Major Harris Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 You two need to get your justifications straight. Is it "Oh, we're morally justified to yank a support structure out from under a rape victim, because we're not banning it, it's just about the money"? Or is it "We're protecting innocent life by making people pay for it themselves"? you need to actually read for once and not see what you want to see. do i think that it's really about the money or do i think it's pandering? i think it's pandering. do i think they're trying to re-define rape or deny abortions? no, i don't. now, answer the question larry. are they trying to force anyone to carry a child that they don't want or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 You two need to get your justifications straight. Is it "Oh, we're morally justified to yank a support structure out from under a rape victim, because we're not banning it, it's just about the money"? Or is it "We're protecting innocent life by making people pay for it themselves"?---------- Post added February-2nd-2011 at 11:02 AM ---------- Valid point. If a drunk driver runs into my parked car, I don't expect the government to pay to fix my car. Why?...there can certainly be more than one justification to a bill,and usually is. My money ,My Choice as a aside I would not object to seizing assets of rapists to compensate the victims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 do i think that it's really about the money or do i think it's pandering? i think it's pandering.do i think they're trying to re-define rape or deny abortions? no, i don't. I agree that it's not really about the money, but pandering. However, I do think they are trying (some are trying) to carefully re-define rape in order to deny abortions or at least make them more difficult. Mind you, I'm not opposed to the idea of making abortions difficult. I think it is probably amongst the most serious decisions a person can make and I think that decision should be weighed, wrestled with, and undertaken with the gravest sincerity. Still, I don't think we should pretend a Granny Smith is not an apple because it is a different color than a MacIntosh. Edit: I like the idea of siezing the rapists assets. The only problem with that being that after the trial and appeals, the pregnancy will be either too far along or the kid could be entering high school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Well what other crimes are you prepared to force the taxpayers to fund for the victims?? Murder??, Assault? Libel?Jaywalking? That's a red herring. As I said earlier the victims of rape will get funding from another source. Funding from where? The state level? That's the real red herring, especially since the states are almost without exception cutting the budgets not increasing them. This is such a small amount of money as to not even be an issue considering it only applies to those who are the recipients of gov't health insurance, so don't make this about a fiscal issue when the Republicans waste more money on Congressional toilet paper. Yet the GOP wants to make this sound like it is the make or break issue in the fiscal debate, when the reality is that they are just pandering to a minority of people who are neanderthals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Funding from where? The state level? That's the real red herring, especially since the states are almost without exception cutting the budgets not increasing them. This is such a small amount of money as to not even be an issue considering it only applies to those who are the recipients of gov't health insurance, so don't make this about a fiscal issue when the Republicans waste more money on Congressional toilet paper. Yet the GOP wants to make this sound like it is the make or break issue in the fiscal debate, when the reality is that they are just pandering to a minority of people who are neanderthals. i'd like to see your (and others') response to the first part of his post and not the part about funding from other sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Funding from where? The state level? That's the real red herring, especially since the states are almost without exception cutting the budgets not increasing them. This is such a small amount of money as to not even be an issue considering it only applies to those who are the recipients of gov't health insurance, so don't make this about a fiscal issue when the Republicans waste more money on Congressional toilet paper. Yet the GOP wants to make this sound like it is the make or break issue in the fiscal debate, when the reality is that they are just pandering to a minority of people who are neanderthals. You injected the State not I and what about all those other victims of crimes?? Should we pay for those too or is it just aborts you're crying about?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Well what other crimes are you prepared to force the taxpayers to fund for the victims?? Murder??, Assault? Libel?Jaywalking? That's a red herring. Conservatives in this thread are pretending that this addresses a victim's compensation pool where rape victims get free access to abortion. This is medicaid we're talking about, it's not like all rape victims go to a free abortion clinic. Tell me what happens to indigent assault victims, do we turn them away or are they provided free medical care? Do murdered homeless get tossed in the dumpster? There's a certain level of service provided to crime victims who cannot provide for themselves, the taxpayers are already "forced" to pay for this. As I said earlier the victims of rape will get funding from another source.You make that assertion repeatedly. Just who will provide the funding? If it's public funding, why is that OK if this is not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 You injected the State not I and what about all those other victims of crimes?? Should we pay for those too or is it just aborts you're crying about?? This is about gov't funded medical care. This argument would only make sense if the GOP were also going to stop funding of gunshot victims for those receiving gov't medical care. Are they doing that? No. So go float your red herring elsewhere. BTW, where else do you see this funding coming from if not at the state level? You are sure it will be there so from what source are you certain that this will come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Bur you can't make the victim of rape whole no more than you can undo a grievous wound inflicted,and ending the life of another does not change that. I find it strange we do not allow the victim to kill their rapist after the fact once a clear present danger is past,yet seem to endorse the killing of a bystander in cases no clear risk of danger to the woman's life exist.. Why does society claim the right of judgment and punishment in one case and not the other? The victims go thru quite a bit with a trial and future parole hearings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 i'd like to see your (and others') response to the first part of his post and not the part about funding from other sources. I have responded to that part, now, I'd like to see him address the part about the funding since he brought it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Bur you can't make the victim of rape whole no more than you can undo a grievous wound inflicted,and ending the life of another does not change that. I find it strange we do not allow the victim to kill their rapist after the fact once a clear present danger is past,yet seem to endorse the killing of a bystander in cases no clear risk of danger to the woman's life exist.. Why does society claim the right of judgment and punishment in one case and not the other? The victims go thru quite a bit with a trial and future parole hearings. It's a powerful question without a clear answer. After all these years, I'm still not sure I know the answer to whether there should or shouldn't be abortions. It's easier if you attack it from the pragmatic (there have been abortions even when they were illegal going back centuries. Yet they were often more dangerous) or economically. Morally... humanistically, it's tougher. There are times I think about the unwanted child and the overburdened foster and adoption systems that lead kids down roads to misery. There are times I think about a friend of mine who was adopted and whose parents did not want him. Would the world be better off without him? He contributes and is a positive person in the world. It's just a hard question because we know that many of these kids do become a drain on society's resources and become a danger to its populace. Still, there is nothing more sacred than life no matter how many times we as humanity forget and casually commit murder in all its forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 It's a powerful question without a clear answer. After all these years, I'm still not sure I know the answer to whether there should or shouldn't be abortions. It's easier if you attack it from the pragmatic (there have been abortions even when they were illegal going back centuries. Yet they were often more dangerous) or economically. Morally... humanistically, it's tougher.There are times I think about the unwanted child and the overburdened foster and adoption systems that lead kids down roads to misery. There are times I think about a friend of mine who was adopted and whose parents did not want him. Would the world be better off without him? He contributes and is a positive person in the world. It's just a hard question because we know that many of these kids do become a drain on society's resources and become a danger to its populace. Still, there is nothing more sacred than life no matter how many times we as humanity forget and casually commit murder in all its forms. anecdote here, not really related to the OP: my wife's mother's parents were both dead by the time she turned 5 (she was the youngest of 11). her sister raised her, got married, then died when she was 12 or so. the guy she married continued to raise her and got re-married. my mother-in-law got pregnant with my wife when she was 19. her step-father / brother-in-law (please understand she was from ohio, this isn't a wv thing lol) offered to pay her way through college if she had an abortion, thinking a kid would ruin her. i'm glad she declined. made life tougher on her, for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOALSKIN Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 what with the fragile state of the economy. It would probably be cheaper in the long run if we covered all or at least most of the abortions. When in doubt flush it out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 what with the fragile state of the economy. It would probably be cheaper in the long run if we covered all or at least most of the abortions. When in doubt flush it out! wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 what with the fragile state of the economy. It would probably be cheaper in the long run if we covered all or at least most of the abortions. When in doubt flush it out! We could also exterminate any other burdens on society to our financial benefit....do I get to choose who becomes the next bio-fuel? See I'm green and believe in recycling...If we cease to consider the rights of innocent life MANY things become reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 There is no such thing as non-forcible rape. To me, that's the big issue here. I am not surprised in the slightest that certain GOP elements would love to separate rape into two supposed classes, "forcible" and "non-forcible," and then cut off federal money for one of them. The political machinations are what they always are. The issue is, the idea of "non-forcible" rape is a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of force. It's being deliberately misused. She didn't, or couldn't, legally say yes. You did it anyway. That's force. The end. If you beat her up or broke her arm or held her down, that's even worse. But black eyes, guns, cracked ribs, physical threats or pelvic injuries aren't requirements for rape to have been forcible. It was forcible as soon as you ignored the fact that she either couldn't or wouldn't legally consent to sex. If this bill's idea of "forcible" was actually defined, this entire attempt would immediately fall apart because there's nothing you can put on the "non-forcible" side of the line. They might as well try to classify rape as "sexual" vs. "non-sexual" simply because the crime is sometimes about power more than about sex itself. The distinction is pointless and meaningless when the woman ends up pregnant with her attacker's child. You wouldn't withhold federal abortion funding based on the rapist's particular "sex crime" vs. "power crime" behavioral