GOP Senate Candidate: Victims Of Legitimate Rape Wont Become Pregnant

mpok1519 · Sep 10, 2012

Just bc you disagree with the differences between a person and a potential person, is no reason to criminalize abortion, however.

PreachersWife2004 said:
There's absolutely no reason it shouldn't be a viable option.

Go on and on about emotional stress and blah blah blah but it's pretty much a load of crap.

I'm not indignant...I'm furious that people would kill an unborn child because of how it was conceived. There's no reason for that when there are waiting lists of people who want to adopt. The idea that carrying a child for nine months would just be too emotionally exhausting or something is a joke. I don't care who you are.

Is it easy? Of course not. Life isn't designed to be easy. Weren't you just getting on me the other day, mpok, because I said life shouldn't include choices like this? My first pregnancy was the hardest for me because it was my first and I wasn't taking my baby home with me. I gave her up for adoption and yeah, it was HARD. But it was the best decision I could've made for her. Do you think her life is somehow less because she was the product of a rape? Do you think she didn't deserve to live because she was a product of rape?

Essentially that is what you guys are saying. Children conceived by rape don't have the right to be born as much as other children conceived "normally".

Frankly, it disgusts me and it should disgust everyone who claims to care about human beings. That a child, who didn't choose how it was conceived, should pay the ultimate punishment is repugnant. It's like putting a kid on death row when his dad murdered his mom. Except one kid's in the womb.

IanCG · Sep 10, 2012

Sorry, I do not believe an unthinking, unfeeling cell cluster is a person. If we were talking late term, you might have a point.

sourdough · Sep 10, 2012

An interesting response tot he Todd Akin blooper...

Todd Akin's Comments, The Bible and Rape

PreachersWife2004 · Sep 10, 2012

SepiaAndDust said:
In that case, I would indeed be a potential survivor. I would also be--without a doubt--an actual person. Actual person trumps potential survivor.

But you're a drain on someone's finances...a sort of leech as it were. A parasite! You may or may not have brain activity and you may or may not feel pain.

I say kill ya and get it over with. You won't know the difference, right?

Yeah, crazy. But that's just some of the logic used to defend abortion.

mpok1519 said:
Just bc you disagree with the differences between a person and a potential person, is no reason to criminalize abortion, however.

And you'll note that I haven't said it should be criminalized. All that would do is increase the number of unsafe back alley abortions. I'd just like to see less women thinking they HAVE to get an abortion because they think they're out of options.

SepiaAndDust · Sep 10, 2012

PreachersWife2004 said:
But you're a drain on someone's finances...a sort of leech as it were. A parasite! You may or may not have brain activity and you may or may not feel pain.

I say kill ya and get it over with. You won't know the difference, right?

Yeah, crazy. But that's just some of the logic used to defend abortion.

If I have no brain activity, then I'm no longer an actual person, I'm a former person--dead.

I say let me die and get it over with.

PreachersWife2004 · Sep 10, 2012

SepiaAndDust said:
If I have no brain activity, then I'm no longer an actual person, I'm a former person--dead.

I say let me die and get it over with.

Steven Thorpe, British Teen Who Was Declared Brain Dead By Doctors, Makes Miracle Recovery

variant · Sep 10, 2012

PreachersWife2004 said:
Welcome to the real world??

I can see that you are only interested in defending the indefencable here.

Good day.

PreachersWife2004 · Sep 10, 2012

variant said:
I can see that you are only interested in defending the indefencable here.

Good day.

And I can see you're only interested in reading what you think you want read.

Go back through and actually read what I've wrote. You'll find I'm not defending anything, other than an unborn child's right to life. Gosh, shame on me.

variant · Sep 10, 2012

PreachersWife2004 said:
And I can see you're only interested in reading what you think you want read.

Go back through and actually read what I've wrote. You'll find I'm not defending anything, other than an unborn child's right to life. Gosh, shame on me.

I'm reading the same thread as everyone else.

You've been the man's apologist the entire thread.

PreachersWife2004 · Sep 10, 2012

variant said:
I'm reading the same thread as everyone else.

You've been the man's apologist the entire thread.

Kindly prove it. Make sure you read the ENTIRE thread. You are so so wrong.

variant · Sep 10, 2012

PreachersWife2004 said:
Kindly prove it. Make sure you read the ENTIRE thread. You are so so wrong.

Your first post in this thread was about how you thought there was some sense to the theory that people being raped might have trouble conceiving (even though that was not akin comment).

The post I replied to you sending you into this tiff was about how we shouldn't be so hard on the guy for saying something stupid.

You are essentially spinning the entire thing the whole thread while trying to act like you aren't

PreachersWife2004 · Sep 10, 2012

variant said:
Your first post in this thread was about how you thought there was some sense to the theory that people being raped might have trouble conceiving (even though that was not akin comment).

The post I replied to you sending you into this tiff was about how we shouldn't be so hard on the guy for saying something stupid.

