# House Republicans redefining "rape." **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439 "2011-01-29T19:06:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/61 "2011-01-30T03:07:36Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Aside from your insistence on evil motives, > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That’s all the Republicans have at the moment. And that’s all the anti-abortion movement has ever had. The Republicans are woman hating sadists, and the anti-abortion movement is about hurting and humiliating women. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I, of course, consider any money being used for abortions to be utterly disgusting, so pardon me if I don’t share your outrage. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Of course not, since in both cases your motives are the same; to hurt women. > [@gravitycrash](#): > > Oh Noes, the evil Republicans are going to force mentally challenged girls to have babies if they get raped! > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > They _are_ evil. And that’s what they want, or for the girl to die giving birth. **Trihs** , while I recognize that in general you are in the right wrt the reproductive rights debate, please go be on someone else’s side for a while. The right side of this debate doesn’t really benefit when one of its proponents sounds like a dumbass. Which you’re doing. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/62 "2011-01-30T03:10:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There’s nothing in there about having to prove the “forcible rape,” nor would there be any time to wait for a trial. The abortion needs to happen immediately. But after the abortion that accusation would still be hanging around, wouldn’t it? > [@](#): > > Also, what makes “forcible rape” so easy to prove? It’s actually notoriously _difficult_ to prove. More difficult than non-forcible rape? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/63 "2011-01-30T03:20:08Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > A fetus is neither a baby, a person, or “human life” in any meaningful sense until it can survive outside the womb. Until then it’s just an extension of the woman’s body and she can do with it whatever she sees fit. It cannot “die” because it isn’t alive in the first place. She has absolute and unqualified right to terminate the pregnancy _regardless_ of the circumstances of conception. Her body, her choice (& her’s alone), end of story. For now, but laws and technology aren’t static. A key term you used above was “until it can survive outside the womb.” The primary abortion-related SCOTUS cases (namely Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey) are all quite clear that the state can intervene on behalf of the fetus once it has reached a point of development that would make it viable outside of the woman’s body. Essentially once the pregnancy can be ended without destruction of the fetus. This is the reason for the regulations we have on abortion today, Planned Parenthood v. Casey was notable in that it specifically recognized that the “trimester” system delineated in Roe may change with time, and that properly “state interest” in the fetus may begin at viability, which is no longer strictly defined as being the third trimester of pregnancy. Of course as states were always free to allow third trimester abortions (at least in regard to being compliant with the ruling in Roe), states are of course allowed to continue allowing abortions post viability (whenever said viability is) and still be compliant with Casey. However states have always had the option to restrict abortions at certain points in the pregnancy (third trimester under Roe, viability under Casey–with both rulings noting late term abortions must be allowed if the health or well being of the mother is at stake.) Imagine a world a few hundred years from now in which any zygote can be grown into a full blown infant human inside a lab, and it’s very likely abortion could eventually not exist as a concept. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/64 "2011-01-30T03:32:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Actually, that cite defines statutory rape as “non-forcible rape”, so the 12 year old example would not be covered under this law, by that definition. 😕 Huh? From **Stratocaster’s** definition for forcible rape: > [@](#): > > The carnal knowledge of a person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will; or not forcibly or against the person’s will where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity (or because of his/her youth). My reading of that passage suggests that when the putative victim is a minor, even if it’s not literally forcible, it’s forcible for the purposes of the definition. Am I missing an antecedent in your rebuttal? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/65 "2011-01-30T03:41:19Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Imagine a world a few hundred years from now in which any zygote can be grown into a full blown infant human inside a lab, and it’s very likely abortion could eventually not exist as a concept. But then, effectively, neither would forced childbirth. Unless you want for your extrapolation of technology to stop short of being able to safely remove the zygote from the uterus of a woman and transplant it into an artificial gestation/birthing device. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/66 "2011-01-30T04:12:26Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Diogenes, what’s meaningless? I actually provided a cite defining forcible rape, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting definition no less, and that definition was inclusive of all the scenarios your cite asserts this bill is trying to exclude from funding. You’re acting like “forcible rape” was some term they cooked up specifically to victimize a subset of rape victims. You’re wrong. The cite you provided was hysterical nonsense, a product of the writer’s imagination and political bias. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting definition has nothing to do with the definition under the law. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/67 "2011-01-30T05:17:48Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > But after the abortion that accusation would still be hanging around, wouldn’t it? So? > [@](#): > > More difficult than non-forcible rape? About the same. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/68 "2011-01-30T05:20:02Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Diogenes, what’s meaningless? I actually provided a cite defining forcible rape, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting definition no less, and that definition was inclusive of all the scenarios your cite asserts this bill is trying to exclude from funding. You’re acting like “forcible rape” was some term they cooked up specifically to victimize a subset of rape victims. You’re wrong. The cite you provided was hysterical nonsense, a product of the writer’s imagination and political bias. The definition you pulled was not part of the bill. It has no relevance at all. The bill says “forcible rape only,” but there is no legislative definition for “forcible rape.” ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/69 "2011-01-30T06:33:46Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > From **Stratocaster’s** definition for forcible rape:My reading of that passage suggests that when the putative victim is a minor, even if it’s not literally forcible, it’s forcible for the purposes of the definition. > > Am I missing an antecedent in your rebuttal? What you’re missing is that the cite he gave seems to define sex with a minor as both forcible and non-forcible at the same time. That’s why it’s a good thing it’s just an FBI definition (which is completely worthless for this discussion, unless the FBI is going to starting determining who gets abortions on the government dime) and not a legal definition. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/70 "2011-01-30T06:38:48Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > As part of an effort to deny publicly subsidized abortions for rape victims, the House GOP is attmpting to [narrow the definition of "rape](http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion) to include only what they call “forcible rape.” > > Their new definition of rape would not include statutory rape (so a 12 year old can’t get an abortion paid for if she’s impregnated by a 30 year old), but it gets worse than that: > > According to the House GOP, roofying a woman isn’t rape, raping a mentally retarded woman isn’t rape and date rape isn’t rape. What the fuck? Thats fucking nuts. So the only way a non-forcible rape of a minor will be covered is if it was incest? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/71 "2011-01-30T06:42:38Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Thats fucking nuts. So the only way a non-forcible rape of a minor will be covered is if it was incest? Apparently, yes. If a 30 year old knocks up a 12 year old but doesn’t use a gun, it’s not rape under this bill. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/72 "2011-01-30T06:43:47Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Do you have anything on-topic to say about the subject? I was on topic, the topic of the facination with rape on the SDMB. This is The Pit, if you are moderating please point out my rules violation. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/73 "2011-01-30T06:46:01Z")
It’s a bill in the House of Representatives. That makes it worthy of discussion. Should we not discuss pending federal bills if they address the subject of rape? Do you have a fucking problem with it? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/74 "2011-01-30T07:49:09Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The definition you pulled was not part of the bill. It has no relevance at all. The bill says “forcible rape only,” but there is no legislative definition for “forcible rape.” If there is no definition, on what basis are you claiming to know the definition? > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Huh? From that cite: > [@](#): > > Non-Forcible – Unlawful, nonforcible sexual intercourse. > > 1. Incest–Nonforcible sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law. > 2. Statutory Rape–Nonforcible sexual intercourse with a person who is under the statutory age of consent. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/75 "2011-01-30T08:04:14Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > I was on topic, the topic of the facination with rape on the SDMB. That’s not actually the topic of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/76 "2011-01-30T10:39:45Z")
My guess is that it’s an attempt for not having to provide funding for at-will abortions for anybody who wants one. Anyone can claim they were drugged/drunk/tricked/screwed by mommy’s friend or whatever. Minor girls are getting pregnant all over the place. (What was that school the other day in Memphis - 90 girls pregnant or something, and 1 in 8 recently pregnant at Robeson High in Chicago.) It is more difficult to file a formal rape report and there are legal ramifications for lying. Thus fewer people lie about being forceably raped. If all someone has to do to get a federally funded abortion is lie about how their pregnancy happened, there may as well be no qualifications in the first place. (Which I know would be fine with most here. There are those of us however who don’t feel it’s our responsibility to pay for other people’s careless or willful mistakes.) However I would approve of abortion (state funded preferably) for minors or developmentally impaired girls or women made pregnant by adults, provided that the offender was identified through DNA matching and then brought to trial. I think this would screen out girls lying about how the pregnancy happened just to get a free abortion. I also think that whenever possible the state should be able to recover the cost of the abortion from the miscreant. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/77 "2011-01-30T11:08:36Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > It is more difficult to file a formal rape report and there are legal ramifications for lying. Thus fewer people lie about being forceably raped. If all someone has to do to get a federally funded abortion is lie about how their pregnancy happened, there may as well be no qualifications in the first place. (Which I know would be fine with most here. There are those of us however who don’t feel it’s our responsibility to pay for other people’s careless or willful mistakes.) So, in order to get funding for an abortion, would you make the requirement be “forcible rape”, or filing a police report, or getting a conviction? Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly, and abortion is a time-sensitive matter. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/78 "2011-01-30T11:34:08Z")
Good catch! I’m skewered on that one, I guess. Oh, wait, how about this: we provide the abortion upon charges having been filed and contingent upon conviction, but if the alleged miscreant is acquitted then the abortionee becomes civilly liable for the cost of the operation. Or maybe it would be better if we just kept the United States government out of the abortion business altogether. After all and like I said, the government won’t make me whole if somebody robs me or defrauds me. It won’t replace the lost income if I get beaten up and can’t work, and it certainly doesn’t reimburse widows for the loss of income from their murdered husbands. So again, why should it be the government’s responsibility to fund abortions to end pregnancies that are the result of crime? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/79 "2011-01-30T11:51:37Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting definition has nothing to do with the definition under the law. No, it’s not specifically cited, but it is a counter to the notion that this was some definition pulled out of thin air, cooked up by the Republicans to further victimize some subset of rape victims. All the roofy stuff Diogenes was gnashing his teeth over. All the “but it gets worse” stuff from his OP that I have no hope he will ever actually acknowledge was gross overstatement, pulled from that writer’s ass. John Mace, I see your point. The cite seems to be in conflict, because I read the forcible rape definition as specifically including what we normally describe as statutory rape. Maybe one of our legal experts could chime in ( **Bricker**?). Is there some legal concept that recognizes overlap in these definitions (which I realize are just one definition, from one place), is there a subset of “adult sex with a minor” that is both forcible sex and statutory rape even when the minor provided “consent,” with the remaining subset statutory rape only? Or maybe this cite is just in error. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/80 "2011-01-30T12:06:37Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > That’s not actually the topic of this thread. So, responses in Pit threads must remain on topic now. Got it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439.md?page=5)