New Churcher Science, You Can't Be Impregnated by Rapists

[Grizalltheway]

This thread ain't about Obama, FFS. Go bash him in any one of 10,354 threads on the subject.

GFY.

Done.

[JohnStOnge]

I think the guy stepped in it. But just FYI, I'd heard before that female arousal and orgasm increase the chance of pregnancy. So I Googled it and it looks like the question is not settled. However, I found stuff like this:

http://bodyblisscentral.com/orgasm-pregnancy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While female orgasm is not necessarily required for conception, it does greatly increase the chances of becoming pregnant. Proper arousal causes an increase in female secretions, and reaching climax increases them further. These fluids make it easier for sperm to reach their destination. Scientific studies now show that the muscle contractions which occur during orgasm create a type of suction, pulling fluids (and sperm) closer to the womb.

So it's not out of the realm of rational thought to think that, overall and all other things being equal, there is a greater probability of pregnancy associated with consensual sex than there is associated with rape on a per event basis.

But the real proper way to answer questions about rape and abortion is this:

The only reason for being against abortion is the premise that a life is being taken. The fact that a life was established trhough rape is unfortunate. But if you're going to say that the unborn individual has a right to live you can't say the right goes away because his or her existence was estabished by rape.

If abortion is taking a life it's taking a life. Rape as the source of the life does not justify taking it. And if it's not life there's no basis for being against abortion.

One of the worst traps "pro life" peopel fall into is going for the rape and incest exceptions. As soon as they do that they compromise the basis for their "pro life" position.

[kalm]

I think the guy stepped in it. But just FYI, I'd heard before that female arousal and orgasm increase the chance of pregnancy. So I Googled it and it looks like the question is not settled. However, I found stuff like this:

http://bodyblisscentral.com/orgasm-pregnancy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While female orgasm is not necessarily required for conception, it does greatly increase the chances of becoming pregnant. Proper arousal causes an increase in female secretions, and reaching climax increases them further. These fluids make it easier for sperm to reach their destination. Scientific studies now show that the muscle contractions which occur during orgasm create a type of suction, pulling fluids (and sperm) closer to the womb.

So it's not out of the realm of rational thought to think that, overall and all other things being equal, there is a greater probability of pregnancy associated with consensual sex than there is associated with rape on a per event basis.

But the real proper way to answer questions about rape and abortion is this:

The only reason for being against abortion is the premise that a life is being taken. The fact that a life was established trhough rape is unfortunate. But if you're going to say that the unborn individual has a right to live you can't say the right goes away because his or her existence was estabished by rape.

If abortion is taking a life it's taking a life. Rape as the source of the life does not justify taking it. And if it's not life there's no basis for being against abortion.

One of the worst traps "pro life" peopel fall into is going for the rape and incest exceptions. As soon as they do that they compromise the basis for their "pro life" position.

Very true.

[BlueHen86]

I think the guy stepped in it. But just FYI, I'd heard before that female arousal and orgasm increase the chance of pregnancy. So I Googled it and it looks like the question is not settled. However, I found stuff like this:

http://bodyblisscentral.com/orgasm-pregnancy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While female orgasm is not necessarily required for conception, it does greatly increase the chances of becoming pregnant. Proper arousal causes an increase in female secretions, and reaching climax increases them further. These fluids make it easier for sperm to reach their destination. Scientific studies now show that the muscle contractions which occur during orgasm create a type of suction, pulling fluids (and sperm) closer to the womb.

So it's not out of the realm of rational thought to think that, overall and all other things being equal, there is a greater probability of pregnancy associated with consensual sex than there is associated with rape on a per event basis.

But the real proper way to answer questions about rape and abortion is this:

The only reason for being against abortion is the premise that a life is being taken. The fact that a life was established trhough rape is unfortunate. But if you're going to say that the unborn individual has a right to live you can't say the right goes away because his or her existence was estabished by rape.

If abortion is taking a life it's taking a life. Rape as the source of the life does not justify taking it. And if it's not life there's no basis for being against abortion.

