And lets be clear, standing up to those really evil Republicans does not take a ton of courage.
In other times, you may be arrested, have dogs sicced on you, fire hoses turned on you, or beaten. In other places, you may be kidnapped, killed, or maimed. In America, the worse thing that will happen if you stand up to them is that you’ll get primaried. Its would be an inapt comparison to say that the “good” Republicans cannot stand up. They need to do it, they needed to do it 10 years ago, but they can’t wait any longer. If they value their jobs or their future cushy lobby jobs more than what’s best for America, then they are also utterly reprehensible and evil
I imagine that it is difficult to disavow something you actually agree with.
Complicity as well.
Agreed, because they’re too cowardly to express their anachronistic nonsense openly, but are happy to sit back and have others of their ilk champion it.
What the fuck are you talking about? Sticking something inside someone’s vagina when they don’t want it there is the fucking definition of rape. It’s not an exaggeration in any way, shape or form.
It is a huge problem that rape is being supported via actual law, much bigger than any such thing not supported by law.
I’m beginning to think the irony is that a board about fighting ignorance has such a stupid, stupid moderator.
The Republicans just missed their chance! It turns out that Obama was about to cave. I have it on good authority that the news source I’m linking to is every bit as credible as Fox “News”.
Mandatory vaginal ultrasounds before abortion are a TERRIBLE idea, one that is demeaning and cynical and I hope to God (who I don’t believe in) never becomes the law in any part of the US.
But that doesn’t mean they’re rape. If someone who undergoes one of those goes to a support group for rape survivors, and everyone else is telling their stories of being raped, and she talks about how a medical professional in a hygienic and private setting was forced by law to administer an admittedly unpleasant and invasive medical procedure, all with zero risk of disease or pregnancy or violence or death, something that she knew ahead of time was going to happen… well, I think she would certainly deserve to be laughed and scorned right the heck out of that support group.
Well, except that it is, don’t you know. Rape consists of penetration (or in some cases, other kinds of sexual assault) of a person’s body without their consent.
A medical procedure (however invasive, oppressive and unnecessary) that a patient knowingly consents to (however grudgingly) is simply not the same thing as rape.
Now, I’m as strongly opposed to all invasive and unnecessary gynecological practices as the next vagina-owner, but come on, people. Is anybody actually seriously arguing that there’s no meaningful difference between “Ha, I’m going to stick this up you while you’re unconscious and/or forcibly prevented from resisting!” and “Ma’am, in order to continue with the pregnancy termination procedure you’re seeking, you’re going to have to let me stick this up you”?
[ETA: ninja’d by Max. One lousy minute!]
It’s not rape, but it’s the same ballpark- similar to “you want to keep this job? you better let me stick this inside you!” So maybe institutional sexual harassment, at the minimum.
As we know, all rapes are exactly the same, and there’s no difference between any of them - they’re all violent, and anything non-violent is an illegitimate rape.
Right?
Does it become rape if the woman needs the abortion or else she’ll die?
Taking a step back for a moment, I think there’s an interesting general discussion to be had about describing things hyperbolically… I feel like there’s arguably some benefit to that style of discussion, in that it can act as a bit of a catalyst, shocking people out of their torpor enough for them to really investigate what you’re talking about, using deliberately provocative language to get people to realize that what is going on IS NOT OK, etc.
On the flip side, however, there’s the risk of turning people off via hyperbole. Someone who is wavering on the issue hears a liberal describe it as RAPE RAPE RAPE, knows enough about the issue to realize that that’s clearly hyperbole, and is then either offended by the perceived dishonesty, or assumes that if the liberal arguer has to resort to such hyperbole they must not actually have any substantive argument to make.
Additionally, there’s the general issue of civility and tone. In the ultra-partisan climate we live in these days it’s hard enough to actual communicate. Having accusations of rape (or, in the other direction, treason) tossed around just gets everyone’s hackles up and pretty much poisons any chance of actual discourse occurring.
So, overall, I come down on the anti-hyperbole side… and that’s assuming that it’s deliberate rhetorical hyperbole. If someone actually honestly believes that their hyperbolic claims are accurate (and with Der Trihs I really honestly can’t tell), well, I don’t even know what to say to that it’s so far divorced from reality.
Yes. If the Doctor says “you need an abortion or you will die? OK, I will perform that abortion IF YOU HAVE SEX WITH ME”, you could make a very strong case that he is attempting to rape her.
Of course, that bizarre hypothetical has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.
For what it’s worth, I am not using hyperbole. If you make it so a person has to have things they don’t want shoved into their vagina for no reason beyond your own pleasure or desires, even if they are “choosing” it in order to receive something they need, you’re a rapist in my eyes.
I think this argument cheapens and trivializes rape, similar to calling formula-feeding a baby “child abuse.” But that’s probably an argument for another thread.
Wow, this thread is all over the place all of a sudden, and I certainly don’t want to be the one who brings rape month to the boards early, but unfortunately, I am compelled to contribute to this tangent (sigh).
Coercing a woman to have something inserted into her against her desire is rape, I don’t care what the method or cause of the coercion is.
It seems as though some here are saying that just because the woman doesn’t fear for her life it is not rape, which is ridiculous. It sickens me to hear the employment of coercive and wholly medically unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds, or the threat of its employment, categorized differently simply because it is not penile insertion. Haven’t any of you read the recounting of experiences by women who have been traumatized by going through this process? Here’s one.
If you are opposed to having the procedure done, but feel compelled to acquiesce by a threat to prevent you from accessing other, urgently needed healthcare services, then yes, I am arguing there is no meaningful difference. A violative act that is sexual in nature is rape.
I don’t in any way approve of that ultrasound-wand thing, but I’m sure it must be less intrusive and uncomfortable than the abortion procedure itself. 'Course, I’m a guy, how would I really know?
You’ve just defined “rape” in a way that is simultaneously over-inclusive and over-exclusive. That’s an impressive feat of stupidity, even by your standards. Rape does not have to be penetrative. It doesn’t even have to involve a vagina at all. But it does have to be non-consensual. The law in question was many things, all of them bad, but no woman was ever, as a result of this law, going to be in a position where a doctor was going to stick something in her vagina, and she would be unable to tell him “no.”
You seem to be completely oblivious to the distinction between “non-violent” and “non-consensual”. Sure, a sex act can be non-consensual, and hence rape, even if it isn’t violent. But it can’t be non-consensual and hence rape IF THE PATIENT CONSENTS TO IT.
Christ on a cracker, dude. You know those pieces of paper you have to sign at the doctor’s office before they’ll examine you? The ones called consent forms? Gynecologists use those too.
Now, if a patient signs a consent form for a vaginal ultrasound and then changes her mind when they start to put the probe in and says “Stop! I don’t want this!” and they don’t stop, you could argue that that counts as rape.
But if the patient legally, formally and knowingly consents to this legal procedure and does not withdraw that consent at any point? That is absolutely not rape in any way. You are insultingly trivializing the trauma of actual rape by trying to equate these two experiences.
[QUOTE=Karrius]
Does it become rape if the woman needs the abortion or else she’ll die?
[/QUOTE]
No. You are now being oblivious to the distinction between “life-threatening” and “death threat”.
Congratulations on not being an irresponsible debater who would deliberately use hyperbolic comparisons to try to persuade people that a bad, wrong, but consensual medical procedure is as bad as actual rape.
Condolences on being a moron who genuinely can’t tell the difference between a bad, wrong, but consensual medical procedure and actual rape.
