The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Radical_Initiator » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:37 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Radical_Initiator wrote:And I think it's asinine to assume otherwise. I see no reason to assume they used faulty language because they were in a hurry or were too stupid to realize the mistake. Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice, but when stupidity isn't a good enough reason ...


How about the fact that they are humans, and humans make mistakes? I think you want it to be a case of "Republicans believe that rape is only bad if it is done at gunpoint" but I just don't see that as the case. If they just used the term rape, it would have included statutory rape, which is why they used the term forcible.


First of all, my assumption is that people we elected, to write laws as a profession, should know better than to use language that no one here has denied is horribly vague. If it was so very obvious to us, how could it have not been to them?

Secondly, if you're going to make a law that is going to affect many people very deeply, you no longer get to make mistakes. If there's a chance you might get it wrong, you don't do it. If you can't stop because it's your best chance to gain election brownie points with wacko fundies, then you had better be ready to reap the shit you sow.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby podbaydoor » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:45 pm UTC

Here is the relevant text from the bill:
‘SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--

‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.


First of all, there is already a law that prohibits federal funding of abortions except in cases of rape. This is redundant and the (1) clause is purely intended to add the word "forcible" to the word "rape." What conclusions should we draw here?

Also, it allows incest only if the individual is a minor. That's bullshit.

The (2) clause significantly does not mention mental illness.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Vaniver » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:47 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:My stance on the argument over who pays for abortion was vastly rewritten by Freakonomics.
Their analysis of abortion and crime was almost entirely wrong.

As to the issue itself: I am sympathetic to taxpayers who do not want their tax dollars to fund things they strongly dislike. I am more sympathetic to women who want abortions they cannot afford, but imagine there must be a better solution than federal funding of those abortions.
Last edited by Vaniver on Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:50 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby podbaydoor » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:49 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:I am more sympathetic to woman who want abortions they cannot afford, but imagine there must be a better solution than federal funding of those abortions.

The problem is, we're not even talking about any regular woman who wants an abortion. We're talking about women who have been raped or physically threatened by the pregnancy, who can't afford an abortion. The GOP wants to say to some women "your rape and impregnation counts less."
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Thesh » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:49 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:First of all, my assumption is that people we elected, to write laws as a profession, should know better than to use language that no one here has denied is horribly vague. If it was so very obvious to us, how could it have not been to them?

Secondly, if you're going to make a law that is going to affect many people very deeply, you no longer get to make mistakes. If there's a chance you might get it wrong, you don't do it. If you can't stop because it's your best chance to gain election brownie points with wacko fundies, then you had better be ready to reap the shit you sow.


You're obviously not interested in looking at this in any other way.

gmalivuk wrote:Kind of like how "partial-birth abortion" isn't well-defined and isn't the name of any actual medical procedure? If they used a clearly defined term, it would be much harder for them to try and please everyone by making the bill appear moderate to moderates and strong to extremists at the same time. Vaguely worded nonsense is nothing new in the GOP fight against abortion.


In some cases, yes it is a tactic that is used. In this case, I don't believe it is. I honestly believe they were simply trying to distinguish from statutory rape.

podbaydoor wrote:First of all, there is already a law that prohibits federal funding of abortions except in cases of rape. This is redundant and the (1) clause is purely intended to add the word "forcible" to the word "rape." What conclusions should we draw here?


What law is this? It's the second time it's come up, but I can't seem to find it through google.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Radical_Initiator » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:50 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Radical_Initiator wrote:First of all, my assumption is that people we elected, to write laws as a profession, should know better than to use language that no one here has denied is horribly vague. If it was so very obvious to us, how could it have not been to them?

Secondly, if you're going to make a law that is going to affect many people very deeply, you no longer get to make mistakes. If there's a chance you might get it wrong, you don't do it. If you can't stop because it's your best chance to gain election brownie points with wacko fundies, then you had better be ready to reap the shit you sow.


You're obviously not interested in looking at this in any other way.


