You know what really grinds my gears? RAPE-UBLICANS

[Minimalist]

Apparently its not just the politicians who are fucked up about this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22...ostpopular

One student involved in the USC complaint, who asked to remain anonymous, said a DPS detective told her the campus police determined that no rape occurred in her case because her alleged assailant did not orgasm, and that therefore they had decided not to refer the case to the Los Angeles Police Department.

"Because he stopped, it was not rape," she was told, according to the complaint. "Even though his penis penetrated your vagina, because he stopped, it was not a crime."

A student judicial affairs official cited a similar reason to that student for dismissing the case, meaning that her alleged assailant would not face any court proceeding.

[Foxaèr]

He must have been a prominent football player who was valuable to the university. That is usually why such rape cases are dismissed.

[Minimalist]

Naturally. Everyone knows that football is far more important to colleges than education.

[Jackalope]

Naturally. Everyone knows that football is far more important to colleges than education.

... Or justice.

[Faith No More]

"Because he stopped, it was not rape," she was told, according to the complaint. "Even though his penis penetrated your vagina, because he stopped, it was not a crime."

Sounds like someone was using Republican logic.

[Mystical]

I'm a pro life liberal myself, Statler. But the laws are the laws. The point of this thread (if you read the first paragraph) is mainly to complain about religion dictating PUBLIC sevants' policy making (in the face of democratic laws already passed) and to also let me vent about the stigmatisms my society deals with on a day to day basis at the hands of ignoramus bigots who proliferate an environment of oppression.

Moral progress would be impossible if everyone shared your thought process…

1850s- “Well slavery is wrong, but the law is the law!”
1900s- “Women should be allowed to vote, but the law is the law!”
2013- “Abortion is murder, but the law is the law!”

What kind of mentality is that? This country has a rich tradition of changing our laws when they are morally reprehensible.

As for the OP, you do realize that the vast majority of those interviewed were first asked about rape by the interviewer right? So it appears that the media is the one that has an obsession with rape. These days you cannot profess to be pro-life without some irrational reporter immediately quipping, “But what about rape!?” It’s a ridiculous “gotcha question” that proves nothing in regards to the immorality of abortion. It’s illogical to justify Person C killing Person A for something that Person B did to Person C. If you were arguing for women’s rights to kill their rapists you might be on to something, but I am sure you do not favor killing someone who actually deserves it.

Hey if you think we should have a civil war about it, to override democracy then fine. Sometimes people within a society make a drastic jump of self awareness. Like Lincoln did. There aren't going to be any drastic jumps, Statler, on abortion. It's got so many factors to it that it needs worked out with the medical and ethics departments to come to the civilized realization that you and I both share: aborting a fetus is aborting a person, in essence--and the best way to handle this issue isn't to abort the fetus but to prevent the fetus from being conceived in every way possible. With all the misinformation and bickering and state Republicans shutting down planned parenthood clinics: shit's going to get worse to the point that they'll have to re-assess their stoic position on *other peoples' rights* and compromise in order to make the progress they so desperately want.
That's gonna take time. In the meantime babies are being made and dads are skipping out, moms are underage and the religious right aren't helping one BIT. Justifying rape as not being an exception for abortion isn't going to change the fact that abortions are being taken place and unsafely, unethically (partial births etc), and all the republicans are doing is yelling "HEY! YOU ALL JUST NEED TO FIND GODS PLAN AND STOP HAVIN SEX, OR JUST TOUGH IT OUT AND HAVE THAT RAPE BABY THAT OUR SOCIETY CAN"T AFFORD TO SUSTAIN!" (even though a high populace of unplanned pregnancies are Christians.)

Absolutely, have the baby! Societies existed just fine prior to abortion on demand. Your question is a red herring though, it’s not relevant to whether abortion is murder. Civilized societies choose what is morally right over what is most pragmatic.

"Civilized" societies do whAT?! Wreallyyyyyyyy. Mmmk. I disagree but moving on.

Societies weren't existing just fine prior to abortion on demand. Be honest with us and yourself, here.
Don't forget that I'm pro-life. Until alternatives to abortions are introduced, then the point of the laws are damage control. A Democratic process is the best way to decide, not just some backwater president Bush ramming a law through that goes against the very face of a century of abortion law.
Damage control is needed Both for the medical implications of black market abortions/the ERs having to deal with the repurcussions: and also damage control regarding our society and the rising numbers of unemployed welfare mothers. The government has to do something, and it can't afford to force women to have babies nor is that its' right. Roe Vs Wade was decided not by a texas court or a washington court, but by the SUPREME COURT. That's sorta important.

As things are now, there's a lack in education amongst physicians on how to handle abortions. This means if your wife started having complications of a pregnancy and she goes to the ER: chances are there aren't going to be doctors to help her, and depending on what state she lives in they might not help her at all. She'll just die. In front of your eyes. That's injustice, not only for you or your wife but for the doctors who swore an oath to do everything they can to give us the chance to live. Say your daughter gets pregnant and doesn't want to tell you so she goes to some person who a friend told her about in a shady little office, and dies as a result of malpractice. These are reasons why blanketing the issue one way or the other is not going to work.

A survey in 1998 revealed that first trimester abortion techniques are a routine part of training in only 46% of America's ob-gyn residency programs. About 34% offer this training only as an elective, and 7% provide no opportunity at all for young doctors to learn to provide safe abortions.1

A lot of people seems to be forgetting that allowing abortion is only to provide safe abortions. Because people who really want abortions (rape victims) will try their best to miscarriage/abort their pregnancies.

Again, where do you all come up with these logically absurd arguments?

Scientific journals, studies, history.

Making Abortion Illegal
In the mid-to-late 1800s states began passing laws that made abortion illegal. The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state. One of the reasons included fears that the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of "native" Anglo-Saxon women.

Medical Practice
During the 1800s, all surgical procedures, including abortion, were extremely risky. Hospitals were not common, antiseptics were unknown, and even the most respected doctors had only primitive medical educations. Without today's current technology, maternal and infant mortality rates during childbirth were extraordinarily high. The dangers from abortion were similar to the dangers from other surgeries that were not outlawed.

As scientific methods began to dominate medical practice, and technologies were developed to prevent infection, medical care on the whole became much safer and more effective. But by this time, the vast majority of women who needed abortions had no choice but to get them from illegal practitioners without these medical advances at their disposal. The "back alley" abortion remained a dangerous, often deadly procedure, while areas of legally sanctioned medicine improved dramatically.


The Medical Establishment
The strongest force behind the drive to criminalize abortion was the attempt by doctors to establish for themselves exclusive rights to practice medicine. They wanted to prevent "untrained" practitioners, including midwives, apothecaries, and homeopaths, from competing with them for patients and for patient fees.

The best way to accomplish their goal was to eliminate one of the principle procedures that kept these competitors in business. Rather than openly admitting to such motivations, the newly formed American Medical Association (AMA) argued that abortion was both immoral and dangerous. By 1910 all but one state had criminalized abortion except where necessary, in a doctor's judgment, to save the woman's life. In this way, legal abortion was successfully transformed into a "physicians-only" practice.

Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year.

Roe v. Wade
The 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade made it possible for women to get safe, legal abortions from well-trained medical practitioners. This led to dramatic decreases in pregnancy-related injury and death.

The Roe case arose out of a Texas law that prohibited legal abortion except to save a woman's life. At that time, most other states had laws similar to the one in Texas. Those laws forced large numbers of women to resort to illegal abortions.

Jane Roe, a 21-year-old pregnant woman, represented all women who wanted abortions but could not get them legally and safely. Henry Wade was the Texas Attorney General who defended the law that made abortions illegal.

After hearing the case, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans' right to privacy included the right of a woman to decide whether to have children, and the right of a woman and her doctor to make that decision without state interference.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in 1973, reproductive health clinics and health care providers across the United States and Canada have become the targets of violence by anti-abortion extremists. Physicians and clinic workers have been murdered; clinics have been bombed, burned down, invaded, and blockaded; and patients have been harassed and intimidated.


1965: Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision strikes down a state law that prohibited giving married people information, instruction, or medical advice on contraception.

1967: Colorado is the first state to liberalize its abortion laws.

1970: Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington liberalize abortion laws, making abortion available at the request of a woman and her doctor.

1972: Eisenstadt v. Baird Supreme Court decision establishes the right of unmarried people to use contraceptives.

1973: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision strikes down state laws that made abortion illegal.

1976: Congress adopts the first Hyde Amendment barring the use of federal Medicaid funds to provide abortions to low-income women.

1977: A revised Hyde Amendment is passed allowing states to deny Medicaid funding except in cases of rape, incest, or "severe and long-lasting" damage to the woman's physical health.

1991: Rust v. Sullivan upholds the constitutionality of the 1988 "gag rule" which prohibits doctors and counselors at clinics which receive federal funding from providing their patients with information about and referrals for abortion.

1992: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey reaffirms the "core" holdings of Roe that women have a right to abortion before fetal viability, but allows states to restrict abortion access so long as these restrictions do not impose an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions.

1994: Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act is passed by Congress with a large majority in response to the murder of Dr. David Gunn. The FACE Act forbids the use of "force, threat of force or physical obstruction" to prevent someone from providing or receiving reproductive health services. The law also provides for both criminal and civil penalties for those who break the law.

2000: Stenberg v. Carhart (Carhart I) rules that the Nebraska statute banning so-called "partial-birth abortion" is unconstitutional for two independent reasons: the statute lacks the necessary exception for preserving the health of the woman, and the definition of the targeted procedures is so broad as to prohibit abortions in the second trimester, thereby being an "undue burden" on women. This effectively invalidates 29 of 31 similar statewide bans.

2000: Food and Drug Administration approves mifepristone (RU-486) as an option in abortion care for very early pregnancy.


<<<<UP UNTIL THIS POINT, DUE PROCESS WAS BEING TAKEN IN DECISIONS ON THE ISSUE, AND APPROPRIATE PROTECTIONS AND PROGRESS WERE BEING MADE TO LIMIT SECOND TRIMESTER ABORTIONS EVEN IF IT WASN'T FOR "MORAL" REASONS PER SE. THEN, George W Bush HOPPED IN AND SWEPT ALL HIS FRIENDS IN WITH HIM KNOWING HE'LL JUST BE RETRACTED LATER, THUS SELFISHLY ENFORCING SOMETHING HE BELIEVES NOT WHAT HIS CONSTITUENTS WILL.

2003: A federal ban on abortion procedures is passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush. The National Abortion Federation immediately challenges the law in court and is successful in blocking enforcement of the law for its members.

2004: NAF wins lawsuit against federal abortion ban. Justice Department appeals rulings by three trial courts against ban.


In 1989, the American Psychological Association (APA) convened a panel of psychologists with extensive experience in this field to review the data. They reported that the studies with the most scientifically rigorous research designs consistently found no trace of "post-abortion syndrome" and furthermore, that no such syndrome is scientifically or medically recognized.1

Psychological responses to abortion must also be considered in comparison to the psychological impact of alternatives for resolving an unwanted pregnancy (adoption or becoming a parent). While there has been little scientific research about the psychological consequences of adoption, researchers speculate that it is likely "that the psychological risks for adoption are higher for women than those for abortion because they reflect different types of stress. Stress associated with abortion is acute stress, typically ending with the procedure. With adoption, as with unwanted childbearing, however, the stress may be chronic for women who continue to worry about the fate of the child."5


References

American Psychological Association. "APA research review finds no evidence of 'post-abortion syndrome' but research studies on psychological effects of abortion inconclusive." Press release, January 18, 1989.

Adler NE, et al. "Psychological responses after abortion." Science, April 1990, 248: 41-44.

Adler NE, et al. "Psychological factors in abortion: a review."
American Psychologist, 1992, 47(10): 1194-1204.

Russo NF, Zierk KL. "Abortion, childbearing, and women's well-being." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1992, 23(4): 269-280.

Russo NF. "Psychological aspects of unwanted pregnancy and its resolution." In J.D. Butler and D.F. Walbert (eds.), Abortion, Medicine, and the Law (4th Ed., pp. 593-626). New York: Facts on File, 1992.

