New GOP low: Redefining rape

[Freshgeardude]

But wait, the GOP opposes abortion, all abortion. Pregnancies resulting from rape are acts of GOD and thus divinely inspired, silly dimorats, opposing the will of GOD. Females are made to be fucked. After all, does not God say, be fruitful and multiply. Some females choose to not do so and that is why God made rapists.

This whole idea that women should have any civil rights and any free will control of their own bodies is simply a retarded 20'th century idea to be thrown into the scrap bin of history.

God bless the GOP that now needs to marry their conviction to a new courage of decriminalizing rape and make it into a GOP political sacrament. Think of all those prison beds we can free up and all those tax payer bucks we can save.

Don't all you all girls agree with me, please PM me ( or PMS me ) if you want to join the the Lemon Law Harem. Ages 7 and up acceptable. Bring your own Burka, Lose your shoes, because barefoot and pregnant is your expectation. And more than a first grade education is unacceptable, or you will certainly be more educated than me.

I'm a republican (incase u havent noticed) and I fully support abortion as a right of a woman.

404 necessary post not found.

 

[PeshakJang]

But wait, the GOP opposes abortion, all abortion. Pregnancies resulting from rape are acts of GOD and thus divinely inspired, silly dimorats, opposing the will of GOD. Females are made to be fucked. After all, does not God say, be fruitful and multiply. Some females choose to not do so and that is why God made rapists.

This whole idea that women should have any civil rights and any free will control of their own bodies is simply a retarded 20'th century idea to be thrown into the scrap bin of history.

God bless the GOP that now needs to marry their conviction to a new courage of decriminalizing rape and make it into a GOP political sacrament. Think of all those prison beds we can free up and all those tax payer bucks we can save.

Don't all you all girls agree with me, please PM me ( or PMS me ) if you want to join the the Lemon Law Harem. Ages 7 and up acceptable. Bring your own Burka, Lose your shoes, because barefoot and pregnant is your expectation. And more than a first grade education is unacceptable, or you will certainly be more educated than me.

Quoted to preserve the typical contributions of this upstanding forum member.

 

[jackschmittusa]

If the new language does not change anything, then what is the purpose of including it?

I am suspicious. I would demand that whoever is responsible for it declare the intent of its inclusion. Courts often rely on perceived intention when interpreting new laws.

If it truly serves no purpose, there is no need for it. If there is a purpose to it, I want to know what it is, thank you very much.

Way too many cases in the past where politicians have lied about the purpose of legislation concerning abortion, clinics, patient records, etc. to conceal hidden agendas.

 

[MovingTarget]

Because it specifically differentiates between "true" rape, and statutory rape. The bill as is, would exempt victims of forcible rape, but would not provide federal taxpayer money to consenting parties who happen to be of less-than-legal age.

As the law is now, if a 15 year old has consensual sex with an 18 year old, and gets pregnant, that is statutory rape. The bill's aim is to block federal funds from going toward the abortion.

Now, if the girl is of such a young age that it is determined that she could not have possessed the mental capacity to knowingly consent, such as a 8 or 9 year old having sex with an 18 or 19 year old, the law often defines that as forcible rape.

So, bottom line, the law attempts to allow the funding in cases of true, non-consensual, coerced, or violent sexual acts, while blocking the use of funds in cases of "rape" defined by age, in some cases.

So, it is put in there to separate statutory rape (due to age) from other circumstances, no? Somehow, I don't buy it. The legal definition of rape is based on the lack of true consent, be it either mentally or physically. A minor is a minor, and thus does not have the mental maturity and thus legal capacity to consent. Hence, it is still rape. If the purpose of that language is only to do as you say here, then for all intensive purposes the language should be left out and the states should modify their age of majority laws to truly reflect where they think the age limitation should be (for the mental/legal capacity to consent).

 

[Throckmorton]

Statutory rape isn't really rape, much less forcible rape, so what's the issue here?

 

[dainthomas]

Ahh, so forcing a woman to have sex with you is ok in Sweden, gotcha.

Please, no one forced those women to do anything. Unless it's now common for women to tweet about how awesome it is hanging out with their "rapist".

 

[Lemon law]

Statutory rape isn't really rape, much less forcible rape, so what's the issue here?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pardon me Throckmortan, that is a pretty dim witted comment, our society has already sensible definitions of statutorily and forced rapes, not all of those rapes result in pregnancies, but in the event a rape results in a pregnancy, its only the GOP who asserts the victim of such a rape cannot get Federal funds for an abortion. And worse yet, for many GOP extremists, even if a rape victim could fund such an abortion on their own dime, those same GOP extremists would deny the rape victim access to any abortion at all.

