derp herp derr, herp derp a hur

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
No, she is interjecting herself into public debate on one side, and she is a moron. Apparently her fellows there chose her to speak, she had papers, no one noticed her gaff in the entire group prior to her making it. I'd say a complete swath of idiots.

I don't know anything about angels blessing rapist's sperm, but there is something to the Missouri candidates "legitimate rape" comment, or so say the two physicians I personally know who have commented on the issue. It has nothing to do with the vagina, however. It is more to do with hormones that are released, or not released because of the rape, that impact fertilization of the egg and the subsequent implantation in the uterus.

A rape reduces chances of conception.
..says a man and male physicians with no uterus..

and which magic hormones are those?

:wall:
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
First, it is impossible to study this under controlled conditions.

From the way things are, many rapes go unreported, and we also know (but aren't supposed to say) that many reported rapes aren't rape at all.

Based on the facts we have, and the inability to question the woman who uses the "r word" as to the validity of her claims.

Then, even in actual, bona fide rapes, they are not all the same; there is the kind where consent is not given, but neither is resistance, then there is the sexual attack that is often as violent as sexual.

This last kind is the type Mr. Akin was talking about, and stupidly called legitimate.

You see, the physiological response to the no consent nor resistance is the same to consensual sex; very often the woman is sexually aroused and wishes to not have sex. Her body reacts different when she is aroused.

The body acts in ways to hinder conception for attack type rapes, she don't get horny.

You aren't allowed to say these things and keep your job, but most physicians know the biochemical hormonal response is different under different conditions, and conception requires a complex blend of those.
Your opinion on rape is as retarded as your opinion on race.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
LOL at the very first poll question.

Smoking doesn't CAUSE cancer. Scientists did not make up this poll, some dummy did.

If smoking CAUSED cancer, then everyone who smokes has cancer. Smoking is a risk factor, nothing more.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
LOL at the very first poll question.

Smoking doesn't CAUSE cancer. Scientists did not make up this poll, some dummy did.

If smoking CAUSED cancer, then everyone who smokes has cancer. Smoking is a risk factor, nothing more.
Derp

Inhaling burned plant material results in benzopyrene deposits in the lungs. Benzopyrene is a carcinogenic compound which comes from lipids under combustion.

Consult a dictionary regarding carcinogen.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Derp

Inhaling burned plant material results in benzopyrene deposits in the lungs. Benzopyrene is a carcinogenic compound which comes from lipids under combustion.

Consult a dictionary regarding carcinogen.
So smoke contains carcinogens, but the actual act of smoking is what causes the cancer?

What are you getting at here?

Smoking doesn't cause cancer, if it did everyone who has ever smoked would have cancer. I smoked for 30 years, I do not have cancer. I am proof that the statement is 100% false.


I looked up the definition of carcinogen as you requested, and nowhere in any of the definitions does it say anything about smoking, so I am not sure what dictionary YOU use, but it isn't one commonly used by anyone in the USA.


Its like saying driving is the cause of vehicle accidents.
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Derp

Inhaling burned plant material results in benzopyrene deposits in the lungs. Benzopyrene is a carcinogenic compound which comes from lipids under combustion.

Consult a dictionary regarding carcinogen.
You're not too bright, brah. Genetics and epigenetic potential cause cancer. Smoking itself isn't the cause. That's like trying to place blame on your parents not letting you go to the park enough to practice basketball, instead of your being too short why you aren't a professional.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
What if you believe the big crunch created the universe rather than the big bang. Does that make one a creation scientist?
Then that must assume a force outside the universe to cause the crunch. If it is outside the universe then the universe is not everything and it all breaks down from that point...
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
You're not too bright, brah. Genetics and epigenetic potential cause cancer. Smoking itself isn't the cause. That's like trying to place blame on your parents not letting you go to the park enough to practice basketball, instead of your being too short why you aren't a professional.
So if my parents don't let me go to the park, I'll get cancer?
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
..says a man and male physicians with no uterus..

and which magic hormones are those?

:wall:
One of them is my sister in law. She is a surgeon. ... which basically means that she made better grades and worked harder than the doctors who deliver babies. She swears emphatically that it's true. She has no penis and is a mother of two.

What bearing does it have, however, on the validity of the claim if made by a male physician?
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
One of them is my sister in law. She is a surgeon. ... which basically means that she made better grades and worked harder than the doctors who deliver babies. She swears emphatically that it's true. She has no penis and is a mother of two.

What bearing does it have, however, on the validity of the claim if made by a male physician?
what bearing? none, now..the fact a female surgeon said this is scary.

she needs to go back to med school or produce citation.

pro tip hint: there is no citation.
 
Top