And you are still wrong. But that’s okay; I’m sure everyone who gets date-raped, drugged and raped, or simply is too stunned to scream and have visible evidence of struggle doesn’t deserve the right to have an abortion, in your mind, and that doesn’t make your opinion inapplicable; it just makes you a disgusting human being in that respect.
It’s vital to this country that more teenage girls under the legal age of consent have babies. VITAL.
Well said, young man. This is one of those cases where the intent of the bill is too blatant for its disingenuous defenders to get the benefit of the doubt.
On the positive side, though, it does show that American Christian and Islamic religious conservatives really do have a lot in common, which all of us who are neither already knew. Maybe slut-shaming can be the common ground they eventually find.
You are just looking for people to attack, aren’t you? I got a feeling it doesn’t really matter what I say or said if it isn’t singing the party line. Go back and read my posts.
My first argument was that there is no reason to believe “forcible rape” does not include date-rape (which in general is physically coerced sex, with the caveat that the assailant knows the victim), drug rape, or any rape in which consent is not given. Maybe, just maybe, some minors who might otherwise have claimed statutory rape to get the exemption would not be able. There is nothing in there about needing physical evidence to get an exception (though in general it is needed to get a rape conviction in court, because otherwise juries have a hard time convicting somebody based on he-said/she-said, which while unfair is not a simple problem nor immediately relevant here).
The intent of the bill is pretty clear to me, update the ban on the use of federal funds for abortion to match the recently expanded role of the federal government in funding health care, with the traditional exceptions intact. Yes, the pro-life crowd (which yes, I am a member of) would like to see more aggressive pro-life legislation passed, but there is a reason “thin edge of the wedge” arguments are generally considered a logical fallacy.
Yeah, I would support that bill. If that makes me a disgusting person in your guys’ eyes, I can only apologize. However, I can take comfort in the truth that there are a ton of people who agree with me. Chances are, you have a close relative who does. It wouldn’t surprise me if your work with them. You are surrounded by disgusting, disgusting people!
Anyways, I’ve made my arguments, and any further posting will just rehash details without saying anything novel. Do not expect me to post again, I leave the forum wars to those with more time and there hands than me.
No offense meant towards you, just trying to not get tarred with the “thinks baby rape is a-okay” brush
Maybe I just missed it but how did we get from ending federal funding of certain kinds of abortion to AaronSofaer’s hyperbole-soaked call for pogrom? How do those become illegal just because the Feds don’t foot the bill?
And after just seeing my 13-week old future child via ultrasound, it is terribly sad to think of any harm coming to that little life, or others like it. There are valid reasons for doing it (the genetic counselling session broke my statistic alarm-bell; its still ringing) but on the flip-side of “it’ll be back-alleys for EVERYONE” rhetoric, that people are readily killing children such as these for convenience rather than giving them up for adoption is a stark, bleak space where we all fail as human beings.
Yeah, whatever.
My first argument was that there is no reason to believe “forcible rape” does not include date-rape (which in general is physically coerced sex, with the caveat that the assailant knows the victim), drug rape, or any rape in which consent is not given.
Ahahahahahahahahahaha.
You made a funny.
Like I said, you must live in a different fucking country, because in the country where I live, even physically-coerced sex is often “not really rape” even if the woman was screaming and hitting him back if he’s her boyfriend or she had a few drinks or she was just wearing something more flattering than a burkha.
I wish I lived in your country, though. It must be a nice place!
The intent of the bill is pretty clear to me, update the ban on the use of federal funds for abortion to match the recently expanded role of the federal government in funding health care, with the traditional exceptions intact. Yes, the pro-life crowd (which yes, I am a member of) would like to see more aggressive pro-life legislation passed, but there is a reason “thin edge of the wedge” arguments are generally considered a logical fallacy.
You are wrong, and have failed to so much as attempt to address the concerns I brought up in my first post; to wit, that the “traditional exceptions” are not left intact and that the mechanisms outlined in the bill are far more far-reaching than simply updating an already-existing principle. Also, that’s not even the line of argument I’m using, so fuck you and go back to that HS Debate class that you failed.
However, I can take comfort in the truth that there are a ton of people who agree with me. Chances are, you have a close relative who does. It wouldn’t surprise me if your work with them. You are surrounded by disgusting, disgusting people!
It’s true! I’m surrounded by disgusting people. I have relatives who supported the Iraq war, I have relatives who would support driving the Arabs into the sea, and I have relatives who support the disenfranchisement of blacks. You’re in good company with them, though.
Do not expect me to post again, I leave the forum wars to those with more time and there hands than me.
That’s right, make dumb assertions, ignore the posts that argue on the merits with you when you make replies, then play the internetkthxbai card and leave. You’re a fucking troll, is what you are; get the fuck out and stay the fuck out.
Because of the mechanisms in the bill for implementing that incredibly stupid goal.
And after just seeing my 13-week old future child via ultrasound, it is terribly sad to think of any harm coming to that little life, or others like it. There are valid reasons for doing it (the genetic counselling session broke my statistic alarm-bell; its still ringing) but on the flip-side of “it’ll be back-alleys for EVERYONE” rhetoric, that people are readily killing children such as these for convenience rather than giving them up for adoption is a stark, bleak space where we all fail as human beings.
Guess what? Abortion is legal, however much people like you would love to pretend it’s not. And on the flip-side of your (your-plural, that is) appeal to emotion, there’s the cold hard fact that the federal government should not be in the business of forcing the morals of the religious minority on the slightly less deranged minority.
This is a very minority stance, however, and hardly worth mentioning when talking about abortion in US politics. The consensus stance of the anti-abortion side is “abortion is baby murder except in cases of rape and incest”, which is ethically incoherent.
Need citation
I understand that emotional connection, and have a lot of empathy for it, but surely we must consider what we base our moral position on. If a fetus has absolutely no consciousness then we can’t treat the termination of its life with the same degree of seriousness as a conscious being. I absolutely see the emotional connection with a future child, but it’s a future child, and we don’t live in a perfect world where every baby is guaranteed a good upbringing and where a baby never negatively affects its parents’ lives.
I think this is absolutely a moral issue; but I see it as immoral to make a sperm fusing with an egg into an immutable contract when the part of the human brain we regard as precious has not yet developed.
By making health insurance that covers abortion disappear you at least create a market for low-cost abortions in some areas, which has a long history of success, right?
And to rebut Greatatlantic, this doesn’t just modernize the despicable ban on abortion funding for the post ACA-world, this would effectively remove abortion from all insurance, when it previously could be covered by (tax exempted) employer-based insurance.
On the rape exception; while it sounds good, it doesn’t really work, if the experience is anything to go by:
At least 9,100 abortions each year are attributed to pregnancies that occur because of forced sexual intercourse, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute.[1] Yet, the vast majority of states that only cover abortion under the narrow exceptions report zero payments in any given year. In fiscal year 2001, the most recent year for which we have statistics, the number of abortions paid for by both federal and state Medicaid under the narrow exceptions totaled 81. This figure includes payments in cases of rape/incest, as well as in cases of life endangerment.[2]
I mean, really, trying to prove to the necessary standards that you’ve been raped, and to go through that process in time to have an early abortion probably won’t happen very often. Especially if you have an insurance company to facilitate the process.
Rape, by definition is non-consensual sex, the phrase “rape in which consent is not given” is incredibly useless as there is no such thing as “rape in which consent is given.”
Since rape is non-consensual sex you now need to define what constitutes “forcible rape.” That one word, “forcible,” matters a great deal as it’s specifying a particular type of rape. Though that phrase doesn’t appear to be defined anywhere in the bill. So what sort of distinction are these lawmakers attempting to make with the use of that word? Just because a woman doesn’t fight back doesn’t mean she wasn’t rapped, are we now requiring a physical altercation to take place in order to qualify?
Maybe, just maybe, some minors who might otherwise have claimed statutory rape to get the exemption would not be able.
If they’re simply attempting to avoid the purely statutory rape scenario then why don’t they specify that, rather some vague wording like “forcible rape?”
I can understand trying to avoid a situation in which a minor claims statutory rape as a reason to get an abortion when the actual act was consented by both parties involved. Though that isn’t the specific wording of the bill and considering the authors I’m dubious of that being their intent.
Currently true, but I haven’t given up hope for the future. I’ve been working on this one for years and may be close to a breakthrough.
So the GOP is trying to reinforce Obamacare? Hey, that’s great!
The use of the adjective “forcible” in front of “rape” is not even remotely necessary if, as you claim, the “traditional exceptions” are meant to maintain “intact.” There’s only one reason to put “forcible” there, which is to exclude “nonforcible” rapes.
And that’s a legislative land grab that is nothing short of sick.
I’m a bit unsure about these kind of laws. My first impulse is to vocally protest everywhere the issue is brought up; on the other hand I find myself thinking, where are the women? They (as a group I mean, there are of course lots of exceptions) don’t seem to care too much. This looks like (soft?) chauvinism/oppression to me, but it’s not like women are a minority that needs protection, they should be able to make themselves heard if they really want to. So probably it’s not my place to get up in arms about a issue that ultimately is none of my business. I’m confused.
I feel the same way about kittens but it doesn’t make kittens people, or make euthanizing stray cats equivalent to murder.
The US Congress has 17% women in it, women make less money at every level, and have fewer position at the top level of political and business organisations, and are less represented among the most well-read blogs. So on aggregate, women as a group have less political clout. As a group, of course, women are also heterogeneous; if you exclude (or count as exceptions) the largest women’s organisations like NOW, NARAL Pro-Choice, and other large groups protesting against this, or online organising like http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23DEARJOHN , or any number of blogs, then of course you won’t find any other women protesting.
Do women have to chain themselves to the White House gate to be heard again?
Another problem in this case is of course that it doesn’t affect those who can afford it out of pocket that badly, and we know that the wealthy have the most clout.
I guess I don’t really see what you want. That women’s organisations wave their magic wands and make people care?
Fortunately for you, Senator Reid’s proposed Force Random Women To Have Abortions Act was shot down. So unless you specifically seek out an abortion, I think you’ll be okay. But you should be mindful, for Senator Reid has a singular obsession, a passion if you will, for forced abortions. He fears the touch of iron and the holy symbols of the Wiccan faith, so protect your home! Place a horseshoe above every door, hammer a hobnail into every sill and draw the three goddesses on the floor under every carpet!
There is nothing specific I want. As I said all this doesn’t directly affect me. I wasn’t trying to make a point or anything, I only expressed my honest confusion about a topic, and I’m open to be persuaded in either direction.
To clarify where my confusion stems from: yes, women are not a monolithic group, yes they haven’t still reached full economic or political equality and yes there are organizations protesting. But I don’t see the widespread outrage I think this legislation should create, and so it occurred to me it might be a good idea to question my own reaction.
Because let’s face it, while women are a very heterogeneous group, nevertheless this law would target and affect them as a group. As a group, they aren’t a tiny minority with no voting power, and they aren’t powerless or disenfranchised anymore.
Since most women seem not to be perceiving this law as an attack on their rights, or at least not one that warrants some serious protesting, why should I get all riled up in their place? Of course I still won’t support the law, so I’m not completely neutral or indifferent. I just think that if someone should be chaining him/herself to the White House gates, well that’s not me. Wouldn’t it be another form of paternalistic contempt if I were like “I’ll fight for you rights, weak women with only 17% of representation in Congress. You should be ALL outraged, let me explain you the reasons”.
And btw, should someone chain himself there? I don’t know, maybe not, but if a group wants to maintain its rights and privileges, it should fight any violation, even marginal ones that will only effect the poorer members. But again it’s probably not my place to give unsolicited advice, since I’m not involved.