It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
The draconian Nazi policies of the GOP are now coming into view. They need to go away, what's next, denying a woman the right to get a rape kit done or making her finance that?

The Neo Nazi GOP side has finally been exposed and revealed for what it truly is, the insessiant destruction of individual liberty, freedom and rights of women.




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
As long as it gets to trial before a jury, I would have to think common sense would prevail. but I have no desire to pay for abortions for people that put themselves in that position, (as would be determined by a jury) .



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
well now ... from a victim, multiple times over ... this just sucks.
I do believe Lorena Bobbitt just became my new hero.
so, i'm wondering ... would acts similar to hers be considered "consensual" also?
I mean after all, IT was ready, willing and available.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
Although many may cite Mother Jones as gospel. I really would like a link to the actual bill. Reading the bill would help me eliminate the spin nonsense that usually occurs in partisan bickering.

Give us a link to the bill op.

Page two of this thread, I found the bill.
Peace.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
Although many may cite Mother Jones as gospel. I really would like a link to the actual bill. Reading the bill would help me eliminate the spin nonsense that usually occurs in partisan bickering.

Give us a link to the bill op.

here's the text of the bill and current actions taken: www.opencongress.org...
here's the most likely segment in question ...

‘SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

1 ‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--

‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest;

‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.


and for those who actually read the Obamacare saga, (PPACA) this is also a bit concerning ...

‘SEC. 307. NON-PREEMPTION OF OTHER FEDERAL LAWS.

‘Nothing in this chapter shall repeal, amend, or have any effect on any other Federal law to the extent such law imposes any limitation on the use of funds for abortion or for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion, beyond the limitations set forth in this chapter.

i don't have my notes handy so i'm not getting into the detail of the implications of this clause, however, those who read PPACA will understand.

from the bold above ... it appears that victims of pedophilia, clerical (religious) rape or neighborly over-friendliness don't qualify either.
*forcible* -- defined by what standard?
personally, anything after NO, I consider forcible and would most certainly be, at your own risk.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
I think you're pulling short hairs on this. The point seems to be that if there is no police report, charges, trial, conviction... Then taxpayers don't have to pay for it. A woman can still get her abortion if she wants.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
What do you expect of men who are members of the Skulls and Bones where they perform a homosexual act, have photos taken in case "leaders" of the elite need to blackmail you if you don't do as you're told. Obviously the "act" itself must be so arousing to these members that their thoughts towards women (including their wives) become jaded?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Some of these definitions of rape fall down. It's rape if you have sex with a drunken woman according to some people, as they're not in the right frame of mind. Or someone on drugs.

Yet couples, many married at that, rape each other every day by these definitions.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




But hey, let's give the GOP credit, at least they're not going whole hog; according to the bible, it's only rape if the woman cries out and is rescued, otherwise it's fornication and adultery. I Presume the GOP will still allow for gagged women who are sexually assaulted to be considered "raped."
You need to get your dictionary out because fornication is not any type of sex, it means deviant forced sex that is illicit. go to the original greek version ..... definitions of words change through time just as the word bad used to mean just that and now it means awesome. Adultery is cheating on your spouse and the definition hasn't changed yet. Please get your dictionary out and find the true definition. As contray to modern popular belief premarital sex is not banned in the bible and never actually stated to be wrong. I've been studying the greek NT and hebrew OT for two years and went through it with a fine comb and with 4 other theologians and none of us can find anything prohibiting the exact before marriage sex clause. If you are a man it is ok and is for a woman too, but if you are a woman wanting to be married or betrothed to be then it states it is wrong. Weird I know, but please don't bring learned ideology of the bible in the forum unless you can translate the closest to the original text. the worship of . I was taught that premarital sex was wrong too but I am a member of this site because i don't take people's words at face value and am very very curious as to how people come to their ideas and reasoning. Don't be a parrot because parrots don't hink for themselves, they emulate other people and their ideas.....be inquisitive and know exactly why things are the way they are. endure forte



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   
I'm thinking that they included the word "forcible" to avoid abortions because of statutory rape. Also, forcible rape usually has pretty clear indicators, so I'm thinking that they included this to keep a woman from crying rape in order to be eligible. I think it's garbage, but what can one reasonably expect from Neo-Cons? I'm honestly surprised that they allow for it at all.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
And yet another kneejerk reaction thread based on an extrapolated idea taken out of context to fit an agenda.

Basically, the taxpayers aren't going to pay for you to abort babies unless you were raped.

Real tough concept huh?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaWhiz
It does make sense when you take your head out your pants. If it were a woman you cared about, one that you feel you have to protect, and some guy came along and talked her out of her pants - what would you say then?


I would say it's her business not mine. Same as if a girl talked a guy out of his pants. Since when do people not try to persuade other people to have sex with them (and since when are people powerless to resist such persusasion?).


Originally posted by DaWhiz
As for the second comment - of course it is brilliant. You just proved you won't do it didn't you? But then again you just proved that sex isn't all that important if the unpleasantness falls in your lap.
Thank you!


You seem to have some serious issues.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I am still surprised that none of this seems to strike a cord with libertarians and rightwing "small government" advocates on this board. Regardless of what people may claim, regulating or barring abortion requires more police oversight and in turn expanded government. Banning abortion will result in more police work and time and oversight, so in turn anybody who supports banning abortion completely supports the expansion of government as that is what will inevitably happen.


This has nothing to do with banning abortion, it has to do with limiting when someone can force other people to pay for their abortion. So you got it backwards, libertarians don't support the government paying for abortions.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
any of you that believe that this bill will make it out of the house and on to the senate are delusional. rape is rape... if consent isn't specifically given it is rape. force need not be an element.

i am willing to bet 1K that Mr. president never sees this on his desk, its too ridiculous to even make it to "VETO" status.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaDreamer
any of you that believe that this bill will make it out of the house and on to the senate are delusional. rape is rape... if consent isn't specifically given it is rape. force need not be an element.


This has nothing to do with changing the definition of rape, it has to do with when the government will pay for someones abortion.

Title of the thread should be changed, it's a blatant lie.
edit on 29-1-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by NadaCambia
Some of these definitions of rape fall down. It's rape if you have sex with a drunken woman according to some people, as they're not in the right frame of mind. Or someone on drugs.

Yet couples, many married at that, rape each other every day by these definitions.


Exactly it's retarded.

My wife is guilty of molestation etc. etc, literally, hundreds of times over.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
As long as it gets to trial before a jury, I would have to think common sense would prevail. but I have no desire to pay for abortions for people that put themselves in that position, (as would be determined by a jury) .


What if she was raped? What if this was your daughter we were talking about? Would she be forced to keep the kid to serve as a daily reminder of the horror and terror that she had to endure?

The only way I will ever take a stand to deny a woman an abortion is if she was a willing participant in the act and in the sole event that she is in full control of her capabilities and capacities, ie if she dropped her pants and was penetrated willingly then she must keep the kid but if her pants were ripped off of her against her will she should have every right to get one.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
I'm thinking that they included the word "forcible" to avoid abortions because of statutory rape. Also, forcible rape usually has pretty clear indicators, so I'm thinking that they included this to keep a woman from crying rape in order to be eligible. I think it's garbage, but what can one reasonably expect from Neo-Cons? I'm honestly surprised that they allow for it at all.


As the law is written no female younger then age 15 yrs 364 days has the legal capacity to consent to sex meaning if she came up prego it was done out of force and not out of consent.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by NadaCambia
Some of these definitions of rape fall down. It's rape if you have sex with a drunken woman according to some people, as they're not in the right frame of mind. Or someone on drugs.

Yet couples, many married at that, rape each other every day by these definitions.


Consensual Sex is defined legally as two consenting adults being both in the right frame of mind and not under the influence of narcotics, alcohol or external influence (this includes the placing of a date rape drug or other sedative meant to inhibit someone's intuition) engaging in a sexual encounter.

Some could say and actually walk on that if one partner is inebriated, intoxicated that the individual cannot legally consent to sex.
edit on 29-1-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join