One of the worst traps "pro life" peopel fall into is going for the rape and incest exceptions. As soon as they do that they compromise the basis for their "pro life" position.

If that had been his answer we wouldn't be discussing this right now.

His mistake was saying "legitimate rape".

[Chizzang]

The republican War against Women continues...




congratulations

[death dealer]

.


If that had been his answer we wouldn't be discussing this right now.

His mistake was saying "legitimate rape".

Exactly. What a maroon. he just shit-canned his career forever.

[D1B]

Conks being conks.

[death dealer]

Conks being conks.

Nah. Just a good old fashioned stupid asshole. He just happens to be a Republican Asshole. I will say, they are a little meaner. Not any more stupid, just meaner.

[D1B]

Conks being conks.

Nah. Just a good old fashioned stupid asshole. He just happens to be a Republican Asshole. I will say, they are a little meaner. Not any more stupid, just meaner.

[89Hen]

The republican War against Women continues...




congratulations

[YoUDeeMan]

For every nut job on the right, you can find on the left a Maxine Waters, John Edwards, Hank Johnson...want me to go on?

The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who is opposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit “justifiable homicide” in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party.
Also testifying in oppostion to the bill was David Baker, the deputy chief executive officer of the Omaha police department, who said, “We share the same fears…that this could be used to incite violence against abortion providers.”

Baker’s concern is well-grounded: Abortion providers are frequent targets of violent attacks. Eight doctors have been murdered by anti-abortion extremists since 1993, and another 17 have been victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes, including Scott Roeder, the murderer of Wichita, Kansas, abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.
Great people you are arguing for.

Do yourself a favor and stop looking stupid.

Read through all of my posts and find a single one that supports those "great people". Pick one...any one you can find and hold it up to the light of reason (you might want to wear some really dark sunglasses because I hear it's a bvtch to look at the light after you've been in a cave for so long).

Get crackin', pols.

[blueballs]

A) Akin is a ignorant tool. How he ascended to the current level of politics he finds himself in is simply amazing. He has no business governing and needs to step aside ASAFP for the good of all concerned.

B) I find it hilarious on one hand but sad on the other that abortion is only an issue and only discussed leading up to elections. As soon as inauguration day rolls around it is a settled issue until the next election, when it is used again over and over to fan the flames of the respective bases.

C) Women who experience orgasms are more likely to get pregnant because they will be more eager to fuck and will fuck more, which increases their chances of impregnation.

[D1B]

A) Akin is a ignorant tool. How he ascended to the current level of politics he finds himself in is simply amazing. He has no business governing and needs to step aside ASAFP for the good of all concerned.

B) I find it hilarious on one hand but sad on the other that abortion is only an issue and only discussed leading up to elections. As soon as inauguration day rolls around it is a settled issue until the next election, when it is used again over and over to fan the flames of the respective bases.

C) Women who experience orgasms are more likely to get pregnant because they will be more eager to fuck and will fuck more, which increases their chances of impregnation.

Smartest guy on cs.com

[Baldy]

C) Women who experience orgasms are more likely to get pregnant because they will be more eager to fuck and will fuck more, which increases their chances of impregnation.

[JohnStOnge]

I find it hilarious on one hand but sad on the other that abortion is only an issue and only discussed leading up to elections. As soon as inauguration day rolls around it is a settled issue until the next election, when it is used again over and over to fan the flames of the respective bases.

Of course discussion of the abortion issue increases as elections approach but it's an issue all the time. You could Google "abortion" on any day and find stuff going on relative to the issue. Laws getting passed. Laws getting challenged in court. Court rulings. Protests.

[YoUDeeMan]

I find it hilarious on one hand but sad on the other that abortion is only an issue and only discussed leading up to elections. As soon as inauguration day rolls around it is a settled issue until the next election, when it is used again over and over to fan the flames of the respective bases.

