Republicans justification for denying a rape victim an abortion

[Bucky]

Missouri Republican legislator Barry Hovis:

“Let’s just say someone goes out and they’re raped or they’re sexually assaulted one night after a college party — because most of my rapes were not the gentleman jumping out of the bushes that nobody had ever met,” Hovis said. “That was one or two times out of a hundred. Most of them were date rapes or consensual rapes, which were all terrible.”

Missouri Republican Barry Hovis Says Some Rape Is Consensual

What a despicable comment. :vomit:

 

[Northern Light]

The recent abortion bans are at 6 weeks. That's 2 weeks after a missed period.

The Republican can only get their pet ideology through by stacking the courts and gerrymandering. The popular opinion is against them.

We need to deal with our radical right wing problem now before it destroys the social fabric of this country.

 

[bongsaway]

When the doctor who performs an abortion would get more jail time than the rapist, that tells me all I need to know about the republican party. Their cruel approach to anything they don't like is amazing.

 

[buck]

The recent abortion bans are at 6 weeks. That's 2 weeks after a missed period.

The Republican can only get their pet ideology through by stacking the courts and gerrymandering. The popular opinion is against them.

We need to deal with our radical right wing problem now before it destroys the social fabric of this country.

Stacking the courts? What does that mean when taken in context that there are more judges that are dem appointed?

Nearly six-in-ten current federal judges were appointed by Democratic presidents | Pew Research Center

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Missouri Republican legislator Barry Hovis:



Missouri Republican Barry Hovis Says Some Rape Is Consensual

What a despicable comment. :vomit:

“Gentleman rapists”? The good people of MO should recall Hovis. Total ****head.

 

[Northern Light]

Stacking the courts? What does that mean when taken in context that there are more judges that are dem appointed?

Nearly six-in-ten current federal judges were appointed by Democratic presidents | Pew Research Center

You know very well what it means.

 

[gulfman]

If the woman enjoys it is it still rape?

 

[What if...?]

If the woman enjoys it is it still rape?

If someone is suicidal is it still murder to kill them?

 

[buck]

You know very well what it means.

It means absolute nonsense, but makes the left feel better so that they can feel wronged.

 

[Northern Light]

It means absolute nonsense, but makes the left feel better so that they can feel wronged.

I'm not a member of the left.

But I will point out that the radical right (evangelicals) will use gerrymandering and populism to push their ideology into law so they can shove it down everyone's throats.

Thank goodness they are a dying demographic.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I am 100% pro choice. I believe the decision to carry a pregnancy to term or not is something strictly between a woman and her doctor. End of story.

Having said that, the other side's arguments that 'some abortions are acceptable' is confusing for me.

If, as they say, abortion is murder, and murder is wrong, why is murder ok in the case of rape or incest? Why should those children be murdered in utero?

 

[D_NATURED]

When the doctor who performs an abortion would get more jail time than the rapist, that tells me all I need to know about the republican party. Their cruel approach to anything they don't like is amazing.

Very well said!

 

[COTO]

If I had to guess, I'd say "consensual rape" refers to i) instances where a party consents to sex, later regrets it, and either due to pressure, guilt, or spite, claims the sex was non-consensual; and/or ii) instances where one or both parties engaging in sex were drunk or under the influence of drugs at the onset of the act.

When the doctor who performs an abortion would get more jail time than the rapist, that tells me all I need to know about the republican party. Their cruel approach to anything they don't like is amazing.

I don't know about GOP legislators, but most workaday conservatives would see rapists put to death. The relative leniency of the sentences reflect the inherent (and unfortunate) lack of conclusive evidence in most rape cases.

There is no uncertainty in cases of abortion. A doctor who performs one abortion will almost certainly perform hundreds, and building up a corpus of evidence against him/her to eliminate any doubt of guilt is a straightforward matter.

In short, the differences in sentencing don't necessarily reflect public views--or even legislators' views--on the relative severity of the crimes.

 

[Obscurity]

Ignorance of the lowest form, the abject belief in enforcing your hideous and grotesque religion on the masses at large.

The republican party is a shill, a cum dumpster whore for the seed of the evangelical movement. It is NIGH time the republican party abort the disgusting offspring of this marriage formed in hell.

The right wing demagogues that support this odious legislation are inhumane and hypocritical.