After all, there is something really wrong, IMHO, with the State asserts a woman's body belongs to the State and not the woman herself.

 

[CanOWorms]

Link to your claim. The only thing stated in the OP and the linked Lib-trash is ranting and screaming over the use of "forcible rape" instead of "rape", when I clearly showed how the use of "forcible", AS ACCEPTED BY THE FBI UCR, WHICH DEFINES CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY, is only used to differentiate between consensual statutory rape and everything else.

The states define rape by their statutes, of which there are many different ways to define it. The FBI can do whatever it wants and define rape however they want, but their definition is not used when most people are charged with rape.

 

[PeshakJang]

The states define rape by their statutes, of which there are many different ways to define it. The FBI can do whatever it wants and define rape however they want, but their definition is not used when most people are charged with rape.

http://www.arte-sana.com/articles/rape_statutes.pdf

According to this run-down, I would say half, if not more, of the states don't even call it "rape", it's termed sexual assault or sexual battery. So if the federal law just said, "Rape", do you think the same problems would exist? Somebody from New Mexico would be charged with Criminal Sexual Penetration of the 1st degree... not Rape. So you think the federal "definition" wouldn't apply?

 

[Carmen813]

There is no such thing as non-forced rape. That should be the end of the discussion.

 

[Red Dawn]

Liberals were pretty good at redefining rape to make Assange look better too. Last time I checked pinning a girl down and forcing her to have sex is a valid rape allegation.

Lolwut??

 

[Carmen813]

Why should the tax payers be footing the bill for any abortion?

If my car gets stolen I don't get a new one courtesy of the federal government.

Ideally, it should be the perpetrator paying for the abortion if the woman chooses to have one.

On a side note, your car analogy is borderline idiocy.

 

[PeshakJang]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After all, there is something really wrong, IMHO, with the State asserts a woman's body belongs to the State and not the woman herself.

That's really the crux of the left's argument for abortion, isn't it? A woman's body belongs to herself, so she has every right to do whatever she wants, including aborting her child.

So, in a case of statutory rape, if a 14 year old girl has consensual sex with an 18 year old, gets pregnant..

1) She decides she is too young to have a child an wants an abortion (it's her body); rape doesn't even apply since she is obviously aware of her actions and their consequences. I shouldn't have to pay for it.

2) Her parents decide she is too young to have a child and want her to get an abortion. They claim statutory rape and want the gov't to pay for it (it ISN'T her body).

So is it her body, or is it not?

Each state has different laws for determining consent and classification of the crime, and the minor's mental capacity is a factor in determining the charge. Non-consensual sex with a minor is still always forcible rape.

Bottom line, the bill redefines NOTHING, and the OP is still 100% a lie.

 

[PeshakJang]

There is no such thing as non-forced rape. That should be the end of the discussion.

Statutory rape.

 

[PeshakJang]

Ideally, it should be the perpetrator paying for the abortion if the woman chooses to have one.

This I can agree with.

 

[airdata]

Liberals were pretty good at redefining rape to make Assange look better too. Last time I checked pinning a girl down and forcing her to have sex is a valid rape allegation.

I thought he just had sex without a condom.

 

[Carmen813]

Statutory rape.

Our laws dictate that consent cannot be given by people who are under 18 because they are not legal adults. There are plenty of reasons why you could argue this is just, since the brains of teenagers are not fully developed. Particularly the frontal lobe, which deals with decision making and impulse control.

If you want to change the way statutory rape is handled, then you should be talking about changing when we consider an individual to be a legal adult, not what the definition of rape is. I personally believe that 18 is fine, even though brain development in these areas isn't usually finished until the early 20s. There is absolutely no way the majority of 13-16 year old individuals fully realizes the consequences of their actions, particularly when it comes to sex and relationships.

 

[Thump553]

If nothing else, this is a prime example of a horribly written bill. It relies upon an undefined term for one of it's central points. "Forcible rape" should either be defined in the bill or a link put in the bill to another statutory definition of the term.

