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.
But after the abortion that accusation would still be hanging around, wouldn’t it?
More difficult than non-forcible rape?
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.
Huh?
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?
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.
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting definition has nothing to do with the definition under the law.
So?
About the same.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?
If there is no definition, on what basis are you claiming to know the definition?
From that cite:
That’s not actually the topic of this thread.
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.
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.
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?
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.
So, responses in Pit threads must remain on topic now. Got it.