Forums
Cross Site
The Asylum
H.R.3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

This thread is locked

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

#52 Feb 03 2011 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1662941810887

Scholar

9,997 posts

Quote:

I'm curious why you liberals think any abortion should be funded by the govn.

You don't/can't understand it because you think abortion is murder. If you accept the notion that abortion is inherently ok, then it solves a lot of social problems, many of which stem from there being too many people to sustain in the first place, and children being born in to a society where no one really wanted them in the first place.

Depression and suicide are relatively common, and the idea that it's always better to have been born isn't true for all. Then there are the people who are just a net loss to society. Essentially, sometimes a child not being born is better for everybody, the child and the rest of the world. And the government can fund anything with taxes if it is to promote the welfare of the nation.

#53 Feb 03 2011 at 3:51 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Jophiel wrote:

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.

No matter what the criminal offense is? Forcible rape and statutory rape are not the same crime Joph. That's kinda the starting point of where you go wrong here. Additionally, the abortion funding rule is federal where the various rape laws are at the state level. You'd have a point if there were one consistent nationwide set of rules governing what constituted different types of rape. But there aren't.

So it's not unreasonable at all or even unusual for the federal funding guidelines to follow their own criteria. I mean, what alternative is there? Do we have 50 different rules, one for each state? If something is rape in California, but not in Alabama, does that mean that the federal government varies in terms of whether it'll fund an abortion for the woman based on which state she happens to live in? That seems somewhat bizarre, right?

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.[/quote]

You have the statistics of date rape convictions in which there were no physical signs of rape? Seriously? A woman goes to the police, says she was raped, but there's no sign of struggle, no physical evidence of non-consensual sex, and you think that said case even gets to trial, much less that any fair jury would convict? There's the principle of burden of proof, right? When there isn't anything other than one person's allegation, that's not proof.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#54 gbaji, Posted: Feb 03 2011 at 4:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Why?

#55 gbaji, Posted: Feb 03 2011 at 4:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ah. So you support federally funded abortion as a form of population control to reduce the percentage of "problem people" in our society. And you have targeted Black and Latino populations for a disproportionately higher rate of these abortions, since clearly they are the problem populations who need to be weeded out. I suppose those sterilization programs back in the 50s became a bit too public, so you guys went with the next best solution.

#56 Feb 03 2011 at 4:05 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

Additionally, the abortion funding rule is federal where the various rape laws are at the state level. You'd have a point if there were one consistent nationwide set of rules governing what constituted different types of rape.

You mean, if only there was some sort of federal law defining what constituted rape? Oh, if only such a thing existed...

Oh! Wait!

US Criminal Code - 18 USC Chapter 109A wrote:

(a) By Force or Threat. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act -
(1) by using force against that other person; or
(2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(b) By Other Means. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly -
(1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or
(2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby -
(A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and
(B) engages in a sexual act with that other person;

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

Man, how crazy is it that we have a federal law making it a crime to threaten a person into sex or drug them and have sex with them, huh? I mean, that's straight zany! I thought we only had that stuff at the state level and so could never apply it to a federal law but, wow... somethin' new every day, huh?

Edited, Feb 3rd 2011 4:08pm by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#57 REDACTED, Posted: Feb 03 2011 at 4:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Kachi,

#58 Feb 03 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1709511392366

Sage

6,471 posts

EDIT: Nevermind. Not gonna get into it.

Edited, Feb 3rd 2011 5:11pm by Eske

#59 gbaji, Posted: Feb 03 2011 at 4:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So we're limiting funding for abortion only to cases in which the rape was charged and tried in federal court?

#60 Feb 03 2011 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

So we're limiting funding for abortion only to cases in which the rape was charged and tried in federal court?

Was that the best you could do?

You're crying that there's no federal standard for what constitutes rape. There is. It makes sense then that federal laws involving rape should use this legal standard rather than inventing their own just because some guys don't like abortion.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#61 Feb 03 2011 at 4:15 PM Rating: Decent

View User Forum

Scholar

7,564 posts

Quote:

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The key word being pursuit. Everyone should have a chance to pursue happiness wouldn't you agree?

I do, and if I had the option to abort an accidental child that would directly interfere with my pursuit of happiness Id likely do it.

Crazies have propaganda of their own, they say that an unborn fetus is a living functioning human and it is murder.

____________________________

HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#62 REDACTED, Posted: Feb 03 2011 at 4:17 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,

#63 REDACTED, Posted: Feb 03 2011 at 4:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) r2d2,

#64 Feb 03 2011 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Scholar

7,564 posts

varusword75 wrote:

r2d2,

Quote:

do, and if I had the option to abort an accidental child that would directly interfere with my pursuit of happiness Id likely do it.

Yes we know liberals will approve of murder out of convienence. Nothing new there. And do you think the childs right to pursue happiness should have less weight than yours?

If you can call a nucleus and membrane a child with thoughts and desires. Then sure I guess I think abortion is just fine.

____________________________

HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#65 Feb 03 2011 at 4:25 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Eske Esquire wrote:

You've quite a different approach to rape in general, and that's the heart of the disagreement. As I see it, I don't think it's a stretch to say that you appear to err on the side of blaming the victim.

No. I err on the side of not encouraging false accusations. And that's not about sexism or protecting guys from easy accusation of rape. It's also about protecting women from a social movement that convinces them that nearly any form of sexual encounter can be defined as rape and then encourages them to make accusations of rape in situations where, regardless of what actually happened, the chances of any result other than both people's lives being destroyed are nearly zero. That same social movement then uses those failed accusations as statistical fodder to convince the next batch of young women how important it is for them to do the same thing themselves.

I think it's self destructive. I'm all for making sure that women who've been raped can obtain justice. But the way we're going about it is completely 100% wrong. Anything which makes that bad choice easier just compounds the issue.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#66 REDACTED, Posted: Feb 03 2011 at 4:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) r2d2,

#67 Feb 03 2011 at 4:26 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1662941810887

Scholar

9,997 posts

Quote:

Ah. So you support federally funded abortion as a form of population control to reduce the percentage of "problem people" in our society. And you have targeted Black and Latino populations for a disproportionately higher rate of these abortions, since clearly they are the problem populations who need to be weeded out. I suppose those sterilization programs back in the 50s became a bit too public, so you guys went with the next best solution.

But it's the conservatives who are bigoted and unjust? Lol!

lolwut? You just took that and ran with it all the way to crazytown. Nowhere did anyone say anything about race. If blacks and Latinos ARE having higher rates of abortions (which will require a citation from you), then that would be the choice of those women, not the government.

Quote:

It's sad you fall for this bs propaganda. Of course if you actually believed there's enough resources here for all of us then I suppose you'd have to change your world view.

There are enough resources on the earth to support about 12 billion people, so we're ok for now, but not a lot longer. However, just because we can theoretically support that many doesn't mean that we actually have the resources to take advantage of those resources. i.e., all the potential farmland that isn't used for farmland.

It's retarded of you to believe it's propaganda when people still starve to death. Hell, one of the main reasons for the **** going down in Egypt right now is that people there have to spend nearly 3/4 of their income just to buy food.

Quote:

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The key word being pursuit. Everyone should have a chance to pursue happiness wouldn't you agree?

If the keyword was pursuit, why did you bold life? But yes, every living person should have a chance to pursue happiness. I don't think a fetus is a living person, though.

Quote:

wow...just wow...and technically no the govn can't just deprive someone of their constitutional rights because they think it promotes general welfare.

Yeah, they can. It's called strict scrutiny, and it's older than you are. It's the reason why slander is a crime even though you have a constitutional right to free speech.

#68 Feb 03 2011 at 4:29 PM Rating: Decent

View User Forum

Scholar

7,564 posts

Quote:

Plus life begins at conception. Life begins at conception. Life begins at conception.

You got any proof to back that up or is it just something you believe.

____________________________

HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#69 Feb 03 2011 at 4:29 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

gbaji wrote:

Ah. So you support federally funded abortion as a form of population control to reduce the percentage of "problem people" in our society. And you have targeted Black and Latino populations for a disproportionately higher rate of these abortions, since clearly they are the problem populations who need to be weeded out. I suppose those sterilization programs back in the 50s became a bit too public, so you guys went with the next best solution.

But it's the conservatives who are bigoted and unjust? Lol!

I didn't realize we were talking about forced abortions here, gbaji. Man, you've got a good--- Oh, wait.

Smiley: facepalm

Smiley: facepalm

#70 gbaji, Posted: Feb 03 2011 at 4:30 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Then it also makes sense to write federal guidelines for abortion funding that are even more specifically defined, right? What's the difference? Other than the semantics of "OMG! They're redefining rape!!!", we're still talking about a federal standard for something, right? and that standard is unlikely to exactly match any given state standard. So the question of who's redefining what still stands.

