Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
This thread is locked

H.R.3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion ActFollow

#1 Feb 02 2011 at 9:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,946 posts
Tricksy House Republicans!

Read the story on a friend's facebook wall, and of course I thought it was exaggerating the issue. Republicans want to redefine rape to not include being drugged, statutorily, or threatened and then raped? No way!

Actually, pretty much yes. Apparently in an effort to narrow rape definitions and thus stop federal funding for abortions, House Rep Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced an act that would narrow the Hyde Amendment's definitions of rape when it comes to federal funding to exclude the following:
women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator,
women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped,
minors impregnated by adults


The language itself only allows funds in the case of forcible rape (marks are left and woman tries to fight back) or statutory only if its by incest.

Keeping it classy, there are already 173 co-sponsors from the House. But while it stands a decent chance of passing the House, it will likely die in the Senate. Much ado about nothing, but another good example of what Varus would love.

Also fun to note that I lined up a list of the cosponsors and the Tea Party caucus. 39 of the 53 members are cosponsors. Yes, I'm sure they're just fiscal conservatives, not social conservatives Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Feb 8th 2011 1:08pm by Kaolian Lock Thread: Post in thread potential evidence for a lawsuit / legal action.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#2 Feb 02 2011 at 9:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
11,967 posts
I, always being one to try and give most people the benefit of the doubt...as well as one to assume ignorance over malice, can see how someone might vote for such a measure without complete understanding of what exactly they're voting for (especially if they tend to listen to Republican talking points on the issue). I am, however, amazed that someone could have written it...actually written those words down, and not immediately burst in to flames.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#3 Feb 02 2011 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
******
30,642 posts
That's sick. That's about all I have to say about that.
#4varusword75, Posted: Feb 02 2011 at 9:43 AM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Locked,
#5 Feb 02 2011 at 9:44 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,642 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator,
women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped,
minors impregnated by adults



Good we don't need to be funding abortions for sluts and whores.



You go too far, Varus.
#6 Feb 02 2011 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
I'm all for modifying statutory rape, but removing it altogether? Well, it's as ridiculous as the rest of this.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#7varusword75, Posted: Feb 02 2011 at 9:58 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#8 Feb 02 2011 at 10:19 AM Rating: Decent
******
30,642 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
You go too far, Varus.


I don't care what the excuse. The US govn should not be in the business of funding murdering babies; wherever they come from or however they're conceived. Life is life. Once you start justifying why one is more important than another then you end up with a society filled with people who don't value life or anything else outside of when they're getting their next govn check.


Justify your woman-hating, Varus. Go ahead. It must make you feel better.
#9 Feb 02 2011 at 10:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
You go too far, Varus.


I don't care what the excuse. The US govn should not be in the business of funding murdering babies; wherever they come from or however they're conceived. Life is life. Once you start justifying why one is more important than another then you end up with a society filled with people who don't value life or anything else outside of when they're getting their next govn check.


Justify your woman-hating, Varus. Go ahead. It must make you feel better.


He hates those whores because they're not impressed by his car and want to charge him the way they charge everyone else.
#10varusword75, Posted: Feb 02 2011 at 10:47 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nadenu,
#11 Feb 02 2011 at 10:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Good we don't need to be funding abortions for sluts and whores.

Zzzzz....
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Feb 02 2011 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Nadenu,

Quote:
He hates those whores because they're not impressed by his car and want to charge him the way they charge everyone else.


Why do you like murdering babies?
Great taste.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#13 Feb 02 2011 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Less filling.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#14 Feb 02 2011 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Babies; everything you've always wanted in a meal ... and less.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Feb 02 2011 at 11:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
The other other white meat.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#16 Feb 02 2011 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Nadenu,

Quote:
He hates those whores because they're not impressed by his car and want to charge him the way they charge everyone else.


Why do you like murdering babies?


What else am I going to do on a Saturday night?

Also, I missed one. My youngest son it about to turn 9. Too late to abort?
#17 Feb 02 2011 at 11:49 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Nadenu wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Nadenu,

Quote:
He hates those whores because they're not impressed by his car and want to charge him the way they charge everyone else.


