Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Yes you can, if you are a Republican. It is a party that sees ignorance as a virtue, and its adherents follow suit.
I had a friend of mine tell me that Ryan's budget is not radical, even after I explained to him why it is clearly pretty radical, even if you think it is a good thing. If people do not see 90% cuts from all social services so that the military budget can keep growing and millionaires/billionaires pay less than 1% tax as radical, I do not know what they think is radical.
Oh wait, they see capital gains being taxed at 1.2% more as radical, nevermind.
Statutory rape isn't necessarily forcible.
It's my understanding that that particular terminology isn't even in common usage anymore, at least not from a legal perspective. But regardless, even if physical force or threat of force isn't present, it is presumed that coercion is (which may be splitting hairs, as coercion implies compelling someone to act involuntarily) where one of the parties is legally incapable of giving consent.
So, lesser degree of force, but still forcible...
I honestly have no idea what terms legal experts are using to describe forcible rape vs. statutory rape, but I do have a pretty good idea of what the distinction scumbag Republicans are making. If a woman isn't beaten to a pulp while resisting being raped, it doesn't count, and she doesn't get the "reward" of aborting the resulting pregnancy. That's what *they* mean by forcible.
It's also a convenient way to deny abortion to every woman, regardless of whether she was raped or not, because it's extremely difficult, near impossible, to prove "forcible" rape in court. Unless the victim is a minor or the assailant is a stranger, the prosecution isn't getting a conviction.
@3 is correct. That is the definition of “statutory” in “statutory rape:” the law says that the act itself is a crime. No intent needed, and “consent” even potentially clearly and verbally given. The age and age differences presume “incapacity” or “inability to give consent” to be inherent in such a scenario. Age + sexual act = crime. In some states, like Washington, one party to the act must be at/under the age of consent, while the other party has to be a certain number of months older than the underage one for it to be a criminal act. Example:
RCW 9A.44.079
Rape of a child in the third degree.
(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the third degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim.
There is only one potential defense to this: The perpetrator “reasonably believed” that the “child” was above the age of consent, through specific representations, statements or evidence provided by the “child” at the time. Chris Hanson’s TV franchise always had evidence that the fake “child” made statements about being at/under the age of consent, so that there was no defense available to the idiot who walked through the door.
In other states, where, say, the age of consent is 16 and two 15-year-olds have consensual sex (note: many laws presume heterosexual parties), either they are both guilty of the crime or the male is guilty of the crime….just because the sexual act occurred between people at/under the age of consent. No age differences are required. No issue or intent or consent.
As a pro-lifer, I think that position is slightly batshit, but I can concede that it's at least logistically consistent from a pro-life view. Romney, on the other hand, gets a pass on his terminating-rape-babies stance.
I've always wished the media would push politicians to explain this stance, rather than only villifying the politicians, like Akin, who are pro-life even in cases of rape. It lets politicians, and much of the pro-life populous, off the hook. However, we should be making them answer that difficult question: why is it ok to kill a rape baby?
I think the honest answer is obvious: it's soft pedaling. Like many political stances (We're going to lower taxes and lower the deficit!), it sounds good, and it makes people feel good...but it just doesn't make sense. If you're ok with terminating an innocent rape baby, it must be because a fetus is something less than life...which means you're pro-choice even if you can't come to grips with that concept.
Anyway, it's a cliche, but I do wish the media would "ask more of the tough questions.". Force these politicians to explain why it's ok to terminate rape babies. If politicians, and their many pro-life followers, were forced to consider these questions...maybe we could come closer to ending this debate (or at least narrowing the divide)
Rape and rape laws tend to be about “consent” and whether the victim gave it or not. When politicians and talking heads start using “force” and “forcible rape,” they are trying to make it about the perpetrator – and essentially give the perpetrator a chance at a pass, or conversely placing a burden of proof on the victim to show it was a criminal act. Then it is about the perpetrators, their intentions and thus their act of actual violence (the “force” bandied about). That is why, with “children” (and I use that term in quotes because some states had/have laws about “victims” 18 and 19, who were otherwise “legal adults.”) it all hinges on an “age of consent,” rather than the intent of the perpetrator, because rape is about consent to the act. Some states used to (still do?) have laws where statutory rape was about “age of consent” but for legal adults, the hurdle was “force.” Read this as “kids can’t consent to the act, but women always do – unless it is essentially ‘assault/battery’ in a sexual form.”
When used in terms of abortion, the idea behind “force” is to raise the bar on the burden of proof for a “rape” designation – to lessen the chances that any pregnancy clear the legislative hurdle for the procedure to happen “legally.” How many male defendants (yes, pregnancy requires a male defendant here) are going to admit that they intended to do something criminal? Unless there was a clear weapon involved, or the woman was beaten to x-degree, imagine how difficult that “force” is to prove without an admission.
Yes, that position is "logically consistent", but that isn't what we're talking about here and that isn't what got Akin in trouble.
What he said was that it is physically impossible for a woman who was raped to get pregnant from that rape. That makes him a liar.
He also made a distinction between "legitimate" rape and "illegitimate" rape, which is when the victim was asking for it. That makes him a scumbag.
Do try to catch up with the class.
If all pro-life politicians had to look rape victims in the eye and tell them they could not have an abortion...well I think we'd see a big shift. They'd get quiet, change sides....or more likely just drop the debate (which I'd be perfectly ok with). But hey, if slinging crap is all you want (this in the internet after all), then so be it.
So, in other words, we're not allowed to call out a liar when we see one. You may think we haven't seen this game, but many have come before you. You, a pro-lifer, because you think bitches ain't shit, want liberal to shut the fuck up and play nice so you and yours can win elections and shove your "values" down our throats. We won't play nice, and we will call you out for what you are every step along the way.
In short, shut the fuck up and go away. No one gives a shit about your beliefs or your moralism here. Go back to church.
Dave, maybe you could shut up about shit that you don't understand. A man making ridiculous statements about "reasonable debate" in relation to abortion is flat out offensive.
This can debate can be resolved when you realize that what happens in my body is none of your damn business, period.
The minute you get a uterus you cant decide if you want to carry a baby.
Since Republicans are busy cutting up the social network so these babies they insist women should carry get no support, it's difficult to take them seriously on this issue.