You're obviously not interested in looking at this seriously. Using your metric, these lawmakers are incompetent at best, and using mine, they're malicious at worst. In between isn't a place anyone invested with legislative ability should be. If it's an honest mistake, it's obvious enough that somebody sponsoring the bill should have said "Huh. Maybe we should spell out this 'forcible rape' thing a little more," and it should have gone back to the drawing board. The fact that it hasn't means someone is either too dense to live or knows exactly what it means. I'm not actually suggesting that their intent is to legislate that certain women "had it coming" or "shouldn't have gone to X," and that their rape isn't rape; I'm simply suggesting someone is being intentionally vague solely to score points from as large a constituency as they can before they have to admit this law wouldn't go anywhere, because it's too stupid to live by itself.
Last edited by Radical_Initiator on Sat Jan 29, 2011 12:10 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Vaniver » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:52 pm UTC

podbaydoor wrote:The problem is, we're not even talking about any regular woman who wants an abortion. We're talking about women who have been raped or physically threatened by the pregnancy, who can't afford an abortion. The GOP wants to say to some women "your rape and impregnation counts less."
My sympathy is not limited to those classes of women. Members of the GOP who consider some abortions more or less deserved than others are entirely within their rights as taxpayers to put their preferences into action, which is one of the reasons I think federal funding is a subpar solution.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

jesseewiak
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:29 pm UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby jesseewiak » Sat Jan 29, 2011 12:09 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
podbaydoor wrote:The problem is, we're not even talking about any regular woman who wants an abortion. We're talking about women who have been raped or physically threatened by the pregnancy, who can't afford an abortion. The GOP wants to say to some women "your rape and impregnation counts less."
My sympathy is not limited to those classes of women. Members of the
GOP who consider some abortions more or less deserved than others are entirely within their rights as taxpayers to put their preferences into action, which is one of the reasons I think federal funding is a subpar solution.


Except there is no alternative. There aren't many free-market solutions for poor women to get medical care. That's why Medicaid exists. That whole 'charity health care' thing was tried for 5,000 years. It didn't work out too well.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jan 29, 2011 12:19 am UTC

Thesh wrote:
podbaydoor wrote:First of all, there is already a law that prohibits federal funding of abortions except in cases of rape. This is redundant and the (1) clause is purely intended to add the word "forcible" to the word "rape." What conclusions should we draw here?
What law is this? It's the second time it's come up, but I can't seem to find it through google.
The 2009 text of the Hyde Amendment wrote:SEC. 508. (a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion--

(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.
In other words, the proposed law changes this by adding "forcible" to rape and "if a minor" to incest. It also changes it from "woman" to "pregnant female".
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Thesh » Sat Jan 29, 2011 12:31 am UTC

As I said, I believe forcible is intended to distinguish from statutory. I don't quite understand the incest thing. Pregnant female vs woman? Makes no difference to me. Pregnant Female is probably more encompassing than woman (since this only applies to abortion).

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

It is not a permanent law, rather it is a "rider" that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976.


The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid.


So the Republicans want to make it apply to everything, not just HHS, and they want to make it a permanent law.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

KittenKaboodle
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby KittenKaboodle » Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:45 am UTC

Thesh wrote:What the hell is wrong with them? Who exactly are they trying to appeal to with this bill? It can't do anything to help them politically (unless they are focusing entirely on getting the votes of batshit conservatives, which are a minority), and I don't see how it could actually do any good otherwise.


While the "batshit'" are no doubt a small minority, the tl;dr crowd is much larger and "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" won't sound that bad to a lot of people. Keep in mind that the representatives who are proposing/supporing this got elected at least once, they may be soulless, but they probaly have some idea of what they are doing. They also have enough money to pay for their daughters abortions out of pocket.
Also you can be sure Fox news won't be leading with the "You are not raped unless you have a black eye" story

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3491
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Magnanimous » Sat Jan 29, 2011 6:25 am UTC

Thesh wrote:As I said, I believe forcible is intended to distinguish from statutory.
I agree and I'm hoping that's all they intend, but the same thing could have been achieved by explicitly mentioning statutory rape of mutual consent. Until Congress sits down and officially establishes a federal definition of "forcible rape", this is very much open to interpretation.

dedwrekka
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:39 am UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby dedwrekka » Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:33 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:What the shit? How on earth can this be proposed with anyone's best interests in mind?

Simple, this is the watered down version of reality envisioned by the "Prolife" movement.
Pro-lifers would have no abortions for any kind of rape or consentual sex.

Vaniver wrote:As to the issue itself: I am sympathetic to taxpayers who do not want their tax dollars to fund things they strongly dislike.

It's how taxes work. You don't get to choose whether they go towards a war you don't like, you don't get to choose which senator gets a vacation using them, and they could, with all honesty, say that if you don't want to support abortion your tax dollars will not go into paying for it. Because tracking exactly what the money you put into the "taxes" pot goes to is impossible, so the imaginary "You" portion of taxes could be said to have gone to fighting a man's cancer instead of an abortion. I'm sure there are groups of people who are, right now, upset that hospitals partially funded by tax dollars treat Illegal non-citizens, but that doesn't mean you get to kick them off the bed because they're "Illegals".

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Vaniver » Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:36 pm UTC

dedwrekka wrote:It's how taxes work. You don't get to choose whether they go towards a war you don't like
This is a problem, and the fact that things currently are this way in no way means that things should be this way.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Radical_Initiator » Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:59 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
dedwrekka wrote:It's how taxes work. You don't get to choose whether they go towards a war you don't like
This is a problem, and the fact that things currently are this way in no way means that things should be this way.


What's the solution, then? We can try to elect lawmakers who listen more closely to us, but unless we change the tax system so that money is allocated by popular vote, aren't we always in the situation where we elect people and then hope they fund things the way we want them to?
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Thesh » Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:27 am UTC

The point is that you don't spend money based on popular vote, you give each and every individual the choice on how to spend his money.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Radical_Initiator » Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:43 am UTC

Thesh wrote:The point is that you don't spend money based on popular vote, you give each and every individual the choice on how to spend his money.


Ah, forgot about the libertarian ideal of the common good only being as good as the individual can afford.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Thesh » Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:57 am UTC

No, the point is that charity is just that, charity. It's about giving your money to programs you believe in, and not what the government decides your money should go to.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Triangle_Man » Sun Jan 30, 2011 1:47 am UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:
Thesh wrote:The point is that you don't spend money based on popular vote, you give each and every individual the choice on how to spend his money.


Ah, forgot about the libertarian ideal of the common good only being as good as the individual can afford.


Actually, my understanding of Libertarianism is that it places an onus on personal responsibility and feels that the best government is a smaller government.

Basically, it's a return to Classical Liberalism; you have more personal freedoms, but you can't expect the government to give you a hand if you run into hard times. It has it's strengths and weaknesses like all ideologies, and you are just as likely to see people who've chosen this philosophy out of personal experience, research and careful thought as you are to see people who just follow it because Fox News or another powerful voice told them too.

Again, the same as every other ideology.

I may not agree with certain facets of the libertarian ideology, but I respect their right to hold those views.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby IcedT » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:06 am UTC

The critique of the libertarian view of issues like this is that it takes a pretty unusual (not nonexistent, but very uncommon) level of discipline for a private citizen to budget out a certain allotment of their money to go towards funding charities, and what's more, it's nearly impossible for them to gather the necessary data to distribute their donations by need, so instead what is given goes to the groups that are most visible or accessible. Case in point, breast cancer is swallowing up a disproportionate number of donations, even though it is not significantly more prevalent or deadly than many other forms. Spending needs to be kept on a short leash and kept accountable to taxpayers' demands, but the reality is that private charity is much more responsive to marketing than to actual need. People like rape victims are likely to be swept under the rug in the absence of public funding.

EDIT: I also disagree fundamentally with the traditional Liberal idea that a low tax rate is equal to more rights. Just because you're paying less doesn't mean you're freer- it might just mean they closed the courts and disbanded the legislature.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:21 am UTC

EDIT: I also disagree fundamentally with the traditional Liberal idea that a low tax rate is equal to more rights. Just because you're paying less doesn't mean you're freer- it might just mean they closed the courts and disbanded the legislature.


I think you reversed causation there. The Libertarian view is more along the lines of government shouldn't be doing thing X so government doesn't need taxes to do X so we could lower taxes and cut government involvement in X.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby IcedT » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:37 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
EDIT: I also disagree fundamentally with the traditional Liberal idea that a low tax rate is equal to more rights. Just because you're paying less doesn't mean you're freer- it might just mean they closed the courts and disbanded the legislature.


I think you reversed causation there. The Libertarian view is more along the lines of government shouldn't be doing thing X so government doesn't need taxes to do X so we could lower taxes and cut government involvement in X.

