Pubbies come out as the pro-rape party

[Nessus]

Kindly grow up my dear. You posted an article making an inflammatory accusation. You disappear for a few days while some people (who don't even support the law) pick apart and cast doubt on the inflammatory accusation.

Then, instead of actually addressing these issues you come back and call everyone "right-wing dildos", even if they don't support the bill. With that level of candor and attention to detail, somehow you revere yourself as some kind of scientist?

Are you serious?

Like, actual honest to Uncle Limpy speaking from your heart of hearts, honest here?

What is wrong with you?

[GGT]

GGT, that's patently absurd. Just because someone is anti-abortion doesn't mean they are against public schools teaching sex-ed, free condom distribution, etc. Had a convo with a friend of mine over Christmas visiting from law school. She's a left-winger like the rest, but she confessed that she's recently started to doubt whether abortion should be legal.

You may as well say that someone who was against the Iraq was a fan of Sadaam using chemical weapons on Shiites. You're indulging in some really groggy political hate. Goodnight.

I just notice you edited before my quote and reply.

Now really, are you saying your opinion about abortion is validated by a conversation you had with a left-winger law school friend over Christmas? Really?

Somewhere else you mentioned that you wouldn't want your own child to suffer a malady if fetal cord stem cell could help or cure. You didn't want the government intervening against that possibility. So why the hell are you being contradictory?

[Enoch the Red]

Now really, are you saying your opinion about abortion is validated by a conversation you had with a left-winger law school friend over Christmas? Really?

Chaloobi has confessed to having mixed feelings about abortion. Is he a far right wingnut who disagrees with sex ed in schools/condoms being passed out?

[Omega]

Chaloobi has confessed to having mixed feelings about abortion. Is he a far right wingnut who disagrees with sex ed in schools/condoms being passed out?

We had flavored condoms passed out two years ago.

[Nessus]

Chaloobi has confessed to having mixed feelings about abortion. Is he a far right wingnut who disagrees with sex ed in schools/condoms being passed out?

I doubt many people are happy about the prospect, but this kind of slut-blaming (and whatever else, I can't imagine even teepers blaming incest victims for their fate) by the Pubbies isn't "mixed feelings" about abortions. And let's not get too bogged down discussing a piece of anecdotal evidence, that's just not going to go anywhere due to unreliable narrator.

[Enoch the Red]

I doubt many people are happy about the prospect, but this kind of slut-blaming (and whatever else, I can't imagine even teepers blaming incest victims for their fate) by the Pubbies isn't "mixed feelings" about abortions. .

I don't think the government should be paying for any abortions, either in pregnancies precipitated by rape or consensual sex. That doesn't mean I don't support a woman's right to choose. It certainly isn't a position that requires someone to blame the victims of rape.

By your reasoning, aren't those saying that federal dollars shouldn't be used to foot the medical bills of those who have been violently assaulted guilty of blaming the victims of assault?

How does not expecting the government to handle a private medical matter have any bearing on the burden of guilt or responsibility?

[Dreadnaught]

Are you serious?

Like, actual honest to Uncle Limpy speaking from your heart of hearts, honest here?

What is wrong with you?

I doubt many people are happy about the prospect, but this kind of slut-blaming (and whatever else, I can't imagine even teepers blaming incest victims for their fate) by the Pubbies isn't "mixed feelings" about abortions. And let's not get too bogged down discussing a piece of anecdotal evidence, that's just not going to go anywhere due to unreliable narrator.

Yes, I am totally serious. It's enormously arrogant and thick-headed of you to post something with bad information and then -- after two people post detailed and cited explanations of why this information is wrong and an exaggeration -- totally ignore what was posted and dismiss those two people as "right wing dildos."

I don't support this law, and I don't think Fuzzy does either. But we also have detailed reasons about why this isn't some kind of deliberate legislative attack on rape victims. Glossing over that and calling us extremists is...well, extremist.

I just notice you edited before my quote and reply.

Now really, are you saying your opinion about abortion is validated by a conversation you had with a left-winger law school friend over Christmas? Really?

Somewhere else you mentioned that you wouldn't want your own child to suffer a malady if fetal cord stem cell could help or cure. You didn't want the government intervening against that possibility. So why the hell are you being contradictory?

Why are you unable to comprehend that I don't support this law and I support the right to an abortion.

My point is that being against abortion doesn't mean you're for banning sex ed, banning the teaching of evolution, etc. Enoch's point is the same: views on one issue don't correlate to views on the other.

Saying that they do is like calling anti-war protestors terror-lovers.

[GGT]

Chaloobi has confessed to having mixed feelings about abortion. Is he a far right wingnut who disagrees with sex ed in schools/condoms being passed out?

I said this GOP bill is meant to activate their far right contingent. Not that all Republicans (or people who have mixed feelings about abortion) are in that group.

I don't think the government should be paying for any abortions, either in pregnancies precipitated by rape or consensual sex. That doesn't mean I don't support a woman's right to choose. It certainly isn't a position that requires someone to blame the victims of rape.

In essence, that means poor women don't really have a choice. The Hyde amendment covered federal funding only for rape or incest, this bill tries to whittle the numbers of women who qualify even smaller. Not that it would go into law, but they would have women go to court to prove statutory rape or date rape was 'forcible'? They'd prohibit ERs from prescribing immediate BC to certain post-rape victims? It's not really incest if the woman is over age 18?

Why are you unable to comprehend that I don't support this law and I support the right to an abortion.

My point is that being against abortion doesn't mean you're for banning sex ed, banning the teaching of evolution, etc. Enoch's point is the same: views on one issue don't correlate to views on the other.

Saying that they do is like calling anti-war protestors terror-lovers.

As I said, but will expound: there are groups of people whose agenda it is to get sex-ed out of public school, teach abstinence only, limit what BC pharmacies can offer OTC or by prescription, harass physicians, run women's clinics out of town, de-fund Planned Parenthood, restrict definitions of rape or incest, or outlaw abortion outright.

I never said everyone falls in those groups, not all social conservatives, not all Republicans. But 163 Republicans (plus some Democrats) have sponsored this bill. Many of those also want "government out of our personal lives" and "stop intervening between physicians and their patients". Many of those would also limit public assistance to poor mothers or their children. That's not only contradictory but short sighted.

People can say they're pro-choice or support the "right" to an abortion, but if funding is limited (even more than it already is) poor women don't have a choice, not the same choices as women with $500-$1,000 to spend on abortion.

[Dreadnaught]

Bottom line is you made a very blanket statement. It's not that much of an intellectual stretch to see that some people don't see not paying for something with federal tax dollars as "restricting choices." Just because the government doesn't pay me to go to restaurants once a month doesn't mean my dining options are being actively limited.

There are a wealth of private groups out there that raise money for pro-choice causes. I've donated to one of them in the past. I'm sure none of their donors would object to setting up an abortion fund for those who have a demonstrated need. It's not a new idea.

But if you think abortion is murder, but the courts have ruled that it's legal, the least you will want is to avoid your tax dollars paying for abortions. This isn't that radical of an idea. I disagree with it, but it's not that radical.

[GGT]

Bottom line is you made a very blanket statement.

Where? The GOP proposed the bill. The GOP is Republicans, some are right wing social conservatives, some are far right extremists, some are ardent pro-life anti-abortion. Yeah, what a blanket statement.

It's not that much of an intellectual stretch to see that some people don't see not paying for something with federal tax dollars as "restricting choices." Just because the government doesn't pay me to go to restaurants once a month doesn't mean my dining options are being actively limited.

Stick to health care analogies. Should there be federal funding for poor people who need dialysis, organ transplants, chemotherapy, appendectomy or any other surgical procedure.....?

There are a wealth of private groups out there that raise money for pro-choice causes. I've donated to one of them in the past. I'm sure none of their donors would object to setting up an abortion fund for those who have a demonstrated need. It's not a new idea.

And there are Shriner's Hospitals and St. Jude's, to treat poor children when public money isn't available for expensive burn and cancer treatments. That's great. But it shouldn't replace the government also funding those needs. We already have a lop-sided and unequal health system, one for the wealthy or well-insured, another for everyone else.

But if you think abortion is murder, but the courts have ruled that it's legal, the least you will want is to avoid your tax dollars paying for abortions. This isn't that radical of an idea. I disagree with it, but it's not that radical.

IMO it's radical to reduce federal funding for rape and incest, to promote their pro-life anti-abortion agenda, a tactic of this bill. (Regardless of whether it passes.) Some think it's murder to remove vegetative patients from life support. Do they propose bills defunding care for them?

Some think it's murder to have the death penalty. Do they propose bills defunding prisons that execute prisoners, or defunding public defenders that appeal the death penalty? Some think it's wrong to give health care to criminals in prison. Do they propose bills defunding clinics in prisons?

[Dreadnaught]

GGT, I've said repeatedly that I'm not going to respond to sentence-by-sentence slice-and-dice jobs. Paragraphs.

There are and have been pro-choice Republicans. Sen. Fred Thompson was pro-choice. McCain probably was. Senator Scott Brown is. Gov Lincoln Chafee is pro-choice. Once again, you're making very blanket and groggy statements. Not to mention throwing around these comparisons -- dialysis isn't as controversial as abortion.

But, really, this slice-and-dice thing doesn't work because it just leads to people looking at the part, instead of the whole. EG, your support of federally-funded rape and incest.

IMO it's radical to reduce federal funding for rape and incest

[Enoch the Red]

In essence, that means poor women don't really have a choice. The Hyde amendment covered federal funding only for rape or incest, this bill tries to whittle the numbers of women who qualify even smaller. Not that it would go into law, but they would have women go to court to prove statutory rape or date rape was 'forcible'? They'd prohibit ERs from prescribing immediate BC to certain post-rape victims? It's not really incest if the woman is over age 18?

The government has not subsidized me receiving breast augmentation. I can't afford it myself, therefore I don't really have the choice to get breast augmentations? Perhaps not, but I hardly think that's a bad thing.

The idea of poor people not having the same opportunities as those who are better off is hardly novel.

[GGT]

GGT, I've said repeatedly that I'm not going to respond to sentence-by-sentence slice-and-dice jobs. Paragraphs.

There are and have been pro-choice Republicans. Sen. Fred Thompson was pro-choice. McCain probably was. Senator Scott Brown is. Gov Lincoln Chafee is pro-choice. Once again, you're making very blanket and groggy statements. Not to mention throwing around these comparisons -- dialysis isn't as controversial as abortion.

But, really, this slice-and-dice thing doesn't work because it just leads to people looking at the part, instead of the whole. EG, your support of federally-funded rape and incest.

This GOP sponsored bill is "icky"and distasteful, by narrowing definitions for rape or incest, as a way to limit abortions. It's not a blanket groggy statement to note this comes from the GOP, as a tactic to re-ignite debates about abortion or healthcare.

Abortion is a LEGAL medical procedure. It can be deemed medically necessary by the patient and doctor, just like dialysis. You're the one slice 'n dicing, throwing around comparisons to non-medical procedures like....dining at restaurants.

The government has not subsidized me receiving breast augmentation. I can't afford it myself, therefore I don't really have the choice to get breast augmentations?

Perhaps not, but I hardly think that's a bad thing.

Another bogus comparison. A male having an elective cosmetic procedure for breast implants?

No, the medical analogy would be a poor woman with breast cancer, who either can't get chemo with mastectomy, or post-op prosthetic implant. Simply because she's poor. Or you having erectile dysfunction but can't get Viagra or a penile implant, common and legal treatments that other men can get, but you can't. Because you're poor. *Or you have gynecomastia but can't get breast reduction on Medicaid.*

[Dreadnaught]

This GOP sponsored bill is "icky"and distasteful, by narrowing definitions for rape or incest, as a way to limit abortions. It's not a blanket groggy statement to note this comes from the GOP, as a tactic to re-ignite debates about abortion or healthcare.

Abortion is a LEGAL medical procedure. It can be deemed medically necessary by the patient and doctor, just like dialysis. You're the one slice 'n dicing, throwing around comparisons to non-medical procedures like....dining at restaurants.

As we've gone over exhaustively, it doesn't define OR re-define anything because it's badly written. It doesn't change the legal status of abortion. That's not possible.

[GGT]

Yes, we've gone over and over this. You refuse to acknowledge what others find objectionable by the rape and incest mention.

Ivan said it well and said it best. I'll leave it at that.

[Enoch the Red]

No, the medical analogy would be a poor woman with breast cancer, who either can't get chemo with mastectomy, or post-op prosthetic implant. Simply because she's poor. Or you having erectile dysfunction but can't get Viagra or a penile implant, common and legal treatments that other men can get, but you can't. Because you're poor. *Or you have gynecomastia but can't get breast reduction on Medicaid.*

Absolutely. For the record, I also don't support subsidizing Viagra, or penile implants for the poor.

[Dreadnaught]

Because it's a patently ridiculous objection grounded in a totally amateurish reading of the law. Who the heck is Ivan?

[GGT]

You mean reading of the proposed bill. It's the GOP that's being amateurish and immature.

Crazy Ivan, posting in your abortion thread.

[Dreadnaught]

Umm...that was a different thread.

[LittleFuzzy]

You refuse to acknowledge what others find objectionable by the rape and incest mention.

Because they're wrong

[GGT]

Because they're wrong

The GOP is wrong to use rape and incest to promote their agenda. They're wrong to use hot button topics as a tactic to gain support. Whether it's SSSocialism as the rallying call, the Jobs-Killing Granny-Killing Death Panels of healthcare reform, the gummint taking away your guns.....they're wrong to polarize people with fear and xenophobia. But they do it all the time. That's how they deal with homeland security, illegal immigration, same-sex marriage. They won't condemn the racists, bigots, homophobes, or birthers in their party.

But hey, it's their prerogative to be wrong. If they want to be the party of Fear and turn voters off or away, that's their choice.

[Enoch the Red]

They're wrong to use hot button topics as a tactic to gain support.

My GOD?! Politicians are doing this now-a-days? Somebody stop the presses!

Whether it's SSSocialism as the rallying call, +the Jobs-Killing Granny-Killing Death Panels of healthcare reform, the gummint taking away your guns.....

You make it sound like there's no cause for alarm or anything to oppose in any of these issues. There are active members of the Democratic base, and the party as a whole who embrace each issue you named, and campaign actively on them. Or is it only wrong to oppose measures you disagree with GGT?

[Veldan Rath]

Or is it only wrong to oppose measures you disagree with GGT?

Adds new meaning to "An Inconvenient Truth" don't it?

[Ominous Gamer]

The Difference Between ‘Rape-Rape’ And ‘Rape-ish’
-Jon Stewart

[Nessus]

I don't think the government should be paying for any abortions, either in pregnancies precipitated by rape or consensual sex. That doesn't mean I don't support a woman's right to choose. It certainly isn't a position that requires someone to blame the victims of rape.

By your reasoning, aren't those saying that federal dollars shouldn't be used to foot the medical bills of those who have been violently assaulted guilty of blaming the victims of assault?

How does not expecting the government to handle a private medical matter have any bearing on the burden of guilt or responsibility?

Well see. On some level I do agree with you, I don't want random governments going around poking in people's hoo-haw's. But the Pubbie legislation proposed here fundamentally means that, if "the whore" didn't scream loud enough, didn't fight back hard enough to satisfy Sheriff Joe, she has to pay for her abortion out of her own pocket. So say she's poor, she's probably of the wrong race. The ensuing, Pubbie-mandated child is going to have a shitty life. The rape-child will ruin the poor (literally) girl's life. I find that pretty horrendous. Ideally, no one would have abortions. But ideally, no one would get raped, either. Good luck with both of those.

Yes, I am totally serious. It's enormously arrogant and thick-headed of you to post something with bad information and then -- after two people post detailed and cited explanations of why this information is wrong and an exaggeration -- totally ignore what was posted and dismiss those two people as "right wing dildos."

You're just upset I'm behaving like a GOP prez candidate without a proper birth certificate

No but seriously

Did you somehow miss the glaringly obvious hyperbole in the opening post?

I was not suggesting Pubbies are going to come around to rape anyone's mother anytime soon. It was the kind of political pundit language you lap up when it comes from the right. And then you went ahead and ranted about how "[I] revere myself as some kind of scientist", and well this was after two pages of you bending over backwards facilitating the latest Pubbie slut-blaming move. You'll have to excuse me when I don't take your poignant analysis and criticism to heart.

Thick-headed, though. That's nice.

[GGT]

My GOD?! Politicians are doing this now-a-days? Somebody stop the presses!

You make it sound like there's no cause for alarm or anything to oppose in any of these issues. There are active members of the Democratic base, and the party as a whole who embrace each issue you named, and campaign actively on them. Or is it only wrong to oppose measures you disagree with GGT?

Fuzzy was calling others in this thread wrong. He wants to focus on construction of laws, while others were bothered by the language surrounding rape and incest. I also mentioned politicking, and of course both parties do it.

We don't have to ask permission or get approval from others to be bugged about things that bug us!

[Steely Glint]

What is this bullshit? As you get pushed into a corner on this, you pull out increasingly arcane scenarios in which someone could be raped. You've not emphasized this whole scenario of finding someone passed-out somewhere and having sex with them. You've specifically brought up the threat of force and the administration of date rape drugs, which Fuzzy and I covered.

Being raped while passed out at a party is an "arcane scenario", now? How arcane does a scenario need to be to make it's exclusion by a single word in the bill irrelevant?

Fuzzy and yourself have both repeatedly made the point that the laws covering rape are diverse from state to state, and yet you want to use the example you happened to link to as conclusive proof, even though it does show that there *is* a distinction made in U.S law between forcible and non-forcible rape, and yet you think what you quoted was some kind of vindication of your position because it excluded some - but not all - of the things I was concerned about?

Yet you dishonestly continue to change what you're "actually" saying is so terrible about the irrelevant wording of the proposed law.

Some day, maybe I'll sit down with you and explain what an "example" is.

Bringing up the political reality of why these personal health care decisions is becoming politicized by anti-abortion zealots is what's known as honesty and realism. I'm not sure where yours went.

The same place as your basic human decency, presumably.

Steely, it occurred to me that it may help to re-state all of this.

Laws passed by a legislature usually need to:

1) Fit within an existing legal framework, OR

2) Establish a new legal framework with specific definitions, parameters and citing specific laws that are impacted/modified by this new law.

This particular bill proposed by the Republican Congressman does neither. It doesn't cite the existing legal framework around sexual assault and rape, nor does it establish new definitions for sexual assault and rape. It merely uses a word ("rape") that doesn't exist in our federal legal code.

Thus, while the intent of the law is clear (no federal money for abortions except in the case of rape), the actual text of the law is so poorly written it's almost meaningless. Because the law contains no definition of "rape" or "forcible rape", it would almost certainly be overturned in the face of a comprehensive legal definition for these things.

The term forcible rape, and various equivalents, is not unknown in state laws. And it's not just there as a way of making a distinction between statutory rape and regular rape, but speaks of the means used to accomplish the rape. *Whether or not some, none, most or all of the definitions of forcible rape, violent rape etc cover things like date rape is completely irrelevant, the distinction should not be made in the context of who gets federal funding for an abortion*.

This is why the law is literally not "re-defining rape". At the federal level, there is already a legal definition of what we know as "rape". And this law doesn't change that. It's basically a fart in the wind.

No, the law isn't redefining rape since it has nothing do with the status of rape as a crime. However, just because it's not *as* abhorrent as the Mother Jones article made it out to be does not mean it is not still abhorrent in its own right, irrespective of whatever spin they tried to put on it.

Now consider this. Assume I accept the arguments you and Fuzzy are making about the law being irrelevant legally. Which I don't accept at all, but setting that disagreement aside, for what reason do you think the word "forcible" was included in the first place? I do realize you said the wording was "sloppy" but I don't think we can take that to mean it was bashed out in a couple of hours, and tossed before the House without even being looked at. We're talking about a piece of potentual legislation. Obviously, the word was included for a reason. What reason do you think that was?

That said, this fart in the wind is a specific concern many (including myself) had with our health care law. If a stem cell treatment comes out someday that could save my child's life, but the stem cells come from an aborted fetus, I don't want a religious legislator telling me I can't get that treatment (or that my insurance company legally can't pay for it).

And I don't want to be in a situation where I can't afford the stem cell treatment for my child because our countries health-care system, our insurance company has gotten out of paying for it, because they're an insurance company and that's what they *do*, and in fact the whole system is nothing more method of transferring money from the general public to insurance companies, directly or through government subsidies. Both scenarios are to be avoided if at all possible, and should surely be a clear demonstration of the folly of voting for Republicans. But apparently it's not seen that way. Apparently, it's the democrats fault for passing legislation that makes it possible for the Republicans to try and fuck people at every turn, rather than the Republicans fault for trying to fuck people at every turn. But that's an argument another thread.

We're on the same side of this, but your unwillingness to chill out and delve into the details and the big picture is devolving your posts into a series of "fuck offs" directed at me and Fuzzy.

No, just you.

That summary of all 50 states lists it as a separate offense. Which demonstrates the limitations of that document because, as an online perusal of the Arizona state legal code as partially shown in those other two links demonstrates that, as I told Minx, it is their aggravated assault law. Note the requirement that the perpetrator had to be a repeat offender for that statute to apply. Violence clearly can included within the bounds of the statute I first linked, and the first violent offense doesn't trigger the one you just linked. Yet you're still trying to insist that Arizona is drawing a distinction which the Feds will take advantage of.

Yeah, I completely missed the part about not applying to first offensive, though it is still very thin to claim that Arizona makes absolutely no distinction between rape by violence/force and rape by other means. Force is right there in the definitions for the statue, as it is for virtually every other state.

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'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.

Actually, the text used in the Louisiana state code is "intoxicating agent" for simple rape which really does mean it's limited to alcohol, and I believe I mentioned at the very beginning that the interplay between alcohol and rape is an area where there is substantial disagreement still in US law, and repeated it at least once since.

The point was that the distinction made between forcible rape and simple rape was that the rapist had to be the administering agent.

What, I'm just supposed to take your word on it? Do the research to support YOUR position? Put up or shut up,you howling, lazy-ass hypocrite. Show us where I'm wrong in the assertions I've made to you, Khend, and Nessus in this thread.

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.

Are we going to go over that Israeli case again? Consensual sex under false pretenses still does involve consent being given.

Too bad the law didn't use the phrase "non-consensual", then.

[Loki]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020304370.html

[Steely Glint]

Excellent news.

You could have posted that before I typed all that shit out, though.

[Loki]

That wouldn't be very fun.