[subego]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...S-112hr3ih.pdf

This bill pertains to the use of federal funds for abortions.

As is often the case, there are exemptions in the case of rape. This bill adds the qualifier "forcible" for it to be exempt (section 309).

If you're going to have an exemption for rape in the first place, is splitting this sort of hair a good idea?

[reader50]

Perhaps they don't want to cover rape when she was drugged.

[subego]

I've heard that put forth. Seems an odd distinction.

Likewise, under a lot of circumstances it seems to me that would still qualify as forcible anyway.

[reader50]

It may be a responsible financial decision. If the majority of rapes involve drugs, this will dramatically limit the cost of the bill.

Finally, the budget balanced in our lifetimes. Though I had no idea rape coverage was such a big part of the budget.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by reader50 

It may be a responsible financial decision. If the majority of rapes involve drugs, this will dramatically limit the cost of the bill.

I don't think cost is a justification to reject a majority of cases from government protection: "If the majority of burglars are male, then exempting males will dramatically reduce the costs of enforcement." Or "if the majority of unemployed use OS X, then excluding OS-X-users will dramatically limit the cost of unemployment insurance." If you're going to turn a blind eye to the majority of cases, then why have the protection at all?

[imitchellg5]

Why does legislation like this always focus on what to do with victims of rape instead of stopping rape?

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't think cost is a justification

your sarcasmeter needs adjusting.

This is badly worded. If they want to leave out the statutory cases, where the woman is willing but underage, then be clear about this, but ruling out other victims of rufies, intimidation, etc, just puts us back into the "she was asking for it because she was there" mentality.

[subego]

I'd like to think it's simply a case of bad wording, but there's more than a page worth of signatories who seem willing to let fly with it. Or at the least, have staffs who are willing to let fly with it.

Edit: One would hope at least a few people involved are aware of the implications of writing laws which use terms that have no legal definition.

[subego]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Why does legislation like this always focus on what to do with victims of rape instead of stopping rape?

To be fair, this bill is only related to rape insofar that it's an exception. An argument could be made this isn't the appropriate place for such legislation.

Of course, considering how addicted Congress is to earmarks, most people would find that argument a touch ironic.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by subego 

To be fair, this bill is only related to rape insofar that it's an exception. An argument could be made this isn't the appropriate place for such legislation.

Of course, considering how addicted Congress is to earmarks, most people would find that argument a touch ironic.

Sure, I was speculating more generally though. A lot of the more developed African countries and Middle Eastern countries have been actively working on ways to prevent rape, it just seems interesting to me that something like this hasn't been tried in the US.

[ghporter]

There is no standard definition of "forceable" rape, and in many states the qualifications are pretty arcane in any case. Most analyses I've read of this bill point out that statutory rape and incestuous rape are probably not covered, nor would be rape after the use of intoxicants to disable the victim. In some states, there's a specific distinction made in the law that makes forceable sex with a spouse a different kind of rape, which excludes it from the broader definition of rape.

The Attorney General of the State of Texas, Gregg Abbot, has worked for his entire tenure in that office to provide victim support programs, including dependable and court-accepted forensic examiners to collect evidence from rape victims. That's what Congress should be doing. Instead, a lot of old, white guys who never met anyone who'd even had a brush with someone who could hurt them have decided that limiting the definition of rape so as to give a few of their constituents a little bit of a warm fuzzy and show how "pro life" they are. These elected officials are in the process of officially re-victimizing thousands of women by preventing them from terminating pregnancies that were started against their will. That is just plain wrong.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

nor would be rape after the use of intoxicants to disable the victim.

I'm curious what the reasoning is behind this.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

your sarcasmeter needs adjusting.

Oops! I'll have that looked at

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Most analyses I've read of this bill point out that statutory rape and incestuous rape are probably not covered

I'm confused again, because the bill specifically says "(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the
pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest;"

Are you referring (in bold) only to adult incest?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm curious what the reasoning is behind this.

There is none. The folks behind this are unreasoning neanderthals.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm confused again, because the bill specifically says "(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the
pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest;"

Are you referring (in bold) only to adult incest?

Any incest is a Bad Thing, right? The bill makes the unwarranted assumption that once a woman is 18, she's fully able to tell Uncle Joe to get stuffed; this is not the case in far too many incest situations. (I hate knowing this stuff, but I spent a long time as a sexual abuse counselor...)

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Any incest is a Bad Thing, right? The bill makes the unwarranted assumption that once a woman is 18, she's fully able to tell Uncle Joe to get stuffed; this is not the case in far too many incest situations. (I hate knowing this stuff, but I spent a long time as a sexual abuse counselor...)