Why do you like murdering babies?


What else am I going to do on a Saturday night?

Also, I missed one. My youngest son it about to turn 9. Too late to abort?
I wouldn't worry about it. Isn't there a State where you can just drop your kids off at an orphanage or something like that?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#18 Feb 02 2011 at 11:57 AM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Also, I missed one.

So did Varus's mom. Too late to abort?
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#19 Feb 02 2011 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,045 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Also, I missed one.

So did Varus's mom. Too late to abort?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLFNnQIBhg

Couldn't find the whole clip.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#20 Feb 02 2011 at 2:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,952 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Also, I missed one.

So did Varus's mom. Too late to abort?


No.

I'll start up the Delorean.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#21 Feb 02 2011 at 2:12 PM Rating: Good
Here I thought the GOP was gonna be all about "jobs and the economy", like they campaigned on. Nice to see it's business as usual in DC.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#22 Feb 02 2011 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
varusword75 wrote:
I don't care what the excuse. The US govn should not be in the business of funding murdering babies; wherever they come from or however they're conceived. Life is life. Once you start justifying why one is more important than another then you end up with a society filled with people who don't value life or anything else outside of when they're getting their next govn check.


How do you reconcile that with our wars in the Middle East (or anywhere for that matter)?
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#23varusword75, Posted: Feb 02 2011 at 4:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Techno,
#24 Feb 02 2011 at 4:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,952 posts
varusword75 wrote:


Quote:
How do you reconcile that with our wars in the Middle East


Self-defense. We kill them before they can come over here and kill us; you know like on 911.


Which is why we didn't use any more diplomatic measures, as well as invaded places that were unaffiliated?
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#25 Feb 02 2011 at 5:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,792 posts
varusword75 wrote:


Self-defense. We kill them before they can come over here and kill us; you know like on 911.



We should kill as many babies as possible so they don't grow up to kill us!
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#26gbaji, Posted: Feb 02 2011 at 6:23 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Holy overreaction Batman!
#27 Feb 02 2011 at 6:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Right. So if you're drugged and raped, it's your own **** problem. You should have gotten raped the old fashioned way, with a tire iron to the head, ya dumb whore. Anyway... money in my pocket thanks to the GOP!

Ka-Ching!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Feb 02 2011 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,946 posts
gbaji wrote:
Holy overreaction Batman!

Guys. They are only redefining rape as it's used when determining if an abortion can be funded with federal dollars. They aren't redefining all legal criteria for rape everywhere for everyone. Read past the alarmist rhetoric being tossed around by left wing bloggers and apply a bit of reason.

If you stop and think about it, there's a great deal of logic here. If we accept the premise (I'm not asking for agreement!) that the objective here is to prevent federal health care dollars from funding abortion to the greatest degree possible, these restrictions are quite reasonable. Republicans don't want to pay for 15 year olds to have abortions. So not paying for cases of statutory (but voluntary) rape is reasonable. That the word "rape" is used here doesn't mean the same thing. We make exceptions for cases where the woman had no choice, not ones where she made a bad choice.

Same thing with non-forcible date-rape. Without any tangible evidence required, anyone can claim this. And if you give them a financial incentive to do so, more will make false claims just to get their abortion funded. That's kinda the exact opposite of the point here, and causes a significant side problem as well.


I think this is one of those things that can be made out to look really bad, but if you stop and look at it, it isn't bad and actually makes a **** of a lot of sense.


Holy **** gbaji's really off his meds.

Getting drugged, getting raped while underage, or being threatened and raped are "bad decisions"? Really, gbaji? Really?
REALLY?
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#29 Feb 02 2011 at 7:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hey, I'll even meet halfway on this. If it said "statutory rape in which both parties claimed consent", I wouldn't have much problem with it. Although I'd probably also want a "...and the female was 14 or older" in there.

Saying that it's not real enough rape to qualify if the victim was drugged or threatened or not beaten enough to pass GOP muster is asinine. Particularly since these criteria are enough to qualify for a criminal investigation to arrest and imprison someone for rape but aren't good enough to drop a couple pennies on without assuming that the victim is probably some liar trying to get that sweet, sweet federal abortion cash.

Edit to add, this thread deserves a...
gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry, but if there's no signs of struggle, you weren't raped. You just made a bad choice. Deal with it...
[...]
What "date rape" is, is when a woman has **** with someone but says she didn't really want to.


Edited, Feb 2nd 2011 7:09pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Feb 02 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Hey, I'll even meet halfway on this. If it said "statutory rape in which both parties claimed consent", I wouldn't have much problem with it. Although I'd probably also want a "...and the female was 14 or older" in there.

Saying that it's not real enough rape to qualify if the victim was drugged or threatened or not beaten enough to pass GOP muster is asinine. Particularly since these criteria are enough to qualify for a criminal investigation to arrest and imprison someone for rape but aren't good enough to drop a couple pennies on without assuming that the victim is probably some liar trying to get that sweet, sweet federal abortion cash.


This. Like I said earlier, I'm ok with modifications to statutory rape, like the one mentioned here, but the rest is utter crap.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#31ThiefX, Posted: Feb 02 2011 at 7:55 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Typical liberals......
#32gbaji, Posted: Feb 02 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) From a third party's perspective, that is exactly correct though. Absent any evidence of a crime, there isn't a crime that we can prosecute, is there? Unless you're tossing out the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty that is? So what you're arguing is that we should further encourage women to press charges in cases like this, when there's no evidence of a crime and no way to render any sort of verdict other than "not guilty" without violating the core principles of our legal system, because if she does so, she can get her abortion paid for?
#33 Feb 02 2011 at 8:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,946 posts
gbaji wrote:

I'll also note that no one really responded to my point about how providing an economic incentive will result in an increase in false claims of date rape. You all just tossed outrage at me instead. Nice!

So since this definition has been standard for years now*, you obviously have some solid data reflecting this, right? I mean, there's no "maybe" about it in your statement: if you let women get an abortion using federal monies, it will increase false claims of rape. So show us the data, bud.

Quote:

I wrote:
What "date rape" is, is when a woman has **** with someone but says she didn't really want to.

Yeah, as was pointed out to you a long, long time ago, that's not what date rape is. Apparently you didn't understand this in 2005 and still don't understand it in 2011.
Smiley: oyvey

*Since 1976, in fact.

Edited, Feb 2nd 2011 9:12pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#34 Feb 02 2011 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good
******
30,642 posts
gbaji wrote:
Holy overreaction Batman!

Guys. They are only redefining rape as it's used when determining if an abortion can be funded with federal dollars. They aren't redefining all legal criteria for rape everywhere for everyone. Read past the alarmist rhetoric being tossed around by left wing bloggers and apply a bit of reason.

If you stop and think about it, there's a great deal of logic here. If we accept the premise (I'm not asking for agreement!) that the objective here is to prevent federal health care dollars from funding abortion to the greatest degree possible, these restrictions are quite reasonable. Republicans don't want to pay for 15 year olds to have abortions. So not paying for cases of statutory (but voluntary) rape is reasonable. That the word "rape" is used here doesn't mean the same thing. We make exceptions for cases where the woman had no choice, not ones where she made a bad choice.

Same thing with non-forcible date-rape. Without any tangible evidence required, anyone can claim this. And if you give them a financial incentive to do so, more will make false claims just to get their abortion funded. That's kinda the exact opposite of the point here, and causes a significant side problem as well.


I think this is one of those things that can be made out to look really bad, but if you stop and look at it, it isn't bad and actually makes a **** of a lot of sense.


No. It doesn't make any sense. You sound like Varus here.
#35 Feb 02 2011 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
******
30,642 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'll also note that no one really responded to my point about how providing an economic incentive will result in an increase in false claims of date rape. You all just tossed outrage at me instead. Nice!


Mostly because it was just as ridiculous as the rest of the diarrhea you typed.
#36 Feb 02 2011 at 9:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
We're talking about real enough to qualify for government funds for an abortion, not whether it's real enough to result in other charges.

Yeah, the point being that if it's "real" enough to count as a criminal offense, it should be real enough to qualify for funding.

Quote:
Stop playing emotional rhetoric games. Stop pretending to be shocked because I'm speaking the truth.

Shocked? Really? Shocked that you'd type something jack-stupid? I don't think you know what "shocked" means?

Quote:
The reality is that you can't get a conviction in those cases. Ever.

I'll do us both the favor of just laughing at you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Feb 02 2011 at 10:39 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,094 posts
I can't believe gbaji has amassed 23k posts and still argues this much. Nothing against the guy, it's just amazing to me.

gbaji makes some sense....not a lot though. Seems like he just changes the subject and argues about slightly different things rather than straight up disagreeing and explaining. I think it's good he hangs around, a forum is all about different opinions. I need one of those kitty cat posters, hanginthere.jpg.

gbaji wrote:
Guys. They are only redefining rape as it's used when determining if an abortion can be funded with federal dollars. They aren't redefining all legal criteria for rape everywhere for everyone. Read past the alarmist rhetoric being tossed around by left wing bloggers and apply a bit of reason.


So close, and yet so far away. I think there's a valid point here. Federal abortions aren't a right, they're just a socialist program to provide abortions for those who didn't want the baby, right? Then the government can decide how to give out those abortions - like Santa with presents.

I still disagree with this whole thing, but I see what gbaji is talking about.

LockeColeMA wrote:

Actually, pretty much yes. Apparently in an effort to narrow rape definitions and thus stop federal funding for abortions, House Rep Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced an act that would narrow the Hyde Amendment's definitions of rape when it comes to federal funding to exclude the following:
women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator,
women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped,
minors impregnated by adults


Disagree with the first one, there's lots of reasons there may not be signs of physical struggle.
Drugged? Disagree...if someone is drugged, then they can't fight it? Can't voice their opinion?
What the? No free abortions for kids? Do these Republicans hate federal abortions so much that they want minors to go through the trauma of a young pregnancy? (Plus maybe they aren't ready/can't support a baby, etc.)

I think just comes down to those Republicans being fussy. I think some people in this world, especially the ones that run our country, just need to learn how to calm down a bit and accept that there are things they don't like.

Edit - Also, how the **** do you pronounce gbaji? Bah-jee? Gib-ahh-jee? (Sharp or soft G sound? Grow or damage?)

Edited, Feb 2nd 2011 11:41pm by CestinShaman

Edited, Feb 2nd 2011 11:45pm by CestinShaman
#38 Feb 02 2011 at 10:43 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Nothing against the guy


Oh, there's plenty against him if you bother to keep score.

Quote:
Also, how the **** do you pronounce gbaji? Bah-jee? Gib-ahh-jee? (Sharp or soft G sound? Grow or damage?)


Finally, gbaji might offer some insight that people actually want to hear.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#39 Feb 02 2011 at 11:00 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Hey, I'll even meet halfway on this. If it said "statutory rape in which both parties claimed consent", I wouldn't have much problem with it. Although I'd probably also want a "...and the female was 14 or older" in there.

Saying that it's not real enough rape to qualify if the victim was drugged or threatened or not beaten enough to pass GOP muster is asinine. Particularly since these criteria are enough to qualify for a criminal investigation to arrest and imprison someone for rape but aren't good enough to drop a couple pennies on without assuming that the victim is probably some liar trying to get that sweet, sweet federal abortion cash.


This. Like I said earlier, I'm ok with modifications to statutory rape, like the one mentioned here, but the rest is utter crap.

Just an amendment to this, Id say 14 years or under, boys can fall into statutory rape, just ask the catholic church.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#40 Feb 02 2011 at 11:35 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,952 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Hey, I'll even meet halfway on this. If it said "statutory rape in which both parties claimed consent", I wouldn't have much problem with it. Although I'd probably also want a "...and the female was 14 or older" in there.


Naww, I'd honestly not leave in that caveat. If it's mutual consent, it's consensual, if complications arise, one or both party involved should deal with it. If it's not, well, fine the offender, after conviction, or use federal monies to cover it should the resources not be available or no conviction made, to cover it prior to payment. Relatively simple, fair and causes least possible harm, as a governmental structure should.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#41 Feb 03 2011 at 5:47 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
The thing is, until a few weeks ago I never even knew the government would pay for abortions ever. I bet I'm not alone in that either.
#42 Feb 03 2011 at 9:23 AM Rating: Good
******
30,642 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Hey, I'll even meet halfway on this. If it said "statutory rape in which both parties claimed consent", I wouldn't have much problem with it. Although I'd probably also want a "...and the female was 14 or older" in there.

Saying that it's not real enough rape to qualify if the victim was drugged or threatened or not beaten enough to pass GOP muster is asinine. Particularly since these criteria are enough to qualify for a criminal investigation to arrest and imprison someone for rape but aren't good enough to drop a couple pennies on without assuming that the victim is probably some liar trying to get that sweet, sweet federal abortion cash.


This. Like I said earlier, I'm ok with modifications to statutory rape, like the one mentioned here, but the rest is utter crap.

Just an amendment to this, Id say 14 years or under, boys can fall into statutory rape, just ask the catholic church.


Boys can't have abortions, though. And, as gbaji pointed out, this isn't about the criminal act of rape, simply the "no taxpayer funding for abortion act."
#43 Feb 03 2011 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
It's funny how Gbaji loves to talk about "slippery slopes" when it's something he disagrees with. Somehow he doesn't see this as one, which could push it's way into the legal, criminal definition if passed. Don't you seeeeee, it's OBVIOUS!!!!
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#44varusword75, Posted: Feb 03 2011 at 10:23 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm curious why you liberals think any abortion should be funded by the govn.
#45 Feb 03 2011 at 10:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
varusword75 wrote:
I'm curious why you liberals think any abortion should be funded by the govn.
I don't know about the liberals, but for me, it's because it costs less to feed and clothes them when they become a ward of the state, which is quite likely given any child that would have been aborted is unwanted.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#46 Feb 03 2011 at 10:27 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
I'm curious why you liberals think any abortion should be funded by the govn.

Because it's a legal medical procedure and if we're funding other medical procedures in whatever scenarios (low income, veteran benefits, etc) I don't see a reason for distinction between this legal procedure and any other legal procedure.

There may be valid reasons to say a procedure should not apply for funding (elective cosmetic surgery for example) but the plain boogeyman of "It's abortion!" fails to sway me. Since the status quo is already as it is, the onus is on you to explain to me why it should be excluded, not on me to defend it.

Edited, Feb 3rd 2011 10:32am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47varusword75, Posted: Feb 03 2011 at 10:53 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#48varusword75, Posted: Feb 03 2011 at 10:55 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ugly,
#49 Feb 03 2011 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,

Quote:
it's because it costs less


It's a shame you don't apply this logic to other arguments that don't include cutting military spending.



It's a shame you don't actually pay attention to anything. I'm not pro defunding of the military. But, because I support the need for some of the liberals' social programs, you automatically think I do. While I may support the need for some social programs, I also don't support the carte blanche spending typically associated with it. I can't help it if you're either illiterate or just plain stupid. Or both.

Edited, Feb 3rd 2011 1:03pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#50 Feb 03 2011 at 11:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
I don't believe the status quo is right.

Well, that wasn't very convincing at all.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Feb 03 2011 at 11:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:


Actually, pretty much yes. Apparently in an effort to narrow rape definitions and thus stop federal funding for abortions, House Rep Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced an act that would narrow the Hyde Amendment's definitions of rape when it comes to federal funding to exclude the following:
women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator,
women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped,
minors impregnated by adults


I'd not even allow for the idea that they're narrowing the definition of rape. It's not like they're claiming that drugged and verbally threatening rapes are not rapes. Just not valuable enough rapes I guess.

It's one of the most unjust, bigoted things I've ever heard our federal lawmakers propose.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
« Previous 1 2 3 4
This thread is locked
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 37 All times are in CDT
Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (36)