Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MLive.com)   Despite the ability to "shut that whole thing down," Republicans propose women buy rape insurance   (mlive.com) divider line 374
    More: Sick, Republicans, Whitmer, Michigan Legislature, Rick Snyder, Party leaders of the United States Senate  
•       •       •

4881 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2013 at 10:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



374 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-03 08:38:33 AM  
Thats one beautiful lady
 
2013-12-03 08:41:51 AM  
Are they trying to out outlandish each other now?
 
2013-12-03 08:44:06 AM  
This whole rape thing is great for raping women but what if I told you we could profit from it too?
 
2013-12-03 08:46:21 AM  

Fafai: what if I told you we could profit from it too?


Rape tax? Republicans get rape legislation, Democrats get a tax. it's a total win/win
 
2013-12-03 08:46:40 AM  
Proposing it is an amazing dick move.  Following one dick move with another doesn't make sense.

Perhaps proposing a law making it the responsibility of the rapist to pay for any and all costs would make more sense.  Said perp has no means to pay?  He's doing time and working until he's paid back the state for the costs they covered.  Of course, that sort of thing might amount to slave labor.  Making someone work for no or little pay is far, far worse than rape...because money.  Go ahead and rape money and see what happens to you.
 
2013-12-03 08:47:56 AM  
FTFA: "Requiring Michigan women to plan ahead for an unplanned pregnancy is not only illogical, it's one of the most misogynistic proposals I have ever seen in the Michigan Legislature."

Geeze lady, how else are you going to lower the rate of unplanned pregnancies, besides making people plan for them?

Seems like a smart strategy to me.
 
2013-12-03 08:54:33 AM  
Mary couldn't wait for the insurance adjuster to come by sometime between 4 & 11 PM to evaluate the damage and decide if her womb was totaled.
 
2013-12-03 08:54:54 AM  
Outrageous!  Women should get their rape insurance for free from the Federal government.
 
2013-12-03 08:56:44 AM  

BravadoGT: Outrageous!  Women should get their rape insurance for free from the Federal government.


No that's just ridiculous. They just have to plan the rapes to coincide with Obama's mandatory annual abortions.
 
2013-12-03 08:59:49 AM  

Elegy: FTFA: "Requiring Michigan women to plan ahead for an unplanned pregnancy is not only illogical, it's one of the most misogynistic proposals I have ever seen in the Michigan Legislature."

Geeze lady, how else are you going to lower the rate of unplanned pregnancies, besides making people plan for them?

Seems like a smart strategy to me.


That's silly. Parenthood cannot be planned. It is simply God's will. And sometimes it is God's will that children be conceived by way of legitimate rape.
 
2013-12-03 09:02:49 AM  

Elegy: FTFA: "Requiring Michigan women to plan ahead for an unplanned pregnancy is not only illogical, it's one of the most misogynistic proposals I have ever seen in the Michigan Legislature."

Geeze lady, how else are you going to lower the rate of unplanned pregnancies, besides making people plan for them?

Seems like a smart strategy to me.


Other than having that insurance may turn a jury at a rape trial, especially if there are enough of your 'peers' that support this POS
 
2013-12-03 09:05:27 AM  
We hate Muslims! So, let's treat our women like Muslims treat theirs! GREAT IDEA!

I have always tried to see the better side of humanity, but quite honestly, eugenics is looking more and more appealing as a solution. One could say it's the.....final solution.
 
2013-12-03 09:15:49 AM  
mlpchan.netthumbnails.hulu.com
 
2013-12-03 09:26:13 AM  
How about if you all come up with 'Republican' insurance? Next time the GOP are elected, the insurance companies have to pay out. Don't know what the premiums would be, but it might be worth it.

/dumb idea of the week
 
2013-12-03 09:32:42 AM  

gopher321: How about if you all come up with 'Republican' insurance? Next time the GOP are elected, the insurance companies have to pay out. Don't know what the premiums would be, but it might be worth it.

/dumb idea of the week


R-ape insurance?
 
2013-12-03 09:34:17 AM  
The Rapublican Party.
 
2013-12-03 09:43:03 AM  
If every woman were required to carry rape insurance I'm pretty sure my new pick up line would be "Just let it happen, you have insurance."
 
2013-12-03 09:44:22 AM  
Is it legitimate rape insurance or just rape insurance?

When will the GOP learn to just stay completely clear of any subject related to rape.
 
2013-12-03 09:44:31 AM  
deanwintersfans.files.wordpress.com

Mayhem gets raped?
 
2013-12-03 09:46:26 AM  

Bareefer Obonghit: Mary couldn't wait for the insurance adjuster to come by sometime between 4 & 11 PM to evaluate the damage and decide if her womb was totaled.


pimphop.com

Is your body in good hands?
 
2013-12-03 09:46:59 AM  

I_C_Weener: [deanwintersfans.files.wordpress.com image 850x478]

Mayhem gets raped?


He shouldn't have been running around the neighborhood dressed like that, asking for it.
 
2013-12-03 09:48:25 AM  

I_C_Weener: Bareefer Obonghit: Mary couldn't wait for the insurance adjuster to come by sometime between 4 & 11 PM to evaluate the damage and decide if her womb was totaled.

[pimphop.com image 850x531]

Is your body in good hands?


HA!
 
2013-12-03 09:48:53 AM  

cman: Thats one beautiful lady


Hope she bought her rape insurance.
 
2013-12-03 09:50:04 AM  

theinspirationroom.com

We cover kitchen fires....and legitimate rape.

 
2013-12-03 09:50:40 AM  
Hoo boy. THIS is going to be a popular thread. 

/ home sick for the day anyway
// breaks out the popcorn
 
2013-12-03 09:52:46 AM  
i1.ytimg.com

I knew fishnets were a bad idea in that neighborhood.....
 
2013-12-03 09:53:20 AM  
Well, that's a stretch. Abortion == rape now, apparently. Sounds to me like somebody's trying too hard.

/I guess... Does Michigan have one of those ultrasound requirements like we have in Texas?
 
2013-12-03 09:55:46 AM  

I_C_Weener: [theinspirationroom.com image 515x272]We cover kitchen fires....and legitimate rape.


ken_ashford.typepad.com
So easy a caveman could do her.
 
2013-12-03 09:57:41 AM  

www.afcaforum.com

Well, there's your problem.

 
2013-12-03 09:59:51 AM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-03 10:01:33 AM  
Here's the thing. If you're raped, it should be the rapists insurance paying for the abortion. Like the at-fault driver in a car accident. Maybe the republicans could compromise by including "uninsured rapist" coverage by default.
 
2013-12-03 10:02:08 AM  

serial_crusher: Well, that's a stretch. Abortion == rape now, apparently. Sounds to me like somebody's trying too hard.

/I guess... Does Michigan have one of those ultrasound requirements like we have in Texas?


For any woman under the age of consent, abortion is because of rape.  Very common situation for abortion.
 
2013-12-03 10:02:30 AM  

serial_crusher: Here's the thing. If you're raped, it should be the rapists insurance paying for the abortion. Like the at-fault driver in a car accident. Maybe the republicans could compromise by including "uninsured rapist" coverage by default.


New York is a "no fault" state.
 
2013-12-03 10:03:40 AM  
Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.
 
2013-12-03 10:05:16 AM  

I_C_Weener: Having now read the article


That's crazy talk. Are you new here?
 
2013-12-03 10:08:25 AM  

flucto: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article

That's crazy talk. Are you new here?


www.spokaneontherocks.com

Did you know that just 15 minutes of reading articles on Fark before posting can save you a lot of misunderstandings?

 
2013-12-03 10:10:19 AM  

I_C_Weener: 15 minutes of reading articles on Fark before posting can save you a lot of misunderstandings?


Why would we want to avoid misunderstandings? What the hell would we defend to the death if we actually bothered to understand shiat? I thought you were meant to LEAD us not ruin stuff.
 
2013-12-03 10:11:15 AM  

I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.


It's actually "No insurance company can provide this coverage by default in Michigan, not even for cases of rape" bill. It specifically prohibits insurers from offering this coverage in their plans. You'll have to buy a rider if they're even offered, which by the by, aren't cheap.
 
2013-12-03 10:23:22 AM  

palladiate: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

It's actually "No insurance company can provide this coverage by default in Michigan, not even for cases of rape" bill. It specifically prohibits insurers from offering this coverage in their plans. You'll have to buy a rider if they're even offered, which by the by, aren't cheap.


I didn't say it wasn't stupid.  I said it isn't rape insurance.
 
2013-12-03 10:23:49 AM  

flucto: I_C_Weener: 15 minutes of reading articles on Fark before posting can save you a lot of misunderstandings?

Why would we want to avoid misunderstandings? What the hell would we defend to the death if we actually bothered to understand shiat? I thought you were meant to LEAD us not ruin stuff.


Citation needed.

/better?
 
2013-12-03 10:26:35 AM  

mrshowrules: Is it legitimate rape insurance or just rape insurance?

When will the GOP learn to just stay completely clear of any subject related to rape.


It's rape rape insurance
 
2013-12-03 10:29:58 AM  

I_C_Weener: palladiate: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

It's actually "No insurance company can provide this coverage by default in Michigan, not even for cases of rape" bill. It specifically prohibits insurers from offering this coverage in their plans. You'll have to buy a rider if they're even offered, which by the by, aren't cheap.

I didn't say it wasn't stupid.  I said it isn't rape insurance.


True.

However, it IS insurance that doesn't cover abortion in the instance of rape, save if you get a rider. And that rider would be de facto rape insurance. 

It's a slightly hyperbolic term, but it only works because there's a large amount of truth behind it.
 
2013-12-03 10:31:03 AM  
Yet another Heritage Foundation idea that they will vehemently oppose in 15 years when President Cuomo tries to expand ACA.
 
2013-12-03 10:31:27 AM  

palladiate: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

It's actually "No insurance company can provide this coverage by default in Michigan, not even for cases of rape" bill. It specifically prohibits insurers from offering this coverage in their plans. You'll have to buy a rider if they're even offered, which by the by, aren't cheap.


How do you come to the "aren't cheap" conclusion? Does the bill specify prices?
I could see an insurance company deciding its cheaper to pay for your abortion than it is to pay for your baby, offering it as a free add-on.
 
2013-12-03 10:31:43 AM  

whistleridge: However, it IS insurance that doesn't cover abortion in the instance of rape, save if you get a rider. And that rider would be de facto rape insurance.


I get car insurance...but it doesn't cover flat tires...even flat tires caused by pot holes instead of angry ex-girlfriends...without a rider.  That doesn't make the rider pothole insurance.  That makes it flat tire insurance.
 
2013-12-03 10:32:56 AM  
I just don't get it.  If I ran an insurance company (thankfully I don't have that kind of soul killing job where you have to choose profit or principles) I would be falling all over myself to offer abortion procedures to anyone who wanted them (even men, just to be safe).  If you force a woman you're covering to have an unwanted baby, that baby becomes a dependent...  basically, a liability to your bottom line.
 
2013-12-03 10:33:33 AM  

mainstreet62: We hate Muslims! So, let's treat our women like Muslims treat theirs! GREAT IDEA!

I have always tried to see the better side of humanity, but quite honestly, eugenics is looking more and more appealing as a solution. One could say it's the.....final solution.


We wiped out 50 million uncivilised savages to get this country. It might be time to do this again.
 
2013-12-03 10:33:36 AM  

serial_crusher: palladiate: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

It's actually "No insurance company can provide this coverage by default in Michigan, not even for cases of rape" bill. It specifically prohibits insurers from offering this coverage in their plans. You'll have to buy a rider if they're even offered, which by the by, aren't cheap.

How do you come to the "aren't cheap" conclusion? Does the bill specify prices?
I could see an insurance company deciding its cheaper to pay for your abortion than it is to pay for your baby, offering it as a free add-on.


True.  But my insurance was happy to "fix" me because I wanted a vasectomy.  But they don't like paying for "fixing" women without a medical necessity.  I don't understand their reasoning.
 
2013-12-03 10:35:02 AM  

I_C_Weener: whistleridge: However, it IS insurance that doesn't cover abortion in the instance of rape, save if you get a rider. And that rider would be de facto rape insurance.

I get car insurance...but it doesn't cover flat tires...even flat tires caused by pot holes instead of angry ex-girlfriends...without a rider.  That doesn't make the rider pothole insurance.  That makes it flat tire insurance.


Your car isn't human, and doesn't get psychological damage from a flat tire. It doesn't sleep in terror of you if you drive it over a nail.

Rape is a horrible thing. Yes, it's being *slightly* blown up, but you and I are both dudes: we don't have the first damn idea of what we're talking about, not really. I say we see their point, rather than quibble over the semantics of it, and alter the plan accordingly.
 
2013-12-03 10:35:38 AM  

serial_crusher: Well, that's a stretch. Abortion == rape now, apparently. Sounds to me like somebody's trying too hard.


An abortion is a service rape victims might utilize to minimize the negative long-term impacts of rape that costs money.  Buying insurance that covers abortions in the case that women get raped could be accurately termed "rape insurance."  Removing abortions from insurance means women who are raped do not have coverage to help pay for an abortion.  They will indeed then need to purchase additional insurance.

Your analogy sucks.  Just like car insurance doesn't prevent accidents, you would never say "fixing your car == car accident."
 
2013-12-03 10:36:54 AM  
s16.postimg.org
 
2013-12-03 10:37:26 AM  

whistleridge: Rape is a horrible thing. Yes, it's being *slightly* blown up, but you and I are both dudes: we don't have the first damn idea of what we're talking about, not really.


I agree you have no idea what you are talking about but it's different than what you think.  Men get raped too.  See for instance: prison.
 
2013-12-03 10:37:33 AM  

MayoSlather: If every woman were required to carry rape insurance I'm pretty sure my new pick up line would be "Just let it happen, you have insurance."


A gentleman would offer to pay the deductible or co-pay at least.
 
2013-12-03 10:38:41 AM  

Tigger: mainstreet62: We hate Muslims! So, let's treat our women like Muslims treat theirs! GREAT IDEA!

I have always tried to see the better side of humanity, but quite honestly, eugenics is looking more and more appealing as a solution. One could say it's the.....final solution.

We wiped out 50 million uncivilised savages to get this country. It might be time to do this again.


Kardashian fans?
 
2013-12-03 10:38:58 AM  
"Requiring Michigan women to plan ahead for an unplanned pregnancy is not only illogical, it's one of the most misogynistic proposals I have ever seen in the Michigan Legislature."

You planned ahead so it's not unplanned.

"There's no such a thing as self help... if you did it yourself, you didn't need help. You did it yourself!"  -G. Carlin.
 
2013-12-03 10:39:32 AM  

lennavan: whistleridge: Rape is a horrible thing. Yes, it's being *slightly* blown up, but you and I are both dudes: we don't have the first damn idea of what we're talking about, not really.

I agree you have no idea what you are talking about but it's different than what you think.  Men get raped too.  See for instance: prison.


Men do in fact get raped. Especially in prison. But they don't get pregnant from it, and therefore the current matter of conversation doesn't apply to them. Thank you for playing though.

When we're talking about paying for AIDS contracted through rape, men get a seat at the table.
 
2013-12-03 10:39:35 AM  

I_C_Weener: True. But my insurance was happy to "fix" me because I wanted a vasectomy. But they don't like paying for "fixing" women without a medical necessity. I don't understand their reasoning.


Tubal ligation is far more involved than a vasectomy.  It's a proper surgery whereas a vasectomy is pretty much a local anaesthetic/outpatient deal with little risk of serious complication.
 
2013-12-03 10:40:17 AM  

I_C_Weener: serial_crusher: palladiate: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

It's actually "No insurance company can provide this coverage by default in Michigan, not even for cases of rape" bill. It specifically prohibits insurers from offering this coverage in their plans. You'll have to buy a rider if they're even offered, which by the by, aren't cheap.

How do you come to the "aren't cheap" conclusion? Does the bill specify prices?
I could see an insurance company deciding its cheaper to pay for your abortion than it is to pay for your baby, offering it as a free add-on.

True.  But my insurance was happy to "fix" me because I wanted a vasectomy.  But they don't like paying for "fixing" women without a medical necessity.  I don't understand their reasoning.


Do they do that for tubal ligation or are you referring to the pill as a "fix"? Not a fair comparison between one-time surgery and a daily prescription.
But if it's actually the surgeries, the only excuse I can think of is that girl parts are more expensive to operate on. The vasectomy happens right there in the doctors office, right? Snip snip and you're done. Tube tying is a full on surgery. (Probably still cheaper than a baby or abortions though)
 
2013-12-03 10:40:38 AM  

gopher321: How about if you all come up with 'Republican' insurance? Next time the GOP are elected, the insurance companies have to pay out. Don't know what the premiums would be, but it might be worth it.

/dumb idea of the week


Not a dumb idea.  You could probably sell thousands of policies.  Here is an article about the real cost to immigrate to Canada.  Just base the payout on that.

http://correresmidestino.com/how-much-does-immigrating-to-canada-cos t/
 
2013-12-03 10:40:44 AM  

Bareefer Obonghit: Mary couldn't wait for the insurance adjuster to come by sometime between 4 & 11 PM to evaluate the damage and decide if her womb was totaled.


cdn.uproxx.com
 
2013-12-03 10:41:24 AM  

whistleridge: lennavan: whistleridge: Rape is a horrible thing. Yes, it's being *slightly* blown up, but you and I are both dudes: we don't have the first damn idea of what we're talking about, not really.

I agree you have no idea what you are talking about but it's different than what you think.  Men get raped too.  See for instance: prison.

Men do in fact get raped. Especially in prison. But they don't get pregnant from it, and therefore the current matter of conversation doesn't apply to them. Thank you for playing though.

When we're talking about paying for AIDS contracted through rape, men get a seat at the table.



When you posted:

"Rape is a horrible thing. Yes, it's being *slightly* blown up, but you and I are both dudes: we don't have the first damn idea of what we're talking about, not really."

I assumed you were talking about rape and not pregnancy because you used the word rape and never used the word pregnancy.

WTF was I thinking?
 
2013-12-03 10:41:46 AM  

whistleridge: I_C_Weener: whistleridge: However, it IS insurance that doesn't cover abortion in the instance of rape, save if you get a rider. And that rider would be de facto rape insurance.

I get car insurance...but it doesn't cover flat tires...even flat tires caused by pot holes instead of angry ex-girlfriends...without a rider.  That doesn't make the rider pothole insurance.  That makes it flat tire insurance.

Your car isn't human, and doesn't get psychological damage from a flat tire. It doesn't sleep in terror of you if you drive it over a nail.

Rape is a horrible thing. Yes, it's being *slightly* blown up, but you and I are both dudes: we don't have the first damn idea of what we're talking about, not really. I say we see their point, rather than quibble over the semantics of it, and alter the plan accordingly.


It isn't semantics when you accuse a man or murder vs. self-defense.  Same thing here.  This isn't about rape coverage.  Its about abortion coverage...all abortion coverage.   Quit making me think you are hysterical when you want to focus on the evil buzz words thinking the audience won't pay attention to see its actually a bit more than just rape coverage.
 
2013-12-03 10:43:20 AM  
LOL, christianity
 
2013-12-03 10:43:56 AM  

mrshowrules: Not a dumb idea. You could probably sell thousands of policies. Here is an article about the real cost to immigrate to Canada. Just base the payout on that.


Just please, please... if you immigrate to Canada adjust your political spectrum.  Years of living in the US will probably have caused you to think that the Dems are left wing.  Our conservative party is pretty much what a "moderate" Democrat would be, except even they won't overtly attack socialized medicine.
 
2013-12-03 10:44:53 AM  

lennavan: whistleridge: lennavan: whistleridge: Rape is a horrible thing. Yes, it's being *slightly* blown up, but you and I are both dudes: we don't have the first damn idea of what we're talking about, not really.

I agree you have no idea what you are talking about but it's different than what you think.  Men get raped too.  See for instance: prison.

Men do in fact get raped. Especially in prison. But they don't get pregnant from it, and therefore the current matter of conversation doesn't apply to them. Thank you for playing though.

When we're talking about paying for AIDS contracted through rape, men get a seat at the table.

When you posted:

"Rape is a horrible thing. Yes, it's being *slightly* blown up, but you and I are both dudes: we don't have the first damn idea of what we're talking about, not really."

I assumed you were talking about rape and not pregnancy because you used the word rape and never used the word pregnancy.

WTF was I thinking?


That my comment was in the context of the thread, which is in turn in the context of the article in question? Because otherwise, you weren't. 

If you're not here to talk about the ins and outs rape, pregnancy resulting from rape, aborting said pregnancy, and how/who pays for it, you're either trolling, or you're an idiot.
 
2013-12-03 10:44:54 AM  

Bareefer Obonghit: Mary couldn't wait for the insurance adjuster to come by sometime between 4 & 11 PM to evaluate the damage and decide if her womb was totaled.


This can only lead to a proliferation of large black dildos and rape insurance fraud as people claim they lost some expensive jewelry up in there.
 
2013-12-03 10:46:02 AM  

I_C_Weener: Citation needed.


Wait, now cops can write you a ticket if you don't have rape insurance?
 
2013-12-03 10:47:08 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: LOL, christianity


Divine Rape.
 
2013-12-03 10:47:46 AM  

flucto: serial_crusher: Here's the thing. If you're raped, it should be the rapists insurance paying for the abortion. Like the at-fault driver in a car accident. Maybe the republicans could compromise by including "uninsured rapist" coverage by default.

New York is a "no fault" state.


And in MD, if you rear-end someone, you're automatically at fault. I like this plan (and am kind of surprised it's not done already - why should a victim's insurance pay for a rapist's damages? Side question: can a victim sue a her rapist in civil court, before suring or after the criminal trial?).

// of course, if you rear-end someone rapily, chances of pregnancy drop precipitously
// also, do we have additional coverage for other felonies perpetrated against us? Murder insurance? Assault insurance? Failure to file tax return insurance? Driving while black insurance? (Though that may actually be a thing - anyone compared auto insurance costs between racial groups?)
 
2013-12-03 10:47:55 AM  
Shouldn't this be a mandatory part of your Obamacare insurance? It is a health issue too right?  And to spread the risk around, men will have to buy it too like they have to have maternity insurance.  I mean, a man is far more likely to get raped than pregnant.
 
2013-12-03 10:47:58 AM  

Mercutio74: Our conservative party is pretty much what a "moderate" Democrat would be, except even they won't overtly attack socialized medicine.


Aren't your "moderate Democrats" currently doing their best to eviscerate science and education funding?
 
2013-12-03 10:49:00 AM  
I've got it! Let's have insurance providers cover women's contraception and strongly encourage people to use it. Then we don't have to worry so much about abortion being used outside of cases of rape or medical necessity. A simple, common sense solution that everyone can get on board with.
 
2013-12-03 10:49:02 AM  

I_C_Weener: It isn't semantics when you accuse a man or murder vs. self-defense.  Same thing here.  This isn't about rape coverage.  Its about abortion coverage...all abortion coverage.   Quit making me think you are hysterical when you want to focus on the evil buzz words thinking the audience won't pay attention to see its actually a bit more than just rape coverage.


Technically, it's 'about' how to pay for abortions in the instance of rape. But you're right; it's really 'about' all abortion coverage.

But why stop there? Let's be honest and go a few steps further. In that sense, it's REALLY 'about' control of women, which is in turn REALLY 'about' old rich white men being terrified that they might no longer have a monopoly on power in this country, so they're quite literally using every trick in the book to try and restrict the power of others so that they might retain said monopoly a little longer.

I can do slippery slopes too. Let's just stick to the topic at hand, hm?
 
2013-12-03 10:49:54 AM  

serial_crusher: I could see an insurance company deciding its cheaper to pay for your abortion than it is to pay for your baby, offering it as a free add-on.


Sort of an aside to this conversation, I suspect that the "children are automatically added to your health insurance until they're 26" part of the ACA regulations has pretty much every plan in the US covering most of the cost of abortions now.
 
2013-12-03 10:50:05 AM  
FTA: The nonprofit has scheduled a press conference for Tuesday morning at the Michigan Capitol that will feature "sexual assault victims and individuals conceived in rape" who represent Save the 1, a national group that argues against exceptions in abortion policies.

This makes absolutely no sense.  They are alive because their mothers chose to keep them, not because abortion wasn't an option, so making abortion illegal in the case of rape wouldn't have made a difference.  They credit their relative success with simply being born, but ignore the fact that they were born to a woman who made the choice to keep them.

If anything, this position is more in line with legalizing rape than outlawing abortion.  They can't say "I wouldn't be alive if my mother had been allowed to get an abortion", because they were allowed to get abortions, they just didn't.  They can only say "I wouldn't be alive if my mother had been allowed to say 'no'."
 
2013-12-03 10:51:32 AM  

odinsposse: I've got it! Let's have insurance providers cover women's contraception and strongly encourage people to use it. Then we don't have to worry so much about abortion being used outside of cases of rape or medical necessity. A simple, common sense solution that everyone can get on board with.


But...but...everybody knows contraception IS abortion.
 
2013-12-03 10:52:06 AM  

www.taylormarsh.com


"From my cold, dead hands!"


You see, if you denigrate a human being--or in this case the uterus of a human being--then it's easier to for the government to control it, to own it.

If only the women-haters could get Disney Studios to put buck teeth and thick glasses on vaginas. That kind of propaganda worked against the Japanese in WWII. And we know women are just the Yellow Peril with tits.
 
2013-12-03 10:52:30 AM  
Jesus...I thought Missouri was farked up but at least our legistators are just lazy and do nothing.  They are not actively trying to piss off more than half the state voters.

Again, can someone explain how a woman, especially in Michigan now would ever vote for one of these guys again if they decide to pass this law?
 
2013-12-03 10:52:33 AM  
And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.
 
2013-12-03 10:53:09 AM  
Your company covered me... so go ahead and rape me.
i.ytimg.com
 
2013-12-03 10:53:50 AM  

qorkfiend: Aren't your "moderate Democrats" currently doing their best to eviscerate science and education funding?


Mostly science and education as it relates to criticism of the gov't or affecting what the Cons might like to say or do publicly.  It's less ideological and more Machiavellian.

That being said, it was more of a law of averages thing.  For example, the Cons aren't openly anti-socialized medicine.  But they are pro-throw everyone in jail for anything.

/also, by "moderate Dem" I was thinking more in terms of the Blue Dogs.
//Also, to be fair, the Cons are getting worse as time goes on here.  They might start crossing the American aisle soon and become GOP clones, but that would take another majority gov't to complete that transformation
 
2013-12-03 10:54:48 AM  

Tricky Chicken: And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.


I agree and you realize this includes all abortions of under-aged women.
 
2013-12-03 10:55:38 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: If only the women-haters could get Disney Studios to put buck teeth and thick glasses on vaginas.


4Chan on the case.
 
2013-12-03 10:56:48 AM  
I thought Republicans called that a gun?

/ducks, runs like hades
 
2013-12-03 10:57:23 AM  

Tricky Chicken: And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.


Only as a subset of the fact that  all basic care in a civilized nation should be covered by the state.  Basically if it's a procedure that more than a couple thousand people get in a year and it's non-elective, or it's rare but falls within reasonable cost limits, the state should cover it and pull the funding from taxes.

Having the state foot the bill only in the case of crimes committed is sort of an invitation to unscrupulous people to lie about being victims to get free stuff, and we've got enough of that kind of crap as it is in sexual assault cases already, thanks.
 
2013-12-03 10:59:16 AM  
It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

static5.businessinsider.com
 
2013-12-03 11:00:22 AM  
www.bartcop.com
 
2013-12-03 11:01:16 AM  

Mercutio74: I just don't get it.  If I ran an insurance company (thankfully I don't have that kind of soul killing job where you have to choose profit or principles) I would be falling all over myself to offer abortion procedures to anyone who wanted them (even men, just to be safe).  If you force a woman you're covering to have an unwanted baby, that baby becomes a dependent...  basically, a liability to your bottom line.


Hence the right-wing panic over insurance covering abortion.  It's all "Government stay out of business!" until business decisions result in something they don't like.
 
2013-12-03 11:01:16 AM  

whistleridge: I_C_Weener: It isn't semantics when you accuse a man or murder vs. self-defense.  Same thing here.  This isn't about rape coverage.  Its about abortion coverage...all abortion coverage.   Quit making me think you are hysterical when you want to focus on the evil buzz words thinking the audience won't pay attention to see its actually a bit more than just rape coverage.

Technically, it's 'about' how to pay for abortions in the instance of rape. But you're right; it's really 'about' all abortion coverage.

But why stop there? Let's be honest and go a few steps further. In that sense, it's REALLY 'about' control of women, which is in turn REALLY 'about' old rich white men being terrified that they might no longer have a monopoly on power in this country, so they're quite literally using every trick in the book to try and restrict the power of others so that they might retain said monopoly a little longer.

I can do slippery slopes too. Let's just stick to the topic at hand, hm?


Right. Abortion coverage.
 
2013-12-03 11:01:34 AM  
The time has finally come to equip women with these, since the Republicans constantly have rape on their minds despite the fact that it is against the law.

i48.tinypic.com

Any excess fluids are the woman's responsibility. I recommend windshield washer fluid and some Rain-X wipers.
 
2013-12-03 11:03:12 AM  

SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]


neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]


OH GOD WHY DID YOU BOTH POST CONSECUTIVELY! NOW I SEE FLO WEARING PANTIES!!!

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-12-03 11:03:53 AM  

SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]


neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]


HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
 
2013-12-03 11:03:55 AM  

www.dvdtalk.com

Like a she-bear protecting her cubs, you can protect your uterus with an insurance policy from Mutual of Omaha....


Yes, I'm old.
 
2013-12-03 11:04:24 AM  

Fafai: This whole rape thing is great for raping women but what if I told you we could profit from it too?


cuz capitalism is the 'murican way!
 
2013-12-03 11:05:07 AM  

flucto: I_C_Weener: Citation needed.

Wait, now cops can write you a ticket if you don't have rape insurance?


Stop and frisk is already legal in New York! Who is to say they won't stop before checking the insurability of my package?
 
2013-12-03 11:05:44 AM  
i291.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-03 11:06:13 AM  

mainstreet62: SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]

OH GOD WHY DID YOU BOTH POST CONSECUTIVELY! NOW I SEE FLO WEARING PANTIES!!!

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 650x475]


Lol. I never would have noticed if you hadn't said anything.

Um...at least she doesn't have a camel toe? In fact, she appears to have undergone Type III excision.
 
2013-12-03 11:07:04 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-03 11:07:26 AM  

Tricky Chicken: And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.


I'm probably going to sound like an asshole here, but why is that the states responsibility? If I'm assaulted and beaten the state isn't going to cover my medical bills because I was the victim of a crime. Why should this one crime be any different?
 
2013-12-03 11:07:44 AM  

mrshowrules: Tricky Chicken: And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.

I agree and you realize this includes all abortions of under-aged women.


I'm against aborting under age women.
 
2013-12-03 11:08:37 AM  

serial_crusher: Do they do that for tubal ligation or are you referring to the pill as a "fix"? Not a fair comparison between one-time surgery and a daily prescription.
But if it's actually the surgeries, the only excuse I can think of is that girl parts are more expensive to operate on. The vasectomy happens right there in the doctors office, right? Snip snip and you're done. Tube tying is a full on surgery. (Probably still cheaper than a baby or abortions though)


IIRC my tubal (in Michigan in about 2006) was about $4000. With insurance it was about $30, but I doubt anyone's gonna get that kind of deal. It was a full-on hospital bed, hot feeling in the arm from the anasthetic, wheel me in and so forth deal.

Also, from what I've heard on the Farks, many doctors refuse to do tubals for young women (like under 70) or women who haven't had kids.
 
2013-12-03 11:09:23 AM  
I love Republicans.  I can't think of ANY circumstance where mentioning rape in any context has turned out well for them.  Yet they consistently feel the need to do it every few months, apparently in some grand quest to be the first political party with absolutely zero female votes in an election.

//rape insurance?  seriously?
 
2013-12-03 11:10:50 AM  

balloot: //rape insurance?  seriously?


the only "rape insurance a woman needs is purposeful dis-memberment.
 
2013-12-03 11:10:59 AM  

Maud Dib: [www.dvdtalk.com image 400x300]

Like a she-bear protecting her cubs, you can protect your uterus with an insurance policy from Mutual of Omaha....
Yes, I'm old.


Hey I loved that show.
 
2013-12-03 11:11:45 AM  
So if a women is raped and doesn't get pregnant is she still covered? There are lots of expenses associated with rape even if she isn't pregnant. Does that mean she has to keep getting raped until she is pregnant so she can be covered. I'm so confused. Why don't we like women?
 
2013-12-03 11:11:58 AM  

I_C_Weener: mrshowrules: Tricky Chicken: And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.

I agree and you realize this includes all abortions of under-aged women.

I'm against aborting under age women.


But you're fine with aborting underage men?

Or are you just against the basic principles of grammar, in addition to stubbornly trying to make this thread be about what you want it to be about, rather than what it actually IS about?
 
2013-12-03 11:12:10 AM  

Bareefer Obonghit: Mary couldn't wait for the insurance adjuster to come by sometime between 4 & 11 PM to evaluate the damage and decide if her womb was totaled.


That'll buff right out.
 
2013-12-03 11:12:16 AM  
I propose that Republicans, conservatives, and independents get themselves ball-kicking insurance, because at this point I am dead set to kick every one I see right in the jimmy sack.

/seriously, fark YOU fark YOU fark YOU
 
2013-12-03 11:14:18 AM  

Bareefer Obonghit: I_C_Weener: [deanwintersfans.files.wordpress.com image 850x478]

Mayhem gets raped?

He shouldn't have been running around the neighborhood dressed like that, asking for it.


I love you.
 
2013-12-03 11:15:29 AM  
Heh, I see how this is going to go if they pass this.

Step 2:  Call for boycotts against any insurance company that offers abortion coverage policies.
Step 3:  Require that the names of anyone with one of these policies be public information.
Step 4:  Outlaw the state and any state employees union from holding policies with any company that offers abortion coverage policies.
Step 5:  Outlaw any company that offers abortion coverage policies from offering any policies through the Obamacare exchanges.
 
2013-12-03 11:18:04 AM  

I_C_Weener: whistleridge: However, it IS insurance that doesn't cover abortion in the instance of rape, save if you get a rider. And that rider would be de facto rape insurance.

I get car insurance...but it doesn't cover flat tires...even flat tires caused by pot holes instead of angry ex-girlfriends...without a rider.  That doesn't make the rider pothole insurance.  That makes it flat tire insurance.


That's not a hair! It's a filamentous biomaterial protruding from your scalp via follicles!

You wouldn't call it follicle insurance would you!
 
2013-12-03 11:18:05 AM  
Rape Insurance


www.imfdb.org
 
2013-12-03 11:18:48 AM  
gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net
 
2013-12-03 11:18:52 AM  

whistleridge: lennavan: whistleridge: Rape is a horrible thing. Yes, it's being *slightly* blown up, but you and I are both dudes: we don't have the first damn idea of what we're talking about, not really.

I agree you have no idea what you are talking about but it's different than what you think.  Men get raped too.  See for instance: prison.

Men do in fact get raped. Especially in prison. But they don't get pregnant from it, and therefore the current matter of conversation doesn't apply to them. Thank you for playing though.

When we're talking about paying for AIDS contracted through rape, men get a seat at the table.


Well men are on the hook for support so it isn't fair to say they have no interest in this topic
 
2013-12-03 11:18:55 AM  

mainstreet62: SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]

OH GOD WHY DID YOU BOTH POST CONSECUTIVELY! NOW I SEE FLO WEARING PANTIES!!!

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


What? She's not *ugly.* And the panty woman has flat abs. So settle down there, Studman.
 
2013-12-03 11:19:07 AM  

yanoosh: So if a women is raped and doesn't get pregnant is she still covered? There are lots of expenses associated with rape even if she isn't pregnant. Does that mean she has to keep getting raped until she is pregnant so she can be covered. I'm so confused. Why don't we like women?


Even if she doesn't get pregnant, I think Republicans would support the insurance covering educational courses for the woman to ensure she knows how she brought on the rape and how she can be more wholesome and less provocative in the future.

Perhaps also cover some type of sexual seregate for the husband if applicable for the 2 to 5 days that his wife is in recovering and  rethinking her part in the whole thing.
 
2013-12-03 11:19:22 AM  

I_C_Weener: Stop and frisk is already legal in New York!


Stop and abort™ could be the next big Obama initiative.
 
2013-12-03 11:21:27 AM  

mrshowrules: Tricky Chicken: And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.

I agree and you realize this includes all abortions of under-aged women.


I do, and still think that everything should be done to help a victim recover as best as possible. If she wishes to have an abortion, so be it.  She should probably be given counselling first just incase she might regret that decision later.  That type of stuff should be figured out by mental health professionals, not me though.  Whatever it takes to give them the best chance at the best possible recovery.

runin800m: Tricky Chicken: And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.

I'm probably going to sound like an asshole here, but why is that the states responsibility? If I'm assaulted and beaten the state isn't going to cover my medical bills because I was the victim of a crime. Why should this one crime be any different?


Well, first, you don't sound like an ass to me.  It is a legitimate point.  I (this is purely just me now) think the state is responsible for providing a generally safe environment for people to live in.  that would include protecting us from crime.  If you are the victim of a crime, you should be made whole.  If there is a crime of violence against your person, you should be made whole to the best extent possible, to include healthcare and counselling.

If it is a property crime, that should be handled with property insurance. But I don't think you could possibly consider rape a property crime.
 
2013-12-03 11:21:31 AM  
If a rape baby is a gift from God, shouldn't there be insurance for women who never get a chance to have this gift?
 
2013-12-03 11:22:53 AM  
I hope the GOP can survive an increase of women in "power" positions.

I've never really understood militant feminism - but after yesterday's really ugly annual check-up and the on-going hateful right-wing focus on women and reproductive health (combined with some posts here on FARK) I am beginning to get it.

Continuing attempts to make restrictive/absurd/expensive laws regarding women will result in more vocal, politically active women - and they will all be called ""feminazis"
 
2013-12-03 11:24:09 AM  

mrshowrules: If a rape baby is a gift from God, shouldn't there be insurance for women who never get a chance to have this gift?


God also gives you the flu and malaria and floods and earthquakes and sunburn and ingrown toenails...
 
2013-12-03 11:24:37 AM  

Warlordtrooper: Well men are on the hook for support so it isn't fair to say they have no interest in this topic


I'm not sure a civil obligation gets you a seat at a table where basic human rights are being discussed.  That being said, I don't even think women should get a seat at a discussion where we're talking about forcing someone to do something with their bodies without an extremely good reason.  That should just, by default, be a decision one individual gets to make about their own body purely on the virtue that they're a human being and that we value human rights.
 
2013-12-03 11:25:44 AM  

mrshowrules: If a rape baby is a gift from God, shouldn't there be insurance for women who never get a chance to have this gift?


Would it be cheaper to pay them out or just have them casually date a former SF mayor?
 
2013-12-03 11:27:46 AM  

pueblonative: [gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net image 403x361]


img.fark.net
 
2013-12-03 11:28:33 AM  
I can at least understand the pro-life people who go out and shoot abortion doctors. They see the clinic as a house of horrors, wherein hundreds or thousands of babies are being murdered every year, and decide to be a hero and save some lives. In their own warped mind, they're doing something noble. The other ones, I don't understand all that much, and I think I hate them more because of how big of hypocrites they are about the whole thing.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or incest?
Congratulations, you're in favor of murdering only certain kinds of babies.

You're a pro-lifer who can't make abortion illegal, but instead protest outside clinics?
Congratulations, you yelled at a woman murdering her baby and did nothing to stop it.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks that women shouldn't be tried as murderers for having abortions?
Congratulations, you're an asshole.
 
2013-12-03 11:29:23 AM  

whistleridge: I_C_Weener: mrshowrules: Tricky Chicken: And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.

I agree and you realize this includes all abortions of under-aged women.

I'm against aborting under age women.

But you're fine with aborting underage men?

Or are you just against the basic principles of grammar, in addition to stubbornly trying to make this thread be about what you want it to be about, rather than what it actually IS about?


Have you met any underage men?
 
2013-12-03 11:29:28 AM  

Tigger: mainstreet62: We hate Muslims! So, let's treat our women like Muslims treat theirs! GREAT IDEA!

I have always tried to see the better side of humanity, but quite honestly, eugenics is looking more and more appealing as a solution. One could say it's the.....final solution.

We wiped out 50 million uncivilised savages to get this country. It might be time to do this again.



Come to Big Chief Bear's American Flag Blanket EmporiumTM, buy blankets for the whole family.  Free blankets on Thanksgiving and Columbus Day!
 
2013-12-03 11:31:34 AM  

Warlordtrooper: whistleridge: lennavan: whistleridge: Rape is a horrible thing. Yes, it's being *slightly* blown up, but you and I are both dudes: we don't have the first damn idea of what we're talking about, not really.

I agree you have no idea what you are talking about but it's different than what you think.  Men get raped too.  See for instance: prison.

Men do in fact get raped. Especially in prison. But they don't get pregnant from it, and therefore the current matter of conversation doesn't apply to them. Thank you for playing though.

When we're talking about paying for AIDS contracted through rape, men get a seat at the table.

Well men are on the hook for support so it isn't fair to say they have no interest in this topic


It is if they're the rapist. Committing a violent crime is nature's way of saying "I don't get a voice in this anymore"
 
2013-12-03 11:32:03 AM  

utharda: Tigger: mainstreet62: We hate Muslims! So, let's treat our women like Muslims treat theirs! GREAT IDEA!

I have always tried to see the better side of humanity, but quite honestly, eugenics is looking more and more appealing as a solution. One could say it's the.....final solution.

We wiped out 50 million uncivilised savages to get this country. It might be time to do this again.


Come to Big Chief Bear's American Flag Blanket EmporiumTM, buy blankets for the whole family.  Free blankets on Thanksgiving and Columbus Day!


Love it.

These lunatics are already convinced that we're going to put them in FEMA camps and kill them.

I say we just do it anyway and thank them for the idea.
 
2013-12-03 11:32:05 AM  
That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.
 
2013-12-03 11:34:11 AM  
Is the government making them buy rape insurance, telling them, "if you like your rapist, you can keep your rapist"?
 
2013-12-03 11:34:39 AM  

skullkrusher: I don't have a vagina.


*unfavorite*
 
2013-12-03 11:35:16 AM  
Dear GOP:

Is it really that difficult to *NOT* mention rape for just one day? It never does you any favors.

Hedly Lamarr isn't recruiting today.
 
2013-12-03 11:35:29 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: You're a pro-lifer who thinks that women shouldn't be tried as murderers for having abortions?
Congratulations, you're an asshole.


Consistency across the board still doesn't make them anything more than busybodies.
 
2013-12-03 11:36:54 AM  
Surface Tension & neversubmit win 4 life.
 
2013-12-03 11:37:51 AM  

runin800m: Tricky Chicken: And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.

I'm probably going to sound like an asshole here, but why is that the states responsibility? If I'm assaulted and beaten the state isn't going to cover my medical bills because I was the victim of a crime. Why should this one crime be any different?


They should cover you for an assault. They should cover it if you get drunk and fall down the stairs. See how single payer would make all of this so much easier?
 
2013-12-03 11:40:05 AM  

runin800m: Tricky Chicken: And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.

I'm probably going to sound like an asshole here, but why is that the states responsibility? If I'm assaulted and beaten the state isn't going to cover my medical bills because I was the victim of a crime. Why should this one crime be any different?


How about rapist insurance.  Every individual of legal age has to purchase rape insurance in the event that they rape somebody, there will be a payout to the person raped for expenses?  And so as not to offend the free market Repubs, we'll allow price discrimination. j
 
2013-12-03 11:40:11 AM  

maxheck: Dear GOP:

Is it really that difficult to *NOT* mention rape for just one day? It never does you any favors.

Hedly Lamarr isn't recruiting today.


Female Dem talking about rape here
 
2013-12-03 11:40:32 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Is the government making them buy rape insurance, telling them, "if you like your rapist, you can keep your rapist"?


I guess this joke was inevitable.  LOL anyways.
 
2013-12-03 11:40:45 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I can at least understand the pro-life people who go out and shoot abortion doctors. They see the clinic as a house of horrors, wherein hundreds or thousands of babies are being murdered every year, and decide to be a hero and save some lives. In their own warped mind, they're doing something noble. The other ones, I don't understand all that much, and I think I hate them more because of how big of hypocrites they are about the whole thing.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or incest?
Congratulations, you're in favor of murdering only certain kinds of babies.

You're a pro-lifer who can't make abortion illegal, but instead protest outside clinics?
Congratulations, you yelled at a woman murdering her baby and did nothing to stop it.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks that women shouldn't be tried as murderers for having abortions?
Congratulations, you're an asshole.


they aren't much different than the Musims who would rape a woman, then stone her for "adultery"
GOP will rape them, then slut-shame them, and deny them birth control.
 
2013-12-03 11:40:50 AM  
How's that Rape Foot taste, 'Pubs?  You guys sure do like stuffing it in your mouth.
 
2013-12-03 11:42:09 AM  
"Requiring Michigan women to plan ahead for an unplanned pregnancy is not only illogical, it's one of the most misogynistic proposals I have ever seen in the Michigan Legislature."

The whole purpose of insurance is to cover for unplanned events that have a possible (though unlikely) chance of happening. It's not illogical. It's just you don't understand the definitions of the things you argue about.

Same reason why some people, including cops, carry weapons. They know they won't use them 99.99% of the time but that 0.01% when they do use them, it'll be very important. It's not that they plan on shooting someone. It's insurance.
 
2013-12-03 11:42:36 AM  

skullkrusher: That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.


There are stats on that.  Keep in mind that any women under the age of consent is a victim of statutory rape.  I think it accounts for nearly half if not more of abortions.
 
2013-12-03 11:43:39 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: You're a pro-lifer who thinks that women shouldn't be tried as murderers for having abortions?
Congratulations, you're an asshole.

Consistency across the board still doesn't make them anything more than busybodies.


The only pro-lifer I've ever met who wasn't an asshole about it is my old buddy Jeff. Jeff is a Catholic who thinks that women should have easy access to free birth control, because the best way to prevent abortions is to make sure women don't get pregnant in the first place. He also thinks that ALL abortions are wrong because if abortion is murder, it's ALWAYS murder. That being said, he knows that banning abortion won't prevent abortion, it'll just make abortions unsafe. So he thinks that abortion should remain legal because legalized abortion saves women's lives. So he's actually pro-life in that he wants to support ALL life, not just unborn fetuses. He also thinks we should have single payer insurance that automatically covers everyone in the US, because he's actually pro-life.
 
2013-12-03 11:44:17 AM  

I_C_Weener: serial_crusher: palladiate: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

It's actually "No insurance company can provide this coverage by default in Michigan, not even for cases of rape" bill. It specifically prohibits insurers from offering this coverage in their plans. You'll have to buy a rider if they're even offered, which by the by, aren't cheap.

How do you come to the "aren't cheap" conclusion? Does the bill specify prices?
I could see an insurance company deciding its cheaper to pay for your abortion than it is to pay for your baby, offering it as a free add-on.

True.  But my insurance was happy to "fix" me because I wanted a vasectomy.  But they don't like paying for "fixing" women without a medical necessity.  I don't understand their reasoning.


It is a significantly more expensive invasive and dangerous procedure.
 
2013-12-03 11:45:13 AM  

runin800m: Tricky Chicken: And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.

I'm probably going to sound like an asshole here, but why is that the states responsibility? If I'm assaulted and beaten the state isn't going to cover my medical bills because I was the victim of a crime. Why should this one crime be any different?


Actually, many states do have a fund to compensate victims of violent crime.  It is usually underfunded and it takes a long time to receive any money.   Obviously, proof of the crime must be provided and that can be a difficult hurdle especially for traumatized victims.
 
2013-12-03 11:46:46 AM  

Mrbogey: "Requiring Michigan women to plan ahead for an unplanned pregnancy is not only illogical, it's one of the most misogynistic proposals I have ever seen in the Michigan Legislature."

The whole purpose of insurance is to cover for unplanned events that have a possible (though unlikely) chance of happening. It's not illogical. It's just you don't understand the definitions of the things you argue about.

Same reason why some people, including cops, carry weapons. They know they won't use them 99.99% of the time but that 0.01% when they do use them, it'll be very important. It's not that they plan on shooting someone. It's insurance.


I think this woman is in the tank for the GOP
 
2013-12-03 11:47:23 AM  
You know, both sides are, in fact, bad, despite how that overly simplistic argument gets rightfully shot down here on Fark.

Democrats and Republicans both have a long-standing history of being utterly, insanely wrong on matters of economy, the military, social justice, foreign policy, domestic policy - you name it.

BUT

There is only one party that has an appallingly glib, morally confused, utterly repugnant stance on what is arguably the ugliest act one human can perform on another.

http://www.dayswithoutagoprapemention.com/

The comments in the above link are not isolated incidents.  They are not taken out of context.  They are a clear, consistent pattern of dangerously hateful rhetoric.

1 in 3 women are victims of sexual abuse.  No matter who you are, you know victims of sexual abuse.  Many of the women in your life, whom you love and care about, have had to endure an unspeakably heinous invasion of their body and by extension, their minds, souls, and lives, and the lives of their loved ones.

And anyone that is flippant, confused, or ambivalent to this awful act and its consequences, I would assess as ignorant and callous to a sociopathic degree.

Democrats suck, there's no denying that.  But I vote for them because the alternative is, quite literally, the Pro Rape Party.
 
2013-12-03 11:48:00 AM  

mrshowrules: skullkrusher: That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.

There are stats on that.  Keep in mind that any women under the age of consent is a victim of statutory rape.  I think it accounts for nearly half if not more of abortions.


True. False. Dunno but sounds bullshiat.
 
2013-12-03 11:48:20 AM  

mrshowrules: skullkrusher: That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.

There are stats on that.  Keep in mind that any women under the age of consent is a victim of statutory rape.  I think it accounts for nearly half if not more of abortions.


It's actually less than 18%. However it is overwhelmingly poor women who get abortions, and from a mathematical point of view, every aborted impoverished fetus is one less mouth we taxpayers have to feed and clothe.
 
2013-12-03 11:48:58 AM  

Tricky Chicken: I (this is purely just me now) think the state is responsible for providing a generally safe environment for people to live in.  that would include protecting us from crime.  If you are the victim of a crime, you should be made whole.  If there is a crime of violence against your person, you should be made whole to the best extent possible, to include healthcare and counselling.

If it is a property crime, that should be handled with property insurance. But I don't think you could possibly consider rape a property crime.


Well, I also certainly wouldn't consider rape a property crime. If the government is going to make everyone whole when they are the victim of a crime then why stop at crimes against my person? Why shouldn't I be made whole if I come home from work and my house has been robbed and vandalized. Why should I be forced into bankruptcy just because I hadn't purchased insurance on my home or property? If property crimes can be handled with property insurance why not expect that crimes resulting in bodily injury be handled with health insurance? I just don't see why there would be a distinction. If we started doing one it would only be a matter of time before we were also doing the other. I think we should let people's personal insurance handle both, but if we're going to do one then we might as well go all in.
 
2013-12-03 11:49:29 AM  

parasol: I hope the GOP can survive an increase of women in "power" positions.

I've never really understood militant feminism - but after yesterday's really ugly annual check-up and the on-going hateful right-wing focus on women and reproductive health (combined with some posts here on FARK) I am beginning to get it.

Continuing attempts to make restrictive/absurd/expensive laws regarding women will result in more vocal, politically active women - and they will all be called ""feminazis"


Congratulations.
 
2013-12-03 11:49:31 AM  

Snatch Bandergrip: You know, both sides are, in fact, bad, despite how that overly simplistic argument gets rightfully shot down here on Fark.

Democrats and Republicans both have a long-standing history of being utterly, insanely wrong on matters of economy, the military, social justice, foreign policy, domestic policy - you name it.

BUT

There is only one party that has an appallingly glib, morally confused, utterly repugnant stance on what is arguably the ugliest act one human can perform on another.

http://www.dayswithoutagoprapemention.com/

The comments in the above link are not isolated incidents.  They are not taken out of context.  They are a clear, consistent pattern of dangerously hateful rhetoric.

1 in 3 women are victims of sexual abuse.  No matter who you are, you know victims of sexual abuse.  Many of the women in your life, whom you love and care about, have had to endure an unspeakably heinous invasion of their body and by extension, their minds, souls, and lives, and the lives of their loved ones.

And anyone that is flippant, confused, or ambivalent to this awful act and its consequences, I would assess as ignorant and callous to a sociopathic degree.

Democrats suck, there's no denying that.  But I vote for them because the alternative is, quite literally, the Pro Rape Party.


Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.
 
2013-12-03 11:49:33 AM  

vudukungfu: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I can at least understand the pro-life people who go out and shoot abortion doctors. They see the clinic as a house of horrors, wherein hundreds or thousands of babies are being murdered every year, and decide to be a hero and save some lives. In their own warped mind, they're doing something noble. The other ones, I don't understand all that much, and I think I hate them more because of how big of hypocrites they are about the whole thing.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or incest?
Congratulations, you're in favor of murdering only certain kinds of babies.

You're a pro-lifer who can't make abortion illegal, but instead protest outside clinics?
Congratulations, you yelled at a woman murdering her baby and did nothing to stop it.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks that women shouldn't be tried as murderers for having abortions?
Congratulations, you're an asshole.

they aren't much different than the Musims who would rape a woman, then stone her for "adultery"
GOP will rape them, then slut-shame them, and deny them birth control.


and then cut off SNAP to the child once born?
 
2013-12-03 11:49:54 AM  

Mrbogey: "Requiring Michigan women to plan ahead for an unplanned pregnancy is not only illogical, it's one of the most misogynistic proposals I have ever seen in the Michigan Legislature."

The whole purpose of insurance is to cover for unplanned events that have a possible (though unlikely) chance of happening. It's not illogical. It's just you don't understand the definitions of the things you argue about.

Same reason why some people, including cops, carry weapons. They know they won't use them 99.99% of the time but that 0.01% when they do use them, it'll be very important. It's not that they plan on shooting someone. It's insurance.


There is one tiny flaw in your premise
The GOP has been actively working to deny women birth control. This has been the "insurance to cover for unplanned events" women have used for quite some time (let us say the 70's for Fark sake)

Am I to assume that, lacking insurance coverage for birth control, women will take out "rape insurance" to cover terminations that are increasingly difficult in red states to obtain?

That reminds me of hurricane insurance as offered by Citizen's in Florida. You pay for it, and when the worst happens and you make a claim, somehow (gasp) you find your options are "deal with it by yourself"

If you can't prove it was really rape they can always deny your claim.
 
2013-12-03 11:51:08 AM  
Is being in prison considered a preexisting condition when determining rape insurance premiums?
 
2013-12-03 11:51:37 AM  

Mercutio74: Warlordtrooper: Well men are on the hook for support so it isn't fair to say they have no interest in this topic

I'm not sure a civil obligation gets you a seat at a table where basic human rights are being discussed.  That being said, I don't even think women should get a seat at a discussion where we're talking about forcing someone to do something with their bodies without an extremely good reason.  That should just, by default, be a decision one individual gets to make about their own body purely on the virtue that they're a human being and that we value human rights.


Exactly this.  Why a women should have any more say in another woman's pregnancy than a man always seems ridiculous to me.
 
2013-12-03 11:51:46 AM  

sdd2000: vudukungfu: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I can at least understand the pro-life people who go out and shoot abortion doctors. They see the clinic as a house of horrors, wherein hundreds or thousands of babies are being murdered every year, and decide to be a hero and save some lives. In their own warped mind, they're doing something noble. The other ones, I don't understand all that much, and I think I hate them more because of how big of hypocrites they are about the whole thing.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or incest?
Congratulations, you're in favor of murdering only certain kinds of babies.

You're a pro-lifer who can't make abortion illegal, but instead protest outside clinics?
Congratulations, you yelled at a woman murdering her baby and did nothing to stop it.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks that women shouldn't be tried as murderers for having abortions?
Congratulations, you're an asshole.

they aren't much different than the Musims who would rape a woman, then stone her for "adultery"
GOP will rape them, then slut-shame them, and deny them birth control.

and then cut off SNAP to the child once born?


Food grubbing parasite doesn't need SNAP til the umbilical cord is cut. Or the placenta dries up but if you've waited that long, ewwwww
 
2013-12-03 11:52:58 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Is being in prison considered a preexisting condition when determining rape insurance premiums?



No. But being Catholic...
 
2013-12-03 11:54:31 AM  

mainstreet62: SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]

OH GOD WHY DID YOU BOTH POST CONSECUTIVELY! NOW I SEE FLO WEARING PANTIES!!!

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 650x475]


Glad I wasnt the only one thinking that.
 
2013-12-03 11:54:34 AM  

SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]


Bareefer Obonghit: SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHA


Awesome!
 
2013-12-03 11:54:50 AM  

parasol: The GOP has been actively working to deny women birth control. This has been the "insurance to cover for unplanned events" women have used for quite some time (let us say the 70's for Fark sake)


Exactly.

We have "rape insurance." It's called birth control pills and Plan B. But the GOP has been trying to restrict access to birth control and Plan B, because reasons. So they remove a woman's ability to easily get pregnancy prevention medicine and then the GOP turns around and makes it even more difficult to get an abortion. It's not about preventing abortion. If it was, the GOP would be handing out birth control pills like candy. It's really about controlling women.

We won't let you get birth control.
We won't let you get an abortion.
And we sure as hell won't help you pay for that kid you accidentally made.
 
2013-12-03 11:54:53 AM  

pueblonative: How about rapist insurance.  Every individual of legal age has to purchase rape insurance in the event that they rape somebody, there will be a payout to the person raped for expenses?  And so as not to offend the free market Repubs, we'll allow price discrimination. j


I like that idea.   For every decade that you manage to live your life w/o raping someone you get a discount.  Let's employ free market solutions.
 
2013-12-03 11:55:37 AM  

Graffito: runin800m: Tricky Chicken: And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.

I'm probably going to sound like an asshole here, but why is that the states responsibility? If I'm assaulted and beaten the state isn't going to cover my medical bills because I was the victim of a crime. Why should this one crime be any different?

Actually, many states do have a fund to compensate victims of violent crime.  It is usually underfunded and it takes a long time to receive any money.   Obviously, proof of the crime must be provided and that can be a difficult hurdle especially for traumatized victims.


What do they do when both parties are at fault for an assault?  Lets say you and I are in a bar drinking heavily.  We get into an argument about how euclidian geometry changes the shot angles when you move from a six foot pool table to an eight foot pool table.  The situation escalates, and we come to blows.  Now since I am clearly a lover and not a fighter, I get soundly thrashed and now require medical attention.

Now clearly I participated in the situation and I am equally to blame. I don't think a state should cover my expenses in that situation.

Just to be clear, none of this applies to rape...

But if the state pays for all the medical expenses related to rape, would there be an incentive for a woman that finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy to claim date rape after the fact to get an abortion?  I haven't noodled my way through that one.  But in a single payer system that wouldn't be an issue.
 
2013-12-03 11:56:19 AM  
OK, I know this little thought experiment has been done to death (pun) over and over, but let's try it one more time:

To all "Pro-life GOP" out there:

A woman attempts to get birth control.  Is denied because of religious reasons.  She gets raped.  Gets pregnant.  If she carries the baby to term, she will die, and most likely the baby will, too.  If she aborts the baby, the baby will die. The woman wants to have a large family when she gets married, so to let her die is to let all her potential children die, too.  (life begins before conception, right?)

So which carries more weight and allows you to convince yourself that you're still 'pro-life'?

(Too distracted to think of a way to work a gun into this scenario, because pro-lifers are equally conflicted about that point, too)
 
2013-12-03 11:56:32 AM  

Needlessly Complicated: mainstreet62: SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]

OH GOD WHY DID YOU BOTH POST CONSECUTIVELY! NOW I SEE FLO WEARING PANTIES!!!

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

What? She's not *ugly.* And the panty woman has flat abs. So settle down there, Studman.


Yeah, no kidding.
 
2013-12-03 11:58:10 AM  

skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.


I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?
 
2013-12-03 11:58:44 AM  
skullkrusher:

Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

Isn't it awful how often these Democrats bring up rape?
 
2013-12-03 12:01:11 PM  

A Cave Geek: OK, I know this little thought experiment has been done to death (pun) over and over, but let's try it one more time:

To all "Pro-life GOP" out there:

A woman attempts to get birth control.  Is denied because of religious reasons.  She gets raped. She buys a gun in case it happens again. Gets pregnant.  If she carries the baby to term, she will die, and most likely the baby will, too.  If she aborts the baby, the baby will die. The woman wants to have a large family and will have to hunt game in order to feed them when she gets married, so to let her die is to let all her potential gun-owning-but-for-hunting-only children die, too.  (life begins before conception, right?)

So which carries more weight and allows you to convince yourself that you're still 'pro-life'?

(Too distracted to think of a way to work a gun into this scenario, because pro-lifers are equally conflicted about that point, too)



That work for you? ;)
 
2013-12-03 12:01:23 PM  

whistleridge: mainstreet62: SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]

OH GOD WHY DID YOU BOTH POST CONSECUTIVELY! NOW I SEE FLO WEARING PANTIES!!!

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 650x475]

Lol. I never would have noticed if you hadn't said anything.

Um...at least she doesn't have a camel toe? In fact, she appears to have undergone Type III excision.


Or more likely has a trimmed panty liner who's outline was photoshopped out in post production.  Don't want to show any contours there - that would be smut and you can't have that in an ad.  Same with body hair - shaved shaved shaved is the rule.  In any commercial photo, assume it's 'shopped extensively.  Also assume the "package" being held by men's underwear in ads is a "tastefully" positioned foam tube.  But no ball hang.  That's nasty.  The only way you achieve the men's underwear ad "look" is by wearing a slightly undersized speedo of the appropriate color and creating the contours with a "mock cock".
 
2013-12-03 12:02:18 PM  

whistleridge: I_C_Weener: palladiate: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

It's actually "No insurance company can provide this coverage by default in Michigan, not even for cases of rape" bill. It specifically prohibits insurers from offering this coverage in their plans. You'll have to buy a rider if they're even offered, which by the by, aren't cheap.

I didn't say it wasn't stupid.  I said it isn't rape insurance.

True.

However, it IS insurance that doesn't cover abortion in the instance of rape, save if you get a rider. And that rider would be de facto rape insurance. 

It's a slightly hyperbolic term, but it only works because there's a large amount of truth behind it.


It is not hyperbolic. It is spelling out one of the things that the insurance would be covering and, in the absence of public services the bill would create, it is quite accurate. insurance would be the solution to pregnancies that result from sexual assault. it would even shift the pregnancy away from a health issue and away from a criminal issue and into the territory of insurable accidents. The pregnancy would become a tort and if insurers could cover it, that means the woman is paying for the coverage and therefore basically taking on partial responsibility for the damage done by rape itself.
 
2013-12-03 12:03:44 PM  
I say we make everyone take a physiological and a physical exam every year and break out their strength and weaknesses into comparable charts and graphs.  Then compare them to the rest of the population to determine whom should or should pay more in insurance, what their career should be, who they should marry, and determine if any restrictions to rights and privileges are needed.

Then control and manipulate an "uprising" that will never be.  This will be used as a sort of blow off valve for the minority unhappy x factor.

/There.  Utopia solved.
 
2013-12-03 12:04:09 PM  

MadHatter500: Or more likely has a trimmed panty liner who's outline was photoshopped out in post production. Don't want to show any contours there - that would be smut and you can't have that in an ad. Same with body hair - shaved shaved shaved is the rule. In any commercial photo, assume it's 'shopped extensively. Also assume the "package" being held by men's underwear in ads is a "tastefully" positioned foam tube. But no ball hang. That's nasty. The only way you achieve the men's underwear ad "look" is by wearing a slightly undersized speedo of the appropriate color and creating the contours with a "mock cock".


Fark now has a "genitalia stylist" ad expert.  I think might just about have every specialty in the world among our membership now.
 
2013-12-03 12:04:22 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.

There are stats on that.  Keep in mind that any women under the age of consent is a victim of statutory rape.  I think it accounts for nearly half if not more of abortions.

It's actually less than 18%. However it is overwhelmingly poor women who get abortions, and from a mathematical point of view, every aborted impoverished fetus is one less mouth we taxpayers have to feed and clothe.


That is total abortions.  What about elective abortions?

I wouldn't look at any abortions related to protecting the health of the mother.   Those should not be considered as abortions which can be avoided.
 
2013-12-03 12:05:08 PM  

Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?


By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.
 
2013-12-03 12:05:13 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: whistleridge: I_C_Weener: palladiate: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

It's actually "No insurance company can provide this coverage by default in Michigan, not even for cases of rape" bill. It specifically prohibits insurers from offering this coverage in their plans. You'll have to buy a rider if they're even offered, which by the by, aren't cheap.

I didn't say it wasn't stupid.  I said it isn't rape insurance.

True.

However, it IS insurance that doesn't cover abortion in the instance of rape, save if you get a rider. And that rider would be de facto rape insurance. 

It's a slightly hyperbolic term, but it only works because there's a large amount of truth behind it.

It is not hyperbolic. It is spelling out one of the things that the insurance would be covering and, in the absence of public services the bill would create, it is quite accurate. insurance would be the solution to pregnancies that result from sexual assault. it would even shift the pregnancy away from a health issue and away from a criminal issue and into the territory of insurable accidents. The pregnancy would become a tort and if insurers could cover it, that means the woman is paying for the coverage and therefore basically taking on partial responsibility for the damage done by rape itself.


Abortion coverage is apparently already a matter for insurance. The bill is just severing it from standard plans.
 
2013-12-03 12:05:13 PM  

Mercutio74: Fark now has a "genitalia stylist" ad expert.  I think might just about have every specialty in the world among our membership now.


"How to Vajazzle for unexpected company"
 
2013-12-03 12:05:52 PM  

Needlessly Complicated: mainstreet62: SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]

OH GOD WHY DID YOU BOTH POST CONSECUTIVELY! NOW I SEE FLO WEARING PANTIES!!!

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

What? She's not *ugly.* And the panty woman has flat abs. So settle down there, Studman.



Yowza.
t.fod4.com
 
2013-12-03 12:06:23 PM  

I_C_Weener: serial_crusher: palladiate: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

It's actually "No insurance company can provide this coverage by default in Michigan, not even for cases of rape" bill. It specifically prohibits insurers from offering this coverage in their plans. You'll have to buy a rider if they're even offered, which by the by, aren't cheap.

How do you come to the "aren't cheap" conclusion? Does the bill specify prices?
I could see an insurance company deciding its cheaper to pay for your abortion than it is to pay for your baby, offering it as a free add-on.

True.  But my insurance was happy to "fix" me because I wanted a vasectomy.  But they don't like paying for "fixing" women without a medical necessity.  I don't understand their reasoning.


Vasectomy is a minimally invasive procedure with short recovery times.  Done on an outpatient basis.  Ie. it's damn cheap to do.  Getting one's tubes tied is a bit more complex and costly.  One needs an understanding of accountancy to comprehend insurance.  Medical knowledge only gets in the way.
 
2013-12-03 12:07:00 PM  

Tigger: skullkrusher:

Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

Isn't it awful how often these Democrats bring up rape?


Seriously. Got rape on the branes, 24/7
 
2013-12-03 12:07:27 PM  

parasol: That reminds me of hurricane insurance as offered by Citizen's in Florida. You pay for it, and when the worst happens and you make a claim, somehow (gasp) you find your options are "deal with it by yourself"

If you can't prove it was really rape they can always deny your claim.


So, rape is an act of God?
 
2013-12-03 12:07:40 PM  

Mercutio74: MadHatter500: Or more likely has a trimmed panty liner who's outline was photoshopped out in post production. Don't want to show any contours there - that would be smut and you can't have that in an ad. Same with body hair - shaved shaved shaved is the rule. In any commercial photo, assume it's 'shopped extensively. Also assume the "package" being held by men's underwear in ads is a "tastefully" positioned foam tube. But no ball hang. That's nasty. The only way you achieve the men's underwear ad "look" is by wearing a slightly undersized speedo of the appropriate color and creating the contours with a "mock cock".

Fark now has a "genitalia stylist" ad expert.  I think might just about have every specialty in the world among our membership now.


We could found an island nation and fend off economic ruin long enough to collapse into civil war.
 
2013-12-03 12:07:47 PM  

skullkrusher: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.

There are stats on that.  Keep in mind that any women under the age of consent is a victim of statutory rape.  I think it accounts for nearly half if not more of abortions.

True. False. Dunno but sounds bullshiat.


How is statutory rape not rape?

I'm not sure about the stats but I am talking about a percentage of elective abortions, not including abortions protecting the health of the mother.
 
2013-12-03 12:07:52 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Graffito: runin800m: Tricky Chicken: And while rape insurance is crazy, I do think that if a woman is raped, any expenses she incurrs (medical, counseling, whatever) as a result should be covered, probably by the state.

I'm probably going to sound like an asshole here, but why is that the states responsibility? If I'm assaulted and beaten the state isn't going to cover my medical bills because I was the victim of a crime. Why should this one crime be any different?

Actually, many states do have a fund to compensate victims of violent crime.  It is usually underfunded and it takes a long time to receive any money.   Obviously, proof of the crime must be provided and that can be a difficult hurdle especially for traumatized victims.

What do they do when both parties are at fault for an assault?  Lets say you and I are in a bar drinking heavily.  We get into an argument about how euclidian geometry changes the shot angles when you move from a six foot pool table to an eight foot pool table.  The situation escalates, and we come to blows.  Now since I am clearly a lover and not a fighter, I get soundly thrashed and now require medical attention.

Now clearly I participated in the situation and I am equally to blame. I don't think a state should cover my expenses in that situation.

Just to be clear, none of this applies to rape...

But if the state pays for all the medical expenses related to rape, would there be an incentive for a woman that finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy to claim date rape after the fact to get an abortion?  I haven't noodled my way through that one.  But in a single payer system that wouldn't be an issue.


You are asking questions that I don't know the answer to.  I live in Ohio and I knew someone who the victim of a horrible sexual assault and stabbing.  She was trying to get some money from the vic comp fund to help her with rent because she couldn't work (as a waitress) when she was recovering from her wounds.   I can't even begin to describe the mental anguish that she was in so some relief from the threat of being evicted would have helped a lot.
She only received a small amount of money (a couple thousand) and it was years later.  We're not talking about medical expenses, but money to help out with all things like therapy, rent, cab fare - kind of like an AFLAC policy for crime victims.
 
2013-12-03 12:08:54 PM  
Wow. There really is something pathological to the Republicans, isn't there? They really just can't stop talking about women's reproductive systems.

/Rs might have had a chance in 2014 with people forgetting about the shutdown, but they just can't keep their mouths shut!
 
2013-12-03 12:09:51 PM  

skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.


again?
women already have/had unplanned pregnancy insurance
which the GOP has long tried to deny access to

women don't need rape insurance at additional cost - they need birth control - including the morning after pill - which would further reduce that "tiny fraction" you mentioned above.
 
2013-12-03 12:10:31 PM  

Peki: Wow. There really is something pathological to the Republicans, isn't there? They really just can't stop talking about women's reproductive systems.

/Rs might have had a chance in 2014 with people forgetting about the shutdown, but they just can't keep their mouths shut!


Onward Christian soldiers.
 
2013-12-03 12:10:54 PM  
So the ACA putting mandates on insurance companies shouldn't bother the GOP.  After all, this is exactly what they are doing here.
 
2013-12-03 12:11:09 PM  

Needlessly Complicated: What? She's not *ugly.* And the panty woman has flat abs. So settle down there, Studman.


I was more aghast at the weird proportions created by looking at the 2 images as one.

Flo is cute. The bottom half obviously has a killer body. I'd take both home.
 
2013-12-03 12:12:07 PM  

runin800m: Tricky Chicken: I (this is purely just me now) think the state is responsible for providing a generally safe environment for people to live in.  that would include protecting us from crime.  If you are the victim of a crime, you should be made whole.  If there is a crime of violence against your person, you should be made whole to the best extent possible, to include healthcare and counselling.

If it is a property crime, that should be handled with property insurance. But I don't think you could possibly consider rape a property crime.

Well, I also certainly wouldn't consider rape a property crime. If the government is going to make everyone whole when they are the victim of a crime then why stop at crimes against my person? Why shouldn't I be made whole if I come home from work and my house has been robbed and vandalized. Why should I be forced into bankruptcy just because I hadn't purchased insurance on my home or property? If property crimes can be handled with property insurance why not expect that crimes resulting in bodily injury be handled with health insurance? I just don't see why there would be a distinction. If we started doing one it would only be a matter of time before we were also doing the other. I think we should let people's personal insurance handle both, but if we're going to do one then we might as well go all in.


I can see that the state has some responsibility to protect you from property crime as well.  But I personally see a huge difference between a property crime and any crime against your person.  But I have funny concepts of ownership and posession.  Your body is entirely yours, and anything I do to affect it should require your consent.  If I touch you, or hinder your movement, or threaten your health or psyche, these are all immediate impacts to my person.  If you were to right now knock my house down, I would not even be aware of it for hours.  Now lets say that before the end of the day my boss sends me on a business trip to North Korea.  While there I fall for a woman and renounce my citizenship and stay there.  I may well never know that you knocked my house down and will never feel that a crime was comitted. Likewise, you could hack into my 401K and drain all my assets.  If I pass away tomorrow, your crime would be just a number on a spreadsheet.  In fact, if your house is on fire and your family is inside and I have a fire extinguisher, I think your need trumps my property rights.

I can be made whole for just about any crime against my property, and therefore I should take the responsibility to insure those items that I hold valuable.  I cannot have insurance against a crime against my person because if injured, I cannot be made truely whole.  I do however rely upon the assurances of the state that they will do all they can to prevent crimes against my person.
 
2013-12-03 12:12:08 PM  

Pinner: parasol: That reminds me of hurricane insurance as offered by Citizen's in Florida. You pay for it, and when the worst happens and you make a claim, somehow (gasp) you find your options are "deal with it by yourself"

If you can't prove it was really rape they can always deny your claim.

So, rape is an act of God?


No - and denial of insurance coverage is certainly the work of man
 
2013-12-03 12:13:19 PM  
skullkrusher:

maxheck: Dear GOP:

Is it really that difficult to *NOT* mention rape for just one day? It never does you any favors.

Hedly Lamarr isn't recruiting today.

Female Dem talking about rape here


I'm just gonna guess here, and perhaps this is an unwarranted assumption, much like assuming the Tea Party votes Republican. But she's talking about legislation proposed by "Right to Life of Michigan."
 
2013-12-03 12:13:55 PM  
Bottom line for the GOP:  The more they talk, the less electable they are.  You want the GOP to go down in 2014?  Keep them talking.
 
2013-12-03 12:14:16 PM  
Dear policyholder,

We regret to inform you that your recent claim filed under your rape insurance policy (#█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ ) has been deemed ineligible for coverage, after review of the case by our expert team of adjusters.

Per the terms of your policy, you may opt to submit a disputation of this judgement to a third party mediator of our choosing.  The terms of the mediated arbitration are binding and final, and are subject to the laws of the state of appropriate jurisdiction.

Statistical analysis of claims for rape insurance indicate that over 50% are deemed ineligible for a claim, for a variety of reasons. We suggest that you contact your broker to discuss improving your coverage by adding a slut insurance policy.  Information on slut insurance is also available on our website, www.█ █ █ █ █ █ █ .com.
 
2013-12-03 12:14:51 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: It is not hyperbolic. It is spelling out one of the things that the insurance would be covering and, in the absence of public services the bill would create, it is quite accurate.


It's also a reasonable line of attack.  Michigan attempted to pass this same bill long ago and even their ridiculously right leaning governor Rick Snyder vetoed it saying not allowing rape victims to keep coverage goes too far.  Republicans had the opportunity to simply write a bill to allow an exception for rape victims and Rick Snyder would have presumably signed it.  They didn't, they're trying to override his veto.

 That's why it's fully reasonable to attack Republicans on the rape issue.  They were specifically told to make accommodations for rape victims and they specifically chose not to.
 
2013-12-03 12:15:25 PM  

Ned Stark: We could found an island nation and fend off economic ruin long enough to collapse into civil war.


Judging by this tab alone, we'd begin in a state of civil war... and for some reason, we'd all love it.
 
2013-12-03 12:17:23 PM  
There already IS rape insurance:

planbonestep.com

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not already there.

And stop trying to shove the whole of government up some woman's vajaja.  It doesn't fit.
 
2013-12-03 12:18:00 PM  

Peki: Wow. There really is something pathological to the Republicans, isn't there? They really just can't stop talking about women's reproductive systems.


You're the real rapist for pointing that out.

See, this stupid libtard Demorat is attacking the most offensive aspect of the Republican bill, that even abortions due to rape shouldn't be covered. But since most abortions aren't due to rape, that makes her the real rapist, and you, and me, and all of us who decry Republican attitudes on rape.

/ rape rape rape rape rape
// any woman who votes Republican is out of her f*cking mind
 
2013-12-03 12:18:32 PM  

Parthenogenetic: Dear policyholder,

We regret to inform you that your recent claim filed under your rape insurance policy (#█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ ) has been deemed ineligible for coverage, after review of the case by our expert team of adjusters.

Per the terms of your policy, you may opt to submit a disputation of this judgement to a third party mediator of our choosing.  The terms of the mediated arbitration are binding and final, and are subject to the laws of the state of appropriate jurisdiction.

Statistical analysis of claims for rape insurance indicate that over 50% are deemed ineligible for a claim, for a variety of reasons. We suggest that you contact your broker to discuss improving your coverage by adding a slut insurance policy.  Information on slut insurance is also available on our website, www.█ █ █ █ █ █ █ .com.


I smiled, I nodded, my eyes got teary
four-and-a-half stars

....don't forget denial as "we are unable to offer this service, please see a specialist"
 
2013-12-03 12:18:36 PM  

Pinner: parasol: That reminds me of hurricane insurance as offered by Citizen's in Florida. You pay for it, and when the worst happens and you make a claim, somehow (gasp) you find your options are "deal with it by yourself"

If you can't prove it was really rape they can always deny your claim.

So, rape is an act of God?


That is what Santorum and a few others have said that exact statement.
 
2013-12-03 12:19:14 PM  

Parthenogenetic: Dear policyholder,

We regret to inform you that your recent claim filed under your rape insurance policy (#█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ ) has been deemed ineligible for coverage, after review of the case by our expert team of adjusters.

Per the terms of your policy, you may opt to submit a disputation of this judgement to a third party mediator of our choosing.  The terms of the mediated arbitration are binding and final, and are subject to the laws of the state of appropriate jurisdiction.

Statistical analysis of claims for rape insurance indicate that over 50% are deemed ineligible for a claim, for a variety of reasons. We suggest that you contact your broker to discuss improving your coverage by adding a slut insurance policy.  Information on slut insurance is also available on our website, www.█ █ █ █ █ █ █ .com.


Oy. I just thought of all the hassle a private company would put a woman through investigating a rape claim. The cops are bad enough, but they have laws they have to abide by. But a private corp, only caring about its bottom line? *shudder* I've been raped and it was bad enough just trying to go to the cops. . .
 
2013-12-03 12:19:15 PM  
www.bartcop.com
 
2013-12-03 12:19:44 PM  

Graffito: Tricky Chicken: Graffito: runin800m: Tricky Chicken:

You are asking questions that I don't know the answer to.  I live in Ohio and I knew someone who the victim of a horrible sexual assault and stabbing.  She was trying to get some money from the vic comp fund to help her with rent because she couldn't work (as a waitress) when she was recovering from her wounds.

 I can't even begin to describe the mental anguish that she was in so some relief from the threat of being evicted would have helped a lot.
She only received a small amount of money (a couple thousand) and it was years later.  We're not talking about medical expenses, but money to help out with all things like therapy, rent, cab fare - kind of like an AFLAC policy for crime victims.


In a case like this, I (this is just me now) would have to accept that rent and the other stuff are direct results of her attack, and should count toward making her whole. And yes, I think tax money should be used to cover all this.  I think it is far more important than an extra missile or filling a pot hole.  Because we as a society owed her a safe place to live, and we as a society failed.
 
2013-12-03 12:19:51 PM  

mrshowrules: skullkrusher: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.

There are stats on that.  Keep in mind that any women under the age of consent is a victim of statutory rape.  I think it accounts for nearly half if not more of abortions.

True. False. Dunno but sounds bullshiat.

How is statutory rape not rape?

I'm not sure about the stats but I am talking about a percentage of elective abortions, not including abortions protecting the health of the mother.


Well, aside from the ridiculousness of considering consensual sex between a 18 year old and a 17 year old as falling into the same category as violent sexual assault, not all pregnant underaged teens were victims of statutory rape. Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape
 
2013-12-03 12:21:20 PM  
you know the old saying... You rape what you sew...

cltampa.com
 
2013-12-03 12:21:56 PM  

mrshowrules:
For any woman under the age of consent, abortion is because of rape.


Isn't that a pretty big exageration? If it isn't, I feel really bad for American teens.
 
2013-12-03 12:23:26 PM  

parasol: skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.

again?
women already have/had unplanned pregnancy insurance
which the GOP has long tried to deny access to

women don't need rape insurance at additional cost - they need birth control - including the morning after pill - which would further reduce that "tiny fraction" you mentioned above.


It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases. Ergo calling it "rape insurance" is to use a loaded emotional term which doesn't accurately reflect what it is. A stupid law argued against by a stupid person.
 
2013-12-03 12:23:40 PM  

skullkrusher: I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.


And to be honest, I am not sure how the attempts of Right to Life of Michigan to prevent abortion from being subsidized by the ACA is anything but an attempt to punish sexually active women and, in admittedly rarer cases, to punish women who have sex forced upon them.

If it's an issue of cost rather than morality: I don't have the hard numbers, I confess, but I'd wager that subsidizing abortion is probably pretty inexpensive when we're subsidizing health care related to cancer, obesity, and other highly common health issues.


Just because I will never endure a rape pregnancy does not mean I feel stepped upon for helping support for those that do.
 
2013-12-03 12:24:04 PM  

skullkrusher: Well, aside from the ridiculousness of considering consensual sex between a 18 year old and a 17 year old as falling into the same category as violent sexual assault, not all pregnant underaged teens were victims of statutory rape. Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape


I'm not an expert, but are there not generally exceptions that make a statutory rape law a bit more sensible?  For example, allowing an age difference of 3 years... so that it would be legal for a 16 year old and an 18 year old to have sex... but not a 16 year old and a 40 year old.
 
2013-12-03 12:24:10 PM  

cman: Thats one beautiful lady


Wow, that is entirely inappropriate and creepy. What the fuk does it matter what she looks like?
 
2013-12-03 12:27:01 PM  
I see my question was answered before I even asked. Never mind.
 
2013-12-03 12:27:33 PM  

I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.


Well, the thing is, pregnancy is a fairly unique situation--it  can happen unwillingly to a woman, and that means either people would have to buy in case of rape--and according to the CDC, one in five women  are raped--or run the risk of being crippled by a medical bill if that happened. While this is a misogynistic bill overall, I can see why the rape thing was the first to cause a reaction.
 
2013-12-03 12:27:57 PM  

balloot: I love Republicans.  I can't think of ANY circumstance where mentioning rape in any context has turned out well for them.  Yet they consistently feel the need to do it every few months, apparently in some grand quest to be the first political party with absolutely zero female votes in an election.



It amazes me how many women still vote for them, it is pretty sad.
 
2013-12-03 12:27:58 PM  

formerfloozy: cman: Thats one beautiful lady

Wow, that is entirely inappropriate and creepy. What the fuk does it matter what she looks like?


Let it go. Cman is on a quest to say colossally stupid things on a daily basis.  He sprinkles in a few reasonable comments now and again to throw of the mods.
 
2013-12-03 12:28:12 PM  

formerfloozy: cman: Thats one beautiful lady

Wow, that is entirely inappropriate and creepy. What the fuk does it matter what she looks like?


guys comment on women's looks, welcome to earf.
 
2013-12-03 12:29:04 PM  

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: Well, aside from the ridiculousness of considering consensual sex between a 18 year old and a 17 year old as falling into the same category as violent sexual assault, not all pregnant underaged teens were victims of statutory rape. Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape

I'm not an expert, but are there not generally exceptions that make a statutory rape law a bit more sensible?  For example, allowing an age difference of 3 years... so that it would be legal for a 16 year old and an 18 year old to have sex... but not a 16 year old and a 40 year old.


Varies by state afaik. Age of consent is 17 in NY. 7 if the parties are related in KY
 
2013-12-03 12:29:30 PM  

Headso: you know the old saying... You rape what you sew...

[cltampa.com image 528x333]


dafuk?
 
2013-12-03 12:30:13 PM  

Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.

And to be honest, I am not sure how the attempts of Right to Life of Michigan to prevent abortion from being subsidized by the ACA is anything but an attempt to punish sexually active women and, in admittedly rarer cases, to punish women who have sex forced upon them.

If it's an issue of cost rather than morality: I don't have the hard numbers, I confess, but I'd wager that subsidizing abortion is probably pretty inexpensive when we're subsidizing health care related to cancer, obesity, and other highly common health issues.


Just because I will never endure a rape pregnancy does not mean I feel stepped upon for helping support for those that do.


All may be true but I suppose you see why she was being a dumbass?
 
2013-12-03 12:30:40 PM  

skullkrusher: parasol: skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.

again?
women already have/had unplanned pregnancy insurance
which the GOP has long tried to deny access to

women don't need rape insurance at additional cost - they need birth control - including the morning after pill - which would further reduce that "tiny fraction" you mentioned above.

It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases. Ergo calling it "rape insurance" is to use a loaded emotional term which doesn't accurately reflect what it is. A stupid law argued against by a stupid person.


so the premise is women need to pay an additional insurance cost to cover a procedure that the GOP is actively working to deny access to

please don't call me stupid - i've been at the "avoiding rape/paying for reproductive choices" far too long
 
2013-12-03 12:32:14 PM  

I_C_Weener: serial_crusher: palladiate: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

It's actually "No insurance company can provide this coverage by default in Michigan, not even for cases of rape" bill. It specifically prohibits insurers from offering this coverage in their plans. You'll have to buy a rider if they're even offered, which by the by, aren't cheap.

How do you come to the "aren't cheap" conclusion? Does the bill specify prices?
I could see an insurance company deciding its cheaper to pay for your abortion than it is to pay for your baby, offering it as a free add-on.

True.  But my insurance was happy to "fix" me because I wanted a vasectomy.  But they don't like paying for "fixing" women without a medical necessity.  I don't understand their reasoning.


As I recall, it is more complicated and more dangerous procedure. They would rather have an IUD or something installed.

Insurance companies do like offering birth control and abortion services. They are good for the the plan holder (more options, potentially reduced premiums), the insurance company (less costly, more attractive plans due to options, and can reduce premiums), and society (less unwanted children, particularly in poor families that rely on government support). That is why these guys want to pass a law to stop them.
 
2013-12-03 12:32:27 PM  

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: Well, aside from the ridiculousness of considering consensual sex between a 18 year old and a 17 year old as falling into the same category as violent sexual assault, not all pregnant underaged teens were victims of statutory rape. Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape

I'm not an expert, but are there not generally exceptions that make a statutory rape law a bit more sensible?  For example, allowing an age difference of 3 years... so that it would be legal for a 16 year old and an 18 year old to have sex... but not a 16 year old and a 40 year old.


There are major legal differences from state to state on it... because you know, "states' rights." And even in states where the rules are hard-17 or hard-18, judges have occasionally been known to throw out charges of statutory rape (usually filed by parents) when both parties claim mutual consent.

Underage pregnancy in the case of consensual sex between 16- or 17-year-olds probably shouldn't be counted in the same data set as raped adult females... but unless the law specifies otherwise, it is. That's what makes the data so difficult to analyze.

Of course, including underage pregnancy also opens up the sexual education argument... but the GOP doesn't want to talk about that.
 
2013-12-03 12:32:53 PM  

Snatch Bandergrip: Just because I will never endure a rape pregnancy


This is the 21st century.  Anything can happen.
 
2013-12-03 12:33:17 PM  

Aidan: serial_crusher: Do they do that for tubal ligation or are you referring to the pill as a "fix"? Not a fair comparison between one-time surgery and a daily prescription.
But if it's actually the surgeries, the only excuse I can think of is that girl parts are more expensive to operate on. The vasectomy happens right there in the doctors office, right? Snip snip and you're done. Tube tying is a full on surgery. (Probably still cheaper than a baby or abortions though)

IIRC my tubal (in Michigan in about 2006) was about $4000. With insurance it was about $30, but I doubt anyone's gonna get that kind of deal. It was a full-on hospital bed, hot feeling in the arm from the anasthetic, wheel me in and so forth deal.

Also, from what I've heard on the Farks, many doctors refuse to do tubals for young women (like under 70) or women who haven't had kids.


That is definitely the case. My doc even wanted a meeting with my ex husband to ensure he was down with me getting a tubal. It still makes me salty just thinking about it.
 
2013-12-03 12:33:23 PM  

parasol: skullkrusher: parasol: skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.

again?
women already have/had unplanned pregnancy insurance
which the GOP has long tried to deny access to

women don't need rape insurance at additional cost - they need birth control - including the morning after pill - which would further reduce that "tiny fraction" you mentioned above.

It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases. Ergo calling it "rape insurance" is to use a loaded emotional term which doesn't accurately reflect what it is. A stupid law argued against by a stupid person.

so the premise is women need to pay an additional insurance cost to cover a procedure that the GOP is actively working to deny access to

please don't call me stupid - i've been at the "avoiding rape/paying for reproductive choices" far too long


I was talking about the legislator in the article
 
2013-12-03 12:34:46 PM  

give me doughnuts: Needlessly Complicated: mainstreet62: SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]

OH GOD WHY DID YOU BOTH POST CONSECUTIVELY! NOW I SEE FLO WEARING PANTIES!!!

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

What? She's not *ugly.* And the panty woman has flat abs. So settle down there, Studman.


Yowza.
[t.fod4.com image 480x270]


I would totally let her give me a big discount on my insurance rates, ifyouknowwhatimean...
 
2013-12-03 12:35:12 PM  

skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.


When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.
 
2013-12-03 12:35:57 PM  

I_C_Weener: [www.afcaforum.com image 300x225]Well, there's your problem.


MOMMY!!  MOMMY!!

That's my favorite one.  The look he gives the camera is priceless.
 
2013-12-03 12:36:25 PM  

formerfloozy: Aidan: serial_crusher: Do they do that for tubal ligation or are you referring to the pill as a "fix"? Not a fair comparison between one-time surgery and a daily prescription.
But if it's actually the surgeries, the only excuse I can think of is that girl parts are more expensive to operate on. The vasectomy happens right there in the doctors office, right? Snip snip and you're done. Tube tying is a full on surgery. (Probably still cheaper than a baby or abortions though)

IIRC my tubal (in Michigan in about 2006) was about $4000. With insurance it was about $30, but I doubt anyone's gonna get that kind of deal. It was a full-on hospital bed, hot feeling in the arm from the anasthetic, wheel me in and so forth deal.

Also, from what I've heard on the Farks, many doctors refuse to do tubals for young women (like under 70) or women who haven't had kids.

That is definitely the case. My doc even wanted a meeting with my ex husband to ensure he was down with me getting a tubal. It still makes me salty just thinking about it.


I got a vasectomy at 32 and the doc wouldn't do it unless my wife signed a paper saying she was OK with it.

/best present I ever gave myself
 
2013-12-03 12:36:37 PM  

skullkrusher: All may be true but I suppose you see why she was being a dumbass?


I can concede that labeling unplanned pregnancy insurance as rape insurance is hyperbolic.

But given Republican ambivalence to rape, and an unsettling drive to control and regulate women's reproductive health, can one really be judged for drawing that conclusion?
 
2013-12-03 12:36:42 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: It is not hyperbolic. It is spelling out one of the things that the insurance would be covering and, in the absence of public services the bill would create, it is quite accurate. insurance would be the solution to pregnancies that result from sexual assault. it would even shift the pregnancy away from a health issue and away from a criminal issue and into the territory of insurable accidents. The pregnancy would become a tort and if insurers could cover it, that means the woman is paying for the coverage and therefore basically taking on partial responsibility for the damage done by rape itself.


It's slightly  hyperbolic in the sense that it's not quite as literally 'if women want protection from rape, they should get insurance like anything else' stupid as the term 'rape insurance' might be read to imply.

However, other than that, you're quite right.
 
2013-12-03 12:37:02 PM  

skullkrusher: parasol: skullkrusher: parasol: skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.

again?
women already have/had unplanned pregnancy insurance
which the GOP has long tried to deny access to

women don't need rape insurance at additional cost - they need birth control - including the morning after pill - which would further reduce that "tiny fraction" you mentioned above.

It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases. Ergo calling it "rape insurance" is to use a loaded emotional term which doesn't accurately reflect what it is. A stupid law argued against by a stupid person.

so the premise is women need to pay an additional insurance cost to cover a procedure that the GOP is actively working to deny access to

please don't call me stupid - i've been at the "avoiding rape/paying for reproductive choices" far too long

I was talking about the legislator in the article


yes - i got that - my apologies
you post well and i'm having a really rotten day

mea culpa
 
2013-12-03 12:37:15 PM  

thamike: skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.

When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.


Splitting hairs?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-03 12:39:46 PM  
Current head of the GOP

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
Ab3
2013-12-03 12:40:11 PM  
if I had a choice between voting for a Republican or a Sontaran I would take the Sontaran every time.
 
2013-12-03 12:40:29 PM  

skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.

When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.

Splitting hairs?


Is that a pubic hair joke?
 
2013-12-03 12:40:34 PM  
RepubliCare
 
2013-12-03 12:40:57 PM  

Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: All may be true but I suppose you see why she was being a dumbass?

I can concede that labeling unplanned pregnancy insurance as rape insurance is hyperbolic.

But given Republican ambivalence to rape, and an unsettling drive to control and regulate women's reproductive health, can one really be judged for drawing that conclusion?


Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity. The law is absurd on its face, it is contrary to everything the GOP pretends to stand for in terms of small government and business regulation and places an unnecessary burden on private commerce. I know! let's call it rape insurance to help deflect from the fact that the law is a piece of shiat!
 
2013-12-03 12:42:28 PM  

parasol: skullkrusher: parasol: skullkrusher: parasol: skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.

again?
women already have/had unplanned pregnancy insurance
which the GOP has long tried to deny access to

women don't need rape insurance at additional cost - they need birth control - including the morning after pill - which would further reduce that "tiny fraction" you mentioned above.

It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases. Ergo calling it "rape insurance" is to use a loaded emotional term which doesn't accurately reflect what it is. A stupid law argued against by a stupid person.

so the premise is women need to pay an additional insurance cost to cover a procedure that the GOP is actively working to deny access to

please don't call me stupid - i've been at the "avoiding rape/paying for reproductive choices" far too long

I was talking about the legislator in the article

yes - i got that - my apologies
you post well and i'm having a really rotten day

mea culpa


Hope it gets better dude/ette
 
2013-12-03 12:42:31 PM  

skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.

When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.

Splitting hairs?


Do you insist on carrying this charade of pretending to lack the ability to infer broader meaning from hyperbolic terms further?  I'll understand if you're doing it for the sake of splitting hairs in a meta-debate about Responsibility in Descriptive Terms.
 
2013-12-03 12:43:23 PM  

Dansker: skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.

When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.

Splitting hairs?

Is that a pubic hair joke?


No, that's "spitting hairs"
 
2013-12-03 12:43:28 PM  

Mercutio74: I just don't get it.  If I ran an insurance company (thankfully I don't have that kind of soul killing job where you have to choose profit or principles) I would be falling all over myself to offer abortion procedures to anyone who wanted them (even men, just to be safe).  If you force a woman you're covering to have an unwanted baby, that baby becomes a dependent...  basically, a liability to your bottom line.



This legislation is like forbidding an auto insurance company from covering brake repairs in hopes that it encourages people to drive less frequently.

Nothing good can come from it for the insured or the insurers.
 
2013-12-03 12:43:35 PM  
What I don't understand and what really ticks me off, is how can this tiny sliver of the Michigan population have this much influence.

I understand if you have enough signatures that the legislature would have to take a look at your suggestion and/or consider it, but to make it so that it also bypasses the governor completely is just insane.

That's less than 3% of our population and somehow that's enough to say its the people's will?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-03 12:43:38 PM  

Ab3: if I had a choice between voting for a Republican or a Sontaran I would take the Sontaran every time.


static2.wikia.nocookie.net

Today... These weird American's known as RE-publicans and their fascination with the vaginial system....
 
2013-12-03 12:43:47 PM  

skullkrusher: Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity.


Are you calling rape Democratic stupidity?
 
2013-12-03 12:44:23 PM  

skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: All may be true but I suppose you see why she was being a dumbass?

I can concede that labeling unplanned pregnancy insurance as rape insurance is hyperbolic.

But given Republican ambivalence to rape, and an unsettling drive to control and regulate women's reproductive health, can one really be judged for drawing that conclusion?

Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity. The law is absurd on its face, it is contrary to everything the GOP pretends to stand for in terms of small government and business regulation and places an unnecessary burden on private commerce. I know! let's call it rape insurance to help deflect from the fact that the law is a piece of shiat!


And by the time you are done explaining why the law is idiotic everyone you are talking to has tuned you out, calling it rape insurance gets people's attention. "conservatives" are always very concerned about democrats not taking the high road for some reason.
 
2013-12-03 12:44:56 PM  
The idea behind health insurance was not pick and choose procedures.
 
2013-12-03 12:45:20 PM  

Pinner: parasol: That reminds me of hurricane insurance as offered by Citizen's in Florida. You pay for it, and when the worst happens and you make a claim, somehow (gasp) you find your options are "deal with it by yourself"

If you can't prove it was really rape they can always deny your claim.

So, rape is an act of God?


Is your name Mary?
 
2013-12-03 12:46:11 PM  

Headso: "conservatives" are always very concerned about democrats not taking the high road for some reason.


It's a Stop Hitting Yourself Mobius Strip of Sh*theadedness.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-03 12:47:04 PM  

monoski: The idea behind health insurance was not pick and choose procedures.


...except when the GOP doesn't agree with them.

It's like their laissez faire economic stance that they so strongly believe in... until the market turns and it's against them, then they want regulations regulations regulations.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-03 12:49:22 PM  

thamike: skullkrusher: Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity.

Are you calling rape Democratic stupidity?


I love what passes for reasoning today.  Wanting to regulate insurance companies that have the ability to inflict millions of dollars of harm on individuals is Democratic stupidity?

There is one reason only to believe that, and that is that you believe corporations should be able to do whatever they want at any time to any one.
 
2013-12-03 12:51:16 PM  

skullkrusher: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.

There are stats on that.  Keep in mind that any women under the age of consent is a victim of statutory rape.  I think it accounts for nearly half if not more of abortions.

True. False. Dunno but sounds bullshiat.

How is statutory rape not rape?

I'm not sure about the stats but I am talking about a percentage of elective abortions, not including abortions protecting the health of the mother.

Well, aside from the ridiculousness of considering consensual sex between a 18 year old and a 17 year old as falling into the same category as violent sexual assault, not all pregnant underaged teens were victims of statutory rape. Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape


That's true.  Just the fact that rape has to part of an abortion discussion to me is stupid.  A woman should be able to get an abortion if she wants an abortion.
 
2013-12-03 12:51:28 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Perhaps proposing a law making it the responsibility of the rapist to pay for any and all costs would make more sense.


And for the 97% or rapes that do not result in a conviction?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-03 12:52:14 PM  

flondrix: I_Am_Weasel: Perhaps proposing a law making it the responsibility of the rapist to pay for any and all costs would make more sense.

And for the 97% or rapes that do not result in a conviction?


Didn't you see what she was wearing?
 
2013-12-03 12:53:11 PM  

thamike: skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.

When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.

Splitting hairs?

Do you insist on carrying this charade of pretending to lack the ability to infer broader meaning from hyperbolic terms further?  I'll understand if you're doing it for the sake of splitting hairs in a meta-debate about Responsibility in Descriptive Terms.


"Forcing women to decide whether they want to buy 'rape insurance' and even compelling parents to make the unfathomable decision about whether to buy it for their daughters is truly despicable,"

"Unfathomable decision"? That doesn't sound like "hyperbole" describing unplanned pregnancy insurance which covers abortion. That sounds like she's talking about rape insurance. Thanks for weighing in though.
 
2013-12-03 12:53:58 PM  

d23: Current head of the GOP

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 417x393]


I like that. We need that to catch on. The Republicans are Ferengi.

/farking Rules of Acquisition shouldn't include females. . .
 
2013-12-03 12:54:14 PM  

skullkrusher: Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape


It is in some states.
 
2013-12-03 12:54:20 PM  

d23: thamike: skullkrusher: Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity.

Are you calling rape Democratic stupidity?

I love what passes for reasoning today.  Wanting to regulate insurance companies that have the ability to inflict millions of dollars of harm on individuals is Democratic stupidity?

There is one reason only to believe that, and that is that you believe corporations should be able to do whatever they want at any time to any one.


I love what passes for reading comprehension these days.
 
2013-12-03 12:56:24 PM  

flondrix: skullkrusher: Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape

It is in some states.


It isn't in Michigan however.
 
2013-12-03 12:56:34 PM  

Headso: skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: All may be true but I suppose you see why she was being a dumbass?

I can concede that labeling unplanned pregnancy insurance as rape insurance is hyperbolic.

But given Republican ambivalence to rape, and an unsettling drive to control and regulate women's reproductive health, can one really be judged for drawing that conclusion?

Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity. The law is absurd on its face, it is contrary to everything the GOP pretends to stand for in terms of small government and business regulation and places an unnecessary burden on private commerce. I know! let's call it rape insurance to help deflect from the fact that the law is a piece of shiat!

And by the time you are done explaining why the law is idiotic everyone you are talking to has tuned you out, calling it rape insurance gets people's attention. "conservatives" are always very concerned about democrats not taking the high road for some reason.


"Liberals" are never concerned about their own stupidity... Unless they're squawking about how they condemn the stupid. Drive them out. Marginalize! When they're not breathlessly defending it, of course.
 
2013-12-03 12:56:49 PM  

Headso: And by the time you are done explaining why the law is idiotic everyone you are talking to has tuned you out, calling it rape insurance gets people's attention. "conservatives" are always very concerned about democrats not taking the high road for some reason.


Then explain to me why and how 'unplanned pregnancy insurance' is different from normal 'neonatal care' insurance.

While you're at it, explain to me why women only should be forced to get this kind of coverage, and why men shouldn't be forced to also get 'rape accusation' insurance.
 
2013-12-03 12:58:00 PM  

skullkrusher: d23: thamike: skullkrusher: Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity.

Are you calling rape Democratic stupidity?

I love what passes for reasoning today.  Wanting to regulate insurance companies that have the ability to inflict millions of dollars of harm on individuals is Democratic stupidity?

There is one reason only to believe that, and that is that you believe corporations should be able to do whatever they want at any time to any one.

I love what passes for reading comprehension these days.


Right? What the f*ck was that about?
 
2013-12-03 12:58:01 PM  

mrshowrules: Mike Chewbacca: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.

There are stats on that.  Keep in mind that any women under the age of consent is a victim of statutory rape.  I think it accounts for nearly half if not more of abortions.

It's actually less than 18%. However it is overwhelmingly poor women who get abortions, and from a mathematical point of view, every aborted impoverished fetus is one less mouth we taxpayers have to feed and clothe.

That is total abortions.  What about elective abortions?

I wouldn't look at any abortions related to protecting the health of the mother.   Those should not be considered as abortions which can be avoided.


Only a small percentage of abortions are done to protect the health of the mother. Also, only ~2% of all abortions are performed at more than 20 weeks' gestational age. It's a really tiny number, in the low thousands. Minors only account for 7% of all abortions.
 
2013-12-03 12:59:02 PM  

mrshowrules: skullkrusher: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.

There are stats on that.  Keep in mind that any women under the age of consent is a victim of statutory rape.  I think it accounts for nearly half if not more of abortions.

True. False. Dunno but sounds bullshiat.

How is statutory rape not rape?

I'm not sure about the stats but I am talking about a percentage of elective abortions, not including abortions protecting the health of the mother.

Well, aside from the ridiculousness of considering consensual sex between a 18 year old and a 17 year old as falling into the same category as violent sexual assault, not all pregnant underaged teens were victims of statutory rape. Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape

That's true.  Just the fact that rape has to part of an abortion discussion to me is stupid.  A woman should be able to get an abortion if she wants an abortion.


Sure. Stupid law proposed by GOP is stupid. I guess we wouldn't have much of a thread if some people weren't trying to pretend the response wasn't bullshiat. Drew loves him some cheer leading ninnies
 
2013-12-03 12:59:49 PM  

skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.

When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.

Splitting hairs?

Do you insist on carrying this charade of pretending to lack the ability to infer broader meaning from hyperbolic terms further?  I'll understand if you're doing it for the sake of splitting hairs in a meta-debate about Responsibility in Descriptive Terms.

"Forcing women to decide whether they want to buy 'rape insurance' and even compelling parents to make the unfathomable decision about whether to buy it for their daughters is truly despicable,"

"Unfathomable decision"? That doesn't sound like "hyperbole" describing unplanned pregnancy insurance which covers abortion. That sounds like she's talking about rape insurance. Thanks for weighing in though.


So, "yes," then.  OK.
 
2013-12-03 01:00:06 PM  

Headso: you know the old saying... You rape what you sew...

[cltampa.com image 528x333]


and I laughed and laughed
 
2013-12-03 01:00:25 PM  

thamike: skullkrusher: d23: thamike: skullkrusher: Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity.

Are you calling rape Democratic stupidity?

I love what passes for reasoning today.  Wanting to regulate insurance companies that have the ability to inflict millions of dollars of harm on individuals is Democratic stupidity?

There is one reason only to believe that, and that is that you believe corporations should be able to do whatever they want at any time to any one.

I love what passes for reading comprehension these days.

Right? What the f*ck was that about?


His playing off your (hopefully insincere) attempt at ball busting
 
2013-12-03 01:00:45 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: All may be true but I suppose you see why she was being a dumbass?

I can concede that labeling unplanned pregnancy insurance as rape insurance is hyperbolic.

But given Republican ambivalence to rape, and an unsettling drive to control and regulate women's reproductive health, can one really be judged for drawing that conclusion?

Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity. The law is absurd on its face, it is contrary to everything the GOP pretends to stand for in terms of small government and business regulation and places an unnecessary burden on private commerce. I know! let's call it rape insurance to help deflect from the fact that the law is a piece of shiat!

And by the time you are done explaining why the law is idiotic everyone you are talking to has tuned you out, calling it rape insurance gets people's attention. "conservatives" are always very concerned about democrats not taking the high road for some reason.

"Liberals" are never concerned about their own stupidity... Unless they're squawking about how they condemn the stupid. Drive them out. Marginalize! When they're not breathlessly defending it, of course.


it's not stupid to target your message to the level at which the electorate operates at.
 
2013-12-03 01:00:47 PM  

tarthrin: What I don't understand and what really ticks me off, is how can this tiny sliver of the Michigan population have this much influence.