I'd like to think the rationale here is more based on it being unreasonable to expect a minor to carry a pregnancy to term in a healthy manner.

[ghporter]

...or these legislators accept that they can't shove "forcing a minor incest victim to carry a pregnancy" down the people's throats. I don't think they actually have thought through the rationale for their specifications, to be honest. I hope that the sponsors of this bill will be amenable to negotiating some adjustments to their verbiage so that they have to voice their real purpose in the bill and so that the people can have a say in what the law actually does.

Yes, I do have a pretty large problem with being patted on the head and told to "let us take care of that for you." I suppose it shows.

[subego]

I kind of find a willingness to compromise on this sort of thing weird in and of itself.

I mean, if the argument is "it's a life", it seems to me the circumstances of the conception are irrelevant, as is the age of the mother.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by subego 

I kind of find a willingness to compromise on this sort of thing weird in and of itself.

I mean, if the argument is "it's a life", it seems to me the circumstances of the conception are irrelevant, as is the age of the mother.

Yep. So it's not a matter of principle for most of these law makers. It's almost certainly a matter of "how I look to the anti-abortion folks back home" for nearly all of 'em.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Yep. So it's not a matter of principle for most of these law makers. It's almost certainly a matter of "how I look to the anti-abortion folks back home" for nearly all of 'em.

Here inlies the problem with the Pro-Life stance and why I believe Roe V Wade is the law of the land. I think it's mistaken however to say these lawmakers are without principle, but if they are to have any legislative success, they'll have to choose their battles. Folks who support the right to choose an abortion do so generally without limitation or disagreement other than at what point in the pregnancy is the abortion still acceptable. Pro-Life on the other hand has always been split by the arguments of rape, incest, and health of the mother. I think your statement is a reflection of your own bias and not an honest look at the legislative process.

It is understandably viewed as rigid and cold to expect a rape or incest victim to carry the criminal's offspring to term or to risk one's own life in childbirth. While the criminal's offspring is certainly fully human and the health of mother essentially pits "human" vs "human", it is not politically shrewd to put the lives of the remaining 98.7% of fetuses on the line for unpopular arguments such as; "but these cases comprise only 1.3% of all abortions". The inescapable fact is they still comprise 1.3% of all abortions performed in the US and this is a viable argument for most.

It is not a lacking in principle, it is principle conformed to the political process which is never as black and white as you propose. Do legislators want you to believe they are acting in your interest? Of course. Does this mean they are necessarily without principle in so-doing? Absolutely not. If I could pass legislation tomorrow that offered one "abortion voucher"; I could cover the overwhelming majority of rape and incest cases and eliminate the repeat-abortion which constitutes almost half the abortions performed saving over 1800 lives a day or... I could surrender to the status quo and lose 3700 lives a day.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It is understandably viewed as rigid and cold to expect a rape or incest victim to carry the criminal's offspring to term...

As opposed to allowing them to take an innocent life?

Unless I mistake your meaning, that's flat-out insane.

[andi*pandi]

I understand eBuddy perfectly, he worded it very well.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by subego 

As opposed to allowing them to take an innocent life?

Unless I mistake your meaning, that's flat-out insane.

Read his last paragraph, he actually has a quite brilliant solution.

[Lint Police]

it's really a simple solution...

you get knocked up, you pay for it. you want to have an abortion, you pay for it. the government shouldn't be involved in any form. i am not going to tell you to keep your legs together, and you don't ask for money when the magic happens.

it's your moral dilemma, not mine. can't afford a kid, or an abortion, get a loan. making payments to kill your fetus might make you think twice. or better yet, adoption. hell, maybe we can allow insurance companies to start a new "oopsie" plan. when you are a dumb teen, you (or your mommy and daddy) can buy in just in case. maybe then we will have the money to pay for those occasions when it really is rape or incest.

i am past the point of tolerance for the stupidity of the left and the right. get out of individual business and stop asking for my money to pay for others mistakes.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

i am past the point of tolerance for the stupidity of the left and the right. get out of individual business and stop asking for my money to pay for others mistakes.

Let the free market decide™

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

As opposed to allowing them to take an innocent life?

Unless I mistake your meaning, that's flat-out insane.

You've chopped a substantial portion out of my post to be argumentative. Simply put, I'm talking about a greater good under situations beyond our immediate control. When a doctor is faced with a hopelessly large group of critically injured people, he will quickly make decisions on how his efforts are best spent. His decision may allow some of the most critically injured to pass so that many more will be saved. Does this really make the doctor insane?

