Rape, forcible rape, what's the difference?

House Republicans plan to sidestep a charged debate over the distinction between “forcible rape” and “rape” by altering the language of a bill banning taxpayer subsidies for abortions.

The provision in question, written as an exemption from the ban for women who become pregnant as a result of “forcible rape,” touched off a firestorm of criticism from women’s groups, and it gained enough attention to become the subject of a satirical segment on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”


But a spokesman for the bill’s author, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), says the modifier “forcible” will be dropped so that the exemption covers all forms of rape, as well as cases of incest and the endangerment of the life of the mother.

“The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment,” Smith spokesman Jeff Sagnip told POLITICO, referring to the long-standing ban on direct use of taxpayer dollars for abortion services.

The fight over the definition of rape threatened to sabotage Republican efforts to highlight their push to end taxpayer subsidies for abortion, and the distinction between types of rape mystified some GOP aides.

“Such a removal would be a good idea, since last I checked, rape by definition is non-consensual,” said one aide.

The underlying bill, which imposes sweeping new restrictions on existing taxpayer subsidies for health plans that cover abortion, has support from a bipartisan group of anti-abortion lawmakers, including several House GOP leaders who attended a press conference announcing its introduction last month.

But proponents have found themselves on the defensive in the last few days over the phrase “forcible rape” and a decision to grant an incest exemption only to minors. Under the Hyde amendment, which is recodified annually in an appropriations law, women who are victims of any type of rape or incest at any age are eligible for federally subsidized abortions.

“The phrase ‘forcible rape’ was abandoned some time ago, and there is some indication that what they would be trying to do is make women jump over an additional hurdle if they want to get an abortion,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) told POLITICO this week.

The bill’s authors, including Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), say it’s not their intent to change the way the exemption is applied.

“The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so,” Lipinski told Talking Points Memo in a statement.

Regardless of the intention, the language became an inviting target for critics, and its potential to hijack the debate over taxpayer subsidies for abortion forced a quick reversal from GOP leaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daily Show Satire

“By proposing this legislation, Republicans are finally closing the glaring rape loophole in our health care system,” the Daily Show’s Kristen Schaal dead-panned Wednesday night — after GOP leaders had decided to change the language. “You’d be surprised how many drugged, underaged or mentally handicapped young women have been gaming the system. Sorry, ladies the free abortion ride is over.” –

---

---------------------------------


Whee. In the Rush to cater to social conservatives, the GOP underscores why women need to be worried about them.

"boys will be boys" (Southern white) Repugs are also talking about referring to rape victims as rape accusers, since they know most rapes, esp the few that are reported, are really frame jobs by the ladies.

forcible rape, a redundancy, is exactly the kind of politicized language abuse that Repugs excel at.

forcible rape as opposed to consensual rape? :lol

I don't fucking understand why some people think they have more rights than others when it comes to bitching about taxpayer spending.

Do pacifists get bans on overseas military spending? or bans on spending money for pre-emptive wars? or bans for spending money on ANY war that isn't in direct self-defense of the nation?

do I get a ban on things I don't like?

fuck. this is a woman's body. if she doesn't want to fucking have a baby, let her abort. it should be the same as any other medical condition or service.

fuck christians.

Are they trying to make a distinction between "forcible rape" and "date rape"? Just curious. I think there have been numerous false allegations of date rape. I'm not trying to defend what they're doing, just wondering what gives with the terminology.

When is date rape not forcible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Are they trying to make a distinction between "forcible rape" and "date rape"? Just curious. I think there have been numerous false allegations of date rape. I'm not trying to defend what they're doing, just wondering what gives with the terminology.

---

Forcible rape and statutory rape... which is very rarely forcible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

When is date rape not forcible?

---

when fraud is involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

when fraud is involved.

---

That means there is no rape at all.

Some of you are unclear on the concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

When is date rape not forcible?

---

When roofies are involved

I don't want to pay taxes that go to abortion clinics, all this crap derails the subject in hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

When roofies are involved

---

Force does not have to be physical-- it can be chemical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

That means there is no rape at all.

Some of you are unclear on the concept.

