Missouri Republican: 'Legitimate rape' rarely causes pregnancy

[Razgovory]

He can't.  The deadline passed thirty minutes ago.  Only way to get him off the ballot is a lawsuit.

[Barrister]

Umm, not really.

Parliament is supreme.  It can pass any law they want, no matter how silly (as long as it is within their jurisdiction).  It is up to Parliament to change bad laws.

Now in most of the world, there is the overlay of a Bill of Rights / Charter of Rights.  Now, a law can be challenged.  But it can't be challenged because "it is not a good law", but rather only if it violates specific enumerated rights of its citizens.

I think you are misreading what I said. Not that the law is challenged on the basis that it is not good. Rather, it is almost by definition no good if it can't withstand a legitimate challenge e.g. a bill of rights challenge.

This is also not intended to be a technical definition(see: I'm not an expert) but rather a simplified description of principle. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't courts struck down laws that don't show sufficient justification for the burden/restrictions they create? I'm thinking of Proposition 8 in California, but there may be better examples(or that may not be an example at all).

If, and only if, the court finds the Charter right has been breached, then you can look at whether that breach can be justified under section 1.  Then you do have to balance the societal good against the infringment (I'm not going o run through the whole Oakes test here).  But this all comes up only when you find a Charter breach.

Plenty of silly or even bad laws that are ineffective, cumbersome, and don't meet their overall objective don't actually infring any Charter right, and are not reviewable by the courts.

And, by the way, plenty of 'good' laws have been struck down by the Courts.  Tobacco advertising restrictions, for example.

[Ideologue]

I find it a little weird how the average Republican pro-lifer cares so much for the life of the child before it's born, but after it's born it can starve to death or die from easily preventable illnesses for all they care.

Not sure I'd play that card.  After all:

I find it a little weird how the average Democrat pro-lifer cares so much for the life of the child after it is born, but before it's born it can be surgically destroyed (murdered) for all they care.

Depending on your audience, what I wrote is equally valid.

Examine the premises and you may find the difference that you're looking for.

I assume both factions define infants carried to term as humans.

[Ideologue]

We don't? 

Considering the number of children living in poverty/suffering from malnutrition (/dying of it)/poor education and life outcomes - I'd think we don't.

Gosh, I wonder how things might have gotten that way?

[Ideologue]

4th trimester abortion? Cute.

Would you ban 3rd trimester abortion if carrying the baby to term meant the death of the mother?

You know, I'd actually like to have a scientific-philosophical discussion of what crucial differences there are between a three month old child and a nine month old fetus, and why it (may) be okay to destroy one but (as I'm sure the overwhelming consensus would be) not the other, but there ain't no way it's happening.  OMG YOU SUPPORT INFANTICIDE

[jimmy olsen]

As I've said before, I favor the French law on abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France

[Martinus]

4th trimester abortion? Cute.

Would you ban 3rd trimester abortion if carrying the baby to term meant the death of the mother?

You know, I'd actually like to have a scientific-philosophical discussion of what crucial differences there are between a three month old child and a nine month old fetus, and why it (may) be okay to destroy one but (as I'm sure the overwhelming consensus would be) not the other, but there ain't no way it's happening.  OMG YOU SUPPORT INFANTICIDE

You can cut down a tree that takes 20 years to grow but you can't kill a baby that takes 9 months to make. Fucked up priorities. 

[Martinus]

Anyway, the whole abortion debate to me is a prop for a cultural war between two tribes that people want to belong to. I mean, 80% of people probably agree on abortion being allowed if there is a health risk for the mother or if it is a result of rape. The whole polarizing thing ("on demand" abortion) is essentially two retarded sides arguing with each other - one claiming that a lump of cells is a human being and the other that we should protect interests of someone too stupid or drunk to use contraception.

We should seriously focus our energy on something sensible. 

[Martinus]

For the record, I am more and more inclined to think the same way about the gay marriage debate. Is this really so important for either side? Your shitty marriage to the wife you hate will really be destroyed and your snotty kids depraved if two dudes can marry? Will you really stop engaging in risky sex with strangers and settle down with another egoistic drama queen like you if the government gives you a paper slip?

It's all about making sure your "tribe" wins over the "enemy tribe" and you destroy something they care about. We can't pillage and rape anymore so we have stupid politics.

[Brazen]

Have we done George Galloway's comments on the Assange case yet?

Galloway, the MP for Bradford West, had claimed that even if the complaints made against Assange by two women in Sweden were "100% true", they still could not be considered rape. "They don't constitute rape," he said in a video podcast on Monday. "At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it."

He went on: "Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them. It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said: 'Do you mind if I do it again?' It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape, or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."

[Darth Wagtaros]

Anyway, the whole abortion debate to me is a prop for a cultural war between two tribes that people want to belong to. I mean, 80% of people probably agree on abortion being allowed if there is a health risk for the mother or if it is a result of rape. The whole polarizing thing ("on demand" abortion) is essentially two retarded sides arguing with each other - one claiming that a lump of cells is a human being and the other that we should protect interests of someone too stupid or drunk to use contraception.

We should seriously focus our energy on something sensible. 

Marty is making sense.  Stop the presses. 


You are right, I think.  This, like a number of other issues is a manufactured controversy meant to mobilize the faithful and generate outrage.  I have this vision of GOP and DNC members meeting in a club somewhere going oveer who will be saying what for the next few months so they can better coordinate things.

[Caliga]

It's the best way to get idiots into the voting booth, since the dumber members of our society can't understand issues that actually matter.

[derspiess]

Have we done George Galloway's comments on the Assange case yet?

Galloway, the MP for Bradford West, had claimed that even if the complaints made against Assange by two women in Sweden were "100% true", they still could not be considered rape. "They don't constitute rape," he said in a video podcast on Monday. "At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it."

He went on: "Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them. It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said: 'Do you mind if I do it again?' It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape, or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."

I was going to post it as an outrage based on the headline I had read, but to be honest after reading his comments I'm not 100% sure I disagree with him

[derspiess]

4th trimester abortion? Cute.

Would you ban 3rd trimester abortion if carrying the baby to term meant the death of the mother?

You know, I'd actually like to have a scientific-philosophical discussion of what crucial differences there are between a three month old child and a nine month old fetus, and why it (may) be okay to destroy one but (as I'm sure the overwhelming consensus would be) not the other, but there ain't no way it's happening.  OMG YOU SUPPORT INFANTICIDE

That's a discussion worth having, but then again if you say anything indicating that you favor killing 3 month old babies then you deserve whatever crap you get.

[Siege]

Liberals are monsters.
They support killing children.