 

[Obscurity]

If I had to guess, I'd say "consensual rape" refers to i) instances where a party consents to sex, later regrets it, and either due to pressure, guilt, or spite, claims the sex was non-consensual; and/or ii) instances where one or both parties engaging in sex were drunk or under the influence of drugs at the onset of the act.


I don't know about GOP legislators, but most workaday conservatives would see rapists put to death. The relative leniency of the sentences reflect the inherent (and unfortunate) lack of conclusive evidence in most rape cases.

There is no uncertainty in cases of abortion. A doctor who performs one abortion will almost certainly perform hundreds, and building up a corpus of evidence against him/her to eliminate any doubt of guilt is a straightforward matter.

In short, the differences in sentencing don't necessarily reflect public views--or even legislators' views--on the relative severity of the crimes.

In short, the conservative position is, as always, hypocritical and, of course, irreverent with regard to the people they would force to carry to term.

Maybe it hits yall in the feels but until you stop supporting senators and other conservatives pushing legislation that would force a 12 year old rape victim to 18 years of indentured servitude, force them to bear the burden of irrevocably destroying their life because some rapist has more rights to determine the future of their victim than the victim does, I'll continue to call bull****.

If you give one **** about rape victims (and spare us the nonsense lack of evidence baloney) you'd stop calling yourself a conservative.

You won't.

 

[COTO]

In short, the conservative position is, as always, hypocritical and, of course, irreverent with regard to the people they would force to carry to term.

Maybe it hits yall in the feels but until you stop supporting senators and other conservatives pushing legislation that would force a 12 year old rape victim to 18 years of indentured servitude, force them to bear the burden of irrevocably destroying their life because some rapist has more rights to determine the future of their victim than the victim does, I'll continue to call bull****.

If you give one **** about rape victims (and spare us the nonsense lack of evidence baloney) you'd stop calling yourself a conservative.

You won't.

You want the ends to justify the means.

I want a society of law that executes men only when their guilt can be established by more than a single witness, which is (whether you like it or not) the only evidence of non-consensual sex that features in many rape trials.

I also don't want the child to pay the price for the evil committed by his father.

I feel for the mother, but one evil act doesn't justify another. Furthermore, if she's truly incapable of caring for her child or doesn't love it--which you'll note is rare, even in cases of rape--she can put it up for adoption as soon as it's born. Healthy newborns are usually adopted as quickly as the paperwork can be filled out, and so ends the mother's maternal responsibilities. "18 years of indentured servitude" and "irrevocably destroying [her] life" are the hyperbolic fictions you believe are needed to justify killing the child.

 

[Obscurity]

You want the ends to justify the means.

I want a society of law that executes men only when their guilt can be established by more than a single witness, which is (whether you like it or not) the only evidence of non-consensual sex that features in many rape trials.

I also don't want the child to pay the price for the evil committed by his father.

I feel for the mother, but one evil act doesn't justify another. Furthermore, if she's truly incapable of caring for her child or doesn't love it--which you'll note is rare, even in cases of rape--she can put it up for adoption as soon as it's born. Healthy newborns are usually adopted as quickly as the paperwork can be filled out, and so ends the mother's maternal responsibilities. "18 years of indentured servitude" and "irrevocably destroying [her] life" are the hyperbolic fictions you believe are needed to justify killing the child.

Yawn. Bunch of unsolicited bs soundbites not worthy of even addressing.

Your position is as disgusting as it is inhumane. You want to force women to have their bodies irrevocably changed by birth, and yet none of you can address the chasm between life and personhood.

You're not killing a child. Stop using emotional games with me and face how disgusting your ****ing view of women is.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I feel for the mother, but one evil act doesn't justify another. Furthermore, if she's truly incapable of caring for her child or doesn't love it--which you'll note is rare, even in cases of rape--she can put it up for adoption as soon as it's born. Healthy newborns are usually adopted as quickly as the paperwork can be filled out,

Women are not broodmares for the barren.

In order to place for adoption, she has to be willing to put her body through the trauma of gestation and childbirth.

I believe adoption is wrong and therefore will not advocate for it. What other women do is not my business. How about that? I disagree w/ something but do not want it to be illegal. I want others to make the choice *they*, not some strangers, feel is right.

 

[prometeus]

I want a society of law that executes men only when their guilt can be established by more than a single witness, which is (whether you like it or not) the only evidence of non-consensual sex that features in many rape trials.

Irrelevant drivel.

I also don't want the child to pay the price for the evil committed by his father.

