take THAT, rape victims!

[canuckgrow]

Guess it will be cheaper to let these women go to a cheap hotel or back alley and procure an abortion from someone who is certainly qualified. Why can't people just KISS(Keep it Simple Stupid) if you do not believe in abortion then you will never have a need for one......If you are ok with abortion than I think it would be better to have a safe affordable option for those who wish to abort a pregnancy. Honestly I would rather see any government put money towards any from of health care than more fuckin weapons. For the folks complaining about funding abortions.......Do you have any idea how much money your government wastes every god damned day? That number far surpasses any funding for abortions...Cripes is common sense really dead?

 

[xxRolandxx]

aside from the usual liberal drivel about how conservative elements are all about religion and the need for constantly increasing taxes to support an ever more invasive government, there were only two really pertinent sentences in that whole post. the first is this histrionic accusation that the bill keeps people from using their own money. what it states is that no federal funds can be used and this includes funds from a tax exempt hsa. you do know what tax exempt means, don't you? it means that a certain amount of tax is not collected and needs to be made up for in another area. unlike the general pool of wealth, our tax revenue is a zero sum game. only a certain amount of taxable wealth exists at any one time to support our government's wild spending sprees. allowing funds from tax exempt accounts to be used for elective abortion is, therefore, a use of federal funds that must be made up for by others.

your second liberal talking point, that repealing the health insurance bill has nothing to do with our economy, is equally ludicrous. this is one of the most damaging and ill conceived pieces of legislation to come down the pike in a while. it hamstrings a major segment of american industry, allows the state far too much influence in the private sector and saddles citizens with a mandate they can ill afford in these cash strapped times. with all of the waivers being handed down lately, the favoritism toward certain businesses and toward labor unbalances the private sector market even more. in short, it does few of the things that were promised and causes more problems than it solves. it has already been a major factor in the often drastic increase of insurance rates and its eradication before it can do more irreversible harm is of utmost importance. derailing this train now allows us the time to craft a sensible and intelligent bill that will actually do the people some good.

the least you can do is get it straight. what i said was, "...being pushed for by the liberal establishment." that was one of the final sticking points that had to be addressed before this massive health insurance bill could be rushed through. taxpayer funded abortion on demand may have been stalled, but do you really think it ends there? liberalism has turned the privacy issues of roe v. wade into a matter of women's rights, openly declaring that the creation of a life holds no responsibilities. it might be too much for you to understand, but there is a void left by this decline in accountability and that void is being filled by the state. allowing government a greater role in our lives has led to an increasing tendency to abdicate even more responsibility and grow government at an ever faster rate. it's a vicious cycle that continues to eat up more and more of our nations wealth and productivity. as a dyed in the wool statist, you probably see nothing wrong in such a nanny state scenario. luckily, not all of us are so willing to allow those chains to be easily fitted.

You should change your avatar. Janis Joplin would spit in your face if she was alive and heard this type of drivel coming from your mouth. Maybe Ann Coulter would be a more fitting avatar.

Regarding the moral/religious argument: I don`t believe in the Iraq war, matter of fact I am completely opposed to it on moral and religious grounds..yet my tax dollars keep on feeding the war machine.

FYI: Number of abortions which received Federal dollars in assistance in 2010: 190 total, at an average taxpayer cost of 1/18th of one single penny per taxpayer.

Nice priorities Republicans. Now where are the jobs???

 

[doc111]

You should change your avatar. Janis Joplin would spit in your face if she was alive and heard this type of drivel coming from your mouth. Maybe Ann Coulter would be a more fitting avatar.

Regarding the moral/religious argument: I don`t believe in the Iraq war, matter of fact I am completely opposed to it on moral and religious grounds..yet my tax dollars keep on feeding the war machine.

FYI: Number of abortions which received Federal dollars in assistance in 2010: 190 total, at an average taxpayer cost of 1/18th of one single penny per taxpayer.

Nice priorities Republicans. Now where are the jobs???