intent. That would make no sense. So why would you withhold federal abortion funding based on the rapist's particular criminal method? Just as rape is always sexual, it's always achieved by force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 There is no such thing as non-forcible rape. To me, that's the big issue here.I am not surprised in the slightest that certain GOP elements would love to separate rape into two supposed classes, "forcible" and "non-forcible," and then cut off federal money for one of them. The political machinations are what they always are. The issue is, the idea of "non-forcible" rape is a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of force. It's being deliberately misused. She didn't, or couldn't, legally say yes. You did it anyway. That's force. The end. If you beat her up or broke her arm or held her down, that's even worse. But black eyes, guns, cracked ribs, physical threats or pelvic injuries aren't requirements for rape to have been forcible. It was forcible as soon as you ignored the fact that she either couldn't or wouldn't legally consent to sex. If this bill's idea of "forcible" was actually defined, this entire attempt would immediately fall apart because there's nothing you can put on the "non-forcible" side of the line. They might as well try to classify rape as "sexual" vs. "non-sexual" simply because the crime is sometimes about power more than about sex itself. The distinction is pointless and meaningless when the woman ends up pregnant with her attacker's child. You wouldn't withhold federal abortion funding based on the rapist's particular "sex crime" vs. "power crime" behavioral intent. That would make no sense. So why would you withhold federal abortion funding based on the rapist's particular criminal method? Just as rape is always sexual, it's always achieved by force. are you saying that the "morning after regret" "rape" is a myth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 now, answer the question larry. are they trying to force anyone to carry a child that they don't want or no? The law does not in any way change the laws concerning the availability of abortions. In the really unlikely event that it passes, is there a slim change that somewhere there will be a rape victim who is unable to pay for her own abortion? I assume that it would happen, occasionally. But that would be a rare event. No, it certainly would not be fair to refer to the law as banning abortions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 WE WERE DUPED!!!!!!! Asbury Skins Fan and his idiot sources. HR 3 very clearly pays for abortions from: ‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or ‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. END OF THREAD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOALSKIN Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 We could also exterminate any other burdens on society to our financial benefit....do I get to choose who becomes the next bio-fuel?See I'm green and believe in recycling...If we cease to consider the rights of innocent life MANY things become reasonable. Define innocent life? Is innocent life child caught in the cross fire of a war? is innocent life a cow brought in for slaughter? Or is innocent life a whale being killed for research? It all falls under the same guise. Collateral damage! **** happens and when you clean it up it stinks. No one loves abortion, but sometimes in life you have to hit the reset button. It works out for the best! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 WE WERE DUPED!!!!!!!Asbury Skins Fan and his idiot sources. HR 3 very clearly pays for abortions from: ‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or ‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. END OF THREAD! Hello, the debate has centered around using the term "forcible rape." It is ridiculous language as has been pointed out, but here is the definition of the word rape: The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/raping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Define innocent life? Is innocent life child caught in the cross fire of a war? is innocent life a cow brought in for slaughter? Or is innocent life a whale being killed for research? It all falls under the same guise. Collateral damage! **** happens and when you clean it up it stinks. No one loves abortion, but sometimes in life you have to hit the reset button. It works out for the best! Someones parents didn't love them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Hello, the debate has centered around using the term "forcible rape." It is ridiculous language as has been pointed out, but here is the definition of the word rape: The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/raping Forcible rape means rape. There is nothing in the bill that defines anything else. If a woman claims rape she gets her abortion. Talk about red herrings. The whole bill is to stop paying for abortions of convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Then what's the point... what's the reasoning behind adding the language "forcible" into the law. They're not doing it because the laws are too short and have to fill a new word quota. There is a purpose behind adding that language. I suppose the one case of rape that might not be forcible is concenual sex between an 18 year old and a 17 year old. Legally, that can still be considered statuatory rape (depending on the state), but I'm not sure if that really constitutes a "rape" or an act of force and power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 WE WERE DUPED!!!!!!!Asbury Skins Fan and his idiot sources. HR 3 very clearly pays for abortions from: ‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or ‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. END OF THREAD! Didn't read your own post, did you? A 45 year old performs statutory rape on a 13 year old. The law, as you've described it, denies funding. (Unless the rapist is her father or uncle.) A woman is drugged (without her knowledge) and raped while unconscious. The law, as you've described it, denies funding. But nice try, anyway. (And the fact that it does cover incest is additional information.) ---------- Post added February-2nd-2011 at 02:03 PM ---------- Forcible rape means rape. So in your opinion, the GOP is changing the law, and have no reason whatsoever for doing so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.