Originally Posted By mawnck >>But if a woman is raped then in order to get a funded abortion she should have to file a police report<< It wouldn't matter what she filed under the Republican law. Unless she can prove that the rape was by physical force, no help for her.
Originally Posted By Donny here you go Mr. X <a href="http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100201195546AAmwQpI" target="_blank">http://au.answers.yahoo.com/qu...6AAmwQpI</a> now you can believe
Originally Posted By gadzuux Let's go back to this one ... >> my opinion is Health care of any kind should be funded by the state and not the federal government. << In some ways, it is. First of all, you're out of step with the 'tea party line' here - dyed in the wool republicans believe that health care should be privately run - a 'for profit' industry, and the government shouldn't be involved. Of course, no one - not even them - actually believes that's possible, but they say it anyway. They also say they're opposed to SSI, but privately they know better. Yet another case where GOP rhetoric doesn't match up with true ideology - they're all talk. In the case of the poor and children, those programs are administered by each state, with much of the funding coming from the federal government. So what we end up with is fifty different programs, all doing essentially the same thing, and being provided to essentially the same populations. And you apparently think that's a good idea. One unintended result is wide disparities in the quality and quantity of health care provided in different states. For example, a single white mother in Massachusetts will likely receive more and better care than a single black mother in Louisiana. And you apparently think that's a good idea too. Or more likely, you don't f'n care, because you'll never be a single mother, and hold them in the same disdain you have for people with more progressive ideologies than you're own. But here's the rub, and what irks me to no end - is the sanctimony and rank hypocrisy we hear DAILY from conservatives about how they're the "moral" ones, and liberals are somehow just a bunch of degenerate "elites".
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It would be like me saying Democrats are pro slavery because lets face it Dem's are for allowing people to get paid 3 dollars an hour as long as there skin isn't white and they are here illegally.> X's assertion may have been part hyperbole (and mawnck helpfully pointed out just what IS being proposed, which is horrible enough), but your assertion makes no sense whatsoever. Democrats, by and large, are for minimum wage for illegals (and when they propose ANYTHING resembling decent treatment for illegals, they then get charged with "coddling" them). Who is it that really wants to pay illegals 3 bucks an hour? The business owners. The dirty little secret of illegal immigration is that US corporations LOVE it. There are whole industries (chicken plants, fruit and vegetable harvesting, construction more and more...) that are hugely dependent on cheap illegal labor now. And guess what, Donny. The owners of those industries are by and large Republicans, and support Republicans. Which is why nothing ever really gets done about immigration. Republicans pander to their base by talking about what a big problem it is, then do nothing meaningful about it, because some of their biggest contributors WANT them to do nothing meaningful about it. < It wouldn't matter what she filed under the Republican law. Unless she can prove that the rape was by physical force, no help for her.> Exactly. And Donny, your post 13 is irrelevant to this. Yes, the law recognizes different types of rape. However, current law recognizes that victims of ALL type of rape may wish to abort the child and provides assistance if necessary. The new law would remove that assistance from all types of rape except forcible rape by a stranger. Meaning a woman raped via drug or by someone she was ostensibly on a date with is out of luck.
Originally Posted By Labuda "different levels of Rape but I am not really comfortable discussing such a horrible subject here in a public forum." No means no. No that's softened by drugging is still a no. To think otherwise means you have little to no respect for women, Donny.
Originally Posted By Donny Laubuda I think it's sick how you think if a 13 year old girl says yes to a 40 year old man thats ok because she did not say no.You are pro statutory rape.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Exactly, Labuda. And speaking of no respect for women... the GOP has jacked up their misogyny another notch: <a href="http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/20/irs-to-conduct-abortion-audits/" target="_blank">http://jonathanturley.org/2011...-audits/</a> "If Republicans get their way that’s a distinct possibility. Under a GOP-backed bill the Internal Revenue Service would be required to police how Americans pay for abortions. Under the Republicans’ “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”, known as H.R. 3, IRS agents would also have to determine if the terminated pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. H.R. 3 extends the Hyde Amendment which bans federal funding of abortion. The law would forbid using tax credits or tax deductions to pay for abortions. During an audit, the burden of proof lies with the taxpayer, so keep your receipts. Did the Republicans forget about tax refunds? During an audit, a woman would have to prove that funds from a pre-tax Health Savings Account were not used to pay for an abortion, or the abortion was the result of rape, or incest, or her life was in danger. Ideally that proof would be in the form of a “contemporaneous written documentation.” Republicans have decided that the money you save due to tax breaks and tax credits isn’t your money after all, it’s the government’s money, and the government’s decision on how it shall be spent." So the Republicans want ALL women who have abortions to be audited, to prove that unauthorized funding did not pay for the procedures? How exactly is this making government smaller? This is just another roadblock for women to endure, in order to get an abortion. Obviously, the cost of having the IRS conduct an audit would exceed the cost of the abortion itself, so why all the handwringing about Federally funded abortion? This is not about not using Federal funds to pay for abortions, since Federal funds will be used to interrogate the women who have abortions. This is about making abortion as complicated and as emotionally draining as possible, so that women get terribly frustrated and depressed and finally give up and decide against getting one. The Republicans figure if they make abortion virtually impossible to get and forget about, the women will instead carry the embryo to full term and it up for adoption. New York Magazine nailed this situation perfectly: "For a political party that sees the IRS like a bunch of jackbooted thugs, the GOP sure is eager to give them a front-row seat to your uterus."
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Laubuda I think it's sick how you think if a 13 year old girl says yes to a 40 year old man thats ok because she did not say no.You are pro statutory rape.>> That's not what Labuda stated, genius. Why don't you try spending some of your hard earned money on adult ed language classes instead of a Disney World annual pass? You and everyone you encounter would be much happier, as a result.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///I can't believe I just read this(that there are different levels of rape)./// Really? Just like not all stealing or murder is the same not all rape is the same----some is worse than others and the law, for good reason, in just about every place that I know reflects that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Laubuda I think it's sick how you think if a 13 year old girl says yes to a 40 year old man thats ok because she did not say no.You are pro statutory rape.> Good grief, what orifice did you pull THAT out of?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Just like not all stealing or murder is the same not all rape is the same----some is worse than others>> So then women should pray that their rapists drug them first before the act instead of keeping them alert and fully aware of what's happening? Is that what you're implying? Rape is rape. It is unlawful and immoral and a thoroughly disgusting crime. Doesn't matter if the woman is alert or not, has a gun shoved in her face or not. Unwanted sexual advances and resulting sexual acts is what constitutes rape, whether or not the woman is conscious. Period. Frankly, I see no reason why "different forms of rape" should be categorized. Any physical assault that occurs before, during, or after the rape can be tried and convicted separately. To suggest that one form of rape is "not as bad" as another is ludicrous. Just out of curiosity, are you in agreement with the Republican proposal, barboy? Do you want to see women told "sorry, no abortion for you" if they were drugged and unconscious when they were raped? You seem to be making an argument in favor of the Republican bill, by the tone of your defense.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///To suggest that one form of rape is "not as bad" as another is ludicrous./// Then you are indirectly telling us that: A scenario whereby a 17 year old says "yes, I want you" to her 18 year old boyfriend is just as disgusting as a 5 year old getting raped with a baseball bat by an adult causing great bodily harm to where she could never have children. Not all rape is the same.........it's OK to finally admit it because nobody in this modern liberal group think tank will hold it against you. And 'No' I don't agree with such a Republican proposal. Like the Democratic ones before us, I find close to all Republican platforms anywhere from unfair to outright asinine.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Oh I see what you did there. You're equating the term "statutory rape" with the ACTUAL forcible act of rape. Using semantics is a cheap copout. Even for you.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///I have carried a gun to protect your freedom/// If you're using that "your" in a more universal fashion(as opposed to strictly for gadz.)then I don't need your gun-toting bravado 'protection'. Now if you earnestly want to protect my freedoms, then denounce the Patriot Act or help elect a Chief who would appoint another Brennan or Warren like jurist.
Originally Posted By Labuda Where did I say statutory rape is ok? I know others called you on it, Donny, but come ON, man. You're putting words in my mouth, and they're not accurate. I am just dumbfounded that you've accused me of being pro-pedophilia. Good Lord, how much farther can you fall?
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///You're equating the term "statutory rape" with the ACTUAL forcible act of rape./// I'm responding to your "To suggest that one form of rape is "not as bad" as another is ludicrous" So you only want to talk about 'forcible rape'? OK then, how about: ruining a 5 year old with a baseball bat to the point where she can't ever bear children and giving her HIV to boot vs a 'John' who was given the green light for the first 1/2 hr. with a street hooker who never even entered her but then she told him to stop because she has more customers to entertain and he goes another 15 seconds against her will. One of these would be vigorously prosecuted while the other would likely be left alone. Again, it's OK to admit that not all rape is the same.
Originally Posted By Donny Labuda said when you accuse me of having very little respect for women just because I and most of the legal community know there are different levels of rape I wonder the same for you.I have a great deal of respect for women
Originally Posted By Dabob2 When Labuda said that, she was specifcally comparing forced rape to drug-induced rape, saying both were horrible, and saying there should be no distinction specifically in the case of funding for abortion. You went from that to calling her " pro-statuatory rape," which shows no respect for either Labuda or common sense.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Agreed, Dabob. Not to mention that statutory rape is a legal definition which most adults do not equate with forcible rape, and for good reason. Statutory rape is sex with a minor, even if that minor is 17 years of age and a willing if not frequent participant, as barboy alluded to in his previous example. The term was derived from the false notion that any minor having sex with someone older is doing so under force or coercion or disillusionment, which is obviously not the case these days for most teenagers who actively participate in sexual acts with their boyfriends and girlfriends. If a high school couple begins dating as a sophomore and freshman, and are still together when that sophomore becomes a senior and turns 18, then their sex acts are technically statutory rape. But no one with any common sense would label the senior as a "rapist" for having consensual sex with his girlfriend who's 17. That's just crazy. As for barboy's other example, that is not an example of consensual sex. If a five-year-old is being sexually assaulted with a baseball bat, as barboy loves to constantly describe every time this issue comes up, that is forcible rape. It does not matter one whit that the victim is a minor in this situation. ANY female having a baseball bat forcibly shoved up her genitalia or rectum is the victim of forcible rape. PERIOD. Is it technically statutory rape because the victim is a minor? Yes. But that is NOT the term most individuals would use to describe this particular situation. Most individuals think "sex with a willing teen" when the term statutory rape is referenced. Using that term to describe forcible rape with a minor is disingenuous and basically a semantical cover to dodge the more important arguments of the issue at hand.