I didn't mean to misrepresent the belief, but that line of thought is often used as an argument for slashing spending without an honest assessment of the consequences.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Thesh » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:51 am UTC

IcedT wrote:Case in point, breast cancer is swallowing up a disproportionate number of donations, even though it is not significantly more prevalent or deadly than many other forms.


I'm trying to find the data, but I remember reading that the government gives significantly more to breast cancer research vs other cancers. I think you underestimate people, TBH. As for people making donations, the best way to do it is to set up programs to let people donate a percentage of their paycheck to various charities.

EDIT: Here it is:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... ch-funding

Breast cancer gets twice as much as any other type of cancer.

EDIT 2:

Also, compare cancer to AIDS

http://opencrs.com/document/RL30731/

AIDS received $24.1 billion in funding in 2009, and according to the CDC AIDS killed 11,295 people in 2007. Cancer killed 562,875 and the National Cancer Institute receives a total of budget of under $5 billion (although I am not sure if that is the only government agency that spends money on cancer research, it should be the bulk of it).

Death statistics from here:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby IcedT » Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:24 am UTC

Thesh wrote:I think you underestimate people, TBH. As for people making donations, the best way to do it is to set up programs to let people donate a percentage of their paycheck to various charities.
I'm not the least bit opposed to a system like that, and in fact it's probably superior to what we have now. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't bring us any closer to it.

Thesh wrote:EDIT: Here it is:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... ch-funding

Breast cancer gets twice as much as any other type of cancer.

EDIT 2:

Also, compare cancer to AIDS

http://opencrs.com/document/RL30731/

AIDS received $24.1 billion in funding in 2009, and according to the CDC AIDS killed 11,295 people in 2007. Cancer killed 562,875 and the National Cancer Institute receives a total of budget of under $5 billion (although I am not sure if that is the only government agency that spends money on cancer research, it should be the bulk of it).

Death statistics from here:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

[/quote] Point taken, the data doesn't lie.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:56 am UTC

Is it possible that aids research has a greater positive effect? Treating a contagious disease prevents the spread.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Thesh » Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:02 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:Is it possible that aids research has a greater positive effect? Treating a contagious disease prevents the spread.


It's pretty much impossible to say. Theoretically, you can prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS almost entirely with education, condoms, and having people who are at risk get tested.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Vaniver » Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:23 am UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:What's the solution, then? We can try to elect lawmakers who listen more closely to us, but unless we change the tax system so that money is allocated by popular vote, aren't we always in the situation where we elect people and then hope they fund things the way we want them to?
Politics is the worst mostly non-violent way to make decisions. Pretty much anything else is an improvement, and a market is a fairly massive improvement.

IcedT wrote:The critique of the libertarian view of issues like this is that it takes a pretty unusual (not nonexistent, but very uncommon) level of discipline for a private citizen to budget out a certain allotment of their money to go towards funding charities, and what's more, it's nearly impossible for them to gather the necessary data to distribute their donations by need, so instead what is given goes to the groups that are most visible or accessible.
My understanding is that the majority of charitable donations go through foundations / institutions that have experts that determine how to spend the money- for example, for disaster relief people give money to the Red Cross, which may or may not spend the money on the disaster that prompted the donation. This is almost certainly true if you count donations to religious institutions as fitting this criterion.

Also, regular giving is common among the religious and the conservative (especially both).

Thesh wrote:It's pretty much impossible to say. Theoretically, you can prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS almost entirely with education, condoms, and having people who are at risk get tested.
I couldn't find a source, but I seem to recall hearing some conservative suggest that people infected with HIV be required to get a tattoo on their butt in order to warn potential partners of the risk. I expect that would need to be paired with some inducement to test for HIV, as that creates a fairly strong disincentive to get tested, which is a poor plan.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Hawknc » Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:49 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:I couldn't find a source, but I seem to recall hearing some conservative suggest that people infected with HIV be required to get a tattoo on their butt in order to warn potential partners of the risk.

That is the most mind-bogglingly stupid thing I've heard from a politician for at least the last 24 hours.