You are essentially spinning the entire thing the whole thread while trying to act like you aren't

My first post:

PreachersWife2004 said:
That's an interesting claim. It's not out of the realm of possibility that there are certain mechanisms but I don't think one could definitively say that victims of "legitimate" (as opposed to what, by the way??) rape don't ever get pregnant.

My response to your rather insulting post:

PreachersWife2004 said:
Not ashamed at all. Why wouldn't our bodies have some sort of mechanism for this? Our bodies have all kinds of fighting modes for different things. Adrenaline is a good example.

Mystman pretty much puts it into perspective:

Thanks, Mystman.

I'm not saying I think the guy was smart in what he said, but at the same time I can understand the logic behind it. What's the percentage of women who get pregnant after a rape? Is it high? Low? These are things that would have to be researched.

I for one would be interested to know if there's a defense mechanism for something like rape.

and there's this gem, which you seemed to have missed:

PreachersWife2004 said:
Unfortunately, it's research that probably most rape victims would not want to participate in as it would ask them to relive the crime. I personally would have no issues with it, but I know others would. Rape is a very sensitive issue - I'm finding the paradox of opinions on it staggering as I read this thread and as I read about the guy from Wikileaks.

Sometimes I view the world through rose-tinted glasses and I think "no one could possibly be that stupid to actually bring that type of thought to fruition" but the more this guy tries to backpedal, the more I feel that's exactly what he was saying, which yes, I find disgusting and abhorrent.

Look at the last sentence carefully.

Ooh, and here's this post

PreachersWife2004 said:
It is my belief that the Republicans who are coming down hard on him are doing so simply for the fact that it is an election year.

That's not to say that he wouldn't be facing harsh criticism otherwise, but to be asked to not run because he pretty much put his foot in his mouth is rather uncommon. Not invoking the "but they did it first" argument, but others have said worse and faced lesser criticism.

Again, not advocating for what he said, because ultimately it did come off like he was saying that women who get pregnant as a result of rape must've not really been raped, but there are logical reasons why someone would try that argument - poorly worded as it was.

Gosh, will ya look at that last paragraph...

I could keep going but really I have better things to do than to disprove a point that you couldn't prove.

I haven't been the man's apologist through the thread, I've maintained that it's not illogical for someone to think along those lines, misinformed as they might be. I've wondered about research into stress/rape/getting pregnant. I myself am a victim of a rape that resulted in a pregnancy. I talked earlier about stats and not knowing any victims of rape who got pregnant and that's the truth, other than myself. At that point in the thread I wasn't ready to share my total experience. I'm still rather sorry I did.

So look, have a blessed night.

variant · Sep 10, 2012

PreachersWife2004 said:
I could keep going but really I have better things to do than to disprove a point that you couldn't prove.

I haven't been the man's apologist through the thread, I've maintained that it's not illogical for someone to think along those lines, misinformed as they might be. I've wondered about research into stress/rape/getting pregnant. I myself am a victim of a rape that resulted in a pregnancy. I talked earlier about stats and not knowing any victims of rape who got pregnant and that's the truth, other than myself. At that point in the thread I wasn't ready to share my total experience. I'm still rather sorry I did.

So look, have a blessed night.

It's OK I'm happy to make you continuously backtrack off that absurd first post of yours and how you couldn't say "definitively" that rapes don't end in pregnancies.

Yes saying that definitively would be going too far no?

That's an interesting claim. It's not out of the realm of possibility that there are certain mechanisms but I don't think one could definitively say that victims of "legitimate" (as opposed to what, by the way??) rape don't ever get pregnant.

If you did indeed get pregnant after a rape I have a hard time wondering how you could possibly take the position that you did in this first post. You know where you are openly wondering if it's true that people only ever rarely get pregnant as a result of rape?

Am I reading you wrong PW?

It is my belief that the Republicans who are coming down hard on him are doing so simply for the fact that it is an election year.

That's not to say that he wouldn't be facing harsh criticism otherwise, but to be asked to not run because he pretty much put his foot in his mouth is rather uncommon. Not invoking the "but they did it first" argument, but others have said worse and faced lesser criticism.

Again, not advocating for what he said, because ultimately it did come off like he was saying that women who get pregnant as a result of rape must've not really been raped, but there are logical reasons why someone would try that argument - poorly worded as it was.

Oh the politics, we surly would not be coming down on the guy if he weren't making stupid arguments poorly in the middle of a campaign and making everyone look bad.

Still advocating for the inherent logic of the claim you think is simultaneously stupid, and saying we are all being so hard on him for political reasons.

It's not my fault for thinking you are this guys defender, it's you know, all the defenses you keep throwing out there. All that inherent merit you keep talking about with respect to his claim.

Just because you aren't doing it whole hog doesn't mean you haven't spent the entire thread trying to spin this in as most positive a light as you could PW.

