Republicans: No Big Government - Unless It's About Rape.

[mikeymikec]

I did not ask the law, I asked you.

If you like. Nothing she did offsets the crime against her. Everyone is allowed to get drunk, and people make mistakes / get into unfortunate situations when they get drunk. The alternative is to make anything vaguely risky illegal.

You asked about whether anything in your scenario is her fault. If I cross a road and a car speeds through a red light and runs me over, then one might say if I hadn't crossed the road then I wouldn't have been hit by the car. IMO that's nothing more than an observation, and it would be a stupid comment to tie it into some sort of cause - effect theory (and/or the basis of advice), otherwise therefore should people stop crossing roads?

 

[Rebel_L]

The discussion in this thread is not limited to the specific language in the law. This is a law that puts unnecessary and cynical hurdles in front of women trying to make their own health care decisions.



I feel that it is similarly absurd to not allow any woman to make her own decision at any time. Unfortunately there are some who only think that women have the right to do that if they are raped. Thus the conversation in this thread.



You didn't know that a thread about a bill banning late term abortions was about pro-life vs pro-choice? Really?



Fantastic. Glad I don't live in your world.

Yes oddly enough when people talk about having a problem with rape victims getting late term abortions and not about all women getting late term abortions I assume that the topic is not a general pro life/choice topic. It also rather obvious that you have no interest in the topic other than trying to beat others over the head with your opinion and do so with as much hyperbole and as little actual debate or idea sharing as possible. Guess that makes me glad you don't run the world either and I never have to visit this thread again 🙂

 

[realibrad]

If you like. Nothing she did offsets the crime against her. Everyone is allowed to get drunk, and people make mistakes / get into unfortunate situations when they get drunk. The alternative is to make anything vaguely risky illegal.

You can't honestly think that's an answer.

I did not ask if anything off sets. I asked if the victim was completely blameless. Both were equally drunk. The difference is that one molested the other. Is your stance that the woman who got drunk to the point of not having control, and putting herself in a situation where others were engaging in boundless sexual engagement is blameless?

 

[mikeymikec]

You can't honestly think that's an answer.

I did not ask if anything off sets. I asked if the victim was completely blameless. Both were equally drunk. The difference is that one molested the other. Is your stance that the woman who got drunk to the point of not having control, and putting herself in a situation where others were engaging in boundless sexual engagement is blameless?

Blame implies that she's somehow the cause of the problem. No, blame lies entirely with the rapist. If I wanted to take a 'holier than thou' position, then I would say she was unwise to get that drunk (same goes for the rapist), but I would be a total hypocrite to give out advice like that. I've got blind-drunk before, I'm guessing that at some point in the future I will again (not intentionally, but shit happens), and I'd be surprised if the same doesn't apply to pretty much every person in this thread.

I feel like I'm repeating myself here, I'm not sure how many ways I can answer your question.

Furthermore, if the guy was so drunk that he didn't notice her lack of consent (at this point I'd like to point out, "wow, seriously?"), then it's plausible to assume that the event could have occurred regardless of her alcoholic state.

 

[rudeguy]

How? Women do make false rape allegations sometimes. Duke lacrosse anyone?

Rapists are entitled to due process, and that involves collecting evidence and testimony. That is, btw, excatly the reason it would be so insidious to compel rape victims to go through it.



Yeah, only the sluts wait 20 weeks. It would be impossible for woman to get raped and be so ashamed/in denial that she waits 20 weeks to deal with fallout of her attack.



🙄

You just called rape victims sluts and stuck up for the rapists. Thanks for letting us see your true colors

 

[Blackjack200]

Yes oddly enough when people talk about having a problem with rape victims getting late term abortions and not about all women getting late term abortions I assume that the topic is not a general pro life/choice topic. It also rather obvious that you have no interest in the topic other than trying to beat others over the head with your opinion and do so with as much hyperbole and as little actual debate or idea sharing as possible. Guess that makes me glad you don't run the world either and I never have to visit this thread again 🙂

No, please stay, I want to hear more innovative solutions to abortion, like pulling fetuses out of the vaginas of women that don't want them and making the children wards of the state. You may be amazed to know that women already have the option to do that, but I definitely think you should be the one to decide that. Not the woman in private consultation with her doctor.

 

[Blackjack200]

You just called rape victims sluts and stuck up for the rapists. Thanks for letting us see your true colors

They must be sluts if they got pregnant, right? Doesn't happen in cases of LegitimateRape (TM)

Saying that accused rapists are entitled to due process is "sticking up for rapists"?