Nice strawman argument, troll!

 

[xxRolandxx]

Nice strawman argument, troll!

Nice ad hominum...dick

 

[tip top toker]

"The three cases in which intercourse traditionally has been equated with forcible rape, even in the absence of physical compulsion, are those in which the woman was unconscious, was mentally incompetent, or gave her consent under certain false pretenses."

​

 

[Chad Sexington]

I thought all rape was forced? Otherwise it would just be intercourse.

 

[xxRolandxx]

I always wondered...if I had sex with a hooker and didnt pay...is it rape? Or just breach of contract?

 

[fdd2blk]

I always wondered...if I had sex with a hooker and didnt pay...is it rape? Or just breach of contract?

i'd call it "a good night".

 

[MediMary]

I saw this the other day,
http://antirape.clearmark-demo.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=18

 

[fdd2blk]

I saw this the other day,
http://antirape.clearmark-demo.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=18

that can't be real.

 

[MediMary]

How does it work ?

The Rape-aXe system consists of a latex sheath, which contains razor-sharp barbs. The device is worn in her vagina like a tampon. When the attacker attempts vaginal penetration the barbs attach themselves to the penis, causing great discomfort. The device must be surgically removed, which will result in the positive identification of the attacker and subsequent arrest



sounds like a great jackass episode to me

 

[fdd2blk]

so she just wears this 24/7, or only on first dates?

 

[MediMary]

LOL
don't piss off the wifey fdd
( I am sure this will turn up someday in the news in a case other than a rape victim, Like a cheating husband)

in all honesty though I think this rape device is just a bad idea, you got some sicko trying to get his nutt off, now that sicko is going to want to kill you.

 

[ink the world]

keep drinkin' that kool aid, eventually it will kill of that last braincell and you too will be on the government dole.

i suppose you like having government sticking its nose up your ass. well - different strokes for different folks, but i don't see why the rest of us should have to engage in such pastimes just because you enjoy it.

I dont want the Government "sticking its nose up my ass", thats kind of my point. If youre gonna argue about government overreach, how about extending that to a womans uterus too?

take a good look at those programs you cited and you'll find them to be little more than slush funds for trifling political animals. we pay into them and then find they've been raided for some bit of fluff, so we pay even more for what we thought we were getting in the first place. if government contained the lest bit of competence we wouldn't bitch about life's little ups and downs like this, but we have yet to see the bastards do anything right.

by the way - i'm certainly no fundamentalist whack job, but i don't see why we should all be paying for the retroactive birth control of penniless reprobates either. this isn't a matter of christian values, but of simply demanding that people take a bit of responsibility for their actions. i guess that's a concept that's just a bit beyond the left's understanding.

I dont agree w/ abortion personally, but I do understand it in the case of a rape or incest. To me if you truly believe in keeping the government out of our personal choices abortion should be included, even though I dont agree with the practice generally. The world isnt a black and white place all the time, the examples of rape and incest are that "gray" area that makes it acceptable to me.

As far as public funds being used, I dont like it; but again a gray area. I can think of many other reasons the government wastes$, all coming with a much higher price tag

 

[UncleBuck]

How does it work ?

The Rape-aXe system consists of a latex sheath, which contains razor-sharp barbs. The device is worn in her vagina like a tampon. When the attacker attempts vaginal penetration the barbs attach themselves to the penis, causing great discomfort. The device must be surgically removed, which will result in the positive identification of the attacker and subsequent arrest



sounds like a great jackass episode to me

take THAT, rapists!

 

[undertheice]

ah, ad hominem. last bastion of the defeated.

i just love your little "aha" moments. it's as if you actually believe your own hype. a more truthful assessment would be, "sarcasm, the last resort of the man who realizes he is arguing with the terminally obtuse", but i understand that honesty isn't your strong suit. after explaining this to you as simply as i could at least twice, i guess i'll give it another try. maybe something will sink in this time.

you never told me why republicans would bother to include the language 'forcible rape' if it should be of no concern.

once again, did you bother to read the definition of forcible rape? it includes every form of non-consensual sex, but is differentiated from statutory rape. why they feel it necessary to draw some legal line between statutory and forcible, when a minor is considered incapable of giving consent, is anybody's guess. it might be in order to inflict harsher penalties on crimes against children or it could just be to make lawyers feel more important. as i said before, you are splitting nonexistent hairs.

you never told me how someone putting their own money into an HSA takes money from you in any way.

you never explained to me why you support prohibiting rape victims from spending their own money on abortion.

do you understand the implications of "tax exempt" status? these are funds on which no tax is collected. this decreases the pool of tax dollars that the free spenders in government rely on for all those entitlement you proggies so love and that gap will have to be filled with even more taxes somewhere else. the funds in that hsa must be considered to include the tax savings that others will have to make up.

just as a penalty must be paid to the government in the case of a withdrawal for non-medical purposes, a ban on federal funds for elective abortions would have to include the tax savings on hsa funds. the option still remains for a non-medical related withdrawal from the hsa, with penalty, to pay for the elective abortion. this is the very definition of the "fairness" y'all spend so much time paying lip-service to.

if you support this bill, you support prohibiting rape victims from spending their own money and/or forcing them to prove that they were forcibly raped at the most traumatic time possible.

there we have it, the grand emotional appeal. over and over again these fools insist this is an assault on rape victims, with absolutely no grounds to do so. much like the "it's for the children" or "it's for the sick and dying" tripe we hear each time a new tax is instituted to provide another far-fetched entitlement. always trying to prove that they are advocating for the victim, because victimhood is the central theme to all their schemes. they cry wolf at every turn to show us all how compassionate they are, setting up straw man after straw man to hide what is only the petulance of the malcontent. those of you that fall for this crap deserve the misery that they visit upon the nation. the pity is that the rest of us are forced to go along for the ride.

 

[undertheice]

I don't agree w/ abortion personally, but I do understand it in the case of a rape or incest. To me if you truly believe in keeping the government out of our personal choices abortion should be included, even though I don't agree with the practice generally. The world isn't a black and white place all the time, the examples of rape and incest are that "gray" area that makes it acceptable to me.

As far as public funds being used, I don't like it; but again a gray area. I can think of many other reasons the government wastes $, all coming with a much higher price tag

shockingly, i find myself at least partially in agreement with you. while you may characterize legislation against various means of abortion as government sticking its nose into a woman's uterus, i can't help but see it as the protection of those who are incapable of protecting themselves and that is one of government's most basic duties. like you, i grudgingly accept the necessity of abortion in cases of rape and incest and can see a role for government in providing such aid as is needed to help those victims.

even with the push to mainstream abortion, there is still an ethical dilemma when it comes to using taxpayer funding for unnecessary abortions. it seems only right that we not be forced to pay for willful irresponsibility of others and this is exactly what this bill addresses.

 

[UncleBuck]

i just love your little "aha" moments. it's as if you actually believe your own hype. a more truthful assessment would be, "sarcasm, the last resort of the man who realizes he is arguing with the terminally obtuse", but i understand that honesty isn't your strong suit. after explaining this to you as simply as i could at least twice, i guess i'll give it another try. maybe something will sink in this time.

you weren't being insulting, just sarcastic. got it.

once again, did you bother to read the definition of forcible rape? it includes every form of non-consensual sex, but is differentiated from statutory rape. why they feel it necessary to draw some legal line between statutory and forcible, when a minor is considered incapable of giving consent, is anybody's guess. it might be in order to inflict harsher penalties on crimes against children or it could just be to make lawyers feel more important. as i said before, you are splitting nonexistent hairs.

ok, so you admit that you see no point in the language, just that the republicans put it in there anyway.

so hairs are being split, they are existent, you just don't know why. got it.

do you understand the implications of "tax exempt" status? these are funds on which no tax is collected. this decreases the pool of tax dollars that the free spenders in government rely on for all those entitlement you proggies so love and that gap will have to be filled with even more taxes somewhere else. the funds in that hsa must be considered to include the tax savings that others will have to make up.

oh, so it is the fault of evil progressives. the reason why we must stop people from using their own money how they see fit is because the progressives just LOVE to spend. it is our fault now. that makes sense

just as a penalty must be paid to the government in the case of a withdrawal for non-medical purposes, a ban on federal funds for elective abortions would have to include the tax savings on hsa funds. the option still remains for a non-medical related withdrawal from the hsa, with penalty, to pay for the elective abortion. this is the very definition of the "fairness" y'all spend so much time paying lip-service to.

so fairness is penalizing a rape victim for using their own money how they see fit?

i do not believe we live on the same planet.

there we have it, the grand emotional appeal. over and over again these fools insist this is an assault on rape victims, with absolutely no grounds to do so. much like the "it's for the children" or "it's for the sick and dying" tripe we hear each time a new tax is instituted to provide another far-fetched entitlement. always trying to prove that they are advocating for the victim, because victimhood is the central theme to all their schemes. they cry wolf at every turn to show us all how compassionate they are, setting up straw man after straw man to hide what is only the petulance of the malcontent. those of you that fall for this crap deserve the misery that they visit upon the nation. the pity is that the rest of us are forced to go along for the ride.

so rape victims are not the ones that suffer consequences from this legislation, it is blameless victims like ou who must suffer. poor you. i feel so sorry for your trauma.

FUCK YOU

 

[Total Head]

so if a chick is wearing one of those anti rape devices, and consents to sex with a man but does not tell him of the device, didn't she rape HIM? i can just see mobs of angry feminists luring men into orgy traps...

 

[UncleBuck]

shockingly, i find myself at least partially in agreement with you. while you may characterize legislation against various means of abortion as government sticking its nose into a woman's uterus, i can't help but see it as the protection of those who are incapable of protecting themselves and that is one of government's most basic duties. like you, i grudgingly accept the necessity of abortion in cases of rape and incest and can see a role for government in providing such aid as is needed to help those victims.

i know it is tough whenever the topic is brought up, i would prefer we stay away from a debate about abortion in general. although i agree with you for the most part here, surprisingly, and especially the last part.

the abortion debate never seems to lead anywhere productive.

even with the push to mainstream abortion, there is still an ethical dilemma when it comes to using taxpayer funding for unnecessary abortions. it seems only right that we not be forced to pay for willful irresponsibility of others and this is exactly what this bill addresses.

this is what i wanted the conversation to be about. threads usually drift in many directions beyond the control of the poster. but thank you for bringing it back to the op, specifically federal or taxpayer funding for abortion and more specifically, as it relates to this bill.

now that said, we already have many safeguards against taxpayer funding for abortion. other posters here have pointed out how few cases there were and how little money it added up to.

you say this bill addresses 'willful irresponsibility', yet i do not see it. what types of rape victims are so 'willfully irresponsible' that they deserved to be raped? it really is a question of blaming the victim. a question of who you think deserved to be raped. it is exactly why i am so glad buck was defeated by bennet in colorado this year.

and once again, this bill attacks HSAs. money in an HSA is 100% earned by the person who wishes to use it. no federal money is contributed. although they are tax exempt, no taxpayer or federal source has contributed one red cent to that HSA.

it is dishonest to say that any taxpayer funds of any sort go into any HSA.

to support this bill is to support the government preventing you from using your own money for your medical care.

to support this bill is to support the statement that certain rape victims 'deserved it'.

to support this bill is to support that the government must prevent certain victims of rape that 'deserved it' from spending their own money that they set aside for medical care.

to support this bill is to support government panels that decide if you were forcibly raped or not at the most traumatic time possible for the victim before they can use their own money for medical care.

this bill will not create any jobs, shrink the deficit in any meaningful way, or do any of the other things that the new republicans were elected to do.

i don't get it.