House Passes Anti-Abortion Bill That Redefines Rape, Raises Taxes, Creates Rape Audit

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You're trying too hard to have a point. Therefore, how about I spell it out for you here - the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision protects a woman's right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution AND it extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion.
End of story. - Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please don't tell me you were actually looking for the word "abortion" in the Constitution? :rolleyes:



Considering such a logically facetious scenario could even be possible in the United States, if all doctors refused to grant abortions when a woman requested one that would also be unconstitutional to women based on current law as it stands. No sense of you trying to use the constitution to protect your own beliefs while creating an argument that would also be unconstitutional in itself. I'd advise you to not use words you don't understand, such as reading comprehension and basic legal doctrine, since clearly you've grasp the yin without once considering the yang.

No, a doctor cannot be forced to give a woman an abortion. End of story, I've read every opinion written about Roe v. Wade and it is a simple answer, women have the right to choose. As do doctors have the right to choose.

No one has the right to an abortion, and even as this law is written or any law, a doctor can refuse to provide their services, it is their right.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
It's not about the actual refusal of government assistance to pay for abortions, it's about where our lawmakers are collectively. When they engage in discussion about redefining rape it hurts all of us. It creates loopholes for that afford rapists more protection and victims less. It's already hard enough to prove rape, do we really need to make it even more difficult? Also, we have too many other issues that need attention, this should be low on the priority list. We need to take care of the Gulf, get our troops home, protect our kids from bullies and pedophiles that walk free after pathetically short sentences....there is just so much more going on that needs attention, I just don't believe that this should be on the agenda at all. Don't want to pay for abortions? Fine, but don't further disenfranchise women without resources, which is what this type of legislation does.

You obviously don't understand our legal system.

This is a Federal law, which in the text of the law does not define rape, let alone redefine rape. 'Forced Rape' was mentioned in one legislators notes.

Now, since this is a Federal law, when was the last time you heard of a rape trial at the Federal level? One may have happened, but I've never heard of it. They are all handled at the state level, which means they will apply state laws.

Rape is clearly defined by all states AND the Federal government. It is ridiculous for ANYONE to think a judge would look at the foot notes of some random representative (Who probably isn't even from their state) to render a decision when there are already clear laws and thousands upon thousands of precedence set by previous cases.

All this law is stops Federal funds from going to abortions. Which I agree with. States can still decide to fund abortions, but I'm sure most have put a stop to it or will put a stop to it.

The Federal government already funds things like Planned Parenthood where a woman can go get free birth control and condoms, and I think that is even ridiculous. The government shouldn't pay for those kind of things. You want reproductive rights? You pay for them.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
No, a doctor cannot be forced to give a woman an abortion. End of story, I've read every opinion written about Roe v. Wade and it is a simple answer, women have the right to choose. As do doctors have the right to choose. No one has the right to an abortion, and even as this law is written or any law, a doctor can refuse to provide their services, it is their right.

Sure, a doctor can't be "forced" to give a woman an abortion. However, the problem with your continued facetious argument is that our nation would never be in a situation where every single doctor would refuse to conduct one if a woman wanted it. As long as it's a legal procedure and a right granted to women via Roe v. Wade, there will be doctors who will adhere to that ruling and provide the service as necessary. That's why extremists have tried to make it harder or close to impossible to get one by other means instead of trying to reverse a court ruling, but that's a different discussion altogether.

May I offer a suggestion? Try putting the full puzzle together instead of looking at a bunch of pieces and thinking you have the complete answer. Seriously, it's not that difficult. :rolleyes:
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Sure, a doctor can't be "forced" to give a woman an abortion. However, the problem with your continued facetious argument is that our nation would never be in a situation where every single doctor would refuse to conduct one if a woman wanted it. As long as it's a legal procedure and a right granted to women via Roe v. Wade, there will be doctors who will adhere to that ruling and provide the service as necessary. That's why extremists have tried to make it harder or close to impossible to get one by other means instead of trying to reverse a court ruling, but that's a different discussion altogether.

May I offer a suggestion? Try putting the full puzzle together instead of looking at a bunch of pieces and thinking you have the complete answer. Seriously, it's not that difficult. :rolleyes:

Which once again proves my point that you do not have the right to an abortion, you have the right to choose to have an abortion.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,759
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Which once again proves my point that you do not have the right to an abortion, you have the right to choose to have an abortion.
????? You're playing with semantics. Your point is meaningless. If you have the Right to choose" to have an abortion, you have the "right to an abortion".
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Which once again proves my point that you do not have the right to an abortion, you have the right to choose to have an abortion.

I hate to tell you this, but you didn't prove anything. The right to have an abortion is held within the woman's choice to do it or not, since we'll never be in a situation where every doctor in America would refuse to do it. Anyone with a shred of common sense (including those who study law) would know this, so you can stop trying to make a point when there is none to gain.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
????? You're playing with semantics. Your point is meaningless. If you have the Right to choose" to have an abortion, you have the "right to an abortion".

No, because as I said. If a doctor refuses to perform an abortion, a woman cannot force them to perform it. If women had the right to an abortion they could force a doctor to perform an abortion. They can't do that.

You can choose to have an abortion all you want, but if you can't pay for it and no one wants to do it you are shit out of luck.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I hate to tell you this, but you didn't prove anything. The right to have an abortion is held within the woman's choice to do it or not, since we'll never be in a situation where every doctor in America would refuse to do it. Anyone with a shred of common sense (including those who study law) would know this, so you can stop trying to make a point when there is none to gain.

Are you retarded?

Women have the right to choose to have an abortion, not to actually have an abortion. If they had a right to abortion the government would have to provide abortions to any woman who wanted one at any time.

They don't end of story.
 

D_Rosalind Mussell

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Posts
1,312
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Are you retarded?

Women have the right to choose to have an abortion, not to actually have an abortion. If they had a right to abortion the government would have to provide abortions to any woman who wanted one at any time.

They don't end of story.

I hate to tell you but women do have the right. Abortions have been performed since ancient history, if there's a will there's a way.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Are you retarded?

Do you want to start calling people names? Because you're new around here and have no idea who you're trying to play that game with. I assure you, it won't end well for you at all.

Women have the right to choose to have an abortion, not to actually have an abortion. If they had a right to abortion the government would have to provide abortions to any woman who wanted one at any time.

I couldn't be any clearer with my explanations. The government ensures a woman's right to an abortion through the ruling of Roe v. Wade. If you're an adult and don't know this ruling, then you shouldn't even be in a discussion about abortion (never mind the funding of one). And since we currently live in a time where access to an abortion is still readily available, the federal government doesn't have to lift much of a finger to enforce it. If a woman finds a doctor that refuses to give one for whatever reason, she can go find one that does. In most instances, she wouldn't even waste time going door to door since anyone can do a Google search and find a doctor that would conduct the medical procedure. With nearly 700 abortion clinics currently operating in America right now, it's pretty foolish for anyone to pigeonhole a clearly decided issue based on whether or not we use the words "to choose" in our interpretation.

This is understood by those who wish to put aside their political and/or societal bigotries for a change and look at all of the facts. Therefore, it is safe to assume that you either have a major problem with basic comprehension or are acting deliberately ignorant to the issue at hand just so you can appear to have contributed something of value to this thread. And I tend to believe that people who use a nickname that translates to "hyper patriot" aren't that naive. So stop playing dumb and pay attention.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
How in the hell is this not getting through your thick skulls?


Saying a woman has the right to an abortion means doctors are FORCED TO PERFORM ABORTIONS.

Doctors are NOT FORCED TO PERFORM ABORTIONS. They legally cannot be forced to perform a procedure.

So it doesn't matter that there will always be a doctor to perform them. The point is that there is nothing forcing them to perform abortions. It is legally and constitutionally acceptable for ALL doctors to discontinue performing abortions.

And Yes, I have read Roe V. Wade, I have read more Supreme court cases than you know even exist.

This is simple legal stuff and the decision is very clear in the opinion of the court. Women have the RIGHT TO CHOOSE to have an abortion or to not have an abortion. The Supreme Court did not rule they had the right to an abortion, they have the right to choose. Simple as that, no arguing, no semantics, end of fucking story.

If a woman wants an abortion and no doctor will perform it, she cannot force a doctor to perform.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
All of your ranting and raving doesn't change the facts. A woman still has a right to an abortion, despite how you choose to word it. Now do you have anything of real value to contribute to this thread or are you going to click on a "thesaurus" button on your meaningless posts and regurgitate the same non-sequential garbage once again? Your desperate need to have a point recognized is irrelevant here.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
All of your ranting and raving doesn't change the facts. A woman still has a right to an abortion, despite how you choose to word it. Now do you have anything of real value to contribute to this thread or are you going to click on a "thesaurus" button on your meaningless posts and regurgitate the same non-sequential garbage once again? Your desperate need to have a point recognized is irrelevant here.

HOW I CHOOSE TO WORD IT? THAT IS HOW THE SUPREME COURT WORDS IT.

It is worded that way for a reason, because that is what it means. A woman has the right to choose an abortion, not the right to have an abortion.

You obviously have no experience whatsoever in legal terminology or wording. Lawyers, judges, politicians have to choose their words very carefully to convey a certain and specific meaning. So when there is disagreement they took at the carefully worded document and do as it is written.

As is the case of Roe v Wade, where the USSC wrote that women have the right to choose to have an abortion, not the right to have an abortion.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Saying a woman has the right to an abortion means doctors are FORCED TO PERFORM ABORTIONS.

You keep saying this, in an obvious effort to obfuscate the issues. But it's complete balderdash.

The right to bear arms doesn't mean Walmart is FORCED TO PROVIDE YOU A GUN. Does it?

The right to travel freely doesn't mean United Airlines is FORCED TO PUT YOU ON AN AIRPLANE. Does it?

Industrialsize was right to call you out for playing at semantic shenanigans.

The right of a woman to have an abortion is just that. She can legally undergo the procedure. There is no mandate that medical providers must oblige every request for an abortion procedure. They are free to decline. This is obvious, and only a person desperately clinging to a losing argument would suggest otherwise.

I have the legal right to purchase a firearm. But Walmart may refuse to sell me one. I can then go to Dick's Sporting Goods and attempt to get a gun there....................................................

You see where this is going?

You created a false mandate where there is none.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
As is the case of Roe v Wade, where the USSC wrote that women have the right to choose to have an abortion, not the right to have an abortion.

lol

If you don't have the right to have an abortion, but you do have the right to choose to have an abortion, then what do you actually have? Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Zippo.

All that landmark case law, all that political fighting, all the hand-wringing, the legislating, the sermonizing, the demonizing, the picketing, the bombing of clinics.......It was all done for...........nothing?

You're ridiculous.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You keep saying this, in an obvious effort to obfuscate the issues. But it's complete balderdash.

The right to bear arms doesn't mean Walmart is FORCED TO PROVIDE YOU A GUN. Does it?

The right to travel freely doesn't mean United Airlines is FORCED TO PUT YOU ON AN AIRPLANE. Does it?

Industrialsize was right to call you out for playing at semantic shenanigans.

The right of a woman to have an abortion is just that. She can legally undergo the procedure. There is no mandate that medical providers must oblige every request for an abortion procedure. They are free to decline. This is obvious, and only a person desperately clinging to a losing argument would suggest otherwise.

I have the legal right to purchase a firearm. But Walmart may refuse to sell me one. I can then go to Dick's Sporting Goods and attempt to get a gun there....................................................

You see where this is going?

You created a false mandate where there is none.

And you too fail.

You have the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to buy them. Just like you have the right to choose to have an abortion, not the right to be given an abortion.


And as stated before, it isn't semantics, it is very basic legal language.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
lol

If you don't have the right to have an abortion, but you do have the right to choose to have an abortion, then what do you actually have? Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Zippo.

All that landmark case law, all that political fighting, all the hand-wringing, the legislating, the sermonizing, the demonizing, the picketing, the bombing of clinics.......It was all done for...........nothing?

You're ridiculous.

No, it was not for nothing. If a doctor is willing to perform an abortion a woman can get an abortion. Roe V. Wade determined that the government cannot stop a woman from having an abortion if a licensed medical doctor is willing to perform the procedure. It is pretty simple.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
No, it was not for nothing. If a doctor is willing to perform an abortion a woman can get an abortion. Roe V. Wade determined that the government cannot stop a woman from having an abortion if a licensed medical doctor is willing to perform the procedure. It is pretty simple.

Yes. As you've just aptly described, she has the right to that abortion the doctor is willing to perform.

No one's buying what you're shovelling.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yes. As you've just aptly described, she has the right to that abortion the doctor is willing to perform.

No one's buying what you're shovelling.

No, she has the privilege of having that doctor perform an abortion, but what if no doctor is willing to perform it? According to you she has the right to an abortion, therefor someone would have to force a doctor to perform an abortion.

So as I've state before. There is a huge legal difference between the right to an abortion and the right to choose to have an abortion.

Women have the right to choose to have an abortion.