The people who draft these bills aren't idiots, they knew the basic rule of statutory drafting I set out above. I strongly suspect they want to get the bill passed with people/fellow legislators thinking it includes date rape, etc, then argue later in the enforcement stage that it does not. To be on the safe side, such sloppy drafting should be rejected out of hand no matter what you think of the merits of the intended bill. Make our congress members at least do their job technically correct and stop encouraging wasteful litigation and confusion.

 

[PeshakJang]

Our laws dictate that consent cannot be given by people who are under 18 because they are not legal adults. There are plenty of reasons why you could argue this is just, since the brains of teenagers are not fully developed. Particularly the frontal lobe, which deals with decision making and impulse control.

If you want to change the way statutory rape is handled, then you should be talking about changing when we consider an individual to be a legal adult, not what the definition of rape is. I personally believe that 18 is fine, even though brain development in these areas isn't usually finished until the early 20s. There is absolutely no way the majority of 13-16 year old individuals fully realizes the consequences of their actions, particularly when it comes to sex and relationships.

That has nothing to do with the current law as written. There is a clearly understood and reasonably uniform distinction between forcible rape and statutory rape. The federal government (FBI) clearly defines both. Each state has a myriad of different statutes (see my link) defining every type of sex crime. "Sexual assault" is more often used in place of rape, but that doesn't change how the federal government defines it for purposes like this.

If you want to argue what should/shouldn't be statutory rape, you will need to take it up with the states. The federal law simply makes a distinction between acts of forced, coerced, or otherwise non-consensual sex, and consensual-but-illegal due to age "rape".

Again, the GOP, and this bill, do not "redefine" ANYTHING. If rape is defined by each state's statutes to begin with, what is there for them to redefine?

 

[sao123]

the bill simply defines what abortions can be federally funded and which ones cant... I believe none should... but w/e.

OP is boldface melodramatic lie.

 

[waggy]

wow talk about slanting a article and post to fit your agenda.

 

[Throckmorton]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pardon me Throckmortan, that is a pretty dim witted comment, our society has already sensible definitions of statutorily and forced rapes, not all of those rapes result in pregnancies, but in the event a rape results in a pregnancy, its only the GOP who asserts the victim of such a rape cannot get Federal funds for an abortion. And worse yet, for many GOP extremists, even if a rape victim could fund such an abortion on their own dime, those same GOP extremists would deny the rape victim access to any abortion at all.

After all, there is something really wrong, IMHO, with the State asserts a woman's body belongs to the State and not the woman herself.

I don't get it. If the State doesn't pay for an abortion of a pregnancy of a 17 year old who had consensual sex with an 18 year old, that means her body belongs to the State


Does that mean if the State doesn't buy you a gun, it's infringing on your gun rights?


BTW, how is it that a 17 year old's body "belongs to herself", yet she can't consent to sex with whoever she chooses to?

 

[Throckmorton]

I thought he just had sex without a condom.

He used a condom but intentionally ripped it. When the girl realized what happened she told him to stop, and he refused. If that isn't rape then what is? And for all we know he could have HIV-- he refused to be tested even though the woman said she'd drop charges if he got a test. What was his reason for ripping the condom anyway? To get her pregnant or infect her> Either way he was exerting his power over her sexually, without consent, which is obviously rape.

In their ironic and bizarre fawning over Julian Assange, the far left and libertarian-anarchists came up with the "sex without a condom" and "jealous lover" BS.

 

[LumbergTech]

He used a condom but intentionally ripped it. When the girl realized what happened she told him to stop, and he refused. If that isn't rape then what is? And for all we know he could have HIV-- he refused to be tested even though the woman said she'd drop charges if he got a test. What was his reason for ripping the condom anyway? To get her pregnant or infect her> Either way he was exerting his power over her sexually, without consent, which is obviously rape.

In their ironic and bizarre fawning over Julian Assange, the far left and libertarian-anarchists came up with the "sex without a condom" and "jealous lover" BS.

Is this actually proven in some capacity or is it an accusation? I've been busy so maybe I'm out of the loop, but last I saw no evidence has really been presented.

 

[sandorski]

I watched a YoungTurks video on the subject a few days ago and admittedly my memory of the details is a little foggy. However, I got the impression that a large part of the criticism wasn't the defining of Forcible Rape, but the application of Federal Rape requirements to Health Savings Accounts. Meaning, that those who have chosen to Pay into a HSA were not allowed to use their HSA funds for an Abortion except when Forcible Rape has occurred. IOWs, it was an encroachment of Federal Government regulation limiting the members of HSAs use of those Funds.

Not sure if accurate.