Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-19-2019, 06:43 PM
nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 923

"Rape and incest"... why not just "rape"?


Why are the usual exceptions for abortions listed as "rape and incest"? Why is non-rape incest considered an exception? Is it really that common that an adult family member gets another adult family member pregnant during consensual sex? And if they decide they don't want the kid, it's a special exception for them to have an abortion?

Or is incest considered rape in this phrase? If that's the case, it really bugs me. It's like me saying, "you can eat anything here but my fruit and my apples." It's very redundant.
  #2  
Old 05-19-2019, 07:16 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
Why are the usual exceptions for abortions listed as "rape and incest"? Why is non-rape incest considered an exception? Is it really that common that an adult family member gets another adult family member pregnant during consensual sex? And if they decide they don't want the kid, it's a special exception for them to have an abortion?

Or is incest considered rape in this phrase? If that's the case, it really bugs me. It's like me saying, "you can eat anything here but my fruit and my apples." It's very redundant.
All rape is not incest and not all incest is rape. There is a lot of overlap. It's easier to say rape and incest, then rape and non rape incest, or incest and non incest rape.
  #3  
Old 05-19-2019, 07:38 PM
nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 923
So why is non-rape incest an exception?
  #4  
Old 05-19-2019, 07:40 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,556

"Rape and incest"... why not just "rape"?


OP seems to be assuming that incestuous relations are always non-consensual, between an adult and a minor. That's not necessarily the case. There can be consensual relations between adults, and consensual relations between minors.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 05-19-2019 at 07:40 PM.
  #5  
Old 05-19-2019, 07:44 PM
nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
OP seems to be assuming that incestuous relations are always non-consensual, between an adult and a minor. That's not necessarily the case. There can be consensual relations between adults, and consensual relations between minors.
I don't know how you get that from my post. In fact, I'm asking why consensual incest is considered a special exception.

Last edited by nate; 05-19-2019 at 07:44 PM.
  #6  
Old 05-19-2019, 07:56 PM
Smudge777 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 76
I think you people are misunderstanding OP.

I believe OP is trying to ask why "incest" is included, in its entirety, as an exception (to pro-life arguments). Stating simply "incest" includes both non-consensual and consensual incest as a valid reason to abort. And thus, the question becomes: why is consensual incest considered a valid reason to abort when both parties consensually (though perhaps accidentally) created a foetus?

As to why it's commonly thought that a child of incest is somehow abhorrent enough to fit in the same category as a child of rape ... well, that's something I disagree with.

It seems to me that there are two answers:
1. Incest (even when consensual) is ungodly/unholy/unnatural/disgusting/awful/heathenish.
2. Children of incest are genetic mutants who are going to be malformed.

I find both both answers wholly weak.
  #7  
Old 05-19-2019, 07:56 PM
ENugent is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 3,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
I don't know how you get that from my post. In fact, I'm asking why consensual incest is considered a special exception.
I believe it's because of the relatively high rate of birth defects that would be associated with consensual incest (a phrase that I never thought I would be called upon to type).
__________________
This post is not intended to provide reliable legal advice, nor is any other post by me in this or any other thread. I am not your lawyer and you are not my client. Odds are good that I'm not even licensed in your jurisdiction. If you follow what you think is advice in this post and get screwed, don't come crying to me.
  #8  
Old 05-19-2019, 08:00 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,128
But even assuming that's so: such laws usually don't contain an exemption for known genetic problems that might produce a viable child. So why should that be a reason to give an exemption for possible genetic problems that might not even exist?
  #9  
Old 05-19-2019, 08:01 PM
you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENugent View Post
I believe it's because of the relatively high rate of birth defects that would be associated with consensual incest (a phrase that I never thought I would be called upon to type).
Yes, but plenty of non-incest babies have birth defects and yet they are not exempt from the abortion bills.
  #10  
Old 05-19-2019, 08:13 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,614
I believe it's so a pregnant girl whose dad knocked her up doesn't have to prove she was raped. Because when a parent has sex with their child, or even an older sibling with a younger one, it's complicated.

