Quote:

---

We all despise right-wing wackos. You won't find the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers using any of those despicable tactics.

---

Yeah! That's what all you lifers say when you want to distance yourselves from the violence
Spawned by he Pro-Life Movement. But when the report of the doctor that was shot and killed I could hear them cheering outside the clinic.
So don 't attempt to tap-dance away from responsibility. Hey! It's your movement, you got to accept the bad with the good.
By the way, When that doctor was killed it was my doctor who flew up there every week and did procedures until the doctor was replaced. I know because I went along for security, Regards, Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedball1

Yeah! That's what all you lifers say when you want to distance yourselves from the violence
spawned by he Pro-Life Movement. But when the report of the doctor that was shot and killed I could hear them cheering outside the clinic.
So don 't attempt to tap-dance away from responsibility. Hey! It's your movement, ya gotta accept the bad with the good.
By the way, When that doctor was killed it was my doctor who flew up there every week and did procedures until the doctor was replaced. I know because I went along for security, Regards, Tom

---

Seems there are all kinds when you reach the end of the spectrum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread434396/pg1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedball1

Yeah! That's what all you lifers say when you want to distance yourselves from the violence
spawned by he Pro-Life Movement. But when the report of the doctor that was shot and killed I could hear them cheering outside the clinic.
So don 't attempt to tap-dance away from responsibility. Hey! It's your movement, ya gotta accept the bad with the good.
By the way, When that doctor was killed it was my doctor who flew up there every week and did procedures until the doctor was replaced. I know because I went along for security, Regards, Tom

---

As opposed to the majority of mainstream Democrats who aligned themselves with the filth and violence of the occupiers? Gimme a break.

I don't have to tap dance, I condemn such bullsh*t in the strongest of terms. Feel free to find someone else to spread that drivel to, it won't fly with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

The way the laws are written and where they vary is in the timing of an abortion. As in the using the saying "late term abortion" which is outlawed in many states that do allow abortion during the first trimester.

There is a huge difference as to what is going on biologicaly at those 2 points of gestation.

---

Yes, there is a big difference with what is going on biologically through out my whole life. However, I am not inside someone's uterus eating what she eats.. breathing what she breathes, etc. I think pregnancy is a beautiful thing and I wouldn't wish the decision on anyone. However, you better believe my uterus and anything in it doesn't belong to law makers, you, or joe bob. Its mine and what happens to it is up to me to decide. The consequences of that decision one way or another is also mine. If I am religious its between me and god. Pro-lifers want to save life... but they aren't stepping up to help pay for your kid or offering to endure your labor pains for you. I guess the next thing is a law that would charge me with child endangerment if I drive too fast while pregnant. Perhaps, it's child abuse if I am one of those mothers who smoke? I can see the court cases now.

Quote:

---

As opposed to the majority of mainstream Democrats who aligned themselves with the filth and violence of the occupiers?

---

And that ties in with a woman's right to choose how? Gee! I must have missed that on the evening news. Those nasty Democrats who aligned themselves with the filth and violence. (Your words. Don't suppose you'd care to back up your words with a few facts.

Quote:

---

Feel free to find someone else to spread that drivel to

---

It's not drivel. I lived it! I walked the walk while all people like you simply talked the talk. Every lifer I've talked to had the same line of crap. I hate violence! I denounce the killings and bombings! Yet when they occur I've heard you people say. " Well, there's one doctor that will never perform abortions any more" and smile when they said it.
No Tinkerbell, If you call yourself a Pro-Lifer you MUST accept the violence and take the responsibility that go with it. And don't attempt to cloud up the issue by bringing politics into it. We're talking Women's Rights not the upcoming RNC in Tampa.

Hello again, wingers:

So, if you'd FORCE a rape victim to carry her baby to term, would you consider PAYING for her pregnancy? My guess is no. Would it make a difference if she's a crack addict on the street?

So, if the Constitution says the government cannot force you to quarter soldiers in your home, how can it force you to quarter an unwanted baby in your womb?

What is "forcible" rape as opposed to say, your regular kind of rape?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

What is "forcible" rape as opposed to say, your regular kind of rape?

excon

---

Here is how I would define it.

Forcible type would be an act where both parties are aware of the act as it is happening and one party objects. It encompasses a huge array of actions and not just the act of sex itself.

The other type would be where one party is unaware of the act as it occurs. Either because of consent issues as in being under age or reduced mental capacity to being passed out from drugs or drinking.

There is no difference in the seriousness of either crime they are at the same level its just a line for the purpose of definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

There is no difference in the seriousness of either crime they are at the same level its just a line for the purpose of definition.

---

Hello dad:

Really?? I don't think you even believe that yourself... But, if there's no material/legal difference, why would a LAWMAKER be making the distinction??

In my view, it's because the right wing wants to FORCE women who can't PROVE they were FORCIBLY raped, to carry their baby to term.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedball1

And that ties in with a woman's right to choose how? Gee! I must have missed that on the evening news. Those nasty Democrats who aligned themselves with the filth and violence. (Your words. Don't suppose you'd care to back up your words with a few facts.

---

Nope, doesn't tie with a mythical war on women at all. It ties perfectly into the fact that conservatives as a whole condemn violence and intimidation while liberals align with it. As for facts, we've discussed ad nauseum here so feel to find all you want. You might start with the nice little summary someone put to this thread.

Quote:

---

It's not drivel. I lived it!

---

I did not deny you lived it, I said we don't condone it. Pretty simple really.

Quote:

---

I walked the walk while all people like you simply talked the talk.

---

And we live with the fact that our only grandchild was aborted. My daughter regrets it every day. I've given support to women traumatized by their 'choice' and give financially to our local, non-violent crisis pregnancy center that deals with the fallout from having an abortion and supports women through their pregnancy. Don't preach to me about walking the walk.

Quote:

---

Every lifer I've talked to had the same line of crap. I hate violence! I denounce the killings and bombings! Yet when they occur I've heard you people say. " Well, there's one doctor that will never perform abortions any more" and smile when they said it.

---

Have I said that? What prominent conservative politicians, evangelical leaders or women's advocates say that? Hmmm??

Quote:

---

No Tinkerbell, If you call yourself a Pro-Lifer you MUST accept the violence and take the responsibility that go with it.

---

Sorry Goober, that's a straw man and typical hypocrisy on your side of the aisle as already demonstrated. In your delusional world we MUST take responsibility for acts we consistently deplore and have NOTHING to do with but you get a pass for aligning yourselves with your own kooks? No way, dude. You can fling your crap all you want but it's not going to stick.

Quote:

---

And don't attempt to cloud up the issue by bringing politics into it. We're talking Women's Rights not the upcoming RNC in Tampa.

---

As if you can separate the two. Bwa ha ha ha!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello dad:

Really??? I don't think you even believe that yourself... But, if there's no material/legal difference, why would a LAWMAKER be making the distinction???

In my view, it's because the right wing wants to FORCE women who can't PROVE they were FORCIBLY raped, to carry their baby to term.

excon

---

I can't answer for what a lawmaker says. I only was trying to define where a line may be drawn as far as descriptive definition. As you well know the law is defined by its terms and usage of definitions.

Its like the broadened term of abortion. Many people that may be on the fence about it may not take offence to the morning after pill or first term abortions but also may be repelled by those involving infantacide.

It's a persons right to choose where the line is drawn and that is why it is such a hot button topic. It deserves debate in an open fashion.

In my world any rape is forcible The second she says "NO" and the man continues it becomes forcible. Now if you want to look at the fine points, but wait! There are no fine points to rape. Or would you like to go back to the old days where, " the woman was asking for it?" Let's take a look at "forcible Rape."
Forcible rape has been in the lexicon for some time since it has routinely been used by those opposed to abortion. In 2011, Mr. Akin and Paul Ryan were among 227 co-sponsors of H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act." As introduced, that act said abortions could be funded by the federal government if the pregnancy was the result of "forcible rape." [B](The word "forcible" was removed from the legislation before it passed the House and the legislation was not considered in the Senate.[/B}) The addition of "forcible" adds emphasis to the fact that force is part of the rape I That is why it comes up in discussions about abortions. Regards, Tom

Can rape ever be not forcible? Seems like the two terms are mutually exclusive. Rape IS force.

If she has allowed some physical intimacy and he decides to head to the goal but then she blocks him and says no, yet he struggles past her objections and continues on for a touchdown, is that rape (since she "set him up" and allowed him to travel x number of yards)?

Was it a trap play or back field in motion ?

Is a touchdown valid no matter how it was gained, what fouls were committed, and who on the other team got hurt along the way?

Sex after withdrawal of consent is rape. Happy?

I'll say it again, a woman's vagina is hers. What goes on in it, who goes in it, what have you. She can be the biggest tease ever. If she doesn't want to go all the way, then she doesn't. End of story. Same thing with any sexual act. Perhaps she let's you fondle her buttocks, doesn't necessarily mean she is asking for anal. Most teenage girls are teases at some point. Experimenting until they are ready for intercourse. They don't deserve rape. No means no at any point. If a lady likes to take guys to the edge and then leave them hanging, then she is just mean. She deserves to not be called for a second date, not forced sex. No one "has it coming."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Can rape ever be not forcible? Seems like the two terms are mutually exclusive. Rape IS force.

---

Rape can also occur by mutual consent when one of the parties is outside the legal limits of consent either by knowing or unknowing.

That is why there are laws in place to protect those that can't protect themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Sex after withdrawal of consent is rape. Happy?

---

Why the "happy"? Patronizing? So far in all the political discussions, it has not been mentioned about a woman going along with intimacy but then suddenly changing her mind and wanting out and saying no, but then her objections are not taken seriously ("she really wants it and is just being coy"), and she later claims she was raped.

Quote:

---

No Tinkerbell, If you call yourself a Pro-Lifer you MUST accept the violence and take the responsibility that go with it.

---

So enviromentalists need to own eco-terrorism .And the Anti-war movement needs to own the violence of the Weather underground?. and anyone anti-corporation needs to own the violence of the anarchists at the WTO gatherings... and I suppose that every abolitionist in the 19th century owned John Brown's decade of terrorism in Kansas. Yeah makes complete sense.

Yeah Tom that's it, go civil war, just take your gun and commit mayhem