---

afraid not. If you tell someone that unless they sleep with you they will die of an illness, that is rape if she wouldn't have consented had she known that was not true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spur_Fanatic

I don't want to pay taxes that go to abortion clinics, all this crap derails the subject in hand.

---

So we make it unaffordable? Then we have unnecessary babies without sufficient homes? Are you going to adopt them?

You should think more into what you're saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

afraid not. If you tell someone that unless they sleep with you they will die of an illness, that is rape if she wouldn't have consented had she known that was not true.

---

Somehow I doubt that's what Republicans had in mind when they wrote the legislation.

And it's still forcible since there is a threat. Replace "disease" with "gunshot wound" and how does it look to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

Force does not have to be physical-- it can be chemical.

---

I guess, like, if you threaten to throw acid in someone's face unless they have sex.

just so you guys know, you can't have sex with a girl who has passed-out drunk. it doesn't matter that she voluntarily got drunk.

Is it legal for a woman to consent to sex if she has razor blades in her yoo-hoo but doesn't tell you?

Would that be any different than a woman with HIV consenting to sex without telling you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

Is it legal for a woman to consent to sex if she has razor blades in her yoo-hoo but doesn't tell you?

Would that be any different than a woman with HIV consenting to sex without telling you?

---

These aren't questions of consent.

If you want to call it something other then questions of consent, is it legal or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

If you want to call it something other then questions of consent, is it legal or not?

---

Cutting someone's penis up with razors has nothing to do with sexual consent. That's assault or felony assault, unless the man was attempting to rape you, in which case it would be up to the court to decide what to do with the situation. Of course it's not legal to attack someone or inflict undue physical harm. However, if that case were to go to court, I'm sure it would concern a woman's right to defend herself from physical harm as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

If you want to call it something other then questions of consent, is it legal or not?

---

I'm sorry these things happened to you, but that's what fingers and condoms are for.

Perhaps you should start a new thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I'm sorry these things happened to you, but that's what fingers and condoms are for.

Perhaps you should start a new thread.

---

Perhaps you should tell me why its wrong to do this but ok for an abortion.


Her body, her choice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

Perhaps you should tell me why its wrong to do this but ok for an abortion.

---

Abortion is legal.

Assault is not.

Any other questions?

If you're not doing anything or moving. Is it assault?

Are you always a pretentious prick or can you have a discussion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

If you're not doing anything or moving. Is it assault?

---

As much as laying a bear trap in a dark doorway you know someone will be walking through. There may be different names for the actual charge, but it's not legal.

Quote:

---

Are you always a pretentious prick or can you have a discussion?

---

I can have a discussion.

Any other questions?

I would be more tolerant if any of these stupid questions had anything at all to do with the topic.

Seriously, all you seem to be saying is you should be able to rape a woman as long as abortion is legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

Is it legal for a woman to consent to sex if she has razor blades in her yoo-hoo but doesn't tell you?

---

Is it legal for a woman to consent? Or is it legal for a woman to slice up your dingle with razor blades concealed in her yoo-hoo? Those are two very different questions.

The first of which suggests a horrifying alternative.

Incidentally, as someone with a yoo-hoo, I find it incredibly hard to imagine that anyone could hide a razor blade (let alone razor blades, plural) up there without doing enough damage to herself to threaten the believability of her ruse. Even if the pained wincing wasn't sufficiently noticeable, I'm guessing the massive blood loss would be enough of a sign to any man that they should move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

Would that be any different than a woman with HIV consenting to sex without telling you?

---

Well, off the top of my head, only one of those things involves violent assault.

Or restorative surgery.

I don't think he knows how vaginas work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

Is it legal for a woman to consent? Or is it legal for a woman to slice up your dingle with razor blades concealed in her yoo-hoo? Those are two very different questions.

The first of which suggests a horrifying alternative.

Incidentally, as someone with a yoo-hoo, I find it incredibly hard to imagine that anyone could hide a razor blade (let alone razor blades, plural) up there without doing enough damage to herself to threaten the believability of her ruse. Even if the pained wincing wasn't sufficiently noticeable, I'm guessing the massive blood loss would be enough of a sign to any man that they should move on.



Well, off the top of my head, only one of those things involves violent assault.

Or restorative surgery.

---

I seem to remember either hearing that second hand or maybe in a couple different movies about our troops in vietnam raping women over there and they doing this to protect them?, I can't remember or imagine it either. I refuse to try to google it as I really don't like the thought of me finding out. Hypothetically speaking, if it IS possible, my points being about these two circumstances is how is this different then abortion? The whole "women's body, women's choice" argument I feel needs to be thrown out, now you need to base it on if one feels an unborn child is life or if one half truly equals one.


Chump, I'm married and i've been dumb enough to post that picture with my wife on here so retards like you could see it. I've also talked about my son. I've gotten my fair share. You on the otherhand are very questionable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

I seem to remember either hearing that second hand or maybe in a couple different movies about our troops in vietnam raping women over there and they doing this to protect them?, I can't remember or imagine it either. I refuse to try to google it as I really don't like the thought of me finding out. Hypothetically speaking, if it IS possible, my points being about these two circumstances is how is this different then abortion? The whole "women's body, women's choice" argument I feel needs to be thrown out, now you need to base it on if one feels an unborn child is life or if one half truly equals one.

---

Even if your opinion is vaild, your comparisons are really, really stupid.

Quote:

---

Chump, I'm married and i've been dumb enough to post that picture with my wife on here so retards like you could see it. I've also talked about my son. I've gotten my fair share. You on the otherhand are very questionable.

---

You think it's easy and common to stash a razor trap down there.

That's about all that needs to be said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Even if your opinion is vaild, your comparisons are really, really stupid.

You think it's easy and common to stash a razor trap down there.

That's about all that needs to be said.

---

Calling you out on that one...........

Where did I ever say that? Are you going to backpedal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

Hypothetically speaking, if it IS possible, my points being about these two circumstances is how is this different then abortion?

---

How is either circumstance in any way similar to abortion? Specifically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

The whole "women's body, women's choice" argument I feel needs to be thrown out, now you need to base it on if one feels an unborn child is life or if one half truly equals one.

---

"The whole 'women's body, women's choice' argument" is not some tangential thing that can just be thrown out. Whether one views an unborn child as life, the potential for life, or an over-hyped parasite, the fact of the matter is that its gestation requires nine months spent within the body of a living human being. Women don't become inanimate incubators at the moment of fertilization.

I don't associate it with abortion in the act itself in any way. I'm defiantly not trying to draw a parallel in that aspect. I'm saying when one uses the reasoning My Body, My Choice, wouldn't it be that choice in my examples, however unlikely and wrong it would be?

It seems as though that reasoning relates more of a feeling of a tattoo or piercing, rather than being a mother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

Calling you out on that one...........

Where did I ever say that? Are you going to backpedal?

---

You were the one comparing it with abortions.

Are you going to backpedal on your comparison now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

I don't associate it with abortion in the act itself in any way. I'm defiantly not trying to draw a parallel in that aspect. I'm saying when one uses the reasoning My Body, My Choice, wouldn't it be that choice in my examples, however unlikely and wrong it would be?

It seems as though that reasoning relates more of a feeling of a tattoo or piercing, rather than being a mother.

---

So you're inserting the "my body, my choice" argument into a set of circumstances in which it was never intended to be used -- a situation in which the choice being made involves physical assault and willful deception -- and using that as a reason to throw out the entire argument?

Though in painfully simplified terms, you're talking about a feminist argument that advocates reproductive justice. That is the purpose and sole intention of the "my body, my choice" argument to which you are referring. By removing it from that context and using it to describe the thought process behind various sexual encounters, you're conflating it with a general argument for personal autonomy, which is limited to neither women nor reproductive justice. If a woman's decision to use the sex act as a means to trick a man into either physical mutilation or the contraction of a virus is based on an issue of "my body, my choice," then so is the man's decision to have sex with a woman without first thoroughly checking for cooties or snatch blades. Rather than identify hypothetical situations that are at all analogous to abortion, you have instead made an argument in which female autonomy is necessarily a weapon and male autonomy is inherently reckless and ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

Rather than identify hypothetical situations that are at all analogous to abortion, you have instead made an argument in which female autonomy is necessarily a weapon and male autonomy is inherently reckless and ignorant.

---

Bravo.

Edit: rather than reckless and ignorant, I think the subtext is that male autonomy is a victim to its female counterpart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You were the one comparing it with abortions.

Are you going to backpedal on your comparison now?

---

I never compared it in that sense, ever.


LOL, you remember this shifty excuse a while ago? Pretty soon I'll hear you tell me it depends what my definition of "is" is.


I could be using the royal "we" for all you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

I never compared it in that sense, ever.

---

Look, I know your comparison sucked.

Now you do.

Quote:

---

LOL, you remember this shifty excuse a while ago? Pretty soon I'll hear you tell me it depends what my definition of "is" is.


I could be using the royal "we" for all you know.

---

LOL, I remember you considered this your greatest internets victory ever.

It didn't make your comparison any better either.

[B]you're inserting the "my body, my choice" argument into a set of circumstances in which it was never intended to be used-- a situation in which the choice being made involves physical assault and willful deception -- and using that as a reason to throw out the entire argument/B]

If we use reasoning, can we forget that reasoning when we don't intend to use it? If I say abortion is wrong because every life is sacred, am I allowed to have different reasoning regarding the death penalty because I don't intend for that argument to be used where It does not help my opinion's?

There ISN'T any assault on the unborn child in an abortion??

My point being is that MBMC (I might have just made that acronym up) has all my support in the world, until it involves another person. As a man and a dad, i find it appalling that even though half of that child came from me, I give up all rights and decisions regarding that because its under her skin and not mine? Of course if a woman decides to have it and not include you, suddenly its the man's responsibility. Where's the justice in that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Look, I know your comparison sucked.

Now you do.


LOL, I remember you considered this your greatest internets victory ever.

It didn't make your comparison any better either.

---

Is that why you turned tail like a little bitch and never followed my posts around for a week like you normally do?

Where's the justice in pregnancy? You say you've been through it with your wife, so be honest: what did you really contribute to the equation besides the toils of nutting inside her and maybe, if you're a good guy, being supportive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

Is that why you turned tail like a little bitch and never followed my posts around for a week like you normally do?

---

You were here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

If we use reasoning, can we forget that reasoning when we don't intend to use it? If I say abortion is wrong because every life is sacred, am I allowed to have different reasoning regarding the death penalty because I don't intend for that argument to be used where It does not help my opinion's?

---

That's not reasoning. That's defensiveness.

Also, if you think abortion is wrong but support the death penalty, it's not because you occasionally value all life equally. Rather, it's because you generally value certain lives over others. As well as your ability to act as decision maker when it comes time to assign value. The fact that you advocate the need for a case-by-case basis negates your claim of holding every life sacred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

There ISN'T any assault on the unborn child in an abortion??

---

The question is not whether an unborn child is or isn't assaulted during the abortion process, but whether or not such an assault would be analogous to the genital mutilation of an adult male.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

My point being is that MBMC (I might have just made that acronym up) has all my support in the world, until it involves another person. As a man and a dad, i find it appalling that even though half of that child came from me, I give up all rights and decisions regarding that because its under her skin and not mine? Of course if a woman decides to have it and not include you, suddenly its the man's responsibility. Where's the justice in that?

---

This doesn't address your conflation of two different arguments or theoretical viewpoints.

If you're talking about your support of the feminist argument for reproductive justice, in which women are the ultimate decision makers in how/if/when they reproduce, then there are very few situations in which it would not involve another person. If, however, you're referring to the more general argument for personal autonomy, as I believe you are, then that argument doesn't actually have your support. Or, perhaps it does, but it is a blatantly gendered support.

Just as it's impossible to both support the death penalty AND value every life as sacred, it is impossible to support personal autonomy only in cases in which no one else is affected by one's autonomous choices. You've now dropped the element of weaponized female, but have instead put forth an argument in which you support female autonomy ONLY in the event that there is nothing and no one else with a legitimate claim to the use of a woman's body. Female autonomy then is awarded only when she has first determined that no one else wants to make her decisions for her.