Republicans move to redefine rape to limit taxpayer-funded abortions

Well, yes, but so is the infinity of possible people that don't exist either.

I could have a friggin' talking purple zebra right now, if evolution had gone right! But I don't, so it must be dead. That sound like it make any sense to you?

You could've been a guy with a really awesome mustache, if countless bits of environment and genetics had all been with you. Are you? No, so therefore you must've killed awesomemustache!you. Shame on you!

The point is, it's not just not existing that's bad, it's wanting to exist and not existing. The reason it isn't wrong that awesomemustache!you and my talking purple zebra don't exist is that they don't want to exist.

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

PETA hates your guts.

Anyway, on the whole fetus having value or not topic, I've always seen people in two lights: What they've done and what they can do in the future. Call me a very idealistic person if you want, but I always prefer to look at a criminal and say, "What can we do to make that person useful?"

The same goes for a fetus. Is that fetus threatening anyone else's life (you know, the mother's)? Are we possibly bringing it into a world where it can live and grow like any other child? Yeah, I'm for adoption and I realize a bunch of other supporters of the adoption system are hypocrites for not using it, but that fetus, now that its come into reality as a possible human being (compared to say, a sperm or egg which has no chance of being human until it meets the other), I'd like to give it that chance.

Exception is, of course rape, which you know, the mother was forced into that position, in which case, she bares no responsibility for the fetus and having an abortion is her decision. And that's why, back to the original topic, these Republicans are some pretty horrible people for trying to lessen the range of the definition of rape. Heck, that's like trying to lessen the range for what is defined as murder, it's just wrong and only serves to fulfill the agenda of a handful instead of the public.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

I have something new. Given that there are a percentage women can't prove that they were raped legally, and far more who can't bring themselves to admit that they were raped to the police because they don't want to relive it, should we force those traumatized women to bear their rapist's children?

I think that's cruel and unusual punishment on a person who committed no crime, but if we ban abortion in cases that aren't proven to be rape, then that's what we are doing. The only way to make it universally available to raped women is to make it available to everyone.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

I just want to address this because I see so many people get hung up on conception when it's just one of many events that must occur in order to produce a live baby. Why not draw the line at implantation? Or cell differentiation? Or, y'know, birth? Or, to go in the other direction, what about ovulation? You could just as easily declare that every ovum is a baby-in-progress, which must absorb a sperm if it is to develop further rather than die...exactly the same way a zygote must implant in the uterine lining if it is to develop further rather than die. Why is conception the big one?

Stuff what I do.

well there's all ways the honor system.

edited 27th Feb '11 5:35:00 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Because those same sperms have a chance of meeting up with an egg...which in turn will result in a potential burden/bundle of joy depending on the mother's situation.

Masturbation is genocide compared to abortion.

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

so is menstruation, only not quite as fun >_<

edited 27th Feb '11 5:36:56 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

But how would you make such an honour system function? Where would you put the line? Should we just have legal abortions and trust people not to get them unless they need them?

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

@shimaspawn

Good question. This might sound insensitive to those women who can't bring themselves to admit it, but they should. From personal experience, you're just better off if you tell someone whose job it is to deal with that stuff. If that person by some chance doesn't believe you (in which case, they should be booted off the system), you move onto the next closest one.

As far as mistrials go, it's a tragic case, but if we were to apply it to every ruling ever, the fear of misjudgment, then the court system would fall apart. The best we can do is move towards a court system with less cracks and improve forensics in an attempt to decrease such cases. It's not perfect, but then again, nothing made by humans ever was. We can only try to get better.

EDIT: Look, a sperm nor an egg will spontaneously become a fetus. That's where I draw the line. No giving me the argument of mass murder by masturbation, either you impregnated a woman with that sperm, let them cycle through your body and out the other end as waste, or you can masturbate. Your choice, those sperm tend to share the same fate.

edited 27th Feb '11 5:44:23 PM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Masturbation is genocide only when men do it; you ladies can have all the fun you want guilt-free. *shakes fist in jealousy*

I kind of want to to plug my "it's a person when it leaves the host or when the mother says it's a person, whichever comes first" heuristic, but I suspect it's kind of off topic and this thread has been derailed enough already.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

But do we have the right to torture victims because their trials boiled down to he said, she said as they tend to in cases of rape? Should they have to give the abortion councillor irrefutable proof? What if they don't manage to catch the person that raped them?

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Generally (and I mean, the vast majority of the time), the rapist will be caught (or at least the jury will side with the woman). The rest of the times tend to be very contrived or be very, very bad luck.

However, there's no "right to condemn someone accident" here. There's merely mistakes which the court system attempts to remove, and for the most part, does a decent job of in the case of female rape victims.

Male rape victims, on the other hand...

edited 27th Feb '11 5:48:23 PM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

That's not actually true. The majority of rapes are unreported and even in the case that they are, they don't tend to end up with a verdict in favour of the rape victim. It's about 10% on average, and that's just for rapes reported. That means that you're going to force the majority of raped women to bear their rapist's child.

Male rapes are even worse, but they aren't on topic.

edited 27th Feb '11 5:51:57 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

You've made an exact claim, you've now got burden of proof. I need to see where those statistics came from.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Rape Statistics Useful bits:

According to a news report on BBC One presented in 12 November 2007, there were 85,000 women raped in the UK in the previous year, equating to about 230 cases every day. According to that report one of every 200 women in the UK was raped in 2006. The report also showed that only 800 persons were convicted in rape crimes that same year

Ok, so I very much overestimated at 10%. It's actually .009%

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

But your line is just that, your own definition of a "person". The nameless lump of rapidly dividing cells.

As for my own point of view...I don't care if it's a person or not. The mother should have priority over an unborn since she's obviously worth more.

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

But how would you make such an honour system function? Where would you put the line? Should we just have legal abortions and trust people not to get them unless they need them?

Sure, Why Not?? Just tell Planned Parenthood to only abort in cases of rape or incest and leave it at that. Surly we can Trust Women not to abuse it. Desperate women still get what they want, the republican get their moral high ground and everyone goes home happy  ^☺

edited 27th Feb '11 5:59:45 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

@Signed

In which case, we won't be able to argue this topic since we both disagree on a fundamental level about what is or is not human and the value of each human.

@shimaspawn

I'm inclined not to trust Wikipedia, especially seeing as that page is not locked and it's about a touchy subject. On the other hand, the official site for the US Department of Justice's page on rape statistics just so happens to be... 404. I'm not kidding, have a look yourself. If you don't mind, I'll be taking a deeper look into that statistic before this discussion continues any further.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

^^ You're forgetting women with broken condoms, women who are still getting an education, women not rich enough, women who don't want kids period, and women who aren't married yet. And what's wrong with incest children?

^ Like I said, we don't have to debate about whether it's human or not, we can just skip to "Even if it's a person? So what? We kill other humans all the time."

edited 27th Feb '11 6:08:36 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

The flip side of this is that it also might give some women an incentive to falsely accuse of rape. Given that there have already been cases that turned out to be proven false (and who knows how many more were false accusations that were false but weren't known to be such) this seems like the kind of thing we should avoid creating incentives for.

Just let them provide abortions for whoever chooses to get them. After all, if you don't trust their reasons for getting an abortion, why do you expect them to nurture a fetus in the womb for 9 months?

@Signed

Last I checked, that fetus wasn't threatening you with violence. Your argument doesn't fit this situation at all. Anyway, I be back tomorrow, hopefully with some non-Wikipedia sources of information, we'll see what they say.

edited 27th Feb '11 6:13:29 PM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

How about the BBC itself? One in 20 women had been raped, yet three-quarters of them never report the crime. And of those that are reported, just 5.7% result in a conviction.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

After all, if you don't trust their reasons for getting an abortion, why do you expect them to nurture a fetus in the womb for 9 months?

You don't have to. Gestating doesn't take any extra input from the mother other than don't die/stick a kitting needle into the baby's head.

edited 27th Feb '11 6:16:39 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Let's see, it poses a threat to the mother (socially, health, financially), it poses a threat to possible future babies thanks to Rh's.

Let's see, closely watching your diet, what you do, limiting your activity, losing your figure, vomitting, constant pains, other permanent bodily alterations, Rh's, hospital bill, etc.

edited 27th Feb '11 6:24:47 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

extras, there're not needed.

edited 27th Feb '11 6:43:16 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid