# Redefining rape



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/asher-smith/how-173-congressmen-are-t_b_815977.html

I don't care what your political views are, this is just plain reprehensible to anyone with any morals.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

The alarmist and misleading headline of that article is reprehensible.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

harvey_birdman said:


> The alarmist and misleading headline of that article is reprehensible.


That is about par for the huffington post. What a piece of propaganda. :icon_headagainstwal I am not talking about just the article; I am talking about the entire website. I would think that The Moscow Times or AlJezzera would be more honest in their reporting.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

And people make fun of Fox News.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Clearly some people here don't like HuffPo. That's fine. Let's sweep that article aside then.

I'm trying to get a dialogue started on the social and legal ramifications of changing what is legally considered rape. Discuss.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

blue suede shoes said:


> I would think that The Moscow Times or AlJezzera would be more honest in their reporting.


Meh... I think Xinhua has the most honest reporting.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Jason, what is reprehensible? The taking of a life, or, that less will be taken in the name of abortion?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Not sure I know what's being "discussed" here or even what the point of that odd Huff Post article is.

All I know is that rape is rape, no matter how much a group of old men (GOP) might want to reclassify it.
Also know I'm against abortion as contraception! Abortion in my opinion should only be permitted in exceptional cases:

1. Life of mother seriously and truly threatened if carried to full term & birth:
This includes both mental and physical threats. 
The mental threat is if the mother presents with real suicidal tendencies due to having to give birth to an unwanted child conceived by rape or incest. 

2. Child if born will be in excruciating pain & will have little or no chance of survival beyond infancy & if surviving beyond infancy will have no quality of life and will be in constant pain & confusion, mental and/or physical

Otherwise I am against abortion.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

And people make fun of Fox News.


With just cause, and no, no matter how loud O'Reilly screams, the Huff Post bears zero comparison with Hitler.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> I'm trying to get a dialogue started on the social and legal ramifications of changing what is legally considered rape. Discuss.


You have been mislead.

What is legally considered rape is a local state criminal issue.

The article you point out did not address any alteration to the criminal statute of rape.

Article~


> According to data from the Center For Reproductive Rights, out of the 7.4 million women of child-bearing age covered by Medicaid in 2006, there were only 85 abortions in cases of rape, incest or life-threatening medical conditions. This is not a proposal that would impact the lives of most Americans. What it would do, however, is add to the pain and difficulty of those who are already most vulnerable.


Why didn't the author ask as Planned Parenthood why the needy can not get an abortion on demand for any reason at their facilities without the need for Federal Funding??

Ask yourself.

"Why am I being mislead??"

Why can't all the funds from all the pro-choice people out there eliminate just 85 more unwanted children without Federal aid??


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Not sure I know what's being "discussed" here or even what the point of that odd Huff Post article is.
> 
> All I know is that rape is rape, no matter how much a group of old men (GOP) might want to reclassify it.
> Also know I'm against abortion as contraception! Abortion in my opinion should only be permitted in exceptional cases:
> ...


OK, you have my vote; go ahead and throw your hat in the ring. Oh, you're not American? Don't worry, that's never stopped any of our politicans before.

:icon_smile_big:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/asher-smith/how-173-congressmen-are-t_b_815977.html
> 
> I don't care what your political views are, this is just plain reprehensible to anyone with any morals.


Now that the post is unlocked and AOL purchased HuffPO are you any closer to the truth here??

Are outlets like that helping or hurting the discussion??


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why didn't the author ask as Planned Parenthood why the needy can not get an abortion on demand for any reason at their facilities without the need for Federal Funding??
> 
> Ask yourself.
> 
> ...


In case you have been asleep since 1973 here is a news flash....Abortion is a legal right....just like your right to drink vodka and shoot your buddy in the face on a hunting trip.

So just like I have to pay for all the cirrhosis of the liver and gunshot treatments that are racked up by taxpayers who choose to partake in those "LEGAL" activities - so do you have to pay when someone wants a "legal" abortion.

Deal with it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> In case you have been asleep since 1973 here is a news flash....Abortion is a legal right....just like your right to drink vodka and shoot your buddy in the face on a hunting trip.
> 
> So just like I have to pay for all the cirrhosis of the liver and gunshot treatments that are racked up by taxpayers who choose to partake in those "LEGAL" activities - so do you have to pay when someone wants a "legal" abortion.
> 
> Deal with it.


Your outrage is misdirected...



> Facing questions from anti-abortion groups about whether a newly approved Pennsylvania health care plan would allow the use of federal funds for abortions, the Obama administration reiterated today that funding for President Obama's health care legislation would only pay for abortions in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk.


https://blogs.abcnews.com/political...rtion-funding-in-health-care-legislation.html

There have been and continue to be limits on abortion on demand since 1973 and continue to this day.

Discussing it intelligently may be beyond some of us however...


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Your outrage is misdirected...
> 
> https://blogs.abcnews.com/political...rtion-funding-in-health-care-legislation.html
> 
> ...


Misdirected? Not at all.

The blowhards on the right - and all those jokers in the tea party spoke of "smaller government" and "jobs being their first priority" - so what have they done since they took control of congress? Propose 2 bills in a row trying to further the political agenda and place severe limitations on abortion. How does this help to create jobs again?

Then again what did people expect from the same band of idiots that got us into this mess in the first place?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> ... trying to further the political agenda and place severe limitations on abortion.
> 
> How does this help to create jobs again?


1) The limits have and continue to exist. The limits discussed are on funding, you confuse the issue. Here's another chance; why does PP need $100 Million+ in public funds to eliminate just 85 more unwanted children??

2) I'm not sure how spending almost two years on the Obamacare legislation did that also, but I do know that the Government does not create either jobs or wealth.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) The limits have and continue to exist. The limits discussed are on funding, you confuse the issue. Here's another chance; why does PP need $100 Million+ in public funds to eliminate just 85 more unwanted children??


So who gets to play judge and jury to the administration of legal rights? You? The party in power at the time?

I would like to see a law passed that says anyone that chooses to own a gun should sign a contract that says any injuries inflicted by their weapon will be paid for out of their own pocket - and no taxpayer dollars will be used to provide medical treatment for self inflicted injuries. I mean, it cant be many people per year who would need that kind of treatment can it? I mean, let them pay for it themselves and if they cant afford it, they die. Whats the big deal?



WouldaShoulda said:


> 2) I'm not sure how spending almost two years on the Obamacare legislation did that also, but I do know that the Government does not create either jobs or wealth.


