take THAT, rape victims!

imnotme

Well-Known Member
sure if she cant afford to have an abortion, make her keep it, that will teach her to get raped. :wall:

force her to carry a baby she dont want and cant keep. Sure theres adoption, then she just has to carry it to term, avoiding drugs and alcohol, eating healthy and going to the doctor every month, risk her life in childbirth, then give it away only to have it come back in 18 yrs asking why. Or she can keep it. get foodstamps, medicaid, WIC, oh wait the government will foot the bill, until she throws the poor kid in a dumpster, or drowns it in the bathtub. Or maybe she can use medicaid, or an HSA to get an abortion, some things were not meant to be. Fucking republicans.
 

ink the world

Well-Known Member
Typical Republican knee jerk reaction to everything "less government, keep the government out of my life"

Translated into truth that really means " keep government out of my affairs EXCEPT Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, anything that directly impacts me or goes against my Christian morals"

Hypocrisy in action, nothing new there.
 

Hudsonvalley82

Well-Known Member
You forgot about constantly raising the national debt as well. (carter and clinton were the only two in the past 35 years to decrease it by the end of their terms)

Typical Republican knee jerk reaction to everything "less government, keep the government out of my life"

Translated into truth that really means " keep government out of my affairs EXCEPT Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, anything that directly impacts me or goes against my Christian morals"

Hypocrisy in action, nothing new there.
 

Hudsonvalley82

Well-Known Member
Seeing as it usually takes women a long time to act up getting raped, once they swim through the shame they feel, I see standing before a council to determine whether or not you were actually raped, being a pretty big scare tactic.

As I have said before and will say for always:

"Republicans are against abortions from rape and incest strictly because they can't afford that kind of population decline in their electorate. Shit that is over half of their base."
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
sure if she cant afford to have an abortion, make her keep it, that will teach her to get raped.
keep drinkin' that kool aid, eventually it will kill of that last braincell and you too will be on the government dole.

Typical Republican knee jerk reaction to everything "less government, keep the government out of my life"

Translated into truth that really means " keep government out of my affairs EXCEPT Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, anything that directly impacts me or goes against my Christian morals"
i suppose you like having government sticking its nose up your ass. well - different strokes for different folks, but i don't see why the rest of us should have to engage in such pastimes just because you enjoy it. take a good look at those programs you cited and you'll find them to be little more than slush funds for trifling political animals. we pay into them and then find they've been raided for some bit of fluff, so we pay even more for what we thought we were getting in the first place. if government contained the lest bit of competence we wouldn't bitch about life's little ups and downs like this, but we have yet to see the bastards do anything right.

by the way - i'm certainly no fundamentalist whack job, but i don't see why we should all be paying for the retroactive birth control of penniless reprobates either. this isn't a matter of christian values, but of simply demanding that people take a bit of responsibility for their actions. i guess that's a concept that's just a bit beyond the left's understanding.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
Seeing as it usually takes women a long time to act up getting raped, once they swim through the shame they feel, I see standing before a council to determine whether or not you were actually raped, being a pretty big scare tactic.
finally someone with a legitimate objection. i'm kind of wondering how they propose to get past this too, since government's incompetence extends to the court system as well. abortion is a time sensitive issue and i suppose quite a few false allegations would have to be would have to be sorted through. many of them would end up being payed for out of the taxpayer's pocket anyway, but better that than wholesale abortion on demand on the public's dime.