PreachersWife2004 · Sep 11, 2012

May your blinded eyes be opened, variant.

it's right there in black and white, at least three times that I counted alone, and I said it more than just what I quoted.

What exactly do the words "abhorrent" and "disgusting" mean to you, anyway?

Whatever. You basically accused me of lying in another thread so I'm not even sure why I'm bothering with you. You have no desire to have a conversation, you just want to insult anyone who doesn't believe as you do.

variant · Sep 11, 2012

PreachersWife2004 said:
May your blinded eyes be opened, variant.

it's right there in black and white, at least three times that I counted alone, and I said it more than just what I quoted.

What exactly do the words "abhorrent" and "disgusting" mean to you, anyway?

Whatever. You basically accused me of lying in another thread so I'm not even sure why I'm bothering with you. You have no desire to have a conversation, you just want to insult anyone who doesn't believe as you do.

I find it reprehensible to come charging in to the aid of this man simply because you agree with his political views.

No matter how many times you say you "don't support what the man said" you have posted several times about how you feel about the inherent logic and reasonableness of that position.

As to my "accusing" you of anything I did not, but I have plenty of reason to doubt anecdotal stories I hear on the Internet.

yasic · Sep 11, 2012

PreachersWife2004 said:
We'll just have to disagree on that, because I believe it IS a person. It's worse to run around saying "fetus", "glob of cells". Great way to dehumanize things.

Oh, and shrieking? LOL. That's funny.

What's sad is that the world gets more defensive when puppies are killed than when unborn children are killed.

You keep attacking us for using the wrong words when words like fetus actually do accurately describe the creature.

You instead are referring to it by something it is not to gain an emotional experience. You are calling it the unborn because you want to somehow attach it to the born who do get an emotional response from people.

If you were consistent about it and started calling babies the unadult or the undead then I would not have an issue with it, but this seems this is the only situation where to refer to something by what it is not yet and thus I am calling you out on it.

PreachersWife2004 · Sep 11, 2012

yasic said:
You keep attacking us for using the wrong words when words like fetus actually do accurately describe the creature.

Creature?? Good Lord.

By the way, I didn't start with the attacking. Someone else said I was shrieking.

You instead are referring to it by something it is not to gain an emotional experience. You are calling it the unborn because you want to somehow attach it to the born who do get an emotional response from people.

*I* call it an unborn child. I don't care how YOU react to it. When I was pregnant, I didn't carry a "fetus"...it was my son. I never said "hey, wanna feel my fetus kick?"

If you were consistent about it and started calling babies the unadult or the undead then I would not have an issue with it, but this seems this is the only situation where to refer to something by what it is not yet and thus I am calling you out on it.

Calling me on what? Calling my child an unborn child? Referring to something that is living and breathing in a womb yet not born unborn?

Again, I'm not the one attacking people for their terms. That was started by someone else.

I have long maintained that the only difference between a fetus and an unborn child is that one is wanted, the other is not. When women who are not aborting go to the doctor, the doctor does not say "your fetus is doing well and gaining weight".

SepiaAndDust · Sep 11, 2012

PreachersWife2004 said:
I have long maintained that the only difference between a fetus and an unborn child is that one is wanted, the other is not.

Who wants a rape-baby?

DaisyDay · Sep 11, 2012

Philip C said:
Imagine you're involved in a serious accident and on life support. No one can tell if you will live or die. You are a potential survivor.

Does this give the doctors or anybody else for that matter the right to turn off your life support on day one rather than try to save you?

Supposing your survival requires the use of another person's body and blood in such a way that could damage or kill him. Should he have no say in whether you get to use him or not?

Suppose someone will only survive with a blood marrow transplant - a minimally invasive procedure these days. Does that someone have a claim on your marrow or not?

PreachersWife2004 · Sep 11, 2012

DaisyDay said:
Supposing your survival requires the use of another person's body and blood in such a way that could damage or kill him. Should he have no say in whether you get to use him or not?

Suppose someone will only survive with a blood marrow transplant - a minimally invasive procedure these days. Does that someone have a claim on your marrow or not?[/quote]

This is what we've minimalized pregnancy to these days?

To answer your question, let's say it was my actions that led to the other person needing those things. I'd say that it yes, I had a duty to that person to do whatever I could to make sure he survived, since it was my fault he got that way in the first place.

GOP Senate Candidate: Victims Of Legitimate Rape Wont Become Pregnant

Veteran

IanCG

Guest

Newbie

by his wounds we are healed

There's a FISH in the percolator

by his wounds we are healed

Happy Cat

by his wounds we are healed

Happy Cat

by his wounds we are healed

Happy Cat

by his wounds we are healed

Happy Cat

by his wounds we are healed

Happy Cat

Part time poster, Full time lurker

by his wounds we are healed

There's a FISH in the percolator

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

by his wounds we are healed

Similar threads

GOP Senate Candidate: Victims Of Legitimate Rape Wont Become Pregnant