Do you need an abortion? Did you bring a note?

[Shadowy Man]

Because it's not rape--they generally said "yes". It was just they were manipulated into it.

So, it's not rape, which means it's consensual, but they were manipulated into it, which means what? it was non-consensual? If a non-related person or child is "manipulated into it" but not raped, is that not rape or incest? So, consent given through manipulation is still considered consent?

I guess I'm still not understanding why it can't just be called "rape". If they can call an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old rape, even if it is consensual, then why can't incest be called rape?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because it's not rape--they generally said "yes". It was just they were manipulated into it.

So, it's not rape, which means it's consensual, but they were manipulated into it, which means what? it was non-consensual? If a non-related person or child is "manipulated into it" but not raped, is that not rape or incest? So, consent given through manipulation is still considered consent?

I guess I'm still not understanding why it can't just be called "rape". If they can call an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old rape, even if it is consensual, then why can't incest be called rape?

That could end up with the crazy situation where two people are guilty of raping each other.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, it's not rape, which means it's consensual, but they were manipulated into it, which means what? it was non-consensual? If a non-related person or child is "manipulated into it" but not raped, is that not rape or incest? So, consent given through manipulation is still considered consent?

I guess I'm still not understanding why it can't just be called "rape". If they can call an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old rape, even if it is consensual, then why can't incest be called rape?

That could end up with the crazy situation where two people are guilty of raping each other.

I don't see how your comment follows from anything I have said.

By saying "rape and incest", one is semantically distinguishing the two, which means that at least some incest is not rape. If all incest were rape then you wouldn't need to say "rape *and* incest".

 

[Rhea]

That could end up with the crazy situation where two people are guilty of raping each other.

I don't see how your comment follows from anything I have said.

By saying "rape and incest", one is semantically distinguishing the two, which means that at least some incest is not rape. If all incest were rape then you wouldn't need to say "rape *and* incest".

Maybe they are actually saying, "rape and sex-that-might-create-genetic-defects" which launches a huge "oh, really!" conversation. And which really highlights the "they are all people" pro-forced-birth crowd who usually claims that birth defects are no reason to end a pregnancy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That could end up with the crazy situation where two people are guilty of raping each other.

I don't see how your comment follows from anything I have said.

By saying "rape and incest", one is semantically distinguishing the two, which means that at least some incest is not rape. If all incest were rape then you wouldn't need to say "rape *and* incest".

If you treat incest as rape then both parties are guilty of rape even if one was manipulated into it.

The reason they group them is that the Repugs can't imagine any form of incest other than dirty old men with their teenage daughters or nieces. Never mind that most incest is within a generation, not intergenerational.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If you treat incest as rape then both parties are guilty of rape even if one was manipulated into it.

I'm not saying that I would treat incest as rape. I would treat rape as rape. If the rapist happened to be a family member then it would be incestuous rape. But only one party would be guilty of it.

As for "sex that might cause genetic defects", then I guess we need to be concerned about older women having sex. Does anyone know the genetic defect rate between siblings reproducing and women in their 40s reproducing?

 

[Jarhyn]

can we please just get past the whole red herring of rape, and get back to discussing whether it is ethical to force a woman to risk life and limb because some ape minded shithead thinks that if he manages to plant his sperm somewhere, that he DESERVES to be a father?

 

[Rhea]

Good point jarhyn, I agree!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

can we please just get past the whole red herring of rape, and get back to discussing whether it is ethical to force a woman to risk life and limb because some ape minded shithead thinks that if he manages to plant his sperm somewhere, that he DESERVES to be a father?

It's relevant because it shows their true motives.

 

[Jarhyn]

No. It really isn't. It hides the true motives because it isn't about rape exceptions, the whole damn thing IS a rape. It's men taking entitlement to women's bodies for their own purposes, regardless of what the woman decides she wants. 'The rape exception' is a smokescreen. Going off into left field about whether incest is rape, or what 'legitimate' rape is, or whatever doesn't really change the facts of the law itself, in saying men get to tell women they have to be pregnant for them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

can we please just get past the whole red herring of rape, and get back to discussing whether it is ethical to force a woman to risk life and limb because some ape minded shithead thinks that if he manages to plant his sperm somewhere, that he DESERVES to be a father?

It's relevant because it shows their true motives.

Their true motives are exposed in their recent tact of legislation that uses technicalities (admission privileges and building codes) to close places that offer abortion services. These new restrictions make it nearly impossible to get an abortion shy of drug induced, regardless of the circumstance including rape/incest/red herring, in some states.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's relevant because it shows their true motives.

Their true motives are exposed in their recent tact of legislation that uses technicalities (admission privileges and building codes) to close places that offer abortion services. These new restrictions make it nearly impossible to get an abortion shy of drug induced, regardless of the circumstance including rape/incest/red herring, in some states.

No. The bit with the building codes and the like simply shows they'll use technicalities to accomplish what they want.

The rape/incest exception is very important because it shows they exempt women who didn't bring it upon themselves--thus showing it's about punishment rather than about protecting the unborn.

 

[Medicine Man]

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/17/you...on/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

And just when my migraine was letting up.

Of course it is necessary for a man to give permission. Just as some believe a man must also give permission on order for a woman to continue a pregnancy if she wants him to participate in any way, including honoring financial obligations in raising the child.

It's all about controlling women. Everybody knows that's a job for a man.

....And, Congress is full OF them!!!!​

Molly Ivins Explains Late-Term
1996​