Pubbies come out as the pro-rape party

[Enoch the Red]

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.

Why?

More importantly, why stop at rape? Why not give everyone who has ever had a traumatic experience in their life the emotional, physical, and psychological care they deserve?

[Nessus]

Why?

More importantly, why stop at rape? Why not give everyone who has ever had a traumatic experience in their life the emotional, physical, and psychological care they deserve?

My nation does, to an extent. It's easier to get if you're young, though.

As for why? Because it's an argument for yet again increasing the gaps in well-being between different segments of the population. If Suzie happens to be born into the bible belt and gets raped by her pastor, then tough shit on her, they won't have none of that liberal baby-killing in her community. But Suzette in NY can do dope at 12, fuck a Hugo Boss model and get her illicit fruit nixed in the bud by the well-meaning people at Abortion Outreach Charities. Why should Suzette have a "freer" life than Suzie, just because Suzette's parents happened not to live in the bible belt?

[GGT]

[...]If the law is worded in a meaningless way, then the only function of the exercise must be raising a reaction out of people.[...]

Yes.

[Enoch the Red]

As for why? Because it's an argument for yet again increasing the gaps in well-being between different segments of the population. If Suzie happens to be born into the bible belt and gets raped by her pastor, then tough shit on her, they won't have none of that liberal baby-killing in her community. But Suzette in NY can do dope at 12, fuck a Hugo Boss model and get her illicit fruit nixed in the bud by the well-meaning people at Abortion Outreach Charities. Why should Suzette have a "freer" life than Suzie, just because Suzette's parents happened not to live in the bible belt?

Not sure I'm getting how the crux of your argument pertains to federal funding for abortion. Or should there be mandatory, federally funded sterilization and abortion clinics?

[Nessus]

Not sure I'm getting how the crux of your argument pertains to federal funding for abortion. Or should there be mandatory, federally funded sterilization and abortion clinics?

Yeah.

(Not mandatory in the sense that they can mandate willy-nilly that this Billy and that Suzie get sterilized)

[Dreadnaught]

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.

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.

Actually, the case being made here is that reducing funding is removing the freedom to choose. While I support federal funding for abortions, I don't think removing funding from something also removes choice.

But this law wouldn't "trickle down" to our states in the manner you are suggesting. Our federal laws do define what we known as rape. Our federal laws just call it "sexual assault," not "rape". The definition is very detailed and comprehensive.

The problem is this law doesn't define "rape" in at all, so it's effectively meaningless. You may as well say the Federal government won't pay for abortions for women impregnated by arrogant men. Without a definition of arrogant men, the law is meaningless and a judge would throw out any unclear restriction like that.

Arguing over the language of a law whose language couldn't be reasonably interpreted doesn't help anyone.

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.

He represents central New Jersey. It's not the Bible Belt, FFS. Given that he removed the wording without defending it strongly suggests he realizes the wording was clumsy, not that this was a deliberate attempt to "re define rape".

Calling people "dildos" for pointing them out is a misapplication of hostility.

[Nessus]

He represents central New Jersey. It's not the Bible Belt, FFS. Given that he removed the wording without defending it strongly suggests he realizes the wording was clumsy, not that this was a deliberate attempt to "re define rape".

It's a Jersey thing?

None of those things is an argument against a or b.

Calling people "dildos" for pointing them out is a misapplication of hostility.

So infract me, or start following me into other threads questioning my scientific prowess, and how much I revere myself for them. That seems to be the modus operandi around these parts.

[Dreadnaught]

Yes, America is vast and intellectual diverse.

But I'm saying that some very detailed arguments were laid-out about why this wasn't re-defining rape. You didn't seem to even read those points or respond to them in any detail. Instead, you seem to be readily admitting to letting yourself be riled-up by a mob mentality on this.

[Nessus]

Yes, America is vast and intellectual diverse.

But I'm saying that some very detailed arguments were laid-out about why this wasn't re-defining rape. You didn't seem to even read those points or respond to them in any detail. Instead, you seem to be readily admitting to letting yourself be riled-up by a mob mentality on this.

So infract me, or start following me into other threads questioning my scientific prowess, and how much I revere myself for them. That seems to be the modus operandi around these parts.

[Dreadnaught]

Excuse the typo in that last post, I had beer for dinner last night.

I'm not threatening you with infractions, I'm calling out a particularly annoying thing that you're doing that is at odds with the intellect you seem to have.

[Nessus]

Excuse the typo in that last post, I had beer for dinner last night.

I'm not threatening you with infractions, I'm calling out a particularly annoying thing that you're doing that is at odds with the intellect you seem to have.

This is a pretty heavy back-pedaling from me revering myself as some kind of scientist.

[Khendraja'aro]

Nor does it define "rape", which doesn't exist in the federal criminal code.

Our federal laws do define what we known as rape. Our federal laws just call it "sexual assault," not "rape".

Say, do you confuse yourself from time to time?

[Steely Glint]

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.

There's not an affidavit or note from the court or whatever, there's a form. The form has to be signed by a physician certifying that the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest (or is medically necessary). If the wording was still as it was originally, and the form is updated to reflect the new law, and the new wording, then basically you've got a situation where a doctor is looking at a form saying "I hereby certify that the pregnancy was a result of forcible rape", and the women sitting across the table from him was date raped or similar, then I'd say it it doesn't matter so much that they're covered under the same charge or statue, especially as the rape doesn't even have to have been *reported* if the physician feels there are sufficient reasons for the victim not to have done so. However, it might matter if the state the physician is sitting legally defines forcible rape as something in particular. Or possibly it's just down to the doctor in question to make a judgment call about whether date rape is "forcible" or not. I honestly don't know how these things work. Can we at least agree that the removal of the word in question was a good thing, and that had it remained it might have had consequences in that a rape victim who would have qualified for medicaid funding before the law might not have been covered afterwards?

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.

Dread. Dreadnaught. Dready. Dreadster. You can't just go "uh, it happened for no reason! Occam's Razor!" Occan's Razor, properly stated, is that you shouldn't add anything to your theory beyond what necessary to explain whatever it is you're trying to explain, and the smaller the number of assumptions you have to make to explain something the better, e.g. if you're wondering why you lost your car keys and you go "oh, maybe it left them under the cushions on the couch or maybe someone broke into my house and stole them while I was on the toilet" then the former explanation is better because you've added the person breaking in when you could explain the missing car keys without etc. Obviously, though that particular rule of thumb doesn't apply if you have one theory which explains something, and another which doesn't.

Clearly we cannot sustain the argument that the writer of the law was actually trying to say "Hey, dape rape isn't really rape! Spousal rape is also impossible! Suck it feminists!" But we can say that he was trying to say something by using the word. Why? Because if he took the position you originally took, or still take, which is that all rape is by definition forcible then saying "forcible rape" is a tautology. Obviously, when you say "forcible rape" you're saying there's such a thing as non-forcible rape. And, in the context who federal funding for abortion, you're clearly saying that one is less serious, less traumatic &c.

[Wraith]

He probably meant Hanlon's Razor - never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

[LittleFuzzy]

There's not an affidavit or note from the court or whatever, there's a form. The form has to be signed by a physician certifying that the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest (or is medically necessary). If the wording was still as it was originally, and the form is updated to reflect the new law, and the new wording, then basically you've got a situation where a doctor is looking at a form saying "I hereby certify that the pregnancy was a result of forcible rape", and the women sitting across the table from him was date raped or similar, then I'd say it it doesn't matter so much that they're covered under the same charge or statue, especially as the rape doesn't even have to have been *reported* if the physician feels there are sufficient reasons for the victim not to have done so. However, it might matter if the state the physician is sitting legally defines forcible rape as something in particular. Or possibly it's just down to the doctor in question to make a judgment call about whether date rape is "forcible" or not. I honestly don't know how these things work. Can we at least agree that the removal of the word in question was a good thing, and that had it remained it might have had consequences in that a rape victim who would have qualified for medicaid funding before the law might not have been covered afterwards?

Ok, time for some more unpacking. The definition only matters when there is some disagreement, right? If the patient and physician say something and the Feds accept it, no controversy. There is only controversy if the Feds challenge it, or if the patient and physician are in disagreement. So that brings us to the definition of forcible rape? What is the definition of forcible rape? It's not whatever common sense definition you choose to apply. We're talking about money and the application of federal policy, if there is a disagreement then resolving it falls to the legal system in some fashion, as that is the mechanism by which controversy with the application of government policy is resolved. So what is the legal definition of forcible rape? This discussion has amply established there isn't one. So what is the de facto definition of forcible rape, what is used as a proxy by lawyers, judges, arbiters, ombudsmen, whomever, to provide meaning to the term? And we're once again back at how state statutes classify and treat the crime.

I'm going to repeat this here and whenever it comes up until you wrap your head around it Steely. You do not get to use common sense language to interpret law and applied policy. Common sense language does not apply. Legal language applies. Disagreement in this sphere does not get resolved by the dictionary of your working vocabulary, it gets resolved by the legal system which doesn't operate by quite the same rules.

[Khendraja'aro]

That's nice, Fuzzy. So, in addition to the rape and the resulting trauma, the victims also have to run through the legal system to get money they need. And of course they'll have the money to employ a lawyer in the first place.

[Steely Glint]

This discussion has amply established there isn't one.

