JimboDaMan Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 are you saying that the "morning after regret" "rape" is a myth?If that's what it sounded like he said you should immediately make an appointment with the doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 If that's what it sounded like he said you should immediately make an appointment with the doctor. so morning after regret is rape or no? it gets labeled as such, but i wouldn't say its' "forcible" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 so morning after regret is rape or no? it gets labeled as such, but i wouldn't say its' "forcible" I worry about this as a category of rape. I think that there are so many more who don't step forward and admit that they have been sexually assaulted. I'm certain "morning regret happens, but I suspect it's a very, very small percentage. And it almost feels like a neighbor to... "Look how she dressed. She must have wanted it." I just think that the history and stigma of rape leads to far more people not reporting than false accusations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 are you saying that the "morning after regret" "rape" is a myth? This question has nothing to do with what I posted. At all. You're talking about false allegations of rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 This question has nothing to do with what I posted.At all. You're talking about false allegations of rape. fair enough. same response to burg. guess i did something i always admonish and read too much into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 so morning after regret is rape or no? it gets labeled as such, but i wouldn't say its' "forcible"Depends on what you mean. "I did something stupid and now I regret it" does not constitute rape. Sex with someone so drunk they can't think clearly is probably rape - although if BOTH parties are ess-faced I can't see charging only the male when they both had impaired judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Depends on what you mean. "I did something stupid and now I regret it" does not constitute rape. Sex with someone so drunk they can't think clearly is probably rape - although if BOTH parties are ess-faced I can't see charging only the male when they both had impaired judgement. see my previous post. i was thinking too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 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 We have billboards around here from lawyers offereing services for suing rapists. There's always a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 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. If you've been duped then why did the GOP add the adjective "forcible"? If it means nothing then why change it? It is a clear separation of types of rape one for which there is no clear legal definition. But, you keep pretending that the Republicans aren't really doing anything. The reality is that the only reason they are passing this through is so in 2012 they can scream that the Democrats want to use tax payer money to fund abortions on demand. END OF THREAD! Yeah, these never work. Nice try though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 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? You are incorrect again.. they would only stop funding non-Violent gunshot victims. Please stop reading the daily beast... it will help all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 You are incorrect again.. they would only stop funding non-Violent gunshot victims. Honestly I don't even know where to start with this. Please stop reading the daily beast... it will help all of us. As for this, I think the interpretation is most accurate stated as "Please stop reading the daily beast... it will help all of us on the Right". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 :As for this, I think the interpretation is most accurate stated as "Please stop reading the daily beast... it will help all of us on the Right". I don't know much about the Daily Beast, but it sounds like a site with a mission. As much as we rightly criticize FOX and the use of other "biased" sourcing... it's fair if they do to. (Assuming the Daily Beast is a left slanted rag... if it's not, then TB is being silly) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa 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! I guess I should clarify human life since we seem attached to it. Is abortion war?...personally I wouldn't mind hitting the reset button on a number of people, strangely enough the law and society frowns on it and denies me choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Depends on what you mean. "I did something stupid and now I regret it" does not constitute rape. Sex with someone so drunk they can't think clearly is probably rape - although if BOTH parties are ess-faced I can't see charging only the male when they both had impaired judgement. So I not only have to be responsible for my own actions, but for hers as well? Interesting. Maybe I should get some say when it comes to abortion in that case. Since that's the only argument I've heard against giving men rights where abortion is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 I don't know much about the Daily Beast, but it sounds like a site with a mission. As much as we rightly criticize FOX and the use of other "biased" sourcing... it's fair if they do to. (Assuming the Daily Beast is a left slanted rag... if it's not, then TB is being silly) I haven't been reading them very long, and they were one of the recommended sites in the thread I posted last week looking for good online news sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I can't wait till tonight's Daily Show is online to post the link here. They slammed this bill. It was brilliant. Here is the Daily Show link slamming this bill: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-2-2011/rape-victim-abortion-funding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I can't wait till tonight's Daily Show is online to post the link here. They slammed this bill. It was brilliant. I also thought of this thread when seeing that skit. They about summed it all up for me. I am interested to know if the figure they used was accurate, that this will save approximately 0.02 cents per taxpayer. I think that's cutting around (or less than) $100,000 from the budget. The fed govt probably spends more than that on shoelaces. Nice to know the Republicans are getting down to the tough work of lowering the deficit I try to be open-minded about a lot of things, but the people who are against abortion even in cases of rape boggle my mind. Forcing a woman to carry her rapist's baby (which I know this bill doesn't do) is beyond cruel and unusual. It's immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOALSKIN Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I guess I should clarify human life since we seem attached to it.Is abortion war?...personally I wouldn't mind hitting the reset button on a number of people, strangely enough the law and society frowns on it and denies me choice. What about Capital Punishment? All the pro lifers tend to over look that one in their dispute. If we can terminate full term life why cant we terminate embryonic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 What about Capital Punishment? All the pro lifers tend to over look that one in their dispute. If we can terminate full term life why cant we terminate embryonic? i'm undecided on the death penalty, probably lean against it. but when a fetus brutally murders someone, let me know, and we can remove the straw man tag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 What about Capital Punishment? All the pro lifers tend to over look that one in their dispute. If we can terminate full term life why cant we terminate embryonic? Are you suggesting subjecting abortion to the same stringent review process? Even ending terminal patients lives is heavily restricted I'll go along with it ---------- Post added February-3rd-2011 at 10:10 AM ---------- I try to be open-minded about a lot of things, but the people who are against abortion even in cases of rape boggle my mind. Forcing a woman to carry her rapist's baby (which I know this bill doesn't do) is beyond cruel and unusual. It's immoral. I agree it can certainly be,but that does not change the immorality of ending innocent life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Looks like they've changed their mind: BREAKING: 'FORCIBLE RAPE' PROVISION TO CHANGE -- House Republicans plan to sidestep a potentially contentious fight over the definition of rape by altering the language of a bill banning taxpayer subsidies for abortion, GOP aides tell Huddle. As written, the bill provides an exemption from the abortion ban "if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape," as well as in the case of incest involving a minor or the endangerment of the mother. The inclusion of the modifier "forcible" set off a firestorm among women's rights groups. "The phrase forcible rape was abandoned some time ago, and there is some indication that what they would be trying to do is make women jump over an additional hurdle if they want to get an abortion," Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) told POLITICO this week. Some worry that the term would exclude some forms of rape, including statutory rape that isn't accompanied by violence. "The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment," Jeff Sagnip, spokesman for bill sponsor Chris Smith (R-N.J.), said. One senior GOP aide told Huddle it's a no-brainer to get rid of the modifier. "Such a removal would be a good idea, since last I checked, rape by definition is non-consensual," the aide said. Also, it's easy to see why Republican leaders might want to avoid a floor debate over the definition of rape. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart spent several minutes of air time mocking the distinction between "rape" and "forcible rape" Wednesday night. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I agree it can certainly be,but that does not change the immorality of ending innocent life. No it doesn't. It's not an easy answer, so you have to weigh the alternatives and come out on one side or the other, and decide where you're willing to draw a line. If a woman has strong convictions about it and WANTS to carry a baby in that scenario, more power to them. But anyone who comes out of that decision in favor of forcing 9 months of emotional and psychological torture on a rape victim...I mean, I just can't comprehend it. Looks like they've changed their mind:Link Good for them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Bliz that is why the majority of abortion opponents favor allowing that exception as well. My question is should the govt pay for it if there is not clear risk of life? I am glad they dropped that stupid modifier,it detracts from real issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Question if protecting these babies are important are we also going to have laws about what a mother can ingest also in order to protect the children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Question if protecting these babies are important are we also going to have laws about what a mother can ingest also in order to protect the children? Back to intent ...We have laws forbidding taking certain substances already. We also have laws about you taking things to kill yourself or that are judged harmful (not that they are real effective,but it can get ya committed or jailed) So we have laws to protect you and those in your care...yet abortion is a free choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.