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.
Your comment is callous and unnecessarily insensitive.
Apparently neither you, nor anyone you know has been raped or you'd never make such a cavalier post.
Hmh, I thought it was funny myself! Never thought you'd take offense. Seems that people don't like to lighten things up a little on here. People take themselves so seriously. Who else was offended by my joke?
Hmh, I thought it was funny myself! Never thought you'd take offense. Seems that people don't like to lighten things up a little on here. People take themselves so seriously. Who else was offended by my joke?
Joking about rape isn't funny.
Like I said, obviously neither you nor anyone you know has been raped, or you wouldn't think it was so funny.
I was wrong, but it looks like both sides are making different arguments. The bill won't allow any tax preferences to businesses that buy insurance that covers abortion, essentially eliminating those policies through the HCR reform bill, because private industry would have a disincentive to cover it--right now it's standard coverage in many private policies. Individuals could still purchase private insurance in addition to what they are offered through their employer plan to cover it, which is still cost prohibitive to lower income women.
Don't whine about the NPR link--it's the clearest explanation I could find quickly.
Once again, if you have Medicaid, and you fall and slip on the ice, should Medicaid not pay for your broken wrist? Someone was responsible for treating and removing the ice. Why should the taxpayer pay, right?
I stand by my first post. I'm not trying to redefine rape. And I'd like you to show me where I tried to do that since you are accusing me of it.
And your remark, if the woman (ie consensual) was the aggressor, then she should pay? Uh, consensual doesn't mean the woman was the aggressor. And it says a LOT, a WHOLE LOT, about you, that you would make that remark. Try that remark on your wife, why don't you?
poor wording on my part
my question was if sex its self was WELCOMED..ie WANTED...ie one night stand...or if the woman was the agressor (ie female on male dominated rape (it does happen)) should the taxpayer pay for that unwanted pregnancy...should the taxpayer be held responsible for something the taxpayer didnt do
as far as the ice...if the person got injured...sue the entity(or individual) that failed to clear the ice.....even if that may be a local or state, or federal entity, or individual...ie they were NEGLEGENT.......ie if its MY fault..sue me..not expect the federal taxpayer to pay for it...if its my companies fault..sue my company..not expect the federal taxpayer to pay for it.....if it is my city or town,,sue my city or town..not expect the federal taxpayer to pay for it
are you saying that if redneck idiot playing with firecrackers on the 4th of july blows his fingers off, that they taxpayers should pay for his stupidity????
Last edited by workingclasshero; 01-28-2011 at 12:50 PM..
Govt funds should not be used to pay for the result of anyone's behavior.
Just like prison, right? Just like the court system in a criminal trial. Are you opposed to those two things, as well? Or is it because a it's a victim of rape who should "pay". And how are you going to make someone pay for something that's medically rehabilitative for the victim if the criminal doesn't have any money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bettyboopster
Members of Congress, supreme court justices.
Do you vote? Members of Congress do no elect themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bettyboopster
Well, ya could say NAFTA is raping America.
Well, no ya couldn't. Pretty tacky comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
the real question is why wouldnt the anybody want to hold the MAN, who raped the person financially responsible
Wouldn't that be lovely. Hold the criminal responsible for his/her behaviour. However, an individual is held responsible for the CRIME, not the after-effects. That is, if the criminal is captured and convicted.
I wonder who you think is going to enforce this financial responsibility if the criminal has no money? The criminal justice system? That would be the taxpayers who support that system.
If your house was broken into and you were raped, how would you feel if a taxpayer said to you: I didn't rape you, it's not my problem. Pay for your counseling, repair to your physical body yourself.
Yes, most rapists are clearly responsible people and will agree to being held responsible for the damage done to another human being.
Actually, by your reasoning, if you have government-subsidized insurance, like Medicaid, if your house burns down, you pay for the burn treatment yourself. If you are assaulted, Medicaid won't pay for the broken wrist because someone else caused it. If you slip and fall on the ice, why should Medicaid pay for it, it's not the government's fault you didn't shovel and salt your sidewalk. Right?
I don't quite understand what you are trying to saying.
My point is, if a criminal commits an an act against me, I am responsible for my own finances. If I have insurance is immaterial. The gov't does not pay.
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.
