House GOP moves to redefine rape and incest with regard to funding abortions

Yeah, it’s only about a 5 point difference.

Yes, and it’s baffling.

Why would it be baffling that many woman dont believe in abortion being legal as it is in the US? I find it far far more baffling that anyone, especially women, are in favor of it.

It seems to be an extension of viewing abortion as babymurder and coupling it with the idea that slut-shaming behavior is good for society.

I don’t think so. For a lot of women who have had children they think of the baby that was in their womb and that they felt growing and they know that it is a life and it is hard for them to think of someone killing it. I.e. they don’t think of it in remote, socio-philosophical terms but rather in personal/emotive terms. I’ve heard women express this.

And there are, as in this entire area, a range of feelings and thoughts from such women: my wife has a VERY difficult time with abortion for this exact reason, but she also understands there are situations where an abortion is the best, while difficult, option, even if it isn’t the one she personally would choose.

Actual text of the (surprisingly short) bill:http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3/text

Reading the actual text, I fail to see what about this bill is so controversial. Essentially, it says federal money and facilities cannot be used to fund or performs abortions. There are plenty of people who would disagree with that, but I think a majority of the country would give it a thumbs up. Its one thing to say a women’s choice is her own business, its another to pay for it. People are still free to buy separate coverage for abortions or just pay it out of pocket.

Furthermore, the bill clearly states its provisions do not apply in cases of:

a) any forcible rape
b) Incest in the case of minors
c) Pregancies that threaten the physical life of the mother (as determined reasonable by physicians).

I suppose the description of “forcible rape” might lead some to think it would not include drug rapes, but I think it be just as easily be interpreted to mean any rape in which the women did not give consent.

Yeah, minors who get pregnant by their boyfriends are on their own, but 16 year olds engaging in consensual sex are hardly “victims.” Perhaps some more language for clarity is called for, but mostly the outrage strikes me as the pro-choice crowd trying to blacken a piece of moderate legislation that the country would in general support.

Anyone else getting a different read? I could be wrong, as I certainly do not read congressional laws for a living.

I’m of two minds about that.

On the one hand, if you genuinely believe that an 8 cell blastocyst is a human being, it’s internally consistent. Even if it’s clearly not in your own best interest as a woman to prohibit abortion, it does make sense to be against it if you genuinely believe it’s murder. Of course, it’s not surprising that the less-educated are more likely to hold such a distorted view of what an embryo is. These are also the people likely to be swayed by emotional appeals based on something looking somewhat-human, regardless of how much brain there is.

On the other hand, the crowd that are most vocal about this sort of thing seem to be more concerned about their church controlling access to sex than anything else. The argument for “abstinence only” education is that knowledge of contraception might make teenagers more likely to have sex. So what? What if that were not only true, but overwhelmingly true? The result would still be fewer pregnancies. It’s fairly clear that to their minds, 100 teenagers having sex with contraception and 2 pregnancies is much worse than 80 teenagers not having sex and 20 teenagers having sex without protection and getting pregnant. The goal is less sex, not fewer unplanned pregnancies.

I don’t know what society you’re in, but in the country I live in (the USA), not only is forcible rape not legally defined, but our utterly retarded societal paradigm would certainly assert that if the woman isn’t actively fighting it, it’s not forcible rape. That you think our society and legal system actually enshrines the concept of enthusiastic consent just means that you’re either trolling or living in another fucking country.

Oh, also, it prevents any healthcare provider which accepts federal money from providing abortions. So pretty much any hospital is unable to provide abortions; instead, you have to go to a clinic which will only offer abortions, no other service. That clinic is going to be called “The Back Alley” and it’s going to use precise instruments like clotheshangers.

That’s why the pro-choice crowd is pissed off; because this bill is utterly retarded in both of those ways.

I don’t know what state you live in but in the vast majority of the US and most other countries, 16 year olds are not capable of engaging in consensual sex, and are indeed legally victims.

I object to this bill for a number of reasons. First, on the grounds that it substantively inteferes with a women’s right to get an abortion. It is particularly odious since it does so on economic lines. Those who are often in most need of an abortion are also those who may least be able to afford it without assistance. Effectively only the poor are harmed.

Secondly, it perpetuates rape myths in the sense that it appears to be saying only “forcible” rapes count, although of course it doesn’t define what forcible means, and in most states there is no such offence as “forcible rape”. A strict approach to statutory interpretation would suggest in states without a definition of forcible rape, NO abortions would be available, since no court would be able to find “forcible rape”.

