Republicans move to redefine rape to limit taxpayer-funded abortions

I wish IJBM was still open so I could rant about people who use the phrase the phrase "taxpayer dollars" when what they mean is "government money".

News flash people, not all of the government's money comes from your taxes! There's tariffs which you will never need to pay, there's all sorts of corporate taxes, and most importantly there's quite a lot of borrowed money.

But, uh, back to the normal topic here.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

"And just how is it possible to change one without changing the other? If rape is rape, then no narrowing-down is needed. This propose implies that not "forcible" rape is somehow less of a rape."

The point is not to redefine rape, but to minimize the number of instances in which taxpayer dollars go to abortions.

"Because female recipients of Medicare, etc. sometimes have unwanted pregnancies."

So, because they don't want their kids, we should pay for their kids to be killed?

"Somewhat tangential, perhaps, but I've been wondering: why is it only the anti-abortion movement who can bitch about the specific uses of "their" tax money and have the government rush to coddle their poor injured fee-fees?"

Fee-fees? What the hell?

"I don't want "my" taxes going to fund foreign wars; I don't see any bills being proposed to redefine "war" so that only certain military actions qualify."

As you just demonstrated, it's not just the anti-abortion movement that talks about tax funding, but anyone who disagrees with anything the government does dislikes that their tax dollars are helping to fund it. And, yeah, there are plenty of legal definitions of war, but that's done on the international level.

"News flash people, not all of the government's money comes from your taxes! There's tariffs which you will never need to pay, there's all sorts of corporate taxes, and most importantly there's quite a lot of borrowed money."

You mean the government doesn't get all of its money from one single person's taxes? Everyone gets taxed? And some more than others? Wow.

All of the government's money comes from taxes, and all of those taxes come from tax payers making the government's money tax-payer dollars.

edited 30th Jan '11 10:12:11 AM by Wanderhome

"So, because they don't want their kids, we should pay for their kids to be killed? "

Considering that they have probably been fucking TRAUMATIZED by the fucking act? Yes, I think its fair to say they have the right to have an abortion.

This is not "Oh I got knocked up but I dont feel like having a baby." THEY GOT RAPED.

Then kill the rapist, if it makes you feel better. The child can't have any more say in it than the woman.

It's official, the Republican Party is running out of ideas.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

You are not winning friends here dude, either with your point of view or your debate style.

I advise you to stop for two seconds and consider the womans feelings in this. If you still feel like carrying this on, then that is fine, but I don't think you are going to persuade people to your way of thinking.

Maybe they shouldn't redefine rape then, hmm?

Arguing about government financing abortions, period, I can understand - not agree with, mind you, but hey, it's not my government, so why should I care. But again, I can understand this position.

But why it should be allowed in some cases of rape but not others is beyond me. Just how would you argument the difference without implying that some of these types of rape are not really rape?

Honestly, I do think that everyone who supports such propose deserves to die in a slow and painful way.

edited 30th Jan '11 10:22:58 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

I am not saying that the woman doesn't or shouldn't be traumatized. What I am saying is that it is wrong to kill an innocent child for the purpose of sparing another person distress. If the woman wants to give the baby up, that's her choice, but adoption is always preferable to death.

EDIT: "Maybe they shouldn't redefine rape then, hmm?"

They. Are not. Redefining. Rape. They are saying that not all cases of rape should command taxpayer-funded abortions.

"But why it should be allowed in some cases of rape but not others is beyond me."

There shouldn't be a difference between one kind of rape and another in this context. The Republicans at issue are just half-assing it because they know they can't get all taxpayer-funded abortions eliminated.

"Just how would you argument the difference without implying that some of these types of rape are not really rape?"

They don't care about the rape part, except as it pertains to making it politically viable to eliminate as many tax-funded abortions as possible. Is the implication there? Yes, but that's not the point of the proceedings.

"Honestly, I do think that everyone who supports such propose deserves to die in a slow and painful way."

So, what? Anyone who defines the beginning of life as conception deserves to die slowly and painfully? Is that what you're saying?

edited 30th Jan '11 10:28:37 AM by Wanderhome

Guys, read this. There's no current bill like this under consideration. It was introduced last year and never made it out of committee. Since the end of 2010 was the end of the 111th Congressional session, and all bills that have not been passed are wiped from the books at the end of each session, This bill is dead unless it's reintroduced. Which it hasn't been, so far.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Good to know.

It's not like there was much chance of it being passed anyway. The point is, it makes a rather telling statement about those who proposed it. And those who sponsored it.

Hmm, and it seems to be reintroduced, if I understand how that site works http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3

Please correct me if I'm wrong

edited 30th Jan '11 10:31:52 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

"If the woman wants to give the baby up, that's her choice, but adoption is always preferable to death." - Wanderhome

Even though the kind of "death" you're talking about occurs before the fetus even has feelings or senses at all? (Well, at least in the 1st and 2nd trimester.)

As for redefining rape, it was being redefined ever since things like "consensual sex with someone too drunk for society to consider their consent legitimate" were considered rape. The difference here is how disturbingly petty the justifications seem.

EDIT: Also...

"It's not like there was much chance of it being passed anyway. The point is, it makes a rather telling statement about those who proposed it. And those who sponsored it." - Beholderess

You know, it might be an idea to be more specific than that. o.o

edited 30th Jan '11 10:32:57 AM by neoYTPism

"Even though the kind of "death" you're talking about occurs before the fetus even has feelings or senses at all? (Well, at least in the 1st and 2nd trimester.)"

By that logic, it's okay to kill someone in their sleep, because they aren't feeling anything.

Wanderhome, whether you like it or not, abortion is a legal medical procedure, and people who rely on government funding for their medical care have as much right to avail themselves of it as anyone else...whether they were raped or not. It's bad enough that the restrictions exist in the first place, let alone that anyone would want to expand them. Especially since a woman who cannot afford to pay for an abortion out-of-pocket pretty much by definition cannot afford to raise a child.

(BTW, "fee-fees" is a snarky way of rendering the word "feelings.")

Oh, good.

Does abortion really count as essential healthcare, I wonder? Pregnancy isn't an illness to be cured or treated.

edited 30th Jan '11 10:41:42 AM by Shichibukai

Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]

Hmm. Ok, it has been reintroduced. And sent to three committees: House Judiciary, House Energy and Commerce, House Ways and Means. The same three that it never got out of last time. It bears keeping an eye ion, but it's not a desperate situation.

And frankly, it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Here's the full text.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

"Does abortion really count as essential healthcare, I wonder? Pregnancy isn't an illness to be cured or treated."

The notion of what does or doesn't qualify as an "illness" seems to me a blurry distinction at best, but in this case "something that has potential to cause death" seems like justification enough to at least count it as essential healthcare in cases where they have reason to anticipate pregnancy could kill that particular patient.

Wanderhome, comparing this to someone who has previously started to have feelings is a false equivalence. I'm not even sure I should be bothering to argue with someone who missed the point that severely.

Pregnancy may not be an illness per se, but it's still a medical condition requiring care and possibly treatment. There are three possible outcomes of a pregancy and they all require medical care at some point. If you want to be mercenary about it, an early abortion could actually be considered preventative, like a vaccine—a small expense now to avoid a much bigger expense down the line.

Hmm, more specific about what? The people, or what kind of statements it makes? Please accept my apologies for not being clear enough.

edited 30th Jan '11 10:54:23 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

This bill will never, ever make it out of committee, but yeah, seriously, whoever thought to redefine the parameters for what is considered abortion worthy rape, fuck that guy.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

"Hmm, more specific about what? The people, or what kind of statements it makes?" - Beholderess

The statements.

edited 30th Jan '11 11:00:53 AM by neoYTPism

"By that logic, it's okay to kill someone in their sleep, because they aren't feeling anything. "

False equivalence. A sleeping person is still sentient, just not conscious - they are however very active at the sub-conscious level. A baby in the early stages of development is not sentient. It is alive, but so are other animals. Consciousness != sentience, and I favour the rights of a sentient being over a non-sentient every time.

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

@neo YT Pism

May I be frank? It shows us that the people who support this are misogynistic assholes who should not be allowed to have any sort of power.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Inclined to agree. At the very least, it's suggestive of that.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff