General

Re: Re-defining Rape

BrianAnderson — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:24:21 GMT

It really doesn't even sound to me like it's trying to re-define 'rape'. I think the entire thing is regarding forcible rape as opposed to coerced when the girl is drunk or on drugs or something.

SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--

‘(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; or

‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

[source]

Re: Re-defining Rape

scineram — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 07:55:38 GMT

What does the text say?

Re-defining Rape | Drunk 'Aggression'

BrianAnderson — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 07:34:08 GMT

People are going absolutely crazy over the GOP bill that "re-defines" rape. I realize they're doing this so that federal funds aren't used for abortion when a girl is raped, and they're trying to make it hard for a girl to lie, but I have a question.

Would this new definition pertain to rape in general, or just in the case when an abortion is requested due to being raped?

EDIT: This actually leads to another topic we can possibly talk about. If a girl is drunk and a sober guy has sex with her, would it be deemed aggression if she never objected to it but didn't really know what she was doing? I would say it's not legally aggression on part by the guy because, while it's clearly not the same thing, the girl would be responsible for her actions if she were to buy a bunch of things online with her credit card while drunk.