I don't believe the intent is to allow the abortion of the the child of a 35 year old women who is consensually sleeping with her brother. But there are few enough of those that it's kind of irrelevant.
  #11  
Old 05-19-2019, 08:32 PM
Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,265
I believe that it's because a traditional definition of rape involved violence and the threat of death. There are lots of other definitions of rape: current legal definitions are much wider. But if you start with older or simpler ideas of rape, then incest mostly doesn't fall under the definition.
  #12  
Old 05-19-2019, 08:39 PM
nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
I believe it's so a pregnant girl whose dad knocked her up doesn't have to prove she was raped. Because when a parent has sex with their child, or even an older sibling with a younger one, it's complicated.
I can believe that. It doesn't make any logical sense (because a dad getting his underage daughter pregnant would be considered rape based on age alone), but I guess it really doesn't have to.
  #13  
Old 05-19-2019, 08:50 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
I can believe that. It doesn't make any logical sense (because a dad getting his underage daughter pregnant would be considered rape based on age alone), but I guess it really doesn't have to.
I'm aware that the conceptg of "statutory rape" is bandied about freely on the TV shows, but is it the case that every jurisdiction in the US classes sex with an underage partner as "rape"? Because at common law, obviously, it isn't rape.
  #14  
Old 05-19-2019, 09:46 PM
nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
I'm aware that the conceptg of "statutory rape" is bandied about freely on the TV shows, but is it the case that every jurisdiction in the US classes sex with an underage partner as "rape"? Because at common law, obviously, it isn't rape.
I have no idea. I assumed that unless you are legally married, someone who can legally consent having sex with someone who cannot (by age or mental disability) is considered a form of rape. I understand that child marriages still exist in the US, but I don't think it is legal to marry YOUR child.

Edit to add: I'm also curious if it is legally possible to rape your spouse? I would hope so, of course. But I'm not sure it actually is.

Last edited by nate; 05-19-2019 at 09:49 PM.
  #15  
Old 05-19-2019, 09:57 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,004
Moved to Great Debates.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
  #16  
Old 05-19-2019, 11:08 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 15,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
Edit to add: I'm also curious if it is legally possible to rape your spouse? I would hope so, of course. But I'm not sure it actually is.
Until the 1960s and 1970s, in the U.S., spouses were apparently generally exempt from laws regarding rape. Thankfully, this is no longer the case, and in all 50 states, there is some form of law prohibiting marital rape -- however, in some states, there needs to be use of, or threat of the use of, force in order to meet the law's hurdle for rape.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marita...ted_States_law)
  #17  
Old 05-19-2019, 11:11 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
I have no idea. I assumed that unless you are legally married, someone who can legally consent having sex with someone who cannot (by age or mental disability) is considered a form of rape.
I don't think so. At common law, the issue is not really that a 15-year old (say) "cannot consent" to sex. He or she can consent, and may indeed consent enthusiastically; but the consent, even if real, is not a defence to a charge based on sex with an underage person.

So sexual intercourse between a couple, one of whom is (or both of whom are) under age may be a crime, but it's not the crime of rape unless (a) one of them did not consent to sex and the other knew this, or (b) the legislature has specified that it is to be rape, regardelss of consent.

This matters, because if I have consensual sex with my underage girlfriend, the punishment I face is likely to be a lot lower than if I rape my underage girlfriend. Indeed, if I am underage myself the sex might not be a crime at all, but it will be if I rape her.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
Edit to add: I'm also curious if it is legally possible to rape your spouse? I would hope so, of course. But I'm not sure it actually is.
In most, and possibly all, jurisdictions it is possible to rape your spouse.

Last edited by UDS; 05-19-2019 at 11:12 PM.
  #18  
Old 05-19-2019, 11:19 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,541
Umm, I've got a question.

So arguably, if you allow abortions due to incest (not just rape), you should allow them for any substantial genetic or anatomical defect.

Furthermore, let's take the other side of things. We hold life so sacred that we want to ban abortions for defects that will usually result in a physically and mentally handicapped child.

Umm, are these states that are passing abortion laws the kind that have generous government programs so take care of handicapped children? You know, with extensive special ed, free and comprehensive lifelong healthcare, state funded group homes if the child lives to adulthood, and so on?

I kinda had the impression that these states have very shoddy and limited forms of these programs and in some cases the only ones available are prisons.
  #19  
Old 05-19-2019, 11:45 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,630
The Georgia law requires the victim reports the rape, which, of course, means many rape victims won't be able to get abortions. But how does a woman prove she had incestuous sex in order to get an abortion? If her relative says, "Yep, I had sex with her," is that sufficient?
  #20  
Old 05-20-2019, 12:43 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
The Georgia law requires the victim reports the rape, which, of course, means many rape victims won't be able to get abortions. But how does a woman prove she had incestuous sex in order to get an abortion? If her relative says, "Yep, I had sex with her," is that sufficient?
There are prenatal DNA tests that can show this among many other things. Modern versions of the test can check the DNA of the embryo with just a sample of the mother's blood.

Again, though, carving out an exception just for incest but not for general genetic defects is basically just a theocratic policy. A defect is a defect whether or not "sinful" sex was the cause of it.

Last edited by SamuelA; 05-20-2019 at 12:43 AM.
  #21  
Old 05-20-2019, 12:57 AM
nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
I don't think so. At common law, the issue is not really that a 15-year old (say) "cannot consent" to sex. He or she can consent, and may indeed consent enthusiastically; but the consent, even if real, is not a defence to a charge based on sex with an underage person.

So sexual intercourse between a couple, one of whom is (or both of whom are) under age may be a crime, but it's not the crime of rape unless (a) one of them did not consent to sex and the other knew this, or (b) the legislature has specified that it is to be rape, regardelss of consent.

This matters, because if I have consensual sex with my underage girlfriend, the punishment I face is likely to be a lot lower than if I rape my underage girlfriend. Indeed, if I am underage myself the sex might not be a crime at all, but it will be if I rape her.
I agree and that is why I wrote _legally_ consent, meaning that the person's consent actually is recognized as valid according to the law.

Is "statutory" rape any different in the eyes of the law? If you have sex with your underage girlfriend, does it matter if she consents or not? To me, adding the "statutory" prefix is just a way of saying "by the letter, not the spirit" of the law, but the writing is still the same. Is "statutory rape" even a legal term, or is it just a layman phrase?
  #22  
Old 05-20-2019, 01:03 AM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
There are prenatal DNA tests that can show this among many other things. Modern versions of the test can check the DNA of the embryo with just a sample of the mother's blood.

Again, though, carving out an exception just for incest but not for general genetic defects is basically just a theocratic policy. A defect is a defect whether or not "sinful" sex was the cause of it.
The implicit rationale for the "rape or incest" exception seems to be not that the sex involved is "sinful", but that it is illegal. The exception is dependent on the filing of a police report alleging the offence of rape or incest.

Presumably, whatever public policy is considered to justify criminalising rape and incest is also considered to justify terminating the products of conception resulting from rape or incest.
  #23  
Old 05-20-2019, 01:09 AM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
I agree and that is why I wrote _legally_ consent, meaning that the person's consent actually is recognized as valid according to the law.
The question is not whether it's "valid", whatever that means. The question is whether it's relevant.

