Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Should Abortions Be Limited To Cases Of Forcible Rape?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Ever since Akin's opinion on rape, pregnancy, and abortion hit the media, I have been seeing the terms "legitimate rape" and "forcible rape" pop up. Personally, I have always thought of rape as having sex with someone who does not or cannot consent. According to the FBI, forcible rape is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded. That seems pretty straightforward except I wonder what threat of force entails. Would holding a weapon be enough or would you have to say do this or i'll use it? It seems like in the past Akin, vice presidential candidate Ryan, and a host of other unnamed politicians would have liked to limit abortion rights to victims of forcible rape.


The Todd Akin episode invited a closer look at Ryan's record on abortion and social issues. While Ryan has flatly rejected Akin's reference to "legitimate rape," Ryan's name and his vote are tied to instances in which the term "forcible rape" appeared in legislation. The bills sought to place limits on access to abortion or health insurance coverage for an abortion.Three years ago, the then-39-year-old congressman voted for an abortion-related amendment called "Limitations on Abortion Mandates."
That proposed amendment was blocked in what was a Democratic-controlled House Ways and Means Committee. The Johnson failed amendment did specify limited exceptions, permitting abortion coverage including when the life of the mother is at stake and in line 16 of the proposed text "... unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of forcible rape or incest."
More recently and more widely covered, Ryan was among a much larger group of 186 co-sponsors that included Akin of H.R. 5939, "To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections...."
Again, the text of the 2010 bill, typically written by committee senior staff, included nearly the same wording as his July 2009 amendment with the term "forcible rape." The language in lines 15 and 16 reads: "(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of forcible rape, or incest with a minor...."
Aides to the Romney-Ryan campaign say the congressman has been "clear and consistent that rape is rape." Ryan did not defend the term "forcible," saying this week, "There is no splitting hairs over rape."

Source

Ryan claims to have always held the view that "rape is rape" but I feel like hes just trying to make himself more palatable to the general public. I have an issue with "forcible rape" being an requirement for someone to receive or receive funding for an abortion. I mean not all instances of rape are violent in nature. Clearly there are people out there who believe rape victims should only be able to receive abortions if their pregnancy resulted from forcible rape. There have to be some on ATS. What do you think? Should abortions by rape victims be limited to cases of forcible rape?

And to preempt any conversation about the behavior of rape victims I present this analogy which I stumbled upon, I have no clue who created it.


Man: Hello, I'd like to report a mugging.
Officer: A mugging, eh? Where did it take place?
Man: I was walking by 21st and Dundritch Street and a man pulled out a gun and said, "Give me all your money."
Officer: And did you?
Man: Yes, I co-operated.
Officer: So you willingly gave the man your money without fighting back, calling for help or trying to escape?
Man: Well, yes, but I was terrified. I thought he was going to kill me!
Officer: Mmm. But you did co-operate with him. And I've been informed that you're quite a philanthropist, too

Man: I give to charity, yes.
Officer: So you like to give money away. You make a habit of giving money away.
Man: What does that have to do with this situation?
Officer: You knowingly walked down Dundritch Street in your suit when everyone knows you like to give away money, and then you didn't fight back. It sounds like you gave money to someone, but now you're having after-donation regret. Tell me, do you really want to ruin his life because of your mistake?
Man: This is ridiculous!
Officer: This is a rape analogy. This is what women face every single day when they try to bring their rapists to justice.



+1 more 
posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
The majority:
Do you want the gov't to be able to tell you what you can and can't do with your own body?
--NO!!!

Case closed.

The rest is propaganda to sway popular opinion.
These people do not care about any of you in reality.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
No. Because then everyone will be saying they were raped just to get an abortion. It's sad but true. Americans love abortions.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Skript420
 

Yea, but not everyone who claims they were raped is believed, so that wouldn't work.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
NO..that would be exactly like telling a woman that her body is not hers.

I do not agree with abortion but in the end it is not my say or anyone else's as what others can or cannot do.

Is that not what the majority of ATS'ers are about...no one should be allowed to dictate what you allowed to do?

The religious should not be allowed to have a voice in the matter as their reality is based in fantasy and allow their lives to be run by a book that is written by men with the intention of keeping them in fear.

I am not against religious people...but if we let them rule...we would never have gotten out of the dark ages.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
NO..that would be exactly like telling a woman that her body is not hers.

I do not agree with abortion but in the end it is not my say or anyone else's as what others can or cannot do.

Is that not what the majority of ATS'ers are about...no one should be allowed to dictate what you allowed to do?

The religious should not be allowed to have a voice in the matter as their reality is based in fantasy and allow their lives to be run by a book that is written by men with the intention of keeping them in fear.

I am not against religious people...but if we let them rule...we would never have gotten out of the dark ages.


I agree. Star for you. What is it with "MINIMIZE THE GOV!" "DON'T LET THAT WOMAN HAVE HER RIGHT!"? This is contratiction, right?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Do you own your body or does the Corporate Entities in conjunction with the Government own your body?

Somatic Rights by way of the 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments. The government isn't going to regulate a damned thing in regards to how I modify and alter my body. If that involves me defending a woman's right to choose, then so be it (it helps that I actually believe that they have the right to choose). Self determination and autonomy right? If this is truly the United States then we owe it to ourselves to protect those two things.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 

Yea I had the same thought, the same people calling for smaller government are the same people wanting to limit the personal choices of others.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
What percentage of the people in Congress are male? And on the Supreme Court? Primarily... male. And why should a group that consists of mostly men tell a group that is ONLY WOMEN, what they can and can't do with their own bodies? Does a fetus have a soul? That's a 100 percent religious question. And even so, not all religions are against all abortions. There are religions that allow abortion. And not everyone believes in a religion. Does a fetus have memories, or thoughts, or is it just instincts? Moving, stretching, kicking.... I don't know. I think it is, or should be, a deeply personal choice and not one made lightly. I was adopted at birth and could easily have been aborted instead. But for me, as a male, to say women don't have control over their bodies, seems pretty darn sexist. If there is a God, then perhaps they will have to answer to him. This isn't slaughtering of small children, its a fetus, and while alive, hasn't lived outside the womb and cannot live outside the womb (other than late term abortions), so in some ways the fetus is an extension of the woman. If it were my wife, I should have some say in the matter, absolutely. Or my daughter if she is under legal age. And in case of rape.... how can we force someone to have that baby?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
No.

For the simple fact that you cannot legislate morality.

The only way to create a moral society is to cultivate the character of a people.

They will make the same decision one way or another.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
'Should Abortions Be Limited To Cases Of Forcible Rape?'

No.

Anything else I can help you with?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 



What is this? What is that for kinda stupid question? "Should it be limited?" The # man. Of course it should NOT!

Who are you to decide what somebody does to her body? Abortion should be allowed anytime. You can not controll others life dude, Why do you even care? Godamnit, I´m really pissed when people want to regulate abortion.

IT IS NOT OUR CHOICE TO MAKE! IF A WOMAN DECIDES SHE CAN NOT CARE FOR THE BABY, OR FOR WHATEVER REASON SHE WANTS TO DO AN ABORTION THEN LET HER DO IT!

Min your own damn buissnes and take care of yourself. Stop interfering with others life.



I cant even express the anger i feel towards peoplewho are against abortion.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I cant even belive how someone can ask that kinda question, I mean, ARE YOU #ING RETARDED?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Take away public subsidies but don't make it illegal

Just my 2 pence.

But really, why argue about abortion (STILL a right by national mandate) when habeas corpus is DEAD?

Seriously. Makes no sense.

What if I want an abortion BUT I'm locked up in prison with NO right to a fair trial under the auspices of NDAA? What then? The former ASSUMES the latter. I can't be free to have an abortion if I'm not FREE to begin with.

MAKES NO FREAKIN SENSE. Why not fight for the rights that we HAVE been stripped of versus the rights that are still in tact which actually RELY on the rights which have been stripped from us????
edit on 23-8-2012 by followtheevidence because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nettlas
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Who are you to decide what somebody does to her body? Abortion should be allowed anytime. You can not controll others life dude, Why do you even care? Godamnit, I´m really pissed when people want to regulate abortion.


Hmmm...anytime? So even at 9 months?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
If a woman makes a decision to not use birth control, then she is embracing the possibility that she may conceive.

Its their own fault they should live with the consequences. It wasn't an "accident" there's only one way you can get pregnant. And if they don't know that then they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

If a woman gets forcibly raped and she had no say in conception then yes I believe she can terminate the pregnancy. But other than that no.

It has nothing to do with their own body. What about that body that your taking the life from huh?
Who is going to speak for them.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal

Originally posted by Nettlas
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Who are you to decide what somebody does to her body? Abortion should be allowed anytime. You can not controll others life dude, Why do you even care? Godamnit, I´m really pissed when people want to regulate abortion.


Hmmm...anytime? So even at 9 months?


Nicely played.

You ask a specific question about when abortion is allowed, someone says abortion should be allowed at any time, and then you take that to mean up to 9 months.

Now that's impressive...




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 

Eh, its a legitimate question, "abortions should be allowed anytime" is weird phrasing if the intent of the statement is just that abortions should not be limited to victims of forcible rape.
edit on 23-8-2012 by acmpnsfal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Every person should be allowed to do with their own body, as well as what's inside it, what they want.

This extends to choices of recreational, self medicating, and stress relieving use of coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol, and other more controversial choices.

Keeping women from the right to abortion is another kind of violation.

How would men like it if it was put into legislation that all men accidentally getting a woman pregnant out of wedlock has to be arbitrarily neutered, or have an inch removed each time, or some other equally horrific violation of their body?

Maybe every man accidentally getting a woman pregnant, including cases of rape needs be forced into having a full sex change and caring for any resultant child?

How would that go?


edit on 23-8-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Uhh its not the other way around. They aren't going to forcibly take something out of you. Like your stating so its completely different.

If you can't live with the consequences then you shouldn't be doing the act in the first place. If you get pregnant its NO ONES fault but yours. You were educated on what causes pregnancy if your not ready for a child use birth control.

Is that so hard? I guess so.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join