"Republicans are against abortions from rape and incest strictly because they can't afford that kind of population decline in their electorate. Shit that is over half of their base."
that's more like it, back to the original scare tactics that started this abortion of a thread. just once i'd like to see a discussion on limiting abortion where the left didn't blatantly misrepresent the facts. this has nothing to do with denying abortions, merely refusing to force the taxpayer to provide for the abortion on demand foolishness being pushed for by the liberal establishment. i'm sure you can all see why the democratic party is all for the massive growth of the abortion industry, half of their voter base consists of dead people, aborted fetuses and those too ignorant to figure out how to open a condom package.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
dude, if you are looking for an abortion debate thread, go start one. i hate debating abortion, it is pointless. i will accept your view that it is murder if that will satisfy you.

the question in this thread is: how do you define 'forcible rape' vs. 'coercive rape'? is someone who was drugged and raped not as much of a victim as someone who was beaten and raped?

secondary question: is incest OK after the victim of incest is over 18, but not before?

you have to be a loon to side with the republicans, or to have voted for them so that they could do this. if you want a debate, that's all i'll debate in this thread.
med put you up to this, didn't he. ;)
 

Hudsonvalley82

Well-Known Member
Umm no it's not about personal responsibility or public funding.

This bill stops people from using their own medical accounts from getting abortions from rape and incest.
The immediate response from the insurance industry will be to drop abortions from their coverage so everything will be out of pocket, which hardly anyone could afford.

This bill is saying that you have to PROVE to the government that you were raped, according to their standards, using a council.

I don't know what you have been listening to or looking at but your statements definitely miss the mark on effectiveness when you apply that to the writing on this.
This is the problem with people, if the right does it, it must be good. Well guess what? Its not, that is hardly ever the case. The right says balance the deficit, and they make it worse...the right says less government, and make it larger...the right says no ear marks, and come close to setting a record number of earmarks...The right says the government isn't working, and stall it for 2 years...The right says "No death panels" which never existed in the first place, and they propose, rape panels...

So forgive me for finding anything they say as complete bullshit. The government will never get smaller, just like our economy isn't getting smaller, and our population isn't getting smaller,so you can go ahead and cast your vote in denial of that fact, or you can vote to actually have a crafting hand in how the government will grow.

Time and again I see the right, and far right, complain and whine like children about the government stopping you from this, or keeping you from that. I hear how the left are a bunch of crooks, and how the republicans are "how the honest government used to be". Well not on my 30 years on this earth. I have seen the american people led down a path of deception.

It has become so terrible that now, opinions weigh more than facts, beliefs trump evidence, and emotions steer more than logic.
The right has no idea what is good for the nation, it only has an idea of what it wants.

I haven't seen a bill about jobs, education, deficit spending, wars, taxation reform, none of it. I know its early but I haven't seen an initiative towards any of that either. There sure as hell is an initiative towards repealing healthcare, like it matters, they know it will never happen, yet they waste their time with it. There is an initiative to redefine rape and limit abortions. The federal government supplies exactly 0 dollars towards abortions, you they will make you think we have funded every one.

I have a hard time seeing how any of those things have an influence on jobs or deficit (actually repealing healthcare would adding to the deficit, but instead of taking those facts to the bank, just use your emotion to hate it enough to ignore that, or say "thats not true" with no data what so ever to back that)
I hear the same thing I always have. Lower taxes = Jobs.

I suppose next is prayer in schools, since the GOP owned judiciary already took on campaign finance reform.

We can go back and forth all we want, but the bottom line for me is that this country has been held back by belief and conservatism for far too long. There is a clear path, loaded with data from professors, professionals, and economists on what we have to do to balance the budget, create jobs, and adapt to our new competition in the 21st century. But all of that has been incorrectly labeled as "extreme left" or "socialist", when it is simply common sense that doesn't fit into the rights cookie cutter. Health care needs to have a multipayer system with a public option in order to compete with all foreign workers, both in the east and west. The tax system needs to be reform drastically to stop the corporate loop holes and come up with a reasonable and enforced tax rate. Social Security age needs to be thought about, medicare needs to shrink and shed its weight on a public option to prevent half the problems it treats in the elderly. Medicare should be able to negotiate drug costs with suppliers (as any other entity is able to do). Spending needs to be fine tuned to actually yield a benefit. Federalism needs to be addressed for what it is, an antiquated system of shoveling state debt on the federal government. Our education system needs someone to invent the light bulb for it. Taxes need to be increased on a federal level in order to decrease them on a state and local level. (ever notice that as fed taxes drop, state and locals go up? Its all the same wallet, except you have exemptions and credits on federal levels)

Repealing the health care bill = no where near productive

We are a big nation, with a big economy, with a big responsibility. You can't run that well at all with a small government. That is why one has never existed. So either live in denial fantasy land, where anything not involving a smaller government if fodder for you getting upset like your so perfect and the government is SOOOO holding you back. Or accept that this is what it is, and although it may not be what you wanted, it is what the society that inhabits this country needs, as contrapositive to the individual as that sounds.

Whats more important: the good of the individual, or the good of the society? Or are they the same once everything is said and done.

keep drinkin' that kool aid, eventually it will kill of that last braincell and you too will be on the government dole.

i suppose you like having government sticking its nose up your ass. well - different strokes for different folks, but i don't see why the rest of us should have to engage in such pastimes just because you enjoy it. take a good look at those programs you cited and you'll find them to be little more than slush funds for trifling political animals. we pay into them and then find they've been raided for some bit of fluff, so we pay even more for what we thought we were getting in the first place. if government contained the lest bit of competence we wouldn't bitch about life's little ups and downs like this, but we have yet to see the bastards do anything right.

by the way - i'm certainly no fundamentalist whack job, but i don't see why we should all be paying for the retroactive birth control of penniless reprobates either. this isn't a matter of christian values, but of simply demanding that people take a bit of responsibility for their actions. i guess that's a concept that's just a bit beyond the left's understanding.
 

Hudsonvalley82

Well-Known Member
Could you provide 1 example of tax payer abortion on a federal level please? I find that to be mostly "you cant catch me" rhetoric. There are no provisions anywhere that allow that. There are now several provisions stopping just that as a matter of fact. This will be the third. They just chip a little more away at the abortion issue, claiming Federal funding, when in reality they are encroaching on private funding. Its like the red fabric for matador. Once you run through it, thinking there was an actual threat or reason there, you find out all too late that it wasn't the case at all.

You show me FULL RECENT evidence of federal funding for abortion and ill heel.

finally someone with a legitimate objection. i'm kind of wondering how they propose to get past this too, since government's incompetence extends to the court system as well. abortion is a time sensitive issue and i suppose quite a few false allegations would have to be would have to be sorted through. many of them would end up being payed for out of the taxpayer's pocket anyway, but better that than wholesale abortion on demand on the public's dime.

that's more like it, back to the original scare tactics that started this abortion of a thread. just once i'd like to see a discussion on limiting abortion where the left didn't blatantly misrepresent the facts. this has nothing to do with denying abortions, merely refusing to force the taxpayer to provide for the abortion on demand foolishness being pushed for by the liberal establishment. i'm sure you can all see why the democratic party is all for the massive growth of the abortion industry, half of their voter base consists of dead people, aborted fetuses and those too ignorant to figure out how to open a condom package.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
This bill stops people from using their own medical accounts from getting abortions from rape and incest.

Repealing the health care bill = no where near productive
aside from the usual liberal drivel about how conservative elements are all about religion and the need for constantly increasing taxes to support an ever more invasive government, there were only two really pertinent sentences in that whole post. the first is this histrionic accusation that the bill keeps people from using their own money. what it states is that no federal funds can be used and this includes funds from a tax exempt hsa. you do know what tax exempt means, don't you? it means that a certain amount of tax is not collected and needs to be made up for in another area. unlike the general pool of wealth, our tax revenue is a zero sum game. only a certain amount of taxable wealth exists at any one time to support our government's wild spending sprees. allowing funds from tax exempt accounts to be used for elective abortion is, therefore, a use of federal funds that must be made up for by others.

your second liberal talking point, that repealing the health insurance bill has nothing to do with our economy, is equally ludicrous. this is one of the most damaging and ill conceived pieces of legislation to come down the pike in a while. it hamstrings a major segment of american industry, allows the state far too much influence in the private sector and saddles citizens with a mandate they can ill afford in these cash strapped times. with all of the waivers being handed down lately, the favoritism toward certain businesses and toward labor unbalances the private sector market even more. in short, it does few of the things that were promised and causes more problems than it solves. it has already been a major factor in the often drastic increase of insurance rates and its eradication before it can do more irreversible harm is of utmost importance. derailing this train now allows us the time to craft a sensible and intelligent bill that will actually do the people some good.

Could you provide 1 example of tax payer abortion on a federal level please?
the least you can do is get it straight. what i said was, "...being pushed for by the liberal establishment." that was one of the final sticking points that had to be addressed before this massive health insurance bill could be rushed through. taxpayer funded abortion on demand may have been stalled, but do you really think it ends there? liberalism has turned the privacy issues of roe v. wade into a matter of women's rights, openly declaring that the creation of a life holds no responsibilities. it might be too much for you to understand, but there is a void left by this decline in accountability and that void is being filled by the state. allowing government a greater role in our lives has led to an increasing tendency to abdicate even more responsibility and grow government at an ever faster rate. it's a vicious cycle that continues to eat up more and more of our nations wealth and productivity. as a dyed in the wool statist, you probably see nothing wrong in such a nanny state scenario. luckily, not all of us are so willing to allow those chains to be easily fitted.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
nice try buck. another sad attempt to warp meanings for your own ends, just what we've come to expect from liberal talking points. below i give you the definition of "forcible rape"
thanks for easing some of my concern here, but you have only proven my point.

why should the type of rape be of any concern? why should a rape victim have to prove her ordeal met a certain legal definition or the other?

also, legal definitions are not set in stone, and 'force' is a huge legal gray area.

by the way, rape is a criminal allegation and the courts are going to be deciding its merits anyway.
this bill will change nothing about the criminal allegation of rape. that remains unchanged.

what does change is how a victim may use their own money to remedy the product of a rape.

the idea that this creates another layer of bureaucracy is as ludicrous as your entire post.
is it? how will it be determined if the rape was forcible or not? just take the victims word for it? if that is the case, then why pass this shit bird of a bill?

i realize that you advocate the use of abortion as a means of birth control
i realize that you are trying to define what i believe, falsely. you can shut the fuck up with trying to tell me what i believe now.

why on earth should our tax dollars go toward these violent procedures
i said they shouldn't, go back and read the OP, einstein.. this bill would prohibit certain rape victims from using their own money that they put into an HSA.

that the simple use of a condom could have avoided?
how many rapists wear condoms?

and are condoms 100% effective? or are you just living in your own imaginary pretend world?

this is just more of you cradle to grave nanny state nonsense, another scare tactic designed to paint anyone to the right of stalin as an uncaring misogynist.
that is not the situation at all.

i find it ironic that you try to characterize liberals as clowns but you end up looking like one yourself.

this bill would prohibit rape victims from using their own money to obtain an abortion. why do you not want to let people use their own money how they please? why do you want to add more grief to what a rape victim has already endured?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
by the way - i'm certainly no fundamentalist whack job, but i don't see why we should all be paying for the retroactive birth control of penniless reprobates either.
actually, this right here is exactly what a fundamentalist whack job would say. trying to pre-emptively escape the moniker only reinforces it.

you have just defined rape victims as 'penniless reprobates' who want you to 'pay for their retroactive birth control'.

how dare they get raped. :roll: how dare they use their own money to abort the product of that violence. :roll:

this isn't a matter of christian values, but of simply demanding that people take a bit of responsibility for their actions. i guess that's a concept that's just a bit beyond the left's understanding.
take responsibility for...getting raped?

you are beyond fundie whack job....yours are the words of a psychopath.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
what it states is that no federal funds can be used and this includes funds from a tax exempt hsa. you do know what tax exempt means, don't you? it means that a certain amount of tax is not collected and needs to be made up for in another area.
so, are you for taxation now? i thought you wanted less.

in any case, if you really support the proposition that certain rape victims should not be allowed to use their own money how they wish, YOU ARE the nanny state that you always whine about.

what is it they call someone who whines about one thing, then goes ahead and supports that same thing? :wink:
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
why should the type of rape be of any concern? why should a rape victim have to prove her ordeal met a certain legal definition or the other?
did you even read the definition i gave you? the definition of forcible rape is essentially anything that we commonly consider rape. you're splitting nonexistent hairs. here, i'll even repost the damn definition:
Forcible Rape, by UCR definition, it the carnal knowledge of a person forcibly or against that person’s will, or when a victim is mentally or physically incapable of giving consent.
anything outside of the bounds of this definition would have to be considered consensual sex. if you're drugged you're incapable of giving consent, if you're asleep you're incapable of giving consent, if you're unconscious you're incapable of giving consent. how many more ways do you want me to explain this simple concept to you. side stepping the matter by claiming that the law in fallible is certainly a lousy excuse for standing against such a bill.

as for whether this involves the taxpayer's money, i covered that in my last post and i'm not about to repeat myself just because you're too lazy to read. what is truly ironic in all this is that in your rush to paint conservatives as uncaring louts you have shown just how little you care for something as basic as the simple truth.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
did you even read the definition i gave you? the definition of forcible rape is essentially anything that we commonly consider rape. you're splitting nonexistent hairs. here, i'll even repost the damn definition:
anything outside of the bounds of this definition would have to be considered consensual sex. if you're drugged you're incapable of giving consent, if you're asleep you're incapable of giving consent, if you're unconscious you're incapable of giving consent. how many more ways do you want me to explain this simple concept to you. side stepping the matter by claiming that the law in fallible is certainly a lousy excuse for standing against such a bill.

as for whether this involves the taxpayer's money, i covered that in my last post and i'm not about to repeat myself just because you're too lazy to read. what is truly ironic in all this is that in your rush to paint conservatives as uncaring louts you have shown just how little you care for something as basic as the simple truth.
what money of yours have you put into anyone else's HSA? so how is prohibiting a rape victim from spending that money taking anything from you?

and if your exalted definition of rape should cover anything that you and i would commonly consider rape, why the fuck would republicans split hairs and make sure to prohibit people from using their own money for 'non-forcible rape'?

and why do you support stopping people from using their own money how they wish? that is the definition of the nanny state you rant against. what is the common name for someone who rants against something yet also espouses belief in that very same thing?
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
buck, i can only conclude that you are functionally illiterate and whoever it is that reads these posts to you is off today. when they get back you might have them read the bill to you and you will find out that nowhere in it is there any reference to "non-forcible rape". i'm not even sure there is such a thing. if you are getting your knickers in a twist over the use the words "forcible rape", you must really hate the rest of the legalese that these political animals use to obfuscate the terms of what should be the most simple pieces of legislation. maybe you should also have them look up the term "tax exempt" for you and explain its implications. i doubt it will have any impact on you, but even the dumbest dog can be taught a few simple tricks.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
buck, i can only conclude that you are functionally illiterate and whoever it is that reads these posts to you is off today. when they get back you might have them read the bill to you and you will find out that nowhere in it is there any reference to "non-forcible rape". i'm not even sure there is such a thing. if you are getting your knickers in a twist over the use the words "forcible rape", you must really hate the rest of the legalese that these political animals use to obfuscate the terms of what should be the most simple pieces of legislation. maybe you should also have them look up the term "tax exempt" for you and explain its implications. i doubt it will have any impact on you, but even the dumbest dog can be taught a few simple tricks.
ah, ad hominem. last bastion of the defeated.

you never told me how someone putting their own money into an HSA takes money from you in any way.

you never told me why republicans would bother to include the language 'forcible rape' if it should be of no concern.

you never explained to me why you support prohibiting rape victims from spending their own money on abortion.

too bad.

if you support this bill, you support prohibiting rape victims from spending their own money and/or forcing them to prove that they were forcibly raped at the most traumatic time possible.

i hope that makes you feel good about yourself.
 
Top