Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“You co-sponsored legislation seeking to distinguish between statutory and forcible rape. Why?”
“Well, look. All of these bills were bills to stop taxpayer financing of abortion,” Ryan said. “Most Americans agree with us, including pro-choice Americans, that we shouldn’t use hardworking taxpayer dollars to finance abortion. Rape is rape, period. This is language that was stock language used for lots of different bills – bills I didn’t author – and that language was removed, to be very clear, and I agree with that, removing that language so we are very clear. Rape is rape, period. End of story.”
**********************************
One last question, Mr Ryan,
If you helped author a bill that redefined rape
- and you actually read the words that you try to get put into law,
- then why try to add a new definer to rape?
Why would it be necessary
to add more language to it.?
"There's no difference in rape... raoe is rape..."
You said there was forcible rape so there must be a non forcible rape, am I correct?.
- I know what I said!
- Then why the two versions of rape?
- Men can do things on their own, some use force, and some stroke their victim's hair tenderly while raping them. However, both are still rape.
IF you made a law that forcible rape is the same is regular rape, then why make the change at all? Why not just leave rape as "rape" and not "forcible rape:- why couldn't it be left alone?
You and the other guy changed the wording to undermine a woman's right to choose, because that's what you agreed to do!
And when it went bad publicly, you backpedaled on your wording and trie to say it was "Stock language" whatever the @#$@#$ that means!
You obfuscate the isssue you created! Mr. Ryan, did you help to try and define abortions for "forcible rape" ?
- You don't have to answer that.
- You want answers?
I want the truth!
You can't handle the truth!
Son, we live in a world with
vaginas that must be guarded.
Who's gonna do it? You?
You, Lt. Weinberg?
("Well, it is my vagina.")
Shut up Weinberg and make me a sandwich.
I have more responsibility
than you can fathom.
You weep for women everywhere
and curse ultra-Conservative abortion loons.
You don't know what I know.
A raped woman's inability to choose an abortion - saved lives.
And my existence,
while grotesque to you, saves lives!
But deep down, in places
you don't talk about on CD forums, -
- you want me to guard that vagina.
- you need me to gauard that vagina.
We use words like
"When did women get so uppity?" and "That's not your vagina/uterus/fetus, that's the government's."
They're the backbone of our lives.
You use them as a punchline!
I haven't the time or inclination
to explain myself -
- to a woman who needs my protection -
- and a man who questions the way I provide it.
Better just to thank me and be on your way.
Or create new legislation refining rape
Either way, I don't give a damn
what you think you are entitled to!
- Did you change the wording?
- You're ******* right I did!
“You co-sponsored legislation seeking to distinguish between statutory and forcible rape. Why?”
“Well, look. All of these bills were bills to stop taxpayer financing of abortion,” Ryan said. “Most Americans agree with us, including pro-choice Americans, that we shouldn’t use hardworking taxpayer dollars to finance abortion. Rape is rape, period. This is language that was stock language used for lots of different bills – bills I didn’t author – and that language was removed, to be very clear, and I agree with that, removing that language so we are very clear. Rape is rape, period. End of story.”
**********************************
One last question, Mr Ryan,
If you helped author a bill that redefined rape
- and you actually read the words that you try to get put into law,
- then why try to add a new definer to rape?
Why would it be necessary
to add more language to it.?
"There's no difference in rape... raoe is rape..."
You said there was forcible rape so there must be a non forcible rape, am I correct?.
- I know what I said!
- Then why the two versions of rape?
- Men can do things on their own, some use force, and some stroke their victim's hair tenderly while raping them. However, both are still rape.
IF you made a law that forcible rape is the same is regular rape, then why make the change at all? Why not just leave rape as "rape" and not "forcible rape:- why couldn't it be left alone?
You and the other guy changed the wording to undermine a woman's right to choose, because that's what you agreed to do!
And when it went bad publicly, you backpedaled on your wording and trie to say it was "Stock language" whatever the @#$@#$ that means!
You obfuscate the isssue you created! Mr. Ryan, did you help to try and define abortions for "forcible rape" ?
- You don't have to answer that.
- You want answers?
I want the truth!
You can't handle the truth!
Son, we live in a world with
vaginas that must be guarded.
Who's gonna do it? You?
You, Lt. Weinberg?
("Well, it is my vagina.")
Shut up Weinberg and make me a sandwich.
I have more responsibility
than you can fathom.
You weep for women everywhere
and curse ultra-Conservative abortion loons.
You don't know what I know.
A raped woman's inability to choose an abortion - saved lives.
And my existence,
while grotesque to you, saves lives!
But deep down, in places
you don't talk about on CD forums, -
- you want me to guard that vagina.
- you need me to gauard that vagina.
We use words like
"When did women get so uppity?" and "That's not your vagina/uterus/fetus, that's the government's."
They're the backbone of our lives.
You use them as a punchline!
I haven't the time or inclination
to explain myself -
- to a woman who needs my protection -
- and a man who questions the way I provide it.
Better just to thank me and be on your way.
Or create new legislation refining rape
Either way, I don't give a damn
what you think you are entitled to!
- Did you change the wording?
- You're ******* right I did!
One thing I would like to point out to Mr. Ryan.....not all pro-choicers are against taxpayer dollars going to fund abortions.
1. If a woman who wants an abortion can't afford one.....she certainly cannot afford a child.
2. As a taxpayer, I would rather pay $400 for an abortion rather than $100,000+ to raise a child.
The same goes for birth control.
I would rather pay for low income women's birth control, than pay for more children who are going to be raised on my dime.
Do the math.
Yes, we shouldn't have to pay for someone's abortion or birth control, but we shouldn't have to pay to raise their kids either.
If you do not want your taxpayer dollars going to pay for low income abortions and birth control.....please....don't whine when your tax dollars go to raise their kids.
There is a difference between forcible rape and statuary rape in terms of the perp's threat to society. I know that's not PC, but it's true. But.... I don't think it should matter on the subject of abortion.
“You co-sponsored legislation seeking to distinguish between statutory and forcible rape. Why?”
“Well, look. All of these bills were bills to stop taxpayer financing of abortion,” Ryan said. “Most Americans agree with us, including pro-choice Americans, that we shouldn’t use hardworking taxpayer dollars to finance abortion. Rape is rape, period. This is language that was stock language used for lots of different bills – bills I didn’t author – and that language was removed, to be very clear, and I agree with that, removing that language so we are very clear. Rape is rape, period. End of story.”
**********************************
One last question, Mr Ryan,
If you helped author a bill that redefined rape
- and you actually read the words that you try to get put into law,
- then why try to add a new definer to rape?
Why would it be necessary
to add more language to it.?
"There's no difference in rape... raoe is rape..."
You said there was forcible rape so there must be a non forcible rape, am I correct?.
- I know what I said!
- Then why the two versions of rape?
- Men can do things on their own, some use force, and some stroke their victim's hair tenderly while raping them. However, both are still rape.
IF you made a law that forcible rape is the same is regular rape, then why make the change at all? Why not just leave rape as "rape" and not "forcible rape:- why couldn't it be left alone?
You and the other guy changed the wording to undermine a woman's right to choose, because that's what you agreed to do!
And when it went bad publicly, you backpedaled on your wording and trie to say it was "Stock language" whatever the @#$@#$ that means!
You obfuscate the isssue you created! Mr. Ryan, did you help to try and define abortions for "forcible rape" ?
- You don't have to answer that.
- You want answers?
I want the truth!
You can't handle the truth!
Son, we live in a world with
vaginas that must be guarded.
Who's gonna do it? You?
You, Lt. Weinberg?
("Well, it is my vagina.")
Shut up Weinberg and make me a sandwich.
I have more responsibility
than you can fathom.
You weep for women everywhere
and curse ultra-Conservative abortion loons.
You don't know what I know.
A raped woman's inability to choose an abortion - saved lives.
And my existence,
while grotesque to you, saves lives!
But deep down, in places
you don't talk about on CD forums, -
- you want me to guard that vagina.
- you need me to gauard that vagina.
We use words like
"When did women get so uppity?" and "That's not your vagina/uterus/fetus, that's the government's."
They're the backbone of our lives.
You use them as a punchline!
I haven't the time or inclination
to explain myself -
- to a woman who needs my protection -
- and a man who questions the way I provide it.
Better just to thank me and be on your way.
Or create new legislation refining rape
Either way, I don't give a damn
what you think you are entitled to!
- Did you change the wording?
- You're ******* right I did!
One thing I would like to point out to Mr. Ryan.....not all pro-choicers are against taxpayer dollars going to fund abortions.
1. If a woman who wants an abortion can't afford one.....she certainly cannot afford a child.
2. As a taxpayer, I would rather pay $400 for an abortion rather than $100,000+ to raise a child.
The same goes for birth control.
I would rather pay for low income women's birth control, than pay for more children who are going to be raised on my dime.
Do the math.
Yes, we shouldn't have to pay for someone's abortion or birth control, but we shouldn't have to pay to raise their kids either.
If you do not want your taxpayer dollars going to pay for low income abortions and birth control.....please....don't whine when your tax dollars go to raise their kids.
Adoption doesn't cost tax payers anything, and not copulating is free for all those who choose to not copulate.
Since rape is pretty much a state issue, why should it be much of an issue in a Presidential campaign?
Because Paul Ryan introduced the idea of redifining rape on a federal level........The Sanctity of Life Act.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
