From the article cited, it looks as if this is not an attempt to redefine rape as it applies to any criminal codes, so rapists aren't off the hook. Rather, this bill limits the use of taxpayer funds only for abortions of pregnancies caused by forcible rape.
I'm not saying this is right, wrong or sideways, I just wanted to clarify that no one is redefining rape from a legal standpoint. I think the article takes a more alarmist bent than is necessary. This is a debate worth having, to be sure, but the author of this piece is intentionally (and by omission of some key facts) misleading.
Last edited by gretazmama; 02-01-2011 at 12:27 PM.
Reason: I'm on cold medicine and my proofing skills are off. :)
From the article cited, it looks as if this is not an attempt to redefine rape as it applies to any criminal codes, so rapists aren't off the hook. Rather, this bill limits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions in as a result of pregnancies caused by forcible rape.
I'm not saying this is right, wrong or sideways, I just wanted to clarify that no one is redefining rape from a criminal standpoint. I think the article takes a more alarmist bent than is necessary. This is a debate worth having, to be sure, but I think the author of this piece is being misleading (by omission at the very least).
Agreed. If you read my OP, I do say it's in regard to funds for abortion. So there's one definition for criminals, but another for victims.
Arrena Ruth 08.07.05 Julian Mitchell 08.01.08 America is the only country to go from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between ~ Oscar Wilde
What sticks with me is that these people do not support a woman's right to choose. So be it. But this is about RAPE, which by definition is based on something a person did not CHOOSE to do. I know that won't matter to them, but can't they see the extended harm that is done to a pysche if someone who is raped and forced to go through pregnancy (which is hard on women in loving, happy relationships) and deliver a baby born of rape?
Will there be increased mental health legislation for what happens in the aftermath of these women (let alone what happens to the children)? I sincerely doubt it.
Arrena Ruth 08.07.05 Julian Mitchell 08.01.08 America is the only country to go from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between ~ Oscar Wilde
Exactly, Red. I'm so distraught by the idea that the burden of responsibility falls on the victim - simply because of the biological capacity to become pregnant. It's totally absurd.
Interesting read. It reminds me of the case in PA back in the 1990's where the courts ruled that "No is not enough." I should be ashamed of myself for not recalling the name of the matter but it was so long ago and I guess my memory is not what it used to be. Basically there was a woman who was raped and the courts said that because she did not "resist" it should not be called rape. Obviously simplified but that was the crux of it.
This bill reminds me of the same thing. You can only use our money if you forcibly resisted the "rape". Sad. I live in NJ and will certainly be letting Mr. Smith know how I feel.
This bill reminds me of the same thing. You can only use our money if you forcibly resisted the "rape". Sad. I live in NJ and will certainly be letting Mr. Smith know how I feel.
Good for you!
Arrena Ruth 08.07.05 Julian Mitchell 08.01.08 America is the only country to go from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between ~ Oscar Wilde
From the article cited, it looks as if this is not an attempt to redefine rape as it applies to any criminal codes, so rapists aren't off the hook. Rather, this bill limits the use of taxpayer funds only for abortions of pregnancies caused by forcible rape.
I'm not saying this is right, wrong or sideways, I just wanted to clarify that no one is redefining rape from a legal standpoint. I think the article takes a more alarmist bent than is necessary. This is a debate worth having, to be sure, but the author of this piece is intentionally (and by omission of some key facts) misleading.
Reminds me of the "death panel" controversy. It can be interpreted in anyway.
LIke others, I have a problem with the word "forceble". Rape by it's very definition includes force.
I see all these moms who can do everything and I think... I should have them do something for me..
What concerns me is that if the definition is set for one set of circumstances (rape), then what would stop an attorney from arguing that definition in defense of his/her client. Maybe that can't be done - I don't know. At least I hope it couldn't.
Not entirely sure why the GOP is so desperate to govern the use of the uterus. (or would that be uteri?)
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by gretazmama
