Still not good enough.
Quote:
It would also make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions through their private insurance.
Printable View
Still not good enough.
Quote:
It would also make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions through their private insurance.
Do they result in the same legal charge, under the same statute? The charge, and the statute, are what an affadavavit or notarized record will reference. They are the proof of claim for anyone seeking this federal funding. If they're the same for someone who was roofied and for someone who violently assaulted, then there is not a distinction between those acts for purposes of law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
The difference I'm seeing there is that 1st and 2nd degree rape charges require vaginal intercourse and 3rd degree rape doesn't. Good to know for all the gays on the forum. But all three include either force, threat of force, or suffering serious physical injury or being "put in fear" of such injury. I see force applying to all three statutes, which is kinda irrelevant since we're talking about people seeking funds for an abortion, which we can pretty much take as a given involved vaginal intercourse and so would presumably fall under the first two statutes.Quote:
A more clear cut example is the distinction Maryland makes between first and second degree rape and third degree rape, specifically that the first two are accomplished by the use of force and the third isn't.
http://law.justia.com/maryland/codes...gcr/3-304.html
http://law.justia.com/maryland/codes...gcr/3-303.html
http://law.justia.com/maryland/codes...gcr/3-307.html
I've always been quite clear about the distinctions. I am maintaining that for purposes of this federal law as currently structured *one can allege it will be rewritten to better exclude people, but then one can more accurately allege that it's just not going to pass* there will be no useable distinction between violent rape and coercive/non-consensual "non-violent" rape, with the possible semi-exception based around the use of alcohol.Quote:
I'm not quite sure what degree of sophistry is required for you to continue to insist that there is just no distinction at all in state law between violent and non-violent rape.
What do you think that actually means in practice? That if there isn't video evidence of the rapist drugging the victim, he can't be convicted? No, the distinction is actually one between drugs and alcohol. I can't say "trust me" because you don't, but since you're trying to insist that you idea of common sense trumps reality, I might as well do so myself.Quote:
The point was that the distinction made between forcible rape and simple rape was that the rapist had to be the administering agent.
I'm actually reasonably convinced that every one you think provides some support for you is actually like Maryland. Or Louisiana. Or Arizona. You've raised three examples so far and all of them have actually been you failing to either properly read the statute or apply them to the actual situation at hand. I could have misread one or more of the 50+ relevant statutes myself though.Quote:
Sorry, I assumed it wasn't necessary due to your apparently incredibly detailed knowledge of U.S sexual assault laws, and thus you would know instantly to which laws I was referring and be able to quote them from memory.
Wait a minute. First you called everyone in this thread "wrong", that the bill wasn't re-defining rape. Now you're making light of sodomy as rape. haha, good to know for gay males and anal sex? What? It's irrelevant because anally raped men aren't seeking funds for abortion? What?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
See, this is the kind of crap that bugs me. Oh, but I must be wrong that it bugs me. So says Fuzzy.
Didn't you previously tell everyone in this thread complaining that this bill was re-defining rape (or incest) they were WRONG? But now you're going on about the definitions of rape.Quote:
I've always been quite clear about the distinctions. I am maintaining that for purposes of this federal law as currently structured *one can allege it will be rewritten to better exclude people, but then one can more accurately allege that it's just not going to pass* there will be no useable distinction between violent rape and coercive/non-consensual "non-violent" rape, with the possible semi-exception based around the use of alcohol.
What do you think that actually means in practice? That if there isn't video evidence of the rapist drugging the victim, he can't be convicted? No, the distinction is actually one between drugs and alcohol. I can't say "trust me" because you don't, but since you're trying to insist that you idea of common sense trumps reality, I might as well do so myself.
I'm actually moderately confident that every one you think provides some support for you is actually like Maryland. Or Louisiana. Or Arizona. You've raised three examples so far and all of them have actually been you failing to either properly read the statute or apply them to the actual situation at hand.
