• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Here they go again........

ninerbuff

godless wonder
Count on the GOP to redefine what RAPE is............

The Republicans are pushing to redefine the meaning of “rape” to mean, specifically, a violent sexual act instigated against someone’s will. This redefinition means that the days when ‘no’ meant ‘no’ would be over. If a woman did not fight back, then she would not have been raped, according to this Republican definition of rape. The purpose behind it is simple. The Republicans want to make abortion as inaccessible as possible. It is an attempt to cater to those who want women to go back to being subservient to men, and to those who want to see women stripped of every right that they have fought for over the last fifty years.

http://lezgetreal.com/2011/02/gilli...k-agaisnt-republicans-anti-woman-legislation/
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
Wow! The Party of Freedom is expanding men's freedom to dominate women! Yay Freedom! {/sarcasm}
 

Dezzie

Well-Known Member
Count on the GOP to redefine what RAPE is............

The Republicans are pushing to redefine the meaning of “rape” to mean, specifically, a violent sexual act instigated against someone’s will. This redefinition means that the days when ‘no’ meant ‘no’ would be over. If a woman did not fight back, then she would not have been raped, according to this Republican definition of rape. The purpose behind it is simple. The Republicans want to make abortion as inaccessible as possible. It is an attempt to cater to those who want women to go back to being subservient to men, and to those who want to see women stripped of every right that they have fought for over the last fifty years.

Gillibrand, Wasserman Schultz Fight Back Against Republicans Anti-Woman Legislation - Lez Get Real

:facepalm: How lovely. Somehow I am not surprised.
 

ninerbuff

godless wonder
Lol, if a married GOP member got one of his interns pregnant, you could bet that "pro life" would be out the window.
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
They have now changed the language to basically match the Hyde Amendment which covers all forms of rape and incest.

I guess it could be called a bipartisan bill but only in the weakest sense. It's cosponsored by 163 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

This is a bill that I hope just dies before it goes anywhere.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Count on the GOP to redefine what RAPE is............
The Republicans are pushing to redefine the meaning of “rape” to mean, specifically, a violent sexual act instigated against someone’s will. This redefinition means that the days when ‘no’ meant ‘no’ would be over. If a woman did not fight back, then she would not have been raped, according to this Republican definition of rape. The purpose behind it is simple. The Republicans want to make abortion as inaccessible as possible. It is an attempt to cater to those who want women to go back to being subservient to men, and to those who want to see women stripped of every right that they have fought for over the last fifty years.
Gillibrand, Wasserman Schultz Fight Back Against Republicans Anti-Woman Legislation - Lez Get Real
I'd be all set to agree with you, but your link shows no text actually proposed to become law...only opinions from highly
partisan opposition. So it raises the question, is this what they actually intend, or is it the creation of a straw man?
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
The original wording of the law didn't actually redefine rape. What it did was limit what types of rape would be exempted from the no federal funding aspects of the first four parts of the law by specifically stating forcible rape and incest involving minors in the language of the bill.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
House Republicans drop controversial 'forcible rape' language
By: CNN Political Unit
Washington (CNN)

Averting what would inevitably be a charged debate on the issue of rape, House Republicans Thursday dropped language from a new bill that allows for taxpayer-funded abortions only if a 'forcible rape' has occurred, a spokesperson for Rep. Chris Smith, the bill's sponsor, tells CNN.

The term 'forcible rape' as opposed to 'rape' set off a firestorm among many Democrats, who charged Republicans were attempting to roll back the long-standing federal law that allows for access of federal funds for abortion in the event of rape - without any qualifiers.

The bill – which was authored by Smith, R-New Jersey, and has more than 170 co-sponsors, seeks to expand the prohibitions of federal assistance of abortion by disallowing the use of health savings accounts to pay for the procedure or the use of tax credits and/or deductions for medical bills that relate to abortions.

But the most contested part of the bill quickly became the language that allowed for exemptions of these provisions – namely if a "forcible rape" had occurred, which opponents say is a vague definition at best and a veiled attempt to role back abortion rights at worst.

"Some kind" of rape is NOT okay. It's simple," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, wrote in a statement earlier this week. "Rape is when a woman doesn't consent to have sex, and that is whether she is conscious, unconscious, mentally stable, or not mentally stable."

The new language will now state the prohibitions on federal funding "shall not apply to an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest" - the same language as the current law.

House Republicans drop controversial ‘forcible rape’ language – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
 
I wish that person involved with this issue would alter the word 'say' to 'communicate'.

A woman disinterested in a sexual encounter usually communicates that fact unambiguously. However, in romantic situations, women often vocalize 'no' and communicate something entirely different.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
A woman disinterested in a sexual encounter usually communicates that fact unambiguously. However, in romantic situations, women often vocalize 'no' and communicate something entirely different.
So you are one of those who believe that "No" doesn't mean "No"? You might wanna be careful with that.......
 
So you are one of those who believe that "No" doesn't mean "No"? You might wanna be careful with that.......

I am 64, married, and quite beyond the need for care.

But I have lived in the world. Men and women understand each other perfectly in these situations. But there is no area of human relationships in which the literal meaning of words mean less. There's an old music hall song that expresses the sentiment perfectly:

"Your lips, dear, may say 'No, no!' - but there's 'Yes, yes!' in your eyes!"
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
I am 64, married, and quite beyond the need for care.

But I have lived in the world. Men and women understand each other perfectly in these situations. But there is no area of human relationships in which the literal meaning of words mean less. There's an old music hall song that expresses the sentiment perfectly:

"Your lips, dear, may say 'No, no!' - but there's 'Yes, yes!' in your eyes!"
Tell that to the millions of women who have said "no, no" and meant it, only to be ignored. Rape is never a joke.
 
Top