Of course discussion of the abortion issue increases as elections approach but it's an issue all the time. You could Google "abortion" on any day and find stuff going on relative to the issue. Laws getting passed. Laws getting challenged in court. Court rulings. Protests.

Tell you what....we should post the names of all pro-life people on a web site.

Then, when someone who doesn't want a pregnancy gets pregnant, we'll match the name of a pro-life person to the name of the pregnant person a big board. The pro-life person will be obligated to personally take care of that baby for the rest of its life. We're not talking welfare here JSO, after all, you don't think government should take care of people. Nope, we're talking about assigning a pro-life person to financially and emotionally take care of that child all the way to adulthood and beyond.

In addition, the pro-life person will take care of all the expenses (emotional counseling also) of the woman involved for as long as needed.

If pro-life people do not take up the responsibility, then we will post the names of those pro-life murderers (after all, they are letting the child die) in the newspaper. The pro-life people will be held personally accountable for willingly letting the child die.

If you are going to be pro-life, you need to step up to the plate and walk the walk instead of just telling everyone else what to do.

JSO, you need to get started on making that list. Your name is on the top and there's a crack baby struggling to survive right now...time to show that you are a man of your convictions.

[BlueHen86]

Of course discussion of the abortion issue increases as elections approach but it's an issue all the time. You could Google "abortion" on any day and find stuff going on relative to the issue. Laws getting passed. Laws getting challenged in court. Court rulings. Protests.

Tell you what....we should post the names of all pro-life people on a web site.

Then, when someone who doesn't want a pregnancy gets pregnant, we'll match the name of a pro-life person to the name of the pregnant person a big board. The pro-life person will be obligated to personally take care of that baby for the rest of its life. We're not talking welfare here JSO, after all, you don't think government should take care of people. Nope, we're talking about assigning a pro-life person to financially and emotionally take care of that child all the way to adulthood and beyond.

In addition, the pro-life person will take care of all the expenses (emotional counseling also) of the woman involved for as long as needed.

If pro-life people do not take up the responsibility, then we will post the names of those pro-life murderers (after all, they are letting the child die) in the newspaper. The pro-life people will be held personally accountable for willingly letting the child die.

If you are going to be pro-life, you need to step up to the plate and walk the walk instead of just telling everyone else what to do.

JSO, you need to get started on making that list. Your name is on the top and there's a crack baby struggling to survive right now...time to show that you are a man of your convictions.

That's a great post.

[clenz]

C) Women who experience orgasms are more likely to get pregnant because they will be more eager to fuck and will fuck more, which increases their chances of impregnation.

Not sure if serious......it's due to the orgasm opening the cervix making it easier for sperm to get through


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

The pro-life person will be obligated to personally take care of that baby for the rest of its life.

That is a common approach. It doesn't work.

Suppose I say that it should be against the law for set of parents to kill their two year old child because they are stressed out by that child, don't feel that they can support him or her, etc.

Do you think that means that I should say that I'll take care of their two year old?

Of course not.

It's a stupid line of argument. Saying that one individual should not kill another individual does not mean I should also say I will take care of the individual who is not to be killed.

[JohnStOnge]

OK, time to talk about science again. Check out this article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/s ... 57216350/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A couple of things.

1) There is no way the statement "From a scientific standpoint, what's legitimate and fair to say is that a woman who is raped has the same chances of getting pregnant as a woman who engaged in consensual intercourse during the same time in her menstrual cycle" can possibly have been substantiated. I don't care how impressive the title of the woman who made the statement is, it is not possible to infer that the chances are "the same," even through controlled experimentation. Yet anyone who reads that article will believe that because someone with impressive credentials with an impressive sounding title said it it is true.

2) Here is the unpleasant part: There is the suggestion NAZIs of WWII conducted controlled experiments on the effects of extreme stress on ovulation. If somebody is going to say there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that extreme stress has an effect, they need to challenge those experiments. Or they need to say that those experiments were never conducted. Something. It's horrible that they conducted such experiments. But if they did that needs to be addressed. Maybe it has been. But there's nothing about that in the article.