Maybe you should tell Eric Cantor and the boys to stop sending out press releases to the contrary - especially when the changes they are trying to take credit for happened BEFORE they took over control of the House&#8230;.lol.
_
"THERE ARE THE JOBS: Republicans Prevent Massive Tax Increase, Economy Begins to Improve: U.S. companies plan to hire more workers in the coming months amid growing optimism over the economy, a quarterly survey released Monday showed, providing further evidence that the jobs market is turning around. In the fourth-quarter poll of 84 companies by the National Association for Business Economics found 42% of companies interviewed, ranging from manufacturing to finance, expect to boost jobs in the six months ahead. That's up from 29% in the first three months of 2010. Only 7% in the latest survey predict they will shed jobs in the coming six months, down from 23% at the start of last year."_


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> So who gets to play judge and jury to the administration of legal rights? You? The party in power at the time?
> 
> I would like to see a law passed that says anyone that chooses to own a gun should sign a contract that says any injuries inflicted by their weapon will be paid for out of their own pocket.
> 
> "THERE ARE THE JOBS: Republicans Prevent Massive Tax Increase, Economy Begins to Improve: *U.S. companies plan to hire more workers* in the coming months amid growing optimism over the economy, a quarterly survey released Monday showed, providing further evidence that the jobs market is turning around.


1) You mean where to draw the line on funding as the "right" itself remains unchallenged?? The party in power at the time of course.

2) Where negligence is proved, that's exactly how it works.

3) I appreciate you proving my point.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> The blowhards on the right


Are you suggesting that everyone who is against abortion is right wing? I'll reseve further comment until I know for sure if it is or isn't anti-abortionists you are referring to here.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) You mean where to draw the line on funding as the "right" itself remains unchallenged?? The party in power at the time of course.


 That is great. So your solution is that every 2 years we have to redefine funding for every controversial legal right? That not only sounds very productive - but also seem to get to the crux of the republican platform - saving jobs. :rolleyes2:

As far as proving your point&#8230;.umm, since your solution is the party in power gets to make all the decisions - then I guess the right loses again, since they only control 33% of the equation. But thanks for playing.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> That is great. So your solution is that every 2 years we have to redefine funding for every controversial legal right?


That's not MY solution, that's the way it is!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Are you suggesting that everyone who is against abortion is right wing? I'll reseve further comment until I know for sure if it is or isn't anti-abortionists you are referring to here.


Talk about cherry picking&#8230;.lol

That line was in reference to the fact that the two of the first 3 things the republicans have done since getting into power has been to attack abortion rights&#8230;.which is completely counter to their "helping to create job" stance that they supposedly ran on.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That's not MY solution, that's the way it is!!


Stop making yourself look like a fool. You know as well as I do that while congress CAN vote to change funding every 2 years, they most certainly DO NOT.

If you are elected on a mandate of smaller government, less government involvement in the day to day lives of American citizens, and helping to create more job - would your first order of business be to try and redefine rape and limit access to legal medical procedures?

Wait -don't answer that, as clearly you don't get it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> - would your first order of business be to try and redefine rape
> 
> and limit access to legal medical procedures?


1) We already dispensed with the whole "redefine rape" charicterization as specious.

2) We have already determined that ONLY FUNDING is the the issue, as surely PP will not deny access to the 85 remaining abortions they feel must be performed.

I'm confident you will simply shout more loudly.

That wins arguments every time!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) We already dispensed with the whole "redefine rape" charicterization as specious.
> 
> 2) We have already determined that ONLY FUNDING is the the issue, as surely PP will not deny access to the 85 remaining abortions they feel must be performed.


 So if that is the case, that in the end this is a big for LOSS for Boehner and the boys - what was the point?

Is this part of their plan to bring the economy back?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> Talk about cherry picking&#8230;.lol
> 
> That line was in reference to the fact that the two of the first 3 things the republicans have done since getting into power has been to attack abortion rights&#8230;.


I don't know what cherry picking in this context is & I don't know what it is you find humorous.
However, I will now respond to your comment as I know what you mean.

It may be the case in the US that a "majority" of pro-life or anti-abortionists are right wing. But the US is then in the minority globally. Because elsewhere round the world the Catholics, myself included, that are against abortion are for the most part left wing, myself included, and/or working class.

This very black & white view that some Americans have that all things revolutionary, liberal, modern and empowering are left wing and all things reactionary, traditionalist and conservative are right wing is completely out of date and incorrect from a global perspective. And is another reason why so much of the the rest of the world views the US generally as being totally out of touch with reality and world opinion on nearly every issue of importance!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> ZZZZZZZZZ


Gotcha


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> Gotcha


?????


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> ?????


 The general state of world politics and how many people can be both anti-abortion and fairly liberal otherwise - is neither a point lost on me, nor is it the subject of this topic / debate. If you want to start a separate topic on that, feel free.

This topic (and my comments about cherry picking) were in reference to the current conservative movement in this country, and their contradictory stance about being for "smaller government" - yet taking every opportunity to mandate the government butt into every aspect of a woman's life.

If you are truly for smaller government and less regulation on your privately owned businesses and your right to bear arms&#8230;then you should be for the government staying out of reproductive rights. There isn't anything more overreaching or "big brother" like - than to have a legislator in some state capitol (or in DC) telling you and your wife how to handle your own private affairs. Period.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> If you are truly for smaller government and less regulation on your privately owned businesses and your right to bear arms&#8230;then you should be for the government staying out of reproductive rights. There isn't anything more overreaching or "big brother" like - than to have a legislator in some state capitol (or in DC) telling you and your wife how to handle your own private affairs. Period.


Or paying for it with public funds. EXACTLY!!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Something tells me that if these gentlemen had a wife or daughter who was raped, they would change their tune quite a bit.

At least, one hopes.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Something tells me that if these gentlemen had a wife or daughter who was raped, they would change their tune quite a bit.
> 
> At least, one hopes.


How so??

Why wouldn't PP provide for free or affordable prenatal or other services without the aid of Federal funding?? I understand they have an endowment.


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> ...and their contradictory stance about being for "smaller government" - yet taking every opportunity to mandate the government butt into every aspect of a woman's life.
> 
> If you are truly for smaller government and less regulation on your privately owned businesses and your right to bear arms&#8230;then you should be for the government staying out of reproductive rights...


I think you're confusing conservative for libertarian. In principle, conservatives are for smaller government to a point. Just as the Founders recognized certain rights, they also did not recognize others. It comes down to that word "right". Your right ends where the right of another begins.

Myself a conservative, I don't believe that a woman has the right to an abortion because abortion kills another innocent individual. The mother's reproductive 'right' cannot interfer with the child's primary right to Life ("Life, Liberty, Persuit of Happiness...). For without Life no other rights can exist. And some things (like abortion) aren't even rights.



Jovan said:


> Something tells me that if these gentlemen had a wife or daughter who was raped, they would change their tune quite a bit.
> 
> At least, one hopes.


I've had two very close friends who were raped (one was a girlfriend, raped before we were dating) and I support the change. I'd rather my tax dollars not go to the murder of innocents, even those that were given life through the horrendous act of rape.

An innocent life is an innocent life.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> If you are truly for smaller government and less regulation on your privately owned businesses and your right to bear arms&#8230;then you should be for the government staying out of reproductive rights. There isn't anything more overreaching or "big brother" like - than to have a legislator in some state capitol (or in DC) telling you and your wife how to handle your own private affairs. Period.


Beautifully stated.

A man's home is his castle. A man's body is his temple. A man's mind is his own. The government (read _Other People_, because that's all the government is) should stay the hell out of all of them.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

thunderw21 said:


> I think you're confusing conservative for libertarian. In principle, conservatives are for smaller government to a point.


Libertarians are for individual liberties. Minimalistic governments tend to support that. I by definition am a Libertarian (not a member of the party).

Conservatives are for maintaining the status quo. "Why change what's working?" (blah blah blah). Big government or small government is not a prerequisite for it. One can be a conservative and support big government easily. Big government employs lots of people, spends lots of money, helps the economy in a variety of ways (especially in a wartime). I am also Conservative on several issues (why change existing laws, when they are already on the books).

Liberalism (or progressivism) tends to have a negative connotation since the Reagan administration, honestly is just a buzzword. Being the opposite of conservative, with moderate being a midpoint. It doesn't mean anything without reference. We call someone anti-gun a liberal, however we may not know how they are anti-gun. They may just want their state to conform to the FBI NICS system (instant check), or an additional form of identification, or they may want all guns everywhere to be disposed of. I do tend to have Liberal views on a variety of issues, most of which involve the rescinding of current laws (unenforceable, or ineffective).


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Or paying for it with public funds. EXACTLY!!


And that would mean that you are for limiting reproductive choice ONLY for those who are on publicly funded health insurance right? So if I work and pay for my own PRIVATE insurance - you will stay out of my business?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

thunderw21 said:


> I think you're confusing conservative for libertarian. In principle, conservatives are for smaller government to a point. Just as the Founders recognized certain rights, they also did not recognize others. It comes down to that word "right". Your right ends where the right of another begins.


And I dont think that you have a "right" to bear arms - other than as a member of your local militia...but that is just my reading of the constitution. Guess I will have to deal with the fact that you can go and buy a gun when you want one....and you will have to deal with the fact that my wife gets to decide what happens inside of her body.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> And I dont think that you have a "right" to bear arms - other than as a member of your local militia...but that is just my reading of the constitution. Guess I will have to deal with the fact that you can go and buy a gun when you want one....and you will have to deal with the fact that my wife gets to decide what happens inside of her body.


Quick note:Lucky for others that the Supreme court ruled (in 2008) that it was an individual right unconnected to service in a militia.

But you are correct, your wife's *individual* rights trumps what anyone else thinks. This thread, and it's root has two major issues:

a) Should rape be redefined as "violent rape?" No. Rape is one of the most despicable acts that one human being can do to another. All rape is violent. Whether physical or emotional. Rape is rape. 
b) Should rape victims be entitled to government funding for anything? I believe they are entitled to any funding necessary to resolve the crime, just as any other victim of a crime is (Police, investigative, Judicial, etc). Beyond that, I can't say. If I'm beaten to a pulp by a mugger, what coverage does the government provide for me? As a victim of crime, I'm pretty sure I'm responsible for most of my own expenses (with help from outside organizations possible).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Jovan said:


> Something tells me that if these gentlemen had a wife or daughter who was raped, they would change their tune quite a bit.
> 
> At least, one hopes.


Exactly Jovan!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Apatheticviews said:


> Libertarians are for individual liberties. Minimalistic governments tend to support that. I by definition am a Libertarian (not a member of the party).
> 
> Conservatives are for maintaining the status quo. "Why change what's working?" (blah blah blah). Big government or small government is not a prerequisite for it. One can be a conservative and support big government easily. Big government employs lots of people, spends lots of money, helps the economy in a variety of ways (especially in a wartime). I am also Conservative on several issues (why change existing laws, when they are already on the books).
> 
> Liberalism (or progressivism) tends to have a negative connotation since the Reagan administration, honestly is just a buzzword. Being the opposite of conservative, with moderate being a midpoint. It doesn't mean anything without reference. We call someone anti-gun a liberal, however we may not know how they are anti-gun. They may just want their state to conform to the FBI NICS system (instant check), or an additional form of identification, or they may want all guns everywhere to be disposed of. I do tend to have Liberal views on a variety of issues, most of which involve the rescinding of current laws (unenforceable, or ineffective).


Ok. First off, Liberal as a political ideology is not the same as Liberal political ideology in Europe as I've learned over the years from numerous Americans calling European Social Decmorats Liberals  which is akin to calling a US Republiocan a Socialist 

Secondly, when I used the word liberal I used it in its non-political meaning, i.e. advocating individual freedom, view, tolerance of others, and so on.

Me? I'm a left-wing social democrat, closer to the Swedish Socialist Party than I am to the Swedish Social Democratic Party or the British Labour Party. So, I'm very much for Big Government, and vey much for govt involvement in medical matters.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> And that would mean that you are for limiting reproductive choice ONLY for those who are on publicly funded health insurance right? So if I work and pay for my own PRIVATE insurance - you will stay out of my business?


Kinda, but you have it wrong.

By not getting public funding it is YOU who are staying out of MY business!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Exactly Jovan!


No, not exactly.

He hasn't explained why he perpetuated the myth of his OP, and he hasn't explained when the generosity of PP is limited by the extent to which they accept public funding.

Those issues require explanation.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Kinda, but you have it wrong.
> 
> By not getting public funding it is YOU who are staying out of MY business!!


By public funding, you mean like all the Tax Credits that big corporations get every year?

Give me a break.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> Quick note:Lucky for others that the Supreme court ruled (in 2008) that it was an individual right unconnected to service in a militia.


Right, and they ruled in 1973 that a woman has a right to choose.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> By public funding, you mean like all the Tax Credits that big corporations get every year?


So two wrongs make a right??

Is THAT your argument??


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> Right, and they ruled in 1973 that a woman has a right to choose.


Where have I said I disagree with that ruling? Just because I like the 2nd amendment doesn't make me a Pro-Lifer.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> So two wrongs make a right??
> 
> Is THAT your argument??


No, my argument is YOU live up to all the small government, individual freedoms BS you spew out here and stay out of my business.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> Where have I said I disagree with that ruling? Just because I like the 2nd amendment doesn't make me a Pro-Lifer.


Not disagreeing with you, in fact glad to have another progressive voice out here. Just reminding people that the right to choose is a LEGAL right.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Kinda, but you have it wrong.
> 
> By not getting public funding it is YOU who are staying out of MY business!!


Actually, the public takes (each of) our moneys regardless. No one can stay out of anyones business.

The government is the People. If you take my money (taxes), I have a voice in how it's spent. That's how the system works. If you take my money, I'm entitled to benefit from it's spending, otherwise it's nothing more than legalized theft.

If I get public funding, it is both our business. We BOTH paid into it, and both have an interest. If I use private funding, it excludes "public" interest (except legally required oversight).

The question is who's interest is greater (Public interest vs Individual Right). In both cases, my Individual Rights are greater. My rights extend to the point where the violate someone else's.

Now don't get me wrong. I think the government should be able to regulate how they spend money. Should they be able to regulate how money is spent on medical expenses of victims of crime (left specifically vague)? If you leave the words Rape & Abortion out of the conversation, does it change the answer to the question?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Actually, the public takes (each of) our moneys regardless. No one can stay out of anyones business.
> 
> Now don't get me wrong. I think the government should be able to regulate how they spend money. Should they be able to regulate how money is spent on medical expenses of victims of crime (left specifically vague)? If you leave the words Rape & Abortion out of the conversation, does it change the answer to the question?


1) Not everyone pays equally and many remain exempt, however.

2) Of course it does, I think that's the point. If PP stuck to affordable or free pre-natal care and bith control there would be less of an objection to any public funding.

Of course, I'd still object!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Not everyone pays equally and many remain exempt, however.
> 
> 2) Of course it does, I think that's the point. If PP stuck to affordable or free pre-natal care and bith control there would be less of an objection to any public funding.
> 
> Of course, I'd still object!!


1) Unfortunately, that's how the federal government has set things up. I much preferred the Texas state sales tax (no income tax) method of taxation, where everyone is taxed "equally" based on consumption. If only we had elected representatives available to change things...

2) That's the trick. This shouldn't be a question about Rape & Abortion. Those are overly specific conditions for the subject. The real question is:

_Are victims of Crimes entitled to Medical Care at Government expense?_

As for what PP should be about, is irrelevant. They have legal standing and have since 1973 as other have mentioned previously.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> The real question is:
> 
> _Are victims of Crimes entitled to Medical Care at Government expense?_


Yes, I agree that is the "real question" if your purpose is to obfuscate that which is to some, morally reprehensible. As while victims of Crimes may be entitled to Medical Care at Government expense, that would include the unborn whose "treatment" includes a right to life and pre-natal care.

On the other hand, if one doesn't want to get bogged down in the religious or ethical implications at all, to include the legal termination of the unborn, the emphasis is placed on funding. (my own view)

Then, there is the marginalization and demonization of anyone and anything that gets in one's way causing some of us to foment deceptions such as that cetain legislators are "Redefining rape!!"

HA!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Yes, I agree that is the "real question" if your purpose is to obfuscate that which is to some, morally reprehensible. As while victims of Crimes may be entitled to Medical Care at Government expense, that would include the unborn whose "treatment" includes a right to life and pre-natal care.
> 
> On the other hand, if one doesn't want to get bogged down in the religious or ethical implications at all, to include the legal termination of the unborn, the emphasis is placed on funding. (my own view)
> 
> ...


Be careful here Apathetic - He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Yes, I agree that is the "real question" if your purpose is to obfuscate that which is to some, morally reprehensible. As while victims of Crimes may be entitled to Medical Care at Government expense, that would include the unborn whose "treatment" includes a right to life and pre-natal care.
> 
> On the other hand, if one doesn't want to get bogged down in the religious or ethical implications at all, to include the legal termination of the unborn, the emphasis is placed on funding. (my own view)
> 
> ...


Abortion is legal in the US. Has been for almost 40 years. It was declared a Legal Right, despite any moral issues anyone has with it. The number of government funded abortions was under 100 (over the course of year iirc). This isn't about making abortions illegal. The Supreme Court already ruled on that issue.

Do I think the government should fund any medical care for victims? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, is my answer. If you provide treatment for ONE class of citizen, you need to provide to ALL classes of citizens. It doesn't matter whether it's abortion or pre-natal care, or post-natal care. You need to give everyone access to the funding.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> Do I think the government should fund any medical care for victims? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, is my answer. If you provide treatment for ONE class of citizen, you need to provide to ALL classes of citizens. It doesn't matter whether it's abortion or pre-natal care, or post-natal care. You need to give everyone access to the funding.


Many of these people crying about abortion funding are on or have members of their family on Social Security and Medicare. Oh the irony.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Abortion is legal in the US. Has been for almost 40 years. It was declared a Legal Right, despite any moral issues anyone has with it. The number of government funded abortions was under 100 (over the course of year iirc). This isn't about making abortions illegal. The Supreme Court already ruled on that issue.
> 
> Do I think the government should fund any medical care for victims? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, is my answer. If you provide treatment for ONE class of citizen, you need to provide to ALL classes of citizens. It doesn't matter whether it's abortion or pre-natal care, or post-natal care. You need to give everyone access to the funding.


1) No argument from me. Though there are and have been limits on abortions performed in the third tri-mester since the beginning. There have always been limits and compromises.

2) So is there any litmus or means testing for access??


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) No argument from me. Though there are and have been limits on abortions performed in the third tri-mester since the beginning. There have always been limits and compromises.
> 
> 2) So is there any litmus or means testing for access??


1) There are always limits to everything. The old "Yelling Fire in a crowded theatre argument" is especially apt.

2) The problem with medical is that what I consider necessary, you consider frivolous. Hence, why I personally pose the question in the most general of terms. _Should the government provide any medical care (funding) to victims of crime_. The simple answer is no. That's your litmus test. They should provide _access_ to *sources* to medical care, and means of repayment for medical care, sure. No one should be denied _emergency_ treatment, but they should have to pay for it. Wheel them in, stitch them up, and bill them. Figure out how to pay later. There's nothing wrong with setting up grants, trusts, funds, or even organizations to help offset the cost of said medical expenses.

I know not everyone is going to be able to pay. And we do have free clinics, and they work (to an extent). And a great many people are going to choose not to pay. But heck, that's no different than now.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> Many of these people crying about abortion funding are on or have members of their family on Social Security and Medicare. Oh the irony.


Ah, good old Social Security... Talk about legalized Theft. A guarantee that you will never get the money back that you put in.

The inability to draw from it until your expected lifespan has expired. What is it 67 for full benefits now? (with the average world life expectancy being 67.2 years.... US being 75~ ish)


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> The problem with medical is that what I consider necessary, you consider frivolous.
> 
> Hence, why I personally pose the question in the most general of terms. _Should the government provide any medical care (funding) to victims of crime_. The simple answer is no. That's your litmus test. They should provide _access_ to *sources* to medical care, and means of repayment for medical care, sure.


1) I'm confident some will insist we all have straight white teeth. It's our right!!

2) I'd add "and only as a last resort"

When the "healthcare" debate is discussed in terms of "how will medical providers be reimbursed" the discussion is generally kept civil.

However, that never pleases the bomb-throwers!!


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> So just like I have to pay for all the cirrhosis of the liver and gunshot treatments that are racked up by taxpayers who choose to partake in those "LEGAL" activities - so do you have to pay when someone wants a "legal" abortion.
> 
> Deal with it.


 Uh, well you don't pay for it if they have insurance. And, if you elect the right people you wouldn't have to pay for it even if they didn't. Legality has no correlation to what is right or good. Deal with it.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Many of these people crying about abortion funding are on or have members of their family on Social Security and Medicare. Oh the irony.


Are you really this dense - or are you just being moronic to be provocative?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Epaminondas said:


> Uh, well you don't pay for it if they have insurance. And, if you elect the right people you wouldn't have to pay for it even if they didn't. Legality has no correlation to what is right or good. Deal with it.


You must be a little UNCLEAR on how insurance works. Insurance is simply pooling money to minimize risk. Every member of Blue Cross or United Health Care is adversely effected every time someone runs up a big hospital bill.

The more people in your pool that get sick-the higher the rates go for that entire group upon renewal.

Clearly you cant be that dense can you?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> You must be a little UNCLEAR on how insurance works. Insurance is simply pooling money to minimize risk. Every member of Blue Cross or United Health Care is adversely effected every time someone runs up a big hospital bill.
> 
> The more people in your pool that get sick-the higher the rates go for that entire group upon renewal.
> 
> Clearly you cant be that dense can you?


The best way to describe insurance is "gambling." Insurance agencies are "bookies." They give you monthly "odds," stacked in their favor (ensuring profitability). They are betting you pay them in full before you can make a claim against what you've paid. You making a claim is the equivalent of "winning."

Using car insurance as an example... Say $50-100 a month MANDATORY in the US comes to $600-1200 a year. How many years do each of the fine gentlemen in this forum just "waste" that money. I know I had a collision (iced road) this year which resulted in $500 damage to the other vehicle (out of the $1200 I spend yearly). This means they pocketed $700 off me alone, just this year. I haven't had a collision in 10 years, which means they've managed to bank quite a chunk of change since I've been with the company. Now, don't get me wrong, I've been on the receiving end of a motorcycle collision (stopped at red light and rear ended), and insurance paid out in days. I'm glad it's there.

But saying it's pooling money to minimize risk is inaccurate.

It's a Statistical Analysis of Trends, used to make a profit. No different than Dice, or Roulette.

However.... Things like malpractice insurance do go up every time we see these insane lawsuits. This in turn results in the cost of medical care being increased an equal amount, since the consumer is going to pay for it anyways.

What you are seeing is statistical grouping. "At risk" groups pay more for insurance than those who are not, as well they should. They are more likely to use the service. This is why 16 year males pay higher car insurance than 25 year married females. There's an old adage. "I can't tell you who in a given group will die, but I can tell you within 3 decimal points how many people will by the time they are X."


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> But saying it's pooling money to minimize risk is inaccurate.


Clearly, you too are unclear on the origins of the insurance industry.

Taken from "Against the Odds - The Remarkable Story Of Risk" ()

_Against The Gods_ tells us many stories. One of my favorites is the story of a coffeehouse opened by Edward Lloyd in 1687 where merchant sailors met to discuss colonial trade and seafaring issues. The chance of any given vessel going down in a storm was not great, but it did happen. And, if it did, it could wipe out a trader financially.

So the traders began contributing small sums of money to be paid to a member who lost a ship. The merchants benefited from the deal. In all likelihood, their ship did return safely. In that case, they were out only a small portion of the profit the ship earned on the journey. But, if the unfortunate happened, and the ship was lost at sea, they remained solvent. They recovered the financial loss of their ship from the pool of money. The merchants learned to protect themselves from the volatility of negative events.

*Soon people specialized in the business of pooling money to protect against misfortune. They became known as underwriters. The insurance industry was born. And, the coffeehouse evolved into Lloyd's of London, one of the pioneer insurance companies.*


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

They don't protect against misfortune though. * They profit on the fear of misfortune.* Nothing can protect against misfortune.

They are betting they can make a profit before you can make a claim. They have been successful for over 300 years. Like I said,

"It's a Statistical Analysis of Trends, used to make a profit. No different than Dice, or Roulette."

Gambling houses have been doing the same thing you describe for years (probably thousands). Although an individual person may win from time to time (even big), the house always wins in the end.

Just because someone refits the business model to new circumstances doesn't mean it isn't the same business model.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> Just because someone refits the business model to new circumstances doesn't mean it isn't the same business model.


Bottom line is that at its essence - Insurance is "pooling money to minimize risk"

And Lloyds of London was there at the start.

Nothing you have said can change that....sorry, but you are failing at trying to re-write history. Forgive me if I trust an author who wrote 500 pages on the subject, to some random guy on a message board.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

So you trust his story over my story, just because of page count. Interesting. But you did bring up an interesting point. The word "History." His Story. It's just that, a story. I'm sure it's got lots of great research in it, and I'm sure it's grounded in *why* they created the field.

However, it doesn't change the fact that insurance is still a subset of the gambling field. The underwriters just happen to be the house, the clients happen to be the mark. The only difference is that you aren't allowed to see the odds clearly posted on the walls when you walk in the door, and with tables you have the choice to walk away.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

thunderw21 said:


> I think you're confusing conservative for libertarian. In principle, conservatives are for smaller government to a point. Just as the Founders recognized certain rights, they also did not recognize others. It comes down to that word "right". Your right ends where the right of another begins.
> 
> Myself a conservative, I don't believe that a woman has the right to an abortion because abortion kills another innocent individual. The mother's reproductive 'right' cannot interfer with the child's primary right to Life ("Life, Liberty, Persuit of Happiness...). For without Life no other rights can exist. And some things (like abortion) aren't even rights.
> 
> ...


 Think _very carefully_ about what you are saying, sir. You'll tell these women that you care about them and woefully regret that they were raped -- you even acknowledge how traumatic it is -- yet they must carry a child that they did not want and deal with all the changes in their body (some which do not go away) and the pain of childbirth... because you believe it is "murder."

At what point does it stop being the choice of women (who, after all, produce human beings and should determine how things go on in their body) and become "murder"? Is it "murder" when they must terminate the life of an unborn child because it will kill the mother AND the child if she goes through with childbirth? Is the morning after pill, which stops a child from _beginning_ to form murder?

Actually, don't even answer these questions, as they must be decided on by the women forced to go through these experiences, not out-of-touch men in Congress. If she wants to keep the child of a rapist, fine, I'll respect her decision even if I think she's crazy. If she wants to keep a child she NEVER EVER WANTED out of her body (as, again, women are the ones who have to bear us in infancy for nine months and painfully birth us) that is also her decision. I can't put my views any plainer than that.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Think _very carefully_ about what you are saying, sir.


Have you??



WouldaShoulda said:


> You have been mislead.
> 
> What is legally considered rape is a local state criminal issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why can't all the funds from all the pro-choice people out there eliminate just 85 more unwanted children without Federal aid??


Why should they have to?

Abortion is a LEGAL right. Planned Parenthood gets funding as a LEGAL provider of health care services. Period.

If you don't like it, vote for representatives who will de-fund PP. In the meantime, deal with it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> ...*vote for representatives who will de-fund PP*.


:icon_cheers:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> :icon_cheers:


And in the meantime, STOP CRYING


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> Why should they have to?
> 
> Abortion is a LEGAL right. Planned Parenthood gets funding as a LEGAL provider of health care services. Period.
> 
> If you don't like it, vote for representatives who will de-fund PP. In the meantime, deal with it.


That's not what WouldaShoulda is saying. He is using MY argument. _Are victims of crime entitled to federal funding for medical expenses?_ In this case, he does have a valid point. He is very specifically stating that the 85 people can go to PP and get a perfectly LEGAL abortion, without federal aid. He is conceding that point, despite his personal opinions regarding the issue.

From a funding standpoint, it's an aggressive move, and it doesn't address the real question (see my & WS's comments back and forth previous).


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> That's not what WouldaShoulda is saying. He is using MY argument. _Are victims of crime entitled to federal funding for medical expenses?_ In this case, he does have a valid point. He is very specifically stating that the 85 people can go to PP and get a perfectly LEGAL abortion, without federal aid. He is conceding that point, despite his personal opinions regarding the issue.


And that ASSUMES (incorrectly) that all Planned Parenthood offers is abortions. They use their "federal funding" to subsidize all kinds of care and educational programs. Trying to isolate this to a "they use federal dollars to fund abortions" is a losing argument and WS knows that....so NO he does not have a 'valid point'


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Pretty much, yes.



WouldaShoulda said:


> Have you??


 Yes, sir, I have.

Your argument has not changed my opinion and I think it's safe to say mine hasn't either. Agree to disagree?


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

Jovan said:


> Think _very carefully_ about what you are saying, sir...


You assume I haven't.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing an innocent child doesn't solve anything. The mother still has to give birth to it but instead of alive and whole it'll be dead and in pieces. To see a child (specifically your own offspring) like that is something I would not wish upon anyone.

The woman loses her choice at conception, the point at which life begins. In a consentual relationship the woman made her choice when she decided to spread her legs. In a non-consentual relationship (rape) the woman unfortunately lost her choice when her rights were violently ripped away from her (though responsible human beings deem it important to arm and defend themselves and not rely on others for their well-being).

In science an individual is identified by their unique DNA. That unique DNA is formed at conception and differs from both the mother and father, thereby denoting that another individual has been created. And that individual has human DNA. So to terminate that individual would be to kill a human being in the earliest stages of development. And since the individual has its own unique DNA it is not part of the mother but is merely connected to and inside of her. She has no more a right to end its life inside the womb than she does if it was outside the womb.

If not at conception then when does it become a human life? At birth? When it starts to kick? Perhaps when the heart starts to beat or when it starts to look like a human? All contrived notions. Surely if it became a human at birth then it must not have been human the instant before or even the nine months before. Or if a heartbeat denotes humanity then the time leading up to that heartbeat counts for nothing. No doubt, if we follow this line of thinking, it would be ethical to kill it a moment before birth or heartbeat but not a moment after.

Any method that destroys the child after conception is murder. 
And with our amazing medical technology today the possibility that the child and/or mother will die without an abortion is extremely rare if not non-existant. With our medical technology we're able to cut the baby from the mothers belly and the baby can survive outside the womb several months before the due date. The 'mother or child' argument is obsolete.

And if we truly care about both the woman and child we would not be discussing the symptom (the resulting abortion) but rather the illness (rape). One way to greatly decrease the number of rapes is to arm and train women in the art of self defense. What rapist would want to continue his devious actions if he knew most women were armed? It seems some here believe the theory that a woman raped and left for dead in an alley is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police how her attacker got a bullet in the brainpan...


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I definitely agree with your last point. But violence should be a last resort. There are ways to avoid being in a place in which he could inflict harm on her to begin with. That should be trained to women as well, just like how to avoid getting into situations where pickpockets, muggers, etc. have the drop on you. When that all fails, self-defence is definitely the way to go.


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

Jovan said:


> I definitely agree with your last point. But violence should be a last resort. There are ways to avoid being in a place in which he could inflict harm on her to begin with. That should be trained to women as well, just like how to avoid getting into situations where pickpockets, muggers, etc. have the drop on you. When that all fails, self-defence is definitely the way to go.


Agreed. Situational awareness paired with de-escalation and if that fails, go hot.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Agree to disagree?


I agree that reasonable people may disagree.

I do not beleive that excuses you from having not challanged the false and misleading premise of the article you posted.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

thunderw21 said:


> If not at conception then when does it become a human life?


The answer to that would be at birth and not a second before.

A fetus is alive in the same way that semen is alive, it has living cells, but it is not life as we understand it for there can be no true human life without birth and without memory and a fetus has neither. Post here the day and hour of your conception. If you can't then it wasn't that important to your parents; that you were actually born, however, is. That's why you get birthday cards. It's also interesting to note that your views on this match the photos you post in purposely outdated fashions. As well as the pictures of you with guns. Your charge of murder is offensive in the extreme. Holding that belief goes beyond conservatism into cultishness. You should not interfere with developed life to rescue an undeveloped one.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> The answer to that would be at birth and not a second before.
> 
> A fetus is alive in the same way that semen is alive, it has living cells, but it is not life as we understand it for there can be no true human life without birth and without memory and a fetus has neither. Post here the day and hour of your conception. If you can't then it wasn't that important to your parents; that you were actually born, however, is. That's why you get birthday cards. It's also interesting to note that your views on this match the photos you post in purposely outdated fashions. As well as the pictures of you with guns. Your charge of murder is offensive in the extreme. Holding that belief goes beyond conservatism into cultishness. You should not interfere with developed life to rescue an undeveloped one.


To expand on this, there is a reason why there is a reason why we differentiate between child and fetus. They mean two separate things. The rules on late term abortions (Third trimester) are meant to alleviate specific issues, such as premature births (still BIRTH), but birth is the defining line. Until birth, the fetus is part of the mother. It cannot live without her, as a child can. It is not independently alive, though it does has _aspects of life_.


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

You guys are really reaching for something that isn't there.



Peak and Pine said:


> The answer to that would be at birth and not a second before.
> 
> A fetus is alive in the same way that semen is alive, it has living cells, but it is not life as we understand it for there can be no true human life without birth and without memory and a fetus has neither. Post here the day and hour of your conception. If you can't then it wasn't that important to your parents; that you were actually born, however, is. That's why you get birthday cards. It's also interesting to note that your views on this match the photos you post in purposely outdated fashions. As well as the pictures of you with guns. Your charge of murder is offensive in the extreme. Holding that belief goes beyond conservatism into cultishness. You should not interfere with developed life to rescue an undeveloped one.


Semen and an unborn child (fetus if you want to call it that) are completely different biologically. 
*Sperm: carrier of the father's DNA information. 
*Unborn child: developing creation of egg fertilized by sperm that has unique human DNA that differs from the mother's and father's DNA.
To equate the two is illogical.

Life is a state of being. 
It is the very first inalienable right inherent in every human being that is concieved. 
Life is not, as you believe, an indicator of where someone has or has not been: whether or not they have passed through the birth canal. The birth canal is not a magical gate or portal through which life is granted. The baby is the same right before birth as it is right after birth; the only difference is its location.

Your thinking is the same as if you drew a line in the sand between us and said "you don't have life because you haven't stepped across the line". 
"You don't have life because you haven't passed through the birth canal."

And what part of the child must be born in order for life to exist? The head? Shoulders? The entire child? 
Let's say for the sake of argument that everything but the child's feet are outside of the mother. Is the child a human life? Or would it be alright to abort the child at that instant while the feet are still inside the mother?

Do you have memories from the first couple months after your birth? Seeing how this is one of your requirements for life you must not have been a human life until the age of your first memory. See how contrived your requirements for human life are? There's no concrete foundation, there's no scientific standard.

I really don't understand why you mention my interest in firearms and vintage clothing unless it was meant to be a personal attack. Either way, what do my interests and hobbies have to do with the topic at hand?



Apatheticviews said:


> To expand on this, there is a reason why there is a reason why we differentiate between child and fetus. They mean two separate things. The rules on late term abortions (Third trimester) are meant to alleviate specific issues, such as premature births (still BIRTH), but birth is the defining line. Until birth, the fetus is part of the mother. It cannot live without her, as a child can. It is not independently alive, though it does has _aspects of life_.


Fetus is a name for a child developing within the womb just as 'kid', 'preteen' and 'teenager' are names for humans developing outside the womb.

As I pointed out before, the child is an individual and is connected and inside of the mother but is not "part of the mother". The unborn child has its own unique DNA that differs from both the mother and father and is therefore not part of the mother's body.

Like Peak and Pine, you also have requirements for human life though they differ slightly. One of those requirements, other than birth (see my reply above), is the ability to live independently without the mother. Yet even a child who has been born cannot live independently. It needs its mother (or another parent/guardian) to survive. Are you saying a newborn is not a human life because it can't survive alone?

If that's true then according to your requirements grade-school aged kids and most teenagers are not living humans because they require outside help to live. But that's truly absurd, we all know kids and teenagers are humans.
Taking that requirement further, would you consider a mentally and/or physically handicapped person who requires outside help to be a human life? Or an elderly person who requires a machine to breath or a pacemaker? Surely they are valuable members of society and deserve the right to life.

Again, your requirements for human life are contrived and have no solid basis. They can easily be turned around upon themselves by simple logic. The belief that life begins at conception is based upon science and solid logic.

While both Peak and Pine and Apatheticviews disagree with my belief that life starts at conception, both have differing requirements for life to exist: 
*Peak and Pine: birth and memories
*Apatheticviews: birth and ability to survive seperate from others
So which set of requirements are correct? Or do you have more faulty requirements? Even these two cannot agree upon a set of requirements.


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

Idiots and blowhards? Nice reasoned argument.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

thunderw21 said:


> Again, your requirements for human life are contrived and have no solid basis. They can easily be turned around upon themselves by simple logic. The belief that life begins at conception is based upon science and solid logic..


Actually Science (Medicine is a Science) states that it begins at birth. Religion states that it begins at Conception.

Contraceptive techniques (Strictly preventatives like the Pill, Condoms, etc) would be considered _attempted_ murder then.... Oh wait, it is by some religions....

I used your quote, because it highlights YOUR *belief* structure. "Your requirements for human life are contrived and have no solid basis. They can easily be turned around upon themselves by simple logic." It's a belief structure. It's what you believe. And you're entitled to your beliefs. But just because you believe it doesn't make it right. Just like my opinions may not be right. However I have the LAW on my side. My opinions are backed by the supreme court.

I don't believe life starts at conception. I don't think a viable human being can exist at a cellular level (conception), lest you say fertilized eggs in storage awaiting implantation are "people" which is a stretch I can't logically make. I am forced to sway to the other side. Birth. Sure a level of consciousness "could" exist before then, but birth ends the discussion. It is a definitive point where we know life is. It is where experience in the living world begins.

However I also don't believe the People (Government) should pay the medical expenses for victims of crime. If you need medical care, there are means of getting it.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

thunderw21 said:


> The birth canal is not a magical gate or portal through which life is granted.


Actually it is.

And I thank you for the literary way in which you've phrased it. With your permission I will be using that in the future to describe birth and the beginning of life. Though you apparently will continue to think of protoplasmic life inside the womb as some sort of sacred mass that is endowed with rights its preformed brain cannot possibly appreciate or even deserve. But go to it. I read your entire post but it drones and we've heard it before.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

I have sparred mightily with Apathetic on another interchange topic and feel a little queasy being one with him on this one, but his post just prior is very well put, he has done the mental leg work I won't have to do, so I will just say thank you and urge him not to respond further to Thunder's vintage thinking. Unless he considers it fun, which it kinda is.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

thunderw21 said:


> Like Peak and Pine, you also have requirements for human life though they differ slightly. One of those requirements, other than birth (see my reply above), is the ability to live independently without the mother. Yet even a child who has been born cannot live independently. It needs its mother (or another parent/guardian) to survive. Are you saying a newborn is not a human life because it can't survive alone?


Talk about a STRETCH.

7 or 8 weeks into a pregnancy - if a woman were to opt to terminate her pregnancy - could the baby be removed during surgery and survive outside of her body? The answer is NO. That is an irrefutable fact. Life can only be called such, when it can SURVIVE outside of the organism it is developing inside of. Period.

In your ridiculous example, we all know that a baby living on a street corner without food, shelter and warmth would not survive - but that means NOTHING. You or your mother or your grandmother could also not survive without warmth and food and shelter.

If any baby can survive with the help from ANY human (or animal for that matter), then in spite of its "dependence" it is a viable human life. And not a moment before that.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I agree that reasonable people may disagree.
> 
> I do not believe that excuses you from having not challenged the false and misleading premise of the article you posted.


 Hey, I tried! I don't believe just because I agree with the article that I am unreasonable.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Hey, I tried! I don't believe just because I agree with the article that I am unreasonable.


And I didn't want to say you are false, misleading or unreasonable just because the article is.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> And I didn't want to say you are false, *misleading* or unreasonable just because the article is.


Yeah, kind of like your title in this thread :rolleyes2:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?110796-Mob-Rule-Descends-on-Wisconsin


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> And I didn't want to say you are false, misleading or unreasonable just because the article is.


 Hahaha


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Not sure I know what's being "discussed" here or even what the point of that odd Huff Post article is.
> 
> All I know is that rape is rape, no matter how much a group of old men (GOP) might want to reclassify it.
> Also know I'm against abortion as contraception! Abortion in my opinion should only be permitted in exceptional cases:
> ...


It is nice to see we basically agree on this.

Abortion is like the Nazis legalizing the killing of a race of people, such as the Jew.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Stop making yourself look like a fool. You know as well as I do that while congress CAN vote to change funding every 2 years, they most certainly DO NOT.
> 
> If you are elected on a mandate of smaller government, less government involvement in the day to day lives of American citizens, and helping to create more job - would your first order of business be to try and redefine rape and limit access to legal medical procedures?
> 
> Wait -don't answer that, as clearly you don't get it.


Why did you hijack this thread? And why are you an idiot? Do you think they can snap their fingers and the economy changes? The economy is a big issue that take thought and planning to get laws passed. Not to mention the other side, Government is God and Needs to Hold Your Hand group called Democrats, who will fight to the end to run you life so you don't have true freedom and independence from government. Why do you vote people in who are as dumb as you to hold your hand? It is one thing to vote in smarter people to hold your hand, but people as dumb as you? Progressives think of people as animals to be shuttled around from coral to coral- is that the life you want? Like a dumb steer in a coral. Oh yah, the "smart people" ended up feeding spongy brain problem to the steers, aren't they smart, because they know whats best for the rest of us. I don't like it when to much power is in the hands of a few people and one way to steal this power is by government.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WA said:


> Why did you hijack this thread? And why are you an idiot? Do you think they can snap their fingers and the economy changes? The economy is a big issue that take thought and planning to get laws passed. Not to mention the other side, Government is God and Needs to Hold Your Hand group called Democrats, who will fight to the end to run you life so you don't have true freedom and independence from government. Why do you vote people in who are as dumb as you to hold your hand? It is one thing to vote in smarter people to hold your hand, but people as dumb as you? Progressives think of people as animals to be shuttled around from coral to coral- is that the life you want? Like a dumb steer in a coral. Oh yah, the "smart people" ended up feeding spongy brain problem to the steers, aren't they smart, because they know whats best for the rest of us. I don't like it when to much power is in the hands of a few people and one way to steal this power is by government.


 Evoking the God, the Nazis and calling people Dumb?

That's some STRONG debating skills there WA. Way to represent your side of the debate. :icon_viking:


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> And that ASSUMES (incorrectly) that all Planned Parenthood offers is abortions. They use their "federal funding" to subsidize all kinds of care and educational programs. Trying to isolate this to a "they use federal dollars to fund abortions" is a losing argument and WS knows that....so NO he does not have a 'valid point'


That strikes me as a very petty and mean-spirited way to strike out at the idea of abortion. The argument that crime victims' medical expenses are not usually covered by the government is an interesting one, though -- if I'm mugged and injured, my insurance pays for my medical treatment, not the state, correct? I know that victims are sometimes compensated by special funds.

I also have absolutely no problem with convicted rapists paying all medical expenses incurred by victims, including HIV screening and abortion if victims choose this (and certainly the morning-after pill would be an option if one is raped). If a person hits my car, my insurance company goes after that person, so...


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I like your thinking, VS. Make the bastard pay in more than one way.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

+1. I have to agree. We can already do this via the civil court process. I just hadn't made the connection between it and the criminal court. By the time he is nabbed, the majority of immediate medical expenses should be apparent, and could be transferred over at sentencing.


----------

