Topic: Bill to redefine rape
Anonymous A started this discussion 16 years ago #65
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion
I heard today about the Republican bill pushing to redefine rape so as to only include 'forcible' instances of rape as those recognized by abortion law as worthy of federal monetary assistance.
I find it pretty disgusting that this bill would essentially further that statutory or drug-involving cases of rape 'don't count' and would leave these victims often without the funds necessary for abortions.
Despite my often conservative political views, I cannot understand how such a bill could be justified.
Thoughts?
I heard today about the Republican bill pushing to redefine rape so as to only include 'forcible' instances of rape as those recognized by abortion law as worthy of federal monetary assistance.
I find it pretty disgusting that this bill would essentially further that statutory or drug-involving cases of rape 'don't count' and would leave these victims often without the funds necessary for abortions.
Despite my often conservative political views, I cannot understand how such a bill could be justified.
Thoughts?
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 16 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #961
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 16 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #964
@previous (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
i wish that i could be mad at you for ignoring the actual SRS subject at hand, but i thought that too upon re-reading the title!!! also, i can't handle the capitalizations, done y'all.
i wish that i could be mad at you for ignoring the actual SRS subject at hand, but i thought that too upon re-reading the title!!! also, i can't handle the capitalizations, done y'all.
totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC joined in and replied with this 16 years ago, 48 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #966
That is just so sad.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 4 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #967
AC !tyLmN8C16E joined in and replied with this 16 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #976
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #980
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #990
jump !VIfloDyEYo joined in and replied with this 16 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #995
Republicans - disgusting human beings who take away people's rights and then are called heros for it.
Praise, Jesus!
Praise, Jesus!
nimj joined in and replied with this 16 years ago, 56 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #997
@961 (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
> When I read the headline I thought "DepressionBill will redefine rape. FUCK yeah."
I thought that too!
> When I read the headline I thought "DepressionBill will redefine rape. FUCK yeah."
I thought that too!
nimj double-posted this 16 years ago, 32 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #999
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 16 years ago, 47 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,001
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 24 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,003
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ double-posted this 16 years ago, 24 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,004
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 16 years ago, 36 seconds later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,005
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,009
Anonymous G replied with this 16 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,014
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 37 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,018
Bill joined in and replied with this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,024
FUCK YEA I'M GOING TO REDEFINE RAPE!
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 16 years ago, 53 seconds later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,027
Anonymous G replied with this 16 years ago, 2 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,029
@1,018 (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
I'm not to argue this any further. You are a long time poster here; it is inconceivable that you have not come up across any of the multitude of posts where jump claims to suffer from pedophilia. I am also unable to link you to any old posts because they are gone.
I'm not to argue this any further. You are a long time poster here; it is inconceivable that you have not come up across any of the multitude of posts where jump claims to suffer from pedophilia. I am also unable to link you to any old posts because they are gone.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 16 years ago, 3 seconds later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,030
@995 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
i disagree!!
i think it's really unfortunate how much the democratic party banks off of the fact that people are unwilling or unable to understand arguments more complex than social ones like the one i brought up with this topic.
while my ideals certainly align far better with those of the democratic party, i really think it's apparent that america doesn't handle social welfare well at fucking all. we aren't ready for that and in the meantime i'd rather keep my money and build national incentive to create wealth rather than redistribute it and invest in education. the ideals of the democratic party are hardly ever reached through their policies and i default to conservatism in terms of fiscal matters.
socially liberal still, but i wish that people would look past those things for a change.
i disagree!!
i think it's really unfortunate how much the democratic party banks off of the fact that people are unwilling or unable to understand arguments more complex than social ones like the one i brought up with this topic.
while my ideals certainly align far better with those of the democratic party, i really think it's apparent that america doesn't handle social welfare well at fucking all. we aren't ready for that and in the meantime i'd rather keep my money and build national incentive to create wealth rather than redistribute it and invest in education. the ideals of the democratic party are hardly ever reached through their policies and i default to conservatism in terms of fiscal matters.
socially liberal still, but i wish that people would look past those things for a change.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 36 seconds later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,031
Anonymous G replied with this 16 years ago, 2 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,037
@1,027 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
You insult millions of people with defamatory opinions and yet you think it improper for me to calmly state facts about you?
You insult millions of people with defamatory opinions and yet you think it improper for me to calmly state facts about you?
Anonymous G double-posted this 16 years ago, 2 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,039
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 16 years ago, 4 seconds later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,040
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,046
Anonymous G replied with this 16 years ago, 2 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,052
@previous (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
Have you ever seen a post where jump acknowledges being a pedophile?
Have you ever seen a post where jump acknowledges being a pedophile?
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 3 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,063
psychopath !PSYCHOhc32 joined in and replied with this 16 years ago, 2 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,073
Statutorey rape is a logical fellatio.
Anonymous G replied with this 16 years ago, 46 seconds later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,076
@1,063 (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
You are arguing from a position of ignorance. I have seen these posts (as have you, but you want admit it ITT. Or maybe I'm confusing you with Fats?) and I will show them to you if they are restored.
You are arguing from a position of ignorance. I have seen these posts (as have you, but you want admit it ITT. Or maybe I'm confusing you with Fats?) and I will show them to you if they are restored.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 41 seconds later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,079
Anonymous G replied with this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,083
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 2 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,090
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 16 years ago, 5 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,105
@1,030 (A)
We are an ignorant people. We need more money in education. We need better education standards. Conservatives have been battling to lower our education standards and rewrite history. They have succeeded somewhat.
There needs to be set standards that cannot be changed on a state level without losing federal funding.
For everything. If Texas wants to elect morons to the board of education who want to teach creationism and that the founding fathers were all devout Christians who wrote the constitution with Jesus in mind, take away their money. When such a large book buyer sets such crazy standard it can impact the nation because publishers will make books to fit those standards and other districts are forced to buy them.
When California was unable to buy new books the Texas board of education almost single handidly destroyed our education system.
If our country was more educated (we are trailing in pretty much all subjects) we would see less of this shit. People in the united states are ignorant. Proper education is the answer.
We are an ignorant people. We need more money in education. We need better education standards. Conservatives have been battling to lower our education standards and rewrite history. They have succeeded somewhat.
There needs to be set standards that cannot be changed on a state level without losing federal funding.
For everything. If Texas wants to elect morons to the board of education who want to teach creationism and that the founding fathers were all devout Christians who wrote the constitution with Jesus in mind, take away their money. When such a large book buyer sets such crazy standard it can impact the nation because publishers will make books to fit those standards and other districts are forced to buy them.
When California was unable to buy new books the Texas board of education almost single handidly destroyed our education system.
If our country was more educated (we are trailing in pretty much all subjects) we would see less of this shit. People in the united states are ignorant. Proper education is the answer.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 16 years ago, 45 seconds later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,108
@1,090 (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
It is sad that you lusted after her for so long with no release that you ended up in a public bathroom paying her son to show you his penis.
It is sad that you lusted after her for so long with no release that you ended up in a public bathroom paying her son to show you his penis.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,111
@previous (G)
Lol. Yes and it is sad that you would resort to such activities to fuel your addiction to the cocks of men and meth.
Lol. Yes and it is sad that you would resort to such activities to fuel your addiction to the cocks of men and meth.
Anonymous G replied with this 16 years ago, 47 seconds later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,113
@1,105 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
> Conservatives have been battling to lower our education standards and rewrite history
Stop lying. You are a large part of the problem.
> Proper education is the answer.
This is correct. People have different ideas on what "proper" is, though.
> Conservatives have been battling to lower our education standards and rewrite history
Stop lying. You are a large part of the problem.
> Proper education is the answer.
This is correct. People have different ideas on what "proper" is, though.
Anonymous G double-posted this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,118
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 2 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,125
Anonymous G replied with this 16 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,140
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 16 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,142
@1,113 (G)
I am not lying. This is fact. You can even YouTube videos of the debates. The conservatives sound as dumb as you would expect.
Proper education is based on facts. Education standards should be set by people who are recognized experts in their field. Not everything can be right, but if kids are taught one thing, then get to college and have to be retaught simple biology or history, it is a huge waste of resources.
Conservatives are bad for this country. Democrats at least want to do a lot of things that are good for this country. Conservatives say they want to do some good things (like lower the deficit), but they then take deliberate actions that have the opposite effect.
Republicans sound fucking crazy for the most part. I never say "Democrats are so great" I don't really care for our government, but its obvious when one side is trying to run a country and the other is playing politics. It's disgusting and people need to wake up before it is too late.
