Categories
antifeminism douchebaggery misogyny rape reactionary bullshit Uncategorized violence against men/women

>The Republicans take aim at pregnant rape victims.

>

He’s not crying for pregnant rape victims.

Let’s take a brief break from the man boobz on the internet to look at the man (and some women) boobz in Congress, specifically the Republicans (and a handful of Democrats) who are trying to push through a truly odious bill, The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, designed to make it harder for women who have been raped to get abortions. Here’s how the SF Chronicle sums it up:

Current law allows federal funds (usually for Medicaid) to be spent on abortions only for women who have been raped or are the victims of incest. We think those restrictions are bad enough, but the new class of House Republicans want more. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would outlaw the use of federal funds for abortion except in the case of “forcible rape.” The incest exemption would only apply to minors.

“Forcible rape” doesn’t have a legal definition, but in general the idea is to exclude pregnancies that result from date rape, statutory rape or rapes that happen when women are physically incapacitated.

So if you’re drugged and raped, and you get pregnant, too bad. If your father rapes you, and you get pregnant, too bad. Those rapes apparently don’t count.

As Amanda Marcotte puts it, the bill’s sponsors apparently

believe the misogynist stereotype that all women, especially those who claim to be ill or victims of crimes, are lying whores until proven otherwise.  Or just lying whores, regardless of the evidence they produce.  And so, to make sure those lying whores don’t get their hands on those delicious, orgasm-inducing uterine scrapings, the bill has language in it that, in essence, assumes that 70% of rape victims weren’t really raped.  The exception is only for “forcible rape”, which is vaguely defined, but in practice tends to mean that anything short of getting your ass beat down means you weren’t “really” raped.  Even if you’re a 13-year-old who was impregnated by a 30-year-old.  Also, if you happen to get pregnant by your abusive, rape-y father on your 18th birthday, you will get no funding to make sure you don’t give birth to your own brother.

In Salon, Sady Doyle puts the Republican push for the bill in a larger context, noting that the bill’s reference to “forcible rape”

brings us back to an ancient, long-outdated standard of rape law: “Utmost resistance.” By this standard, a rape verdict depended not on whether the victim consented, but on whether outsiders thought she resisted as hard as humanly possible. Survivors rarely measured up.

Meanwhile, Time magazine’s Amy Sullivan tried to figure out if there really were a lot of “false rape claims” being by made by wily money-hungry young pregnant women in an attempt to bilk the government out of money.  The answer, of course, is no.

Eligibility rules … differ by state, but many states are like Tennessee, which requires a doctor to certify that “there is credible evidence to believe that the pregnancy is the result of rape” and to attach “documentation from a law enforcement agency indicating the patient has made a credible report as the victim of incest or rape” before Medicaid will consider issuing payment for an abortion procedure. …

So that scourge of false rape reports–or even, let’s say, “non-forcible” rapes? It doesn’t exist. I couldn’t find numbers more recent than 2001, but these shocked me. In that year, the total number of abortions covered by Medicaid was 56. That’s all abortions for cases in which the mother’s life was in danger, the pregnancy was a result of incest, or in the case of rape. Another 25 were covered by state Medicaid programs. Even assuming that every single one of those abortions was to end a pregnancy caused by rape, that’s 81 abortions paid for in part with taxpayer dollars. Nationwide. That’s roughly $32,000 total for first trimester procedures.

So, yeah, this is not exactly what is busting the budget. Indeed, I imagine there are many rape victims who choose to pay out of pocket for an abortion, even if they can’t really afford it, rather than going through the humiliation of trying to prove they’ve been raped to the satisfaction of government bureaucrats.

UPDATE: The Republicans have removed the “forcible rape” language from the bill. But there is still plenty about the bill to hate. 

If you’re American, and want to do something about this bill, here’s one practical suggestion: There are a number of Democrats who have signed on to co-sponsor the bill. I suggest you contact them and let them know how you feel. You can find info on how to contact them on Pandagon.

Or you can contact your representative by clicking on the banner below:


 

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

90 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Reminds me of a story told by a male judge at a class I attended once.A woman came in asking for an injunction against harassment from the guy who raped her. The judge turned her down because she could not show a "series of events intending to harass the plaintiff" which was the legal standard at the time. Her question to the judge was "so I have to be raped more than once?"

John Dias
10 years ago

>And if you're the unborn child, too bad for you.

Captain Bathrobe
10 years ago

>Sorry, John. You can't be "pro-life" unless you can bring yourself to give two shits about a baby after it's been born as well as before. Until then, anything you say is hypocritical bullshit. So, really, nothing new on that front.

triplanetary
10 years ago

>And if you're the unborn child, too bad for you.You care about an unthinking clump of cells, but not about a living, thinking, feeling woman?That's just cold, man.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Triplanetary-not like she has any right to demand consideration. She is only there to incubate the male child.

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>Also, it's not like men go around raping women who don't deserve it. If she got knocked up, she was obviously asking for it. You know, even if she was a thirteen year old girl coerced by her older brother.

triplanetary
10 years ago

>If she got knocked up, she was obviously asking for it. If she didn't fight back hard enough, she secretly wanted it.Plus she was clearly seducing him, doing sexy stuff like taking off her jacket.Okay, I'm making myself ill here, I'm going to stop.

missyb9479
10 years ago

>The entire bill is fucked up.Right now some health insurance plans cover the cost of an abortion (mine, for example, pays 50%). It is totally their right to do this and is part of the free market system. But, under this law, individuals and companies can't use the tax deductions for buying health insurance if the plan pays for any part of an abortion except in cases of forcable rape.So, if your boss picked a plan because it had the best coverage and it just happens to also cover abortions… no tax credit for your company. The goal of this is to force insurance companies to not cover abortions at all or force people to have to convince their insurance carrier that they were raped before it could pay for the procedure. And that's what this is- a medical procedure. People have power over their own bodies. Full stop. End of story. For being the party that is about government staying out of people's lives they certainly seem to want to be involved in this. Can we call it a government takeover of healthcare? Don't get me wrong- the rape thing is all types of fucked up. But even if they changed the language this would still be a terrible bill. P.S. I'd love to see David's reaction to http://roissy.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/cheap-and-easy-ways-to-raise-your-value-to-a-girl/ why is it that the MRA guide to getting women is the same as the list of how to be an asshole that nobody likes? I mean, his plan might work but you'll end up attracting women with serious self-esteem issues and deep rooted problems. If you're into people who are emotionally damaged then go for it!

Pam
Pam
10 years ago

>If you're into people who are emotionally damaged then go for it!And then join an MRA site and complain about it!!

Joe
Joe
10 years ago

>Every woman impregnated against her will was once an unborn child.

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>@ MissySeriously! I saw the headline to Roissy's latest blog post on the Boob Roll and clicked, because I was curious about it. I thought it would be full of things like, "If your buddy has a nicer car than yours, borrow it for an evening," or "Make friends with the waitstaff at a small, classy bistro so you can impress her when you take her there."Instead, I ended up reading something that cross references pretty well with the Abuser Red Flag List put out by Heartless Bitches International: http://heartlessbitchesinternational.com/rants/manipulator/redflaglist.shtml.

nicko81m
10 years ago

>Captain Bathrobe said:"Sorry, John. You can't be "pro-life" unless you can bring yourself to give two shits about a baby after it's been born as well as before. Until then, anything you say is hypocritical bullshit. So, really, nothing new on that front."triplanetary said:"You care about an unthinking clump of cells, but not about a living, thinking, feeling woman?"Wow, the bigotry!Just because John's a man, it's automatically assumed that he may not give a shit about children. heh dumbass feminists

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Missy and Lady Vic: HA! I saw that and said to myself, "oh, more of the same old 'treat them like crap and they'll worship you' PUA crap from Roissy." Maybe I'm becoming jaded. I'll give it another look. ….

triplanetary
10 years ago

>Every woman impregnated against her will was once an unborn child.And I commit genocide every time I wash a load of socks. So what?

Captain Bathrobe
10 years ago

>No, Nick, I assume he doesn't give a shit about kids because he strikes me as the kind of person who doesn't give a shit about kids. Most pro-lifers don't–at least not after the kids are born. They shed crocodile tears for the poor baybeez while they're in the womb, then complain bitterly about having to pay taxes to those same kids once they're out. If John is not one of those types then he's free to say so, but I don't plan on holding my breath until he does.

Captain Bathrobe
10 years ago

>That should have read: "pay taxes to help those same kids."

Sandy
10 years ago

>"Every woman impregnated against her will was once an unborn child."That depends on when you believe existence begins. Because there is nothing it is like to be a three-week old fetus, I was not the fetus. I began to exist when I had my first thought and I will cease to exist when I have my last.But even if you believe that existence begins before that, you have the problem of agency. The mother, whose body the fetus feeds off of, has agency over the body. Even if the fetus exists as a person its host has the right to determine if it can continue to exist. You can no more force a mother to allow a fetus to continue to grow in her womb than you could force her to donate a kidney to save another person.

Yohan
10 years ago

>In most Western countries abortion is not a big issue between feminists and MRAs.Rules in most EU-countries are about as follows:1 – a woman can decide alone – but only up to 12 to 14 weeks pregnancy. At that time, nobody can see and know, that this woman is pregnant. The abortion must be done by a medical doctor, otherwise she would break the law.Often chemical abortion works and no surgery is required.2 – No medical doctor or nurse, neither independent nor as employee in a hospital, can be forced to carry out or to assist for an abortion.3 – After that time, 14 months pregnant, the child must be carried out and after birth it will be taken away (the mother will not see it even for a moment) for adoption. The woman might claim if asked by co-workers etc. that the baby was still-born, she can show even a medical certificate to the employer that she was admitted to a hospital for giving birth and was released from the hospital without the child.What's the problem?Of course laws in EU are not the best solution for feminists, but also not the best solution for anti-abortion-activists, but we all understand, you must arrange something 'in the middle', otherwise this discussion will never finish.it seems, US-feminists with their hateful rhetoric are just not mature enough to find an acceptable solution, even demanding very late abortion – see the following link and comments (by Amanda Marcotte)http://scribe.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/philly-doctor-case-shines-light-access-issuesLATE abortions should be outlawed.

triplanetary
10 years ago

>What's the problem?The problem is that a) third-trimester abortions are sometimes medically necessary, and b) no woman should ever, ever be forced to endure nine months of pregnancy because she was raped. If she chooses to, fine, but she should not be forced. And a woman who can't afford an abortion and can't receive ANY insurance or government assistance is being forced, make no mistake.you must arrange something 'in the middle', otherwise this discussion will never finish.Well, no. When one of the sides is a bunch of authoritarian, moralistic, woman-controlling asses, you don't need a solution that falls "in the middle."

booboonation
10 years ago

>:(*trigger warning*

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>@ David:It'd be interesting to see a comparison between Roissy's advice and Nightstorm's personal list of why having a girlfriend is a pain in the ass.

richard
10 years ago

>If feminists are pro abortion fine. Let feminsts pay for them. Don't make people who hate abortion and have a moral objection to them pay for them. Random Brother

Sandy
10 years ago

>1. It is not just feminists who are prochoice.2. People who are prochoice believe abortion is a right.

MissPrism
10 years ago

>Yohann's comment is gibberish. Abortion laws vary wildly within the EU, from liberal in the Netherlands to a near-total ban in Ireland. And you can't adopt out a 14 week foetus because it is 3 inches long.

richard
10 years ago

>@ SandyFair enough.Random Brother

Yohan
10 years ago

>MissPrism: Abortion laws vary wildly within the EU, from liberal in the Netherlands to a near-total ban in Ireland I said in MOST EU-countries and not in all EU-countries.Abortion laws do not vary 'wildly' within the EU, and in Netherlands – that's more the exception – it's 21 weeks, but for sure it is not, what US-feminists are demanding – they demand abortion rights up to giving birth.Ireland as the Catholic stronghold is against abortion but due to EU-regulation the Irish government cannot hold you back to cross the border of this little country for an abortion elsewhere and as EU-citizen, you do not need even a passport for your trip.For sure abortion is not a big issue in EU for most feminists and MRAs, there is no hateful feminist rhetoric and no much objection by MRAs to the present regulations.There is also wide support in EU for pregnant women who want to get rid of their unwanted child immediately after birth.Abortion is for sure much better regulated in EU than in USA.Also some Asian countries have lenient rules regarding abortion, like Japan, Singapore or China.

Yohan
10 years ago

>richard said… If feminists are pro abortion fine. Let feminists pay for them. Don't make people who hate abortion and have a moral objection to them pay for them.It depends, it's different from country to country. Here in Japan, neither abortion nor birth are covered by the National Health Insurance. Whatever the woman will decide, she has to pay in any case, abortion or birth.Japan does not consider a healthy pregnancy to be an illness, nor being an injury out of an accident.However, for any medical treatment in Japan you have to pay a part out of your own wallet, usually 10 to 30 percent of the medical bill.Generally, women have the choice of condoms, contraceptives, calculating their days of conception and if carefully done, pregnancy can be avoided in case of consenting adults.It's difficult to understand, why you should pay for the dentist yourself in Canada or USA and why abortion should be paid by the health insurance in these 2 countries.I do not talk here about rape, incest, pregnant younger than the age of consent etc… that's a different matter.Some people always demand, that health care and many other expenses should be totally free. This will never be the case. You cannot have it all. We know the communist system failed miserably. The state cannot pay for everything.

MissPrism
10 years ago

>Here is a map and summary of abortion laws in Europe, so we're arguing about facts rather than subjective assessments of the word "wildly". http://news.BBC.co.uk/1/hi/6235557.stmNote that Ireland isn't even the most restrictive state in the EU for abortion regulations, as Malta's ban does not include an exemption for the life of the pregnant woman. Poland only allows abortion to save the woman's life or health. Sweden allows abortion on request up to 18 weeks, Romania to 14 weeks, Netherlands provides abortions free of charge up to 13 weeks on request but up to 24 if the woman says she is in distress, and so on. I count that as "wildly", you may not.The procedure you claimed was in place in "most" EU countries, Yohann, in which a three inch foetus can be removed from the womb and put up for adoption, is imaginary and impossible.

Yohan
10 years ago

>MissPrism: The procedure you claimed was in place in "most" EU countries, Yohann, in which a three inch foetus can be removed from the womb and put up for adoption, is imaginary and impossible.Thanks for this link, it's a good summery of the situation in Europe.I think you misunderstood something out of my comment, Sorry, I do not really understand what you mean with this reply above.Anyway, distances between EU-countries are short, so what you cannot get in one country you get in another even without a passport, and when it's too late or the woman cannot decide for an abortion, it is easy for her after birth to give away her newborn.I think, in EU is much easier than in USA, abortion is not such a big issue.

Megan
10 years ago

>It's a little disingenuous to say that feminists are demanding 'abortion up till birth,' when the distinction that we would simply like medically necessary abortions to be available. Available as necessary. Not available on demand. Seriously, no one is arguing for that. I'm totally fine with elective abortions being restricted to the first trimester as they are. (If only anti-choice activists would stop trying to make barriers and delays to care) It just doesn't make sense to ban late abortions without regard to circumstance. No one is carrying a pregnancy for eight months and suddenly deciding they want to pop in for an abortion on their lunch break. These are people (couples, even!) who are making a heartwrenching decision they don't want to make, to end a pregnancy they wanted to keep, and the least we could do is not throw legal roadblocks in to make things more difficult.

cactuar-tamer
10 years ago

>Actually, Yohan, I live and work in Japan, am on the national health program, and should I ever get pregnant (which will not be happening), I am entitled to quite a bit of pregnancy benefits, equal to two thirds of my salary for "42 days before delivery and 56 days after delivery" .. .If I were a man with an unemployed, pregnant wife, I would be entitled to 350,000 yen per child of birth expenses. Of course, it isn't considered and illness, but it's not an entirely out of pocket affair either. I don't know what the situation is in America, but I'd wager it's better here. (I just read this off the 2007 copy of my statement of benefits, which is the only one I could find lying around the house. I believe I left the more current one at the office, but it's probably more or less the same I suppose.) Ah, and I'm the same poster as 'Megan' … accidentally commented with the wrong account at first.

Yohan
10 years ago

>@MeganAs an MRA from Europe and not religious, I do not have any problem about 'medically necessary' abortions at any time in case of an accident or during a dangerous illness etc. I do not have any problem with abortion on demand during the first 12 weeks in most EU countries (and in some Asian countries, too).Might be Malta and Ireland are against it, but the majority of the EU-countries … France, Germany, Italy and many others consider this as a good compromise for both groups, pro-life and pro-choice. You cannot please everybody regarding abortion, and the solution is somewhere between, just my opinion.Unfortunately USA is a legal chaos because of different laws in different federal states, with very aggressive pro-lifers often religious motivated on one side and hateful feminists for pro-choice under any circumstances on the other side. No one is carrying a pregnancy for eight months and suddenly deciding they want to pop in for an abortion on their lunch break. I am not so sure, I want to see 'late abortion on demand' without any medical reason to be outlawed. If you are 8 months pregnant, give birth one month later and give the child free for adoption.

Yohan
10 years ago

>cactuar-tamer said… Actually, Yohan, I live and work in Japan, am on the national health program, and should I ever get pregnant (which will not be happening), I am entitled to quite a bit of pregnancy benefits, equal to two thirds of my salary for "42 days before delivery and 56 days after delivery" .. .If I were a man with an unemployed, pregnant wife, I would be entitled to 350,000 yen per child of birth expenses. Yes, you can sign up for support/benefits when you register your pregnancy in the ward office in Japan. You will have to follow all procedures, like all required medical checks.However, as far as I know, if anything is paid to you and how much, depends on your income.Japan is considering low income people including foreigners with proper visa. If your application is successful, a good part of your expenses will be paid back within 3 months or so, I think.—–About abortion, this has for sure to be paid out of your own wallet. That's your private matter in Japan.

Joe
Joe
10 years ago

>> Every woman impregnated against her will was once an unborn child.Not sure how this got interpreted as a pro-life comment.I'm making the same point our Captain Bathrobe was making upthread. If you claim to care about the rights of unborn children, then you'd better still care about their rights in the event that once born, they are impregnated against their will.Apologies for being terse, but this is a perfect example of how it's practically impossible to discuss this issue. People on both sides are just chomping at the bit to get their talking points out, and if you do what I did and twist some of the "other" side's rhetoric to make a point, it goes whoosh.

Yohan
10 years ago

>Joe: If you claim to care about the rights of unborn children, then you'd better still care about their rights in the event that once born, they are impregnated against their will The unborn one is first, the born one is the follow-up step and is ready for life after several months.If we do not care about the unborn ones and abort them all before they are born, how can we take care about children after birth? From where should these children come from?

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>I feel like fainting-does anyone notice that Yohan is being, for once, rather sensible about an issue?

jupiter9
10 years ago

>"Anyway, distances between EU-countries are short, so what you cannot get in one country you get in another even without a passport, and when it's too late or the woman cannot decide for an abortion, it is easy for her after birth to give away her newborn."1. She has to pay to travel, pay for the abortion, pay to return.2. "Easy to give away her newborn." You clearly have never been pregnant. There is a huge wash of hormones that makes it possible for a woman to not kill the screaming pooping runt but instead love it. That makes it very much *not* easy to give it away. Even if her pregnancy is comfortable and easy, which most are not.You have to pay just to leave your car on a parking lot, and if the owner of the lot wants it removed, it is removed. Women have more rights than parking lots.

Joe
Joe
10 years ago

>> If we do not care about the unborn ones and abort them all before they are born …Who proposed aborting all fetuses? That would be insane. I thought this thread was about abortion in the case of rape.I agree with you that the policy solution to the vexing ethical dilemmas around abortion is "somewhere between" the extremes.

chocomintlipwax
10 years ago

>Jin-Yohan once again leaves out some facts while painting Japan as an abortion paradise.Not only does a person have to pay out of pocket for the abortion, but an abortion at 8 weeks will run you roughly (in US $) $1000. And it just goes up from there. You also need the father (or a man you trust to lie and pretend to be the father) to sign off on it. No abortion without a man's permission. Then there's the social aspect. Japanese doctors still discourage the birth control pill and women have grown to fear it, men shun condoms, and many rely on the "fingers crossed" method of birth control. Due to the culture, a lot of women don't feel equipped to argue (this is true in America and more true in Japan) for a condom or to argue against sex. Raping your girlfriend probably won't get you arrested, either. (Neither will beating your girlfriend–another matter entirely!) Sex ed is sorely lacking in Japan, so let's say she gets pregnant as a result of this and kind of does not want to have a baby yet …Social attitudes dictate that basically you "should" have the baby if you can afford it. The general attitude is that if the father can afford to raise the child, you have the baby. If he can't, you don't. So not only are you dealing with a culture that's weird about birth control and where women have little agency when it comes to sex and where you need a man's permission for an abortion … but then you also basically are at his whim with regards to having the baby. He wants the baby? You have the baby, unless you have a very sympathetic male friend and a lot of cash. He doesn't want the baby? You go get an abortion.Not exactly the most progressive, abortion-happy-friendly culture.

Pam
Pam
10 years ago

>> Every woman impregnated against her will was once an unborn child.Not sure how this got interpreted as a pro-life comment.I'm just hazarding a guess here, Joe, but it may have been interpreted as a pro-life comment because it sounds similar to something that is often said (and not only by men) to women who are either contemplating abortion or discussing abortion in general, "Don't forget that YOU were once an unborn child, and so YOU could have ended up being aborted!"Not to say that statements such as that are not said to men who are discussing abortion, I simply don't know whether they are or not.

Pam
Pam
10 years ago

>Most pro-lifers don't–at least not after the kids are born. They shed crocodile tears for the poor baybeez while they're in the womb, then complain bitterly about having to pay taxes to [help] those same kids once they're out.Those are my thoughts EXACTLY about most pro-lifers. One day they're out picketing abortion clinics and hospitals that provide abortions, and the next day they're out picketing social assistance offices for providing assistance to "lazy" single parents.

John Dias
10 years ago

>Most pro-abortion people that I've run across demand that pro-lifers either (A) become socialists or else (B) concede that an abortion is somehow humane to the abortion victim, namely the child, because otherwise that child would have been born into a life of poverty. And yet these same people support the criminalization (rightly so) of homicide against born children, even if the homicide was ostensibly done due to poverty reasons. This reveals a stark double standard, and a hypocrisy, by such pro-abortion ideologues; they say one thing (murder motivated by poverty should be illegal) but do another (abortion should be legal due to poverty).I believe that every parent is morally obligated to protect and provide for their offspring, and I believe that a fertilized egg is every bit as human as a fully-grown adult (it's certainly not a cow or a chicken; it's manifestly human). The difference is only a matter of development.Pro-abortion people also claim that legal abortion is justified because any fetus is not yet viable (i.e. it can't survive outside the womb). But the point in time where viability exists is variable, and with improved technology has been pushed back further and further in time. The premise behind the pro-abortion position about viability is that if a human being is not self-sufficient for survival, then it is justified for those who are responsible for that that human being to snuff out their life; responsibility for a life somehow justifies homicide against that life. If someone kills a dependent human being (such as a premature baby, or a hospital patient in a coma) merely because their life is dependent on the resources and attention of another person, most pro-abortion supporters agree that such a thing should be illegal. But this reveals another hypocrisy: they think that it should be legal to kill an unborn human being for being dependent on its mother, but illegal to kill a born human being for being dependent. (Some pro-abortion supporters, however, are frightfully consistent on this matter, supporting the killing not only of dependent unborn human beings but also the killing of vulnerable and dependent born human beings).You don't have to be a socialist to expect parents to nurture and protect their offspring; just because the polis isn't responsible for the welfare of newborn babies this doesn't justify arbitrarily killing them off.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Viability has been arrested at about 23 weeks for fifteen years John. There are exceptions to the rule (apparently one infant was born at 21 weeks and six days) however those are incredibly rare and require extreme measures to save the baby's life. Most of the time there is massive brain damage to the baby because of the measures having to be taken.So the claim that it has been pushed back further and further is simply not true-it has moved one week in thirty years (24 weeks was the extreme when I was born in 1979 and now it is 23 weeks.) Also, in a case like Tom DeLay's father, he had to be on a machine to live and most pro-choice and anti-choice people are fine with someone being removed from life support.

Yohan
10 years ago

>chocomintlipwax said… Jin-Yohan once again leaves out some facts while painting Japan as an abortion paradise.Not only does a person have to pay out of pocket for the abortion, but an abortion at 8 weeks will run you roughly (in US $) $1000. I never said in this thread that abortion in Japan is free of charge, I said exactly the opposite and why should medical care of any kind be free of charge for everybody? In many countries, USA etc., you even have to pay for the dentist…You also need the father (or a man you trust to lie and pretend to be the father) to sign off on it. No abortion without a man's permission. Not true…Raping your girlfriend probably won't get you arrested, either. (Neither will beating your girlfriend–another matter entirely!) That's again not true… I wonder your source of your information…About rape – Japan is not feminist orientated, to sleep with a boy checking into a hotelroom together and after a few weeks later you regret, claiming rape – this will bring you to nowhere…Luckily our laws here are different from those in USA and why should they not be different?There is no reason why laws should be the same in USA and in Japan.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Of course there is Yohan-it is because the US is superior to everyone else so you must follow us slavishly. ;p

ClarenceComments
10 years ago

>These arguments seem to assume there's some chance in heck of this getting passed and turned into law.The Republicans do not control the Senate. And in the amazing miracle that this was to somehow get through the Senate and become a law for the President to sign, does anyone here really believe that:A. President Obama would sign it?B. The Senate majority would be enough to over-ride the veto?This is much ado over nothing as the whole bill merely serves symbolic purposes to some Republican senators in the House.Lastly, if I was going to mess with anything in the current law, I would take out or reform the statutory rape exception. Somehow, I'd rather not be paying for the abortion from a 16 year old girl who got preggers from consensual sex with her 19 year old boyfriend, though I suppose 13 and 45 is another matter entirely. Still I will never consider stat rape to be real rape because the essence of rape is coercion, not consent, nor do I view it as the business of feminists, chauvinists , or the government to tell people of sexually reproductive viable ages that they cannot consent to sex.

Yohan
10 years ago

>Joe said… …..I thought this thread was about abortion in the case of rape.I agree with you that the policy solution to the vexing ethical dilemmas around abortion is "somewhere between" the extremes. Well, i would say, generally about abortion and not only about rape (if we start like that, feminists and MRAs will never end to discuss what rape really is)Yes, I agree with you too – the solution is somewhere between, but where is somewhere, is the question. Regardless if rape or not or whatever the reasons might be for demanding an abortion, the question is more about TIME, running out of time.You cannot ask courts for permission for interpretation of a difficult situation etc, as you are running out of time while being pregnant.What is still acceptable by MOST pro-lifers (MRAs etc, worldwide and not only USA-related) and what is still acceptable by MOST pro-choice people (feminists etc, worldwide and not only USA-related)?Many people (most? I don't know), me included, consider 12 – 14 weeks as reasonable and acceptable for making a decision about abortion for the pregnant woman.In most (but not all) EU-countries you find laws regulating abortion with such or similar time-limits. Not bad and it seems to work, and abortion in EU is not such an big issue anymore as it is in the USA for most people.As one said here in this thread, not all pro-choice people are feminists, and you might add, not all MRAs are religious and totally into pro-life.The question is also coming up if abortion should be free of charge – why should medical assistance generally be free of charge? Medical doctors are not supposed to work for free.

Yohan
10 years ago

>Elizabeth said… Of course there is Yohan-it is because the US is superior to everyone else so you must follow us slavishly. I am not so sure, as China is not far away from Japan and I don't think, the Chinese consider US to be superior to everyone. More the opposite…

John Dias
10 years ago

>@Elizabeth:The reason why pro-abortion supporters even mention the issue of viability is to justify abortions of non-viable fetuses by saying that the aborted child is wholly dependent upon the mother in order to survive. But there is some enthusiasm among feminists about the artificial womb, which supposedly would allow children to gestate outside of the mother's womb, freeing the mother from the physical trials of pregnancy. Assuming that the artificial womb is technologically feasible, then viability would be pushed back all the way to the time at which the fertilized egg begins its existence within the artificial womb.Regardless of whether viability is pushed back even further or remains where it is today, the point is that when pro-abortion supporters invoke the concept of viability, their argument rests on the philosophical foundation that homicide is justified if a dependent human being is killed by the person(s) that their life depends upon. This fundamental belief could be used to justify anything from infanticide, to child-murder, to non-consensual euthanasia and everything in between.

ClarenceComments
10 years ago

>John Dias:You totally forgot about the whole "bodily autonomy" thing, didn't you?That being said, I'd be far more comfortable with women's absolute control of reproduction (or their additional choices of having the sprat and not having to raise or care for it) if they had the responsibilities to go along with this power. Right now they could abort my kid or bring Junior or Juniorette to term and make me pay for it.