 

[realibrad]

Blame implies that she's somehow the cause of the problem. No, blame lies entirely with the rapist. If I wanted to take a 'holier than thou' position, then I would say she was unwise to get that drunk (same goes for the rapist), but I would be a total hypocrite to give out advice like that. I've got blind-drunk before, I'm guessing that at some point in the future I will again (not intentionally, but shit happens), and I'd be surprised if the same doesn't apply to pretty much every person in this thread.

I feel like I'm repeating myself here, I'm not sure how many ways I can answer your question.

Furthermore, if the guy was so drunk that he didn't notice her lack of consent (at this point I'd like to point out, "wow, seriously?"), then it's plausible to assume that the event could have occurred regardless of her alcoholic state.

So one quick note that is small. In my hypothetical, it was 2 women, not a man and a woman.

The victim was molested. The rapist in this case was too drunk to be considered rational, but enough to move around. As you have been drunk before, you understand blackouts. You can stumble around and do things, but really have no control. This applies to both women. One was drunk, went into a sex club, continued to drink to a point where she could not control anything. The other woman was so drunk that she started molesting the other woman. Its statutory because at that level of inebriation its impossible to give consent.

Again, it falls under reckless acts. If you put yourself into a situation where consent is assumed, and it was not, can you say blame cannot be spread out.

I should note that reckless behavior is not a woman dressing sexy. There are some that will say "she was asking for it" when she clearly was not. But, in my hypothetical, its not the same.

Sex clubs are a weird place. They have rules for sure, but its also assumed that if you walk into a group, you are giving a sort of assumed consent for some things to happen.

 

[Darwin333]

This post by far is the most dumb thing I have seen in this thread so far. Congrats on that.

You do not need to have been raped to have an opinion on this issue.

You don't need to have any knowledge at all to have an opinion but you should at least delve into the details a little bit so that you can have an informed opinion.

There are tons of very valid reasons that victims of rape don't report it, not the least of which is the abuse they will endure during the trial and the fact that very few rape trials end in a conviction. So that either means that the country with the most criminals (by far) somehow don't commit rape despite the mountain of evidence that says they do or that the justice system is skewed for some reason against rape victims. Knowing all that, if you were held down and forcibly sodomized would you want to go through reliving it over and over, having every skeleton in your closet put on public display, being told that you are a closet gay and actually consented to the ass fucking, video of you stopping at a truck stop to take a piss but the defense is going to say you were there looking for gay sex, having everything you have ever posted taken completely out of context to prove that you are gay, having the officer taking your report repeatedly ask you if you're sure it was consensual gay sex, maybe your lover got a little to rough or he didn't reciprocate and having the entire world know that you got a dick in your ass all for a very low chance of the rapist getting convicted? Even your friends and family will treat you differently and per all evidence some of your friends or acquaintances won't believe your story and think you really wanted it. You'll probably make the news so when you're walking around in public you will be "that bitch that got ass raped" or the "closet gay who got mad at his lover or got caught by his wife".

Or would you pretend it never happened or perhaps seek justice in some other way?

Yall act like this is the same as reporting a stolen car or your house being broken into and it's most definitely not the case.

 

[Darwin333]

Here is my take:

Girl goes through the horror of being raped. Girl has to tell police in detail what happened and answer degrading questions. Girl has to go to hospital to be prodded, scraped, degraded even more. Girl has to talk to prosecutors who ask even more degrading questions. If the police are lucky enough to actually catch the guy, the whole thing has to be relived at trial where she is made out to be a dirty whore.


You want to fix something that will actually help victims? Fix that shit. Not some made up scenario where a woman would have waited 20 weeks to have an abortion. The 48 hour wait is NOTHING compared to what the system puts women through.

Oh..and start a program to arm women free of charge. Especially college women. Let these dirt bags know their penis may get shot off and maybe they will stick to internet porn.


/rant

This, so very much this. I don't really have a position on abortion because I can admit that "I don't know". I don't know when a fetus becomes a person versus a clump of cells, I don't know if it's at conception or when it can live outside of the womb or whatever. I DO know that rape victims go through a very traumatic experience and if they do prosecute they go through another very traumatic experience. Knowing that I personally see no issue with giving them a little extra time to decide. I couldn't imagine ever being put in that position and anyone who is has my utmost sympathy.

We really should be having a discussion on how to fix the system to better accommodate rape victims, how we do that while maintaining the other parties right to due process I honestly don't know but we should at least try. We should also discuss very harsh punishment for those who have been absolutely proven by a much stronger standard of evidence than beyond a reasonable doubt to have falsely accused someone of rape. The Duke case comes to mind but the burden of evidence must be set higher so as not to discourage rape victims from coming forward. At least that's my .02.

 

[sandorski]

A Woman should be able to walk into a Clinic, ask for an Abortion and receive it at the nearest possible time. Whether that's in 5 minutes or some future time when both have the time. It should not be affected in anyway by some third party sticking their nose in mandatorily where it does not belong.

 

[rudeguy]

A Woman should be able to walk into a Clinic, ask for an Abortion and receive it at the nearest possible time. Whether that's in 5 minutes or some future time when both have the time. It should not be affected in anyway by some third party sticking their nose in mandatorily where it does not belong.

There has to be a time frame. I don't believe anyone wants an abortion done at 8 months unless it's necessary to save mom's life. 5 months seems reasonable to me but I am no expert.

If this is going to be a federal issue, make part of the law reforming the way we address sex crimes. Because the way we are doing it now does not work.

 

[sandorski]

There has to be a time frame. I don't believe anyone wants an abortion done at 8 months unless it's necessary to save mom's life. 5 months seems reasonable to me but I am no expert.

If this is going to be a federal issue, make part of the law reforming the way we address sex crimes. Because the way we are doing it now does not work.

That's a different issue than what I was addressing.

 

[rudeguy]

That's a different issue than what I was addressing.

it is and it isn't. It's a big, twisted, complicated issue.

 

[sandorski]

it is and it isn't. It's a big, twisted, complicated issue.

I was merely addressing the idea of a mandatory cooling off period.

 

[ivwshane]

it is and it isn't. It's a big, twisted, complicated issue.

Yes but you seem to be intent on holding one hostage until the other is addressed and that's pretty fucked up. The reasonable position and logical one would be pushing for both, reducing the crime and reducing the amount of abortions that occur.

If abortion clinics were available on every corner and offered free service to anyone who needed it but because of other policies, sex education, birth control availability, tougher/smarter rape crime laws, would you care if abortion was legal and available (this is directed to everyone)?

History already tells us that when we aren't allowed to do something we do it anyway (prohibition, drugs, etc), so why do conservatives and righties continue pushing (and they both are indeed pushing, at the local and federal level) for a policy that's only destined to fail?

To flip it to something the right can understand; should the left push for banning guns (let's say they are and let's ignore the constitutionality of it), when as the right likes to point out, guns don't kill people, people do?

 

[Darwin333]

I was merely addressing the idea of a mandatory cooling off period.

Completely off topic and in no way do I intend for this to be a "gotcha" question but do you agree with mandatory waiting times to purchase handguns?

 

[sandorski]

Completely off topic and in no way do I intend for this to be a "gotcha" question but do you agree with mandatory waiting times to purchase handguns?

Yes.

 

[ivwshane]

Completely off topic and in no way do I intend for this to be a "gotcha" question but do you agree with mandatory waiting times to purchase handguns?

What do studies show? Is it an effective way to cool off hot heads?

 

[Darwin333]

Yes.

What do studies show? Is it an effective way to cool off hot heads?

I honestly don't know of any study, I have purchased quite a few guns but I've never in my life intended on killing a specific person so I've never purchased a gun to go kill "Bob". I didn't require a cooldown time because I wasn't "hot" in the first place.

But if you think a cooldown period for guns is necessary to the point of making it law, how can the same argument not be made about abortion?


PS. I'm trying to have an actual adult discussion about this, I would appreciate if both of you would not let the retards disrupt our conversation.

 

[sandorski]

I honestly don't know of any study, I have purchased quite a few guns but I've never in my life intended on killing a specific person so I've never purchased a gun to go kill "Bob". I didn't require a cooldown time because I wasn't "hot" in the first place.

But if you think a cooldown period for guns is necessary to the point of making it law, how can the same argument not be made about abortion?


PS. I'm trying to have an actual adult discussion about this, I would appreciate if both of you would not let the retards disrupt our conversation.

The two situations are not really comparable. One is trying to acquire something, the other is to remove something from one's possession. One is something that affects one's physical body, one is not. One intends to discourage a person from going through with it, the other is usually to run background checks.

 

[realibrad]

You don't need to have any knowledge at all to have an opinion but you should at least delve into the details a little bit so that you can have an informed opinion.

There are tons of very valid reasons that victims of rape don't report it, not the least of which is the abuse they will endure during the trial and the fact that very few rape trials end in a conviction. So that either means that the country with the most criminals (by far) somehow don't commit rape despite the mountain of evidence that says they do or that the justice system is skewed for some reason against rape victims. Knowing all that, if you were held down and forcibly sodomized would you want to go through reliving it over and over, having every skeleton in your closet put on public display, being told that you are a closet gay and actually consented to the ass fucking, video of you stopping at a truck stop to take a piss but the defense is going to say you were there looking for gay sex, having everything you have ever posted taken completely out of context to prove that you are gay, having the officer taking your report repeatedly ask you if you're sure it was consensual gay sex, maybe your lover got a little to rough or he didn't reciprocate and having the entire world know that you got a dick in your ass all for a very low chance of the rapist getting convicted? Even your friends and family will treat you differently and per all evidence some of your friends or acquaintances won't believe your story and think you really wanted it. You'll probably make the news so when you're walking around in public you will be "that bitch that got ass raped" or the "closet gay who got mad at his lover or got caught by his wife".

Or would you pretend it never happened or perhaps seek justice in some other way?

Yall act like this is the same as reporting a stolen car or your house being broken into and it's most definitely not the case.

You realize I am pro choice for all of those reasons. I think you think I'm on the other side of what I am.

 

[mikeymikec]

The victim was molested. The rapist in this case was too drunk to be considered rational, but enough to move around. As you have been drunk before, you understand blackouts. You can stumble around and do things, but really have no control. This applies to both women. One was drunk, went into a sex club, continued to drink to a point where she could not control anything. The other woman was so drunk that she started molesting the other woman. Its statutory because at that level of inebriation its impossible to give consent.

Again, it falls under reckless acts. If you put yourself into a situation where consent is assumed, and it was not, can you say blame cannot be spread out.

What's your point? Why are you trying to assign blame? Also, the only time that one should assume consent is through the enthusiasm/participation of the partner throughout the entire event.

Let's say that both people involved were so entirely plastered that neither could properly consent (or interpret consent) to such behaviour and they both blacked out, then we're getting to a "if a tree falls in the woods and no-one hears it" philosophical question IMO. I don't think the scenario is that likely though; it's a heck of a lot more likely that a) a drunk person would approach a less drunk person (not intentionally, just statistical probability) or b) a calculating predator would approach a very drunk person because they hope that the victim will be easier to manipulate into sex or to force themselves upon them if required.

Sex clubs are a weird place. They have rules for sure, but its also assumed that if you walk into a group, you are giving a sort of assumed consent for some things to happen.

I've never been to one, but I'm of the understanding that such places are quite heavily staffed because of the risks of non-consensual sex, out of control behaviour, or someone getting a camera out, etc. I would be surprised if someone who is obviously plastered would be allowed either in the club or to stay in.

 

[ivwshane]

The difference is that women don't just up and decide to have an abortion. Abortions for women are very personal and the decision process isn't decided on a whim, women have to deal with quite a bit of emotion before and after deciding to have an abortion.

I honestly don't know of any study, I have purchased quite a few guns but I've never in my life intended on killing a specific person so I've never purchased a gun to go kill "Bob". I didn't require a cooldown time because I wasn't "hot" in the first place.

But if you think a cooldown period for guns is necessary to the point of making it law, how can the same argument not be made about abortion?


PS. I'm trying to have an actual adult discussion about this, I would appreciate if both of you would not let the retards disrupt our conversation.

 

[rudeguy]

Yes but you seem to be intent on holding one hostage until the other is addressed and that's pretty fucked up. The reasonable position and logical one would be pushing for both, reducing the crime and reducing the amount of abortions that occur.

If abortion clinics were available on every corner and offered free service to anyone who needed it but because of other policies, sex education, birth control availability, tougher/smarter rape crime laws, would you care if abortion was legal and available (this is directed to everyone)?

History already tells us that when we aren't allowed to do something we do it anyway (prohibition, drugs, etc), so why do conservatives and righties continue pushing (and they both are indeed pushing, at the local and federal level) for a policy that's only destined to fail?

To flip it to something the right can understand; should the left push for banning guns (let's say they are and let's ignore the constitutionality of it), when as the right likes to point out, guns don't kill people, people do?

I think killing babies is wrong. I hate even thinking about it. But with that being said, I have never said I think they should be illegal. I am a male, so I have never had to decide if I should have an abortion or not. It's not right for me to decide one way or another what a woman does. I do not support treating abortion as a form of birth control but again, it's not my call.

My problem in this thread is people focusing on this stupid 48 hour deal and acting as if they are fighting for victims. That just isn't true. If you want to fight for victims, fight for something that will actually help someone. Don't politicize rape. It's a serious issue that shouldn't be lumped in with this stupid debate.