DF,
No. We are called to treat others properly regardless of return or how we were treated first. Turn the cheek, don't run from the argument.

We are called to stand in the gap. Not make the gap wider.

bbauska wrote:DF,
No. We are called to treat others properly regardless of return or how we were treated first. Turn the cheek, don't run from the argument.

We are called to stand in the gap. Not make the gap wider.

When people are making dishonest or incoherent arguments, I'm going to sat they are being dishonest or incoherent.

There is plenty of room for policy disagreement. There is no room for making a baseless allegation that someone is "medieval" or deliberately misrepresenting the matter of whether a baby is killed doting a partial-birth abortion. No matter what one calls a baby, his/her life is being terminated. If that was not the case, there would be no reason to do anything other than a standard D and C.

I agree with you concerning the utter misrepresentation that RickyP has put forth, both in this forum and pretty much all others he posted in.

Calling someone a "Bozo" (Page 4) is beneath you.

bbauska wrote:I agree with you concerning the utter misrepresentation that RickyP has put forth, both in this forum and pretty much all others he posted in.

Calling someone a "Bozo" (Page 4) is beneath you.

Hmm, I thought it was kind--all things considered.

Okay, okay, I retract.

Is that better?

Doctor Fate wrote:So, clearly there is a DIFFERENCE (bold added so you can see it). If you use violence to commit your rape, you receive more punishment.

Yes, there will always be a difference in criminal law as to how a crime is punished based on the use (or lack) of violence. These are called 'aggravating factors' in law over here.

However, they don't affect in any way the seriousness of the base crime itself. And - crucially to this debate - it has not effect whatseover on the status of the victim.

Because, frankly, any woman who wants a free abortion can say it was the result of rape. The question is whether the Federal government should be obligated to pay for every abortion. This is a State issue. Period.

Odd certainty there. An abortion is a medical procedure. It's already established that the Federal government can fund healthcare.

And I'd like evidence for the numbers of women claiming to have been raped to get a free abortion, and how many of them may not have been. Just so we can get an idea of quite what the real problem is here - is it that 'any' woman can do it, or not?

Hypotheticals are immaterial. The question is whether the Federal government is obligated to pay for abortion. That it is legal doesn't mean taxpayers have to pay for it, does it?

Indeed they are. Hence my question above - rather than saying 'any' woman can get a free abortion, let's see how many are.

And there is more to the question, than the obligation. If the Federal government is allowed to, it doesn't have to be 'obligated' to pay for it.

Of course, if it is a 'State' issue only, and states do decide to fund abortions in cases of rape (or otherwise), then taxpayers will still be paying for it.

As a taxpayer over here, I'd say I have no problem whatseoever funding abortion in cases of rape. I'd rather that than have victims who are desperate to avoid having their abuser's baby also have to pay for the 'privilege'.

Thank you.

There has been some e-mails going back and forth about Redscape getting back to it's heyday. This issue concerning bitter divides and anger seem to come in pretty high as causes of Redscape' decline. That, and lack of games.

This is to all:
Knock it off! You have an obligation to treat each other respectfully. Please don't use the excuse "he did it first". (my 4 year old uses that). Deal with the issues and crassness of politics. Just because American politics have become so danged bitter and divisive does not mean that we attack each other personally.
This goes to me also. Many a time I re-read a post I have written and changed my words to avoid being personal in my way of responding.

Am I out of line? Please let me know. I welcome all opinions.

bbauska wrote:Am I out of line? Please let me know. I welcome all opinions.

No, you are not out of line.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Am I out of line? Please let me know. I welcome all opinions.

No, you are not out of line.

I agree ... just right.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:So, clearly there is a DIFFERENCE (bold added so you can see it). If you use violence to commit your rape, you receive more punishment.

Yes, there will always be a difference in criminal law as to how a crime is punished based on the use (or lack) of violence. These are called 'aggravating factors' in law over here.

However, they don't affect in any way the seriousness of the base crime itself. And - crucially to this debate - it has not effect whatseover on the status of the victim.

I disagree.

Let me give an example: kidnapping. Did you know that stealing a car when someone is in the car and driving even 2 feet is "kidnapping?"

So, let's say you are sitting in the passenger seat and I get into the car and steal it. You object, so after I've driven a block, I pull over and say "Get out."

Now, is that the same as if I walk up to you on the street, put a gun in your back, hold you in a darkened basement for a month while I threaten to cut your head off?

Both are victims of kidnapping, but do they merit exactly the same treatment? I don't think so.

Rape is more complex, but let's not forget what we're talking about: abortion and whether the Federal government is obligated to pay for it.

Because, frankly, any woman who wants a free abortion can say it was the result of rape. The question is whether the Federal government should be obligated to pay for every abortion. This is a State issue. Period.

Odd certainty there. An abortion is a medical procedure. It's already established that the Federal government can fund healthcare.

And I'd like evidence for the numbers of women claiming to have been raped to get a free abortion, and how many of them may not have been. Just so we can get an idea of quite what the real problem is here - is it that 'any' woman can do it, or not?

Right. I'm familiar with your line of argumentation: until a problem is proved, it should not be prevented.

We disagree.

Hypotheticals are immaterial. The question is whether the Federal government is obligated to pay for abortion. That it is legal doesn't mean taxpayers have to pay for it, does it?

Indeed they are. Hence my question above - rather than saying 'any' woman can get a free abortion, let's see how many are.

And there is more to the question, than the obligation. If the Federal government is allowed to, it doesn't have to be 'obligated' to pay for it.

Of course, if it is a 'State' issue only, and states do decide to fund abortions in cases of rape (or otherwise), then taxpayers will still be paying for it.

Right, but Constitutionally, it's a State issue--it's reserved to the States. Roe v. Wade is about access, not the Federal government picking up the tab.

As a taxpayer over here, I'd say I have no problem whatseoever funding abortion in cases of rape. I'd rather that than have victims who are desperate to avoid having their abuser's baby also have to pay for the 'privilege'.

That's your right.

bbauska wrote:You have an obligation to treat each other respectfully.

I would agree with this, if, and only if, each person who posted here actually took their responsibility to be honest and coherent seriously. It's a bit tiresome to deal with those who refuse to, or seemingly cannot, do either.

Please don't use the excuse "he did it first". (my 4 year old uses that).

Fine. I guess we should either go straight to pistols or I'll just note "incoherent" or "untrue." That will probably save a lot of time and triple my post rate.

Many a time I re-read a post I have written and changed my words to avoid being personal in my way of responding.

I want to feel sorry for rickyp. I really do. However, he simply refuses to do anything differently. I don't think he's dumb (to preempt speculation based on the next paragraph), but there seems to be a disconnect between what he is thinking and what he writes.

As for danivon, he is smart enough to know precisely what he is doing. He often intentionally provokes argument for the sheer entertainment of it. I think if you asked him offline he would admit that.

Am I out of line? Please let me know. I welcome all opinions.

Nope. You're right, Dad.

Please forgive me.

I forgive you, Brother.

b

I have a problem with RickyP refuting the term partial birth abortion

Really? I said it was a made up term. Here's why.

The term was first coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995 to describe a recently introduced medical procedure to remove fetuses from the womb.
In an interview with The New Republic magazine in 1996, the NRLC's Douglas Johnson explained that the term was thought up in hopes that "as the public learns what a 'partial-birth abortion' is, they might also learn something about other abortion methods, and that this would foster a growing opposition to abortion."

The opposition to abortion is generally an emotional appeal.The NRLC Coining this term was no different.
The idea that the state has the right to impose its will upon women and force them to bear unwanted pregnancies to term, could also be presented in emotional terms. But seldom seems to be ...
Anybody who is certains that they know when life begins, and are unwilling to accept that there is doubt, would I suppose be willing to take the decision over a pregnanacy out of the hands of the mother..
But, in the world I know, There is a spectrum of doubt about when life begins. Some people absolutely believe that life begins at conception. At the other extreme are those who don't believe life begins until a baby draws its first breath after delivery.
What we do know is that the later in the development of the fetus the less tolerance there is of
abortion. The actual use of the procedure

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year.

And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal "viability." Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.

http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/p ... -from-spin

Doctor Fate wrote:Both are victims of kidnapping, but do they merit exactly the same treatment? I don't think so.

Rape is more complex, but let's not forget what we're talking about: abortion and whether the Federal government is obligated to pay for it.

And I'd like evidence for the numbers of women claiming to have been raped to get a free abortion, and how many of them may not have been. Just so we can get an idea of quite what the real problem is here - is it that 'any' woman can do it, or not?

Right. I'm familiar with your line of argumentation: until a problem is proved, it should not be prevented.

Well, it would go some way to demonstrating the need for a solution. If the problem does not exist, it does raise the question of the need for a solution or for prevention.

Searching for stats on google, it seems that about 1% of abortions in the USA are for rape or incest. I can't see figures on how many turn out not be be rape, but it doesn't look like a flood of women are claiming rape just to get a free no-questions abortion from the Federal government.

Maybe there is more likely to be an issue if it becomes much harder to obtain an abortion for other reasons. Perhaps it would be interesting to compare betwen states with differing levels of availability of abortions?

We disagree.

Indeed. But let's discuss based on evidence rather than simply having differing opinions, yes?

I already know what your opinion is. Repeating it more is not going to make much progress. So, can we move on in some way. If it offends you to be asked for numbers as I did, what can we do instead?

Right, but Constitutionally, it's a State issue--it's reserved to the States. Roe v. Wade is about access, not the Federal government picking up the tab.

On what basis? Medicare is already precendent for Federally funded medical care. An abortion is a medical procedure. How can you argue that there is clearly no way it can be for above State level to fund it?

Actually in your hypo df the person would be charged w false imprisonment (a wobbler--can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor) in California.