Amid Bin Laden noise - GOP again defines rape - "forcible ONLY"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, May 3, 2011.

  1. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
    In case anyone forgot, we must remain vigiliant against attacks on our freedoms (including attacks from within).
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    God- these people will stop at nothing. There is no low too low.
     
  3. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3
    Their anti-women agenda of late is disturbing, to say the least. The MSM won't cover it though especially since they have the Bin Laden story.
     
  4. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #4
    I hope Obama vetoes it in 17 different languages.
     
  5. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #5
    But wait, these people claim to be Christians! If you were a child but enjoyed being raped, then you need to have that baby... cause it builds character? :p
     
  6. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #6
    I think this proves once again that the GOP primarily cares about social issues more than anything else (and they're on the wrong side of them too). As long as they have their guns and their bibles, they're happy campers.
     
  7. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #7
    This is not always possible. Often, stuff like this gets tucked not a massive budget bill along with a few thousand other measures. This is how nonsense like "he voted for it before he voted against it" gets perpetrated. The president does not have a line item veto (that would allow him to surgically veto bill components), and even if he did, using it could be problematic. The capitol sausage fest involves a lot of trading favors, which could be lost if the president just throws out the basis of your bargain. At the very least, there is a Democratic Senate that might be able to trash this in reconciliation.
     
  8. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #8
    If we make enough noise about this type of crap, but it is difficult when the MSM won't focus on anything but what their corporate owners want them to.
     
  9. ender land macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #9
    Holy misleading title and quotes.

    ...

    did any of you even read the article linked to?


    The proposal is to allow federal Medicaid money to only be used for abortions in the case of forcible rape, and not statutory rape. Of course, if the statutory rape was non-consensual, it would be forcible, and therefore quality.

    To be honest, I am tentatively in support of this (well as best I can tell from the article you linked to and a couple others I read on the issue) because I do not think the federal government should be paying for abortions if consented sex occurred. The problem as I see it is that the entire point of statutory rape is that one cannot have consensual sex without being a certain age. So it is hard to distinguish between cases where someone is 17 and it's mutual and just a mistake and when someone is 17 and just too young and was taken advantage of. This makes my support tentative - I do not know enough about how often statutory rape is a case of the former vs the later.

    Federally supporting abortion because someone was stupid is not something I am supportive of.
     
  10. bassfingers macrumors 6502

    bassfingers

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    #10
    I guess the GOP is forgetting the role of the government. /sarcasm/
     
  11. Bill McEnaney, May 5, 2011
    Last edited: May 5, 2011

    Bill McEnaney macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    #11
    And if you're a unborn baby conceived when a man raped your mother, you deserve to be executed for his crime?
     
  12. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #12
    Yes, if that's what the women chooses.

    How dare you impose your views on a women who was the victim of a violent crime and tell her she must raise a child that was the product of that violent crime?
     
  13. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #13
    Once again, it all boils down to whether or not the embryo/baby represents human life. Both positions are moral depending on your view on this one issue. If you believe the child to be life, certainly a rape is not justification to allow a murder of another human life no matter how difficult it is for the mother. If you believe the child not to be life then forcing the mother to allow the embryo to become life and then carry it to full term represents an affront to her liberty. The biggest problem with those that choose the latter position, is that they must now choose to determine WHEN they believe life begins? Can a mother kill the child inside of her at 3 months? 6? 9? During birth?
     
  14. codymac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #14
    Careful. That sounds almost like a dare to go lower.
    :)
     
  15. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #15
    Maybe it's my lack of understanding of english. But how can rape not be "forcible"?

    The very meaning of rape is to force someone else into having sex.
     
  16. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #16
    In the case of statutory rape, the kid could be influenced into having sex. While the adult in question isn't doing anything forcible to get the kid to have sex, the kid isn't mature enough to know what they are consenting to.
     
  17. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #17
    If anything, that is even more sick than "forcible rape".
     
  18. mcrain, May 5, 2011
    Last edited: May 5, 2011

    mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #18
    Forcible rape includes the application of force, such as a man physically forcing himself on a woman. If he merely points a gun at her child and makes threats; that is not "forcible." If the woman agrees to sex to save her child, that sex would not be considered "forcible rape" under the GOP interpretation, and the woman could not get assistance for an abortion.
     
  19. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #19
    Then this is quite a hypocrite posture. (Of the proposers of the law)

    Besides, I think abortion is either you are against it or in favor. The situation in which the pregnancy happened shouldn't be of importance.
     
  20. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #20
    I support it fully. For 4 reasons:

    1. Population control

    2. Saves money, beats paying welfare to support the child.

    3. Foster care system is overcrowded, and a lot of kids end up traumatized going from home to home, and sometimes even abused.

    4. If an unwanted child is born and kept, then there is a big chance they will be neglected. It's not fair to the child.
     
  21. tigress666, May 5, 2011
    Last edited: May 5, 2011

    tigress666 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Location:
    Washington State
    #21
    You know, I'm pro-choice (pro-abortion even).

    But I can easily understand the position of a pro-"lifer" (I hate that term because because I"m pro-choice doesn't mean I'm anti-life, I just disagree on what point it is a separate life vs. a bunch of cells) who is against abortion even in the case of forcible rape. Really I understand that a lot more than a pro-lifer who makes a concession and says in case of rape it is ok. If you really believe the fetus is a person at time of conception, is it really fair to punish the "person" just cause of the father's sins? If I were anti abortion, I'd be fully anti-abortion and say even in case of rape it sucks for the mom, but it is not fair to the kid to take away his life just cause of what his father did. I really don't like this idea that it's ok to take away life just cause of the father (or mother if it was her doing for that matter)'s sins.

    The only reason I'm for abortion in case of rape is because I don't consider the fetus a person, I don't consider it a person until it has enough instinct to regret loss of life (basically it has enough of a brain to fear losing life). And it is also why I am pro-choice and abortion (I feel that it is better to prevent a life being born to people who are not ready, who may abuse it, who may neglect it, on top of the fact this world is in no need of more humans so it's not like we desperately need more population. And I don't think it is a good thing to punish people who are not responsible by making htem have the kid... that's a kid and you want a kid to be born to *responsible* people!!!!).

    That being said, I am all for abortion being made easier access because I just don't feel if some one doesn't want a kid they should be forced to have the kid. Yeah, they should have thought of that before hand, but ultimately they already proved they aren't responsible enough for taking care of a human life, why do we want to force that on them? There's already enough kids born to people who obviously shouldn't have kids. Why force it on people who are at least smart enough to realize they aren't ready for that?
     
  22. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #22
    Abominable.

    Sadly, nothing more is expected from the GOP these days.
     
  23. Sam Yikin macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #23
    Ahem:
    In this case, the committee report for H.R. 3 says that the bill will "not allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape." The bill itself doesn't say anything like that, but if a court decides that legislators intended to exclude statutory rape-related abortions from eligibility for Medicaid funding, then that will be the effect. Mother Jones


    This committee report IS where the redefinition occurs in this new tactic- a judge that has to rule on the law would take into Congressional intent, and according to the article this is effectively a statement of Congressional intent.
     
  24. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #24
    And once again, you are wrong. The issues are complex and involve more than just the embryo (it could hardly be called a baby until at least the second trimester).

    Next?
     
  25. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #25
    Statutory rape is always none consensual, that's why its rape. They are minors, they can not legally give consent.
     

Share This Page