The Giant Noodle
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,332
- Reaction score
- 2,011
- Location
- Northern Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I feel that there is nothing wrong with the proposal.
My cultural norms? I live in one of the reddest areas of the country :lol:
Heck. I very deliberately do not talk about my beliefs around most people here because doing so is basically inviting violence and ostracism.
Tell us or we will beat you up!!! :2razz:
Heck. I very deliberately do not talk about my beliefs around most people here because doing so is basically inviting violence and ostracism.
Suffice to say, I tend to live around a lot of very angry conservatives who are very vocal and demonstrative about their views.
Yeah, I must say most all the hard-core conservatives are pushy and mean.
These days if someone reports a rape why doesn't someone at the police station suggest the morning after pill?
Seems we could pretty much do away with abortions in cases of rape.
I can appreciate that you want to see a woman punished for choosing to have sex, but this thread is about rape. This is NOT "two individuals mistakes or misdeeds." Our society has failed to protect the woman/girl, now some want to not even pay for the abortion to set things right again. And again, this is only for POOR women, this is not for the general population.
These days if someone reports a rape why doesn't someone at the police station suggest the morning after pill?
Seems we could pretty much do away with abortions in cases of rape.
Statutory rape is still consent, just consent of minors which is viewed legally as an invalid union, therefore the guardians or parents should pay, not the taxpayer. Rape between a husband and wife - the rapist / agressor should pay for the abortion (and yes, it sometimes is the woman). In a rape where the rapist is unknown - I can see the taxpayers paying for such an abortion until the rapist is caught, and then the rapist pays via the method I've previously posted. Therefore, the frequency a taxpayer must pay for an abortion should be rather low.
House abortion bill redefines rape, incest exceptions - Yahoo! News
Oddly, despite being pro-abortion rights, I do not have a problem with the concept of federal funds not being allowed to pay for abortions except under limited circumstances, which is the case now. This though seems to be taking things to a new level.
So what do you think? Is this taking things too far, or are these proposed new restrictions reasonable?
I voted other. Only when multiple doctors have confirmed that a vaginal birth or c-section at any point past a 40% viability rate will kill the mother should the mother be allowed to use tax payer money to kill her child. If they are going to allow rape as exception that gets funded by tax payer dollars it should be only after the accused has been convicted and sentenced to prison. Face it aboritonists are not the most moral people on the planet so nothing would stop a cheap or broke bitch from falsely claiming rape to get tax payers to pay for her abortion. Just so people know where I stand on the abortion issue I believe it should only be legal when multiple doctors(preferable pro-life doctors) have confirmed that a vaginal birth or c-section at any point past a 40% viability rate will kill the mother.
My cultural norms? I live in one of the reddest areas of the country :lol:
Yeah, I must say most all the hard-core conservatives are pushy and mean.
I voted other. Only when multiple doctors have confirmed that a vaginal birth or c-section at any point past a 40% viability rate will kill the mother should the mother be allowed to use tax payer money to kill her child. If they are going to allow rape as exception that gets funded by tax payer dollars it should be only after the accused has been convicted and sentenced to prison. Face it aboritonists are not the most moral people on the planet so nothing would stop a cheap or broke bitch from falsely claiming rape to get tax payers to pay for her abortion. Just so people know where I stand on the abortion issue I believe it should only be legal when multiple doctors(preferable pro-life doctors) have confirmed that a vaginal birth or c-section at any point past a 40% viability rate will kill the mother.
Its pretty unfortunate that people have to be that way, but all we can do is be better and take the high road :shrug:
You can interpret my experiences this way if you wish. Personally, I think its anger, but I think it has more to do with the economy than it does politics. (well a combination of a bad economy and then being lied to as to why due to outfits like fox news punditry)
We needed some really stupid rhetoric and childish name calling in this thread. Thank you so much for supplying it.
For the last time pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. I am certainly pro-choice, and I am most certainly not pro-abortion.
We needed some really stupid rhetoric and childish name calling in this thread. Thank you so much for supplying it.
For the last time pro-choice does equals pro-abortion.
Pro abortion | Define Pro abortion at Dictionary.com
pro·abor·tion definition
Pronunciation: /(ˈ)prō-ə-ˈbȯr-shən/
Function: adj
: favoring the legalization of abortion
The molester/rapist pays. His assets are seized, his accounts are tapped for payment via a court order. If he has no property, has no assets, has nothing - then the state "loans" the money and should the molester be found guilty, he pays the state back the money required for the abortion from jail. If the debt is not satisifed during his jail time, any future assets or pay is garnished to satisfy the debt. If he dies prior to the debt being paid in full, the state forgives the remaining amount - and the taxpayers have the burden.Yes, I know a 13 year old cannot consent, I stated that already. Statutory rape can be(and frequently is) with some one too young to give consent. If a 13 year old gets molested, it's rape pure and simple even if she says yes. Frequently this is with some one in the household. Court cases frequently take over 9 months to resolve. Now who is paying while the molester is being tried?
And that's simply fine - federal funds should not be used, and it should be made more limited. Those who perpetrate a rape in various circumstances must pay, as I've already outlined.Further, the question is not about who should pay, or if federal funding should never be used, it is with the assumption that federal funding is now illegal for abortions except under limited circumstances, and these circumstances are now going to be made even more limited, and no where is any one going to pay as you suggest. In essence, you are answering a question I am not asking.
What was stupid rhetoric and childish name calling in that post?
I voted other. Only when multiple doctors have confirmed that a vaginal birth or c-section at any point past a 40% viability rate will kill the mother should the mother be allowed to use tax payer money to kill her child. If they are going to allow rape as exception that gets funded by tax payer dollars it should be only after the accused has been convicted and sentenced to prison. Face it aboritonists are not the most moral people on the planet so nothing would stop a cheap or broke bitch from falsely claiming rape to get tax payers to pay for her abortion. Just so people know where I stand on the abortion issue I believe it should only be legal when multiple doctors(preferable pro-life doctors) have confirmed that a vaginal birth or c-section at any point past a 40% viability rate will kill the mother.