Posted by moosep on 8/27/2012 3:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/27/2012 2:45:00 PM (view original):
"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to chose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right".

This is from the Dems' 2008 party platform:

http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform

So they support abortion everywhere that is "legal", and oppose efforts to "weaken or undermine" those laws.  Here is a breakdown of state laws regarding abortion:

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf

So, simply, they support late term/partial birth abortion, as it is "legal" in many states.  Further, they want everyone to pay for abortions for those who cannot afford it.  As there is no 2012 platform out as of yet (hat tip to occsid), this is the official Dem party position.  Which is barbaric.

I do not support late abortion. However, this not wanting to pay for those who cannot afford it. It seems you want it both ways you want not want to pay for abortions or the possible welfare that the child could receive. Wouldn't paying for the  abortion eliminate any future welfare payments? I know it goes against your grain to pay for abortions but sometimes you have to suck it up and move on.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/27/2012 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/27/2012 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/27/2012 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/27/2012 11:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/26/2012 11:42:00 PM (view original):
http://bodyblisscentral.com/orgasm-pregnancy/
http://babyandbump.momtastic.com/trying-to-conceive/155318-do-orgasms-increase-chances-getting-pregnant.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_2045114_increase-chances-conception.html
http://www.babymed.com/getting-pregnant/top-12-tips-how-get-pregnant-faster-and-healthier

None of these are medical sites, but they all say the same thing, orgasm increases the chance of pregnancy,

This doesnt mean that he was right to say it the way he did. He screwed up.

It isnt odd that no one brought this up? Anywhere? 

No one brought it up because you're the only one who believes Akin was reading "tips and tricks for becoming a mommy faster" websites.

It's crazy how detached you are from reality.

So are you willing to stand up and say that this is false?

That having an orgasm does not increase conceptions chances? 

Tell me what you believe about this.

1) I believe that there are no scientific studies that prove anything about this. 

2) I believe that Akin's remark was based off anti-abortion propaganda.

3) I believe that everybody except you and the hard-core anti-abortionist realize what you're saying is crap.

4) I believe that you are unable to cite real, independent sources for anything you believe in.

There are theories that the female orgasm might increase fertility. For example, the 30% reduction in size of the vagina could help clench onto the ***** (much like, or perhaps caused by, the pubococcygeus muscles), which would make it more stimulating for the male (thus ensuring faster or more voluminous ejaculation). The British biologists Baker and Bellis have suggested that the female orgasm may have an "upsuck" action (similar to the esophagus' ability to swallow when upside down), resulting in the retaining of favorable sperm and making conception more likely.^[106] They posited a role of female orgasm in sperm competition. The observation that women tend to reach orgasm more easily when they are ovulating also suggests that it is tied to increasing fertility.^[107] Evolutionary biologist Robin Baker argues in Sperm Wars that occurrence and timing of orgasms are all a part of the female body's unconscious strategy to collect and retain sperm from more evolutionarily fit men^{[citation needed]}. An orgasm during intercourse functions as a bypass button to a woman's natural cervical filter against sperm and pathogens. An orgasm before functions to strengthen the filter.

I realize that you are going to find some way to dismiss this. You will be outraged again and call me stupid.

Posted by moosep on 8/27/2012 3:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/27/2012 2:45:00 PM (view original):
"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to chose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right".

This is from the Dems' 2008 party platform:

http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform

So they support abortion everywhere that is "legal", and oppose efforts to "weaken or undermine" those laws.  Here is a breakdown of state laws regarding abortion:

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf

So, simply, they support late term/partial birth abortion, as it is "legal" in many states.  Further, they want everyone to pay for abortions for those who cannot afford it.  As there is no 2012 platform out as of yet (hat tip to occsid), this is the official Dem party position.  Which is barbaric.

I do not support late abortion. However, this not wanting to pay for those who cannot afford it. It seems you want it both ways you want not want to pay for abortions or the possible welfare that the child could receive. Wouldn't paying for the  abortion eliminate any future welfare payments? I know it goes against your grain to pay for abortions but sometimes you have to suck it up and move on.

Posted by jvford on 8/27/2012 4:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/27/2012 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Re Akin, his comment about "legitimate" rape was a comment regarding a woman lying about rape.  As such the comment was beyond idiotic, because that is a completely and utterly different subject.  Re a woman somehow getting raped and causing herself to abort somehow, well, that was idiotic to bring up as well.  There are of course many, many different examples of traumatic events, mental and physical, causing issues with pregancies.  But to try to connect that to rape in the abortion discussion is simply idiotic.

However, I would like to go on record and say this is a perfect example of the difference between the parties.  A Repub pol makes a statement like that, and the Repubs want him gone, admitting his position is idiotic.  While at the same time the Dems and the MSM pile on and try to portray the entire Repub party holds the same beliefs.

When Dems pols say stupid **** like this, the party rallies around them and the MSM protects them.

I gotta call BS on the difference between the parties.  Republicans responded correctly with Akin by disavowing him  (just like the Democrats would have) and the Dems pounced on the opportunity (just as the Repubs would have).

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/27/2012 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/27/2012 4:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/27/2012 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Re Akin, his comment about "legitimate" rape was a comment regarding a woman lying about rape.  As such the comment was beyond idiotic, because that is a completely and utterly different subject.  Re a woman somehow getting raped and causing herself to abort somehow, well, that was idiotic to bring up as well.  There are of course many, many different examples of traumatic events, mental and physical, causing issues with pregancies.  But to try to connect that to rape in the abortion discussion is simply idiotic.

However, I would like to go on record and say this is a perfect example of the difference between the parties.  A Repub pol makes a statement like that, and the Repubs want him gone, admitting his position is idiotic.  While at the same time the Dems and the MSM pile on and try to portray the entire Repub party holds the same beliefs.

When Dems pols say stupid **** like this, the party rallies around them and the MSM protects them.

I gotta call BS on the difference between the parties.  Republicans responded correctly with Akin by disavowing him  (just like the Democrats would have) and the Dems pounced on the opportunity (just as the Repubs would have).

Dems defend theirs up until they can't anymore.  See Weiner.  See Rangel.  Hell, see good old Bill Clinton.  And the MSM defends.

Pouncing on Akin is fine.  Pouncing on the whole party using guilt by association is BS.

Posted by jvford on 8/27/2012 4:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/27/2012 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/27/2012 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/27/2012 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/27/2012 11:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/26/2012 11:42:00 PM (view original):
http://bodyblisscentral.com/orgasm-pregnancy/
http://babyandbump.momtastic.com/trying-to-conceive/155318-do-orgasms-increase-chances-getting-pregnant.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_2045114_increase-chances-conception.html
http://www.babymed.com/getting-pregnant/top-12-tips-how-get-pregnant-faster-and-healthier

None of these are medical sites, but they all say the same thing, orgasm increases the chance of pregnancy,

This doesnt mean that he was right to say it the way he did. He screwed up.

It isnt odd that no one brought this up? Anywhere? 

No one brought it up because you're the only one who believes Akin was reading "tips and tricks for becoming a mommy faster" websites.

It's crazy how detached you are from reality.

So are you willing to stand up and say that this is false?

That having an orgasm does not increase conceptions chances? 

Tell me what you believe about this.

1) I believe that there are no scientific studies that prove anything about this. 

2) I believe that Akin's remark was based off anti-abortion propaganda.

3) I believe that everybody except you and the hard-core anti-abortionist realize what you're saying is crap.

4) I believe that you are unable to cite real, independent sources for anything you believe in.

There are theories that the female orgasm might increase fertility. For example, the 30% reduction in size of the vagina could help clench onto the ***** (much like, or perhaps caused by, the pubococcygeus muscles), which would make it more stimulating for the male (thus ensuring faster or more voluminous ejaculation). The British biologists Baker and Bellis have suggested that the female orgasm may have an "upsuck" action (similar to the esophagus' ability to swallow when upside down), resulting in the retaining of favorable sperm and making conception more likely.^[106] They posited a role of female orgasm in sperm competition. The observation that women tend to reach orgasm more easily when they are ovulating also suggests that it is tied to increasing fertility.^[107] Evolutionary biologist Robin Baker argues in Sperm Wars that occurrence and timing of orgasms are all a part of the female body's unconscious strategy to collect and retain sperm from more evolutionarily fit men^{[citation needed]}. An orgasm during intercourse functions as a bypass button to a woman's natural cervical filter against sperm and pathogens. An orgasm before functions to strengthen the filter.

I realize that you are going to find some way to dismiss this. You will be outraged again and call me stupid.

Ok, that's a wikipedia article and neither of the sources is a scientific study.

I'm outraged.

You're stupid.

Feel better?

And you are missing the whole point.

I was not arguing that it was carved in stone verified fact. It is a theory among scientists and scholars that is out in the mainstream. And he was clearly referencing this.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that he didnt make this up out of the blue, that there is some basis for his comments?

Posted by dapperduck on 8/27/2012 12:59:00 PM (view original):
+1 to nick.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/27/2012 6:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/27/2012 4:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/27/2012 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/27/2012 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/27/2012 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/27/2012 11:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/26/2012 11:42:00 PM (view original):
http://bodyblisscentral.com/orgasm-pregnancy/
http://babyandbump.momtastic.com/trying-to-conceive/155318-do-orgasms-increase-chances-getting-pregnant.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_2045114_increase-chances-conception.html
http://www.babymed.com/getting-pregnant/top-12-tips-how-get-pregnant-faster-and-healthier

None of these are medical sites, but they all say the same thing, orgasm increases the chance of pregnancy,

This doesnt mean that he was right to say it the way he did. He screwed up.

It isnt odd that no one brought this up? Anywhere? 

No one brought it up because you're the only one who believes Akin was reading "tips and tricks for becoming a mommy faster" websites.

It's crazy how detached you are from reality.

So are you willing to stand up and say that this is false?

That having an orgasm does not increase conceptions chances? 

Tell me what you believe about this.

1) I believe that there are no scientific studies that prove anything about this. 

2) I believe that Akin's remark was based off anti-abortion propaganda.

3) I believe that everybody except you and the hard-core anti-abortionist realize what you're saying is crap.

4) I believe that you are unable to cite real, independent sources for anything you believe in.

There are theories that the female orgasm might increase fertility. For example, the 30% reduction in size of the vagina could help clench onto the ***** (much like, or perhaps caused by, the pubococcygeus muscles), which would make it more stimulating for the male (thus ensuring faster or more voluminous ejaculation). The British biologists Baker and Bellis have suggested that the female orgasm may have an "upsuck" action (similar to the esophagus' ability to swallow when upside down), resulting in the retaining of favorable sperm and making conception more likely.^[106] They posited a role of female orgasm in sperm competition. The observation that women tend to reach orgasm more easily when they are ovulating also suggests that it is tied to increasing fertility.^[107] Evolutionary biologist Robin Baker argues in Sperm Wars that occurrence and timing of orgasms are all a part of the female body's unconscious strategy to collect and retain sperm from more evolutionarily fit men^{[citation needed]}. An orgasm during intercourse functions as a bypass button to a woman's natural cervical filter against sperm and pathogens. An orgasm before functions to strengthen the filter.

I realize that you are going to find some way to dismiss this. You will be outraged again and call me stupid.

Ok, that's a wikipedia article and neither of the sources is a scientific study.

I'm outraged.

You're stupid.

Feel better?

And you are missing the whole point.

I was not arguing that it was carved in stone verified fact. It is a theory among scientists and scholars that is out in the mainstream. And he was clearly referencing this.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that he didnt make this up out of the blue, that there is some basis for his comments?

Posted by pttsbrghkid on 8/27/2012 6:29:00 PM (view original):
http://www.theonion.com/articles/rnc-builds-levee-out-of-poor-people-to-protect-con,29337/

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/27/2012 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moosep on 8/27/2012 3:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/27/2012 2:45:00 PM (view original):
"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to chose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right".

This is from the Dems' 2008 party platform:

http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform

So they support abortion everywhere that is "legal", and oppose efforts to "weaken or undermine" those laws.  Here is a breakdown of state laws regarding abortion:

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf

So, simply, they support late term/partial birth abortion, as it is "legal" in many states.  Further, they want everyone to pay for abortions for those who cannot afford it.  As there is no 2012 platform out as of yet (hat tip to occsid), this is the official Dem party position.  Which is barbaric.

I do not support late abortion. However, this not wanting to pay for those who cannot afford it. It seems you want it both ways you want not want to pay for abortions or the possible welfare that the child could receive. Wouldn't paying for the  abortion eliminate any future welfare payments? I know it goes against your grain to pay for abortions but sometimes you have to suck it up and move on.

The money itself is not the issue.  It is what you are paying for.  It is the same deal re the Obamacare mandate that Catholic institutions must pay for insurance that covers contraception/abortions.