I am not lying. This is fact. You can even YouTube videos of the debates. The conservatives sound as dumb as you would expect.
Proper education is based on facts. Education standards should be set by people who are recognized experts in their field. Not everything can be right, but if kids are taught one thing, then get to college and have to be retaught simple biology or history, it is a huge waste of resources.
Conservatives are bad for this country. Democrats at least want to do a lot of things that are good for this country. Conservatives say they want to do some good things (like lower the deficit), but they then take deliberate actions that have the opposite effect.
Republicans sound fucking crazy for the most part. I never say "Democrats are so great" I don't really care for our government, but its obvious when one side is trying to run a country and the other is playing politics. It's disgusting and people need to wake up before it is too late.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,147
@1,105 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
proper education is the answer, we agree on that.
but is it not CLEAR at this point that there is no solvency for accountability within the public education system solely via application of more funding? we are throwing our money away there and in many more places as well.
social welfare is great, but america SUCKS at it. same goes for education.
we don't have the regulation necessary to make it worth the effort and funding for either.
my 'conservative' viewpoint is not supportive of this ignorance being taught, just recognizing that pouring money into a system that needs serious scrutiny before it can begin to achieve its objective is futile.
proper education is the answer, we agree on that.
but is it not CLEAR at this point that there is no solvency for accountability within the public education system solely via application of more funding? we are throwing our money away there and in many more places as well.
social welfare is great, but america SUCKS at it. same goes for education.
we don't have the regulation necessary to make it worth the effort and funding for either.
my 'conservative' viewpoint is not supportive of this ignorance being taught, just recognizing that pouring money into a system that needs serious scrutiny before it can begin to achieve its objective is futile.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 16 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,160
@previous (A)
Oh, no no. I agree with you. We need to do away with programs like "No Child Left Behind" which Clinton planned to do, I should add.
If everyone had listened to me and voted for Clinton, she would have fixed this country by now.
Yea, our entire education system needs to be overhauled. I don't just mean standards, I mean the way that we educate kids. The current system isn't great. Education should be tailored to each child. Our children should be taught to learn on their own. I don't really know what can be done, but a friend who is a teacher was talking about how the education system is inherenly flawed. So, I would leave it to people like her to fix it. I was drunk when she was talking about it and don't really recall specifics.
Forcing kids to memorize facts for tests so they don't lose funding isn't making our coutry smarter.
Oh, no no. I agree with you. We need to do away with programs like "No Child Left Behind" which Clinton planned to do, I should add.
If everyone had listened to me and voted for Clinton, she would have fixed this country by now.
Yea, our entire education system needs to be overhauled. I don't just mean standards, I mean the way that we educate kids. The current system isn't great. Education should be tailored to each child. Our children should be taught to learn on their own. I don't really know what can be done, but a friend who is a teacher was talking about how the education system is inherenly flawed. So, I would leave it to people like her to fix it. I was drunk when she was talking about it and don't really recall specifics.
Forcing kids to memorize facts for tests so they don't lose funding isn't making our coutry smarter.
(Edited 53 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 16 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,169
@1,142 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
You seem confused about what you are talking about. When questioned about it you step back into even wider, more sweeping generalizations. Please stop with insults and name-calling and false dichotomies and start talking about actual policies and ideas.
You seem confused about what you are talking about. When questioned about it you step back into even wider, more sweeping generalizations. Please stop with insults and name-calling and false dichotomies and start talking about actual policies and ideas.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 16 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,171
@1,160 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
indeed.
likewise, the application of federal funding to acquiring supplies or raising wages for teachers who aren't held accountable in any way doesn't make the country smarter either.
the application of No Child Left Behind was an undeniable failure, resulting in teaching to the test and a marked loss of the much-needed individualized education you speak of in favor of a shift of education specifically towards memorization of facts rather than skill development.
but the intent was to provide some feasible way to guarantee that the teachers in our public schools were in fact providing quality education, and not some of the ridiculous shit that you referenced before.
here is where my viewpoint comes in that it will only hurt us to give more of our money to these ineffective institutions before ensuring that they're actually doing their job.
a significant increase in funding for schools at this point would fail within the context any utility calculus. We have no reason to expect that our money will do any good in institutions plagued with this corruption and lack of accountability.
indeed.
likewise, the application of federal funding to acquiring supplies or raising wages for teachers who aren't held accountable in any way doesn't make the country smarter either.
