You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 08:52:30 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her  (Read 5931 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #50 on: February 01, 2011, 03:52:51 PM »
They had better not be trying to change the definition of rape. That's pretty much my stance on the matter - and I don't think it's a particularly unpopular one.

A comment on abortion in general: I deeply resent attempts to continue to narrow down the abortions funded by federal dollars. Funding abortion more freely would, I'm pretty sure, save taxpayer money in the long run. I also deeply resent seeing men, especially rich men, trying to legislate my uterus. In this particular area, the only man who should be able to have a say (maybe) is the one whose genetic material contributed to the embryo. I don't really care if it's sexist; when human males gain the ability to spontaneously become pregnant, then and only then can they be invited into the legislative arena where abortion is concerned. Until then, they can seriously go fuck themselves. There is only so much empathy one can have for a situation that it is physically impossible for one to experience.

Offline Sure

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #51 on: February 01, 2011, 04:23:31 PM »
And I deeply resent your sexism, Trieste, and your own lack of care at your own sexism. Seriously, it's deeply unacceptable to me on any number of levels I will not go into here because it would be a tangent, and makes you a hypocrite if you ever complain about sexism against women.

You also, seriously, do not want to go down the road of separating out or silencing people in relation to a specific issue. I mean, if men don't get a say in abortion because it's a 'female' issue, should men then get to be the only ones who can legislate about child support? Maybe men should get a disproportionate say in how government money is spent since men pay the majority of taxes?

Oh, and just for funsies, there are female are cosponsors.

Anyway, the government legislates what anyone can do with their bodies. Not just women. Not to mention that there are plenty of people that would argue that abortion concerns two bodies, the fetus being separate, and no matter what your argument is on the matter the fact is that enough people disagree with you as to be heavily represented in Congress. Regardless, this is about what is done with Federal money specifically, and you are basically positing the belief that the government ought to tax people and put that money towards causes you believe in even if the people taxed find them morally repugnant. That isn't even covered under the idea of government non-interference.

Or, to extend it further and to make you seem like more of a sexist, you seem to think that men should have to pay taxes for a service that only benefits females without a say in how or even whether that service is provided.

Now, on the bill itself, it doesn't seem to be changing much. Or rather, anything at all. It reinforces a standard already in place. To be honest, this story just seems to be another attempt by one political party to jump down the other's throat. Politics as usual and all that. What I'd be curious to see is if the Democrats are actually going to try and seriously oppose the measure.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #52 on: February 01, 2011, 04:38:30 PM »
Try not to lecture. :)

I quite genuinely disagree; there is no way that a man can get pregnant unexpectedly, or have a pregnancy go wrong, or otherwise have to face the choice of an abortion. There is no manner in which we can equate a male experience with the female experience of pregnancy, or the risk of pregnancy. On rape legislation, males at least have a way in which they can relate. Male rapes happen, so there is room for empathy there.

There is no comparison for men on abortion, however. It's like trying to get Prince William to understand, genuinely understand, what it's like to be homeless. Or something similar, anyway.

Offline Alika Luminos

  • ❤Sweetly Obedient❤ ~Alipet~ ~Monsterbaiter~
  • Lady
  • Enchanted
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2010
  • Location: Tied to the bed.
  • Gender: Female
  • Seduce my mind, caress my soul.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #53 on: February 01, 2011, 05:20:39 PM »
Without even getting in to the inherent flaws in the US political system, I'll simply say that it's a sad state of affairs in general when something as heinous and unequivocally evil as rape is subjected to a matter of semantics. Boo humans.

Offline Xenophile

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #54 on: February 01, 2011, 05:30:25 PM »
Without even getting in to the inherent flaws in the US political system, I'll simply say that it's a sad state of affairs in general when something as heinous and unequivocally evil as rape is subjected to a matter of semantics. Boo humans.

Hell, it's even more sad when other countries ironed out the exact same issues decades ago, and even went past the "is abortion moral or not" debates.

Offline Zeitgeist

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #55 on: February 01, 2011, 06:05:49 PM »

You also, seriously, do not want to go down the road of separating out or silencing people in relation to a specific issue. I mean, if men don't get a say in abortion because it's a 'female' issue, should men then get to be the only ones who can legislate about child support? Maybe men should get a disproportionate say in how government money is spent since men pay the majority of taxes?

Hell of a good point I thought. Keep your mitts out of my wallet until you know what it feels like to work 40 hours a week and have 30% of it taken away, having no say in how it's used.

Men, married or otherwise, have no say in the woman's choice to have or not have an abortion. Men have no choice to pay, or not pay child support.

Such is life, I don't suggest it must or even could be done any differently. But it is why I school my son in being cautious with whom he chooses a life partner with, for he has essentially no rights and little legal recourse.

Offline elone

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #56 on: February 01, 2011, 10:39:30 PM »
Hell, it's even more sad when other countries ironed out the exact same issues decades ago, and even went past the "is abortion moral or not" debates.

Isn't that the truth! This country is so morally repressive and conservative.

Back on topic, no one has the ability to direct their income tax uses. I have yet to see a box on the 1040 that says,"do not use my taxes for abortions" or any other purpose for that matter. This whole debate is hypocritical to me. If you oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds, than you ban all abortions, period, no exceptions. Don't act like some are OK and others are not. If you think abortions should be allowed, fine as well. Please, just stop trying to legislate a personal and difficult decision.

Just a note, many, many, rape victims never come forward to report it because they do not want to go through the trauma of reporting. I guess those people are out of luck for funding. Speaking of funding, how insensitive it is to suggest that abortions are affordable and people should just pay up. We are talking about people on Medicaid. They are not exactly the top income tier of society.

Online kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #57 on: February 01, 2011, 11:05:04 PM »
Quote from: Zam
Men, married or otherwise, have no say in the woman's choice to have or not have an abortion. Men have no choice to pay, or not pay child support.

          Sounds to me like an argument that no one should have to pay for anything that anyone else immediately chooses.  Under that logic, no one has a whole lot of good reason to pay for any health system or even any kind of insurance (to the extent that some or all of those funds may go to that alien "other" sex), nor for infrastructure, education or national defense (to the extent that people of some other group or faction may be perceived as having more control and reaping more immediate benefits).

        I can agree that there are some things one may feel outraged that others choose and we are expected to pay for.  However, claiming that no one should ever have to pay simply because another group has more control or profit of a certain kind is bizarre.  That's akin to arguing that in fact, those are non-persons over there or we are not connected in any way, not a nation, etc.  In that case, maybe the South should not have to pay for affirmative action or perhaps for taxes at all.  Perhaps New Yorkers should not have to pay for the FBI policing gun-related federal crimes in states like Arizona.   No meaningful relationship between any of these people, right?   

        Argue some view of cost/benefit, sure...  At the very least, before claiming some common ground to talk about "choice" and to speak of the sexes as living in different worlds:  Install policies toward a society where women as a group are rarely attacked, nor pressured to have a baby or to care for it "just because it's their nature."
« Last Edit: February 01, 2011, 11:07:15 PM by kylie »

Offline Zeitgeist

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #58 on: February 01, 2011, 11:09:20 PM »
        I can agree that there are some things one may feel outraged that others choose and we are expected to pay for.  However, claiming that no one should ever have to pay simply because another group has more control or profit of a certain kind is bizarre.  That's akin to arguing that in fact, those are non-persons over there or we are not connected in any way, not a nation, etc.  In that case, maybe the South should not have to pay for affirmative action or perhaps for taxes at all.  Perhaps New Yorkers should not have to pay for the FBI policing gun-related federal crimes in states like Arizona.   No meaningful relationship between any of these people, right?   

You're putting words into my mouth I didn't say.

What did I say? Oh yeah...

Such is life, I don't suggest it must or even could be done any differently.

Offline Noelle

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #59 on: February 01, 2011, 11:12:17 PM »
Elone, how exactly would something like this even work if nobody comes forward about it? If they were raped, they would fall under the category of people eligible for public funding, but that's not really something you show up for one random day at Planned Parenthood's and file a claim for. There are legal procedures that have to take place, it's not like we can read their mind. I understand it's a traumatic experience, but so is watching someone get murdered or having your car stolen -- if you don't come forward about it, how is anybody supposed to know when or how to help you? The law isn't going to reach out to you necessarily before you go after it.

I would be fine with using a sliding scale to help low-income women have access to abortions (much as Planned Parenthood already does with their services -- many women get their exams and birth control for little to nothing), but I can at least understand (even if I'm not sure I agree with) public trepidation about using tax dollars to pay for abortions in non-life threatening, non-rape, non-incest cases. The reasoning behind why people choose not to support abortion is not as black and white as you so assert -- painting a group with such broad strokes is hardly the way you'd want to be generalized in return, I'm sure, as you don't seem to be the sadistic baby-eating soulless liberal that wants to abort every baby everywhere.

However, I do want to point out that there are a lot of insinuations flying around that make it sound like not being eligible for public funding for your abortion means you're banned from having one all together -- you're not. In fact, they're not even trying to ban it at all, which seems to be a new revelation for Republican legislature on the subject. Again, I don't even really agree with this bill, but it's being very sorely misrepresented here.

Online kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #60 on: February 01, 2011, 11:15:11 PM »
Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist
You're putting words into my mouth I didn't say.

       Granted, you may have been trying to express individual frustration rather than to prescribe any particular policy.  However, you also said something that seems rather prescriptive:

Quote
Keep your mitts out of my wallet until you know what it feels like to work 40 hours a week and have 30% of it taken away, having no say in how it's used.

Offline DudelRok

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #61 on: February 01, 2011, 11:25:13 PM »
That's if that's what they're trying to do. I keep stressing that we don't know this, and there have even been accounts by lawmakers that that's not what they're trying to do. It could've been a very stupid mistake, but we don't really disagree here on the fundamental 'next step' that needs to happen. In either case, mine or yours, it needs to be rescinded and reworded correctly to avoid that confusion.

To be blunt, that's not how the law works. What they are trying to do is remove as many abortion options as possible, what the law's affect could be is much higher... that's the issue.

The law, itself, wont even see the light of day and is probably one of those tactics to get people to focus on one subject while another slinks itself by.

Quote
Except this bill has nothing to do with the way rapes are convicted. I don't understand where you're getting this. This law deals with access to federal funding for abortions, not the way rape cases are tried for those accused for the crime in the first place.

You are right.... except, again, the law doesn't work that way. It works on technicalities, word semantics and other bull.

See Here
Without even getting in to the inherent flaws in the US political system, I'll simply say that it's a sad state of affairs in general when something as heinous and unequivocally evil as rape is subjected to a matter of semantics. Boo humans.

Quote from: Noelle
And on your tangent, it's possible to consider things like statutory rape as 'forced' in that force doesn't always just mean physical violence -- mental force such as coercion (in the "I said yes to avoid more trouble" instance) and abuse of authority (such as the case of an older person taking advantage of a younger person's naivety or lower position, the teacher/student scenario, etc.) and their kin are just as valid in that sense, as well.

Except that what the LAW defines as "force" doesn't actually include statutory and coercion rape.

Duress, as I was paranoid about with Onyia, is the closest "vague one" that still falls under a LEGAL concept of force. What you, and I, define as "force" is an irrelevancy.

Quote
But again: all of this is presuming that they are, in fact, trying to redefine rape. Which thusfar, there has been no evidence anywhere to point in that direction except for personal assumptions based on party bias. Which is understandable, but being understandable doesn't make it real.

Well, at the very least the law needs rewritten.. but it shouldn't even be passed (really).

Some General Catch All

1) When a female becomes pregnant it is as much the males issue as it is the females. The child being aborted is easier on the male than the female, no matter how you stretch it, but a responsible male takes such an issue upon himself as much as possible (if only to relieve stress from the female). So it's not really a "female only" kind of deal. It is certainly a "more female than male deal" but not female only.

2) Women can pay child support, it does tend to happen; the current trend is, however, males tend to pay this.... and the creation/intention was for "dead beat dads" to help pay for their kids. (See Also: Spousal Support)

@Elone: Because, capitalism. (Insert argument for public health care here)


What I miss? Taxation.... well taxation is one of those necessary evils, and no one EVER agrees about how their tax dollars are spent so lets just ignore this personal biased on all levels. THEN AGAIN, you can donate your money to causes you actually believe in, then get your taxes back. :O OH SNAP! Seriously, this isn't even a usable argument. XD

Offline Zeitgeist

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #62 on: February 01, 2011, 11:30:54 PM »
       Granted, you may have been trying to express individual frustration rather than to prescribe any particular policy.  However, you also said something that seems rather prescriptive:

Keep your mitts out of my wallet until you know what it feels like to work 40 hours a week and have 30% of it taken away, having no say in how it's used.

I was referring to child support, and not taxpayer money going towards funding low income abortions. I italicized what I was saying, to illustrate I was thinking out loud, and also juxtaposing the concept that men should stay out of woman's uterus'. Fine. I'll stay out of your uterus if you stay out of my wallet. Yes, I'm being a bit glib. But I stand behind what I said that followed that. I don't suggest there is or can be a better way.

I'm sorry if this doesn't satisfy your sensibilities or fully explain for your purposes what I am saying, but I'm off topic and should let it drop.

Offline elone

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #63 on: February 02, 2011, 12:03:00 AM »
I can at least understand (even if I'm not sure I agree with) public trepidation about using tax dollars to pay for abortions in non-life threatening, non-rape, non-incest cases. The reasoning behind why people choose not to support abortion is not as black and white as you so assert -- painting a group with such broad strokes is hardly the way you'd want to be generalized in return, I'm sure, as you don't seem to be the sadistic baby-eating soulless liberal that wants to abort every baby everywhere.

I was only trying to point out that for many people on both sides it is black and white. Is this a question of morality or tax savings? Why do we fund an abortion for incest, but not failed birth control? An abortion is an abortion. To me it is black and white and the in between is hypocritical. I won't comment on the cannibalism, that's another discussion.

Just curious. does anyone know, with respect to incest, has Congress come up with a list of which incestuous relationships qualify? Is it forced incest,  consenting incest, does age matter?

Offline Jude

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #64 on: February 02, 2011, 07:46:30 AM »
Except that what the LAW defines as "force" doesn't actually include statutory and coercion rape.
It's been repeated over and over again that there is no legal definition of "forcible rape."  That means that even if this law were to be passed exactly as it is now, none of us can predict how it would be enforced.  That would be decided by the legal precedent associated with it or a signing statement issued by President Obama.
Duress, as I was paranoid about with Onyia, is the closest "vague one" that still falls under a LEGAL concept of force. What you, and I, define as "force" is an irrelevancy.
Noelle's argument on including all rapes within the context of forcible rape is clearly one I agree with, as I think the term "forcible" is inherent to all rapes.  What has been said on this subject by the lawmakers who proposed it is consistent with this view as well.  However, I accept that these are merely opinions.  Furthermore the definition of words and symbolic force versus actual force is not a clearly articulated or defined concept.  This is what the courts will have to decide if this law were passed (as I mentioned above).
Well, at the very least the law needs rewritten.. but it shouldn't even be passed (really).
I totally agree, and I think Noelle agrees with you as well.  There is the potential that if passed it could lead to a change in the policy of Federal funding for Abortion.

However, there has not been a single argument put forth on this thread that shows an actual, intelligible casual link that could potentially arise from the passage of this bill towards redefining the use of the word rape.  I do not object to the majority opinion in this thread because I disagree with the idea that this bill should not pass, I object because that disagreement has been overly cynical, dishonest, and blatantly partisan in nature to an unreasonable degree.
Some General Catch All

1) When a female becomes pregnant it is as much the males issue as it is the females. The child being aborted is easier on the male than the female, no matter how you stretch it, but a responsible male takes such an issue upon himself as much as possible (if only to relieve stress from the female). So it's not really a "female only" kind of deal. It is certainly a "more female than male deal" but not female only.

2) Women can pay child support, it does tend to happen; the current trend is, however, males tend to pay this.... and the creation/intention was for "dead beat dads" to help pay for their kids. (See Also: Spousal Support)
I'm sure in the majority of circumstances that the child being aborted takes a bigger toll on the female, but in every?  Imagine how it would feel to be a man who is very deeply pro-life that lost his potential progeny to a decision made against his will by a woman he loves.  That sense of powerlessness coupled with the idea that the mother of your child opted to terminate the potential existence of your son or daughter is pretty damaging.  There are people like this in the more radical wing of the pro-life community, I've met a few, and though I can't speak to their numbers, I think this is a serious problem.  It may not be one that can be solved, I don't believe women should lose their right to choose to avoid that potential outcome, but women could certainly be more sensitive about it.  From knowing someone like this personally, I find Trieste's position on this absolutely abhorrent.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #65 on: February 02, 2011, 08:57:01 AM »
I'm sure in the majority of circumstances that the child being aborted takes a bigger toll on the female, but in every?  Imagine how it would feel to be a man who is very deeply pro-life that lost his potential progeny to a decision made against his will by a woman he loves.  That sense of powerlessness coupled with the idea that the mother of your child opted to terminate the potential existence of your son or daughter is pretty damaging. 

This is why knowing whether your partner is open to the idea of having children is one of the key discussions that has to be had early in any potentially long-term relationship.

Offline Jude

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #66 on: February 02, 2011, 09:19:14 AM »
And even if that discussion were to happen before sex, that doesn't mean the woman involved couldn't change her mind, lie, or even not know herself well enough to know how she'd react in that circumstance (the last of which I think is quite common).  Some men will always get screwed so long as we give the power solely to women when it comes to deciding what happens to fetuses that men are responsible for creating too.

Again, that doesn't mean I want this to change.  No system is perfect and I think the status quo is far better than overturning Woe v Wade (or modifying the system so that women's partners can force them to carry the child to term).
« Last Edit: February 02, 2011, 09:21:22 AM by Jude »

Offline Noelle

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #67 on: February 02, 2011, 09:29:21 AM »
Yes, but I wonder how many women who considered themselves pro-life before they got an unexpected pregnancy suddenly began to reconsider when the time actually came and they figured out they weren't ready or capable. Or the inverse -- how many women thought they would have an abortion but decided they couldn't bear to do it?

I agree that the discussion is important, but it certainly isn't one that is static. I would venture to say that sometimes it's a total crapshoot when the situation actually arises.

Quote
I was only trying to point out that for many people on both sides it is black and white. Is this a question of morality or tax savings? Why do we fund an abortion for incest, but not failed birth control? An abortion is an abortion. To me it is black and white and the in between is hypocritical. I won't comment on the cannibalism, that's another discussion.

Generally speaking, I think we can agree on most points. I am pro-choice and would not make any motion to reduce a woman's ability to have an abortion, but unfortunately, extremist thinking usually leads to both sides at a stalemate because both sides think they're completely in the right. I don't think I would fight too hard if they reduced federal funding for abortions to women in distressed situations -- rape, incest, and my own addition, a sliding scale for those with low income. I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical -- after all, we have a system of determining who's eligible for food stamps (however imperfect it is) for the sheer fact that not everybody needs assistance and not everybody is in a dire situation. It's not just a tax issue or a moral one, it's both.

As I said earlier, they're not even looking to outlaw abortion in general, which seems to me a totally new development for Republicans. If a compromise like this is what it would take for them to back the hell off of the issue and stop trying to ban it all together, well, I would be willing to make it. Baby steps.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #68 on: February 02, 2011, 10:17:12 AM »
From knowing someone like this personally, I find Trieste's position on this absolutely abhorrent.

In this particular area, the only man who should be able to have a say (maybe) is the one whose genetic material contributed to the embryo.

Read more better good.

Offline Jude

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #69 on: February 02, 2011, 10:31:14 AM »
In this particular area, the only man who should be able to have a say (maybe) is the one whose genetic material contributed to the embryo. I don't really care if it's sexist; when human males gain the ability to spontaneously become pregnant, then and only then can they be invited into the legislative arena where abortion is concerned. Until then, they can seriously go fuck themselves. There is only so much empathy one can have for a situation that it is physically impossible for one to experience.
Which part should I read, because I'm seeing a lot there that doesn't really give the same impression, especially the end... "Maybe" gives me pause, "they can go fuck themselves" seemingly in reference to men who want to enter the legislative arena in regards to abortion kind of annihilates any positive message, no?  Not very civil, especially considering that there are pro-life men on this thread (at least one, Zamdrist that I know of).
« Last Edit: February 02, 2011, 10:35:15 AM by Jude »

Offline Zakharra

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #70 on: February 02, 2011, 10:36:51 AM »
Generally speaking, I think we can agree on most points. I am pro-choice and would not make any motion to reduce a woman's ability to have an abortion, but unfortunately, extremist thinking usually leads to both sides at a stalemate because both sides think they're completely in the right. I don't think I would fight too hard if they reduced federal funding for abortions to women in distressed situations -- rape, incest, and my own addition, a sliding scale for those with low income. I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical -- after all, we have a system of determining who's eligible for food stamps (however imperfect it is) for the sheer fact that not everybody needs assistance and not everybody is in a dire situation. It's not just a tax issue or a moral one, it's both.

As I said earlier, they're not even looking to outlaw abortion in general, which seems to me a totally new development for Republicans. If a compromise like this is what it would take for them to back the hell off of the issue and stop trying to ban it all together, well, I would be willing to make it. Baby steps.

  The italiced part is something I disagree with. How isn't that hypocritical when you say you would not fight to stop them from reducing funding for the women that need it? If a woman can pay for the procedure herself without beggering herself, she probably can, but there are situations that that isn't possible or even feasible. Many anti-abortion activists look at cutting funding of abortion as one way of  making it harder for women to get access.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #71 on: February 02, 2011, 10:54:11 AM »
Which part should I read, because I'm seeing a lot there that doesn't really give the same impression, especially the end... "Maybe" gives me pause, "they can go fuck themselves" seemingly in reference to men who want to enter the legislative arena in regards to abortion kind of annihilates any positive message, no?  Not very civil, especially considering that there are pro-life men on this thread (at least one, Zamdrist that I know of).

Well, there is the legislative arena - which, in case it isn't obvious, refers to the apparatus in place to write legislation and update it when needed, etc. By necessity, they work with the majority. There is really no 'case by case basis' with legislation. The best you can do is write legislation with exceptions, and give people like social workers or doctors or lawyers or judges or other in-the-field professionals leeway to apply your legislation only when appropriate (or whatever; difficult to speak in the general case, here). I don't really believe that rich males have any business legislating the uteruses (uteri?) of poor women. Of any women, but since this case is talking about funding, it largely affects poor women. I explained this - and yes, as far as I'm concerned, legislators who want to force other people to endure the physical effects of unwanted pregnancy can pretty much go fuck themselves. Especially those who are conveniently insulated from ever feeling the effects of their legislation by dint of having a penis and no uterus. So sorry if you felt that wasn't civil, but it is the height of arrogance to stand at the pulpit of Congress and moralize about a situation you physically, biologically cannot ever find yourself in.

Don't even get me started on the fact that anti-choice folks tend to also be anti morning-after pill, anti Planned Parenthood, anti sex ed, and anti make-condoms-available-for-free. Just sit down, shut up, and pump out babies - that is the message. I reject that, fundamentally and without reservation.

However, there is also the individual case. My 'maybe' referred to the fact that the circumstances around impregnation can vary wildly. You have a boyfriend, he's a decent guy, you've been together for years - he absolutely should have a say in what happens. That is the decent thing to do. However, you have this guy, you've kinda been living with him, he's been sleeping around on you, maybe he goes off and gets high for days and you never see him unless he wants money, and he knocks you up by mistake? Why should he have a say? Why should he have any kind of effect on what happens to his girl's body?

The thing is that you cannot legislate decency; you can try, but you usually end up hurting decent people in the long run. So let's say we start requiring paternal permission slips for abortions to happen. What if she doesn't know who the father was? What if she can't find the father? What if the father just won't sign it out of spite, but has no intentions of helping to raise the kid, either? But she only has so much time before she passes the cut-off for an abortion, and some people would make it 12 weeks or so. Is that enough time for her to get a lawyer and sue to have this guy's parental rights terminated? What if he changes his mind afterward; does he have the right to sue mommy for getting an abortion anyway? It's a mess. Our current system of child support is a mess, not to mention the adoption system.

If somebody wants to step up and be a father, great. Otherwise, it's none of his business. Not even if he's a lawmaker.

Edit: I hate it when you edit your posts while I'm trying to respond to them, Jude. Zamdrist is hardly a pro-life lawmaker, and is clearly a conscientious father. Stop trying to make my posts personal attacks on other members; they are not, and you know that.

Offline Noelle

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #72 on: February 02, 2011, 11:00:15 AM »
  The italiced part is something I disagree with. How isn't that hypocritical when you say you would not fight to stop them from reducing funding for the women that need it? If a woman can pay for the procedure herself without beggering herself, she probably can, but there are situations that that isn't possible or even feasible. Many anti-abortion activists look at cutting funding of abortion as one way of  making it harder for women to get access.

...Because I thought I was clear in mentioning women I thought needed the federal funding the most? I thought "low-income" solved most of your complaints there, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

Offline Jude

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #73 on: February 02, 2011, 11:03:25 AM »
  The italiced part is something I disagree with. How isn't that hypocritical when you say you would not fight to stop them from reducing funding for the women that need it? If a woman can pay for the procedure herself without beggering herself, she probably can, but there are situations that that isn't possible or even feasible. Many anti-abortion activists look at cutting funding of abortion as one way of  making it harder for women to get access.
And they're right, I think.  Restricting Federal funding for abortion does make it harder to get access.  However, the Constitution only guarantees protections, not positive outcomes.  We have the right to vote, but it's still up to you to get yourself to the ballot box and straighten out your registration information.  It's the same thing with abortion:  no one can stop you from having one if you decide you want one except you (if you can't afford it).

Trieste, I actually didn't know your post wasn't a personal attack on other members.  It also didn't seem to me at all that you were narrowing your gaze to lawmakers only; I figured "the legislative arena" included anyone backing particular legislation with their personal politics.  I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I still stand behind my opinion that saying "they can go fuck themselves" is fundamentally uncivil and not appropriate for any level of polite discourse.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #74 on: February 02, 2011, 11:08:33 AM »
There is nothing stopping men from having an opinion on the subject, and obviously I'm not going to say "Hey! Hey, you menfolks stop having those opinions! Right now!" (I'm being facetious, but I hope you get my point.) It's the ones that have the power to press their opinion on others that I think should go fu-uh, pick daisies in a tranquil field. >.>