• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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]
 
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.

In a typical rape, carrying the unborn child of the person that raped you is akin to being raped all over again. Every day you are reminded of that horrific event.

Statutory Rape is obviously different. In most cases, the state is acting on your behalf in a manner that completely contradicts your own view on the issue.
 
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.

Then your problem is with the legal definition of statutory rape, period, not with the forcible/nonforcible rape distinction when it comes to abortion rights. If a 12-year-old girl gets pregnant from "consensual" sex with a 30-year-old man, how is that any less rape than if it had been forcible?
 
In a typical rape, carrying the unborn child of the person that raped you is akin to being raped all over again. Every day you are reminded of that horrific event.

Statutory Rape is obviously different. In most cases, the state is acting on your behalf in a manner that completely contradicts your own view on the issue.

Thank you for summarizing the "bitch probably wanted it" viewpoint so concisely. If anyone else cares to be outraged that I would suggest that anyone actually believes that, I'll just refer them to your post.
 
Thank you for summarizing the "bitch probably wanted it" viewpoint so concisely. If anyone else cares to be outraged that I would suggest that anyone actually believes that, I'll just refer them to your post.

thank you for proving once again that you can't approach a subject with honesty and maturity got to get those talking points and emotionally driven messages in at every possible moment, don't you?
 
thank you for proving once again that you can't approach a subject with honesty and maturity got to get those talking points and emotionally driven messages in at every possible moment, don't you?

Oh spare me the bull****. You said that abortion is less justified in the case of statutory rape because the state is acting "in a manner that completely contradicts [the girl's] own view on the issue." In other words, the girl secretly wanted it.
 
Oh spare me the bull****. You said that abortion is less justified in the case of statutory rape because the state is acting "in a manner that completely contradicts [the girl's] own view on the issue." In other words, the girl secretly wanted it.

This thread is about tax payer funding of abortion Kandahar, not about allowing abortion.

Many of us have different ideas about statutory rape anyway. An 18 year old impregnating a 16 year old is not the same situation. The 16 year old parents can and should pay for that abortion, as should the 18 year old.

but hey, you keep throwing those emotionally charged rants out there to see what sticks.
 
Oh spare me the bull****. You said that abortion is less justified in the case of statutory rape because the state is acting "in a manner that completely contradicts [the girl's] own view on the issue." In other words, the girl secretly wanted it.

You don't seem to understand what statutory rape is. Both individuals may in fact be consenting, but because one does not meet the legal age for consent, it is rape under statute. So no "secretly" neccessary, the girl and/or boy may indeed have "wanted it", but lack the proper age to legally consent.
 
Then your problem is with the legal definition of statutory rape, period, not with the forcible/nonforcible rape distinction when it comes to abortion rights. If a 12-year-old girl gets pregnant from "consensual" sex with a 30-year-old man, how is that any less rape than if it had been forcible?

I'm not talking about any distinction...other than there is one. The only problem I have with rape laws as they currently exist is the fact that, in many states, an 18-year-old having consensual sex with a 15-year-old would be required to register as a sex offender for a period of years.
 
This thread is about tax payer funding of abortion Kandahar, not about allowing abortion.

Many of us have different ideas about statutory rape anyway. An 18 year old impregnating a 16 year old is not the same situation. The 16 year old parents can and should pay for that abortion, as should the 18 year old.

but hey, you keep throwing those emotionally charged rants out there to see what sticks.

And once again, the 18/16 year old thing is a red herring. If that's the issue, then your problem is with the DEFINITION of statutory rape, not the fact that statutory rape is somehow a "lesser" kind of rape that is less traumatic (and therefore where the victim is more at fault for her pregnancy). What if it was a 12 year old and a 30 year old?
 
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.

And you are right there correcting over the top rhetoric all the time....right......

Drugged falls under some definitions of forcible rape, but not others. Some require violence or the thread of violence. Guess maybe your guys should have maybe been more clear...
 
And once again, the 18/16 year old thing is a red herring. If that's the issue, then your problem is with the DEFINITION of statutory rape, not the fact that statutory rape is somehow a "lesser" kind of rape that is less traumatic (and therefore where the victim is more at fault for her pregnancy). What if it was a 12 year old and a 30 year old?

statutory rape is a lesser kind of rape. It doesn't carry anywhere near the emotional baggage found in forced rape scenarios.

as for a 12 year old getting pregnant. I propose her family is on the hook for the unexpected costs of getting that abortion, assuming they can't get the 30 year old to pay of course.

good luck getting the violent felon that forcibly rapes women to pay for it.
 
You don't seem to understand what statutory rape is. Both individuals may in fact be consenting, but because one does not meet the legal age for consent, it is rape under statute. So no "secretly" neccessary, the girl and/or boy may indeed have "wanted it", but lack the proper age to legally consent.

Again. Same issue. Your problem is that you don't like the DEFINITION of statutory rape. That's fine, work to change it. But it's bull**** to say that a form of sex that society has deemed sufficiently traumatic to be labeled "rape" and to (theoretically) land someone in prison for years, is NOT sufficiently traumatic to justify an abortion.
 
statutory rape is a lesser kind of rape. It doesn't carry anywhere near the emotional baggage found in forced rape scenarios.

as for a 12 year old getting pregnant. I propose her family is on the hook for the unexpected costs of getting that abortion, assuming they can't get the 30 year old to pay of course.

good luck getting the violent felon that forcibly rapes women to pay for it.

Wow. And to think I've been called "retarded" in this thread for suggesting that what you just said is a fairly common viewpoint. Thanks for spelling it out so clearly though. :2wave:
 
Again. Same issue. Your problem is that you don't like the DEFINITION of statutory rape. That's fine, work to change it. But it's bull**** to say that a form of sex that society has deemed sufficiently traumatic to be labeled "rape" and to (theoretically) land someone in prison for years, is NOT sufficiently traumatic to justify an abortion.

Again, this thread is about when tax payers should pay.

in statutory rape, I do hold the parents somewhat responsible for the actions of their kids. If you have a child, it is your responsibility to make sure he/she isn't sexually active, and if they become sexually active, it isn't the tax payers problem.

That you are trying to turn this into a Roe Wade style debate shows again your level of dishonesty
 
Again. Same issue. Your problem is that you don't like the DEFINITION of statutory rape. That's fine, work to change it. But it's bull**** to say that a form of sex that society has deemed sufficiently traumatic to be labeled "rape" and to (theoretically) land someone in prison for years, is NOT sufficiently traumatic to justify an abortion.

No, again, you don't understand, or are being deliberately obtuse about, what statutory rape is. It is NOT because of some level of trauma, but more about lacking the ability to legally consent. Trauma is dealt with an additonal charge of aggravated or forcible rape.
 
Back
Top Bottom