If the law says " it is an offence for UDS to have sex with nate", then it's an offence. The question of whether either of us consented, or could have consented, simply doesn't arise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
Is "statutory" rape any different in the eyes of the law? If you have sex with your underage girlfriend, does it matter if she consents or not?
It certainly does. A 15-year old boy, say, who has sex with his 15-year old girlfriend will very quickly find out that whether she consented or not makes a very great difference to what happens to him in terms of charge and sentence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
To me, adding the "statutory" prefix is just a way of saying "by the letter, not the spirit" of the law, but the writing is still the same. Is "statutory rape" even a legal term, or is it just a layman phrase?
I believe it is a legal term in some jurisdictions, where sex with an underage partner is formally categorised as a species of rape (regardless of consent), attracting the penalties appropriate to rape. In other jurisidictions it's a distinct offence from rape, with its own suite of penalties.
  #24  
Old 05-20-2019, 01:26 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
The question is not whether it's "valid", whatever that means. The question is whether it's relevant.
What it means is that their consent would not be considered valid in a defense against an accusation of rape. It's a pretty common way to discuss the concept, same as saying minors cannot legally consent to sex with adults.

Yes, technically there are some exceptions, as a very young adult might be young enough to have sex legally with a sufficiently older minor (e.g., with so-called Romeo-and-Juliet laws). You can also get into how what counts as a minor is different depending on what is being discussed.

But I don't really see what any of this adds to the question in the OP. Why is all incest considered an exception for most pro-lifers? Why would it be okay to abort a baby formed from the consensual sex of two sufficiently related adults?

The OP was just trying to head off anything like saying "maybe the parent was too young to legally consent."
  #25  
Old 05-20-2019, 03:41 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Umm, are these states that are passing abortion laws the kind that have generous government programs so take care of handicapped children? You know, with extensive special ed, free and comprehensive lifelong healthcare, state funded group homes if the child lives to adulthood, and so on?

I kinda had the impression that these states have very shoddy and limited forms of these programs and in some cases the only ones available are prisons.
Of course not! Children are a blessing! The handicapped are a special blessing! Parents need to take responsibility for the children they bring into the world, not rely on government handouts/welfare, don't be silly! If she didn't want kids she shouldn't have had sex, even if it was involuntary on her part! Government healthcare is socialist and evil! Parents need to take care of their kids and if they want to "abandon" them in a group home they have to pay for it themselves! Rapists have a right to a parental relationship with the kids they fathered by rape!



Places like Alabama are abysmal when it comes to help of any sort for the disadvantaged.
  #26  
Old 05-20-2019, 03:52 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,485
Part of it is a language issue. In some languages/locations/dialects/legal systems, "incest" includes "statutory rape" as well as or even instead of "sex between close relatives". Part of it is that sometimes sex between close relatives includes two kids so young that they don't even understand what is it they're doing: in their minds they're just "playing mommies and daddies". In any case, the idea is that these children can be aborted due to being the result of a traumatic relationship.

To me the question is why are there people who are ok with these abortions but not ok with terminating a pregnancy which will produce trauma in the future (including not being ok with terminating certain pregnancies where the fetus is not viable, so who are they trying to save?).
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 05-20-2019 at 03:55 AM.
  #27  
Old 05-20-2019, 03:59 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,485
Out of time:
To me the question is, first, why are there people who are ok with these abortions but not ok with terminating a pregnancy which will produce trauma in the future (including not being ok with terminating certain pregnancies where the fetus is not viable, so who are they trying to save?), and second, why some pro-choice people insist so much on these particular two instances rather than talking about the medical-risk ones. Nobody seems to say "OMG, they won't even allow an abortion when the fetus is not viable!" Is that too long? Is it too complicated, daring to bring up that sometimes a non-viable pregnancy continues far beyond when medical science can say "baby no worky"? It doesn't even work terribly well as an example of "my body, my choice", but maybe that's an issue with the differences in our perception; maybe they think it's the perfect example.
  #28  
Old 05-20-2019, 04:11 AM
nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 923
I was born in Alabama, and still live here, and for some reason I'm a liberal. I'm a straight white atheist male, my parents and extended family are all steadfast Trump supporters. I work in a male-dominated science field, and every white person I work with is conservative, every minority person I work with votes Democratic but are not liberal. As I've stated in the past on this message board, I've truly felt like I've been in bizarro world since the election. My wife and I keep each other sane.

Having said that, I have two special needs children. And while I can't say that Alabama's hand is not forced in the situation, I can't say that the education system here has ever put in a roadblock for my kids to get all the help they need.

elating to the topic, I have to give Alabama some credit in passing an anti-abortion law with no exceptions, relative to other states that pass these kinds of laws with exceptions. Abortion is a very complicated issue for me, and while I don't feel like it should be outlawed, I'm also not sure when an egg + sperm deserves human rights. But if it does deserve human rights at conception, it definitely should not matter how it is conceived. These attempts to exempt forced pregnancies from the anti-abortion laws just really undermine the whole argument.
  #29  
Old 05-20-2019, 04:45 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
I agree and that is why I wrote _legally_ consent, meaning that the person's consent actually is recognized as valid according to the law.

Is "statutory" rape any different in the eyes of the law? If you have sex with your underage girlfriend, does it matter if she consents or not? To me, adding the "statutory" prefix is just a way of saying "by the letter, not the spirit" of the law, but the writing is still the same. Is "statutory rape" even a legal term, or is it just a layman phrase?
It's not just the letter, it's also the spirit. The idea *is* to punish people who have sex with an underage partner, even if they consent enthusiastically, because they're assumed to not be able to give a meaningful consent and it's assumed that they're likely to have been manipulated into giving consent, and it's assumed they're likely to be damaged by having sex with an older partner. Apparently (from a recent debate there has been in France where until recently there wasn't properly an age of consent, even though having sex with a partner younger than 15 was a crime it wasn't rape), the fact that it also avoid having to *prove* that a rape occured if if the sex wasn't consensual is another reason.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 05-20-2019 at 04:47 AM.
  #30  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:37 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,569
I would say the reason to allow non-rape incest is that normally children are to be supervised when they play with other children. However when it comes to brothers and sisters it is not always possible to supervise them all the time nor is it reasonable for that to be expected, and they can and do sometimes explore their bodies. Things sometimes happen, and it can happen at a time before they understand what they are doing. Therefore you have a impossible situation, minors should not be sexual as they can't consent and may not understand - at least legally, parents/guardians should supervise this and prevent this from happening, however male/female children are living together, thus negating the parents/guardian's ability to supervise them all the time.

So there since there is a situation where sex between minors can be expected to happen, the act itself can not be seen as illegal, thus no rape. So you have a case where a child can be pregnant without understanding from both minors of how that came about - at least legally, so also thus no consent. Without consent one can argue that is the same reason for the rape exception except this is not rape, as rape is illegal, this is not illegal. So the exception for incest is needed.

However what happens with non-related children living together, they should also get that same exemption. I feel that the assumption that it would in general be brother/sister.

In practice I'm sure that some view this exception for adult/child sex 'get out of jail free' card situations too, but that would be rape.
  #31  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:48 AM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
These attempts to exempt forced pregnancies from the anti-abortion laws just really undermine the whole argument.
I agree with you. I think the "incest" exclusion shows that most pro-lifers don't really believe that all life is precious.

However, pro-lifers who argue that should be no "escape hatches" also aren't helping their case any. We make exceptions for other forms of murder (e.g., self defense, executions via the death penalty, and "collateral damage" of military conflict) because reasonable people can agree that some murder can be justified. It is reasonable to decide that an "involuntarily" conceived fetus produced through rape is a different situation than an "involuntarily"conceived fetus produced through conceptual rape. Aborting the former is more like killing in self-defense.

That said, I think the rape exception is even more of a useless "concession", if we call it that, than the incest one. A lot of rape is of the date rape variety, where the partners know each other and there may not be a lot of obvious signs of injury. By the time a woman can show that rape occurred beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, her fetus will a toddler. And we all know that a married woman who claims her husband raped her will likely have a difficult time convincing law enforcement, not without sworn testimony from the husband attesting to this. So the rape exception is just a way for pro-lifers to make their bullshit seem more palatable. Anyone with an IQ higher than that of a baked potato should recognize this, but alas, that doesn't seem to be the case.
  #32  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:40 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 32,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
It's very redundant.
ummmmmm
  #33  
Old 05-20-2019, 11:34 AM
Arcite is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
I agree and that is why I wrote _legally_ consent, meaning that the person's consent actually is recognized as valid according to the law.