Thirdly, it doesn’t appear just or sensible to have the government decide which medical procedures are appropriate for which people, especially when it comes down to issues of values. I mean, if Scientologists were in charge of the country, would we think it just to say that no psychiatric drugs should be publically funded, since Scientologists don’t believe in psychiatric treatments? If Jehovah’s witnesses took over, would it be appropriate for the government to refuse to fund blood transfusions since JWs don’t believe in them? The only reason to restrict funding for this particular medical treatment is a religious one, and the government should not be taking religious reasons into account when crafting health policy.

I disagree, if you honest believe an 8 cell blastocyst is a human being then it shouldn’t matter whether that human being was the product of rape or incest. From that point of view, abortion ought to always be illegal, with the possible exception of where the mother’s life is at risk. I don’t believe it is internally consistent at all, I think it is much more oriented towards punishing people for having sex.

That’s what I said. How are you disagreeing?

I don’t believe it is internally consistent at all, I think it is much more oriented towards punishing people for having sex.
It’s only inconsistent if you believe that an embryo is a human being and you think abortion is OK for reasons that aren’t life-and-death. Lots of the rabid anti-abortion types take the hard-line stance that abortion is never acceptable.

That said, I agree it does seem primarily about restricting access to sex, not about whether abortion is murder.

Not so much, at least according to this wiki article:

while maybe half of US states are more than 16, the rest of the world seems to be 16 and lower

I worked with a fellow about 15 years ago who said something close to the following, which so struck me as great balance of personal belief versus society that I remember it today.

“I think a child starts at conception and I think it’s killing the child to abort it. But if society as a whole believes it’s in the best interest to allow abortions, then I can accept that.”

As I said before, the whole thing is baffling to me. How can they look at another person and say “You must live by my rules and my ethics. What you want or believe is meaningless.”

Sure, I misspoke. My point however was in response to Great Atlantic who appeared to be saying that statutory rape is a victimless crime, when clearly society and the law disagrees.

It can be victimless (say between a 19 and a 17 year old) or extremely vile (between a 14 and a 44 year old). As for the law and society - they make stupid decisions all the time.

The truth, as with all things, lays somewhere between the absolutes you guys (Greatalantic and i saw dasein) are talking about.

Well, I take exception to this one, because nobody’s disagreed with my post yet. >.<

Every single law is telling someone they must live by someones rules and ethics. For every law in society there is a group of people who think that they shouldnt have to follow it. But we tell them what want and believe is meaningless in regards to that law. Without that society could not function.

There are an awful lot of laws doing the exact opposite, that are protecting people’s abilities to live their own lives and make their own decisions.

Unless you want to go all uber-meta and say laws tell you that you can’t force me to live by your rules are forcing you to live by my rules…

There are an awful lot of laws doing the exact opposite, that are protecting people’s abilities to live their own lives and make their own decisions.

I wonder when they stopped making those…

No, I said a 16 year old getting pregnant by her boyfriend isn’t a victim, or at least not in the way we think of rape victims. A quick scan of “statutory rape” laws in the US (thanks for the link, Guido Jones) reveals an enormous amount of diversity, but in general very few would prosecute a man (especially one close in age) for getting a girl aged 16-18 pregnant. Many states would not prosecute the male partner of girls as young as 14 if he was close enough in age to get protection from “romeo and Juliet” laws. Some states would only prosecute it as a misdemeanor, which rape never is.

I mean, part of the whole reason to call this class of crimes “Statutory” rape is to indicate they would not be considered rape without the law calling it rape.

But that is getting off track. My first contention was to say the post’s heading is WRONG. Rape victims would still be exempt from the ban on spending federal money on abortions. There is no redefinition of rape going on in this law. Only a lack of clarity for what constitution “Forcible” vs. non-“forcible” rape.

If you think federal tax dollars should be spent on abortion, oppose the law on that ground.

If you oppose spending federal tax dollars on abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother, support the law. I think the majority of Americans fall into this category, not some right wing fringe.

If statutory rape is a make it or break it for it you either way, demand the law be clarified before you support it… if you support it.

The truth, as with all things, lays somewhere between the absolutes you guys (Greatalantic and i saw dasein) are talking about.

I thought I already took the middle of the road! Does this mean I need to drift east of the political equator to get the truth represented on this board?