tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post3628637086179927839..comments2024-03-28T11:33:16.271-05:00Comments on Adventus: A rape is a rape is a rapeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-31654550424716222122012-08-22T18:31:16.437-05:002012-08-22T18:31:16.437-05:00Rmj, you disagree with me, and the panel of women ...Rmj, you disagree with me, and the panel of women on the BBC disagree with me, so perhaps it's a good thing that what I see as a red herring came under discussion. One thing we learned is that Paul Ryan personally opposes abortion in the case of rape...is rape, is rape.<br /><br />I presume that to say the <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr212ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr212ih.pdf" rel="nofollow">"Sanctity of Life" bill</a> which Ryan co-sponsored is about limiting abortion would also be be a red herring, because the bill does not mention abortion but simply declares the personhood of a fetus from the moment of conception. Is it ever right to seek out motives behind proposed legislation?<br /><br />No state legislature has tried to use rape and incest as the only possible reasons to permit abortion, but in Louisiana the authorities are giving abortion clinics a hard time, and the legislature has passed laws that make women seeking abortions jump through through an ever-increasing number of hoops. I'd say the opponents of abortion are making progress. June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-41373574177663707202012-08-22T15:52:16.489-05:002012-08-22T15:52:16.489-05:00The rape discussion is a red herring, and we fall ...<i>The rape discussion is a red herring, and we fall into the trap.</i><br /><br />I listened to a panel of women from around the world on the BBC today (World Have Your Say) who disagree with you. The entire discussion, based on Akin's remark, was about the subject of "legitimate rape," not abortion.<br /><br />Not that they were right and you are wrong, but there are clearly two responses to the original comment, and I think both are legitimate. Indeed, I think one is more legitimate than the other.<br /><br />But to get there: do I think restrictions on rape are "assault"? I really don't know what to say, except that Roe v. Wade provided restrictions on rape which still fundamentally control. Planned Parenthood v. Casey abandoned the strict trimester restrictions of Roe, but until then the State was allowed to control access to abortion in the second trimester, and ban it outright in the third. After Casey, the state simply cannot impose an "undue burden" on the right to privacy which protects access to abortions. The harshest attempt to restrict that access now is based on federal funding for abortions. I don't think any state has passed a law restricting abortions in the first trimester to only cases of rape or incest, because if they did I don't think they'd pass Supreme Court review (or the court would have used it to overrule Roe and Casey).<br /><br />The abortion issue here is really the red herring, since it's actually a money issue, i.e., will the Feds pay for it? I agree with Charles Pierce, that if that's going to be the standard, I want to withhold my tax money that goes to Antonin Scalia's salary.<br /><br />Really, the "limited to rape & incest" exception is a thought experiment outside the question of trying to control federal funding to Planned Parenthood. It has no value in the real world because it is not now, and under the state of the current law cannot be, a standard for the only permissible abortions at all. Not unless Roe & Casey are going to be overruled; and, interestingly, no legislature has tried that yet.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-7606127214336480612012-08-22T11:42:56.523-05:002012-08-22T11:42:56.523-05:00Ideas don't matter. Things don't matter. P...<i>Ideas don't matter. Things don't matter. People matter.</i><br /><br />Yes. And Akin and Ryan dragged in the discussion of the meaning of rape in an attempt to limit further the already limited access to abortion, which is about people, aka women. The rape discussion is a red herring, and we fall into the trap.<br /><br />And I don't mean to imply that the discussion about rape doesn't need to continue, but the ultimate goal of Akin and his ilk is to make all abortions illegal, and this we must keep in mind, for they will not cease in their efforts. June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-39785417567776917402012-08-22T11:28:39.659-05:002012-08-22T11:28:39.659-05:00Maybe I'm not understanding you. You seem to b...Maybe I'm not understanding you. You seem to be sayig that restricting abortion access is not an assault on human beings. I think that's a perspective that is very convenient for someone who can never be pregnant to have.<br /><br />I've been pregnant, and happy to be so. It took a lot of time, money, and effort for me to get pregnant, and I was grateful to be pregnant and deliver a healthy baby. But I would never wish anyone to be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. That is about people. That's about identifying with real women, feeling their needs and wants and imperfections, rather than a fetus, a hypothetical person who can be innocent and perfect because only the woman carrying it has to deal with the reality. <br /><br />Limiting the definition of rape and restricting abortion access are both about controlling women. Sherrinoreply@blogger.com