Thu 25 Oct, 2012 09:52 am
When we talk about restricting abortion, are not just talking about forcing women to bear children, we are also talking about forcing them to endure and complete a pregnancy regardless of the emotional or physical costs to them of doing so-- and it seems to be mainly men who are doing all the talking on this score, perhaps because they know that they themselves could never be subjected to such egregious governmental control of their own bodies.

Are these right-to-life zealots at all concerned with the issue of maternal mortality related to pregnancy? Have they even connected to reality to that degree? Do they even know that the U.S. ranks 50th in the world in terms of maternal morality?
Quote:
Maternal Mortality in the United States: A Human Rights Failure
Francine Coeytaux, Debra Bingham, Nan Strauss

With 99% of maternal deaths occurring in developing countries, it is too often assumed that maternal mortality is not a problem in wealthier countries. Yet, statistics released in September of 2010 by the United Nations place the United States 50th in the world for maternal mortality — with maternal mortality ratios higher than almost all European countries, as well as several countries in Asia and the Middle East.

Even more troubling, the United Nations data show that between 1990 and 2008, while the vast majority of countries reduced their maternal mortality ratios for a global decrease of 34%, maternal mortality nearly doubled in the United States...

In addition, the health care system must be free from discrimination, must be accountable and must ensure the active participation of women in decision-making. Yet, instead, too many women in the United States face shortages of providers and facilities and inadequate staffing; financial, bureaucratic, transport and language barriers; care that is not culturally appropriate or respectful; a lack of opportunity for informed decision-making and the lack of a system to ensure that all women receive high-quality, evidence-based care. The comparatively high rates of maternal deaths in the United States is an indicator of the failure to ensure that women have guaranteed lifelong access to equitable, quality health care, including reproductive health services. Indeed, in countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom where maternal deaths are reviewed and universal access to health care is guaranteed, fewer women die of preventable causes during childbirth than in the United States...

The rise of maternal deaths in the United States is historic and worrisome. In 1987, maternal death ratios hit the all-time low of 6.6 deaths per 100,000 live birth.9 These ratios were essentially maintained for more than a decade. Around 2000, the ratio began to increase and has since nearly doubled, hovering between 12 and 15 deaths per 100,000 live births between 2003 and 2007.10 The overarching statistics only scratch the surface: “near misses” (maternal complications so severe the woman nearly died) have also increased by 27% between 1998 and 2005, now affecting approximately 34,000 women a year;11 and appalling disparities in maternal health outcomes exist between racial and ethnic groups, and among women living in different parts of the United States.

The leading complications causing maternal deaths in the United States overlap with the main global causes; hemorrhage, pregnancy-related hypertensive disorders and infection are among the top causes of death in both the United States and the developing world. Other leading causes of maternal death in the United States are thrombotic pulmonary embolism, cardiomyopathy, cardiovascular conditions, and other medical conditions, whereas in developing countries, other leading causes of death are obstructed labor and unsafe abortions.

For the last 50 years, black women who give birth in the United States have been approximately four times as likely to die as white women. The greater risk of death for black women does not simply reflect a greater risk of an underlying complication occurring; in a national study of five medical conditions that are common causes of maternal death and injury (preeclampsia, eclampsia, obstetric hemorrhage, abruption and placenta previa), black women did not have a significantly higher prevalence than white women of any of these conditions. However, the black women in the study were two to three times more likely to die than the white women who had the same complication. Likewise, a study comparing maternal outcomes for Mexican-born women and White non-Latina women in California found that while Mexican-born women were less likely to suffer complications overall, they did face a greater risk of particular obstetric complications such as postpartum hemorrhage, major puerperal infections and third- and fourth-degree lacerations, suggesting that the intrapartum care they received may have been of poorer quality...

We have sufficient data to know that women in the United States face a range of barriers preventing them from obtaining the services they need for a safe and healthy pregnancy and childbirth....

Complications of pregnancy often begin even before a woman becomes pregnant, when many women are uninsured and lack affordable access to primary care including contraceptive services and information. In the United States, nearly half of all pregnancies are unintended,18 and women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to develop complications and face worse outcomes for themselves and their babies.19 Of the 17.5 million women in the United States estimated to be in need of publicly funded family planning services and supplies, Medicaid and government-funded clinics (Title X clinics) cover just over half of this need, leaving more than 8 million women without affordable family planning information and services.20 Policy and legislative measures also limit access to contraception for some.

For many women, the cost of health care puts comprehensive health care beyond reach. Low-income women are more likely to be uninsured prior to becoming pregnant, and consequently are more likely to enter pregnancy with unmanaged chronic health conditions that increase their pregnancy risks. For women who become eligible for publicly financed care upon becoming pregnant, complicated bureaucratic hurdles and a lack of providers willing to accept patients paying with Medicaid increase the likelihood that these women will face significant delays in obtaining early prenatal care.

Women who receive no prenatal care are three to four times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than women who do. Those with high-risk pregnancies are 5.3 times more likely to die if they do not receive prenatal care. Healthy People 2010 — national health objectives developed in 1998 by US federal health agencies — set a goal of 90% of women receiving “adequate prenatal care” (defined as 13 prenatal visits beginning in the first trimester).However, data suggest that, for 25% of women, their care falls short of this goal. This figure rises to 32% for African American women and 41% for American Indian and Alaska Native women.

Many women receive inadequate or poor-quality intrapartum care. Hospitals and clinics, particularly those serving low-income communities, are often overcrowded and understaffed. Understaffing can create pressure to care for a high volume of patients, making it difficult or impossible to provide good-quality care. The current economic downturn and the increased use of medical interventions during childbirth are is likely to exacerbate the problem of understaffing while increasing the pressure on facilities in medically underserved areas, as more people become uninsured...

For more than 20 years, the authorities have failed to improve the outcomes and disparities in maternal health care. Recent health care reform focused on improving access to care and reducing the growth in health care spending. However, improving health care coverage alone would leave largely unaddressed the issues of discrimination, systemic failures, optimizing quality of care and accountability. It is essential that the debate goes beyond providing health care coverage and ensures access to quality health care for all in a way that is equitable and free from discrimination...

There are no acceptable excuses when we consider the fact that we lag behind most developed countries and when numerous developing countries, such as Vietnam and Albania, with much fewer resources than the United States, are making strides towards meeting their goals of reducing preventable maternal deaths, while the United States is backsliding...

It is a human tragedy when a woman dies giving birth; her death forever changes her community and family for all future generations. It is both a tragedy and a human rights failure when a woman dies needlessly of preventable causes in a country that lacks the political will to have prevented her death.
http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/contraception-journal/march-2011

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/743693/original.jpg
Let the U.S. government, and people like Mourdock, and Akin, and Ryan, focus on improving maternal health, and women's health care, for those who wish to complete pregnancies rather than on restricting choice for those who wish to terminate them. We know the mother is an already existing human being and it's her right to life, and her right to optimal health care, that should be the focus of the public debate, regardless of the personal choice about abortion that she might make.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Thu 25 Oct, 2012 10:11 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
The problem is not that Mourdock holds such views, which he is entitled to, but rather that he believes others must share them and abide by them.

Why is that a problem? If Mourdock believes that there is a universal moral code based on biblical principles, then why shouldn't he want that code enforced through legislation? You seem to believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion about abortion -- but that's just another way of saying that you want everyone to share and abide by your moral code. I don't see much difference between Mourdock and you, except maybe that Mourdock is being more honest about his position.

firefly wrote:
No amount of religious mumbo jumbo about "God's plan" or "God's will" alters the fact that we are simply talking about a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy prior to the formation of a fully formed or viable human being, an action that pertains only to the woman's right to control her body, a body without which that fetus cannot exist or develop, and a decision which is only between a woman and her doctor and on which government should not intrude.

That's just begging the question.
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 25 Oct, 2012 10:49 am
@firefly,
Quote:
When we talk about restricting abortion, are not just talking about forcing women to bear children, we are also talking about forcing them to endure and complete a pregnancy regardless of the emotional or physical costs to them of doing so-- an


Strange Firefly I agree with you that no women should be force to become a mother against her will either her being force by being rape or even if birth control methods fail when she is engaging willingly in sexual congress yet when it come to men being force to assume the duty of support of children they did not wish to fathers by the state you had reply that is just too damn bad.

They should not had have sex or have taken better birth control precautions otherwise it just too damn bad.

A double standard that can have people saying in the cases of non-rape if a woman become pregnant it just too damn bad also and she will be force to have that child carry to full term just as a man had no choice once conception had occur to become a father or not at the whim of the woman.

Your double standards is not helping gain the support of men for women rights.
Green Witch
 
  3  
Thu 25 Oct, 2012 10:53 am
@hawkeye10,
When is not horrible?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Thu 25 Oct, 2012 10:57 am
@firefly,
Quote:
The issue is whether human life, and a human being, is formed at conception, and those, like Mourdock, who believe that is the case, are generally viewing the situation in terms of their religious beliefs and those views are not shared by everyone.


I'm not viewing the situation in terms of any religious belief ff.

When are you saying human life begins and on what grounds?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/13/2024 at 10:21:59