++$_
Mo' Money
Posts: 2370
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:06 am UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby ++$_ » Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:14 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:
Vaniver wrote:I couldn't find a source, but I seem to recall hearing some conservative suggest that people infected with HIV be required to get a tattoo on their butt in order to warn potential partners of the risk.

That is the most mind-bogglingly stupid thing I've heard from a politician for at least the last 24 hours.
Agreed. The tattoo should definitely be on the forehead, so that we can more easily ostracize HIV-positive people without having to check inside their pants.

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3491
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Magnanimous » Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:29 am UTC

++$_ wrote:
Hawknc wrote:
Vaniver wrote:I couldn't find a source, but I seem to recall hearing some conservative suggest that people infected with HIV be required to get a tattoo on their butt in order to warn potential partners of the risk.

That is the most mind-bogglingly stupid thing I've heard from a politician for at least the last 24 hours.
Agreed. The tattoo should definitely be on the forehead, so that we can more easily ostracize HIV-positive people without having to check inside their pants.

Or just drop all pretense and hang a red "A" around their necks.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Thesh » Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:34 am UTC

Wouldn't it be more effective to just put them all on an island somewhere?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Malice » Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:34 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Radical_Initiator wrote:What's the solution, then? We can try to elect lawmakers who listen more closely to us, but unless we change the tax system so that money is allocated by popular vote, aren't we always in the situation where we elect people and then hope they fund things the way we want them to?
Politics is the worst mostly non-violent way to make decisions. Pretty much anything else is an improvement, and a market is a fairly massive improvement.


Politics is already a market; it's just out of your price range.
Image

dedwrekka
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:39 am UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby dedwrekka » Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:42 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:
Vaniver wrote:
dedwrekka wrote:It's how taxes work. You don't get to choose whether they go towards a war you don't like
This is a problem, and the fact that things currently are this way in no way means that things should be this way.


What's the solution, then? We can try to elect lawmakers who listen more closely to us, but unless we change the tax system so that money is allocated by popular vote, aren't we always in the situation where we elect people and then hope they fund things the way we want them to?

It's more convoluted than that. Even if you elect lawmakers who agree with what you want*, there's no guarantee that they will be in the majority.

*Actually there's no guarantee that you're in the majority for your area, so you will always have a "politican who doesn't listen to his people" because we don't group ourselves geographically based on what we think about a specific political issue. Even if we did, which issue would you be forced to geographically base yourself upon? Politicians would regularly tear themselves in thirds on every issue to try to cover all areas supported by their constituents. Which is why "good" politicians would be labeled "sleazy slimeballs that flip-flop on issues" and bad politicians are the clean guys who stick to one case and never visit their home state again.

Thesh wrote:The point is that you don't spend money based on popular vote, you give each and every individual the choice on how to spend his money.

Which requires an entirely different set people who have to keep track of everything you give. Of course, that's entirely impossible when you consider that sales tax and toll booth taxes would grind the economy to a halt in no time flat if you had to make sure that the person paying wasn't going to be upset about the money going to fund something they didn't like.

Or, you know, just lie with the truth and say that "Yes, your money is not going to pay for this and that which you don't like. If you think I'm lying good luck proving it". Once the money goes in, there is no sequential order, there is no ownership other than that of the government, and what's paid could be reasonably and honestly said to not have been what you put into the tax pot.
Of course, the real problem has nothing to do with taxes being allocated to certain programs, it has to do with how that money is allocated within programs. Plenty of good government programs do terrible things with their money.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:41 pm UTC

Or, you know, just lie with the truth and say that "Yes, your money is not going to pay for this and that which you don't like. If you think I'm lying good luck proving it". Once the money goes in, there is no sequential order, there is no ownership other than that of the government, and what's paid could be reasonably and honestly said to not have been what you put into the tax pot.
Of course, the real problem has nothing to do with taxes being allocated to certain programs, it has to do with how that money is allocated within programs. Plenty of good government programs do terrible things with their money.


To be blunt, do you believe the rationale that because your exact tax money can't be provably traced to something it didn't pay for it? A program is being paid for, either your tax money is paying for it directly, or it is paying for programs that frees up those funds to be used for what you don't want to pay for.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Vaniver » Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:34 pm UTC

Hawknc wrote:That is the most mind-bogglingly stupid thing I've heard from a politician for at least the last 24 hours.
It struck me as an unorthodox method that might actually be effective at reducing transmission. I don't have any idea whether or not it would be practical, but think that there are better responses to an epidemic than hoping people are responsible.

