litechick Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I think that the people bringing up the use of tax money for war are reinforcing my point. If you know the gall, the rage, the impotent fury of being an unwilling partner in atrocity then why would you do it to someone else? It is my observation that the "a taste of their own medicine" approach to negotiations rarely or never goes well. You may think you are illustrating how bad the opposition is by copying them but all you do is make yourself look like a hypocrite.In any event, I refuse to get worked up about this any more than I would allow Fred Phelps to provoke me. I'm pretty sure that people of all political affiliations are affected by rape. Conservatives may be less likely to seek an abortion afterwards but the offense of the 'force' clause will undoubtedly span the aisle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I hope my capitalization of the F-word would have betrayed my sarcasm, but perhaps it did not?Nope, didn't even notice the capitalization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzanth Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'm pretty sure that people of all political affiliations are affected by rape. Conservatives may be less likely to seek an abortion afterwards but the offense of the 'force' clause will undoubtedly span the aisle.Really? Where are the republicans who are speaking out against this? Cause I certainly haven't heard of any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkone Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I seriously doubt that this bill will even pass the senate and even if it does Obama will probably veto it. All this does is serve to make the republicans look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatz Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Blood and Ashes, how little common sense and empathy do you have to posses in order to even propose such a thing?They'll get ridiculed over this for Ages to come, and a lot of their base will probably refrain from voting in the next election.Just what were they thinking?Mind, I'm not from the US, so I could be completly wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzanth Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Blood and Ashes, how little common sense and empathy do you have to posses in order to even propose such a thing?They'll get ridiculed over this for Ages to come, and a lot of their base will probably refrain from voting in the next election.Just what were they thinking?Mind, I'm not from the US, so I could be completly wrong.Ya, you're completely wrong. Most of their base could not care less. If anything this will endear their base to them even more, which is probably why they are doing it. Some moderate/independent voters might care though, so it does seem like an unwise move politically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 While I completely agree that this "forcible rape" provision is despicable, I think it's important for pro-choice people not to focus all their criticisms on just that part of the bill. This thing goes way further than previous laws banning taxpayer funding of abortion by cutting off so-called "indirect" funding of abortion. This means that tax credits will be taken away from companies that offer health-care plans covering abortions, while federal subsidies for purchasing insurance will be denied to individuals with health plans covering abortions (even if these individuals pay for the abortion coverage with their own funds). The effect of all this will likely be to discourage most employers (and perhaps even insurance companies themselves) from offering any kind of health plans with abortion coverage. Again, the rape clause is despicable, but if people focus too much on this one part then they risk making the rest of this bill seem "moderate" by comparison.So really, the entire bill ought to just be scrapped. Hopefully it dies a slow death in the Senate, or is put out of its misery by Obama's veto pen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spastic Plastic Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 Really? Where are the republicans who are speaking out against this? Cause I certainly haven't heard of any.Oh, there are Republicans who are against Boehner's sociopathy, but they seem to be a minority. For fuck's sake, even Fox News won't touch this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 It looks to me as if the issue here isn't rape, it's limiting the use of public funds to pay for abortion. Nearly half of Americans are against abortion. If you are someone who believes abortion is murder, it must be particularly galling to know that your own money is being taken from you and spent on murdering babies.For me, the big thing is that abortion be legal. Even though I disagree with them, it seems cruel to me to force people to pay the bills for abortions which they see as an abomination.You should still have compassion for people, even if they are wrong.But this is bullshit. If the big deal was "all abortions are abominations" then they are going to be just as "galled" by the ones still happening, regardless of how forcible the impregnation was. Unless the "innocence" of the mother really has any bearing on whether the foetus counts as a human being or not?...which is why I have such a problem with the whole idea of rape-exemptions in the first place. OK, they're slightly better than nobody having access to abortion, but I can't see much justification for them otherwise, beyond a vague unstated "you other sluts should have kept your legs closed, so you deserve this". Narrowing the definition of rape is only going to reinforce the point, quite apart from the knock-on effect on both public perception of rape and the difficulties that already exist in prosecuting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaldanya Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 To me, this is missing the point. People can still get legal abortions, they just can't have the government pay for it.Which is just grand if you are someone who has the money to pay for it. But it sucks to be you if you are working two jobs to put food on the table for your family and have the gaul to be raped and impregnated cause then government just doesn't fucking care. Suck it up, you shouldn't have been in possession of a vagina in the first place, you woman, you.I have never been more glad for the NHS than I am right now.N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinsdale! Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 The claim of one of the bill's cosponsers seems to be that 'forcible rape' means 'not statutory rape.' I think that the offending word was put in by a staffer and that the congress-critters did not realize it until now. And so the back-pedaling begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palimpsest. Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I think that the people bringing up the use of tax money for war are reinforcing my point. If you know the gall, the rage, the impotent fury of being an unwilling partner in atrocity then why would you do it to someone else? We could ask people who proposed this bill the very same thing. In the end, someone's tax money always supports something he considers atrocity. War, weapon industry, abortion, meat industry, you name it. People will never agree about everything, so, sooner or later, they'll have to get used to the idea of their taxes being spent on something they oppose. This doesn't mean they should stop standing for what they think it's right (even if the opposing parties don't like it much). Doing so by trivialising rape is condemnable, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 The government puts people's tax dollars to all sorts of shit they disagree with. That's par for the course with democracy. The McJesus squad is anti-democracy. They're only for the rights that they agree with and they only think free speech applies to their ignorant mouthbreathing. As far as I'm concerned they can suck a scabby demoncock in Hell. A large portion of them live in states that take in more federal funds than they pay out in taxes. Should I be galled that my filthy metropolitan liberal tax dollars supply these ignorant pigfuckers with clean water to raise their children into similar parasitic hypocritical ignorance? Fuck them and their legislated morality.DG, you are like the Gregor Clegane of liberalism. I have such a crush. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I will repeat what I said in Politics 18. Even in this context there is no justification for defining down rape. This is a horrible idea. If they want to cut funding for abortion they should stand up and do that. Attempting to claim that you need bruising to "really" be raped is too stupid to be imagined much less codified into law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I will repeat what I said in Politics 18. Even in this context there is no justification for defining down rape. This is a horrible idea. If they want to cut funding for abortion they should stand up and do that. Attempting to claim that you need bruising to "really" be raped is too stupid to be imagined much less codified into law.Word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Monkey Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Oh, there are Republicans who are against Boehner's sociopathy, but they seem to be a minority. They're probably uncomfortable. I think even a pro-life person can tell that this is wrong, but they're afraid that their credentials might get challenged by the most hardline social conservatives if they criticize it in public.If they want to cut funding for abortion they should stand up and do thatIt's not even an entirely pro-life/pro-choice issue. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that you can redefine rape as only forcible rape in this or any context. The good news is that it really does sound like some kind of screw-up by Congressional aides (hey, I thought they made those guys go to college or something?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insert Edit Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 So 'death panels' are now joined by 'rape panels?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I will repeat what I said in Politics 18. Even in this context there is no justification for defining down rape. This is a horrible idea. If they want to cut funding for abortion they should stand up and do that. Attempting to claim that you need bruising to "really" be raped is too stupid to be imagined much less codified into law.From an earlier post, it looks like the goal was to exclude statutory rape, not to require "force". In any event, it doesn't appear that anyone in the GOP in Congress is actually pushing to define rape as requiring bruising. You can argue about the merits of including statutory rape, but the real argument doesn't seem to about physical resistance being require. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 DG, you are like the Gregor Clegane of liberalism. I have such a crush. :DPlease let me know if you see the Conservative Red Viper prowling around here then. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spastic Plastic Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 Please let me know if you see the Conservative Red Viper prowling around here then. ;)WTF. Everyone knows that Gregor is conservative. Under this new law, he can rape as much as he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.