the application of No Child Left Behind was an undeniable failure, resulting in teaching to the test and a marked loss of the much-needed individualized education you speak of in favor of a shift of education specifically towards memorization of facts rather than skill development.
but the intent was to provide some feasible way to guarantee that the teachers in our public schools were in fact providing quality education, and not some of the ridiculous shit that you referenced before.
here is where my viewpoint comes in that it will only hurt us to give more of our money to these ineffective institutions before ensuring that they're actually doing their job.
a significant increase in funding for schools at this point would fail within the context any utility calculus. We have no reason to expect that our money will do any good in institutions plagued with this corruption and lack of accountability.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 16 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 16 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,182
@1,169 (G)
I've done no such thing. You seem not capable of having such a conversation. You claiming something doesn't mean it is true.
I was specific when I talked directly about Texas. If you are uninformed, that is on you.
I've done no such thing. You seem not capable of having such a conversation. You claiming something doesn't mean it is true.
I was specific when I talked directly about Texas. If you are uninformed, that is on you.
Anonymous G replied with this 16 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,195
@1,173 (A)
@previous (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
Jump: it's not just me saying this. You rant about "Republicans", "Conservatives", "Catholics" and "Fundamentalists" every day. Typically you insult them then blame all the world's problems on them. This is not constructive. This is the problem. Let us calmly discuss issues without insulting people. Are you able/ willing to do that?
@previous (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
Jump: it's not just me saying this. You rant about "Republicans", "Conservatives", "Catholics" and "Fundamentalists" every day. Typically you insult them then blame all the world's problems on them. This is not constructive. This is the problem. Let us calmly discuss issues without insulting people. Are you able/ willing to do that?
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,199
@previous (G)
> "Republicans", "Conservatives", "Catholics" and "Fundamentalists"
All of them RAPE CHILDREN.
> "Republicans", "Conservatives", "Catholics" and "Fundamentalists"
All of them RAPE CHILDREN.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 16 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,203
@1,195 (G)
No. They deserve to be ridiculed and belittled. They should feel ashamed for what they do.
I am not gonna try to reason with unreasonable people. What is happening right now in our government is the perfect example.
I will insult people who I feel deserve it. Tolerance does not work with the intolerant.
No. They deserve to be ridiculed and belittled. They should feel ashamed for what they do.
I am not gonna try to reason with unreasonable people. What is happening right now in our government is the perfect example.
I will insult people who I feel deserve it. Tolerance does not work with the intolerant.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 16 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,204
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 16 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,205
@1,203 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
mindless criticism of the republican party as a whole is so bad for all of us. please actually read or respond to my posts ITT.
huge generalizations mirroring an unwillingness or inability to understand that which lies beyond the immediate realm of easily understandable social issues like gay marriage or abortion or anything that allows one to be unilaterally critical on some religious basis.
hi, does anyone want to think about the efficacy of any policies anymore?
attitudes like this keep us uneducated.
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
mindless criticism of the republican party as a whole is so bad for all of us. please actually read or respond to my posts ITT.
huge generalizations mirroring an unwillingness or inability to understand that which lies beyond the immediate realm of easily understandable social issues like gay marriage or abortion or anything that allows one to be unilaterally critical on some religious basis.
hi, does anyone want to think about the efficacy of any policies anymore?
attitudes like this keep us uneducated.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,207
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 16 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,210
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,212
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,213
@previous (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
ppl liek u maek me feel liek its totes necessaries 2 b a publie-kinz.
ppl liek u maek me feel liek its totes necessaries 2 b a publie-kinz.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 16 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,215
@1,205 (A)
The republican party is acting as one. They all worked to stall the senate for a very very small portion of the country that happens to be disgustingly rich.
They support each other. If you associate with these people. If you work to undermine a president at the cost of progress for political gain, I will lump you in with them because you are one of them.
I mean, if you want to stick up for people who want to tell a young girl she wasn't raped because she didn't physically try to over power her much larger and stronger adult rapist and cooperated out of fear, that is on you.
The republican party is acting as one. They all worked to stall the senate for a very very small portion of the country that happens to be disgustingly rich.
They support each other. If you associate with these people. If you work to undermine a president at the cost of progress for political gain, I will lump you in with them because you are one of them.
I mean, if you want to stick up for people who want to tell a young girl she wasn't raped because she didn't physically try to over power her much larger and stronger adult rapist and cooperated out of fear, that is on you.
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 16 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,219
@previous (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
> because she didn't physically try to over power her much larger had stronger adult rapist and cooperated out of fear
did you even read the article? that isn't what this is about.
if you're going to use this lump-logic then it's totally safe for me to say that you're part of a large and ignorant base allowing for the success of democratic legislators simply because you don't want to understand or think about the legitimate effects of policies, and rather opt for basing your opinions on sensationalized pop-culture liberal sentiment. politicians are getting rich off people like you who want to parade around in a 'free tibet' shirt without knowing shit about the historical context of the country's economy or any mitigating factor that would necessitate thinking beyond popular sentiment that makes you feel good about your political choices.
shame on you, bro. especially considering the fundamentals we agree upon.
> because she didn't physically try to over power her much larger had stronger adult rapist and cooperated out of fear
did you even read the article? that isn't what this is about.
if you're going to use this lump-logic then it's totally safe for me to say that you're part of a large and ignorant base allowing for the success of democratic legislators simply because you don't want to understand or think about the legitimate effects of policies, and rather opt for basing your opinions on sensationalized pop-culture liberal sentiment. politicians are getting rich off people like you who want to parade around in a 'free tibet' shirt without knowing shit about the historical context of the country's economy or any mitigating factor that would necessitate thinking beyond popular sentiment that makes you feel good about your political choices.
shame on you, bro. especially considering the fundamentals we agree upon.
Anonymous G replied with this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,220
@OP I am sorry that trolls have ruined your thread :/
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,221
@1,219 (A)
Yes. There is no standard for forceable rape.
This is the exact kind of situation that could arise. Or a 13 year old who gets pregnant by a 40 year old she met on the intertubes.
The article even shows that there are anti-women's rights folks who believe provisions in this bill could lead to private insurances being unable to fund abortions.
These people are crazy monsters.
Yes. There is no standard for forceable rape.
This is the exact kind of situation that could arise. Or a 13 year old who gets pregnant by a 40 year old she met on the intertubes.
The article even shows that there are anti-women's rights folks who believe provisions in this bill could lead to private insurances being unable to fund abortions.
These people are crazy monsters.
jump !VIfloDyEYo double-posted this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,223
@1,219 (A)
Also, I'm a democrats by default. I indentured as a republican until I started following politics during the bush years.
Also, I'm a democrats by default. I indentured as a republican until I started following politics during the bush years.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 16 years ago, 42 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,225
@1,221 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
did you miss the part where my thread didn't support any of this.
@1,220 (G)
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfa4k6wfWx1qzwcfho1_500.gif
did you miss the part where my thread didn't support any of this.
@1,220 (G)
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfa4k6wfWx1qzwcfho1_500.gif
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 45 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226
@1,213 (A)
You misspelled a lot of words in that post. Perhaps you are not educated. Let me educate you on something: REPUBLICANS RAPE CHILDREN.
You misspelled a lot of words in that post. Perhaps you are not educated. Let me educate you on something: REPUBLICANS RAPE CHILDREN.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 16 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,227
@previous (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_leyioqwLMn1qzssaso1_500.gif
trulled.
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_leyioqwLMn1qzssaso1_500.gif
trulled.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 16 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228
@previous (A)
I was going to click on that link but then I remembered that REPUBLICANS RAPE CHILDREN so I didn't.
I was going to click on that link but then I remembered that REPUBLICANS RAPE CHILDREN so I didn't.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,229
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 16 years ago, 18 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,230
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 16 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,232
@1,225 (A)
I didn't imply you did. Reading comprehension. Get some.
I accused you of sticking up for these kind of people.
I didn't imply you did. Reading comprehension. Get some.
I accused you of sticking up for these kind of people.
(Edited 28 seconds later.)
Clyde Clash !!UP4vRKCUX joined in and replied with this 16 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,233
@OP
@Anonymous G
Jump is making baseless generalizations, nothing new there.
I don't follow politics too much but I'm certainly still hoping that this bill isn't passed for obvious reasons.
@Anonymous G
Jump is making baseless generalizations, nothing new there.
I don't follow politics too much but I'm certainly still hoping that this bill isn't passed for obvious reasons.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 16 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,235
Clyde Clash !!UP4vRKCUX replied with this 16 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,239
@previous (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
Well, you do tend to do what I mentioned in my last post very often. Your writing style is not the best either, you go from subject to subject like there's no tomorrow and the examples you use are never terribly clear.
Well, you do tend to do what I mentioned in my last post very often. Your writing style is not the best either, you go from subject to subject like there's no tomorrow and the examples you use are never terribly clear.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
SquaЯeD !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 16 years ago, 52 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,240
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 16 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,247
@1,239 (Clyde Clash !!UP4vRKCUX)
I am forced to as when I discuss a subject people often retreat and refuse to engage when they realize how they are overmatched, and far out of their trolling comfort zone.
I am forced to as when I discuss a subject people often retreat and refuse to engage when they realize how they are overmatched, and far out of their trolling comfort zone.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 16 years ago, 51 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,255
Oh so very, very exploitable.
Any dedicated Lawyer will see teh potential here.
Any dedicated Lawyer will see teh potential here.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 16 years ago, 42 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,259
@previous (M)
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this will only affect paying for abortions and what is allowed under tax funded plans (and possibly private insurance plans).
It isn't going to legalize statutory rape.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this will only affect paying for abortions and what is allowed under tax funded plans (and possibly private insurance plans).
It isn't going to legalize statutory rape.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 16 years ago, 39 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291
ITT: Jump is the worst troll on MC yet gets away with it because he trolls on the same side as the mods? I don't know, I don't fully understand it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,605
@1,259 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
it doesn't, but it still allows a governmental system to classify these instances of rape as legally exceptional which presents an obvious problem.
it doesn't, but it still allows a governmental system to classify these instances of rape as legally exceptional which presents an obvious problem.
psychopath !PSYCHOhc32 replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,608
Republicans want more incest babies so they can have more future voter support. Big surprise here.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,614
totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,618
It does seem like a lot of Republican legislation is made to control women.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,623
psychopath !PSYCHOhc32 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,627
@1,618 (totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC)
It's almost like they are trying to bring Sharia law into practice, much like how Europe is doing. Republicans are tsundere for Muslims.
It's almost like they are trying to bring Sharia law into practice, much like how Europe is doing. Republicans are tsundere for Muslims.
FUD !dLadyGAgAA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,631
@1,623 (A)
How about HB9001, requiring 2 hours per day of bondage for every female over the age of 18?
How about HB9001, requiring 2 hours per day of bondage for every female over the age of 18?
totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,632
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,643
@previous (totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC)
okay, you just named what i brought up in this topic. do you have any other example? what autonomy does a woman lose here?
okay, you just named what i brought up in this topic. do you have any other example? what autonomy does a woman lose here?
totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,650
@previous (A)
Based on this bill? I would say that it would be very harmful to say that having sex with a drugged person is not a crime. I do have a small problem with statutory laws, but that is a whole other story.
Based on this bill? I would say that it would be very harmful to say that having sex with a drugged person is not a crime. I do have a small problem with statutory laws, but that is a whole other story.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,662
@previous (totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC)
okay, that's criticism we agree upon based on the legislation at hand but it doesn't outline how the bill may serve to 'control women' as you propose that 'a lot of republican (specifically) legislation' does.
you're making a totally unwarranted claim.
okay, that's criticism we agree upon based on the legislation at hand but it doesn't outline how the bill may serve to 'control women' as you propose that 'a lot of republican (specifically) legislation' does.
you're making a totally unwarranted claim.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,664
Bill redefines rape.
Bill Clinton redefined sex.
So what?
Bill Clinton redefined sex.
So what?
totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,666
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,684
@previous (totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC)
okay. why would republicans want to do this? what other legislation shows they have this agenda, since you claim there is a lot of it?
okay. why would republicans want to do this? what other legislation shows they have this agenda, since you claim there is a lot of it?
FUD !dLadyGAgAA replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,687
totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,690
@1,684 (A)
I really don't know why they would want to. One problem is that Republican's do tend to be Christian and the Christian Bible is not female friendly. Also, do you want me to look through and find all of the proposed amendments against abortion?
I really don't know why they would want to. One problem is that Republican's do tend to be Christian and the Christian Bible is not female friendly. Also, do you want me to look through and find all of the proposed amendments against abortion?
totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,701
Republican's fought against women's suffrage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage_in_the_United_States
psychopath !PSYCHOhc32 replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,702
totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,703
@previous (psychopath !PSYCHOhc32)
Lol, I just noticed that. Either way, it's still very accurate.
Lol, I just noticed that. Either way, it's still very accurate.
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
LimeJam !pFNWNYROxA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,707
rape bad consensual sex good
FUD !dLadyGAgAA replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,708
totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,716
Republicans' voted against encouraging workplace accommodations for expressing breast milk.
http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=BillInfo&Service=Billbook&ga=83&hbill=SF2270
http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=BillInfo&Service=Billbook&ga=83&hbill=SF2270
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,724
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,726
I dedicate this 100 get to all the little monsters.totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,729
Another example of Republican's against abortion.
Quote,
In Kansas: Republican state Rep. Lance Kinzer introduced a bill this month that would require women under the age of 18 to receive the explicit consent of both her parents before seeking an abortion. Exceptions will only be made in cases where “family sexual abuse is involved,†and even then women will need the approval of one parent, according to the Kansas Reporter. The bill’s supporters cite false and misleading data about how young women who have abortions are more likely to have mental health issues than those who carry their pregnancies to term -- when in fact, the exact opposite is true.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/149761/9_new_laws_in_the_gop's_war_against_women
Quote,
In Kansas: Republican state Rep. Lance Kinzer introduced a bill this month that would require women under the age of 18 to receive the explicit consent of both her parents before seeking an abortion. Exceptions will only be made in cases where “family sexual abuse is involved,†and even then women will need the approval of one parent, according to the Kansas Reporter. The bill’s supporters cite false and misleading data about how young women who have abortions are more likely to have mental health issues than those who carry their pregnancies to term -- when in fact, the exact opposite is true.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/149761/9_new_laws_in_the_gop's_war_against_women
totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,731
@previous (totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC)
In Texas: Governor Rick Perry has declared that a bill which mandates that women seeking abortions undergo forced ultrasounds is an “emergency†priority--literally. He’s actually hinted to anti-choicers in the state that he’ll put the bill on an actual emergency fast-track for passage, even though the state is facing a huge budget crisis of epic proportions. And he’s doing this even though he’s previously threatened to secede due to excessive government oversight of his state. Apparently oversight of states is not okay, but oversight of women’s bodies is. Hypocrite, much?
In Texas: Governor Rick Perry has declared that a bill which mandates that women seeking abortions undergo forced ultrasounds is an “emergency†priority--literally. He’s actually hinted to anti-choicers in the state that he’ll put the bill on an actual emergency fast-track for passage, even though the state is facing a huge budget crisis of epic proportions. And he’s doing this even though he’s previously threatened to secede due to excessive government oversight of his state. Apparently oversight of states is not okay, but oversight of women’s bodies is. Hypocrite, much?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,771
@1,729 (totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC)
@previous (totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC)
legitimate examples, thank you bro. it's hard for either side to claim intent, though.
still it's more important that we focus on the actual outcomes, which are not good for women. i still stand by that it's not productive to make claims about the fundamental standing of a side as good or bad.
i appreciate your actual citation and analysis of policy instead.
@previous (totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC)
legitimate examples, thank you bro. it's hard for either side to claim intent, though.
still it's more important that we focus on the actual outcomes, which are not good for women. i still stand by that it's not productive to make claims about the fundamental standing of a side as good or bad.
i appreciate your actual citation and analysis of policy instead.
totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,798
@previous (A)
Thank you I guess, but the way that you act towards claims that you consider to be flimsy is very poor indeed. When you act that way, it makes people not even want to bother debating with you, and isn't that the whole point?
Thank you I guess, but the way that you act towards claims that you consider to be flimsy is very poor indeed. When you act that way, it makes people not even want to bother debating with you, and isn't that the whole point?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 32 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,857
@previous (totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC)
what do you mean? i just don't want to mindlessly accept claims that are made without reasoning or warrant behind them. i suppose that the point is not to have an argument, but to learn something legitimate instead of rant on and sensationalize without backing up what you're saying.
what do you mean? i just don't want to mindlessly accept claims that are made without reasoning or warrant behind them. i suppose that the point is not to have an argument, but to learn something legitimate instead of rant on and sensationalize without backing up what you're saying.
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,860
totoforhire !!hWKWsQ1mC replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,863
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,867
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #4,291
@OP
> http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion
>
> I heard today about the Republican bill pushing to redefine rape so as to only include 'forcible' instances of rape as those recognized by abortion law as worthy of federal monetary assistance.
In case you haven't heard. The US government IS going bankrupt at the moment. Everything needs to be trimmed in some way or another. Not only because we need the fucking money, but it's necessary to spread the pain around to appease lawmakers. Nobody wants to feel their pet projects and issues are being taken less seriously than others. That's all there is to it. What else would you suggest? If not this program, than what? Raise the tax rate to 60%. Yeah, cause that's gonna help stimulate productivity.
>
> I find it pretty disgusting that this bill would essentially further that statutory or drug-involving cases of rape 'don't count' and would leave these victims often without the funds necessary for abortions.
You've obviously never worked with drug-addicts. Abortion is fucking birth control to these fuckers. How many abortions should we pay for exactly?
>
> Despite my often conservative political views, I cannot understand how such a bill could be justified.
>
> Thoughts?
It's justified because the old way requires spending more money than we have. If the bill bothers you so much you can always start up a non-profit and raise donations to buy abortions for these poor women.
> http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion
>
> I heard today about the Republican bill pushing to redefine rape so as to only include 'forcible' instances of rape as those recognized by abortion law as worthy of federal monetary assistance.
In case you haven't heard. The US government IS going bankrupt at the moment. Everything needs to be trimmed in some way or another. Not only because we need the fucking money, but it's necessary to spread the pain around to appease lawmakers. Nobody wants to feel their pet projects and issues are being taken less seriously than others. That's all there is to it. What else would you suggest? If not this program, than what? Raise the tax rate to 60%. Yeah, cause that's gonna help stimulate productivity.
>
> I find it pretty disgusting that this bill would essentially further that statutory or drug-involving cases of rape 'don't count' and would leave these victims often without the funds necessary for abortions.
You've obviously never worked with drug-addicts. Abortion is fucking birth control to these fuckers. How many abortions should we pay for exactly?
>
> Despite my often conservative political views, I cannot understand how such a bill could be justified.
>
> Thoughts?
It's justified because the old way requires spending more money than we have. If the bill bothers you so much you can always start up a non-profit and raise donations to buy abortions for these poor women.
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #4,304
@previous (R)
> You've obviously never worked with drug-addicts. Abortion is fucking birth control to these fuckers. How many abortions should we pay for exactly?
Abortions may be expensive, but it's better than the alternative of letting them have unlimited children.
> You've obviously never worked with drug-addicts. Abortion is fucking birth control to these fuckers. How many abortions should we pay for exactly?
Abortions may be expensive, but it's better than the alternative of letting them have unlimited children.
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #4,353
This topic: 0 to Asperger's in 4.3 seconds
Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 37 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #4,366
@4,304 (Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA)
Really? Why's that exactly?
I thought abortion was about a woman's reproductive rights. You know, the right to have children or not. Abortion advocates always seem to weigh a woman's right to not have children far more heavily than they do a woman's right to have children. Why's do you suppose that is? Why don't feminists push for the government to pay up for fertility treatments for these poor women in need?
Really? Why's that exactly?
I thought abortion was about a woman's reproductive rights. You know, the right to have children or not. Abortion advocates always seem to weigh a woman's right to not have children far more heavily than they do a woman's right to have children. Why's do you suppose that is? Why don't feminists push for the government to pay up for fertility treatments for these poor women in need?
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #5,076
@1,259 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
> It isn't going to legalize statutory rape.
statutory rape is not a real crime
It's a legal fiction
> It isn't going to legalize statutory rape.
statutory rape is not a real crime
It's a legal fiction
Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #5,082
On the one hand, meh. On the other hand, this would cut into the number of abortions that are performed, which is bad.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #5,287
@4,366 (R)
that comparison is totally stupid.
infertile women are denied this right to have children by their genetic make-up. also there are opportunities for them to adopt.
drugged rape victims would be denied the right not to have children by their rapists and then by legislation. this is entirely different.
that comparison is totally stupid.
infertile women are denied this right to have children by their genetic make-up. also there are opportunities for them to adopt.
drugged rape victims would be denied the right not to have children by their rapists and then by legislation. this is entirely different.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 30 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #5,303
Republicans RAPE CHILDREN
Jack the Viking !gOStA1p7Pc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 54 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #5,304
Rape is just the sex she didn't know she wanted.