I dunno. How would you treat the case of a woman who has sex with a guy, then later decides she doesn’t like him and will get even by declaring she was raped. Happens a lot in a slightly different scenario when a woman flirts with her boss, then sues for sexual harassment when he returns the favor. That happened at least twice to buddies of mine, and one of them lost his job because of it.
I don’t know the context of this ‘toon, but I think it’s beyond ridiculous to come up with a list of reasons a woman has to adhere to before she’s allowed to have an abortion. She shouldn’t have to prove it was forcible rape vs. a regrettable one-night stand. And a man shouldn’t be in a situation where rape charges would be pressed on him just so she can have an abortion.
The context is very simple. There is a new bill being pushed by Boehner which is trying to make distinctions among different kinds of rape. But the real purpose is to restrict abortion. The current laws allow federal funding of abortion in cases of incest or rape. Some of the Republicans are trying to eliminate this incrementally by reducing the number of sexual assaults counted as rape. The new language is “an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest.”
Note two things here. If you were raped while drugged, or unconscious (e.g., drunk or asleep), you would not be covered. If you were a victim of statutory rape, you would not be covered. Nor if you are a victim of incest while not a minor. Studies indicate that 70% of rapes would not count under this definition of “forcible.” (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/03/25/predator-theory/)
It is arguably a reversion to an antique idea that women should defend their virtue to the death, when the only real distinction of rape is that the woman says no. Period. No screaming, fighting, bruising. That’s it. If someone held a gun on someone and raped them, and they didn’t scream because they were told they would be shot, that isn’t “forcible rape.”
“..(the) modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” John Kenneth Galbraith
I think most women (I can’t think of any who wouldn’t, including the Tea Party darlings) would consider any act of rape violent in that their person was violated.
The original Republican text introduced would have leaned toward the Sharia interpretation of women’s defense.(none) This would have eliminated incest as “rape”– and decriminalized their family trees??
motive, thanks for the info. Sounds like the GOP wants us to go backward. They’re willing to denigrate women, and their rights, in order to push their pro-life views. The old, the ends justify the means. So a woman who’s raped with a knife held to her throat won’t count as being raped because she doesn’t physically attack her attacker? Sick.
Apparently, last year, there were a wholling 193 abortions that were paid for, in full or in part, with federal funds. That works out to $00.002 per taxpayer. A drop in the bucket. A lot more of my tax money has been spent on bleeep that I disapprove of.
Under this law, someone who slips a woman a roofie and does her while she’s out cold can only be prosecuted for posession of a controlled substance. I’d like to see how jmattadams would feel if he woke up one morning unable to remember what he did last night and had an ache in his colon.
BTW…a competent medical examiner can distinguish, by a vaginal examination, the difference between consensual and resisted nonconsensual sex.
…and has nothing to do with anything the Republicans have passed. Thought they’re happy to expand the deficit, they seem to have forgotten to work on jobs (probably because creating employment means spending money that MIGHT go to poor people).
beenthere41 over 13 years ago
I dunno. How would you treat the case of a woman who has sex with a guy, then later decides she doesn’t like him and will get even by declaring she was raped. Happens a lot in a slightly different scenario when a woman flirts with her boss, then sues for sexual harassment when he returns the favor. That happened at least twice to buddies of mine, and one of them lost his job because of it.
iamthelorax over 13 years ago
I don’t know the context of this ‘toon, but I think it’s beyond ridiculous to come up with a list of reasons a woman has to adhere to before she’s allowed to have an abortion. She shouldn’t have to prove it was forcible rape vs. a regrettable one-night stand. And a man shouldn’t be in a situation where rape charges would be pressed on him just so she can have an abortion.
Motivemagus over 13 years ago
The context is very simple. There is a new bill being pushed by Boehner which is trying to make distinctions among different kinds of rape. But the real purpose is to restrict abortion. The current laws allow federal funding of abortion in cases of incest or rape. Some of the Republicans are trying to eliminate this incrementally by reducing the number of sexual assaults counted as rape. The new language is “an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest.” Note two things here. If you were raped while drugged, or unconscious (e.g., drunk or asleep), you would not be covered. If you were a victim of statutory rape, you would not be covered. Nor if you are a victim of incest while not a minor. Studies indicate that 70% of rapes would not count under this definition of “forcible.” (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/03/25/predator-theory/) It is arguably a reversion to an antique idea that women should defend their virtue to the death, when the only real distinction of rape is that the woman says no. Period. No screaming, fighting, bruising. That’s it. If someone held a gun on someone and raped them, and they didn’t scream because they were told they would be shot, that isn’t “forcible rape.”
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
^ Good post.
beenthere, that hardly, if ever, happens. That’s mostly a male fantasy. Grown women can make the difference between a regrettable act and rape.
tcolkett over 13 years ago
“..(the) modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” John Kenneth Galbraith
Harolynne Premium Member over 13 years ago
I think most women (I can’t think of any who wouldn’t, including the Tea Party darlings) would consider any act of rape violent in that their person was violated.
Only a man could make this so bleeep convoluted!
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
Think of all of the jobs this sort of legislation creates. *
And Brobst, seriously, your rhetoric is unjustified.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
The original Republican text introduced would have leaned toward the Sharia interpretation of women’s defense.(none) This would have eliminated incest as “rape”– and decriminalized their family trees??
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
^possible.
believecommonsense over 13 years ago
motive, thanks for the info. Sounds like the GOP wants us to go backward. They’re willing to denigrate women, and their rights, in order to push their pro-life views. The old, the ends justify the means. So a woman who’s raped with a knife held to her throat won’t count as being raped because she doesn’t physically attack her attacker? Sick.
runar over 13 years ago
Apparently, last year, there were a wholling 193 abortions that were paid for, in full or in part, with federal funds. That works out to $00.002 per taxpayer. A drop in the bucket. A lot more of my tax money has been spent on bleeep that I disapprove of.
Under this law, someone who slips a woman a roofie and does her while she’s out cold can only be prosecuted for posession of a controlled substance. I’d like to see how jmattadams would feel if he woke up one morning unable to remember what he did last night and had an ache in his colon.
BTW…a competent medical examiner can distinguish, by a vaginal examination, the difference between consensual and resisted nonconsensual sex.
Simon_Jester over 13 years ago
It’s kind of academic; the Repubs have already backed down on the redefinition of rape outline in their anti-choice bill
Carolo1 over 13 years ago
repubs, where are the jobs
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-2-2011/rape-victim-abortion-funding
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
Excellent, Jade, and right on.
ARodney over 13 years ago
…and has nothing to do with anything the Republicans have passed. Thought they’re happy to expand the deficit, they seem to have forgotten to work on jobs (probably because creating employment means spending money that MIGHT go to poor people).