Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

Redress said:

That is not the case in every state, and states define what is forcible rape.

Click to expand...

Point well made, Redress. . . So if it's different in every state then obviously the federal government cannot define it - and thereby submits to each state's interpretation and application of the terminology.

Quite reasonable - if someone doesn't like how their state defines it then they need to take that up with their state. The federal government cannot change that.

And therefor they cannot create their own definition - lest they favor the definitions of one state and chasten the definition of others. That's not how things are suppose to work.

Aunt Spiker said:

Point well made, Redress. . . So if it's different in every state then obviously the federal government cannot define it - and thereby submits to each state's interpretation and application of the terminology.

Quite reasonable - if someone doesn't like how their state defines it then they need to take that up with their state. The federal government cannot change that.

And therefor they cannot create their own definition - lest they favor the definitions of one state and chasten the definition of others. That's not how things are suppose to work.

Click to expand...

The question that is being raised, and it is a legit question, is why the distinction, in a law dealing with abortion, between rape and forcible rape.

I can't analyze it further without direct access to the text in question - I'm not going to dig deeper into an article. . . and it's 2:30 am and I just don't feel like going on a hunting trip.

I always thought that woman with dress up could run faster than man with pants down.

frogloe said:

Okay wait wait wait wait.

Maybe I'm just not seeing your perspective correctly, but it sounds a lot like your pissed that tax payers are responsible for crime. Okay, I can understand that idea, but christ are you being limited here. I mean come on, tax payers are also responsible for murderers, black marketers, and basically every other criminal. So why are you suddenly infuriated when it comes to rape? Why is restitution only okay when it doesn't involve preventing the destruction of a woman's life? At least be consistent please. If you don't want taxpayers to be held responsible for rape, then you are fundamentally saying that you don't want any sort of taxpayer responsibility in crime. Which would mean no punishing crime or aiding the victims. At all.

Click to expand...

You don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

Tax payers are not financially responsible for crimes in most cases.

If your house is robbed, how am I responsible for your replacement costs? If you are beaten up in a bar room fight, how am I responsible for medical costs?

Tax Payers are responsible for the courts, for the police, etc, etc. not for restitution.

We are pandering to rape victims only because some politicians find a way to benefit politically from the conflicted views Americans have on abortion.

ARealConservative said:

yes an open mike

~ what does forcible rape mean?

~ rape is rape is rape

~ why won't you answer the question.

nice open mike we got there. /sarcasm

Click to expand...

...all part of the vetting process, as those mikes will be there after the election as well. If Romney can't set the agenda as a the challenger, with the money he has and the Obama record, then Romney is too weak to lead.

ARealConservative said:

You don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

Tax payers are not financially responsible for crimes in most cases.

If your house is robbed, how am I responsible for your replacement costs? If you are beaten up in a bar room fight, how am I responsible for medical costs?

Tax Payers are responsible for the courts, for the police, etc, etc. not for restitution.

We are pandering to rape victims only because some politicians find a way to benefit politically from the conflicted views Americans have on abortion.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the bump, but I've still got a bit of an unanswered question here. Okay first, there are forms of restitution that we fund. The death penalty is nice example that somehow conservatives backwardly support at the same time. It costs a crap load to put somebody on death row and it really, in reality, is to give a sense of closure to victims or victims by association. From the research I've done, there isn't really much of a benefit to the death penalty with the exception of the closure it gives to families that want it. It's not cheap, it's not easy, and it's not a more severe punishment. It is, in the most basic form, a form of restitution. Granted, it's not a wide spread restitution currently, but I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say that you probably supported it. Even if you didn't, it's one small example that I've mustered in quick thought among many. I'm sure you pay for a lot more than you are aware of. Think about it, if somebody wants to sue, you're paying for their restitution too. You're not paying it directly, but the process for it to happen is on your dollar. I'd love to sit here and spit out more examples, but I'm hoping you see my point.

I don't know what's more distressing...

the fact that government believes it has the right to legislate how, when and under what circumstances a woman is allowed reproductive choice,

the fact that government has decreed that only "forcible rape" victims or minors victimized by incest are "allowed" the dignity of choice without having a clue as to what "evidence" must be provided to "prove" rape actually occurred,

Or the fact that saving the life or health of the mother wasn't even mentioned, because presumably if a woman becomes pregnant by consentual sex and complications of that pregnancy later threaten or life or her future reproductive abilities, too-bad so-sad.

I remember the 60's. It wasn't a great time to be a woman. Now in the 21st century, women's rights are eroding back to the bad old days. This nation should be ashamed.