Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

liberal N proud

(60,334 posts)
Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:19 PM Jun 2013

Another week, another awkward remark about pregnancy from a Republican lawmaker.

Last week, it was Rep. Trent Franks' comments about the frequency of pregnancy from rape, the validity and meaning of which have been subject to a tediously hair-spliting debate. This week, it's Rep. Michael Burgess, a Texan, with this:

Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful. They stroke their face. If they're a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?


First, what is Burgess referring to directly? As The Atlantic Wire's Alex Abad-Santos thinks Burgess was talking about a 1996 letter to the The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. It's not available online, but Abad-Santos posted this excerpt:



http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/the-point-michael-burgess-was-trying-to-make-about-fetal-masturbation/276975/


They really need to just shut up now!
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Another week, another awkward remark about pregnancy from a Republican lawmaker. (Original Post) liberal N proud Jun 2013 OP
Sounds like they're dealing in child pornography Orrex Jun 2013 #1
I've heard of child pornography, but FETAL porn? How sick is that? meow2u3 Jun 2013 #2
"Awkward"? You're very charitable. Scuba Jun 2013 #3
Blech! Just Saying Jun 2013 #4

Orrex

(63,208 posts)
1. Sounds like they're dealing in child pornography
Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:22 PM
Jun 2013

If they're studying video of a 15-week old fetus masturbating, and if a fetus is a fully realized human being, then it's clear that they're engaged in some prenatal voyeurism.

Has anyone alerted the FBI?

meow2u3

(24,761 posts)
2. I've heard of child pornography, but FETAL porn? How sick is that?
Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:24 PM
Jun 2013

Burgess must really be a perv. He needs to be brought up on child, er, fetal porn charges and kicked the hell out of Congress.

While they're at it, the Feds ought to charge every teabagger with kiddie porn. They're a danger to women and children.

Just Saying

(1,799 posts)
4. Blech!
Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:28 PM
Jun 2013

Seems like he's getting off on describing it. First off, has he ever seen the muscle control of an infant? (Let alone a fetus!) I'm not a doctor but from my experience aside from sucking, infants have very little physical ability to complete a task. It took awhile for my boys to figure out how to get their own thumb into their mouths on a regular basis.

Second there is something very sick about all of these people sitting around for 20 minutes imagining they're watching a fetus masterbate.

I'm pretty disgusted by this new method the GOP is using to attempt to further their war on women. And I don't believe it for a minute!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Another week, another awk...