I think you've mistaken my meaning.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by subego 

As opposed to allowing them to take an innocent life?

Unless I mistake your meaning, that's flat-out insane.

How much more do you want to heap upon a rape victim? The rape victim, a woman who was brutalized, had her security and sense of personal control stolen from her, endured society thinking she "asked for it," and had her ability to experience security and intimacy permanently destroyed, has suffered abominally. And once this woman is pregnant, you seem to suggest that she should now happily pay for the care and support of the child of the person who brutalized her. Really? Is that not insane itself?

I can't tell how much to attribute to a lack of knowledge about rape, and how much to attribute to "just make her bear this burden because subego feels better about it."

[subego]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Read his last paragraph, he actually has a quite brilliant solution.

I did.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And once this woman is pregnant, you seem to suggest that she now pay for the care and support of the child of the person who brutalized her. Really? Is that not insane itself?

Absolutely.

What I am saying is that is less insane than taking an innocent life.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You've chopped a substantial portion out of my post to be argumentative.

The whole point of this subfourm is to be argumentative. You can assume I'm being argumentative by participating.

Now, I chopped a significant portion out of your post because that portion did not prompt or address my question.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Simply put, I'm talking about a greater good under situations beyond our immediate control. When a doctor is faced with a hopelessly large group of critically injured people, he will quickly make decisions on how his efforts are best spent. His decision may allow some of the most critically injured to pass so that many more will be saved. Does this really make the doctor insane?

This is a false analogy. You note the doctor has to make decisions "quickly". This is because time is a factor which no one can control.

What you're talking about is someone who has to make a decision based on the opinions of their constituency. While perhaps not under the direct control of the legislator, it is by definition under someone's control.

The buck has to stop somewhere. Someone is holding the opinion it's acceptable to take an innocent life under those circumstances.

[ghporter]

Clarify please... what specifically "is less insane than taking an innocent life?" Repeating the brutalization and victimization of the rape victim? I hardly agree, as the concept that a fertilized egg or blastocyst is an independent life lacks scientific support. Since most "spontaneous abortions" (miscarriages) are so early that the woman doesn't even know she's pregnant, there's also the idea that perhaps The Almighty doesn't think that every fertilized egg is equally deserving of the resources and burdening of the mother.

I'll add one more issue. Most states lack specific statutory guidance that permanently strips the rapist of any and all rights connected to offspring from said rape. Yes, the rapist can repeatedly victimize his victim through "parental visitation." And often through demanding some sort of partial custody and monetary support for that custody. Pretty bass ackward, don't you think?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

What I am saying is that is less insane than taking an innocent life.

I can appreciate that subego, but this is not necessarily the prevailing view. When you combine those for unfettered access to abortion with those who would make exceptions for rape, incest, and health of mother (which you excluded from my earlier statement), and pit them against those who stand firmly opposed to abortion - you end up with legalized abortion in all cases. IMO, this is a situation that is beyond a pro-lifer's immediate control and like the doctor in the scenario I offered earlier, I'm willing to acknowledge a wider range of views to create some opportunity of greater good.

Is that really insane?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Clarify please... what specifically "is less insane than taking an innocent life?" Repeating the brutalization and victimization of the rape victim?

Yes. This is less insane than premeditated murder.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I hardly agree, as the concept that a fertilized egg or blastocyst is an independent life lacks scientific support.

Personally, I agree with you, but I'm not trying to split hairs over what abortions get federal funding and which don't, like our legislators are. Since they have decided to do so, I'm calling their rationale into question.

[andi*pandi]

Handy chart:

lunatic fringe< abortion AOK any ol' time <<<<<< under 3 mos or medical problems <<< ??? middle ground ???>>>only for victims of crime/health of mother >>>>>>> abortion never ever >lunatic fringe

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When you combine those for unfettered access to abortion with those who would make exceptions for rape, incest, and health of mother (which you excluded from my earlier statement)...

Just to be clear, I excluded it because I'm not arguing it. It's an entirely different set of circumstances with an entirely different metric (both legally and culturally) for determining acceptability. They shouldn't be lumped together any more than self-defense and murder should be.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

...and pit them against those who stand firmly opposed to abortion - you end up with legalized abortion in all cases...

The buck you're passing still needs to land somewhere. This situation can exist only with people (those who would make exceptions) holding the opinion there are specific, non-physical, health related reasons where it's acceptable to take an innocent life during pregnancy.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm calling their rationale into question.