++$_ wrote:Agreed. The tattoo should definitely be on the forehead, so that we can more easily ostracize HIV-positive people without having to check inside their pants.
Thesh wrote:Wouldn't it be more effective to just put them all on an island somewhere?
Which is why the tattoo specifically only outs the individual in the bedroom or the public shower. It's a quarantine that sacrifices some effectiveness (for example, glory holes are unaccounted for) for drastically reduced impact on the lives of the HIV-positive.

Malice wrote:Politics is already a market; it's just out of your price range.
I am using market in the sense that transactions are voluntary for all parties, with a exemption for small externalities. Politics is dominated by involuntary transactions, and thus isn't a market, despite the fact that things are for sale.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Thesh » Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:17 pm UTC

dedwrekka wrote:Which requires an entirely different set people who have to keep track of everything you give. Of course, that's entirely impossible when you consider that sales tax and toll booth taxes would grind the economy to a halt in no time flat if you had to make sure that the person paying wasn't going to be upset about the money going to fund something they didn't like.


Yes, you can either go to a completely minarchist society or you have to have what we have now. There is absolutely no middle ground where the government minimizes what it does to necessary infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) and things like disease research, poverty, etc. are handled by private donations... No middle ground whatsoever.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Malice » Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:17 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Malice wrote:Politics is already a market; it's just out of your price range.
I am using market in the sense that transactions are voluntary for all parties, with a exemption for small externalities. Politics is dominated by involuntary transactions, and thus isn't a market, despite the fact that things are for sale.


Then taxes, by definition, will never be a market, because there's no way to make that voluntary. You can't stop somebody from using government services in the event that they don't want to pay into anything; and you can't run on the government on charity anyway (partially because it's too small, but also because government can't adjust the level of services it provides based on an unknown fluctuation of charitable givings).
Image

Grybau
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:14 am UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Grybau » Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:33 am UTC

All I can say is that I'm really glad I had a miscarriage at age 13 after my dad got me pregnant.

"Personal responsibility," my heinie. Do Libertarians and Tea Partiers and the GOP honestly think that my dad would have stepped up to pay for an abortion? Do they honestly expect an unemployed 8th grader to pay for her own? Isn't that the direction they are headed?

"Private charity," also my heinie. How is a 13 year old going to go searching for a private charity to pay for an abortion when she can't even get help to make her dad leave her alone?

Your tax dollars didn't pay for the social services (even after police intervention) to get me out of that situation, so your tax dollars could dang well pay for an abortion once it's too late.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Vaniver » Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:15 am UTC

Malice wrote:Then taxes, by definition, will never be a market, because there's no way to make that voluntary.
Right. There are some problems that markets seem to be suboptimal solution-finding mechanisms for. I'm not convinced that payment for abortions is one of those problems.

Grybau wrote:All I can say is that I'm really glad I had a miscarriage at age 13 after my dad got me pregnant.
I am sorry to hear that this happened to you, and offer hugs if you would like them. I will note that this legislation allows for federal dollars to fund abortions in the case of incest involving a minor, so you would not have been excluded by this plan.

Grybau wrote:How is a 13 year old going to go searching for a private charity to pay for an abortion when she can't even get help to make her dad leave her alone?
It seems likely that the abortion clinic would know whoever is willing to pay for charitable abortions, as that's a revenue source for the clinic (and it makes finding recipients easy for the charity). The issue of abusive parents is a difficult one to approach, but there existence is the primary reason why some libertarians like Rothbard support the unconditional right of a child to run away from home (the police / social services system we have now treats that as very conditional, often to the detriment of abused children).
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Postby Malice » Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:09 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Malice wrote:Then taxes, by definition, will never be a market, because there's no way to make that voluntary.
Right. There are some problems that markets seem to be suboptimal solution-finding mechanisms for. I'm not convinced that payment for abortions is one of those problems.


Were you talking only about abortion payments when you said "Politics is the worst mostly non-violent way to make decisions. Pretty much anything else is an improvement, and a market is a fairly massive improvement"? Cause I've been arguing against the general statement.

I'm not sure what the market solution is to abortions... Insurance?
Image


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests