Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your child isn't "your body" no matter what the pro-abortion killers at NARAL have brainwashed you to believe.
You don't own other human beings in a civilized society. Parents don't own their children and neither do selfish sluts who kill their kids as a form of birth control.
And no one has the right to use my body for their survival.
Of the half a dozen women in my life that I know have been raped in the past, none were impregnated by their attackers. So that's zero out of 6 or 7. Would you consider that 'very low'?
And of the half a dozen women I know that have been raped, three were impregnated... so that's 50% right there.
Obviously we'll get nowhere with anecdotal silliness. The issue of a "low rate" ignores the obvious problem of rapes that are never reported, an estimated 50 to 90% of all rapes!
Trent Franks is, no doubt, one of the most moronic legislators in a House full of morons. But trying to link what he said to Akin's remarks that a woman has natural defenses against pregnancy in the case of rape is just too long of a stretch. The Dems look foolish in this case.
I am pro-choice but, as in anything, moderation is called for. Franks was arguing in support of halting abortions after 20 weeks, a position I agree with him on. The provision in the bill he was trying to make a case for, is that there is no exception for rape or incest. I have my misgivings about that. Generally, there should always be exceptions for rape and incest. The idea that the State should have the authority to force a woman to bear the child of someone who assaulted her is repulsive. However, we are talking about 24 weeks under current practice. 24 weeks is about 6 months. That seems like an inordinate amount of time for the woman to make a decision to abort, particularly in the case of violence against her. I do believe her rights would not be infringed should the limit be reduced to 5 months. And maybe, just maybe, the unborn child should have a "say" in this after 5 months as well.
Please provide some credible information on this comment.
Women can get pregnant at any time, they are more likely to get pregnant at certain times, but it's not a hard and fast rule.
Another man who thinks he knows everything about women, but is sorely wrong.
How can a woman get pregnant at any time when the egg lives just a day or two?
From the Planned Parenthood website, probably more credible than you:
Quote:
When Is Getting Pregnant Most Likely?
A woman's fertile days depend on the life span of the egg and the sperm. Her egg only lives for about a day after ovulation. Sperm can live inside her body for about six days. The egg and sperm are most likely to join when intercourse happens during the five days before the egg is released or on the day of ovulation. It is also possible for a day or two after ovulation — even though it's less likely to happen then.
As for the original post, I don't see anything wrong with the Congressman's statement. I think it is factual.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