[YoUDeeMan]

It's a stupid line of argument. Saying that one individual should not kill another individual does not mean I should also say I will take care of the individual who is not to be killed.

That is a common objection. It doesn't work.

You see, you have a CHOICE to help save that child. You have a CHOICE.

And yet you CHOOSE to let the child suffer. That is your CHOICE.

So, the mother, deciding that she can't properly raise the child, or deciding that she doesn't want the child, decides to abort it, or...she has the child and decides to not take care of it (feed it, shelter it, etc.) and it dies. That is her choice...and you say it results in her killing the child. But, it is ALSO YOUR CHOICE.

You are CHOOSING to not take care of that child. The child is alive, and you are choosing to not take responsibility for a living child that you CAN save, but CHOOSE not to.

No getting around that...you are choosing to let that child die. You are an option for its survival, but you don't want that burden (just like the mother is choosing not to bear that burden).

You, and others like you, CHOOSE death for that child.

Ironic, huh?

[polsongrizz]

The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who is opposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit “justifiable homicide” in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party.
Also testifying in oppostion to the bill was David Baker, the deputy chief executive officer of the Omaha police department, who said, “We share the same fears…that this could be used to incite violence against abortion providers.”

Baker’s concern is well-grounded: Abortion providers are frequent targets of violent attacks. Eight doctors have been murdered by anti-abortion extremists since 1993, and another 17 have been victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes, including Scott Roeder, the murderer of Wichita, Kansas, abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.
Great people you are arguing for.

Do yourself a favor and stop looking stupid.

Read through all of my posts and find a single one that supports those "great people". Pick one...any one you can find and hold it up to the light of reason (you might want to wear some really dark sunglasses because I hear it's a bvtch to look at the light after you've been in a cave for so long).

Get crackin', pols.

Actually I did just on this thread. Jeez I didn't think you would fall for that but you did, easier than I thought.

[89Hen]

Tell you what....we should post the names of all pro-life people on a web site.

Then, when someone who doesn't want a pregnancy gets pregnant, we'll match the name of a pro-life person to the name of the pregnant person a big board. The pro-life person will be obligated to personally take care of that baby for the rest of its life. We're not talking welfare here JSO, after all, you don't think government should take care of people. Nope, we're talking about assigning a pro-life person to financially and emotionally take care of that child all the way to adulthood and beyond.

In addition, the pro-life person will take care of all the expenses (emotional counseling also) of the woman involved for as long as needed.

If pro-life people do not take up the responsibility, then we will post the names of those pro-life murderers (after all, they are letting the child die) in the newspaper. The pro-life people will be held personally accountable for willingly letting the child die.

If you are going to be pro-life, you need to step up to the plate and walk the walk instead of just telling everyone else what to do.

JSO, you need to get started on making that list. Your name is on the top and there's a crack baby struggling to survive right now...time to show that you are a man of your convictions.

That's a great post.

No, it's not.

[polsongrizz]

It's a stupid line of argument. Saying that one individual should not kill another individual does not mean I should also say I will take care of the individual who is not to be killed.

That is a common objection. It doesn't work.

You see, you have a CHOICE to help save that child. You have a CHOICE.

And yet you CHOOSE to let the child suffer. That is your CHOICE.

So, the mother, deciding that she can't properly raise the child, or deciding that she doesn't want the child, decides to abort it, or...she has the child and decides to not take care of it (feed it, shelter it, etc.) and it dies. That is her choice...and you say it results in her killing the child. But, it is ALSO YOUR CHOICE.

You are CHOOSING to not take care of that child. The child is alive, and you are choosing to not take responsibility for a living child that you CAN save, but CHOOSE not to.

No getting around that...you are choosing to let that child die. You are an option for its survival, but you don't want that burden (just like the mother is choosing not to bear that burden).

You, and others like you, CHOOSE death for that child.

Ironic, huh?

[89Hen]

circle jerk