Right. So if you're drugged and raped, it's your own damn problem. You should have gotten raped the old fashioned way, with a tire iron to the head, ya dumb *****. Anyway... money in my pocket thanks to the GOP!
Ka-Ching!
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- H.R.3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
H.R.3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion ActFollow
#27
Feb 02 2011 at 6:46 PM
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28
Feb 02 2011 at 6:59 PM
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 hell of a lot of sense.
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 hell 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?
#29
Feb 02 2011 at 7:05 PM
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...
Edited, Feb 2nd 2011 7:09pm by Jophiel
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 sex with someone but says she didn't really want to.
[...]
What "date rape" is, is when a woman has sex 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
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.
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.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
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
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 sex 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.
*Since 1976, in fact.
Edited, Feb 2nd 2011 9:12pm by LockeColeMA
#34
Feb 02 2011 at 8:15 PM
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 hell of a lot of sense.
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 hell 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
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
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
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.
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.
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:
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 hell 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
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:
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2011/02/rep_wasserman_schultz_republic.php wrote:
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
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 hell 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
Quote:
Nothing against the guy
Oh, there's plenty against him if you bother to keep score.
Quote:
Also, how the hell 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.
#39
Feb 02 2011 at 11:00 PM
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.
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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
#40
Feb 02 2011 at 11:35 PM
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.
Just as Planned.
#41
Feb 03 2011 at 5:47 AM
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
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.
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
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!!!!
#44REDACTED,
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
varusword75 wrote:
I'm curious why you liberals think any abortion should be funded by the govn.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
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
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.
#49
Feb 03 2011 at 11:02 AM
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,
It's a shame you don't apply this logic to other arguments that don't include cutting military spending.
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.
Edited, Feb 3rd 2011 1:03pm by Uglysasquatch
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
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
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
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:
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2011/02/rep_wasserman_schultz_republic.php wrote:
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
women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped,
minors impregnated by adults
It's one of the most unjust, bigoted things I've ever heard our federal lawmakers propose.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 394
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (394)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- H.R.3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC