A Bill to "redefine" rape?

[Dana]

A far-reaching anti-choice bill, introduced by Republican Chris Smith and supported by 173 members of the House, includes a provision that could redefine rape and set women's rights back by decades.
Right now, federal dollars can't be used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger. But the Smith bill would narrow that use to "cases of 'forcible' rape but not statutory or coerced rape."


Someone posted this on Facebook. http://pol.moveon.org/smithbill/?rc=fb.share.smithbill.0.1

btw wtf is coerced rape?

 

[All Else Failed]

It will most likely never pass.

 

[pjbleek]

A far-reaching anti-choice bill, introduced by Republican Chris Smith and supported by 173 members of the House, includes a provision that could redefine rape and set women's rights back by decades.
Right now, federal dollars can't be used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger. But the Smith bill would narrow that use to "cases of 'forcible' rape but not statutory or coerced rape."


Someone posted this on Facebook. http://pol.moveon.org/smithbill/?rc=fb.share.smithbill.0.1

btw wtf is coerced rape?

according to Mr. Webster: to compel or bring about by force or threats

 

[BornReady]

I think his point is all rape is coerced.

 

[Peter Parka]

I do think that statutory rape needs looking at in the USA. Acording to your laws, if a 17 year old girl has sex with her 18 year old boyfriend, that is rape.

 

[Dana]

I do think that statutory rape needs looking at in the USA. Acording to your laws, if a 17 year old girl has sex with her 18 year old boyfriend, that is rape.

It's only rape if the parent presses charges LOL... I fucked a 17 year old girl when I was 19.

 

[Peter Parka]

It's only rape if the parent presses charges LOL... I fucked a 17 year old girl when I was 19.

It's still misleaded and clearly not rape though

 

[BornReady]

I do think that statutory rape needs looking at in the USA. Acording to your laws, if a 17 year old girl has sex with her 18 year old boyfriend, that is rape.

Agreed. Assuming the sex was consensual then the case you describe shouldn't be considered statutory rape. I personally am good with making it illegal for an 18 year old to have sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. But the punishment should fit the crime. In this case a $500 fine should suffice, not 10 years behind bars!

 

[All Else Failed]

I do think that statutory rape needs looking at in the USA. Acording to your laws, if a 17 year old girl has sex with her 18 year old boyfriend, that is rape.

It depends on what state you are in. In NY, for example, the age of consent is 17. It is lower in other states.

 

[Tim]

In Pennsylvania rape is defined as...

Rape to engage in sexual intercourse with a complainant who is less than 13 years of age.

Rape to engage in deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant who is less than (1) 13 years of age or (2) 16 years of age and the actor is four or more years older.

So if the girl is 16 and the boyfriend is 19 it's not rape in PA

 

[AnitaBeer]

South Dakota

Rape to sexually penetrate a person between ages 10 and 16 if the actor is at least three years older than the victim.

Typically it's not Stat. Rape if one is 18 and the other is 17. There's usually an age gap that defines if it is or not.
So no there's really no issue with our Stat. Rape laws.

 

[BornReady]

I just looked up the statutory rape law in Missouri. It's statutory rape if someone 21 or older has sex with someone who is under 17. I didn't know that.

Edit: Also she can't be under 14 no matter how old you are. So if I understand then a 20 year old could have sex with a 14 year old. I hope I'm misunderstanding.

 

[Dana]

Agreed. Assuming the sex was consensual then the case you describe shouldn't be considered statutory rape. I personally am good with making it illegal for an 18 year old to have sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. But the punishment should fit the crime. In this case a $500 fine should suffice, not 10 years behind bars!

thats facking bullshit. we're talking a years difference in age not 5 or 6...

 

[HottyToddyChick]

I'm pretty sure in NC it was a three year gap if one of the parties was under 18. (Or it could have been 16, but I'm pretty sure 18 'cause I was never 18 in NC)

 

[Minor Axis]

It's still misleaded and clearly not rape though

I think they need to come up with a different term when describing an adult having consenual intercourse with a willing minor, although statutory rape equates to illegal sex. As far as the rape debate, if sex is forced or if it is sex of an adult with a minor, in the case of the minor, if it is illegal, does it really matter if it was consensual or not regarding the allowance of an abortion? I'm pondering this.

 

[skyblue]

Agreed. Assuming the sex was consensual then the case you describe shouldn't be considered statutory rape. I personally am good with making it illegal for an 18 year old to have sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. But the punishment should fit the crime. In this case a $500 fine should suffice, not 10 years behind bars!

so if he's 18 and shes 17 but they were born a week apart he's guilty of rape?

 

[HK]

I think it's tricky, to try and ask the law to determine at what age someone becomes capable of making their own mistakes in regards to sex. No matter what restrictions you put in place - age gaps that are 'okay' for example - there will always be some people that it works perfectly for, and others that will get wrongly prosecuted under the same reasoning.

 

[Minor Axis]

As far as nature is concerned if a woman is old enough to menstruate they are old enough to reproduce. I remember hearing about the good ole pioneer days when women could be married off at 13, course then most people only lived till they were 40 so you did not have much time to waste.

 

[BornReady]

so if he's 18 and shes 17 but they were born a week apart he's guilty of rape?

Rape is different than statutory rape. Rape is non-consensual sex. So if he forced her then it would be rape regardless of their age difference.

As I said in my previous post and still stand by it, sex between an 18 year old and 17 year old should not be considered statutory rape. And I found out after my post that it's not.

In your example, I think they should wait until they're both 18 before having sex. Eighteen isn't a magic line but you have to draw a line somewhere and that seems a good age to me. I consider someone an adult at 18. As an adult each person is responsible for their own life choices. But we rightly put all sorts of stipulations on what children may do.

 

[purpledove]

It's only rape if the parent presses charges LOL... I fucked a 17 year old girl when I was 19.

Very true and it depends on the State laws. Anyone who has knowledge of the situation too besides parents can report. The State District Attorney on the other hand can file the case against the alleged rapist for that matter.

I know that California has one of the strictest laws on Statutory rapes as evidenced by the many SVPs
( Sexually Violent Predators ) involved in this kind of rape who are in jail and rehab atm :ninja