Scott Walker Legalizes Rape

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aoxomoxoa said:
Whilst definitely being against this, I cannot see how it can be defined as rape. Unless you are saying that the woman is held down and it is performed against her will. You may legitimately say that she has Hobson's choice in the matter but defining it as rape is just overblown rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Read the Federal definition Tom. The fact that she must make a Hobson choice under duress and coercion means that even if she agrees to the procedure they have not done so by consent but due to coercion. Thus by the very simple Federal Definition of rape those States would be guilty of Rape by Federal Definition.

For example, IMHO, if a man were to offer a starving woman food, who had not had food in a week, on the precondition of only after she had sex with you that you would feed her, in my IHMO if the man then penetrated that woman sexually than he would be a rapist. Another example. A womans car breaks down during a blizzard. If she stays out in her car she'll surely freeze to death. She goes to the nearest house and is told by the male occupant that he'll only let her in out of the cold if she has sex with him. If he penetrates her under those conditions, then he's a rapist. I see no difference between these two scenarios and this Virginia law.

Not only is it reprehensibly uncaring of womens rights, they are also seriously ,violating Doctors rights by forcing them to violate their hypocratic oath.
 
Last edited:
Rana said:
It wasn't just Darla though
Click to expand...

We'll see. It is a conversation and there are two sides and participation. One states something then is either confronted or otherwise asked to explain, so if one is to participate one does explain. It is my premise that so far, only Darla pretends to not understand what I am saying while repeating the same thing.

I'm still wondering if my camera on my computer is working when I don't realize it, there is no other obvious explanation for her demands that I manually please myself.
 
Damocles said:
We'll see. It is a conversation and there are two sides and participation. One states something then is either confronted or otherwise asked to explain, so if one is to participate one does explain. It is my premise that so far, only Darla pretends to not understand what I am saying while repeating the same thing.

I'm still wondering if my camera on my computer is working when I don't realize it, there is no other obvious explanation for her demands that I manually please myself.
Click to expand...

God you're an idiot. And no I'm never the only one who "misunderstands" you. You're the most "misunderstood" poster on this board.
 
tekkychick said:
If you weren't speaking up for the probe, why did you bring up your sidebar comment at all? It came across that you were downplaying the probe - " no big deal, it's not that big, I suffered more with my colonoscopy than you women will ever know...."

Go read "brave new world" if you want to read about ex-utero generation of babies. In the meantime, the rest of us will stay rooted in reality.
Click to expand...

Bump for Damo
 
Damocles said:
Because he had a "do you want this up your butt" post that reminded me of that experience, and to point out that thing the dude was holding is absolutely huge compared to what I had seen used on my wife. It has more the appearance of ones used by the large animal vet in our area than something used by a human doctor.

You keep asking that, rather than reading what I wrote. Is it because you too want to give me my opinion and argue how evil it is?

Attempting to say "rooted in reality" as an excuse for the conscious decision to kill when there are other options that can bring the same result is one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard against it.
Click to expand...

Here is what I said, Rana... Quoting her post first.
 
Damo, you are so full of shit the prep for a fucking colonoscopy couldn't clean it all out of you. How fucking dare you compare a colonoscopy with this procedure! Gawd, you're ignorant!
 
[QUOTE=Rana;1254703 so this is an invasive procedure, but tearing a baby from the womb isn't. How about delivering a baby except for the head, jamming a vacuum in the back of the skull, and the sucking out the brain, and then dismembering the rest of the baby, wow that doesn't sound invasive at all. You people probably all belong to PETA too don't you, you disgust me. Your sickness is in full effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top