CosmicBills Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 So it's offensive to rape victims that weren't legitimately raped? Which rape victims fall into that category? I think we need to establish this so we know who should feel marginalized. Come on, Rob. You know exactly who's marganilized by his comments. I've enjoyed your posts throughout this thread and marveled at how you've managed to steer to conversation towards something more interesting than what this old, stu-tarded man said. But there's no reason to continue the dance. Do you know how many rapes go unreported each year? Over 54%. Why do these women not report the rapes? Fear of being ridiculed. Fear of having to relive the moment for judges, laywers, the press. Worse, many don't report it because who will believe them. It's their word versus the man's. Not every rape is a dark alley mugging by a stranger -- it's more often than not a co-worker, family member, aquaintance. Meaning there are REAL consequences to these women for admitting what happened. They face ridicule, doubt, and the social/workplace fall out if they press charges. And now this asshat comes out and attempts to say there are such things as "legitimate" rape? Do you think that will make more women want to step forward and admit what happened to them or less? Forget abortion. This is about a man who's so clearly out of touch with reality (forget medical science) that he should be forced to wear a sign around his neck that says "asstard" for the rest of his life. And quibbling over his statements is disingenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 http://imgur.com/gallery/6fs6A Muahahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 http://imgur.com/gallery/6fs6A Muahahahahaha excellent!a lawyer friend sent me a facebook link saying that one thing a woman's body can cetainly do is vote democratic. kinda liked that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 excellent!a lawyer friend sent me a facebook link saying that one thing a woman's body can cetainly do is vote democratic. kinda liked that too. If her name is Julia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 excellent!a lawyer friend sent me a facebook link saying that one thing a woman's body can cetainly do is vote democratic. kinda liked that too. Because killing babies is the key to a freedom for women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Because killing babies is the key to a freedom for women. Abortion should be illegal then? In all cases? With no exceptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Abortion should be illegal then? In all cases? With no exceptions? Yes. Because if you allow one you have to allow this!! Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child. On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute." http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Since about 70-75% of conceptions end up miscarrying - if life starts at conception then we live in a graveyard where we should be constantly mourning, Heaven or Limbo (not sure what the Vatican position is now) is filled to the brim with souls that never spent a second with a brain or even a nervous system. Pollution and stress both increase miscarriages so basically that smokestack laden factory or nasty aggressive boss are both trying to kill your unborn children and should be dealt with accordingly and remember you have the right to stand your ground. The above statement is absolutely true- so spare me your misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or general ignorance. and if you don't think it relevant maybe you should check out H.R. 212: Sanctity of Human Life Act HR 212 IH 112th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 212 To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 7, 2011 Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. AKIN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. COLE, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. FORBES, Ms. FOXX, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. JONES, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. KLINE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. LATTA, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. OLSON, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. TERRY, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. HERGER, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. LONG, Mr. PEARCE, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. ROKITA, and Mr. WITTMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘Sanctity of Human Life Act’. SEC. 2. DECLARATION. In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States-- (1) the Congress declares that--(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions. (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act: (1) FERTILIZATION- The term ‘fertilization’ means the process of a human spermatozoan penetrating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to create a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, which is a new unique human being.(2) CLONING- The term ‘cloning’ means the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that combines an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a somatic cell to make a human embryo.(3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms ‘human’ and ‘human being’ include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent. This Bills was sponsored by the Republican Vice Presidential nominee - That's why it's !@#$ing relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Yes. Because if you allow one you have to allow this!! Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child. On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute." http://www.ontheissu...ma_Abortion.htm That's your reasoning? And when a mother's life is at risk without an abortion? That's just the way the cookie crumbles? A father must lose his unborn child and his wife because of...^this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 That's your reasoning? And when a mother's life is at risk without an abortion? That's just the way the cookie crumbles? A father must lose his unborn child and his wife because of...^this? Nope that is Obama's reasoning. " and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." How many women have this happen? Maybe the doctors could try harder to save the mother rather than terminate the baby for the sake of convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Nope that is Obama's reasoning. " and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." How many women have this happen? Maybe the doctors could try harder to save the mother rather than terminate the baby for the sake of convenience. Why do you think abortion should illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 The above statement is absolutely true- so spare me your misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or general ignorance. and if you don't think it relevant maybe you should check out H.R. 212: Sanctity of Human Life Act This Bills was sponsored by the Republican Vice Presidential nominee - That's why it's !@#$ing relevant. Why do you quote and not link? Where did you get the 70-75% info? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 BTW we all understand why right-wingers are fighting for a definition of legally protected life that doesn't include a functioning brain- self preservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 BTW we all understand why right-wingers are fighting for a definition of legally protected life that doesn't include a functioning brain- self preservation. Why do you "quote" but then provide no link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 Why do you "quote" but then provide no link? You can't cut & Paste text from a youtube link.Duhhhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Why do you think abortion should illegal? Because it is murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 The above statement is absolutely true- so spare me your misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or general ignorance. No, it's not. The one study that established that is based on a series of half-assed guesses forty years ago. More current clinical studies put miscarriage rates at significantly less (like 20-30%). You should try less pretending you know what you're talking about, and more actual knowing what you're talking about. Because it is murder. Prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 But what if he wins?! Totally possible with the Republican party... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 But what if he wins?! Totally possible with the Republican party... Then whoever he is running against must suck really really really really bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) No, it's not. The one study that established that is based on a series of half-assed guesses forty years ago. More current clinical studies put miscarriage rates at significantly less (like 20-30%). You should try less pretending you know what you're talking about, and more actual knowing what you're talking about. Prove it. What happens if the woman doesn't have the procedure? Edited August 22, 2012 by Gary M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts