- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Well lesbian porn made for straight dudes isn't how we actually have sex.
Or did I spoil that surprise for everyone here
I think Federal funds should be used to pay for abortions. …
… I would prefer it if federal funds were spent on education for contraceptives and for the purchase of contraceptives. …
I agree completely with what MaggieD said, federal funds should be used for abortions, it's a legal medical procedure, period. …
… So why should I have to pay for someone's abortion, of any kind under any circumstance? …
Don't have much to say to this, except you're acting like a jerk.I'm guess I'm just a big meanie, or I have an inate distrust of brown nosers, or I'm guessing I'm just about to get banned by "you know who" "because I'm not a big brown noser" and I want to go out with a splash or......
Don't have much to say to this, except you're acting like a jerk.
Can't deny that one.A distinct possibility. However, in my defence I'm hardly a standout on this forum in this respect.
I don't think so at all. I am pro-life, but that is not my reasoning for no federal funding of abortions. I just don't think government money should be spent towards unnecessary procedures like this. Only if the mother's life is literally in danger would I consider it, but even then I don't like the idea of the government funding medical procedures.
And your arguement would go over as well as a case of vodka at a tea-totallers convention...
If you mean my argument not going well with pro-abortionists then sure you are right. From a pro-abortionist stance they want abortion legal and safe because they do not place the same value on a unborn child as pro-lifer/anti-abortionist do. The abortionist argument of lets keep abortion legal so that mothers do not kill themselves having back ally abortions makes no sense to anyone calling themselves pro-life/anti-abortion. To a pro-lifer/anti-abortionist it is like saying murder should be legal for the sake of the murderer's safety and well being.
I'm pro-choice but that is not a part of my view.
................and I'm pro-life and that's pretty much how I see it.
I'm pro-choice but that is not a part of my view.
Well that's because you have this preconceived notion of what you want life to be - and everything you encounter you alter so it'll fit into your ideology.
Take your "no-gays" adoption view.
You don't deny that we have more children than are being adopted - but you don't want to expand the pool of families who can adopt yet you do want to add to the pool of children who won't have a home.
That's because you have a cookie-cutter view: everyone should be straight, everyone should be responsible, men do ABC, women do DEF.
But that's not reality.
No matter how much you might want for things to be *your way* - they aren't *your way*
I don't believe that at all. We have hetero couples trotting the globe looking for children to adopt. Just why would that be if we had an adequate number of children to adopt right here?
This based on.....what?
So.....I'm guessing I'm not going to get the link you said was functioning. Uh-huh!
..........says the not always courteous captain courtesy.
Gosh, my leg's all a'tingle now. Just call me olberman
I know you work with trans people, so I can kind of guess.
Not to nitpick (well, ok, maybe a bit), but it's Chris Matthews with the thrill up his leg, not Olbermann.Gosh, my leg's all a'tingle now. Just call me olberman
I don't believe that at all. We have hetero couples trotting the globe looking for children to adopt. Just why would that be if we had an adequate number of children to adopt right here?
Who is forcing the 12 year old girl to give birth? And consent is not given in the legal sense at 12 - therefore the 20-30 year old (why only 20-30?) person who ejaculated into the 12 year old is still responsible and should pay for the abortion and pay for medical expenses if the "poor" (I assume economically poor here) girl cannot. There are multiple state resources in each state for such scenario's which would not require an economically poor family to pay.Statuatory rape is not considered to be "forcible", even if the "consenting" child is 12 and the person she had sex with is 20-30 years old. So potentially with this new, improved definition, a 12-yr-old girl from a poor family could be forced to give birth despite the fact that she was legally unable to give consent and was, under the law, raped.
Since we're talking about abortion - a test a DNA test can be made to prove either he was or was not the person. However, this is a learning experience to avoid getting "crazy drunk at a frat party" in the future. If she wants the abortion and cannot prove rape legally, her mom and dad are there for a "vulnerable adolescent's" rescue.Most date rapes occur in high school and college. Most victims are vulnerable adolescents who do not yet have the experience to size up potentially dangerous situations... i.e. getting crazy drunk at a frat party, then trying to weakly fend off an equally drunken kid(s) who will not take "no" for an answer. Was she raped? Yeah. She said "no", and she was legally impaired, unable to give consent. These things never go well for the female, since both were drunk and it's he-said, she-said, so there's no chance of a prosecution. If she becomes pregnant, she has no way of proving she was forced.
Same as above.High school kids end up in the same situation. Dewy-eyed girl accepts date with the school heartthrob, only to find herself pinned in the front seat and overpowered. Again, he-said she-said date rape, impossible to prosecute, impossible to prove.
Proving rape is a whole different issue and thread. This is very focused and while you have good points on very specific situations, it doesn't change much in this thread. The law I think, proposed in the OP, is a good one and more individual responsibility needs to be taken by the perpetrators (assuming they are identified and caught). While adolecent rape, underage rape, date rape are all very concerning situations - I might also point out the other side of the coin which are "false rape" claims. That also, is another thread.The fact is that unless a woman has been visibly beaten, and badly so, she has almost no legal way of proving she was forced, since the male will insist she consented, and reasonable doubt is born. So by simply adding the word "forcible", all of these scenarios would be automatically exempted from abortion funding.
Who is forcing the 12 year old girl to give birth? And consent is not given in the legal sense at 12 - therefore the 20-30 year old (why only 20-30?) person who ejaculated into the 12 year old is still responsible and should pay for the abortion and pay for medical expenses if the "poor" (I assume economically poor here) girl cannot. There are multiple state resources in each state for such scenario's which would not require an economically poor family to pay.
Since we're talking about abortion - a test a DNA test can be made to prove either he was or was not the person. However, this is a learning experience to avoid getting "crazy drunk at a frat party" in the future. If she wants the abortion and cannot prove rape legally, her mom and dad are there for a "vulnerable adolescent's" rescue.
Same as above.
Proving rape is a whole different issue and thread. This is very focused and while you have good points on very specific situations, it doesn't change much in this thread. The law I think, proposed in the OP, is a good one and more individual responsibility needs to be taken by the perpetrators (assuming they are identified and caught). While adolecent rape, underage rape, date rape are all very concerning situations - I might also point out the other side of the coin which are "false rape" claims. That also, is another thread.
Her whole point is that the term 'forcible rape' points to litigation, and a legal factor that shouldn't be necessary in such a situation.
Ok, and the point of this thread wasn't litigation of forcible rape, but of abortions borne out of forcible rape.
No - the whole debated issue is whether or not government is going to fund abortion.
And in the text they used the term 'forcible' which opened up a can of worms. . . not all rape is done so with physical force.
House abortion bill redefines rape, incest exceptions - Yahoo! News
Oddly, despite being pro-abortion rights, I do not have a problem with the concept of federal funds not being allowed to pay for abortions except under limited circumstances, which is the case now. This though seems to be taking things to a new level.
So what do you think? Is this taking things too far, or are these proposed new restrictions reasonable?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?