• 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

What does a 12 year old do to decrease her chances of being raped? And how is she expected to know these things? And if you acknowledge that there is no difference in the degree of culpability of the victim, then we're back to the question of how the circumstances are relevant at all to the subject at hand in the first place.

a 12 year old isn't likely to be a tax payer, or gainfully employed.

your "bitch" in this analogy is the parents, not the child. they can do plenty to help mitigate the risk of their child becoming sexually active, and/or producing children, but the problem is you are trying to introduce a false sense of disgust and hatred for the parents. That we do find them to have a financial responsibility doesn't mean we think of them as bitches that deserve their kids to be pregnant.
 
I noticed after I laughed off your incest debate point, you pretended our exchange was over,

Nah, I just haven't had time to respond to it yet. Zyphlin's posts are usually more interesting and well thought out than yours, so they tend to take priority. Your post might have to wait until later this evening.
 
I think one of the things that makes the whole distinction between physically violent rape and others forms so insulting is that it limits the woman's rights based on the actions of the man. Even through an act of rape, a man is being afforded the chance to control a woman. It's bad enough that he has forced her into an act of sex against her will, but now whether or not she can exercise her right to terminate a pregnancy from that forced act is based on his actions. It was he who made the choice, not her. By limiting her options based on what actions the rapist took, he is gaining even more power over her. We should NOT be making laws that further empower rapists over their victims.
 
Nah, I just haven't had time to respond to it yet. Zyphlin's posts are usually more interesting and well thought out than yours, so they tend to take priority. Your post might have to wait until later this evening.

funny, because my post definitively pointed out how you were ignorant of the actual legislation and that you need to take more time and thought to be worthy of replying to me.
 
I think one of the things that makes the whole distinction between physically violent rape and others forms so insulting is that it limits the woman's rights based on the actions of the man. Even through an act of rape, a man is being afforded the chance to control a woman. It's bad enough that he has forced her into an act of sex against her will, but now whether or not she can exercise her right to terminate a pregnancy from that forced act is based on his actions. It was he who made the choice, not her. By limiting her options based on what actions the rapist took, he is gaining even more power over her. We should NOT be making laws that further empower rapists over their victims.

Thats what you guys dont get... the use of violence is an aggrivating circumstance, it makes the punishment more severe, and it isnt just violence, it is the threat of violence that falls under this definition, so that is MOST of the cases... those that dont fall under forcible rape, may be those where consent was muddled or the womans legal judgement impaired, even mildly.
 
I think one of the things that makes the whole distinction between physically violent rape and others forms so insulting is that it limits the woman's rights based on the actions of the man. Even through an act of rape, a man is being afforded the chance to control a woman. It's bad enough that he has forced her into an act of sex against her will, but now whether or not she can exercise her right to terminate a pregnancy from that forced act is based on his actions. It was he who made the choice, not her. By limiting her options based on what actions the rapist took, he is gaining even more power over her. We should NOT be making laws that further empower rapists over their victims.

the horror of limiting a women's rights to other peoples money. /sarcasm
 
Zyphlin, look at this again: "the individuals actions create a situation(your words)". That is blaming the victim, or to put it another way "the bitch asked for it".

Since yours requires a shorter response I can do it before I need to go.

Suggesting that someone take action that is irresponsable and raises their risk does not equate to "blaming" them for the actoin that later occurs. If someone leaves their keys in their car and leaves it unlocked, they can be blamed for making a bad judgement call. They are not to blame for their car being stolen though, the blame for that lies on the thief. Protip...telling people what they're doing, when they've repeatedly stated the opposite of your claim, is laughable debate strategy. Doubly so when you then use the fabricated analysis of their argument to then exaggerate it into even more ridiculous ends to place upon them.
 
Since yours requires a shorter response I can do it before I need to go.

Suggesting that someone take action that is irresponsable and raises their risk does not equate to "blaming" them for the actoin that later occurs. If someone leaves their keys in their car and leaves it unlocked, they can be blamed for making a bad judgement call. They are not to blame for their car being stolen though, the blame for that lies on the thief. Protip...telling people what they're doing, when they've repeatedly stated the opposite of your claim, is laughable debate strategy. Doubly so when you then use the fabricated analysis of their argument to then exaggerate it into even more ridiculous ends to place upon them.

But if your argument is that it has nothing to do with blaming the victim, then what *is* the distinction in terms of how the government treats the abortion? Is the fetus more of a human if the woman/girl made a "bad judgment" that caused her to get raped, than if she didn't? Is the victim's trauma less if she made a "bad judgment" that caused her to get raped, than if she didn't? Is the government more constitutionally constrained with its use of tax dollars for this purpose if the woman/girl made a "bad judgment" that caused her to get raped, than if she didn't?

I mean...unless you want to argue for one of those three things, it ultimately comes right back to it somehow being the victim's fault or responsibility. Which, at the end of the day, is just a sugarcoated version of "bitch had it coming."
 
Nah, I just haven't had time to respond to it yet. Zyphlin's posts are usually more interesting and well thought out than yours, so they tend to take priority. Your post might have to wait until later this evening.

still waiting. starting to think you just don't want to acknowledge your poorly thought out debate tact, which is fine normally, if not for your weaselly words above.
 
still waiting. starting to think you just don't want to acknowledge your poorly thought out debate tact, which is fine normally, if not for your weaselly words above.

Believe it or not, my life does not revolve around your posts on an internet message board. Did you wait up all night for a response, hitting "Refresh" on your browser every 10 seconds? Sorry that my life doesn't always perfectly accommodate your schedule. You're going to have to either suck it up and deal with it, or run along and annoy someone else for an insta-response.

Taxpayers shouldn't pay for forcible rape either, but it is not logical to expect the felon going to jail for a long time to pay for it.

It is reasonable for the parents of minors to pay for sexually active dependents however

you mean incest? your ignorance in this thread is comical.

"No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," which would prohibit federal funding of abortions except in instances of "an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest."

It's absurd to say that the parents (or whoever is responsible for the minor child) are responsible for acts of statutory rape against the child. The whole reason that those laws EXIST is because society has determined that below a certain age people are NOT able to give their consent to sexual activity. Now, you can quibble about what the definition of statutory rape should be (e.g. whether the cutoff should be age 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18) but the purpose of those laws is to protect people below that age precisely because they aren't responsible for their actions and they aren't able to give consent.

Claiming that a child "wanted it" just because an adult was able to manipulate them into giving "consent" doesn't change that fact. And blaming the parents of the girl, rather than the girl herself, for her getting raped (assuming the parents aren't the perpetrators) doesn't change that fact either. You're still essentially blaming the victim, and these are just other variants on "bitch had it coming."
 
Last edited:
Believe it or not, my life does not revolve around your posts on an internet message board. Did you wait up all night for a response, hitting "Refresh" on your browser every 10 seconds? Sorry that my life doesn't always perfectly accommodate your schedule. You're going to have to either suck it up and deal with it, or run along and annoy someone else for an insta-response.

Ummm, I logged in this morning to see the reply you claimed would have to wait for the evening.

Still waiting for you to reply on the issue we were talking about as I see your ignorant incest argument completely disappeared. I don’t mind having to be the one removing your ignorance on these matters, but a little integrity on your part to recognize you are arguing from a position of ignorance would be far better than the empty posturing you resorted to.

You're still essentially blaming the victim, and these are just other variants on "bitch had it coming."

Since you are back to spinning in circles about the bitch, I will leave you wallowing in your ignorance.

Should of known better then to engage you in the first place.
 
Ummm, I logged in this morning to see the reply you claimed would have to wait for the evening.

Yeah, **** happens in a thing called "life" that some of us have. Deal with it. Or don't. Whatever.

Still waiting for you to reply on the issue we were talking about as I see your ignorant incest argument completely disappeared.

No, I just responded to it. If the law makes an exception for incest, then we're just talking about statutory rape when the perpetrator is some adult OTHER than the parents/guardians. And blaming the child for being manipulated by an adult is repulsive.

Since you are back to spinning in circles about the bitch, I will leave you wallowing in your ignorance.

Should of known better then to engage you in the first place.

Don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you. :2wave:
 
No, I just responded to it. If the law makes an exception for incest, then we're just talking about statutory rape when the perpetrator is some adult OTHER than the parents/guardians. And blaming the child for being manipulated by an adult is repulsive.

I guess this is the closest you will come to an apology for not understanding the details of this particular thread topic.

Anyway...shielding the parents from being responsible for the actions of their children is repulsive.


Don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you. :2wave:

not leaving the thread, just redirecting the conversation with the honest adults from this point forward.
 
I guess this is the closest you will come to an apology for not understanding the details of this particular thread topic.

Anyway...shielding the parents from being responsible for the actions of their children is repulsive.

The whole point of statutory rape laws is that children are NOT responsible for their actions because they are unable to consent. To frame a ****ing statutory rape case as though it's no different than the kid breaking a window is disgusting. The child is a VICTIM, not a perpetrator. That's the whole reason statutory rape laws exist. And don't bother with moronic red herrings about the age of consent being too high/low/inflexible/whatever, unless you're going to argue against the necessity for statutory rape laws at all. In the eyes of the law, minors below a certain age are unable to give consent to sexual activity, which is why it's illegal to have sex with them. To then turn around and hold them responsible for being raped by an adult is absolutely a variant on "bitch had it coming."
 
The whole point of statutory rape laws is that children are NOT responsible for their actions because they are unable to consent. To frame a ****ing statutory rape case as though it's no different than the kid breaking a window is disgusting. The child is a VICTIM, not a perpetrator. That's the whole reason statutory rape laws exist. And don't bother with moronic red herrings about the age of consent being too high/low/inflexible/whatever, unless you're going to argue against the necessity for statutory rape laws at all. In the eyes of the law, minors below a certain age are unable to give consent to sexual activity, which is why it's illegal to have sex with them. To then turn around and hold them responsible for being raped by an adult is absolutely a variant on "bitch had it coming."

Meh, the bitch was asking for it. If (s)he didn't want to get raped (s)he would not have been so enticing. Republican logic is awesome.
 
The whole point of statutory rape laws is that children are NOT responsible for their actions because they are unable to consent. To frame a ****ing statutory rape case as though it's no different than the kid breaking a window is disgusting. The child is a VICTIM, not a perpetrator. That's the whole reason statutory rape laws exist. And don't bother with moronic red herrings about the age of consent being too high/low/inflexible/whatever, unless you're going to argue against the necessity for statutory rape laws at all. In the eyes of the law, minors below a certain age are unable to give consent to sexual activity, which is why it's illegal to have sex with them. To then turn around and hold them responsible for being raped by an adult is absolutely a variant on "bitch had it coming."

the reason your argument is void of any logic is the tax payer is being held responsible.

using your idiotic logic, you are saying the taxpayer is responsible. why do you feel the taxpayer has it coming?
 
the reason your argument is void of any logic is the tax payer is being held responsible.

using your idiotic logic, you are saying the taxpayer is responsible. why do you feel the taxpayer has it coming?

The issue is not whether taxpayers should have to pay for abortion in cases of rape...the issues is that it draws a DISTINCTION between "forcible rape" and other kinds of rape, when it comes to taxpayer-funded abortion. THAT is the problem; it's based on the belief that some rape victims should be held responsible because they really wanted it.
 
Last edited:
Meh, the bitch was asking for it. If (s)he didn't want to get raped (s)he would not have been so enticing. Republican logic is awesome.

You can't seriously believe that any group of people actually believe that do you? Republicans believe a lot of idiotic things but this is not one of them.
 
You can't seriously believe that any group of people actually believe that do you? Republicans believe a lot of idiotic things but this is not one of them.

Zyphlin basically stated just that in this very thread.
 
Zyphlin basically stated just that in this very thread.

I agree with that but Zyphlin isnt the spokesman for republicans. I dont honestly think Zyphlin even believes that but there are people all over the political spectrum who try to justify their perversions all kinds of ways and even by hiding behind laws. That doesnt make it the belief of a political party.
 
How Paul Ryan explains foricble rape could hardly be less germane to the national interests of the US. In the scope of things, it is a minor wedge issue designed to enforce the "war on (take your pick)" by a group of self-righteous intellectual midgets far more bent on seeing the re-election of one of their own rather than dealing with a decline of the country.
 
the reason your argument is void of any logic is the tax payer is being held responsible.

using your idiotic logic, you are saying the taxpayer is responsible. why do you feel the taxpayer has it coming?

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.
 
How Paul Ryan explains foricble rape could hardly be less germane to the national interests of the US. In the scope of things, it is a minor wedge issue designed to enforce the "war on (take your pick)" by a group of self-righteous intellectual midgets far more bent on seeing the re-election of one of their own rather than dealing with a decline of the country.

The issue is Important to some of us. Why would a pregnancy resulting from one 'type' of rape qualify for federal abortion money, but pregnancy by another 'method' of rape not qualify?
 
All romney and ryan do is run their mouths and refuse to explain anything they want to do....this has gone way beyond just ridiculous


GOP vice presidential contender Paul Ryan declined to explain what is meant by "forcible rape" in abortion legislation he co-sponsored with embattled Rep. Todd Akin.Ryan, a Wisconsin congressman, and Akin are among the 227 co-sponsors of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," which would prohibit federal funding of abortions except in instances of "an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest."


Paul Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language

I'm lost - why does it need defining. Seems pretty damned specific to me; if someone forces theirself on you (drugs, coercion, threats) then it's forced.

Duh??

:shrug:
 
I'm lost - why does it need defining. Seems pretty damned specific to me; if someone forces theirself on you (drugs, coercion, threats) then it's forced.

Duh??

:shrug:

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