That is why the fetus is aborted, because if you set aside your ignorance, you will realize that growing up and going through life with the knowledge that your father was a rapist is a heavy price to pay.

 

[Casper]

You want the ends to justify the means.

I want a society of law that executes men only when their guilt can be established by more than a single witness, which is (whether you like it or not) the only evidence of non-consensual sex that features in many rape trials.

I also don't want the child to pay the price for the evil committed by his father.

I feel for the mother, but one evil act doesn't justify another. Furthermore, if she's truly incapable of caring for her child or doesn't love it--which you'll note is rare, even in cases of rape--she can put it up for adoption as soon as it's born. Healthy newborns are usually adopted as quickly as the paperwork can be filled out, and so ends the mother's maternal responsibilities. "18 years of indentured servitude" and "irrevocably destroying [her] life" are the hyperbolic fictions you believe are needed to justify killing the child.

Except that it isn't a child.....

 

[COTO]

Except that it isn't a child.....

Put yourself in a hypothetical frame of mind where you do consider a foetus to be a human child, and examine the issue from this perspective.

You'd rightly conclude that permitting abortion in cases of rape doesn't make sense. It would be no different from giving an mother leave to shoot her two-year old son in the head if his father was a rapist and she concluded after two years raising him that she couldn't handle another sixteen. That is, neither the boy's parentage nor the mother's unwillingness/inability to care for him factors into whether it's lawful for her to kill him. All that matters is whether or not he's a soulful human being.

Obviously I won't convince you here that the foetus in the womb is a soulful human being, but I trust that you can see why someone who believes so with conviction doesn't except rape from abortion bans.

That is why the fetus is aborted, because if you set aside your ignorance, you will realize that growing up and going through life with the knowledge that your father was a rapist is a heavy price to pay.

See my counterargument to Casper. If "knowledge that your father was a rapist" isn't good enough reason to shoot a toddler in the back of the head two years after he's born, it isn't good enough reason to kill him before he's born.

How about that? I disagree w/ something but do not want it to be illegal. I want others to make the choice *they*, not some strangers, feel is right.

I acknowledged in a recent discussion that anti-abortion laws don't reduce the number of abortions and can hinder efforts to reduce it in other ways. I don't expect this recent spate of bans will fare any better.

It's like gun control. If significant demand is there, beyond a certain critical mass, you'll exhaust yourself futilely trying to stamp it out.

Here I'm arguing from a moral perspective.

 

[Casper]

Put yourself in a hypothetical frame of mind where you do consider a foetus to be a human child, and examine the issue from this perspective.

You'd rightly conclude that permitting abortion in cases of rape doesn't make sense. It would be no different from giving an mother leave to shoot her two-year old son in the head if his father was a rapist and she concluded after two years raising him that she couldn't handle another sixteen. That is, neither the boy's parentage nor the mother's unwillingness/inability to care for him factors into whether it's lawful for her to kill him. All that matters is whether or not he's a soulful human being.

Obviously I won't convince you here that the foetus in the womb is a soulful human being, but I trust that you can see why someone who believes so with conviction doesn't except rape from abortion bans.


See my counterargument to Casper. If "knowledge that your father was a rapist" isn't good enough reason to shoot a toddler in the back of the head two years after he's born, it isn't good enough reason to kill him before he's born.


I acknowledged in a recent discussion that anti-abortion laws don't reduce the number of abortions and can hinder efforts to reduce it in other ways. I don't expect this recent spate of bans will fare any better.

It's like gun control. If significant demand is there, beyond a certain critical mass, you'll exhaust yourself futilely trying to stamp it out.

Here I'm arguing from a moral perspective.

First off, I do understand your POV. Where we disagree is that it is a child/baby at conception and has a soul, I do not. For a soul to exist there must be a place for it to reside. Your soul is part of your personality, which means you have a developed brain . Until that point in development there is no You, it is just a potential person.
I know you disagree and I can leave it there.
Oh, just so ya know I am a huge supporter of the 2nd A

 

[prometeus]

See my counterargument to Casper.

It is moronic reasoning much like the rest of your post.

 

[COTO]

It is moronic reasoning much like the rest of your post.

There's a winning counterargument.

Why even bother coming to a debate forum if you're just going to phone it in?

 

[prometeus]

There's a winning counterargument.

Why even bother coming to a debate forum if you're just going to phone it in?

I am waiting, in this case for something intelligent to debate. Your tripe is not it.