No abortion for rape victims

[sfcalifornia]

You are certainly free to try to kill anyone you want. My guess is that you would end up in prison, but go ahead.

No, you aren't "free" to kill anyone you want, there are laws against that. But there are exceptions to that law and killing in self-defense is one of them. If you decide to kill someone after the fact though, then that is a different matter.

If laws prevented people from doing things no one would ever be murdered.

That still doesn't mean you're free to commit murder. Freedom to commit murder would mean free from suffering consequences for the act committed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, you aren't "free" to kill anyone you want, there are laws against that. But there are exceptions to that law and killing in self-defense is one of them. If you decide to kill someone after the fact though, then that is a different matter.

If laws prevented people from doing things no one would ever be murdered.

That still doesn't mean you're free to commit murder. Freedom to commit murder would mean free from suffering consequences for the act committed.

Actually, it does.

 

[sfcalifornia]

If laws prevented people from doing things no one would ever be murdered.

That still doesn't mean you're free to commit murder. Freedom to commit murder would mean free from suffering consequences for the act committed.

Actually, it does.

What kind of response is that? Are you conceding but just want the last word?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

What counts as worst possible experiences? It doesn't get much more subjective than that. I'm not a woman, so I can't comment on what a woman finds horrible. Men and women aren't exactly wired the same, neither physically nor emotionally. Speaking for myself, I can't imagine too many things much worse than if I were anally raped, but then that's just me. I have to assume there are other men that may think differently.

I don't really see what that has to do with the matter one way or another.

If a woman is threatened with something, and chooses to be raped, that means she thinks that the alternative is worse than rape. Anyone with an IQ about the freezing point of water would grasp that without explanation. Noomi is the one that made the ridiculous claim the fact that I have spent so much time pointing out the obvious just shows how brain dead the pro abortion crowd is.

I'm not pro-abortion. Anyway, so, if a woman is threatened with rape, she CHOOSES to be raped? Wow. So, women who are held down and raped against their will are choosing to be raped? Men in prison who are forced into sodomy are CHOOSING this? Would you mind telling me what the alternatives are?

By the way, were you ever going to show me where in U.S. history abortion has ever been classified as murder? You seemed pretty confident that I didn't know what I was talking about.

 

[koshergrl]

What counts as worst possible experiences? It doesn't get much more subjective than that. I'm not a woman, so I can't comment on what a woman finds horrible. Men and women aren't exactly wired the same, neither physically nor emotionally. Speaking for myself, I can't imagine too many things much worse than if I were anally raped, but then that's just me. I have to assume there are other men that may think differently.

I don't really see what that has to do with the matter one way or another.

If a woman is threatened with something, and chooses to be raped, that means she thinks that the alternative is worse than rape. Anyone with an IQ about the freezing point of water would grasp that without explanation. Noomi is the one that made the ridiculous claim the fact that I have spent so much time pointing out the obvious just shows how brain dead the pro abortion crowd is.

I'm not pro-abortion. Anyway, so, if a woman is threatened with rape, she CHOOSES to be raped?

Uh, no, that's nothing like what anyone has said. The whole conversation has been about the hypothetical situation proposed by noomi that if a woman has a choice between rape and ANY OTHER FATE for herself or someone else, it is only natural that everybody recognize that RAPE is the worst thing that could ever happen..thus if (again, this is noomi's hypothetical) someone threatens to smack around someone if they can't rape noomi, then that person naturally must be sacrificed because noomi's rape must be prevented at all costs.

Then the argument went down the lines of "what about if you're faced with rape or the death/abuse of your child" and "oh gosh that situation doesn't exist" and then various references to the Sudan and Darfur etc.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That still doesn't mean you're free to commit murder. Freedom to commit murder would mean free from suffering consequences for the act committed.

Actually, it does.

What kind of response is that? Are you conceding but just want the last word?

You argued that consequences mean I am not free, that is absurd.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What counts as worst possible experiences? It doesn't get much more subjective than that. I'm not a woman, so I can't comment on what a woman finds horrible. Men and women aren't exactly wired the same, neither physically nor emotionally. Speaking for myself, I can't imagine too many things much worse than if I were anally raped, but then that's just me. I have to assume there are other men that may think differently.

I don't really see what that has to do with the matter one way or another.

If a woman is threatened with something, and chooses to be raped, that means she thinks that the alternative is worse than rape. Anyone with an IQ about the freezing point of water would grasp that without explanation. Noomi is the one that made the ridiculous claim the fact that I have spent so much time pointing out the obvious just shows how brain dead the pro abortion crowd is.

I'm not pro-abortion. Anyway, so, if a woman is threatened with rape, she CHOOSES to be raped? Wow. So, women who are held down and raped against their will are choosing to be raped? Men in prison who are forced into sodomy are CHOOSING this? Would you mind telling me what the alternatives are?

By the way, were you ever going to show me where in U.S. history abortion has ever been classified as murder? You seemed pretty confident that I didn't know what I was talking about.

Did I say you were pro abortion? I said the pro abortion crowd is brain dead. Just because you are also brain dead does not mean I think you are pro abortion. If you were not brain dead you would understand that.

By the way, since someone was indicted for murder in 2011 for preforming abortion, I see no need to prove the obvious.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/...or-performs-illegal-abortions-indicted-murder

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Rick Berg, North Dakota GOP Senate Candidate: No Abortion Access For Rape Victims

He must plan on raising the unwanted fetus. I mean, surely he would not demand the power to control women's lives unless he also planned to take responsibility for his power over them.

He probably also believes in slavery - ultimate control over people's lives.

That is what their platform implicitly states as well.


The Republicans do support putting rapists in prison.

They also support government forcing the victims of those rapists - at point of a gun if neccessary - to bear the offspring of their attackers. However, they do NOT support government helping the victims of the rapists to bear the fianncial burden of raising the rapist's child.

So in Republican land - a rapist can sit in prison knowing his victim's hell has only just begun. Not only does she have to bear the physical and mental trauma of the attack itself - she must bear the child of her attacker - and then she must bear the entire financial burden of raising her attacker's child while he sits in prison getting his meals paid for by the tax payer.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Actually, it does.

What kind of response is that? Are you conceding but just want the last word?

You argued that consequences mean I am not free, that is absurd.

Now you are being obtuse.

You are not free from consequence if you commit murder.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

If a woman is threatened with something, and chooses to be raped, that means she thinks that the alternative is worse than rape. Anyone with an IQ about the freezing point of water would grasp that without explanation. Noomi is the one that made the ridiculous claim the fact that I have spent so much time pointing out the obvious just shows how brain dead the pro abortion crowd is.

I'm not pro-abortion. Anyway, so, if a woman is threatened with rape, she CHOOSES to be raped? Wow. So, women who are held down and raped against their will are choosing to be raped? Men in prison who are forced into sodomy are CHOOSING this? Would you mind telling me what the alternatives are?

By the way, were you ever going to show me where in U.S. history abortion has ever been classified as murder? You seemed pretty confident that I didn't know what I was talking about.

Did I say you were pro abortion? I said the pro abortion crowd is brain dead. Just because you are also brain dead does not mean I think you are pro abortion. If you were not brain dead you would understand that.

By the way, since someone was indicted for murder in 2011 for preforming abortion, I see no need to prove the obvious.

Doctor Who Performed Illegal Abortions Indicted for Murder | RH Reality Check

I'm familiar with that case. Dr. Gosnell appears to be a real piece of shit. However, first off, he is indicted for murder, not yet convicted. He is indicted for eight counts of murder, the woman, and allegedly the babies that were born alive and then killed when he severed their spinal cords. However, the conviction of murder is going to be dependent on the state of "life" of the babies, not on the qualification of abortion being defined as murder, because it is not, in ANY state.

The story is chilling to say the least, and I have zero sympathy for whatever awaits him if he is convicted. However, I will continue to ask, when has abortion ever been defined as murder in the U.S.?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What kind of response is that? Are you conceding but just want the last word?

You argued that consequences mean I am not free, that is absurd.

Now you are being obtuse.

You are not free from consequence if you commit murder.

I suggest you take a little time to read my signature before you apologize to the guy that has spread that message in every single post he has made on this board.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not pro-abortion. Anyway, so, if a woman is threatened with rape, she CHOOSES to be raped? Wow. So, women who are held down and raped against their will are choosing to be raped? Men in prison who are forced into sodomy are CHOOSING this? Would you mind telling me what the alternatives are?

By the way, were you ever going to show me where in U.S. history abortion has ever been classified as murder? You seemed pretty confident that I didn't know what I was talking about.

Did I say you were pro abortion? I said the pro abortion crowd is brain dead. Just because you are also brain dead does not mean I think you are pro abortion. If you were not brain dead you would understand that.

By the way, since someone was indicted for murder in 2011 for preforming abortion, I see no need to prove the obvious.

Doctor Who Performed Illegal Abortions Indicted for Murder | RH Reality Check

I'm familiar with that case. Dr. Gosnell appears to be a real piece of shit. However, first off, he is indicted for murder, not yet convicted. He is indicted for eight counts of murder, the woman, and allegedly the babies that were born alive and then killed when he severed their spinal cords. However, the conviction of murder is going to be dependent on the state of "life" of the babies, not on the qualification of abortion being defined as murder, because it is not, in ANY state.

The story is chilling to say the least, and I have zero sympathy for whatever awaits him if he is convicted. However, I will continue to ask, when has abortion ever been defined as murder in the U.S.?

He couldn't have been indicted if it the abortions he preformed were not murder under the law, could he?

 

[sfcalifornia]

You argued that consequences mean I am not free, that is absurd.

Now you are being obtuse.

You are not free from consequence if you commit murder.

I suggest you take a little time to read my signature before you apologize to the guy that has spread that message in every single post he has made on this board.

Oh please!

Anyone is "free" to commit murder as long as they don't personally object to it on a moral basis.

Now that is absurd.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Did I say you were pro abortion? I said the pro abortion crowd is brain dead. Just because you are also brain dead does not mean I think you are pro abortion. If you were not brain dead you would understand that.

By the way, since someone was indicted for murder in 2011 for preforming abortion, I see no need to prove the obvious.

Doctor Who Performed Illegal Abortions Indicted for Murder | RH Reality Check

I'm familiar with that case. Dr. Gosnell appears to be a real piece of shit. However, first off, he is indicted for murder, not yet convicted. He is indicted for eight counts of murder, the woman, and allegedly the babies that were born alive and then killed when he severed their spinal cords. However, the conviction of murder is going to be dependent on the state of "life" of the babies, not on the qualification of abortion being defined as murder, because it is not, in ANY state.

The story is chilling to say the least, and I have zero sympathy for whatever awaits him if he is convicted. However, I will continue to ask, when has abortion ever been defined as murder in the U.S.?

He couldn't have been indicted if it the abortions he preformed were not murder under the law, could he?

You really are missing the point. The establishment of murder is dependent on the live birth status of the babies he allegedly killed. It is something that has yet to be determined. If the prosecution is unable to establish that the babies were live born and then terminated, then he can only be convicted of murder of the mother. If they have a strong case for this, then I hope they gain the conviction. If they don't then they really should go after him for whatever penalty they can make stick that involved late-term abortions.

This is the problem I have with the approach that the pro-life movement uses. Unborn babies deserve some kind of protection. Going back and forth over whether or not it is murder is about as effective as animal right advocates trying to establish eating meat as murder. Despite what your personal or moral feelings might be on the matter, the only people that suffer are that woman and those poor babies. The fact that that was able to happen in the first place is the real travesty, and is a much bigger failure than whether or not abortion gets classified as murder.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now you are being obtuse.

You are not free from consequence if you commit murder.

I suggest you take a little time to read my signature before you apologize to the guy that has spread that message in every single post he has made on this board.

Oh please!

Anyone is "free" to commit murder as long as they don't personally object to it on a moral basis.

Now that is absurd.

Everyone is free to commit murder, the trick is not whinging about paying the price if you get caught. Stand up, explain why you did it, and let the jury figure out if you were right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm familiar with that case. Dr. Gosnell appears to be a real piece of shit. However, first off, he is indicted for murder, not yet convicted. He is indicted for eight counts of murder, the woman, and allegedly the babies that were born alive and then killed when he severed their spinal cords. However, the conviction of murder is going to be dependent on the state of "life" of the babies, not on the qualification of abortion being defined as murder, because it is not, in ANY state.

The story is chilling to say the least, and I have zero sympathy for whatever awaits him if he is convicted. However, I will continue to ask, when has abortion ever been defined as murder in the U.S.?

He couldn't have been indicted if it the abortions he preformed were not murder under the law, could he?

You really are missing the point. The establishment of murder is dependent on the live birth status of the babies he allegedly killed. It is something that has yet to be determined. If the prosecution is unable to establish that the babies were live born and then terminated, then he can only be convicted of murder of the mother. If they have a strong case for this, then I hope they gain the conviction. If they don't then they really should go after him for whatever penalty they can make stick that involved late-term abortions.

This is the problem I have with the approach that the pro-life movement uses. Unborn babies deserve some kind of protection. Going back and forth over whether or not it is murder is about as effective as animal right advocates trying to establish eating meat as murder. Despite what your personal or moral feelings might be on the matter, the only people that suffer are that woman and those poor babies. The fact that that was able to happen in the first place is the real travesty, and is a much bigger failure than whether or not abortion gets classified as murder.

Again with the lies, or are you just stupid? Murder extends to unborn children in 36 states, including California.

 

[emilynghiem]

Maybe the issue then is not paying into an unmanaged system of wasteful bureaucracy,
but to localize the programs where there is accountability of who is paying for
what services being received. And where costs are excessive due to waste or abuse, then the abusers are held accountable, not charging more to law abiding productive citizens!

The Bible calls for us to respect civil institutions and authority. If you look up Public Law
96-303, The Code of Ethics for Govt Service would negate any waste of public resources
instead of solving the social problems that are creating the waste and drain on resources.
ethics-commission.net

So, you think the pubpots are adopting unwanted babies? Yeah right. They just want to keep women down and out.
===

You haven't been reading my posts.

I believe just the opposite. And I also believe I should not be forced to pay for your health care or the health care of illegals.

I just with the rw's weren't such lazy moochers and would pay for their own.

I taxes pay for my abortions and my healthcare. I paid into to system and have a right to collect. Illegal aliens work an pay taxes that pay for their healthcare. Even in ER. Ilegal aliens should not have to pay for your social security and medicare either.
Most of the people who are needing a helping hand has already paid into the system and it's pay up time when they need it. What you are paying in now will be there when you lose your job or get too sick to work. We take care of our own as the Christian God commands.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

He couldn't have been indicted if it the abortions he preformed were not murder under the law, could he?

You really are missing the point. The establishment of murder is dependent on the live birth status of the babies he allegedly killed. It is something that has yet to be determined. If the prosecution is unable to establish that the babies were live born and then terminated, then he can only be convicted of murder of the mother. If they have a strong case for this, then I hope they gain the conviction. If they don't then they really should go after him for whatever penalty they can make stick that involved late-term abortions.

This is the problem I have with the approach that the pro-life movement uses. Unborn babies deserve some kind of protection. Going back and forth over whether or not it is murder is about as effective as animal right advocates trying to establish eating meat as murder. Despite what your personal or moral feelings might be on the matter, the only people that suffer are that woman and those poor babies. The fact that that was able to happen in the first place is the real travesty, and is a much bigger failure than whether or not abortion gets classified as murder.

Again with the lies, or are you just stupid? Murder extends to unborn children in 36 states, including California.

Sigh*

I prefer "liar liar pants on fire."

I am not arguing the loss of life or that a baby is killed. I agree with you. However, in none of those states is abortion "murder." There is a distinct difference legally between "murder," and other forms of killing, such as negligent manslaughter. Abortion is not murder in ANY of the 50 states since Roe v. Wade. This is not a lie. This is verifiable fact. Why do you insist on calling me a liar when all you have to do is read what I post. Murder has a distinct legal meaning and definition, whether the majority of Americans consider it murder or not.

Again, I will make myself perfectly clear, the unborn deserve to be protected under the law. In some states they have some protections. As long as the pro-life movement continues to label it a murder, they will continue to lose the battle. I am not inventing or lying when I say that the law has always recognized a life at live birth. I would like to see this change, but the hysterical crying of "murder" is not going to get it done.

So, again, you're missing the point. If you want to say that abortion is killing, well, I would have to agree with you. If you want to say that it is murder, then I will continue to ask, at what point. It was never classified as murder, even before Roe v. Wade.

But that's okay. Call me a liar again. You're the one saying that abortion is considered murder in 36 states. But I'm not calling you a liar, just mistaken.

 

[emilynghiem]

You do realize that if you kill some guy in the future, and you claim he raped you, that your comment here shows INTENT TO KILL and you won't get off on self defense?

It's super idiotic to spout off about who you would kill if given a chance.

I disagree. There is nothing wrong with stating that if a man attempted to rape you, you would fight to the death. Which I would.

I believe there should be stronger consequences for rape.
I would go so far as to promote signed agreements per state or district,
where citizens agree to forfeit citizenship if they commit premeditated
crimes using weapons involving rape, robbery or murder. And whoever
cannot sign or abide by that agreement can't live there but agrees to work with
correctional programs if they have some criminal condition they cannot control.
Currently we do not teach people the laws we expect to be followed in order to have
citizenship, and you wonder why people have no clue about running up the costs
if there were no rules set out by written agreement up front in order to live here.
There should be a signed agreement that people will pay restitution themselves,
so there is an understanding of how much this really costs instead of taking it for granted as paid by the state!

I believe there should be restitution to rape victims paid by
money or labor directly by the rapists. We would turn the economy around
on its head if there were restitution for all the rape, crime and trafficking victims
invested in building service centers and jobs in schools and health care,
along the border to restore communities currently overrun by violent crimes with no accountability for the cost to victims and society.

If we enforced a higher standard on accountability and costs for crime and corruption,
we could balance state budgets with pay back and even loans against
debts and damages, worked off over time by the wrongdoers actually responsible
instead of charging the costs to taxpayers!

 

[emilynghiem]

You really are missing the point. The establishment of murder is dependent on the live birth status of the babies he allegedly killed. It is something that has yet to be determined. If the prosecution is unable to establish that the babies were live born and then terminated, then he can only be convicted of murder of the mother. If they have a strong case for this, then I hope they gain the conviction. If they don't then they really should go after him for whatever penalty they can make stick that involved late-term abortions.

This is the problem I have with the approach that the pro-life movement uses. Unborn babies deserve some kind of protection. Going back and forth over whether or not it is murder is about as effective as animal right advocates trying to establish eating meat as murder. Despite what your personal or moral feelings might be on the matter, the only people that suffer are that woman and those poor babies. The fact that that was able to happen in the first place is the real travesty, and is a much bigger failure than whether or not abortion gets classified as murder.

Again with the lies, or are you just stupid? Murder extends to unborn children in 36 states, including California.

Sigh*

I prefer "liar liar pants on fire."

I am not arguing the loss of life or that a baby is killed. I agree with you. However, in none of those states is abortion "murder." There is a distinct difference legally between "murder," and other forms of killing, such as negligent manslaughter. Abortion is not murder in ANY of the 50 states since Roe v. Wade. This is not a lie. This is verifiable fact. Why do you insist on calling me a liar when all you have to do is read what I post. Murder has a distinct legal meaning and definition, whether the majority of Americans consider it murder or not.

Again, I will make myself perfectly clear, the unborn deserve to be protected under the law. In some states they have some protections. As long as the pro-life movement continues to label it a murder, they will continue to lose the battle. I am not inventing or lying when I say that the law has always recognized a life at live birth. I would like to see this change, but the hysterical crying of "murder" is not going to get it done.

So, again, you're missing the point. If you want to say that abortion is killing, well, I would have to agree with you. If you want to say that it is murder, then I will continue to ask, at what point. It was never classified as murder, even before Roe v. Wade.

But that's okay. Call me a liar again. You're the one saying that abortion is considered murder in 36 states. But I'm not calling you a liar, just mistaken.

I agree that "insisting on treating or labeling abortion as murder" is not necessary,
loses the audience, and tends to defeats arguments before any points can be made after that. It is generally unproductive, and there are better ways to frame things where problems can be addressed and resolved instead of killing the conversation over this point.

I cannot stress enough what a difference it makes in reaching an agreement
if people agree to stick to common terms and points first. The same resolutions and points
can be better reached more effectively over time, using common framework in order to
avoiding getting caught up in side conflicts that detract from resolving problems
that would have made a bigger difference in the overall process and goals.

I hope you don't give up, but continue to work on addressing what are really the issues common to both, and not lose connection over terms that aren't.

For example, if you bring up "suffering" that may be a common issue that all sides seek to prevent, instead of limiting this to murder. Preventing "suffering" would equally apply to preventing abuse of sex or abuse of relations that precede pregnancy and abortion, so it would cover more of the causes that need to be prevented as well. Maybe that is more productive to address, and the same solutions would apply to preventing abortion.