Republican War on Women Continues: They support the rapist.
« prev   random   next »

1
0

Republican War on Women Continues: They support the rapist.

By Dan8267 following x   2017 Apr 17, 12:57am 1,294 views   16 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


Been raped? Now your rapist can sue to make you deliver the baby thanks to family value Republicans.

New Arkansas law lets husbands sue to stop abortion — even in rape cases

#politics #familyValues

1   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 Apr 17, 4:01am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

At least mras will stop complaining about unfairly paying child support when the woman gets the choice. You got your wish.

2   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2017 Apr 17, 5:56am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Men should have more reproductive rights. The exact steps aren't clear. At least these people are discussing the problem.

Crying about rape is a feminist histrionic tactic.

3   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 17, 7:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

YesYNot says

At least mras will stop complaining about unfairly paying child support when the woman gets the choice

Not relevant to the story.

CBOEtrader says

Men should have more reproductive rights. The exact steps aren't clear.

Men should have more reproductive rights, but not the right to force a woman to go through pregnacy. This is clearly not the right step, and it's clearly not intended to give men reproductive rights. The obvious sole intent to is sneakily make abortion illegal when the state cannot do so because of Roe V. Wade. Two wrongs don't make a right.

CBOEtrader says

At least these people are discussing the problem.

No, they are not. They are underhandedly violating basic human rights. This is no different than requiring abortion clinics to have wide coordinates simply to shut them down without cause. As such, it is a war on women. If the conservative right gets to call saying "happy holidays" a war on Christmas, everyone else gets to say forcing women to go through pregnancies using underhanded tactics is a war on women

4   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2017 Apr 17, 8:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

It is my personal opinion that allowing the woman to have full fiduciary duties over the unborn is by far the most functional solution.

Unfortunately, this is not a great solution. There is no great solution to a situation wherein one parent wants an abortion, and the other parent wants to save the unborn.

A father suing to save his baby from a mother who wants an abortion is not an underhanded tactic. It does seem unfeasible as a solution within a timeframe that makes sense.

There is no perfect solution.

5   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 17, 8:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

CBOEtrader says

There is no great solution to a situation wherein one parent wants an abortion, and the other parent wants to save the unborn.

True, but that still doesn't excuse this act for the following reasons.
1. It's not about protecting the father's parental interests. It is solely motivated by finding anyway possible to stop abortions no matter what. The side that believes fetuses have souls believes that the ends justify the means. Any tactic that stops an abortion is a good tactic no matter the cost.
2. It is immoral an unethical to force the woman to go through the pregnancy. The asymmetry between men and women simply cannot be ignored.
3. There isn't even an exception for cases of rape. That's a no brainer.

CBOEtrader says

A father suing to save his baby from a mother who wants an abortion is not an underhanded tactic.

I did not say that. I said pro-lifers using paternal interests as a way to make abortion illegal is an underhanded tactic, and it is. It's no different than requiring trans-vaginal ultrasounds or wide corridors. There is a long history of thinly veiled attempts to violate federal laws protecting the right to an abortion in the first trimester. This is an obvious such attempt and denying that would simply be dishonest.

6   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 Apr 17, 8:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says

It is my personal opinion that allowing the woman to have full fiduciary duties over the unborn is by far the most functional solution.

Unfortunately, this is not a great solution.

If you look at the average single mother wages in the US, you will find that just putting the financial responsibility on her is a non-starter. That means that one of three things will happen: (1) She has the baby, and much or all of the financial responsibility is transferred from the father to the rest of society. (2) She has the baby, and some form of starvation, poverty, and neglect happen, because there is no way the average single woman can pay for child care, housing, and food for a kid. (3) She decides that she cannot live with option 2, and has an abortion. (4) Adoptable babies go through the roof.

IMO, all of these options just involve having other people subsidize the biological father's risk in one way or another.

7   FortWayne   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 17, 8:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Dan you live in a sue happy country, what else is new?

8   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 17, 9:02am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

FortWayne says

Dan you live in a sue happy country, what else is new?

More bullshit.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/24/america-litigious-society-myth

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/contrary-popular-myth-americans-not-very-litigious

http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2011/09/articles/series/special-comment/the-sue-happy-lie-dont-believe-every-legal-infographic-you-see/

The lie Fort Wayne just told is very dangerous. Suing for criminal acts committed against you is the only way to get any justice for most Americans. You do not get to decide if the prosecutors will press charges, and the prosecutors NEVER press criminal charges against corporations or their employees or executives no matter how serious the crime with the rare exception of a scapegoat to appease very strong pubic opinion.

This man was assaulted by rent-a-thugs. If any person on the street did this to another person, it would be felony assault. If anyone did this to a cop, it would be a minimum of ten years in prison if the person was even allowed to live. So don't give us any bullshit that his lawsuit is frivolous. Fort Wayne, if this happened to your daughter, you'd be going after the men who did this with a shotgun.

9   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 17, 9:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

So you're claiming that a husband should have no say in the reproductive rights of his wife? If she claims he "raped her" which is dangerous territory for many reasons, then she can just kill his son or daughter to spite him?
Interesting.

10   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 17, 9:08am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

"I wish I was aborted instead of adopted."
- said no person ever

11   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 17, 9:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Quigley says

"I wish I was aborted instead of adopted."

- said no person ever

No one has also ever said "I wish my parents had used a condom". So, then I guess you are saying that no one should ever use a condom.

12   HEY YOU   ignore (7)   2017 Apr 17, 9:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Will rapist of Republican women not feel so bad,now?
Maybe Republicans motto should be "FUCK the BITCHES".
They need more bodies to fight their wars.
Some of them were busy getting 5 Deferments/5 Draft Dodgings.

13   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 17, 9:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Quigley says

So you're claiming that a husband should have no say in the reproductive rights of his wife? If she claims he "raped her" which is dangerous territory for many reasons, then she can just kill his son or daughter to spite him?

No, that's a straw man argument and obviously dishonest.

I'm saying that
1. The law is unjust to begin with as it violates the woman's basic human rights.
2. The intent of the law is to prevent abortions, not protect the father's rights.
3. No raped woman should be forced to carry her rapist's baby to term even if the rapist is her husband. Police investigate rape claims all the time to determine if they are real.
4. It is ridiculous to think that women are killing their children to spite their husbands when those women evidently haven't withheld sex from their husbands. How delusional are you?
5. The offspring is not a person in the first three months. I don't give a damn how strongly you believe it is or how strongly you believe in a soul, the offspring does not become a person the instant the egg is fertilized. It is a mind that makes a person.
6. Pollution causes more abortions via miscarriage than women choosing to have abortions. If you really gave a damn about the unborn, you'd be fighting tooth and nail against pollution and polluters.
7. Newborn chimps, gorillas, dolphins, and whales are far more sentient than a three-month fetus. If you really cared about saving the lives of persons, you'd oppose the slaughter of these creatures.
8. Drone strikes have killed untold numbers of pregnant women as well as infants, toddlers, and young children. Where is your outrage over drone strikes?

The bottom line is that Roe V. Wade isn't going away. Even if you could get it overturned by an unjust court, there would be armed rebellion to protect that right. If you think the conservative left is violent and crazy over Trump's presidency, just wait until how you see them react to losing the right to have an abortion.

14   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 17, 9:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

1) the line where the rights of the woman end and the rights of her husband or infant begin is the issue here.
2)intent doesn't EVER matter and is the original "straw man" argument. Only effects matter.
3)I agree that a raped woman has options to terminate, but only for the first three months.
After that, it's too late and there's another person involved in the decision.
4)I believe as a married man I am more qualified to judge marital issues than and unmarried man such as you.
5)I actually agree with the Muslim definition of a soul (ifrit) which is said to enter a fetus at 15 weeks. That's a pretty good idea there and I'll go with it.
6) pollution is a red herring in this discussion. But I'll go ahead and agree that it's bad, ummkay?
7)of course I disagree with the slaughter of those baby animals! Who wouldn't?
8)accompanied to free will is the freedom to act horribly toward other human beings. This is sad. But codifying horrible actions into the law is evil!

15   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 17, 9:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

- the line where the rights of the woman end and the rights of her husband or infant begin is the issue here.

The law is obviously not intended to address that. It's an attempt to stop abortions any way possible. The trans-vaginal ultrasound requirement wasn't about health. The corridor width requirement wasn't about safety. This are thinly veiled attempts to undermine the law. You get to petition the government to change the law. You do not get to decide which laws you obey, you special snowflakes.

- intent doesn't EVER matter and is the original "straw man" argument. Only effects matter.

Bullshit. The entire difference between first and second degree murder is intent. The law considers intent to be crucial, and rightfully so.

- I agree that a raped woman has options to terminate, but only for the first three months.

This law is specifically written to prevent that.

- I believe as a married man I am more qualified to judge marital issues than and unmarried man such as you.

I believe my status makes me far more impartial and objective than you. So there.

I guess only those who rape should be on juries in rape cases since first hand experience is so crucial. (That was sarcasm.)

- I actually agree with the Muslim definition of a soul (ifrit) which is said to enter a fetus at 15 weeks. That's a pretty good idea there and I'll go with it.

Another arbitrary and ridiculous religious belief. However, those passing the law think that the soul is embodied at the moment of conception. Pro-lifers have said this many, many times.

- pollution is a red herring in this discussion. But I'll go ahead and agree that it's bad, ummkay?

Hardly. If your objection is to murdering "unborn babies", then pollution should offend you far more. Clearly from your response, it does not.

- of course I disagree with the slaughter of those baby animals! Who wouldn't?

The very people who wrote, sponsored, or voted for this bill.

- But codifying horrible actions into the law is evil!

The use of drone strikes on civilians with impunity has been codified into law. It's called the USA Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act. Both are utterly evil.

16   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 17, 11:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. The entire difference between first and second degree murder is intent. The law considers intent to be crucial, and rightfully so.

Only in criminal proceedings where the object of the process is punishment and/or rehabilitation of the criminal. It certainly doesn't matter to the murder victim whether they were killed in 1st or second degree. The effect is the same: they are dead. Treating the actions of others with regard to intent is a losing battle, mostly because intent is just so easy to conceal. Only an objective analysis of the effects on your life of someone else's actions can reveal whether they are friend or foe.





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions