Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 133

Thread: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

  1. #51
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    The point of this law is to not simply use tax money to fund abortion on demand. The law allows for abortion funding only in limitted situations, not simply whenever someone wants one. Get real!
    If enforcing your position on the topic would involve probing a chick's vajayjay for proof that she was "legitimately raped," as Todd Akin might put it, then might I suggest that that should be your first clue that there's something wrong with your position the topic. And perhaps with your attitude toward women in general.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #52
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,966

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Forcible Rape Law & Legal Definition

    Sounds like you have it about right.
    Hillarious that people have issue with posters referencing some citizens as "parasites" but have no issue suggesting someone's statement is "about right" when they sum up the views of the other side as "Bitch was probably asking for it".

    No, it's not "about right". Drugged falls under various definitions of forceable rape. Furthermore, there's nothing indicating anywhere at all that the reason for the split is because "The bitch ws probably asking for it". This is as retarded as any other instance in the abortion debate when a person ignorantly places their own view point onto the other side and then proceeds to judge the other sides intention with that in mind.

    For ****s sake.

  3. #53
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,966

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Those are not legal definitions for the US. AS an example, the FBI one is for data collection purposes.

    Laws regarding rape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    So your wikipedia article points out there's not NATIONAL definition and that it's a state to state thing.

    Well, good thing MaggieD's post was responding to someone stating there was no legal definition...end, stop, peroid. Not "No national definition".

  4. #54
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Actually it is not. The term has absolutely no legal definition. That was one of the biggest issues with this legislation. It would have created a nightmare for every state as they tried to figure out what did and did not fall within that category. It is not defined anywhere.
    Actually, you're wrong, the legal definition was posted for you, here it is again (note the source debunks your claim):

    Forcible Rape Law & Legal Definition

    Forcible rape is a rape where the anal or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without the lawful consent of the victim. In a forcible rape, the victim is prevented from resisting the sexual act because of the offender’s use of force or threats of physical violence, under circumstances where the victim reasonably believes that such resistance would not prevent the rape. [Edwards v. Butler, 882 F.2d 160, 163 (5th Cir. 1989)]. Attempts to commit rape are also included as forcible rape.

    Forcible rape is different from aggravated rape. The difference is based on the degree of force employed for the unlawful sexual act and the extent to which the victim resists.

    Source

  5. #55
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-24-13 @ 11:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,001

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by Meathead View Post
    Even for the silly season, this is a bit much.
    Exactly. It's really a non-issue since a woman is not likely to get pregnant as a result of rape.

  6. #56
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,966

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    The right has brought up abortion more than the left. In fact, the GOP made a big deal out of instituting in their platform abortions to not be supported in any case.
    The Democrats are working (or perhaps succeeded....it's been made such a "big" deal that I honestly don't know) on putting same sex marriage as one of their planks. Does that mean they're making a "Big Deal" about it? Because outside of the Chick-Fil-A week, I've not heard much about it from either side.

    Putting something in your platform is not the same as "making a big deal". On a national level, and this thread seems to be trying to take it to a national level after all, which party is running around specifically talking about and bringing up the abortion issue more? I will definitely say, in the past, the Republicans made the notion of abortoin a focus and in the primaries it was a focus when talking about Santorum, as he routinely would bring up the issue himself. However, the realities of this campaign so far is that the move to talk about social issues has largely been brought about due to the democrats making a big deal about them, not the republicans. Simply taking a stance on an issue is not "making a big deal" about it...talking about it, focusing on it, promoting it actively/attacking it actively, etc. THAT'S what makes it a "big deal". You're not going to find a single major political party that is going to not have some kind of stance in some fashion on abortoin because it's a generalized issue...but that doesn't mean the party is trying to make a BIG DEAL out of their position on it.

    Now, that said...while I personally think there are FAR more important things to talk about than social issues right now, there's nothing inherently wrong with Democrats trying to focus on social things. They absolutely can. I don't think that's "distractionary" in a general sense (I think focusing on Romney's wife's olympic horse or on Biden using crappy wording is more "distractionary" tactics) I think it's just simply focusing on the part of the opponent they think is weaker...which is why the Republicans are trying to focus on the economy. But to suggest that this election cycle it's republicans trying to make a big deal out of the social issues is ridiculous.

  7. #57
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by Meathead View Post
    Even for the silly season, this is a bit much.

    Oh you dont think candidates should have to explain anything..?

  8. #58
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,966

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    The problem is social conservatism is so rooted in the GOP, it makes it impossible to support them. Obama should be losing by a landslide right now, but instead of focusing on fiscal conservatism the GOP wants to focus on social conservatism.
    Again, you're talking about Obama so I'm going to assume you're talking about the national level. The GOP nationally are not "focusing" on social conservatism....they're not abandoning it, but they're not focusing on it. The people driving the conversation regarding social issues are largely on the left in this electoin cycle.

    If you are suggesting that the GOP should flat out "abandon" social conservatism, either taking zero stance on social issues or taking a liberal stance, rather than simply not "focus" on it then you're being ridiculous imho. They're not going to simply not take a stance on a large segment of the political spectrum and its incredibly unlikely to expect they will go from promoting it heavily in past years to flat out doing a 180 on their stance now to match up with Democrats.

    So far, on the national election front, they have been attempting to focus on FISCAL conservatism more so than focusing on social conservatism. That's WHY the left has largely been attempting to highlight and focus on the social conservative side of them as a means of attack...because the Republicans aren't making that part a focus themselves this time so the Democrats have to do it for them.

    Stategically speaking in a political sense, it's actually genius. The Republicans aren't going to be able to completely run away from social conservatism in the religious right vien of thinking in a single election cycle. Just isn't feasable. However, they were obviously trying to focus their talk and campaign on fiscal issues this time out rather than trying to put abortions, gay marriage, or the need to select judges that would rule a certain way on those things out in the forefront as a primary focus. But by attacking them on social conservative views, even though the national campaign isn't pushing it, the Democrats successfully:

    1) Force the Republicans to make it more of a focus because they have to respond and responding talks about it and talks about it gives focus to it; and
    2) reminds those independents that may've been apt to listen to the fiscal message because they weren't being bombarded with the social message along side it that "Hey, the Republicans hold these social conservative views"

    It's a great move politically speaking for the Left. But it's definitely them pushing the issue into the forefront

  9. #59
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Hillarious that people have issue with posters referencing some citizens as "parasites" but have no issue suggesting someone's statement is "about right" when they sum up the views of the other side as "Bitch was probably asking for it".
    "Views of the other side"? What is this "other side" you are speaking of, because *I* was referring to a specific piece of legislation? How else would you interpret the "forcible rape" distinction?

    No, it's not "about right". Drugged falls under various definitions of forceable rape.
    Then give me an example of a rape that you don't consider forcible. Statutory? Comatose? And why are these distinctions even relevant, if not to punish the woman for secretly wanting to be raped in certain circumstances?

    Furthermore, there's nothing indicating anywhere at all that the reason for the split is because "The bitch ws probably asking for it". This is as retarded as any other instance in the abortion debate when a person ignorantly places their own view point onto the other side and then proceeds to judge the other sides intention with that in mind.
    You know, as of late you've been really great at angry bluster and indignation, but you can never seem to actually defend said views. So I'm racking my brain trying to think of any possible other reason to draw a distinction between "forcible rape" and other types of rape, when it comes to abortion rights, and I'm still coming up blank. So in your considerable wisdom, perhaps you can help me out here and provide such a reason.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #60
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Then give me an example of a rape that you don't consider forcible. Statutory? Comatose? And why are these distinctions even relevant, if not to punish the woman for secretly wanting to be raped in certain circumstances?
    You answered your own question. Statutory rape is not forcible rape. And there most certainly should be a distinction. A 17-year-old bangin' his 15-year-old girlfriend with her consent is certainly not in the same category as forcible rape. Nor should it be.[/QUOTE]
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •