• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rape, abortion and the GOP

thaiboxerken said:
Did you miss the part about redefining rape?
Click to expand...

Oh, I saw that. It's heinous, really. I mean, I wanna reduce abortions as much as the next guy, but THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO DO IT.

All nonconsensual sex is rape. It doesn't matter if you were assaulted in a dark alley or had a gun held to your head or were drugged. It is always rape.
 
It is pretty sad, and that's why I think those people just don't care about women.
 
I don't even want to read the article. I have a feeling doing so might lead me to break something.
 
Travis said:
I don't even want to read the article. I have a feeling doing so might lead me to break something.
Click to expand...
As long as it's not a hymen without consent...

Yeah, it's pretty enraging. How the hell can a country go backwards at such a rapid rate? Is the GOP just Christians and old white men?
 
They hate little girls, too.

The more power these baboons get, the less human they seem.

Have you noticed that Republicons are more likely to raise the question "What about the father's rights?" in any discussion of abortion?

Given the number of known Republicon rapists, it looks to me like they are covering their own worthless butts so that if they do spread their seed as their baser nature compells them to do, the law will not get in the way.

And watch out if such a brain-dead law actually sneaks past the Senate and the POTUS's veto pen. Some redneck judge will pick up on this blather and say "See? That is, by federal law, NOT rape. Case dismissed."

Bunch of sick, misogynistic little boys, those fools are.
 
This is seriously sickening.
article said:
By narrowing the rape and incest exception in the Hyde Amendment, Smith sought to prevent the following situations from consideration: Women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator, women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped, and minors impregnated by adults.
Click to expand...

Now all a man has to do is use a date rape (er....date non-rape?) drug to knock out the woman of his choosing, knock her up, and then tell her she's a dirty whore and that the pregnancy is her punishment for being such a dirty whore a beautiful gift from god, and that the innocent child shouldn't be punished for her sins. After all, it's a man's god-given right to determine which women breed, with whom, and when. The woman is a mere vessel and shouldn't have any say about what's going on in her own body, because she needs to suck it up and accept god's plans for her. Sometimes that dude just cannot think of a way to bring another child into this world that doesn't involve a nine-year old being raped by her step-father. Except now we all know, thanks to the republicans, that's not really rape, because she didn't fight back.


And I bet those fat old republican...men (*phlem spit*) can still use tax deductions and employer-paid health plans to fund their viagra and date rape drugs. After all, it's not really a rape if the dirty whore allowed herself to be knocked unconscious and then violated! That drug is there to enhance the man's pleasure and give him a better chance to spread his vile and disgusting DNA.
 
GreyArea said:
But then there are plenty of skeptics who are also unserious about rape.
Click to expand...

That thread is in response to a very questionable list of criteria defining a "rape supporter" that a blogger made up. Scorning that list does not equal being "unserious" about rape. I found it somewhat ridiculous as well.
 
As far as I'm concerned the larger topic is the Hyde Amendment which was (and is) an overt attempt to limit access to abortion by people who would like abortion to be outlawed but know they can't legally do so. (Hyde said as much.)

When the Hyde Amendment was first enacted, it made no exceptions in the case of rape or incest. So this measure is a partial step back to that.

I think the correct solution is to do away with the Hyde Amendment altogether (but the GOP wants to make it permanent law rather than a rider to each year's budget as it has been almost since Roe v. Wade). I think it's wrong that federal budgets are influenced so strongly by what is essentially a minority religious opinion.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
As far as I'm concerned the larger topic is the Hyde Amendment which was (and is) an overt attempt to limit access to abortion by people who would like abortion to be outlawed but know they can't legally do so. (Hyde said as much.)

When the Hyde Amendment was first enacted, it made no exceptions in the case of rape or incest. So this measure is a partial step back to that.

I think the correct solution is to do away with the Hyde Amendment altogether (but the GOP wants to make it permanent law rather than a rider to each year's budget as it has been almost since Roe v. Wade). I think it's wrong that federal budgets are influenced so strongly by what is essentially a minority religious opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I'll add judicial confusion to the inevitable right wing hissy fit as a reason why Hyde and related abortion-restriction actions won't be challenged.

The problem is two-fold, one structural, the other de facto:

1) The Constitutional protection for abortion is textually weak.
2) The current federal court system, from top to bottom, is loaded with right wingers.

Problem #1 means that there are a certain number of judges who believe that abortion should be legal will still rule against it based on how they interpret the law. What needs to happen is a Constitutional amendment that lays out the privacy rights that have been found latent in the Bill of Rights (contraception, abortion...etc.) so there is no controversy.

Problem #2 means that pro-choice activists are scared to challenge this bullcrap in the court system. Add in the fact that the current SCOTUS has shown a willingness to generate broad decisions, and any court challenge of this nonsense could very easily result in an over-turning of the entire line of pro-choice decisions.

As is always the case, we have ended up with the government we deserve because we're a none-too-bright nation filled with emotional religious nuts.
 
Geeze, I am a rapist. I remember 30 years ago I asked a woman to have sex who said I really don't want to. We then went on to have bad sex and then broke up. I think common sense should rule here rather than specific laws that spell out every detail. Actually I thing the GOP is wrong to try to change it.
 
TraneWreck said:
As is always the case, we have ended up with the government we deserve because we're a none-too-bright nation filled with emotional religious nuts.
Click to expand...

Sigh...if only all the rapture crap tomorrow was real. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom