Repub. Senate Candidate reassures women: "Legitimate" rape victims don't get preggo. - Page 12 - Politics and Economics

**MrWookie** · 08-20-2012, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Uh, charitably, the fda says it's possible that it interferes with blastocyst implantation. It's basically impossible to prove either way.

Obviously doesn't matter because it doesn't explains this guys retarded statement, and it obviously isn't an abortion iyam. It just would have made something scary retarded just retarded. Unfortunately this guy has a legit chance at becoming a senator.

Sup.

Quote:

Recent studies in rats and monkeys have shown that post-ovulatory use of progestin-only and combined ECPs have no effect on pregnancy rates.[119][120] Studies in humans have shown that the rate of ovulation suppression is approximately equal to the effectiveness of emergency contraceptive pills,[121][122] suggesting that might be the only mechanism by which they prevent pregnancy. In addition, an in vitro model has demonstrated that ECP "did not interfere with blastocyst function or implantation".[2]...

However, Davidoff and Trussell in their 2006 JAMA article state "the ability of Plan B to interfere with implantation remains speculative, since virtually no evidence supports that mechanism and some evidence contradicts it" and "the best available evidence indicates that Plan B's ability to prevent pregnancy can be fully accounted for by mechnisms that do not involve interference with postfertilization events." And in an endometrial biopsy study of 45 women treated with levonorgestrel only Emergency Contraception, they concluded "peri- and post-ovulatory administration of LNG did not impair corpus luteum function or endometrial morphology.",[121]

But hey, the wild speculation of idiots is completely a valid side of the argument when science is unable to prove a negative, that emergency contraception in no possible way shape or form affects a fertilized egg that was in the fallopian tubes at the time the pill was taken. Teach the controversy!

**MrWookie** · 08-20-2012, 02:36 AM

I mean, I realize that for most people in the pro-life camp, the inability of science to prove a negative is equivalent to their side being proven right, but, like, lol ikes, it's not like science has nothing to say on the issue, nor does the "abortion pill" camp have any leg to stand on other than wild speculation from far-from-conclusive results from 40 years ago.

sards · 08-20-2012, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Meanwhile, no consideration to the thing on which the fetus depends to survive is given.

This isn't true either, at least in general. Some consideration is given to the mother, but it is outweighed, in pro-lifers' minds, by a more important matter. This use of misrepresentation to paint the other side as uncaring and immoral doesn't help the argument. (Of course pro-lifers use the same tactic and it doesn't work for them either.)

Nichlemn · 08-20-2012, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Meanwhile, no consideration to the thing on which the fetus depends to survive is given.

Except almost all pro-lifers would allow abortion when the mother's life is in danger - and probably even when "in danger" is significantly lower than 50%, giving an implied value of the mother's life at substantially higher than the fetus'. A "consistent" pro-lifer who valued all lives equally (counting the fetus as a life obviously) would only allow abortion in cases where it would increase the expected value of lives saved. Your "no consideration to women" strawman pro-lifer would not support abortion even in the event of the near certain death of the mother and fetus, because **** women or something.

metsandfinsfan · 08-20-2012, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nichlemn

Except almost all pro-lifers would allow abortion when the mother's life is in danger - and probably even when "in danger" is significantly lower than 50%, giving an implied value of the mother's life at substantially higher than the fetus'. A "consistent" pro-lifer who valued all lives equally (counting the fetus as a life obviously) would only allow abortion in cases where it would increase the expected value of lives saved. Your "no consideration to women" strawman pro-lifer would not support abortion even in the event of the near certain death of the mother and fetus, because **** women or something.

Now THIS is a straw man

That's like saying you wouldn't save your 50 year old grandma over a 20 year old stranger

riverdance · 08-20-2012, 07:44 AM

my rape gaffe rankings:

1. bobby knight
2. todd akin
3. whoopi goldberg

Mondogarage · 08-20-2012, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nichlemn;34374194.

Your "no consideration to women" strawman pro-lifer would not support abortion even in the event of the near certain death of the mother and fetus, because **** women or something.

Or, in other words, Paul Ryan.

ikestoys · 08-20-2012, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Sup.

But hey, the wild speculation of idiots is completely a valid side of the argument when science is unable to prove a negative, that emergency contraception in no possible way shape or form affects a fertilized egg that was in the fallopian tubes at the time the pill was taken. Teach the controversy!

That's fantastic quoting of the wiki page. Wonder why you left the beginning out. And the FDA are the idiots now.

13ball · 08-20-2012, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riverdance

my rape gaffe rankings:

1. clayton williams
2. bobby knight
3. todd akin
4. whoopi goldberg

Quote:

During the campaign, Williams publicly made a joke likening rape to bad weather, having quipped: "If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it".

FYR

ikestoys · 08-20-2012, 10:10 AM

Was not familiar with the whoopi story. lol 'rape rape'. I get what she was trying to say, but come on.

13ball · 08-20-2012, 10:23 AM

So Whoopi was defending Polanski or something? I love making fun of liberals and the artsy-fartsy that defend that ahole.

**Gizmo** · 08-20-2012, 11:19 AM

Yeah, lots of people defended Polanski and made me have a sad. Natalie Portman (though she's a god damn idiot) and Johnny depp also cqmebout in his defense because, I mean... He's such an artiste.

**Gizmo** · 08-20-2012, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nichlemn

Except almost all pro-lifers would allow abortion when the mother's life is in danger - and probably even when "in danger" is significantly lower than 50%, giving an implied value of the mother's life at substantially higher than the fetus'. A "consistent" pro-lifer who valued all lives equally (counting the fetus as a life obviously) would only allow abortion in cases where it would increase the expected value of lives saved. Your "no consideration to women" strawman pro-lifer would not support abortion even in the event of the near certain death of the mother and fetus, because **** women or something.

Okay, "not much consideration for the mother."

**MrWookie** · 08-20-2012, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

That's fantastic quoting of the wiki page. Wonder why you left the beginning out. And the FDA are the idiots now.

Yeah, they have the "may" up there for political reasons because some idiots yell loudly, and because science hasn't proven a negative. But as far as I'm concerned, if no one can show a decrease in pregnancy rate when EC is taken post-ovulation, we're done. No one has shown that, and there has been a study in which the null hypothesis was accepted.

ikestoys · 08-20-2012, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Yeah, they have the "may" up there for political reasons because some idiots yell loudly, and because science hasn't proven a negative. But as far as I'm concerned, if no one can show a decrease in pregnancy rate when EC is taken post-ovulation, we're done. No one has shown that, and there has been a study in which the null hypothesis was accepted.

Uh huh and the luteal phase changes? Im completely in agreement that the best explained mechanism we have is ovulation prevention, but it simply isn't as rock solid as you pretend to be. Ironically because of political persuasion.

Anyways, it's still not an abortion if it prevents implantation.