{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/16/2014 4:56:01 PM
26
[quote]Todd Akin, GOP Senate candidate: ‘Legitimate -blam!-’ rarely causes pregnancy
[/quote]
Do the GOP actually believe what this crap?
English
-
The difference here is that Todd Akin was about to win before those comments and lost reelection after them, Feinstein has been saying garbage like this for years and people still vote for her.
-
Feinstein also runs unopposed so people don't have the chance to vote for anyone else.
-
People writing down names is better than voting for her. It would at least show that she doesn't have the support she once had and that would show others that they have a good chance at defeating her in the next election.
-
Said person still has to announce candidacy. You can't voluntell people who have expressed no public desire to participate. Basically everyone is waiting for her to either die off or retire. One of which should happen in the near future. The financial cost of running against her isn't worth what you'd get out of it. Both in a primary and in a general election.
-
Imagine being named something like "Taylor Smith", being the only Taylor Smith in the area, and being elected to congress without knowing it?
-
But thats factually true.....
-
But, he doesn't have any facts of his own, so he's just gonna sit there butthurt.
-
Your source being?
-
I'd post a few, but it seems that Forum Cop has already done that and you still don't care. Just a typical liberal, even with facts directly in your face, you still don't care.
-
[quote]I'd post a few, but it seems that Forum Cop has already done that and you still don't care. [/quote] Because the first post was from 1996, and the second had to no sources to back up the stats on the website. Right.
-
I'll repost that link, and it does provide sources. Unless that is too long of a read for you.
-
[quote] The most widely cited study of this question (embedded below) was published in 1996 by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology,[/quote] Again, 1996. The next one is from 2002, still well over a decade ago. If you want to support your side, at least get data that wasn't around before the modern cell phone.
-
Well, not many people do studies on this. Also, this data is still relevant today because nothing has happened that would affect the outcome. Women ovulate the same, men ejaculate the same, and sperm fertilize eggs the same. If anything the rate would go down because of awareness. So unless you plan to tell me that the reproductive systems of humans have changed in the past 5 years, my argument stands.
-
You keep asking for sources and not providing any of your own ...
-
It's my job to prove it.
-
The rate is about 5%.
-
Edited by Icy Wind: 6/16/2014 5:02:16 PM
-
Edited by A Forum Cop: 6/16/2014 5:05:37 PMPlease elaborate? Edit: [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248]link[/url]
-
[quote]1996 Aug;17[/quote] Something from this millennia, please.
-
Edited by A Forum Cop: 6/16/2014 5:14:27 PMEdit: My first linked study is the most recent and most trusted study on the subject.
-
And where are the sources for those numbers?
-
Here is a washington post article that says the number is 6.2%, so much higher. Also, you have yet to provide any evidence, at all.
-
Edited by Lord Commissar: 6/16/2014 5:54:12 PMHere's the thing though. Even though it's 6.2% that rate is still double that of the rate of consensual one time intercourse. The reason being is that (theoretically) rapists are subconsciously targeting women who are in a period of higher fertility while women who engage in consensual intercourse are choosing when to have it. [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/20/study--blam!--victims-have-a-higher-pregnancy-rates-than-other-women/]Source[/url]
-
1) That link doesn't work. 2) (theoretically)
-
I have no idea why it's not working to be honest. Also the reason as to why -blam!-s are twice as likely to result in pregnancy is currently unknown. So of course it's all theoretical at the moment. And yes when you're comparing pregnancy rates that 6.2% is actually pretty high considering that a single session of consensual intercourse typically has a 3.1% chance. Like a clever marketer though he manipulated peoples lack of understanding of the subject to downplay the issue and push his own agenda.
