Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Poll on abortion in case of rape and incest
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Earl Evleth
Aug 21, 2012, 11:46:38 AM8/21/12
to
Gallup has done polls on this over the years, Four of them (1996, 2000, 2003
and 2011 showed that 75-78% would legalize it, 18-22% thought it should
be illegal.
In addition another study showed that
"A 1996 study from the Medical University of South Carolina estimated that 5
percent of rapes result in pregnancies, or about 32,000 a year."
Another source states that the chances for becoming pregnant in unprotected
intercourse is 2.5%. I also found estimates as 3-5%
The comparative numbers don't give any indication that a raped woman has
a very much less of a chance of getting pregnant as the Republican idiot
claimed.
GLOBALIST
Aug 21, 2012, 11:50:28 AM8/21/12
to
Keep talking about vaginas.
Alias
Aug 21, 2012, 11:51:53 AM8/21/12
to
On 8/21/2012 5:50 PM, GLOBALIST wrote:
> Keep talking about vaginas.
Something you wish you had.
--
Alias
> Keep talking about vaginas.
Something you wish you had.
--
Alias
Jean
Aug 21, 2012, 12:13:26 PM8/21/12
to
In article <k10aqq$ghn$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
I hear they do monologues now.
--
'Hall of Fame' voters have trouble with photo ID http://goo.gl/0gKMR
http://front.moveon.org/the-one-reagan-quote-that-republicans-dont-talk-about/
Tax shelter busted: http://goo.gl/hTAEf
Some people say: Mitt does dogs. http://goo.gl/paUN0
--
'Hall of Fame' voters have trouble with photo ID http://goo.gl/0gKMR
http://front.moveon.org/the-one-reagan-quote-that-republicans-dont-talk-about/
Tax shelter busted: http://goo.gl/hTAEf
Some people say: Mitt does dogs. http://goo.gl/paUN0
mg
Aug 21, 2012, 3:12:56 PM8/21/12
to
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:46:38 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
That's why rightards have to lie, or attack the messenger, or change
the subject, or engage in all sorts of logical fallcies. They know
that if they were honest about what they really want to do, nobody
would vote for them.
wrote:
the subject, or engage in all sorts of logical fallcies. They know
that if they were honest about what they really want to do, nobody
would vote for them.
Jean
Aug 21, 2012, 3:37:38 PM8/21/12
to
Werner
Aug 22, 2012, 7:15:25 AM8/22/12
to
On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:12:56 PM UTC-4, mg wrote:
> ...
http://www.EndIt.info
> ...
>
>
> That's why rightards have to lie, or attack the messenger, or change
>
> the subject, or engage in all sorts of logical fallcies. They know
>
> that if they were honest about what they really want to do, nobody
>
> would vote for them.
I see a lot of that done by leftards like you as well.
>
> That's why rightards have to lie, or attack the messenger, or change
>
> the subject, or engage in all sorts of logical fallcies. They know
>
> that if they were honest about what they really want to do, nobody
>
> would vote for them.
http://www.EndIt.info
Earl Evleth
Aug 22, 2012, 9:27:17 AM8/22/12
to
On 21/08/12 21:12, in article ran738lcp48g64r8j...@4ax.com,
What amazes me is that the information is easily available on the internet.
A 5-10 search provides one with a quick analysis.
Rape is a complicated crime since it is often not reported to the police.
There are two sets of stats, one is police recorded complaints and the other
is from surveys. Some crimes, like having one car stolen is usually
reported for insurance reasons if anything. Minor burglaries are not it
nothing is stolen. The existence of a dead body assures homicides being
reported. But rape exposes a girl or woman to being hassled, having to
prove it happened etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-s
"Nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had
experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having
been beaten by an intimate partner. One in six women have been stalked,
according to the report."
Those stats could be off but there is a "problem area"
A 5-10 search provides one with a quick analysis.
Rape is a complicated crime since it is often not reported to the police.
There are two sets of stats, one is police recorded complaints and the other
is from surveys. Some crimes, like having one car stolen is usually
reported for insurance reasons if anything. Minor burglaries are not it
nothing is stolen. The existence of a dead body assures homicides being
reported. But rape exposes a girl or woman to being hassled, having to
prove it happened etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-s
"Nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had
experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having
been beaten by an intimate partner. One in six women have been stalked,
according to the report."
Those stats could be off but there is a "problem area"
El Castor
Aug 22, 2012, 4:08:30 PM8/22/12
to
competing for the Republican nomination. Democrats contributed $1.5
million to his campaign, and probably got him the nomination. They
wanted to run against an idiot. Isn't politics wonderful?
Earl Evleth
Aug 22, 2012, 4:27:49 PM8/22/12
to
On 22/08/12 22:08, in article keea389qlk6maflpu...@4ax.com,
"El Castor" <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> Democrats contributed $1.5
> million to his campaign, and probably got him the nomination. They
> wanted to run against an idiot.
Which "Democrats"?
> Democrats contributed $1.5
> million to his campaign, and probably got him the nomination. They
> wanted to run against an idiot.
mg
Aug 22, 2012, 9:30:39 PM8/22/12
to
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 04:15:25 -0700 (PDT), Werner <whet...@mac.com>
wrote:
As I said, rightards often engage in logical fallacies and you
responded by giving an example of one called the "just because
fallacy", also known as: trust me, mother knows best fallacy, because
I said so, you�ll see. Here's a formal description of the just-because
fallacy:
"Description: Refusing to respond to give reasons or evidence for a
claim by stating yourself as the ultimate authority in the matter.
This is usually indicated by the phrases, �just trust me�, �because I
said so�, �you�ll see�, or �just because�. The just because fallacy
is not conducive to the goal of argumentation -- that is coming to a
mutually agreeable solution. Nor is it helpful in helping the other
person understand why you are firm on your position. �Just because� is
not a reason that speaks to the question itself; it is simply a
deflection to authority (legitimate or not)."
wrote:
responded by giving an example of one called the "just because
fallacy", also known as: trust me, mother knows best fallacy, because
I said so, you�ll see. Here's a formal description of the just-because
fallacy:
"Description: Refusing to respond to give reasons or evidence for a
claim by stating yourself as the ultimate authority in the matter.
This is usually indicated by the phrases, �just trust me�, �because I
said so�, �you�ll see�, or �just because�. The just because fallacy
is not conducive to the goal of argumentation -- that is coming to a
mutually agreeable solution. Nor is it helpful in helping the other
person understand why you are firm on your position. �Just because� is
not a reason that speaks to the question itself; it is simply a
deflection to authority (legitimate or not)."
mg
Aug 22, 2012, 9:53:35 PM8/22/12
to
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:27:17 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
Rightwingers don't care about statistics or facts. They are true
believers. They would walk a mile around a fact to avoid having to
encounter it.
believers. They would walk a mile around a fact to avoid having to
encounter it.
mg
Aug 22, 2012, 10:14:03 PM8/22/12
to
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:27:49 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
With the Supreme Court's rulling on corporate personhood, which opened
the flood gates for mega contributions to Republican politicians,
right-wingers responded by saying that the amount of contributions a
candidate gets isn't really all that important in determining who
wins. Now we have an interesting situation with El Castor claiming
just the opposite.
As I understand it, incidentally, the Democrats didn't actually
contribute any money to Akin's campaign. What they did was contribute
money to McCaskill's campaign that intimated that he was "too
conservative" and that he had been endorsed by Michele Bachmann and
Mike Huckabee".
http://washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-spent-1.5-mil-to-help-akin-win-gop-primary/article/2505373#.UDWPj6D9trQ
wrote:
the flood gates for mega contributions to Republican politicians,
right-wingers responded by saying that the amount of contributions a
candidate gets isn't really all that important in determining who
wins. Now we have an interesting situation with El Castor claiming
just the opposite.
As I understand it, incidentally, the Democrats didn't actually
contribute any money to Akin's campaign. What they did was contribute
money to McCaskill's campaign that intimated that he was "too
conservative" and that he had been endorsed by Michele Bachmann and
Mike Huckabee".
http://washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-spent-1.5-mil-to-help-akin-win-gop-primary/article/2505373#.UDWPj6D9trQ
mg
Aug 22, 2012, 10:16:05 PM8/22/12
to
0 new messages