#71 Feb 03 2011 at 4:31 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

rdmcandie wrote:

Quote:

Plus life begins at conception. Life begins at conception. Life begins at conception.

You got any proof to back that up or is it just something you believe.

I, personally, believe they picked "conception" because otherwise, those dirty old men couldn't continue to wack off to gay ****. I mean, if you want to get nitpicky here, ************ should be illegal because you're killing thousands of half-people!!

Think of the half-people!! Smiley: cry

ETA: gbaji, when are you going to start petitioning that the health care reform bill take viagra and other impotency drugs out of federal funding...?

Edited, Feb 3rd 2011 4:32pm by Belkira

#72 Feb 03 2011 at 4:36 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

gbaji wrote:

Ah. So you support federally funded abortion as a form of population control to reduce the percentage of "problem people" in our society. And you have targeted Black and Latino populations for a disproportionately higher rate of these abortions, since clearly they are the problem populations who need to be weeded out. I suppose those sterilization programs back in the 50s became a bit too public, so you guys went with the next best solution.

But it's the conservatives who are bigoted and unjust? Lol!

I didn't realize we were talking about forced abortions here, gbaji. Man, you've got a good--- Oh, wait.

If the criteria for complaining about racial inequities in society were limited to those that are "forced", the left wouldn't have about half its social agenda.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#73 Feb 03 2011 at 4:39 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1709511392366

Sage

6,471 posts

gbaji wrote:

Eske Esquire wrote:

You've quite a different approach to rape in general, and that's the heart of the disagreement. As I see it, I don't think it's a stretch to say that you appear to err on the side of blaming the victim.

No. I err on the side of not encouraging false accusations. And that's not about sexism or protecting guys from easy accusation of rape. It's also about protecting women from a social movement that convinces them that nearly any form of sexual encounter can be defined as rape and then encourages them to make accusations of rape in situations where, regardless of what actually happened, the chances of any result other than both people's lives being destroyed are nearly zero. That same social movement then uses those failed accusations as statistical fodder to convince the next batch of young women how important it is for them to do the same thing themselves.

I think it's self destructive. I'm all for making sure that women who've been raped can obtain justice. But the way we're going about it is completely 100% wrong. Anything which makes that bad choice easier just compounds the issue.

Christ you're posting fast. Got me quoted before I could edit myself out of this one. Well fine, I'll address it:

I'd rather err on the side of providing the abortions to those who claim rape, and accepting that some might fake it for the free chance to murder a baby, in order to ensure that all those raped are given the option.

You seem to prefer the idea of barring abortions from all those who don't have evidence, and accepting that some who truly were raped will be left without the option of abortion. I understand your reasoning here, though obviously I'm in disagreement with it.

And I'm sorry, but if you still stand by that old quote that Joph linked, then yeah, you err on the side of blaming the victim. Or at least, you're insanely unsympathetic to rape victims. For all your pining about justice, that was a ridiculous thing to say, and you oughta know that.

Edited, Feb 3rd 2011 5:41pm by Eske

#74 REDACTED, Posted: Feb 03 2011 at 4:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,

#75 Feb 03 2011 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

gbaji wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

gbaji wrote:

Ah. So you support federally funded abortion as a form of population control to reduce the percentage of "problem people" in our society. And you have targeted Black and Latino populations for a disproportionately higher rate of these abortions, since clearly they are the problem populations who need to be weeded out. I suppose those sterilization programs back in the 50s became a bit too public, so you guys went with the next best solution.

But it's the conservatives who are bigoted and unjust? Lol!

I didn't realize we were talking about forced abortions here, gbaji. Man, you've got a good--- Oh, wait.

If the criteria for complaining about racial inequities in society were limited to those that are "forced", the left wouldn't have about half its social agenda.

You understand that the idiocy you typed makes no sense otherwise, though... right?

#76 Feb 03 2011 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

varusword75 wrote:

Tulip,

Quote:

I, personally, believe they picked "conception"

We didn't pick it you stupid wh*re. Life begins at conception. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? It's a scientific fact.

Thank you, Varus. That's the funniest thing I've read all day!!

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

This thread is locked

You cannot post in a locked topic!

Recent Visitors: 281 All times are in CST

Anonymous Guests (281)

Forums
Cross Site
The Asylum
H.R.3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

© 2024 Fanbyte LLC