That would be rape and, under any hypothetical allowance for it, be already covered. It IS still rape, even if the girl consents, since legally, a minor cannot consent.
But it still involves all the same problems as any other form of rape and making that a litmus test for abortion rights.
“Free pass” makes it sound as if abortion is a day at the circus. :dubious:
How about not hijacking this thread by interjecting a petty complaint about which third person singular pronoun someone uses? I’m sure the true believers will revel in having “outed a sexist”, but the rest of us don’t give a shit.
Free pass from the anti-abortion law, then. If axiomatically any underage pregnant girl was raped, and this is considered to automatically qualify them for the exception, then abortion would have been legalized for all girls under the age of consent.
I suspect that this is not the goal of the anti-abortion folks.
I expect that one result of such a law would be many thousands of innocent men being sent to prison for rape due to false accusations by desperate women. And I’d expect a general disbelief in rape claims since false accusations of rape would be the norm; there would likely be hundreds of false claims for every real one. I’d also expect this would generate a great deal of hatred between the genders.
I’ve heard of that. One problem is that just like in cases of girls pregnant by child molesters, the judge might decide to simply refuse permission, or make the girl/woman beg her abuser for permission for an abortion.
And I would expect that 99% percent or so of “pro-lifers” fall into the second category, given the sheer cruelty towards women built into the “pro-life” agenda. Why should I take seriously claims of good intent by people who in effect want to rape women for nine months? I’d sooner believe in the good intentions of the Ku Klux Klan towards blacks.
It is very problematic, and causes a lot more issues and problems then it solves and there is no legal answer to abortion that will ever work.
Aside from complete legalization, anyway.
Complete banning is also fairly simple to implement, aside from that whole black market/back alley problem.
I think he meant Canada, which has no legal restrictions on abortion at any point in a pregnancy (though obtaining one late in the game, or in rural areas, or being able to afford one when they’re not covered, may be another question).
And has turned into a nation of barbarians, heathens and sluts as a result.
I’m surprised that it is thought that this exception would lead to lots of cries of rape just to qualify. It is no small thing, complaining of rape. Since most women will probably know the father, and presumably not wish to have him imprisoned, are they really likely to make the allegation? DNA tests are going to prove, sooner or later, whether there’s any truth in it.
I can imagine the desperation of an unwanted pregnancy - I’m just not sure it would drive most, or indeed more than a tiny fraction, to make such a serious false allegation.
Make the allegation, have your laywer stall and delay, get the abortion, drop the case.
ETA: assuming you’re not canny enough to blame a mysterious cloaked stranger.
You think someone will accuse the person they are with of the rape? No - what you will see is a large increase in the number of accusations against strangers that the victim cannot remember the face of.
Perfect.
Until:
An unidentified doctor found himself the target of criticism after using the word ‘him’ in a gender-indeterminant context during last week’s convention.
Please see John Mace’s comment, which I have conveniently quoted, and pertains to you just as much as Annie Xmas. And stop the hijack - please.
Well, this assumes that you can drop the case. Once you’ve made the allegation, the police may want to push the point. It’s no longer “your” case. It’s the state’s.
And if you blame the mysterious stranger (villa’s point also), the evidence is going to show you were lying, isn’t it?
In my experience, once you set the thing rolling, you can’t just jump off when you feel like it. Once you have a couple of women prosecuted for wasting police time with false allegations, there will be a deterrent effect.
But I dunno. I’m a man, and I’ve never been in unwanted-pregnancy territory. How desperate does that make you? Quite a bit. Enough to lie to the police? Not sure. Whilst there are some “retrospective withdrawal of consent” rape cases (especially where the thing has to be justified to a boyfriend) there aren’t a lot. Because even desperate women know that lying to the police isn’t clever.
That’s something I discussed earlier. If the woman who has an abortion has had multiple partners, oen of which was rape, how do we know if we can legally abort or not? Can one of the consensual partners prevent an abortion until a DNA test can be done?
But your situation, though I don’t think it likely, shows the unworkablity of such an exception - do we really expect the police to take a DNA sample from the aborted fetus and insist on a sample from the boyfriend?
What also makes you think that the girl seeking the abortion will say she has had sex with anyone voluntarily? Do we subpoena her emails and facebook, rifle through her diary, and interview everyone she knows to find out whom she has slept with voluntarily, and compare the DNA with all of them to find out if she is lying about having been raped?
Absolutely I think the police would DNA check the aborted foetus. And how could the complainant object, she has made the allegation and it is state property, so to speak. This isn’t an allegation of some minor impropriety. It’s going to put someone away for 7+ years.
Likewise I think the police might well take a look at the woman’s wider social network. We are imagining a world where rape is an exception to a rule against abortion. The police will immediately say, is this a real allegation or an attempt to take advantage of the exception? Checking more widely would be SOP, I reckon.
I feel I should add: I’m pro choice, and I don’t for a minute think the exception idea is a good one; yet perversely I am arguing that it wouldn’t necessarily fail due to misreporting. I am not convinced the numbers would bear that out. Perhaps the fact we can debate it helps demonstrate that the exception approach is poor.
What evidence? That you were sleeping with somebody voluntarily doesn’t prove you weren’t raped by somebody else.
Any deterrent effect would also effect a respectable percentage of actual rape victims.
We have a similar situation today when parents report a missing child. Especially if they report that the child has been kidnapped.
And here’s the thing about rape-- you’re not going to know you’re pregnant until weeks after the rape. A woman who reports a rape only after she knows she’s pregnant is going to raise suspicion. A woman who reports the rape immediately isn’t going to raise any suspicion at all.
So, the rule we are discussing would encourage women to report cases of rape as soon as it happened. I’m not seeing a lot of women falling into the category of “oh, I won’t report the rape unless I find out later I’m pregnant”.
Rape is underreported. Why is that? Could these factors start seeming less important when faced with also bearing/raising/paying for the rapists’ unwanted child?
Unless you anticipate a massive increase in the number and efficiency of DNA labs, I daresay fetus-testing will only further clog an already-overloaded evidence-processing system that can’t even handle the evidence it already has, with rape kit backlogs measured in years.
Sure, I expect a significant number of women claiming rape in a post-ban-with-exception world may be lying. I don’t know that rooting them out is worth:
[ul][li]Letting actual rapists roam free, the evidence of their crime buried amid the false claims[/li][li]Innocent men put in jail because a sufficiently determined woman was sufficiently convincing on the witness stand[/li][li]Rape victims being disbelieved by police who now must sort cases by their own stanadards of believibility.[/li][/ul]
And for what? To force into existence an extra half-milllion children their own mothers don’t want?
I would even say that complete legalization will not work as it creates a false sense of ‘it’s ok’ because the state says it is, when the state should not be involved, this is a very personal issue between mother father baby and ‘God’, the state just interferes with that. the best and most honest thing the state can do is say we are not able to handle the issue of abortion and will no longer address it.
As you point out the state is powerless to implement it and only can inflict punishment on the people to try to get most to comply.