No, this discussion has established that there are not separate offenses, but as should have been obvious to both of us, the actual offense someone is eventually charged with can't possibly have any bearing on the victims entitlement to funding. This is not the same as there being no legal definition. Usually, forcible, force, violent, by means of violence crops of up in the statue definitions. e.g. california "Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another."

[Nessus]

I'm going to repeat this here and whenever it comes up until you wrap your head around it Steely. You do not get to use common sense language to interpret law and applied policy. Common sense language does not apply. Legal language applies. Disagreement in this sphere does not get resolved by the dictionary of your working vocabulary, it gets resolved by the legal system which doesn't operate by quite the same rules.

Does this mean it's okay for me to post a laughing smilie whenever someone uses the words "force", "power", or "action"? Surely they can't use that kind of language and make arguments based on such folly.

[Steely Glint]

That's nice, Fuzzy. So, in addition to the rape and the resulting trauma, the victims also have to run through the legal system to get money they need. And of course they'll have the money to employ a lawyer in the first place.

Presumably, after the first challenge the outcome, whatever it is, will be accepted from then on because precedent. Fuzzy seems to be assuming that in the absence of any definition of forcible rape, everyone involved in implementing medicaid will just default to it assuming it means any rape but statutory, which doesn't seem to be a very safe assumption given the wildly divergent social attitudes in America, and also assuming that every victim told "sorry, not enough force, no abortion for you lol" by her conservitard physician deep in the bible belt, will actually realize the legal ambiguity of what she's just been told and that she's well within her rights to challenge that legally. He made the point himself about how complex the situation is. That's not even considering the point you made about costs &c.

Still, the courts are pretty quick and it's not like there's any kind of time limit on an abortion :v

So, no problem there then.

[LittleFuzzy]

That's nice, Fuzzy. So, in addition to the rape and the resulting trauma, the victims also have to run through the legal system to get money they need. And of course they'll have the money to employ a lawyer in the first place.

If, at some point, not all parties involved are in agreement and the Feds withhold funds from someone seeking them *which will definitely happen, I predict multiple times in the first year, a legal system covering 300+ million people generates plenty of administrative friction* then yes, the victim(s) so checked will have to run through the legal system to get that money. How was that not taken as a given by everybody? Do you people just assume everything runs perfectly as first designed, all the time? I know that's not the case in your countries anymore than it is here.

[Dreadnaught]

Say, do you confuse yourself from time to time?

No. I don't mean this pejoratively, but I assume this is a language thing you're not recognizing. Our laws don't define "rape", but they define the concept of rape as "sexual assault" and its defined in a lot of detail in the federal code when federal courts must rule on the issue. So using the word "rape" is a bit meaningless.

Dread. Dreadnaught. Dready. Dreadster. You can't just go "uh, it happened for no reason! Occam's Razor!" Occan's Razor, properly stated, is that you shouldn't add anything to your theory beyond what necessary to explain whatever it is you're trying to explain, and the smaller the number of assumptions you have to make to explain something the better, e.g. if you're wondering why you lost your car keys and you go "oh, maybe it left them under the cushions on the couch or maybe someone broke into my house and stole them while I was on the toilet" then the former explanation is better because you've added the person breaking in when you could explain the missing car keys without etc. Obviously, though that particular rule of thumb doesn't apply if you have one theory which explains something, and another which doesn't.

Clearly we cannot sustain the argument that the writer of the law was actually trying to say "Hey, dape rape isn't really rape! Spousal rape is also impossible! Suck it feminists!" But we can say that he was trying to say something by using the word. Why? Because if he took the position you originally took, or still take, which is that all rape is by definition forcible then saying "forcible rape" is a tautology. Obviously, when you say "forcible rape" you're saying there's such a thing as non-forcible rape. And, in the context who federal funding for abortion, you're clearly saying that one is less serious, less traumatic &c.

He probably meant Hanlon's Razor - never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Wraith is right, I meant it makes more sense to attribute this to stupidity. But we can't really say that the author is trying to say something at all. He:

1) Used an undefined word ("rape") in a piece of legislation, which renders the legislation confusing and probably moot.
2) Didn't bother to define the word, which would actually give the proposed law some meaning.
3) When confronted with this mess, he didn't bother to defend it at all. He removed the word "forcible" from the bill. And he'll have to remove the word "rape" as well before it's actually an interpretable law.

That's nice, Fuzzy. So, in addition to the rape and the resulting trauma, the victims also have to run through the legal system to get money they need. And of course they'll have the money to employ a lawyer in the first place.

I don't know of a functioning government that dispenses money without some kind of legal guidelines or structures.

[Khendraja'aro]

I don't know of a functioning government that dispenses money without some kind of legal guidelines or structures.

Ah, you're confused once again. Here, what do you make of my use of the word "lawyer", especially regarding my previous comments? Come on, engage your brain.