Rape Clause

[Pudgie]

http://www.bytheminute.co/events/4808-news-the-tory-rape-clause-scandal-this-outrageous-piece-of-legislation-isn-t-just-degrading-to-women-but-to-our-society-as-a-whole-it-went-live-at-midnight-live-06-apr-2017

 

 

 

 

I don't even know who to be angry at. The Tories for a start. Snuck in through the back door (lol) and thrown in without even a debate in Parliament. Being quite young I wasn't sure whether all the anger directed at the party was worthwhile. By fuck they've made that point clear lately.

[spamspamspam]

Any relation to Santa?

 

 

 

 

[Jds192]

I honestly thought when opened this thread it was going to be about Goodwillies contract at Clyde.

[Redforever86]

Nothing wrong with it. If it stops minks reproducing 6 kids each named after designer clothing brands, that continue to dumb down our society then all the better. Soon people will be fixated with some fake tanned bints cause they are half decent at karaoke and can take a dick. Oh no wait...

[DD1903]

http://www.bytheminute.co/events/4808-news-the-tory-rape-clause-scandal-this-outrageous-piece-of-legislation-isn-t-just-degrading-to-women-but-to-our-society-as-a-whole-it-went-live-at-midnight-live-06-apr-2017

 

 

 

 

I don't even know who to be angry at. The Tories for a start. Snuck in through the back door (lol) and thrown in without even a debate in Parliament. Being quite young I wasn't sure whether all the anger directed at the party was worthwhile. By fuck they've made that point clear lately.

What makes you angry about it? The changes or the clause itself?

[dave_min]

What's the Catholic Church opinion on this?

[Jds192]

No one has to use the clause if it is too horrific for them to admit the rape. They could get an abortion or have it with no extra benefits as would be the case if it didnt exist.

 

Need to remember it is there as an option to protect those folk.

 

Bit rich in that link complaining about 'state intrusion' on the family when they are happy to take the states money for producing baby after baby.

[Redforever86]

No one has to use the clause if it is too horrific for them to admit the rape. They could get an abortion or have it with no extra benefits as would be the case if it didnt exist.

 

Need to remember it is there as an option to protect those folk.

 

Bit rich in that link complaining about 'state intrusion' on the family when they are happy to take the states money for producing baby after baby.

 

 

Aye I loved this bit "When announced it was largely criticized by women's organisations as it means state intrusion into their family choices. "

 

Eh no it doesn't it just means that if THEY decide to have another kids, THEY will have to pay for it. By that logic the state shouldn't give any child benefit at all.

[beer gut]

Surely in the eyes of the law you are only "raped" if someone has been convicted of raping you? If you were raped and the person is convicted then it should be relatively easy to prove? Or am i being to simplistic?

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Is the change retrospective - does it affect families who already have >2 kids?

 

I can understand people being angry about that situation, but other than that I think its a fuss over nothing.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

I don't even know who to be angry at. The Tories for a start. Snuck in through the back door (lol) and thrown in without even a debate in Parliament. Being quite young I wasn't sure whether all the anger directed at the party was worthwhile. By fuck they've made that point clear lately.

Calling a reasonable change to child benefit a "rape clause" really is clutching at straws to find something to be angry over.

 

Rape is one of the (negligible amount) of cases where feminists insist on maintaining the (mythical) "right to choose" - because it would be unthinkable for a women not to abort a child conceived via rape.

 

Yet now women's advocates would have us believe a significant number of women are raising children conceived through rape, and will negatively affected by this change.

 

Think, back to your other thread pudgie - where we were talking about the kind of information people are fed, and how much they think about it.

 

Here on rape, we are being told two opposite things - (1)that most children conceived through rape will be aborted, but also (2) that they wont be aborted and will thus upset their mothers delicate financial balance based on having no more than 2 children.

 

Hence, the torys are cunts.

 

I am not convinced by these arguments.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

What's the Catholic Church opinion on this?

That's an excellent question, dave_min, I find that recourse to the Catholic Church's ideas is always a fine proposition.

 

To answer your question, the Catholic Church humbly suggests that people should not have more children than they can afford to properly look after.

 

This would avoid the situation where people rely on state hand-outs to adequately nurture their children.

 

Its another gold star for the Catholic Church.

 

Who would have thought a bunch of celibate woofters in dresses could have mastered this "common sense" malarkey so thoroughly?

[craegDAMH]

Here on rape, we are being told two opposite things - (1)that most children conceived through rape will be aborted, but also (2) that they wont be aborted and will thus upset their mothers delicate financial balance based on having no more than 2 children.

 

No, that's just bullshit. More utter dishonesty from the man who claims moral superiority because of his church.

 

What you are being told is (1) women who fall pregnant as the result of a rape should have the choice whether to continue that pregnancy, and also (2) women who choose to continue such pregnancies shouldn't have to jump through hurdles to 'prove' they were raped in order keep their child benefit.

 

 

To answer your question, the Catholic Church humbly suggests that people should not have more children than they can afford to properly look after.

 

That'll be why they use their massive influence across Africa to distribute contraception to prevent poverty.... oh wait.

[beer gut]

Is the change retrospective - does it affect families who already have >2 kids?

 

I can understand people being angry about that situation, but other than that I think its a fuss over nothing.

Takes effect from today so only applies to the 3rd child born after today.

[beer gut]

 

No, that's just bullshit. More utter dishonesty from the man who claims moral superiority because of his church.

 

What you are being told is (1) women who fall pregnant as the result of a rape should have the choice whether to continue that pregnancy, and also (2) women who choose to continue such pregnancies shouldn't have to jump through hurdles to 'prove' they were raped in order keep their child benefit.

 

 

 

That'll be why they use their massive influence across Africa to distribute contraception to prevent poverty.... oh wait.

They should have to provide some proof surely?

What would happen if some girl who already had 2 kids gets pregnant. To get the child benefit she tells HMRC she was raped and they say OK love, here's the cash. No questions asked. You seriously think thats a good idea?

[Clydeside_Sheep]

No, that's just bullshit. More utter dishonesty from the man who claims moral superiority because of his church.

No, that is dishonest bullshit.

 

I have never said I am morally superior.

 

That is for others to say.

 

That'll be why they use their massive influence across Africa to distribute contraception to prevent poverty.... oh wait.

What a bullshit argument, as if possessing condoms was the only means a couple had of not increasing the number of their family. Think FFS.

 

Btw less than one sixth of Africans are nominally Catholic. I am not sure that counts as "massive influence".

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Takes effect from today so only applies to the 3rd child born after today.

Thanks.

[Redforever86]

 

Btw less than one sixth of Africans are nominally Catholic.

 

 

I give Africans too little respect.

[Pudgie]

Nothing wrong with it. If it stops minks reproducing 6 kids each named after designer clothing brands, that continue to dumb down our society then all the better. Soon people will be fixated with some fake tanned bints cause they are half decent at karaoke and can take a dick. Oh no wait...

Read the whole thing. Or at least more than the first 3 boxes. You're wrong if you think there's nothing wrong with it!

 

What makes you angry about it? The changes or the clause itself?

The clause.

 

No one has to use the clause if it is too horrific for them to admit the rape. They could get an abortion or have it with no extra benefits as would be the case if it didnt exist.

 

Need to remember it is there as an option to protect those folk.

 

Bit rich in that link complaining about 'state intrusion' on the family when they are happy to take the states money for producing baby after baby.

Label your kid an unwanted bastard child and we'll give you £7 a week. Oh, and go through the mental anguish of having to relive your rape and have it categorised by a third party over whether it is worthy of £7 a week or not.

[craegDAMH]

No, that is dishonest bullshit.

 

I have never said I am morally superior.

 

That is for others to say.

 

Really? Just this morning you said this.....

 

When discussing morality and that which is measurable by science, the Catholic Church is right every time - as I have demonstrated repeatedly on several topics. There is no real difficulty in this, all it involves is accepting the simple truth (but some people let self-interest get in the way, and so do find it difficult.)

 

The credibility this record bestows is one major reason why I am thus prepared to submit to submit my intellect to the articles of faith proposed by the Church.

 

So unless you're claiming you don't follow the church's moral teachings (which you won't admit as you keep ignoring my question on climate change), that seems to me a pretty big claim about your morals being "right every time".

 

 

What a bullshit argument, as if possessing condoms was the only means a couple had of not increasing the number of their family. Think FFS.

 

Btw less than one sixth of Africans are nominally Catholic. I am not sure that counts as "massive influence".

 

No, neither is abstinence and yet that is the only option if your church has its way.

 

Aye, 200 million people. Not a massive influence at all.

[Jds192]

Or choose not to have the child or choose not to apply for the extra £7.

 

If there was not this clause in there would be uproar at nothing being done to try and protect folk in that situation.

 

If you are against the clause but agree with the idea of limiting it to two kids for benefits how do you suggest they deal with instances of rape?

[Pudgie]

Calling a reasonable change to child benefit a "rape clause" really is clutching at straws to find something to be angry over.

 

Right. We'll call it Steven.

 

 

 

 

It's fucking disgusting.

 

 

 

 

Help?

[craegDAMH]

They should have to provide some proof surely?

What would happen if some girl who already had 2 kids gets pregnant. To get the child benefit she tells HMRC she was raped and they say OK love, here's the cash. No questions asked. You seriously think thats a good idea?

 

No, of course it's not a good idea. That's why it is a stupid clause.

 

It's a shitty clause attempting and failing to solve a problem which they have created.

[Jds192]

Right. We'll call it Steven.

 

 

 

 

It's fucking disgusting.

 

 

 

 

Help?

 

It would be more disgusting if they made this change to benefits and didnt have the clause in.

[Parklife]

Wow. There's some really horrible human beings on this forum.

[Pudgie]

 

No, of course it's not a good idea. That's why it is a stupid clause.

 

It's a shitty clause attempting and failing to solve a problem which they have created.

Exactly this.

[DD1903]

 

No, of course it's not a good idea. That's why it is a stupid clause.

 

It's a shitty clause attempting and failing to solve a problem which they have created.

What would you suggest?

[Bluto10]

Can someone please summarize this?

 

Is it just golk getting no benefit for kids no3 etc?

[beer gut]

Can someone please summarize this?

 

Is it just golk getting no benefit for kids no3 etc?

Unless your 3rd child is born today you will only get benefits for 2 kids. The rape clause is if you have a 3rd child due to rape you need to provide proof to receive benefit for the 3rd child.

 

I think there should also be a twin or triplets clause.

[craegDAMH]

What would you suggest?

 

I'd suggest maybe sticking it in front of a few committees and actually voting on it in fucking parliament. Maybe someone would have pointed out how fucking stupid it was and they could have a re-think before making it a law with no parliamentary scrutiny.