I understand if you have enough signatures that the legislature would have to take a look at your suggestion and/or consider it, but to make it so that it also bypasses the governor completely is just insane.

That's less than 3% of our population and somehow that's enough to say its the people's will?


There are almost 10 million people in MI - 3% of that is 300k people. Probably not big enough for a truly representative sample (unless your selection was truly random, and not taken from a population of self-selected moralistic busybodies; and even then), but not insignificant.

In VA, I think you only need 30k signatures on a petition to run for president. The remedy against having batshiat crazy laws is that the same 3% of the population can wildly misrepresent the whole, which is why we have elections and referenda - if 97% of the people vote against, you've conclusively shown that that 3% really is out of touch. If another 47.0001% sign on with that 3%, then they did represent the whole (and the whole might be a bunch of moralistic busybodies in the aggregate, leaving the Courts to decouple the legal parts of the policy from the part that was legislated from the pulpit).

Put another way, if "only" 3% of people put forth a petition opposing murder, would we say it's not representative? That's just a legal threshhold, and making it higher could serve as a barrier for important legislation (it's hard to find 300k people willing to sign anything, especially if they have to give a name, e-mail address and/or phone number). We in other states with fewer moralistic busybodies (or in those states that respect all parts of the doctor-patient relationship and HIPAA) may disagree, but "Democracy is messy."

// especially when some asshole goes and re-mixes religion with politics after some breech-wearing businessmen made damn sure to filter that shiat out
 
2013-12-03 01:01:31 PM  

thamike: skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.

When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.

Splitting hairs?

Do you insist on carrying this charade of pretending to lack the ability to infer broader meaning from hyperbolic terms further?  I'll understand if you're doing it for the sake of splitting hairs in a meta-debate about Responsibility in Descriptive Terms.

"Forcing women to decide whether they want to buy 'rape insurance' and even compelling parents to make the unfathomable decision about whether to buy it for their daughters is truly despicable,"

"Unfathomable decision"? That doesn't sound like "hyperbole" describing unplanned pregnancy insurance which covers abortion. That sounds like she's talking about rape insurance. Thanks for weighing in though.

So, "yes," then.  OK.


Boring already, Mikey. At least make it less apparent
 
2013-12-03 01:03:59 PM  

skullkrusher: Sure. Stupid law proposed by GOP is stupid. I guess we wouldn't have much of a thread if some people weren't trying to pretend the response wasn't bullshiat. Drew loves him some cheer leading ninnies


We wouldn't have much of a thread if some ninnies didn't spend their time trying to distract from the main idea by nitpicking syntax, either.
 
2013-12-03 01:05:46 PM  

skullkrusher: His playing off your (hopefully insincere) attempt at ball busting


The ball busting is what's entirely sincere.  I would never give you less.
 
2013-12-03 01:09:15 PM  

thamike: skullkrusher: Sure. Stupid law proposed by GOP is stupid. I guess we wouldn't have much of a thread if some people weren't trying to pretend the response wasn't bullshiat. Drew loves him some cheer leading ninnies

We wouldn't have much of a thread if some ninnies didn't spend their time trying to distract from the main idea by nitpicking syntax, either.


Detracting from the main idea by criticizing it 3 times now? Sorry if juggling 2 balls is beyond ye
 
2013-12-03 01:12:46 PM  
"I'm sorry, ma'am, but your policy only covers rape by apes and hominids. You were attacked by a monkey, and therefore, not covered."
 
2013-12-03 01:13:43 PM  
Can men have "oops, it slipped in" insurance?

/stupidity
 
2013-12-03 01:14:10 PM  

jst3p: It amazes me how many women still vote for them, it is pretty sad.



Because their men tell them to.
It's the sammich voting block.
 
2013-12-03 01:20:08 PM  
If someone is going to sell rape "insurance" then can I sell mafia-style rape "protection?"

Sounds like a business where everyone wins.

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-12-03 01:20:47 PM  
Can men get in on the rape insurance deal?

"We know you like your anal integrity but if you're raped,we give you a summer home and two Mercedes-Benzes. Wouldn't that be nice, too?"
 
2013-12-03 01:23:35 PM  

Pinner: jst3p: It amazes me how many women still vote for them, it is pretty sad.


Because their men tell them to.
It's the sammich voting block.


Interesting block demographic you've described.  Are you saying that if a woman votes republican it is because a man told her to? Or that there is a significant number of women that vote how their man told them to?  Are all republican votes from women a result of this, or just a measurable population? I need to know more of your categorization before I can comment on it. On the surface, it seems diaphanous at best, but I'll entertain your corroborating argument.
 
2013-12-03 01:25:49 PM  

lennavan: Bennie Crabtree: It is not hyperbolic. It is spelling out one of the things that the insurance would be covering and, in the absence of public services the bill would create, it is quite accurate.

It's also a reasonable line of attack.  Michigan attempted to pass this same bill long ago and even their ridiculously right leaning governor Rick Snyder vetoed it saying not allowing rape victims to keep coverage goes too far.  Republicans had the opportunity to simply write a bill to allow an exception for rape victims and Rick Snyder would have presumably signed it.  They didn't, they're trying to override his veto.

 That's why it's fully reasonable to attack Republicans on the rape issue.  They were specifically told to make accommodations for rape victims and they specifically chose not to.


You said Republicans twice.
 
2013-12-03 01:27:22 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Proposing it is an amazing dick move.  Following one dick move with another doesn't make sense.

Perhaps proposing a law making it the responsibility of the rapist to pay for any and all costs would make more sense.  Said perp has no means to pay?  He's doing time and working until he's paid back the state for the costs they covered.  Of course, that sort of thing might amount to slave labor.  Making someone work for no or little pay is far, far worse than rape...because money.  Go ahead and rape money and see what happens to you.


That would be great...if it wasn't for the fact that rapists are rarely brought to trial and rarely convicted.

/Info from anonymous crime surveys, not because DERP WOMEN LIE ABOUT RAPE
 
2013-12-03 01:30:53 PM  
Everyone is looking at this so negatively.

I say, let's join in.

I propose no insurance can cover any Catholics/Christians on Sundays.
It's the Lord's day and they shouldn't be doing anything that would get them hurt in the first place.  Sure, some people will get hurt anyway but it will be a small percentage.  Besides, this is the day God is looking down at everyone so Christians already have the God plan going.

I don't see why I should have to pay for people when their God is slacking on the job.
 
2013-12-03 01:31:54 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Proposing it is an amazing dick move.  Following one dick move with another doesn't make sense.

Perhaps proposing a law making it the responsibility of the rapist to pay for any and all costs would make more sense.  Said perp has no means to pay?  He's doing time and working until he's paid back the state for the costs they covered.  Of course, that sort of thing might amount to slave labor.  Making someone work for no or little pay is far, far worse than rape...because money.  Go ahead and rape money and see what happens to you.


Wal-Mart anyone?
 
2013-12-03 01:35:01 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Rape Insurance


[www.imfdb.org image 500x335] [small handgun]



Unless of course the rapist gets hold of it first
 
2013-12-03 01:36:23 PM  

Pinner: jst3p: It amazes me how many women still vote for them, it is pretty sad.


Because their men tell them to.
It's the sammich voting block.


Certainly this does happen pretty often, but it is sexist of you to assume that all women who vote Republican do so because their husbands commanded them.  You cannot fairly paint them all with such a wide brush.  I will have you know that many modern Conservative women vote that way because they are are stupid, gullible, self-loathing, and/or insane.

Plus you do have cases of men voting as they are commanded by their wives.
newsbusters.org
 
2013-12-03 01:39:02 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-03 01:43:22 PM  

bk3k: Plus you do have cases of men voting as they are commanded by their wives.


img.fark.net

That's a bad example:

After all, in 2006 she said she took a degree in tax law, despite hating everything to do with taxes, because he told her to. "The Lord said, 'Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands,'" she told the crowd at a Minnesota megachurch.

http://www.thenation.com/article/162957/michele-bachmann-wife-chief#
 
2013-12-03 01:43:57 PM  

bk3k: Pinner: jst3p: It amazes me how many women still vote for them, it is pretty sad.


Because their men tell them to.
It's the sammich voting block.

Certainly this does happen pretty often, but it is sexist of you to assume that all women who vote Republican do so because their husbands commanded them.  You cannot fairly paint them all with such a wide brush.  I will have you know that many modern Conservative women vote that way because they are are stupid, gullible, self-loathing, and/or insane.

Plus you do have cases of men voting as they are commanded by their wives.
[newsbusters.org image 400x300]


Well, being in Utah it's not too much of a stretch. There's plenty of stupid, self-loathing and/or insane.
 But yes, it was a pretty general statement.
 
2013-12-03 01:53:10 PM  

Do you know the way to Mordor: Zeb Hesselgresser: Rape Insurance

Unless of course the rapist gets hold of it first


blogs.westword.com
 
2013-12-03 01:54:41 PM  
mrwgifs.com
 
2013-12-03 02:05:38 PM  

Dr Dreidel: tarthrin: What I don't understand and what really ticks me off, is how can this tiny sliver of the Michigan population have this much influence.

I understand if you have enough signatures that the legislature would have to take a look at your suggestion and/or consider it, but to make it so that it also bypasses the governor completely is just insane.

That's less than 3% of our population and somehow that's enough to say its the people's will?

There are almost 10 million people in MI - 3% of that is 300k people. Probably not big enough for a truly representative sample (unless your selection was truly random, and not taken from a population of self-selected moralistic busybodies; and even then), but not insignificant.

In VA, I think you only need 30k signatures on a petition to run for president. The remedy against having batshiat crazy laws is that the same 3% of the population can wildly misrepresent the whole, which is why we have elections and referenda - if 97% of the people vote against, you've conclusively shown that that 3% really is out of touch. If another 47.0001% sign on with that 3%, then they did represent the whole (and the whole might be a bunch of moralistic busybodies in the aggregate, leaving the Courts to decouple the legal parts of the policy from the part that was legislated from the pulpit).

Put another way, if "only" 3% of people put forth a petition opposing murder, would we say it's not representative? That's just a legal threshhold, and making it higher could serve as a barrier for important legislation (it's hard to find 300k people willing to sign anything, especially if they have to give a name, e-mail address and/or phone number). We in other states with fewer moralistic busybodies (or in those states that respect all parts of the doctor-patient relationship and HIPAA) may disagree, but "Democracy is messy."

// especially when some asshole goes and re-mixes religion with politics after some breech-wearing businessmen made damn su ...


The issue is that there is no recourse for the other 97% of the population to do anything about it until the next election cycle. I can't vote "no" on this petition. There won't be a state-wide referendum on it. I would be okay if these petitions ended up as state-wide votes instead just skipping past the governors desk into law. (Assuming the legislature votes yes, and in this instance, since they have once, I bet they'll do it again)

Also, 3% is not necessarily representative at all. How many people did they ask to sign their petition? If they asked 600k and got 300k to sign, then fine. If they asked 5000k people to sign and only got 300k to sign, is that representative? Could it be?, maybe.

If groups want to propose legislation, fine, but it shouldn't bypass the checks and balances.

If the R's really want their bill passed, there is already a way to overturn a veto. Don't try to skirt the rules just because it's convenient.
 
2013-12-03 02:06:52 PM  

skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: You know, both sides are, in fact, bad, despite how that overly simplistic argument gets rightfully shot down here on Fark.

Democrats and Republicans both have a long-standing history of being utterly, insanely wrong on matters of economy, the military, social justice, foreign policy, domestic policy - you name it.

BUT

There is only one party that has an appallingly glib, morally confused, utterly repugnant stance on what is arguably the ugliest act one human can perform on another.

http://www.dayswithoutagoprapemention.com/

The comments in the above link are not isolated incidents.  They are not taken out of context.  They are a clear, consistent pattern of dangerously hateful rhetoric.

1 in 3 women are victims of sexual abuse.  No matter who you are, you know victims of sexual abuse.  Many of the women in your life, whom you love and care about, have had to endure an unspeakably heinous invasion of their body and by extension, their minds, souls, and lives, and the lives of their loved ones.

And anyone that is flippant, confused, or ambivalent to this awful act and its consequences, I would assess as ignorant and callous to a sociopathic degree.

Democrats suck, there's no denying that.  But I vote for them because the alternative is, quite literally, the Pro Rape Party.

Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.


Not to mention the fact that the Republican party has nothing to do with this proposed legislation.
 
2013-12-03 02:06:54 PM  

formerfloozy: My doc even wanted a meeting with my ex husband to ensure he was down with me getting a tubal.


WTF?
 
2013-12-03 02:06:56 PM  

MayoSlather: If every woman were required to carry rape insurance I'm pretty sure my new pick up line would be "Just let it happen, you have insurance."


Talk about moral hazard!
 
2013-12-03 02:11:42 PM  

Cataholic: Not to mention the fact that the Republican party has nothing to do with this proposed legislation.


Republicans aren't the one pushing a law to make it illegal for insurance companies to include abortion coverage?


Also, why are Republicans telling insurance companies what they can or can't do? Why do they hate the free market?
 
2013-12-03 02:28:34 PM  

grumpfuff: Cataholic: Not to mention the fact that the Republican party has nothing to do with this proposed legislation.

Republicans aren't the one pushing a law to make it illegal for insurance companies to include abortion coverage?


Also, why are Republicans telling insurance companies what they can or can't do? Why do they hate the free market?


No.  But then I'm guessing you didn't RTFA.
 
2013-12-03 02:40:38 PM  

tarthrin: The issue is that there is no recourse for the other 97% of the population to do anything about it until the next election cycle. I can't vote "no" on this petition. There won't be a state-wide referendum on it. I would be okay if these petitions ended up as state-wide votes instead just skipping past the governors desk into law.


Is that what's about to happen? Just take a petition signed by X people to the legislature, and BAM! - law?

If so, that's a huge problem, and for exactly the reason(s) you mention, and many, many others (not least of which is we already have "petitions" to get representatives in office for the sole purpose of examining and discussing proposed bills) - this is yet another way the GOP likes to abdicate the responsibility of actually governing in favor of rule by most-inflamed mob.

I thought they were collecting signatures for a ballot question.

// and it really doesn't matter out of how many people that sample was pulled
// it's out of the total number of registered voters in the state; the vote happens at the ballot box and not before
 
2013-12-03 02:40:55 PM  

Cataholic: grumpfuff: Cataholic: Not to mention the fact that the Republican party has nothing to do with this proposed legislation.

Republicans aren't the one pushing a law to make it illegal for insurance companies to include abortion coverage?


Also, why are Republicans telling insurance companies what they can or can't do? Why do they hate the free market?

No.  But then I'm guessing you didn't RTFA.


I see. So the law they attempted to pass last year, which tried to do the same thing and was vetoed, has absolutely no bearing on this current legislation.
 
2013-12-03 03:01:25 PM  

sabreWulf07: formerfloozy: My doc even wanted a meeting with my ex husband to ensure he was down with me getting a tubal.

WTF?


Sorry, I sould have said "my now ex-husband"
 
2013-12-03 03:04:09 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I can at least understand the pro-life people who go out and shoot abortion doctors. They see the clinic as a house of horrors, wherein hundreds or thousands of babies are being murdered every year, and decide to be a hero and save some lives. In their own warped mind, they're doing something noble. The other ones, I don't understand all that much, and I think I hate them more because of how big of hypocrites they are about the whole thing.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or incest?
Congratulations, you're in favor of murdering only certain kinds of babies.

You're a pro-lifer who can't make abortion illegal, but instead protest outside clinics?
Congratulations, you yelled at a woman murdering her baby and did nothing to stop it.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks that women shouldn't be tried as murderers for having abortions?
Congratulations, you're an asshole.


Morally an exception for rape can be justified without too much difficulty based on the mother's rights.

The key to the rape exception is that the woman did not chose to have sex, so her rights personal health and security is a relevant concern. Effectively a woman then has the right to self defense.

In cases other than rape, the woman consented to have the child the moment she let a penis enter her. So her rights are now irrelevant.
 
2013-12-03 03:06:27 PM  

Dr Dreidel: tarthrin: The issue is that there is no recourse for the other 97% of the population to do anything about it until the next election cycle. I can't vote "no" on this petition. There won't be a state-wide referendum on it. I would be okay if these petitions ended up as state-wide votes instead just skipping past the governors desk into law.

Is that what's about to happen? Just take a petition signed by X people to the legislature, and BAM! - law?

If so, that's a huge problem, and for exactly the reason(s) you mention, and many, many others (not least of which is we already have "petitions" to get representatives in office for the sole purpose of examining and discussing proposed bills) - this is yet another way the GOP likes to abdicate the responsibility of actually governing in favor of rule by most-inflamed mob.

I thought they were collecting signatures for a ballot question.

// and it really doesn't matter out of how many people that sample was pulled
// it's out of the total number of registered voters in the state; the vote happens at the ballot box and not before


It's a little simplified, but basically the idea is that if you get enough signatures, your group can propose legislation to the state house, and they have to consider it and I think take a vote on it. (Which I think is fine, except for the Governor bypass)
In this instance the repubs tried to pass a similar bill, and it got vetoed.
So since this petition is "coincidentally" similar to the one that got vetoed....

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28xrjn2lj2t21orj55b1g1ky45%29%29/ mi leg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Article-II-9

"No law initiated or adopted by the people shall be subject to the veto power of the governor, and no law adopted by the people at the polls under the initiative provisions of this section shall be amended or repealed, except by a vote of the electors unless otherwise provided in the initiative measure or by three-fourths of the members elected to and serving in each house of the legislature. "
 
2013-12-03 03:08:46 PM  

dywed88: In cases other than rape, the woman consented to have the child the moment she let a penis enter her. So her rights are now irrelevant.


Do you also do a stand up routine, cause that shiat's funny.
 
2013-12-03 03:09:49 PM  

I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.


But if a woman undergoes the intense, totally unpredictable and emotionally shattering experience of being violated violently, this bill says insureance won't cover it, unless they - you know - knew they were going to be the subject of a horrendous crime.

That's "rape insurance" any way you want to slice it, dude.
 
2013-12-03 03:11:39 PM  

physt: formerfloozy: cman: Thats one beautiful lady

Wow, that is entirely inappropriate and creepy. What the fuk does it matter what she looks like?

Let it go. Cman is on a quest to say colossally stupid things on a daily basis.  He sprinkles in a few reasonable comments now and again to throw of the mods.


I also have a sense of humor in which you failed to notice
 
2013-12-03 03:13:22 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

But if a woman undergoes the intense, totally unpredictable and emotionally shattering experience of being violated violently, this bill says insureance won't cover it, unless they - you know - knew they were going to be the subject of a horrendous crime.

That's "rape insurance" any way you want to slice it, dude.


No.  They don't want insurance to cover abortion...period.  Not just abortion because of rape.  Rape is incidental.  The procedure is being excluded...not the conception.  It is not a rape bill.  Its an anti-abortion bill...regardless of conception...or rape.
 
2013-12-03 03:13:29 PM  

dywed88: In cases other than rape, the woman consented to have the child the moment she let a penis enter her. So her rights are now irrelevant.


I say not.  She still has those rights.  Under what basis does a clump of dividing cells have rights?  Let alone more rights than the mother?

We should be giving rights to bacteria next.  Or if that "sacred" human DNA (yet DNA that is > 99% identical is not sacred) is the dividing line, then we should consider the rights of malignant cancer stem cells.

The "pro-life" (as if most of those people should be allowed to call themselves that) movement has no argument but cheap appeals to emotion rather than appeals to logic.
 
2013-12-03 03:14:56 PM  
there you go again, dragging "fact" from TFA into the discussion.
 
2013-12-03 03:15:51 PM  

I_C_Weener: sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

But if a woman undergoes the intense, totally unpredictable and emotionally shattering experience of being violated violently, this bill says insureance won't cover it, unless they - you know - knew they were going to be the subject of a horrendous crime.

That's "rape insurance" any way you want to slice it, dude.

No.  They don't want insurance to cover abortion...period.  Not just abortion because of rape.  Rape is incidental.  The procedure is being excluded...not the conception.  It is not a rape bill.  Its an anti-abortion bill...regardless of conception...or rape.


That's the whole damn problem man - a woman needs to purchase additonal coverage merely for the eventuality of being forcibly impregnated.

If they're great little christians (like i'm sure all of them are!) then the ONLY thing this bill  does is deny them coverage for rape. That's Rape Insurance.

/I said "Republicans" twice
 
2013-12-03 03:17:28 PM  

dywed88: The key to the rape exception is that the woman did not chose to have sex, so her rights personal health and security is a relevant concern. Effectively a woman then has the right to self defense.


Self defense against the fetus? The fetus didn't rape her.  The exemption is a moral contortion that allows people to sidestep their belief that it's okay to kill children of rapists, but other children are off the table.
 
2013-12-03 03:17:38 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: the ONLY thing this bill does is deny them coverage for rape


No. Coverage for abortion, regardless of cause of impregnation. Wrong on it's own. Doesn't need lies or embellishment. But party on. I see you can't be stopped.
 
2013-12-03 03:20:18 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: But if a woman undergoes the intense, totally unpredictable and emotionally shattering experience of being violated violently, this bill says insureance won't cover it, unless they - you know - knew they were going to be the subject of a horrendous crime.


Which is implied by buying the insurance in the first farking place.
 
2013-12-03 03:24:36 PM  

flucto: sobriquet by any other name: the ONLY thing this bill does is deny them coverage for rape

No. Coverage for abortion, regardless of cause of impregnation. Wrong on it's own. Doesn't need lies or embellishment. But party on. I see you can't be stopped.


which includes acts of violence, which is hardly an "embellishment" as a group mentioned in the TFA is  specifically trying to show kids born of rape are just great and not at all a biological choice every organism on the planet has made for itself since time began.

FACT: these people want women to bear children from fathers they did not pick. That's offensive and actually absolutely the point of contention this bill has, outside of the repungancy of telling a woman anything at all about it.
 
2013-12-03 03:26:47 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: FACT: these people want women to bear children from fathers they did not pick. That's offensive and actually absolutely the point of contention this bill has, outside of the repungancy of telling a woman anything at all about it.


That's not a fact. The proposed bill doesn't say that. It's still the product of misguided thinking but nothing needs to be read into it. It should fail without embellishment.
 
2013-12-03 03:28:11 PM  

dywed88: In cases other than rape, the woman consented to have the child the moment she let a penis enter her. So her rights are now irrelevant.


Consent does not work that way.  You can only consent to an activity, not an unintended consequence of the activity.  Otherwise no one would be able to sue for medical malpractice.
 
2013-12-03 03:31:07 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Self defense against the fetus? The fetus didn't rape her. The exemption is a moral contortion that allows people to sidestep their belief that it's okay to kill children of rapists, but other children are off the table.


LOL "children" of rapist.  You mean clumps of cells.  Not "children."

The irony is that I don't find being a human to be so cheap.  That is why I cannot consider a mere chemical reaction to be a full fledged human worthy of rights or... anything yet.

Like I said above - you people have nothing but cheap emotional appeals.
 
2013-12-03 03:31:16 PM  

flucto: sobriquet by any other name: FACT: these people want women to bear children from fathers they did not pick. That's offensive and actually absolutely the point of contention this bill has, outside of the repungancy of telling a woman anything at all about it.

That's not a fact. The proposed bill doesn't say that. It's still the product of misguided thinking but nothing needs to be read into it. It should fail without embellishment.


i see you skipped quoting the paragraph i wrote about how signatures and support for this bill come from a group with a specific motivation to obligate violently impgregnated women to carry bad genetic material to term.

Context matters. fark the republican party!
 
2013-12-03 03:33:20 PM  

Fast Moon: dywed88: In cases other than rape, the woman consented to have the child the moment she let a penis enter her. So her rights are now irrelevant.

Consent does not work that way.  You can only consent to an activity, not an unintended consequence of the activity.  Otherwise no one would be able to sue for medical malpractice.


You DO know getting rid of that is part of the long term Republican agenda, don't you?  AKA "taking on trial lawyers" etc.  So your example will not sway them.
 
2013-12-03 03:34:55 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: dywed88: The key to the rape exception is that the woman did not chose to have sex, so her rights personal health and security is a relevant concern. Effectively a woman then has the right to self defense.

Self defense against the fetus? The fetus didn't rape her.  The exemption is a moral contortion that allows people to sidestep their belief that it's okay to kill children of rapists, but other children are off the table.


It's not that the fetus is being punished for raping her. She can't go back and kill the actual rapist after the fact and call it self defense either.
She's defending herself against the fetus's unsolicited use of her body for its life support functions.
If you choose to have sex, you're soliciting for a baby.
The fetus is as much a victim in that situation as the mother is, but the rapist is the one who should be charged with both rape and murder.
 
2013-12-03 03:41:42 PM  
even

serial_crusher: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: dywed88: The key to the rape exception is that the woman did not chose to have sex, so her rights personal health and security is a relevant concern. Effectively a woman then has the right to self defense.

Self defense against the fetus? The fetus didn't rape her.  The exemption is a moral contortion that allows people to sidestep their belief that it's okay to kill children of rapists, but other children are off the table.

It's not that the fetus is being punished for raping her. She can't go back and kill the actual rapist after the fact and call it self defense either.
She's defending herself against the fetus's unsolicited use of her body for its life support functions.
If you choose to have sex, you're soliciting for a baby.
The fetus is as much a victim in that situation as the mother is, but the rapist is the one who should be charged with both rape and murder.


even more, why not also charge that guy with murder of the baby the woman  would have had if her resources were not drained raising the first? If we are going to follow that logic, that is.
 
2013-12-03 03:42:13 PM  

physt: formerfloozy: cman: Thats one beautiful lady

Wow, that is entirely inappropriate and creepy. What the fuk does it matter what she looks like?

Let it go. Cman is on a quest to say colossally stupid things on a daily basis.  He sprinkles in a few reasonable comments now and again to throw of the mods.


Being a moran isn't deletable.  Calling a moran a moran is deletable.
 
2013-12-03 03:42:59 PM  

tarthrin: It's a little simplified, but basically the idea is that if you get enough signatures, your group can propose legislation to the state house, and they have to consider it and I think take a vote on it. (Which I think is fine, except for the Governor bypass)
In this instance the repubs tried to pass a similar bill, and it got vetoed.
So since this petition is "coincidentally" similar to the one that got vetoed....

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28xrjn2lj2t21orj55b1g1ky45%29%29/ mi leg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Article-II-9

"No law initiated or adopted by the people shall be subject to the veto power of the governor, and no law adopted by the people at the polls under the initiative provisions of this section shall be amended or repealed, except by a vote of the electors unless otherwise provided in the initiative measure or by three-fourths of the members elected to and serving in each house of the legislature. "


It's a special kind of hypocritical dumbity for the party so fetishistically focused on LAWS to:
1) attempt to pass a law the "conventional" way
b) fail to get the Legislature to adopt the bill
iii) make an end-run around that same process to get the same bill passed via unconventional means
FOUR LIGHTS) while still (presumably) calling it "the will of the people".

It's pretty obviously the will of only some (a minority of) people, and the Legislature already decided they didn't want any part of it. Wait 'til next session, yambags.

// if it hadn't already failed a vote, I'd be more OK with it - it may be a repugnant bill, but they'd at least be going through "legal" channels to get it passed
 
2013-12-03 03:47:52 PM  

bk3k: Like I said above - you people have nothing but cheap emotional appeals.


You're misunderstanding just about everything I'm saying. I'm not even "you people."
 
2013-12-03 04:21:56 PM  
I love that smearing the GOP with rape is so easy. Way to set yourselves up, conservatives.
 
2013-12-03 04:22:35 PM  
FTFA:The citizen-initiated legislation, headed to the Legislature after the Board of State Canvassers certified an estimated 299,941 signatures collected by the nonprofit, would prohibit insurers from including abortion coverage as a standard feature in health plans they sell in Michigan.

So according to Whitmer Abortion Insurance = Rape Insurance.

Reduce

Therfore according to Whitmer Abortion=Rape.

I thought it was Republicans who supported rape.
 
2013-12-03 04:26:34 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

But if a woman undergoes the intense, totally unpredictable and emotionally shattering experience of being violated violently, this bill says insureance won't cover it, unless they - you know - knew they were going to be the subject of a horrendous crime.

That's "rape insurance" any way you want to slice it, dude.

No.  They don't want insurance to cover abortion...period.  Not just abortion because of rape.  Rape is incidental.  The procedure is being excluded...not the conception.  It is not a rape bill.  Its an anti-abortion bill...regardless of conception...or rape.

That's the whole damn problem man - a woman needs to purchase additonal coverage merely for the eventuality of being forcibly impregnated.

If they're great little christians (like i'm sure all of them are!) then the ONLY thing this bill  does is deny them coverage for rape. That's Rape Insurance.

/I said "Republicans" twice


So everyone arguing this is a rape bill are simultaneously saying that abortion only occurs because of rape?  No other reasons for abortion?  NONE?  REALLY?


i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-03 04:29:09 PM  

flucto: sobriquet by any other name: the ONLY thing this bill does is deny them coverage for rape

No. Coverage for abortion, regardless of cause of impregnation. Wrong on it's own. Doesn't need lies or embellishment. But party on. I see you can't be stopped.


You get me.  You really really get me.

Calling it a rape bill is hysteria.  Calling it anti-abortion, pro-life, etc... is accurate and not arguing from emotion based on the worst case scenario alone.
 
2013-12-03 04:29:40 PM  

lockers: I love that smearing the GOP with rape is so easy. Way to set yourselves up, conservatives.


You could say they were asking for it. Should have been more careful with the clothing they choose to wear.
 
2013-12-03 04:32:53 PM  

bk3k: dywed88: In cases other than rape, the woman consented to have the child the moment she let a penis enter her. So her rights are now irrelevant.

I say not.  She still has those rights.  Under what basis does a clump of dividing cells have rights?  Let alone more rights than the mother?

We should be giving rights to bacteria next.  Or if that "sacred" human DNA (yet DNA that is > 99% identical is not sacred) is the dividing line, then we should consider the rights of malignant cancer stem cells.

The "pro-life" (as if most of those people should be allowed to call themselves that) movement has no argument but cheap appeals to emotion rather than appeals to logic.


A baby is just a lump of dividing cells unless you put forth some other distinction.  However that is not a road you want to go down.  If you do you are walking right into the argument the fundies want to have.  They will show you pictures of tiny fetuses and point out when the various parts start to develop and claim 'it's a child and you are murdering it'.

The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.
 
2013-12-03 04:37:38 PM  

pdee: A baby is just a lump of dividing cells unless you put forth some other distinction.  However that is not a road you want to go down.  If you do you are walking right into the argument the fundies want to have.  They will show you pictures of tiny fetuses and point out when the various parts start to develop and claim 'it's a child and you are murdering it'.The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.


Actually, that's a surprisingly easy conversation. The line of distinction is breath. Even the bible says so.

/which puts their limit for abortion at 40+ weeks. That becomes a very fun conversation in a hurry.
 
2013-12-03 04:38:58 PM  

I_C_Weener: Calling it a rape bill is hysteria.


Which is the standard operating procedure to make sure emotions are high, thinkin' is prevented, and partisan brand loyalty reigns supreme. Everyone who resorts to emotional hyperbole is part of the problem. Unless of course they're Democrats.
 
2013-12-03 04:41:41 PM  

I_C_Weener: sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

But if a woman undergoes the intense, totally unpredictable and emotionally shattering experience of being violated violently, this bill says insureance won't cover it, unless they - you know - knew they were going to be the subject of a horrendous crime.

That's "rape insurance" any way you want to slice it, dude.

No.  They don't want insurance to cover abortion...period.  Not just abortion because of rape.  Rape is incidental.  The procedure is being excluded...not the conception.  It is not a rape bill.  Its an anti-abortion bill...regardless of conception...or rape.

That's the whole damn problem man - a woman needs to purchase additonal coverage merely for the eventuality of being forcibly impregnated.

If they're great little christians (like i'm sure all of them are!) then the ONLY thing this bill  does is deny them coverage for rape. That's Rape Insurance.

/I said "Republicans" twice

So everyone arguing this is a rape bill are simultaneously saying that abortion only occurs because of rape?  No other reasons for abortion?  NONE?  REALLY?


[i586.photobucket.com image 300x167]


Until there is some exception - and that's still offensive - YES, THIS BILL EXPLICTLY STATES THAT VIOLENT IMPREGNATION NOT BE COVERED.

that's not hysteria, it's fact.
 
2013-12-03 04:43:03 PM  
(and before you say it, deciding no abortion be covered is  very explicit!)
 
2013-12-03 04:46:27 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: sobriquet by any other name: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

But if a woman undergoes the intense, totally unpredictable and emotionally shattering experience of being violated violently, this bill says insureance won't cover it, unless they - you know - knew they were going to be the subject of a horrendous crime.

That's "rape insurance" any way you want to slice it, dude.

No.  They don't want insurance to cover abortion...period.  Not just abortion because of rape.  Rape is incidental.  The procedure is being excluded...not the conception.  It is not a rape bill.  Its an anti-abortion bill...regardless of conception...or rape.

That's the whole damn problem man - a woman needs to purchase additonal coverage merely for the eventuality of being forcibly impregnated.

If they're great little christians (like i'm sure all of them are!) then the ONLY thing this bill  does is deny them coverage for rape. That's Rape Insurance.

/I said "Republicans" twice

So everyone arguing this is a rape bill are simultaneously saying that abortion only occurs because of rape?  No other reasons for abortion?  NONE?  REALLY?


[i586.photobucket.com image 300x167]

Until there is some exception - and that's still offensive - YES, THIS BILL EXPLICTLY STATES THAT VIOLENT IMPREGNATION NOT BE COVERED.

that's not hysteria, it's fact.


Based on the article, I'm seeing only that they don't want insurance to automatically cover abortion (not rapey abortion, just abortion) and if they employer wants it included, that the employer tell all its employees that it insures baby killers.

If you have some other source saying this is all about rape, then I'll gladly listen.  As I see it, and as the article points out, the only one crying rape or rape exclusion is a Democrat politician....and those in here, and the headline.  Got something more than repeating Fark headlines as fact?
 
2013-12-03 04:46:50 PM  

Peki: pdee: A baby is just a lump of dividing cells unless you put forth some other distinction.  However that is not a road you want to go down.  If you do you are walking right into the argument the fundies want to have.  They will show you pictures of tiny fetuses and point out when the various parts start to develop and claim 'it's a child and you are murdering it'.The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

Actually, that's a surprisingly easy conversation. The line of distinction is breath. Even the bible says so.

/which puts their limit for abortion at 40+ weeks. That becomes a very fun conversation in a hurry.


If that where you draw the line i'm ok with that.  But there is no way I'm going to believe that having a conversation with a religious fundie over abortion is going to be 'very fun'.
 
2013-12-03 04:48:34 PM  

flucto: I_C_Weener: Calling it a rape bill is hysteria.

Which is the standard operating procedure to make sure emotions are high, thinkin' is prevented, and partisan brand loyalty reigns supreme. Everyone who resorts to emotional hyperbole is part of the problem. Unless of course they're Democrats.


Also called FNORDS!

/oh I see them
 
2013-12-03 04:50:15 PM  

pdee: Peki: pdee: A baby is just a lump of dividing cells unless you put forth some other distinction.  However that is not a road you want to go down.  If you do you are walking right into the argument the fundies want to have.  They will show you pictures of tiny fetuses and point out when the various parts start to develop and claim 'it's a child and you are murdering it'.The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

Actually, that's a surprisingly easy conversation. The line of distinction is breath. Even the bible says so.

/which puts their limit for abortion at 40+ weeks. That becomes a very fun conversation in a hurry.

If that where you draw the line i'm ok with that.  But there is no way I'm going to believe that having a conversation with a religious fundie over abortion is going to be 'very fun'.


God was pro-choice up until Abraham had his toddler on the altar.  I'm not sure religion is a good basis for abortion law.
 
2013-12-03 04:51:41 PM  

pdee: But there is no way I'm going to believe that having a conversation with a religious fundie over abortion is going to be 'very fun'.


I have a unique idea of fun. I took a Bible as Lit class in college specifically to get ammunition for the standard arguments.
 
2013-12-03 04:54:03 PM  

skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: Sure. Stupid law proposed by GOP is stupid. I guess we wouldn't have much of a thread if some people weren't trying to pretend the response wasn't bullshiat. Drew loves him some cheer leading ninnies

We wouldn't have much of a thread if some ninnies didn't spend their time trying to distract from the main idea by nitpicking syntax, either.

Detracting from the main idea by criticizing it 3 times now? Sorry if juggling 2 balls is beyond ye


I'm sorry that juggling balls is your bag.
 
2013-12-03 05:01:01 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: evenserial_crusher: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: dywed88: The key to the rape exception is that the woman did not chose to have sex, so her rights personal health and security is a relevant concern. Effectively a woman then has the right to self defense.

Self defense against the fetus? The fetus didn't rape her.  The exemption is a moral contortion that allows people to sidestep their belief that it's okay to kill children of rapists, but other children are off the table.

It's not that the fetus is being punished for raping her. She can't go back and kill the actual rapist after the fact and call it self defense either.
She's defending herself against the fetus's unsolicited use of her body for its life support functions.
If you choose to have sex, you're soliciting for a baby.
The fetus is as much a victim in that situation as the mother is, but the rapist is the one who should be charged with both rape and murder.

even more, why not also charge that guy with murder of the baby the woman  would have had if her resources were not drained raising the first? If we are going to follow that logic, that is.


Huh?
 
2013-12-03 05:04:31 PM  

I_C_Weener: pdee: Peki: pdee: A baby is just a lump of dividing cells unless you put forth some other distinction.  However that is not a road you want to go down.  If you do you are walking right into the argument the fundies want to have.  They will show you pictures of tiny fetuses and point out when the various parts start to develop and claim 'it's a child and you are murdering it'.The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

Actually, that's a surprisingly easy conversation. The line of distinction is breath. Even the bible says so.

/which puts their limit for abortion at 40+ weeks. That becomes a very fun conversation in a hurry.

If that where you draw the line i'm ok with that.  But there is no way I'm going to believe that having a conversation with a religious fundie over abortion is going to be 'very fun'.

God was pro-choice up until Abraham had his toddler on the altar.  I'm not sure religion is a good basis for abortion law.


Still was afterwards. The Holiness Code was the time of Moses, which provides the basis of the argument by including different penalties for killing a fetus but not the mother, versus killing a child, versus killing a pregnant woman, and Proverbs (and Genesis, but that's pre-Abraham) specifically mentions to be born = to breathe = to live. Without any of that, you had an idea of a person, but not a soul.

/no, religions are NOT good basis (huh, a plural I have no idea how to form) for abortion law, but since so many people subscribe to Christian morality, I'd rather use their own book against them. It's a wedge to open a crack into the iron-clad shells of a mind they have. Most of the time it doesn't work, but it seems to be more successful than other tactics I've tried.
 
2013-12-03 05:08:55 PM  

I_C_Weener: So everyone arguing this is a rape bill are simultaneously saying that abortion only occurs because of rape? No other reasons for abortion? NONE? REALLY?


The Republicans were given the chance to carve out an exception for rape victims.  Even the Republican governor of Michigan thought this went too far.  They specifically chose to leave rape victims not covered.  It was a choice, not an oversight.

That's why the name fits.
 
2013-12-03 05:10:40 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: evenserial_crusher: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: dywed88: The key to the rape exception is that the woman did not chose to have sex, so her rights personal health and security is a relevant concern. Effectively a woman then has the right to self defense.

Self defense against the fetus? The fetus didn't rape her.  The exemption is a moral contortion that allows people to sidestep their belief that it's okay to kill children of rapists, but other children are off the table.

It's not that the fetus is being punished for raping her. She can't go back and kill the actual rapist after the fact and call it self defense either.
She's defending herself against the fetus's unsolicited use of her body for its life support functions.
If you choose to have sex, you're soliciting for a baby.
The fetus is as much a victim in that situation as the mother is, but the rapist is the one who should be charged with both rape and murder.

even more, why not also charge that guy with murder of the baby the woman  would have had if her resources were not drained raising the first? If we are going to follow that logic, that is.


Side note, not a direct response to what I'm quoting:
Whoever suggested that an abortion would not be done in self-defense against a fetus has never heard of eclampsia.

Pregnancies can be very dangerous. See the lawsuit that a woman is now pursuing against the Catholic bishops organization in the US because they did not inform her than an abortion would be the safest way to end a pregnancy that was already in the process of miscarrying. By doing so, they exposed her to the possibility of severe infection and other issues. I am SO glad to see this lawsuit, because we really need to have this conversation. Quantity of life is not sacred! Quality of life is.
 
2013-12-03 05:14:50 PM  

flucto: I_C_Weener: Calling it a rape bill is hysteria.

Which is the standard operating procedure to make sure emotions are high, thinkin' is prevented, and partisan brand loyalty reigns supreme. Everyone who resorts to emotional hyperbole is part of the problem. Unless of course they're Democrats.


playing the victim while complaining about emotional rhetoric and complaining about partisanship while taking potshots at democrats, I like your shamelessness, breh.
 
2013-12-03 05:15:52 PM  

physt: formerfloozy: cman: Thats one beautiful lady

Wow, that is entirely inappropriate and creepy. What the fuk does it matter what she looks like?

Let it go. Cman is on a quest to say colossally stupid things on a daily basis.  He sprinkles in a few reasonable comments now and again to throw of the mods.


Hey, be fair. He used to be far derpier.
 
2013-12-03 05:55:29 PM  
Well the other side wants me to buy maternity care, so at least this makes some sort of logic.
 
2013-12-03 06:20:11 PM  

formerfloozy: sabreWulf07: formerfloozy: My doc even wanted a meeting with my ex husband to ensure he was down with me getting a tubal.

WTF?

Sorry, I sould have said "my now ex-husband"


Maybe it's a CA thing, but when we looked into getting snipped as newlyweds, Kaiser Permanente explicitly said, "You do not need your spouse's permission to get sterilized." They made us sign a form that said, "I acknowledge that this is a permanent procedure and that I'll be sterile afterwards." but they didn't push into waiting or question us over and over again if we were sure about this.
 
2013-12-03 07:43:22 PM  

Mercutio74: mrshowrules: Not a dumb idea. You could probably sell thousands of policies. Here is an article about the real cost to immigrate to Canada. Just base the payout on that.

Just please, please... if you immigrate to Canada adjust your political spectrum.  Years of living in the US will probably have caused you to think that the Dems are left wing.  Our conservative party is pretty much what a "moderate" Democrat would be, except even they won't overtly attack socialized medicine.


img.fark.net
 
2013-12-03 07:46:58 PM  

I_C_Weener: So everyone arguing this is a rape bill are simultaneously saying that abortion only occurs because of rape?  No other reasons for abortion?  NONE?  REALLY?


How about those of us who are arguing that somebody else's medical decisions are nunya bidness?

Because it's not your body.
Because it's not your uterus.
Because it's not your life, health and wellbeing on the line.
Because God says that life begins at first breath, that causing a miscarriage is not murder, and created a trial by ordeal for adultery.
(Which, until it was banned by the Sanhedrin, included making the woman undergoing the trial drink an abortifacient (wormwood), according to contemporary documents.)
Because involuntary servitude is explicitly unconstitutional.
Because you don't get to impose the practices and beliefs of your religion on other people.
 
2013-12-03 07:48:18 PM  

Dr Dreidel: It's a special kind of hypocritical dumbity for the party so fetishistically focused on LAWS to:
1) attempt to pass a law the "conventional" way
b) fail to get the Legislature to adopt the bill
iii) make an end-run around that same process to get the same bill passed via unconventional means
FOUR LIGHTS) while still (presumably) calling it "the will of the people".


According to Republicans, those who disagree with the party platform do not count as "the people".
 
2013-12-03 08:06:48 PM  

pdee: The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.


First breath, see:
וייצר יהוה אלהים את האדם עפר מן האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפש חיה׃

Because God says so.
Any other questions?
 
2013-12-04 05:43:21 AM  
I see my responses have basically been taken care of for me and there is not much I need to say then(but I am going to blab because I can).  I will just say yes I am fine with abortion up until birth.  I know many are not, but I am.

I am not like so many people who are pro-choice yet abortion apologists.  Abortion does not require an apology.  This whole "I also hate abortion but I think women should have the right anyhow" is a proven loosing argument in the court of public opinion.  Stop conceding that there is anything wrong with abortion, because there is not.  DO correct people's mischaracterizations of what is occurring scientifically and medically during pregnancy and abortion.  Stop being afraid to offend these people and stop giving them ground.  Laugh at their emotional appeals and face them straight on with facts.  Do not let them refer to anything as a baby nor a child that is neither.

One other funny thing though that the right wingers don't process - abortions inevitably save TONS of taxpayer dollars.  Simple statistics (on who generally gets abortions) tells us that nearly all those no longer aborted zygotes/fetuses/etc (who do eventually become babies and later children) will come out of low or no income mothers so you have both more welfare moms and more kids in state custody until they get adopted (and most won't).

Statistics also tell us that most of these unadopted children end up spending the majority of their adult lives in prison (aka still being housed and fed by the taxpayer).  It is almost as if the state does not make a good loving and nurturing parent.  To add insult to injury these people are generally the same people that stand in the way of those kids getting adopted (thus having a real chance) by loving gay parents.

So in multiple compound ways, these "pro-life" assholes are basically asking to get taxed more but they will complain about it all the way to the bank.  They do not seem to think that THEIR OWN choices (aka the legislation they keep pushing) should have consequences.

And they want to talk about those "sluts" needing to "be responsible for their mistakes."  Well there is nothing wrong with having sex but yes failing to use birth control when you are not ready for a baby is a tad irresponsible yet completely understandable.  Still having a child you cannot afford (meaning you will have it only to shift the cost onto others) just because you made a tiny mistake earlier... is NOT "being responsible."  When you make a mess... the responsible thing to do is to clean up the mess.  So you screwed up and got pregnant... take care of the problem instead of asking the rest of us to pay for your mistakes for the next 18 years.

So get that abortion and go to college classes instead of Lamaze classes.  Do not write off your own future so that you can become a mother before you are ready.  Make something of yourself first and when you do eventually have children... they will have a life worth living and a real future to boot.  Now THAT is accepting responsibility!

And no abortions are not treated quite like condoms either.  Very few people get repeat abortions.  I cannot speak for everywhere, but around here they cost about $500 (I have personally brought friends since they cannot drive themselves home after) and the girls are gonna feel it for a while after depending on how far along she was.  I think most would find condoms/birth control pills to be much more attractive options after having got an abortion just once.
 
2013-12-04 09:22:28 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: pdee: The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

First breath, see:
וייצר יהוה אלהים את האדם עפר מן האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפש חיה׃

Because God says so.
Any other questions?


Not only can't I read that, I can't even make a guess to what language it is.   But I would like to know.   Would you please give the best guess English translation and the verse in the Bible for it?  (I say best guess because I know stuff is always lost in translation.  I regret I can't read it in it's original format.)

I have never heard the breath stance presented before and would love to know more about it.  This is as exciting as the time I found out 'thou shall not kill' is more closely translated to 'thou shall not murder' which is a huge difference.
 
2013-12-04 09:40:55 AM  

bk3k: I see my responses have basically been taken care of for me and there is not much I need to say then(but I am going to blab because I can).  I will just say yes I am fine with abortion up until birth....Stop conceding that there is anything wrong with abortion, because there is not.


Have you ever seen a newborn baby?  An hour before that newborn baby is born, you're okay with aborting it?  That's completely and totally farking disgusting dude.

There's something wrong with you.
 
2013-12-04 10:21:35 AM  

lennavan: bk3k: I see my responses have basically been taken care of for me and there is not much I need to say then(but I am going to blab because I can).  I will just say yes I am fine with abortion up until birth....Stop conceding that there is anything wrong with abortion, because there is not.

Have you ever seen a newborn baby?  An hour before that newborn baby is born, you're okay with aborting it?  That's completely and totally farking disgusting dude.

There's something wrong with you.


It hasn't breathed yet, it's just a clump of cells.

I'm pro choice all the way but let's call it what it is--killing babies. We need to stop trying to sugarcoat this shiat. People need to see that it is ugly.
 
2013-12-04 10:33:10 AM  

rdalton: demaL-demaL-yeH: pdee: The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

First breath, see:
וייצר יהוה אלהים את האדם עפר מן האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפש חיה׃

Because God says so.
Any other questions?

Not only can't I read that, I can't even make a guess to what language it is.   But I would like to know.   Would you please give the best guess English translation and the verse in the Bible for it?  (I say best guess because I know stuff is always lost in translation.  I regret I can't read it in it's original format.)

I have never heard the breath stance presented before and would love to know more about it.  This is as exciting as the time I found out 'thou shall not kill' is more closely translated to 'thou shall not murder' which is a huge difference.


Favorited, for several reasons.
 
2013-12-04 11:44:45 AM  

rdalton: demaL-demaL-yeH: pdee: The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

First breath, see:
וייצר יהוה אלהים את האדם עפר מן האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפש חיה׃


 I'll give google translate a barely passing grade on this.     

Because God says so.
Any other questions?

Not only can't I read that, I can't even make a guess to what language it is.   But I would like to know.   Would you please give the best guess English translation and the verse in the Bible for it?  (I say best guess because I know stuff is always lost in translation.  I regret I can't read it in it's original format.)

I have never heard the breath stance presented before and would love to know more about it.  This is as exciting as the time I found out 'thou shall not kill' is more closely translated to 'thou shall not murder' which is a huge difference.



Hebrew. Personhood begins at birth, when you draw the breath of life. Until then, a fetus is lav nefesh hu - not a person, but part of a woman's body.
If a fetus were a person, we wouldn't see the clear delineation in Exodus 21:22-25 between the status of a miscarriage and that of the woman. In the case of causing a miscarriage, the penalty is monetary compensation to the family, parallel to compensation for the loss of a farm animal. In the case of the woman's death, injury, or dismemberment, you see the familiar life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, etc...
This distinction, by the way, extends to case law concerning judicial executions: A fetus is part of her body.

This personhood of a fetus concept is recent. It is dangerous from a legal, moral, and civic standpoint. Miscarriages become criminal investigations. Maternal behavior during pregnancy becomes subject to government monitoring and criminal sanction. It becomes a pathway to returning women to chattel status. The Handmaid's Tale is not a how-to book, for crying out loud.

We have a simple, clear and bright line with historical, legal and biblical justification: Personhood begins at birth. There's no reason to fark with it.
 
2013-12-04 11:53:16 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: rdalton: demaL-demaL-yeH: pdee: The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

First breath, see:
וייצר יהוה אלהים את האדם עפר מן האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפש חיה׃

 I'll give google translate a barely passing grade on this.     

Because God says so.
Any other questions?

Not only can't I read that, I can't even make a guess to what language it is.   But I would like to know.   Would you please give the best guess English translation and the verse in the Bible for it?  (I say best guess because I know stuff is always lost in translation.  I regret I can't read it in it's original format.)

I have never heard the breath stance presented before and would love to know more about it.  This is as exciting as the time I found out 'thou shall not kill' is more closely translated to 'thou shall not murder' which is a huge difference.


Hebrew. Personhood begins at birth, when you draw the breath of life. Until then, a fetus is lav nefesh hu - not a person, but part of a woman's body.
If a fetus were a person, we wouldn't see the clear delineation in Exodus 21:22-25 between the status of a miscarriage and that of the woman. In the case of causing a miscarriage, the penalty is monetary compensation to the family, parallel to compensation for the loss of a farm animal. In the case of the woman's death, injury, or dismemberment, you see the familiar life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, etc...
This distinction, by the way, extends to case law concerning judicial executions: A fetus is part of her body.

This personhood of a fetus concept is recent. It is dangerous from a legal, moral, and civic standpoint. Miscarriages become criminal investigations. Maternal behavior during pregnancy becomes subject to government monitoring and criminal sanction. It becomes a pathway to returning women to chattel status. The Handmaid's Tale is n ...


Favorited, for several reasons.
 
2013-12-04 12:02:24 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: If a fetus were a person, we wouldn't see the clear delineation in Exodus 21:22-25 between the status of a miscarriage and that of the woman


IIRC there's also verses in Proverbs that point to the breath=life and abortion=/murder.

/hell, God barely stopped Abraham from performing a post-partum abortion.
 
2013-12-04 12:05:07 PM  

rdalton: I have never heard the breath stance presented before and would love to know more about it.  This is as exciting as the time I found out 'thou shall not kill' is more closely translated to 'thou shall not murder' which is a huge difference.


Since this sort of thing is new to you, are you also aware that Sodom and Gomorrah are about hospitality and not homosexuality?

See: Genesis 19-21
Judges 19-21
Ezekiel 16:49 (which does the awesome job of  explicitly stating what Sodom's sin was and never mentions homosexuality)
 
2013-12-04 12:21:16 PM  

Peki: God barely stopped Abraham from performing a post-partum abortion.


The Akedah (the Binding) is my least favorite part of my favorite parsha, Vayera, with its lessons in hospitality, negotiation, and keeping promises. It's very disturbing, and Isaac is so farked up by it that God is often referred to as the "Fear of Isaac" later on.
 
2013-12-04 12:32:56 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Isaac


You know, that makes sense that his would be the story to get glossed over. I don't think I've ever heard a reading or interpretation from his side of the story (very little Jewish background, so I don't know the Torah or Talmud at all).

/may have to write a book now along the lines of  The Red Tent
//having a bit of a PTSD flashback just imagining it. . .
 
2013-12-04 02:09:51 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: rdalton: demaL-demaL-yeH: pdee: The one question the pro-choice crowed has to avoid is when does a fetus become a person.  If you sink to the then the fundies will claim the high moral ground.

First breath, see:
וייצר יהוה אלהים את האדם עפר מן האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפש חיה׃

 I'll give google translate a barely passing grade on this.


So that's the part where God creates Adam and then "breathes life into him"?
I'm not sure we really want to consider that the official process for all life.  Women don't even exist unless they're crafted out of a man's surgically removed rib, if we follow that logic.
 
2013-12-04 02:20:32 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: If a fetus were a person, we wouldn't see the clear delineation in Exodus 21:22-25 between the status of a miscarriage and that of the woman


Which translation are you reading that distinguishes?
New International Version says:
22 "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Doesn't specify injury to woman vs. fetus.

The original Klingon has a surprising number of English words in it.
 
2013-12-04 02:28:54 PM  

serial_crusher: So that's the part where God creates Adam and then "breathes life into him"?


and the man became nefesh haya - a living being.

/Way to ignore more than two millennia of thought and discussion, stop before the important part, and introduce a digression.
//I see you're still living down to your farkie.
///Mazal bueno.
 
2013-12-04 02:33:47 PM  

serial_crusher: Which translation are you reading that distinguishes?


O.o

Translation? I read the Torah in Hebrew, as usual.
Look upthread. See?

/Not the Seputagint. Not the Latin Vulgate. Not Tyndall.
//None of their derivatives, cousins, or siblings.
///Hebrew.
 
2013-12-04 02:35:14 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: So that's the part where God creates Adam and then "breathes life into him"?

and the man became nefesh haya - a living being.

/Way to ignore more than two millennia of thought and discussion, stop before the important part, and introduce a digression.
//I see you're still living down to your farkie.
///Mazal bueno.


yeah, I guess I should do 2000 years worth of research before posting on a fark thread, like everybody else.

Your quote there doesn't refute my argument though.  Still just says that's how that one special case guy  became a living being, not that that's how people today become living beings.  Seems like with those 2000 years of thought and discussions, you'd be able to come up with a better counter-argument.
 
2013-12-04 02:45:46 PM  

Peki: You know, that makes sense that his would be the story to get glossed over.


It isn't glossed over. Akeda is a Rosh HaShana text. We follow it with parsha  Chukat - the death of Moses, where he's allowed to see the land before his death, but not enter it - on Simchat Torah just a few weeks later. Both of these texts are discomfiting for me.
 
2013-12-04 02:53:22 PM  

serial_crusher: yeah, I guess I should do 2000 years worth of research before posting on a fark thread, like everybody else.

Your quote there doesn't refute my argument though.  Still just says that's how that one special case guy  became a living being, not that that's how people today become living beings.  Seems like with those 2000 years of thought and discussions, you'd be able to come up with a better counter-argument.


Counter-argument to what? You digressed and asked irrelevant questions.
If you have some alternative for when personhood begins, trot it on out.

/Doubt anybody will be surrendering a birth certificate for your proposed substitute anytime soon.
//It wouldn't hurt you to go over the old arguments and discussions, or to learn another language.
///That way, you could ask informed questions.
 
2013-12-04 03:01:32 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: yeah, I guess I should do 2000 years worth of research before posting on a fark thread, like everybody else.

Your quote there doesn't refute my argument though. Still just says that's how that one special case guy became a living being, not that that's how people today become living beings. Seems like with those 2000 years of thought and discussions, you'd be able to come up with a better counter-argument.

Counter-argument to what? You digressed and asked irrelevant questions.


claim: the bible says life begins at first breath because that's when Adam became alive.
argument: Adam was a special case, not relevant to normal human reproduction.
counter-argument: repeat claim about Adam.

I'm agnostic, so all this bible stuff is kind of silly to me.  It's not even like reading it in the "original Hebrew" is somehow a definitive interpretation of a story that was repeated orally for thousands of years before somebody got the bright idea to write it down using whatever verbiage they thought was good enough at the time.
 
2013-12-04 03:31:16 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Peki: You know, that makes sense that his would be the story to get glossed over.

It isn't glossed over. Akeda is a Rosh HaShana text. We follow it with parsha  Chukat - the death of Moses, where he's allowed to see the land before his death, but not enter it - on Simchat Torah just a few weeks later. Both of these texts are discomfiting for me.


Thanks for the info. I meant glossed over in Christianity (I am SO not entering a debate with you over Jewish theology; I will have my ass handed to me fifteen ways from Friday sundown). . .

/maybe have to study Judaism seriously for a few years. . . such rich texts!
 
2013-12-04 03:51:56 PM  

serial_crusher: claim: the bible says life begins at first breath because that's when Adam became alive.
argument: Adam was a special case, not relevant to normal human reproduction.
counter-argument: repeat claim about Adam.



Want to know how everybody knows you didn't read what I wrote upthread?  demaL-demaL-yeH:

Sanhedrin 72b, Ohalot 7:6,have more detailed discussion, but it really boils down to the woman's life and well-being take priority over that of a fetus. Once the head has been delivered, though, this is no longer the case: Each has an equal claim to personhood. Rashi and Maimonides - the spokesmen for the two schools of thought on abortion - both agree on this point: The existing life and personhood of a woman takes precedence over the potential life of a fetus.


I'm agnostic, so all this bible stuff is kind of silly to me.  It's not even like reading it in the "original Hebrew" is somehow a definitive interpretation of a story that was repeated orally for thousands of years before somebody got the bright idea to write it down using whatever verbiage they thought was good enough at the time.

Then, with all due respect, you've excluded yourself from the discussion. Why the fark are you commenting?
 
2013-12-04 05:04:00 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: serial_crusher: claim: the bible says life begins at first breath because that's when Adam became alive.
argument: Adam was a special case, not relevant to normal human reproduction.
counter-argument: repeat claim about Adam.

Want to know how everybody knows you didn't read what I wrote upthread?  demaL-demaL-yeH:


The post you linked to there doesn't have anything to do with the one you're replying to...

Sorry, I guess I'm just applying too much engineering logic to a politics debate.  I like to attack different arguments individually on their own merits.
You've made two claims here and I've addressed them both in separate posts (yes, I did read them before replying).  Let me put them next to each other if that helps:
 1 - God breathed life into Adam, therefore breathing is how everybody gains life. - Easily dispelled by pointing out that God's method for bringing the first human to life doesn't specify how subsequent humans come to life.  Just because this argument is junk doesn't mean your whole conclusion is, but you should avoid arguing it.

2 - Exodus treats miscarriages differently from injuries to the mother - I didn't necessarily disagree with this, just asked for more clarification as to the source.  A lot of English versions use the words "give birth prematurely" instead of "miscarry", which are totally different things here.  For better or worse, most people in the Christian Right care more about English versions than Hebrew ones.

demaL-demaL-yeH: I'm agnostic, so all this bible stuff is kind of silly to me. It's not even like reading it in the "original Hebrew" is somehow a definitive interpretation of a story that was repeated orally for thousands of years before somebody got the bright idea to write it down using whatever verbiage they thought was good enough at the time.

Then, with all due respect, you've excluded yourself from the discussion. Why the fark are you commenting?


Trying to show how and why it's silly, hoping for the off chance other farkers will clue in that misinterpreted folklore isn't the best source of moral guidance; then we can get to having arguments about actual issues instead of sideshows.

I'll get on reading those Sanhedrin and Ohalot references sometime this evening though.  Always good to know where people are coming from and I really don't know that much about the Jewish perspective.
 
2013-12-04 07:06:09 PM  

serial_crusher: The post you linked to there doesn't have anything to do with the one you're replying to...
Sorry, I guess I'm just applying too much engineering logic to a politics debate.  I like to attack different arguments individually on their own merits.


This isn't politics. It's a discussion of a religious text and the ethical consequences, as seen by the people who have struggled with it longest.


You've made two claims here and I've addressed them both in separate posts (yes, I did read them before replying).  Let me put them next to each other if that helps:
 1 - God breathed life into Adam, therefore breathing is how everybody gains life. - Easily dispelled by pointing out that God's method for bringing the first human to life doesn't specify how subsequent humans come to life.  Just because this argument is junk doesn't mean your whole conclusion is, but you should avoid arguing it.


1 is deliberately obtuse:  Ha-adam means man.
There are no counterexamples because the text supports none: Woman is brought to man fully formed.
And no, the text says breathing the breath of life is how man became a living being.


serial_crusher: 2 - Exodus treats miscarriages differently from injuries to the mother - I didn't necessarily disagree with this, just asked for more clarification as to the source.  A lot of English versions use the words "give birth prematurely" instead of "miscarry", which are totally different things here.  For better or worse, most people in the Christian Right care more about English versions than Hebrew ones.


It means miscarry. The Septuagint has a glaring mistranslation: The Hebrew grammar is very clear that "no further mischief" refers to what happens to the woman, then goes on with the classic "life for life, eye for eye,.." if she is harmed.


serial_crusher: Trying to show how and why it's silly, hoping for the off chance other farkers will clue in that misinterpreted folklore isn't the best source of moral guidance; then we can get to having arguments about actual issues instead of sideshows.


You're entitled to your opinion. You're entitled to find inspiration and moral guidance wherever you wish. In this particular instance, though, a religious misinterpretation of my people's text is what's driving this overly emotional shiatstorm of a clusterfark around other people's medical decisions. If you don't deal with that particular reality, you aren't addressing the issue and you aren't adding anything of value to the discussion.

/Care to guess how annoying it is when somebody talks about our Book and claims that we don't really understand it.
 
2013-12-04 07:11:06 PM  

serial_crusher: "give birth prematurely" instead of "miscarry"


Maybe to  us that have medical knowledge of the difference, but keep in mind ancient Hebrews probably wouldn't have had such knowledge. Regardless of mechanism, the result is a dead fetus, which was treated equivalent to animal property, not a live human (I think even slaves get a higher price for their death than a fetus does, but I'm a bit lazy to google that one, demaL can probably speak to that better than I can).

serial_crusher: 1 - God breathed life into Adam,


Humans. God did the same to Eve (and there's more than just Eve if you Genesis closely--there are actually two creation stories and two sets of humans created).  And see points about Proverbs regarding other supporting verses. This is easily googled if you really cared, and even if Adam wasn't born of "normal reproduction," breath is how God gave him life, and even today we have a special significance to a baby's first breath (how many fricking parents talk about "And I waited for the first cry," no matter if the baby was born live or not?).

serial_crusher: Trying to show how and why it's silly, hoping for the off chance other farkers will clue in that misinterpreted folklore isn't the best source of moral guidance; then we can get to having arguments about actual issues instead of sideshows.


We aren't arguing over silliness, but even if it is silly, when a majority of the US subscribes to the beliefs and bases cultural morality on it, it helps to know what it actually says when you're trying to change things.

/a white person had to free a black slave first. A man had to give a woman the right to vote. If you want to take power from someone, generally you have to convince them to give it to you
 
2013-12-04 07:14:19 PM  

Peki: you Genesis


Heh. I accidentally the whole thing.

/word there is supposed to be read
//I even previewed that crap (which is why I hate proofreading on a computer)
 
Displayed 374 of 374 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report