Stotland N. "The myth of the abortion trauma syndrome." Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992, 268(15): 2078-2079.

David HP. "Comment:post-abortion trauma." Abortion Review Incorporating Abortion Research Notes, Spring, 1996, 59: 1-3.

Russo NF, Dabul, AJ. "The relationship of abortion to well-being: Do race and religion make a difference?" Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1997, 28(1): 1-9.

“Well since murderers who really want to murder are going to do it anyways, we should legalize pre-meditated murder and allow the murderers a safe environment to do the killing in so they do not risk injuring themselves!”

OJ Simpson cut his finger and got scratched while murdering two people who were an inconvenience to him, do you really feel sorry for him? I do not.

Comparison is non-sequiter. Because look into your daughters eyes and imagine if she got an abortion and tell me you see a MURDERER.

Incorrect, dickhead. I support giving the living, breathing, human being the right to choose what she will do with her own fucking body. I do not choose to elevate a gob of goo over her wishes.

Stupid? That’s funny.

1. It’s not her own body, it’s a logical fallacy to argue it is.
2. The fetus is a living human being that undergoes respiration.


You think cells are “globs of goo”? That’s funny, this isn’t the 19th Century anymore old man.

The fetus is a part of her body, yes. Without her it would not survive not unlike a pancreas or a kidney being cut off from blood supply. However a fetus is not a glob of goo. It has a heart, nerves, etc. An embryo is a glob of goo up until oh about 10wks. It can't even feel pain, doesn't have a brain, it's just cells forming together bit by bit. In my personal opinion a person is a person when the genes from the mom and the dad are combined to form a new genome. But that's just me. Your position vs their position isn't going to get you or anyone, anywhere Statler.

Abortion as a whole. People are going to do it. They have for as long as humans have existed and even them Jews had ways of doing it lined out in the bible. Public safety is what's important first of all.

Again, this is the same bizarre argument used above, should we set up clinics for murder and rape since people have always murdered and raped one another and this will ensure them a safe environment to do so in? Additionally, an action that induced an abortion was punishable by death under the Mosaic Covenant; it’s amazing how barbaric we are today.

I think we can all agree that in an ideal world, no abortions would be necessary. As for mosaic law, I don't want to get into it with you how god "allowed for mankinds disobedience" and whatnot. I also don't want to get into talking to you about barbarism then and now, either.

This rule here in exodus though does show that in gods eyes the woman is a higher priority than the baby.

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” [Exodus 21:22-25 NASB]


How about instead of letting this big clusterfuck get bigger, why don't republicans and prolifers focus on the REAL issues that are the CAUSES of this predicament in the first place??? That'd be nice. At least the Democrats are trYing albeit successfully and hardheadedly blocked and defied in every issue irregardless of whether they're right because of this stupid hard headed stalwart.

[Statler Waldorf]

[
in real life i would just start throwing things at you, but since were online i don't what to say too such a stupid fuckin statement.....im not sure how old you are or where u live but could i possibly beat the living shit out of you .....please???? if not it's ok

An appeal to violence eh? Just goes to show that irrational people respond to rational arguments…irrationally. It’s not surprising that someone who supports the systematic murder of millions of babies would also resort to committing violence against someone simply for refuting his argument.

Sounds like someone was using Republican logic.

What would “using democratic logic” look like? “Since his penis penetrated your vagina you may now go and kill your children but the state cannot kill him”?

Hey if you think we should have a civil war about it, to override democracy then fine. Sometimes people within a society make a drastic jump of self awareness. Like Lincoln did. There aren't going to be any drastic jumps, Statler, on abortion. It's got so many factors to it that it needs worked out with the medical and ethics departments to come to the civilized realization that you and I both share: aborting a fetus is aborting a person, in essence--and the best way to handle this issue isn't to abort the fetus but to prevent the fetus from being conceived in every way possible. With all the misinformation and bickering and state Republicans shutting down planned parenthood clinics: shit's going to get worse to the point that they'll have to re-assess their stoic position on *other peoples' rights* and compromise in order to make the progress they so desperately want.

It won’t require a civil war; we’re already winning this battle with states like the Dakotas and Texas passing tough abortion laws. The Left are so pre-occupied with same sex marriage that they have not realized they’re losing the abortion debate.

"Civilized" societies do whAT?! Wreallyyyyyyyy. Mmmk. I disagree but moving on.

You’re really going to argue for pragmatism over what is morally right? I’d love to see that.

Societies weren't existing just fine prior to abortion on demand. Be honest with us and yourself, here.

I am fairly sure that people existed in societies for thousands of years prior to abortion being available on demand. What did they do with all of their unwanted pregnancies? They had the babies.

Don't forget that I'm pro-life. Until alternatives to abortions are introduced, then the point of the laws are damage control. A Democratic process is the best way to decide, not just some backwater president Bush ramming a law through that goes against the very face of a century of abortion law.

Roe V. Wade was not established through democratic process, it was legislation by the judicial branch.

Damage control is needed Both for the medical implications of black market abortions/the ERs having to deal with the repurcussions: and also damage control regarding our society and the rising numbers of unemployed welfare mothers. The government has to do something, and it can't afford to force women to have babies nor is that its' right. Roe Vs Wade was decided not by a texas court or a washington court, but by the SUPREME COURT. That's sorta important.

So we just have to get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V. Wade, I think we have the votes to do it. Or we can have states engage in the democratic process and outlaw abortions in their states, which is something we’re seeing happening.

As things are now, there's a lack in education amongst physicians on how to handle abortions. This means if your wife started having complications of a pregnancy and she goes to the ER: chances are there aren't going to be doctors to help her, and depending on what state she lives in they might not help her at all. She'll just die. In front of your eyes. That's injustice, not only for you or your wife but for the doctors who swore an oath to do everything they can to give us the chance to live. Say your daughter gets pregnant and doesn't want to tell you so she goes to some person who a friend told her about in a shady little office, and dies as a result of malpractice. These are reasons why blanketing the issue one way or the other is not going to work.

Or your daughter could get pregnant and give birth to your grandbaby rather than having a doctor (who has taken an oath to preserve life) kill your grandbaby. The baby didn’t do anything to get your daughter pregnant, what’s done is done.

A survey in 1998 revealed that first trimester abortion techniques are a routine part of training in only 46% of America's ob-gyn residency programs. About 34% offer this training only as an elective, and 7% provide no opportunity at all for young doctors to learn to provide safe abortions.1

Good! There’s no need to train people who are supposed to protect life on how to take life.

Scientific journals, studies, history.

What? Scientifically we know it’s a living human being.

Making Abortion Illegal
In the mid-to-late 1800s states began passing laws that made abortion illegal. The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state. One of the reasons included fears that the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of "native" Anglo-Saxon women. [/quote]

And Planned Parenthood was originally created to oppress blacks, so your point is?

Medical Practice
During the 1800s, all surgical procedures, including abortion, were extremely risky. Hospitals were not common, antiseptics were unknown, and even the most respected doctors had only primitive medical educations. Without today's current technology, maternal and infant mortality rates during childbirth were extraordinarily high. The dangers from abortion were similar to the dangers from other surgeries that were not outlawed.

And?

As scientific methods began to dominate medical practice, and technologies were developed to prevent infection, medical care on the whole became much safer and more effective. But by this time, the vast majority of women who needed abortions had no choice but to get them from illegal practitioners without these medical advances at their disposal. The "back alley" abortion remained a dangerous, often deadly procedure, while areas of legally sanctioned medicine improved dramatically.

Again, this is a logically absurd argument. We do not provide safe environments for people to commit murder in.

The Medical Establishment
The strongest force behind the drive to criminalize abortion was the attempt by doctors to establish for themselves exclusive rights to practice medicine. They wanted to prevent "untrained" practitioners, including midwives, apothecaries, and homeopaths, from competing with them for patients and for patient fees.

That’s the genetic fallacy.

Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortionsIn the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year.

Estimates by whom? I thought illegal abortions were dangerous, where were all of the women dying from the 1.2 million of them conducted per year? People still murder even though murder is illegal, that’s not an argument for legalizing murder.

Roe v. Wade
The 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade made it possible for women to get safe, legal abortions from well-trained medical practitioners. This led to dramatic decreases in pregnancy-related injury and death.

So? We do not legalize murder in order to protect murderers. Not to mention this is completely contradictory to what was stated above, apparently 1.2 million women a year were able to access abortions prior to Roe safely without dying.

The Roe case arose out of a Texas law that prohibited legal abortion except to save a woman's life. At that time, most other states had laws similar to the one in Texas. Those laws forced large numbers of women to resort to illegal abortions.

I thought you were for supporting the democratic process? Apparently not.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in 1973, reproductive health clinics and health care providers across the United States and Canada have become the targets of violence by anti-abortion extremists. Physicians and clinic workers have been murdered; clinics have been bombed, burned down, invaded, and blockaded; and patients have been harassed and intimidated.

And over 50 million babies have been murdered. 50,000,000. Over eight times as many people as in the Holocaust.

1976: Congress adopts the first Hyde Amendment barring the use of federal Medicaid funds to provide abortions to low-income women.

Good, tax dollars should never fund genocide.

1991: Rust v. Sullivan upholds the constitutionality of the 1988 "gag rule" which prohibits doctors and counselors at clinics which receive federal funding from providing their patients with information about and referrals for abortion.

Good, tax dollars should never be used to promote genocide.

Comparison is non-sequiter. Because look into your daughters eyes and imagine if she got an abortion and tell me you see a MURDERER.

Fallacious appeal to emotion. If my daughter killed her baby, she’d be a murderer. Definitions of terms matter.

The fetus is a part of her body, yes.

No, the fetus has it’s own unique DNA, it’s in her body but it is a completely separate Human.

Without her it would not survive not unlike a pancreas or a kidney being cut off from blood supply.

The pancreas and kidney’s share her DNA, the fetus does not so that’s a faulty analogy.

An embryo is a glob of goo up until oh about 10wks.

No, the view that cells are merely globs of goo is a 19th Century viewpoint; cells are immensely complex life systems.

It can't even feel pain, doesn't have a brain, it's just cells forming together bit by bit.

That’s irrelevant, we believe that killing innocent Humans is wrong regardless of whether or not they feel the death blow.

In my personal opinion a person is a person when the genes from the mom and the dad are combined to form a new genome.

Yes, and that’s the only logically defensible position to adhere to.

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” [Exodus 21:22-25 NASB]

I have seen you misuse this verse before. The term mistranslated as “miscarriage” by the NASB (which conveniently enough is one of the only translations to translate it that way) simply means to come forth or come out (the same term is used when describing the birth of Jacob and Esau, who were not miscarried). So if the men fighting induce a pregnancy but mother and child are fine, then a fine is to be paid by the man responsible. If the men cause the baby to come out and mother or child is injured or dies then the man responsible is injured or killed.

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” (ESV)

[Faith No More]

What would “using democratic logic” look like? “Since his penis penetrated your vagina you may now go and kill your children but the state cannot kill him”?

Democratic logic is "I think I'll send this text with a picture of my penis."

Real logic is "A woman should be allowed to stop the small group of cells inside her from propagating that are there as the result of some scumbag violently violating not only her sexual organs, but her entire well-being."

It's sickening that you would describe rape simply as a "penis penetrating a vagina."

[Statler Waldorf]

Democratic logic is "I think I'll send this text with a picture of my penis."

True that.

It's sickening that you would describe rape simply as a "penis penetrating a vagina."

You’re better than that FNM, the article Min linked to described it that way; I was simply using the same phraseology to make a point. It’s sickening you’d describe a person as a “small group of cells”, there is no respect for human dignity anymore.

[Faith No More]

You’re better than that FNM, the article Min linked to described it that way; I was simply using the same phraseology to make a point. It’s sickening you’d describe a person as a “small group of cells”, there is no respect for human dignity anymore.

I am, and if I misunderstood what you are implying, I apologize.

That "small group of cells," however, is not a person. It is a potential person. Big difference.

I have respect for human dignity, which is why I would never force a rape victim to carry to term a constant reminder of that violation.