Skip to main content

View Diary: Dem: GOP's rape-redefining bill "a violent act against women" (147 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Should probably cool it with violence talk, but.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missississy, HylasBrook

    It's not actually a violent act -- so, I wish she'd chosen her words more carefully if we're going to insist the other side be more careful with their rhetoric, we need to be even more demanding of ourselves.

    Still, the bill is mindless and malefactory (which doesn't mean anything to do with males). THere is no logically consistent reason to offer this redefinition. We criminalize statutory rape and incest because we deem it non-consensual -- consent is not freely and maturely given. Either we repeal those laws because we no longer hold that view about minors, or this bill is making a distinction without basis in law.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 11:37:30 AM PST

    •  Have to disagree. (6+ / 0-)

      Penetration against your will IS a violent act.

      This is true if a woman is incapable of giving consent because of mental disability, intoxication, age or because she's asleep.

      Spreading a woman's legs and forcing an erect penis into her vagina is not impolite or careless - it's a deliberate act of violence.

      My dogs think triciawyse is smart and pretty. They think I'm a strange, frumpy woman wth limitless snacks.

      by martydd on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 11:53:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the OP is referring to the bill -- (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FischFry

        -- the congresswoman's characterization of the bill as a violent act.

        •  Yup - I was referring to what she said re: bill (0+ / 0-)

          The Congresswoman was describing the bill as a violent act, She wasn't referring to the sexual acts described in the bill -- she was talking about the bill itself as a violent act. It's just a bill that would limit spending in some situations. It certainly doesn't encourage violence and it's not a violent act itself.

          I don't know what an OP is but you're correct about what I meant. Thank you for helping with clarification.

          Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

          by FischFry on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 02:28:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  This bill is violence against women (7+ / 0-)

      Just about any woman who is raped and goes to the ER will find out about this law If it's passed when she wants to take steps to ensure she hasn't been impregnated and hasn't been raped by someone HIV positive.

      It's a long way from labelling legislation 'violent' as opposed to using violent imagery "Don't retreat, reload" that the right uses.

      HylasBrook @62 - fiesty, fiery, and fierce

      by HylasBrook on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 11:57:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's actually not a long way (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        missississy

        If you claim a bill is actually violent, you're not that far from suggesting that women can act in self-defense against those committing this violent act against them. It isn't that big a step.

        VIolence against women is pretty serious. This bill just relates to funding of a medical procedure. It might be shocking to our conscience, and might really affect a lot of women, but it is not violence. It should not be confused with real violence, because the comparison can only serve to minimize actual violence.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 02:33:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your definition then means violence (0+ / 0-)

          is simply physical contact and nothing else.

          From personal experience I can assure you that the expectation of physical violence from an assailant is violence.

          I think it's more useful to think about what this bill means instead of parsing what does or does not constitute violence or talking about violence.

          HylasBrook @62 - fiesty, fiery, and fierce

          by HylasBrook on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 04:58:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll agree (0+ / 0-)

            Violence is more than contact -- it includes physical intimidation and threat. I still don't see how legislation about funding abortions meets anyone's definition of violence. That's just overblown rhetoric. I don't find it parsing, when we're complaining about rhetorical excess from the other side.

            I would much rather we focus on this  bill is indefensible as a matter of policy.

            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

            by FischFry on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 06:07:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree (6+ / 0-)

      Legislation that dictates what constitutes "forcible" rape and what doesn't is a violent attack on women's safety.  Saying certain women would be forced to pay for their own terminations (and since they are on gov't insurance my guess is they couldn't) or carry a pregnancy to term after being raped is a violent attack on women's rights.  

      I'd rather die than give you control ~ Trent Reznor

      by JustJennifer on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:05:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

      I think the congresswoman's use of the word "violence" is not helpful to discussions about legislation and actual violence against women.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site