Is "statutory" rape any different in the eyes of the law? If you have sex with your underage girlfriend, does it matter if she consents or not? To me, adding the "statutory" prefix is just a way of saying "by the letter, not the spirit" of the law, but the writing is still the same. Is "statutory rape" even a legal term, or is it just a layman phrase?
In my understanding, not only is "statutory rape" just a layman phrase, "rape" itself is a layman's term. I say this because one of the times I got summoned for jury duty, and made it as far as the voir dire process but didn't get empaneled, the defendant was being charged with "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse." They didn't really explain that, so when I got home I looked up the laws in several states, and found they all used phrases like that rather than the word "rape." I also found that what we call statutory rape laws didn't actually use the word "rape," nor the word "consent" or any similar term. Instead, they just say something like "a person commits a class B felony when that person is over the age of 18 and engages in sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16" or something like that.
  #34  
Old 05-20-2019, 11:37 AM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
My wife and I keep each other sane.
But are you brother and sister?
  #35  
Old 05-20-2019, 12:40 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smudge777 View Post
It seems to me that there are two answers:
1. Incest (even when consensual) is ungodly/unholy/unnatural/disgusting/awful/heathenish.
I think that this--and the idea that children of such a union are an abomination, tainted by their origin--was certainly part of the historical rationale and this idea still lingers. It's not about genetic weakness. It's about the sins of the fathers (and mothers).
  #36  
Old 05-20-2019, 12:43 PM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,333
Those exceptions are there because the pregnancy is clearly not the "fault" of the woman, even though it isn't the (alleged) baby's fault either. Other pregnancies can be readily slut-shamed. The anti-choice position is not fundamentally about murder but about misogyny.
  #37  
Old 05-20-2019, 01:14 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Those exceptions are there because the pregnancy is clearly not the "fault" of the woman
That "works" (for some values of "works") when the exception is for rape.

As has been pointed out, it doesn't work for a blanket exception for incest. Incest between parties both of whom are of age and consenting may be rare, but it can happen.
  #38  
Old 05-20-2019, 01:54 PM
SuperAbe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Flour Capital
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
It's very redundant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
ummmmmm
Strong contender for Reply of the Year. (And that was before I noticed you'd actually written something..... ;-) )










N.B. cited post was originally in white text.
  #39  
Old 05-20-2019, 02:17 PM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Incest between parties both of whom are of age and consenting may be rare, but it can happen.
Sure, but it can't be simply "blamed" entirely on the female party. She therefore has "permission" to have agency over her own self.

No, it doesn't make logical sense. It isn't about logic, but about keeping the little darlings in their places.
  #40  
Old 05-20-2019, 02:28 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Sure, but it can't be simply "blamed" entirely on the female party.
Neither can any pregnancy.

As you say, it's not about logic. But the people, or some of them, who are trying to install these laws try to claim it's about logic; because the alternative is to admit that they're trying to impose a religious regulation on people who aren't members of the religion(s) in question.
  #41  
Old 05-20-2019, 02:37 PM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,333
Well, ISTM it isn't fundamentally religious, it just uses religion as a shield (as is so often the case). It's really about power.
  #42  
Old 05-20-2019, 03:04 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
Why are the usual exceptions for abortions listed as "rape and incest"? Why is non-rape incest considered an exception? Is it really that common that an adult family member gets another adult family member pregnant during consensual sex? And if they decide they don't want the kid, it's a special exception for them to have an abortion?

Or is incest considered rape in this phrase? If that's the case, it really bugs me. It's like me saying, "you can eat anything here but my fruit and my apples." It's very redundant.
Always wondered that myself. The cases that come to most people's mind when 'incest' is mentioned as the reason for a pregnancy are statutory, if not statutory *and* forcible, rape of a minor where it's redundant.

Whereas if two grown adults siblings, say, decided they wanted to reject social convention and have children, I'm also not sure how that's categorically different than unrelated people with a similar genetic risk for serious birth defects. Close relatives have elevated risk in that regard, but so do some particular people who are not closely related.

I guess one explanation for R&I always being grouped together is the assumption that even in the extension of the case of rape or a minor, sex with a young adult relative, the man is generally in a power position and morally tend to be like rape, even if not legally rape. And the recognition that incestuous pregnancy in anything close to a power-equal relationship is exceedingly rare.

There's a whole meta-topic on abortion of why the two sides have staked out certain language and keep going back to certain (sometimes quite rare) situations as keys to their arguments. I think the basic reason is usually that they both want to win for what they both think are pro-human rights reasons, and the conflicting terminology they struggle to establish as standard, and the unusual cases they make central to the discussion, are a way they think they can win. I don't think it requires viewing pro-choice as reveling in the death of babies, nor accusing pro-life of being 'all about power' rather than caring about human life. I think most people who feel strongly on either side in their own minds are focused on defending human rights. They just can't both advance the conflicting aspects of human rights they each find most important.
  #43  
Old 05-20-2019, 03:49 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 686
Has it occurred to no one that exceptions for incest may actually incentivize incest?

Jamie: Hey sister, let's fuck!

Cersei: But what if I get pregnant? Our state just banned abortion!

Jamie: But there's an exception for rape and incest!

Cersei: Really? Awesome! Let's get naked!
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #44  
Old 05-21-2019, 10:34 AM
md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcite View Post
In my understanding, not only is "statutory rape" just a layman phrase, "rape" itself is a layman's term. I say this because one of the times I got summoned for jury duty, and made it as far as the voir dire process but didn't get empaneled, the defendant was being charged with "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse." They didn't really explain that, so when I got home I looked up the laws in several states, and found they all used phrases like that rather than the word "rape." I also found that what we call statutory rape laws didn't actually use the word "rape," nor the word "consent" or any similar term. Instead, they just say something like "a person commits a class B felony when that person is over the age of 18 and engages in sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16" or something like that.
"Rape" was the crime in Canada (and I assume in most US states). It carried a much stiffer penalty (life?) than indecent assault. The law changed with the women's movement somewhere around 1970; many rape trials degenerated into "can you prove penetration happened?" a critical part of the definition of rape. Quite often rapists failed to reach ejaculation, and the lack of semen was touted by the defense as proof nothing had happened. The offenses were hanged to varying degrees of sexual assault. It was no longer necessary to prove penetration. So different jurisdictions have different laws that categorize assorted degrees of behaviour where genitals or breasts are involved, but actual penetrative rape as a crime is usually not one.

Similarly, the case I recall that established rape of a spouse was a crime, was where the couple had separated, he broke in to her place and assaulted her. Not hard to prove consent was lacking. From there, it's just a matter of degree.

Statutory rape, whatever it is called nowadays, generally applies to children under 16 or under 18, except in marriage. Some states have an exception if the age difference is less than 2 years. (There's a website somewhere that lists the age by state).

While most "rape" laws presume that a person in authority has undue influence and so the partner cannot consent - parent, teacher, captain of a vessel underway (it's an old law), etc... There are situations in family dynamics, such as a much older sibling, where there may be undue influence to consent even if the person is not the parent. Plus, there's the requirement to report rape which may result in a different type of pressure, not to report a family member to the police.

But I suspect the incest exception is simply because of the "yuck factor" that our society seriously disapproves of incest. But of course, this brings up the question of what sort of trouble the other family member would get into if the pregnant girl claims incest? Would the legal consequences still be onerous? Or is this a "get out of pregnancy free" card, just claim it's the brother's, not the boyfriend's?
  #45  
Old 05-21-2019, 03:42 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,747
I am not a pro-lifer, but exceptions to abortion laws are logically inconsistent.

The only rational reason for abortion laws is that the fetus is a human being. If the pregnancy is the result of rape or of incest, the fetus is still a human being. Making a woman carry a rapist's baby to term is abhorrent, but not as abhorrent as the killing of a human being.

If a fetus is a human being, it is no less human if it is the result of rape or incest. IMO, a pro-lifer advocating exceptions to abortion laws is betraying their own argument.
__________________
"Just love everybody. I'll sort 'em out later"

-God
  #46  
Old 05-21-2019, 03:56 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
I am not a pro-lifer, but exceptions to abortion laws are logically inconsistent.

The only rational reason for abortion laws is that the fetus is a human being. If the pregnancy is the result of rape or of incest, the fetus is still a human being. Making a woman carry a rapist's baby to term is abhorrent, but not as abhorrent as the killing of a human being.

If a fetus is a human being, it is no less human if it is the result of rape or incest. IMO, a pro-lifer advocating exceptions to abortion laws is betraying their own argument.
Well you have the issue of consent to use one's body. Sex can be said as consent, rape and (some forms of ) incest doesn't allow that permission. Yes it's a cruel world with free will and all.

Last edited by kanicbird; 05-21-2019 at 03:57 PM.
  #47  
Old 05-21-2019, 06:38 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Well you have the issue of consent to use one's body. Sex can be said as consent, rape and (some forms of ) incest doesn't allow that permission. Yes it's a cruel world with free will and all.
I find it vaguely appalling that you view an instance of consensual sex as handing over your body for use by another. I find it more appalling that that appears to mean handing over your body for the the nine months following the event too.

And I definitely find it appalling that you seem to think that incest that didn't involve consent is a separate category from rape. I mean, that's just counterdefinitional.
  #48  
Old 05-21-2019, 06:56 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I find it vaguely appalling that you view an instance of consensual sex as handing over your body for use by another. I find it more appalling that that appears to mean handing over your body for the the nine months following the event too.
I was playing devil's advocate

So noted . We are not Neanderthals, we know that PiV sex has a non-zero probability to lead to child (within certain conditions like age). Free will decision made with a non-zero risk known and accepted, means we are on the hook, no escaping that.

Quote:
And I definitely find it appalling that you seem to think that incest that didn't involve consent is a separate category from rape. I mean, that's just counterdefinitional.
Read the thread about rape vs incest. You can have have a situation of non-rape but non consensual incest (brother and sister before understanding what they are doing).

Last edited by kanicbird; 05-21-2019 at 06:59 PM.
  #49  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:05 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
I was playing devil's advocate

So noted . We are not Neanderthals, we know that PiV sex has a non-zero probability to lead to child (within certain conditions like age). Free will decision made with a non-zero risk known and accepted, means we are on the hook, no escaping that.
But there *are* ways of escaping that. One that you may have heard of is called "abortion", and there are others as well.

You may be trying to remove that as an option, but you can't use the presumed absence of it as a reason why it should be gone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Read the thread about rape vs incest. You can have have a situation of non-rape but non consensual incest (brother and sister before understanding what they are doing).
It's generally the concensus to call that rape. But suppose we don't - if two childhood friends get pregnant before understanding what they are doing, should they be required to carry to term?
  #50  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:19 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,128
Oh. Wait a minute. kanicbird, you're saying that some people are claiming that consent to PIV sex automatically includes consent to pregnancy, as no matter even if there's two barrier methods in use plus a year-old tested vasectomy there's still a faint chance of it occuring?

I disagree with that -- consent to sex doesn't even automatically include consent to additional sex acts that same night/day, or to all possible sex acts in addition to/other than the one(s) consented to, let alone to surrendering one's body for nine months. But it would make a certain sort of sense of the rape exception, if it were phrased that way, which it generally isn't. Still doesn't make sense of the incest one, though, unless we're supposed to assume that a female partner to incest is always underage. Sure, there can be a situation where she is; such situations may even be more common as far as incest is concerned; but incest can also occur between adults and even between adult women and underage boys. (The latter's also rape, of course; but it's not the woman who's not consenting, so if the rape exception is based on assumed consent, it shouldn't work on those grounds.)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017