I'm making light of it? I made the observation that apparently gay men can't suffer 1st or 2nd degree rape in Maryland. That's a demonstration of a state screwing things up.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I did actually mention that earlier in this thread. Some states have managed *intentionally or by accident* to craft laws that either omit the possibility of same-sex rape or, conversely, treat same-sex consensual "statutory" rape as nonconsensual, but it's completely irrelevant to this proposed federal law. There is no expectation that a law on federal funding for abortions would speak to the legal status of same-sex rape, nor should there be.Quote:
It's irrelevant because anally raped men aren't seeking funds for abortion? What?
O-kay. There's the reminder that it's about as likely to have a rational conversation with you as it is for Chicago to close the schools and declare a snow day. Sure, it may happen at some point, but it's not wise to hold my breath until then.Quote:
Didn't you previously tell everyone in this thread complaining that this bill was re-defining rape (or incest) they were WRONG? But now you're going on about the definitions of rape.
As for defining rape as vaginal penetration? Yeah. Anal rape or sodomy can happen to anyone, by anyone. I don't care what state says so in their statutes. Everyone has an anus and a mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You missed the forest for the trees. There IS a reasonable expectation that legislators hell bent on not providing any federal funds for abortion, except in cases of rape or incest, wouldn't be retarded about defining RAPE or bickering whether rape is forcible.Quote:
I did actually mention that earlier in this thread. Some states have managed *intentionally or by accident* to craft laws that either omit the possibility of same-sex rape or, conversely, treat same-sex consensual "statutory" rape as nonconsensual, but it's completely irrelevant to this proposed federal law. There is no expectation that a law on federal funding for abortions would speak to the legal status of same-sex rape, nor should there be.
Honey, you wouldn't last one day in Chicago. :pQuote:
O-kay. There's the reminder that it's about as likely to have a rational conversation with you as it is for Chicago to close the schools and declare a snow day. Sure, it may happen at some point, but it's not wise to hold your breath until then.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7629821.storyQuote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Bad timing, Fuzzball; they were closed today and yesterday. :o
*cough* Pretty sure Fuzzy knew Chicago had closed schools for snow, and it was a rare event. *cough*
I'm aware, that's why it came to mind. It does happen, sometimes, not at all often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Nessus, we've gone though a lot of detail about why that's not the case. Yet you are vacillating between calling it "hyperbole" and seeming to actually believe this propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I've made it clear to GGT and now you that I don't like doing slice-and-dice posts anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
But you seem to be missing a fundamental issue of how our legal system is set up. We have federal courts and state courts. The state laws have their definitions. The federal laws have their definitions. Just because our state laws are inconsistent doesn't mean a badly-written federal law will then go be interpreted by each state in whatever manner it wants.
If this law had been passed as originally written, it would have been up to a federal judge to figure out (or throw out) whatever the law was trying to say along the terms of our federal court system. It wouldn't be possible for a state to do much with the wording of that law. Doubly so because the law was regarding federal funds, not how states define rape.
But you have an interesting question about why the word forcible was added. I don't know, that's why I say it's sloppy. Our legislators make sloppy legislation all the time.
Our health care bill contained a ludicrous provision that required everyone who paid someone more than $600 to file a somewhat arcane tax form. Republicans claim it was a deliberate attempt by the Democrats to soak-up new revenue and pave the way for higher business taxes. Democrats claim it was an accident. Now this provision is being voted out.
Given that the representative who wrote the bill has offered no defense of the language and has since removed it, it's not unreasonable to go all Occams Razor on this and suggest that he had no particular intensions, didn't realize people would see "forcible rape" as a loaded phrase and thus he removed it.
That's what "inconsistent" actually means, Dread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
State definitions of rape aren't subordinate to federal definitions of rape in ordinary prosecutions. And the proposed language (since withdrawn) didn't change the federal definition of rape (IE sexual assault).
You obviously still do not understand the original problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Indeed, I don't think you understand it at all.
Okay, once again, then I'll give up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Federal bill says: "Payment only for forceful rape"
And now we have a state which differentiates between a "normal" rape and a "forceful" rape. Your victim falls into the former category.
Suddenly we have a victim who has problems getting the money for the abortion.
You only need a minor functionary who believes that abortions are evil and is willing to stick to the word of the law.
Yet another person who doesn't understand the many and complex separations between how federal and state systems. I'm also pretty sure they don't hire anti-abortion activists as abortion dispensaries.
Ah, I see. If state and federal systems are that separated from each other, why exactly does this law exist in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
And you don't need to be an activist to be an asshole, my dear.
"Seemingly" being the operative word, but never mind, since I so revere myself as a scientist I must take everything I type with the seriousness of Zoroaster, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
There are alternatives to abortion to get rid of an unwanted child. Alternatives that don't require governments poking in people's hoo-haw's and subsidizing the cost of personal medical procedures. You realize this, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
An issue with the alternatives is that pregnancy itself is somewhat expensive, rather more so than an abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
A pregnancy certainly can be, but it doesn't have to be. If you are getting regular prenatal care and give birth in a hospital it can quickly add up. That being said, I've known several people who have had home births, which were relatively inexpensive. There are, of course, added risks to the mother that should be considered when making this an option.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Additionally, and perhaps more practically, there are couples who are incapable of having children that are often willing to subsidize the costs of pregnancy in order to adopt the child.
I'm not sure what their numbers are, but I'm sure there are more than the 200 or so abortions that were federally funded last year.
Because it deals with the distribution of federal dollars, primarily to state and private facilities that dispense abortions. And these facilities tend not to employ people who have moral qualms with abortion of any type.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
No, you can joke around all you want. I love it. Except when you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
1) Post on a serious topic
2) Apparently form an opinion
3) Ignore people detailing very particular and nuanced views on the subject
4) Then dismiss those people as "right-wing dildos" (even though they pretty unequivocally support the right to abortion)
...well don't you see how that's at least the slightest bit dickish?
Pregnancy is also sorta difficult and unpleasant, especially if you don't want the child. Plus you usually get attached to the child you're giving birth do. And if you do put it up for adoption, arguably that child is becoming a ward of the state until it can be placed in a home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I don't disagree. There are all sorts of difficult and unpleasant things people go through in life that there are remedies for. That doesn't mean I think the government should always fund those remedies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Specifically Nessus and I were discussing a scenario in which a poor woman has her life, and the life of her child ruined because she can't afford an abortion. My response to her was that there are alternatives to abortion that don't require a woman to spend money, (in some, limited cases she can even receive money) and wouldn't result in the rest of her life being ruined.
Alternatives that entail a risky and life-altering experience, yes. How is it in any way in society's best interests to force a person out of the work-force for several months, and risk their well-being for the sake of religious sensibilities? And given that many of the victims to be trivialized by this Pubbie stunt would require government subsidies to their medical procedure of having birth to begin with? I see that in a later response you advocated home births for the poor and disenfranchised with a straight face, though, so I'm not sure we can see eye to eye on this thing. (obligatory joke about libertarians' love affair with the 17th century and post-birth death rates)Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I'm a dick all the time, though! And I have some Feminazi-ish knee-jerks when it comes to religious wing-nuts trying to slut-shame incest victims or date raped women into pregnancies. So I am pretty abrasive and have no sympathy for people trying to excuse that. I am perfectly okay with being a dick about it, personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
We are talking about the same mythical poor woman who is likely not contributing much to the work force currently, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Like I said, there are families who would be more than willing to adopt a child, who have none of their own. Are there enough to cover all abortions? Doubtful. Are there enough to cover the modest few that the government already covers in cases of rape and incest? Absolutely, yes.
So let's have her churning out babies instead? It makes some kind of fiscal sense assuming those kids go to well-off barren couples, I guess. But at 21, a woman might not have been that much of a contribution to the work-force, save for McDee's and some nannying, but she's in college trying to get along and whoop, here comes Geoffrey with some Rohypnol and well too bad Suzie, you're stuck being a single mom/college drop-out, hope you don't mind us cutting wel-fare even further as per uncle Reagan!Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
And how many women would you have die giving birth at home for this program? How many of them would you want the government to subsidize giving birth at a hospital instead of getting an abortion at a hospital? Who would pay for their psychological damage? No one, because psychological damage doesn't exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Any couple wanting a baby to adopt can go to Romania or China, but I guess those babies aren't as racially pure as the produce of date-rape in US colleges?
You are arguing that a person ought to go through a 9-month, life-altering (ruining) experience after a severe psychological trauma to supplant the desires of a barren rich couple. I know it makes perfect libertarian sense but how morally abhorrent can you be for a dollar?
None? None, and myself, respectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
?Quote:
Any couple wanting a baby to adopt can go to Romania or China, but I guess those babies aren't as racially pure as the produce of date-rape in US colleges?
Childless couples here do go to China to adopt...
Quote:
You are arguing that a person ought to go through a 9-month, life-altering (ruining) experience after a severe psychological trauma to supplant the desires of a barren rich couple. I know it makes perfect libertarian sense but how morally abhorrent can you be for a dollar?
Sure, ideally the world would come to a halt for this woman while she got the necessary treatment to give her the proper physical, psychological, and emotional support that someone suffering such an awful trauma deserves. There are organizations that already offer many of these services. If you'd like, you can donate handsomely to them. You could pay half of every paycheck to make sure these women have the abortions you think they need to be happy and productive members of society.Quote:
So let's have her churning out babies instead? It makes some kind of fiscal sense assuming those kids go to well-off barren couples, I guess. But at 21, a woman might not have been that much of a contribution to the work-force, save for McDee's and some nannying, but she's in college trying to get along and whoop, here comes Geoffrey with some Rohypnol and well too bad Suzie, you're stuck being a single mom/college drop-out, hope you don't mind us cutting wel-fare even further as per uncle Reagan!
No, I'm arguing that a woman has a choice, and the options are out there. I can't think of very many college students who are paying tuition, buying books, and not somehow able to scrounge together the $300 to $500 dollars for an abortion if they so chose.
Right. So here we have an employee of such a facility who has to report how many abortions due to rape they had. Then some bureaucrat above them notices that the state wherein said facility resides makes a distinction between "normal" and "forceful" rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
And suddenly the facility has to distinguish between types of rape or lose their budget completely.
Except the author of this bill doesn't seem to be a religious nutter. He's just very much against abortion. And as far as anyone can tell, he isn't trying to force date-raped women into pregnancies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Fuzzy and I went over why he's not in a lot of detail. I can understand being angry at what you're being told about the bill, but what you're being told is simply false. Ignoring that and being a dick to Fuzzy and me is unreasonably dickish (as opposed to reasonably dickish).
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
No, because the propose law doesn't define "forceful rape". Nor does it define "rape", which doesn't exist in the federal criminal code. Plus it only concerns funding, not actual freedom to choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
As Fuzzy and I have said, the law is worded in an almost-meaningless way.
Strawmanning much? Never was about the freedom to choose. However, you can choose all you want if you don't have the money to pay for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I mean, I can also choose to buy a 150meter Yacht. But since I don't have the money for it, the choice becomes meaningless.
And if the law doesn't define rape, then it's down to the state laws which define rape - and then we arrive at the beginning, namely, that every state defines rape in a different way. Which means that you'll have much fun trying to get money if your state doesn't recognize your type of rape as actually rape.
So why can't one of those organizations be called the U.S. government? Because it's gun-men stealing potatoes again, right? I hate it when you fall back to the charity argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
If the law is worded in a meaningless way, then the only function of the exercise must be raising a reaction out of people. So I'm having a reaction. Like I said, I don't mind being a dick about this issue. Also, I would argue that a) given that this person is in a position of authority in the US, it is exceedingly likely he professes to some god or another b) anti-abortion sentiments tend to rise from religion or other forms of irrationality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught