Ending the Pro-Abortion Rape Canard

The Pro-Abortion movement is terrified that their recent efforts to expand their access to federal funding could be in jeopardy, and now – like some people do when they are scared – they are saying stupid things.

Continued- http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=13588

__________________
Your socks stink.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

~Charles Dickens

Though I am obviously not pro-abortion. I do feel disturbed by the term 'forcible rape'. It seems to say that there is "rape", and then there is "RAPE rape", kind of trivialising the horrific experiences of women who are not brutally raped.

However, David explained (in another place) that 'forcible rape' is the official term, or something, I think... maybe he can explain here if he sees this.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The bill uses the current FBI definition when saying forcible. This excludes consenting statutory from funding but covers any that use force, fear, coercion or anything that inhibits judgment (such as drugging).

The FBI defines it as:

“The ...carnal knowledge of a person forcibly or against that person’s will, or when a victim is mentally or physically incapable of giving consent”.

So, where does the bill redefine anything except also adding that any statutory rape (no matter consent) that is incest is also covered for funding. In fact applying the term forcible rape (whose only federal definition I can find is in the FBI code) is stricter than the Department of Justice Definition that just says rape and defines it only as "Forcible Intercourse" but does not make exception for being mentally incapable of giving consent.

Rape laws and definitions are governed by the states. The only two definitions on a federal level are the FBI and DOJ. By using the FBI term the bill includes everything but non incest consenting statutory.

Many people have misrepresented this as allowing date rape or drugged rape...that is just a lie. In any case I believe they are changing the wording of the bill. It was all an effort to allow the abortion funding they claim is not in the health care bill but are fighting to keep included...make sense?

__________________
If pregnancy presents a challenge, do we as a society rise to the challenge by dispensing with the child? And when a pregnancy comes at a difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround mother and child with protection and love, or do we hold out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true character as a nation to be seen - let's ask ourselves this question: Where is our true character to be seen, in an adoptive home, or in an abortion clinic? Who are we? Who are we America? That question deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

All rape is forcible. No one consents to rape, that's why it is rape.

I believe that this is an attempt to clamp onto one word and make a big deal over that word to try and stop a bill that will limit taxpayer funding of abortion.

Part of it (the confusion) is some states use different terms for identical definitions so some reps are honestly confused as to why this is an issue with some people. Like South Carolina takes their state definition directly from the FBI ...parameters but some states word it themselves... in most cases they all say the same thing with a different wording or title. The only valid concern I see is the bill does not specify the definition. But since the term is the one used by the FBI and that is the only related federal definition it would be the one used.

The other part of the confusion is move on and other places trying to make it the issue since they know even many pro-choice people are opposed to the Health care bill paying for it. So they made the issue a false story on the re-definition of rape.

If these laws are passed then the Bishops are fully behind the health care bill. because the three bills (the controversial one being HR 3, but there are two others) basically set the Hyde Amendment into the law with more force than the executive order. And the Bishops have said if the abortion question is resolved then they are supportive of the reform. That still leaves legal and procedural questions about the bill that are not moral issues. But for many Catholics it clears an huge problem.

The Bishops wanted the Hyde Amendment to be enforced in Health Care...this will do that.

• Bishops Support Three Bills to Strengthen Protections for Life and Conscience January 24, 2011
• Cardinal DiNardo Letter in Support of HR-3, January 21, 2011
• Cardinal DiNardo Letter in Support of HR-358, January 21, 2011
• Cardinal DiNardo Letter in Support of HR-361 January 21, 2011

__________________
If pregnancy presents a challenge, do we as a society rise to the challenge by dispensing with the child? And when a pregnancy comes at a difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround mother and child with protection and love, or do we hold out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true character as a nation to be seen - let's ask ourselves this question: Where is our true character to be seen, in an adoptive home, or in an abortion clinic? Who are we? Who are we America? That question deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Can't agree. There is statutory rape where the consenting party is underage and therefore the law considers her unable to give consent. In years past underage women-children (girls younger than 18 but who look far older) were known as "jail bait" because they could land the guy in jail and accused of "rape" if he believes that the woman-child really is over 18. Think that the charge of statutory rape can also be used if the guy marries the under-age woman-child.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"There is one true Church, the really ancient Church into which are enrolled those who are righteous according to God's ordinance. In essence, in idea, in origin, in preeminence we say that the ancient Catholic Church is the only Church." - Clement of Alexandria, Stromata
--------------------------------------------------------------

" Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live." - Deuteronomy 30:19

Team Sarah!--A diverse coalition of women dedicated to values that Sarah Palin stands for

Life Trumps the Economy EVERY TIME!