The question is, as far as I'm concerned, just how much compromise self-styled "pro life" legislators are willing to accept. From this aisle seat, it's almost all looked like a show without any substance. There are probably two or three members of Congress who do not compromise any of their principles...but of course since compromise is the heart of the democratic political process, they don't seem to get much done. If the majority of members were at least honest about "trying to represent their varied constituencies' views" (which I believe is at the root of most politicians' real motivations), they'd look better as people and less hidebound.

I free acknowledge that my personal views on certain subjects are not universal. But I have quite a lot of real, personal experience in rape victim support and intervention, and how very difficult simply being the victim is throughout the entire process. The US justice system tends to make recovery harder than it needs to be, even in the most supportive states. Denying any rape victim what is for most is an essential level of control of their own bodies - deciding whether or not to carry a child fathered by any particular man, especially her rapist - is cruel, inhumane, and actively victimizes her yet again.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

The buck you're passing still needs to land somewhere. This situation can exist only with people (those who would make exceptions) holding the opinion there are specific, non-physical, health related reasons where it's acceptable to take an innocent life during pregnancy.

Yeah it lands squarely at the feet of political reality and the complexity of sexual assault. The fact is, not everyone thinks like you do and unless you can cite some psychiatric expertise or explain to me why you're the template of mental health, your indictment of insanity is meaningless.

Let's be clear here subego, this situation can only exist when someone decides they are going to take sex from a woman forcibly and impregnate her. In 98.7% of abortion cases, a selfish decision leads to a selfish choice that victimizes someone else. In these cases there is one victim to consider; the innocent life. In the case of rape and incest there are two victims and two innocent lives to consider. It is understandable that people would place the lion's share of their compassion in the innocent victim of forcible rape who will live with this incident the rest of her life regardless of her choices.

Are you really having a difficult time understanding this or are you trying a new argument on for size?

[ebuddy]

nevermind...

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Handy chart:

lunatic fringe< abortion AOK any ol' time

Up here in Canada, this is the legal status of things. The electorate have no interest in any change, and the leaders of all the federal parties are satisfied with this situation. Just recently, the Conservative PM of Canada was being interviewed and completed rejected any desire to change things. He spoke of the need to "change hearts, not laws."

Sometimes the "fringe" is really what the majority really wants.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let's be clear here subego, this situation can only exist when someone decides they are going to take sex from a woman forcibly and impregnate her. In 98.7% of abortion cases, a selfish decision leads to a selfish choice that victimizes someone else. In these cases there is one victim to consider; the innocent life. In the case of rape and incest there are two victims and two innocent lives to consider. It is understandable that people would place the lion's share of their compassion in the innocent victim of forcible rape who will live with this incident the rest of her life regardless of her choices.

So it's compassionate murder? You're right then... other people don't think like I do.

People get executed for murder, do they get executed for rape? Are you really trying to argue rape justifies the murder of an innocent, or are you trying on an argument for size?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

From this aisle seat, it's almost all looked like a show without any substance.

Likewise.

Hope springs eternal, I guess.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by subego 

Are you really trying to argue rape justifies the murder of an innocent, or are you trying on an argument for size?

It's not murder.

[subego]

Is that the position of the people who sponsored the bill?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

So it's compassionate murder? You're right then... other people don't think like I do.

Perhaps they understand a little more about the political process than you. The fact of the matter is that abortion is already legal regardless of circumstance. H.R. 3 seeks to block funding for abortion. If the legal state of abortion today is any indication of where this legislation could go by convoluting it with historically popular arguments such as rape, incest, and health of mother, we'll find ourselves in a place where abortion is also funded without limitation. You may appreciate that of course, but there's no cause for reasoned people with a handle on precedent to play that game. This is sanity after all.

People get executed for murder, do they get executed for rape? Are you really trying to argue rape justifies the murder of an innocent, or are you trying on an argument for size?

Obviously, you and many others do not believe abortion is murder. Any attempt to sway legislation toward protecting the fetus will have to acknowledge the nature of the debate. Failure to do so now will likely end in the same failures of the past.

I'm not trying an argument here subego, I'm supporting one. You're trying to argue a point you don't believe and it's coming across stilted and frankly a little awkward. Love the zeal though.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Perhaps they understand a little more about the political process than you. The fact of the matter is that abortion is already legal regardless of circumstance. H.R. 3 seeks to block funding for abortion. If the legal state of abortion today is any indication of where this legislation could go by convoluting it with historically popular arguments such as rape, incest, and health of mother, we'll find ourselves in a place where abortion is also funded without limitation. You may appreciate that of course, but there's no cause for reasoned people with a handle on precedent to play that game. This is sanity after all.

You already made your point about the political realities, to which I responded this state of affairs can't exist without constituencies to support it. That is the precedent relevant to the process.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Obviously, you and many others do not believe abortion is murder.

Going only off your statements, I would include you in this number.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not trying an argument here subego, I'm supporting one. You're trying to argue a point you don't believe and it's coming across stilted and frankly a little awkward. Love the zeal though.

I'll step back as soon as someone else takes up the position.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Handy chart:

lunatic fringe< abortion AOK any ol' time <<<<<< under 3 mos or medical problems <<< ??? middle ground ???>>>only for victims of crime/health of mother >>>>>>> abortion never ever >lunatic fringe

Wow, I'm actually left-of-center on this issue?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

You already made your point about the political realities, to which I responded this state of affairs can't exist without constituencies to support it. That is the precedent relevant to the process.

Knowing the precedent has been set by existing constituencies, why is it lacking in principle to work within this reality for progress? I can't imagine you holding this "all or nothing" line on any other issue. Why this one using a premise you don't even buy?

Going only off your statements, I would include you in this number.

Fallaciously, yes. You're reading far more into my posts than you're reading from them.

I'll step back as soon as someone else takes up the position.

There are only two other posters in the PWL who I could imagine taking up this position and it seems even they've steered well clear of it, whatever it is.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Knowing the precedent has been set by existing constituencies, why is it lacking in principle to work within this reality for progress?

I'm not addressing the legislature, I'm addressing the constituencies. As I keep saying, the current state of affairs in the legislature cannot exist without constituents who hold the opinion exceptions are acceptable.

These constituents are not held by the constraints of working within the legislature, therefore your defense of them needing to cope with said restraints does not apply.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I can't imagine you holding this "all or nothing" line on any other issue. Why this one using a premise you don't even buy?

I assure you, for every generally accepted definition of premeditated murder of an innocent, I am all or nothing against it. Full stop.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Fallaciously, yes. You're reading far more into my posts than you're reading from them.

I always welcome clarification (no snark intended here).

Do you think abortion is premeditated murder?
If so, is abortion in the case of rape also premeditated murder?
If not, by what mechanism? Just compassion?

If that's the case, you'll have to forgive me raising my eyebrow at that. If it was said in almost any other context that compassion justified premeditated murder of an innocent, I'd be surprised if you didn't do the same.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not addressing the legislature, I'm addressing the constituencies. As I keep saying, the current state of affairs in the legislature cannot exist without constituents who hold the opinion exceptions are acceptable.

Right, you're asking me to psychoanalyze those who would allow for exceptions. You've attributed to this constituency the ideal that abortion is murder, then claim their insanity by supporting murder in the cases of rape and incest. This is why I claimed you're being argumentative.

A. Perhaps this constituency does not believe abortion is murder; more akin to kicking puppy dogs. They'd rather you not kick puppy dogs, but if absolutely necessary under specific circumstances... kick away. Or maybe they believe that abortion is killing, not unlike war and that there are circumstances in which killing may be justified for what they deem a greater concern. How should I know?

B. You cited what you felt was a logical disconnect by allowing for these exceptions when in reality, they're merely acknowledging the nature of the debate in the letter of a law they'd like to see get passed.

I assure you, for every generally accepted definition of premeditated murder of an innocent, I am all or nothing against it. Full stop.

But in the context of abortion you do not accept the definition of premeditated murder, therefore your premise is disingenuous and while debate is the purpose of this forum, flame-baiting is generally frowned upon even here.

I always welcome clarification (no snark intended here).
Do you think abortion is premeditated murder?
If so, is abortion in the case of rape also premeditated murder?
If not, by what mechanism? Just compassion?

There are generally four classes of murder: 1. intentional murder; 2. a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; 3. a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and 4. murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies.

IMO, 98.7% of abortions fit most neatly under #3. Abortion in the case of rape and incest to a lesser degree in that it does not fit quite as neatly into #3 and lacks much of the malice aforethought and/or extreme recklessness typically associated with this class of murder. I am of a minority view that in its infinite nobility and principle has watched legislation move away from acknowledging the fetus as a life worthy of Constitutional protections regardless of circumstance. I'd like to see my legislators act in a way that demonstrates the ability to learn from the mistakes of the past and believe the amendment related to rape, incest, and health of mother gives H.R. 3 a better chance of passage. This is wise, sane, and principled representation given the complexity of the political process.

If that's the case, you'll have to forgive me raising my eyebrow at that. If it was said in almost any other context that compassion justified premeditated murder of an innocent, I'd be surprised if you didn't do the same.

Yes, but indeed it wasn't said. You said this, attributed it to the view you found distasteful, and deemed your caricature of their view insane.