Missouri Republican: 'Legitimate rape' rarely causes pregnancy

[Jacob]

Anti-abortion laws are what it takes to be compared to the Handmaid's Tale?

Anti-abortion laws and the spurious bullshit reasoning that place women as secondary to any fetus they might carry, yes. The more of that, and there's been more of it these last years, the more you're moving towards the Handmaid's Tale.

[garbon]

Anti-abortion laws and the spurious bullshit reasoning that place women as secondary to any fetus they might carry, yes. The more of that, and there's been more of it these last years, the more you're moving towards the Handmaid's Tale.

Well I suppose one has the right to use overblown rhetoric. Personally, I feel that's a poor citation of said dystopian tale.

Also the secondary bit seems odd given that one of the offenders, Ryan, allows for loopholes where the mother's health is endangered - per what Viking posted.

[Viking]

So we shouldn't care that it gets said now because it was said before? Similarly, we shouldn't care that several prominent Republicans have denounced said reasoning?

R&R disagreed with the statement and supported a right to abortion in the case of rape. This does not change the fact that religious republicans have for many decades now been inventing facts about biology that are not true and then using them to justify denying women abortions in the case of rape. Religious lobby groups have been repeating these untrue facts for this whole period. This attitude is central to Republican values as seen by Ryan (a plastic machine politician if there ever was one) not only tacetly accepting, but sponsoring laws for this very end.

This is a problem because, well, the first amendment and freedom of religion and stuff like that.

[Jacob]

Well I suppose one has the right to use overblown rhetoric. Personally, I feel that's a poor citation of said dystopian tale.

One can feel that, I suppose.

Also the secondary bit seems odd given that one of the offenders, Ryan, allows for loopholes where the mother's health is endangered - per what Viking posted.

One should realize we're talking about movement in a continuum, and movement in a particular direction.

[Ideologue]

OK, I'll admit it: too bad.

But I dunno, it's a question worth asking: would you vote for someone who would (and let's assume could) roll back Roe v. Wade, if you agreed with all their other policies and were assured that they would also be enacted?

I think you should write a law about it rather than have Scalia imagine what Thomas Jefferson would have thought about it. This is a problem best solved by writing a good law with the best possible knowledge we have on the issue today.

Any law has to be constitutional.  For all the faults of originalism (basically, all of it), saying originalism sucks does not avoid the question of constitutionality, it simply transfers it to a different interpretive scheme.

But the hypo isn't really about RvW--nor was it entirely directed at garbs--it's about whether one would vote against beliefs in order to vote for one's interests, and to what extent.

I mean, I'd have to give it some thought myself.  I probably wouldn't, because I know any party that took away procretive rights would be on my ass any time now, for liking bukkake movies or Soviet flags or fucking a proud woman of color.  But take away the slippery slope (and, I suppose, the tangential personal interest I have in potential mothers of my zygotes having the option), and I'd definitely consider selling another group out for my own well-being.

[Ideologue]

I think that hooplah over the term "forcible rape" is just hooplah, given that it never actually had a definition. Isn't rape by definition - forcible?

Depends upon how the adjective is construed.

Fwiw, statutory rape is not by definition forcible; if it is, it's just rape.

[Viking]

I think that hooplah over the term "forcible rape" is just hooplah, given that it never actually had a definition. Isn't rape by definition - forcible?

You tell that to the geniuses who are so keen on distinguishing between different types of rape for their various bits of legislation rolling back reproductive rights.

The point is that if you get raped and get pregnant then it wasn't rape and consequently you can't claim being a victim of rape as an excuse to get an abortion.

That's fucking evil if you ask me.

[CountDeMoney]

learn to link seedy

Why, none of these guys are going to read it.

[DGuller]

learn to link seedy

Why, none of these guys are going to read it.

[Viking]

learn to link seedy

Why, none of these guys are going to read it.

yes, people are determined not to have their beliefs challenged

[CountDeMoney]

I think that hooplah over the term "forcible rape" is just hooplah, given that it never actually had a definition. Isn't rape by definition - forcible?

I know you're all up on gay issues and whatnot, and don't really have a dog in the abortion fight, but you should really pay more attention to what your fave-raves on the right have been trying to do in legislatively qualifying the act of rape in recent years.

[CountDeMoney]

The point is that if you get raped and get pregnant then it wasn't rape and consequently you can't claim being a victim of rape as an excuse to get an abortion.

That's fucking evil if you ask me.

You do know this Todd Akin guy is on the House Science and Technology Committee, don't you?

[Ideologue]

learn to link seedy

Why, none of these guys are going to read it.

I read it, now I want to know WTF "sperm priming" is.  This seems to fall within my range of interests.

[Viking]

The point is that if you get raped and get pregnant then it wasn't rape and consequently you can't claim being a victim of rape as an excuse to get an abortion.

That's fucking evil if you ask me.

You do know this Todd Akin guy is on the House Science and Technology Committee, don't you?

That just makes it worse.

[Viking]

Any law has to be constitutional.  For all the faults of originalism (basically, all of it), saying originalism sucks does not avoid the question of constitutionality, it simply transfers it to a different interpretive scheme.

But the hypo isn't really about RvW--nor was it entirely directed at garbs--it's about whether one would vote against beliefs in order to vote for one's interests, and to what extent.

I mean, I'd have to give it some thought myself.  I probably wouldn't, because I know any party that took away procretive rights would be on my ass any time now, for liking bukkake movies or Soviet flags or fucking a proud woman of color.  But take away the slippery slope (and, I suppose, the tangential personal interest I have in potential mothers of my zygotes having the option), and I'd definitely consider selling another group out for my own well-being.

The problem is that it is a rights issue rather than a medical ethics issue.