gbaji wrote:
You were serious about that? I assumed you were playing your usual word games again, given that the case you provided doesn't actually fall outside the definition of "forcible rape" and especially when you hammed it up with mention of a death ray (edit: Apparently, I inserted that myself. Whatever!)
Are you serious? No, you didn't think it was just a joke, stop embarrassing yourself by pretending otherwise.
Quote:
But for the record, if it can be established that someone did point a gun at a woman and forced her to have sex with him, then that does qualify as "forcible rape", and thus would qualify her for federal funding for an abortion if she wants one.
Wow, talk about missing the point entirely. You thought this counted as some sort of defense?
Again, your stance is that
if a woman has been raped at gunpoint, we should start with a presumption that she is lying and out to defraud the government and thus deny her any aid for her condition. There's really no way to spin this as anything else. This is the entire foundation by which you spent pages defending the GOP legislation. This is what you're trying to weasel out of now saying "Gee, if it's been
established..."
Say it again with me: When a woman has been raped in a manner that left no overwhelming physical evidence, your immediate presumption is that she is a thief and a liar and should be denied the aid to get her life back in order. Given that this is what you believe strongly enough to argue it for pages, I can't understand why your backpedaling away from it now.
Edited, Feb 8th 2011 10:19pm by Jophiel