Indiana Republican Says Women Will Lie About Being Raped for Abortion Access

[Impulse97]

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews...ortion_access/

It's sickening. Why would anyone lie about that?

[Sasha]

+ YouTube Video

jezus... props to the lady who rebutted, shame not her whole reply is in the vid.
i also quite like the lady sitting behind the vile piece of shit, her eyerolls spoke more than a thousand words.

[TC]

Why would anyone lie about that?

Because you can't fund an abortion otherwise?

Its hard to lie about rape or incest because they are profoundly embarrassing and humiliating to discuss let alone make up. But the law certainly invites it doesn't! The only reason why many anti-choicers think fetuses are precious babies that need to be protected, unless they're the product of rape in which case they're just clumps of tissue that can be disposed of with public funds, is because they want to punish women for having sex without intending to have children - something that obviously doesn't apply to rape victims.

So really rape exceptions are ridiculous: abortion should be available to everyone without inquiry into whether someone has a 'good' reason for not wanting to carry a pregnancy to term or not.

[h0m0revolutionary]

It's perfectly feasible an individual may lie about being victim to rape or that the mere collection of cells they carry is a product of incest. The shock value of the piece isn't in the morality of suspecting the carrier may lie about the conception, it's in the draconian law itself seeking to further hinder access to safe abortion.

But what often gets overlooked in this, is incest itself and why that would be grounds upon which an abortion not could, but should be procured? In 2006 in S.Dakota for example a measure to ban all abortions except in cases of rape and incest was narrowly defeated. All abortions would have been illegal, but had a fetus been created by consenting adults who happened to be related to one another the pro-life mantra of the Republicans goes out the window.

Incest laws vary from state to state, but allover the US it is illegal to engage in sexual relationships with (or marry) relatives or descendants (whole, half blooded or adopted). Not uniformly, but within often quite broad criteria. And this is put on par with rape in abortion dialogue?

[Jose Gracchus]

Because you can't fund an abortion otherwise?

Its hard to lie about rape or incest because they are profoundly embarrassing and humiliating to discuss let alone make up. But the law certainly invites it doesn't! The only reason why many anti-choicers think fetuses are precious babies that need to be protected, unless they're the product of rape in which case they're just clumps of tissue that can be disposed of with public funds, is because they want to punish women for having sex without intending to have children - something that obviously doesn't apply to rape victims.

So really rape exceptions are ridiculous: abortion should be available to everyone without inquiry into whether someone has a 'good' reason for not wanting to carry a pregnancy to term or not.

Exactly on point. I've been saying this for years. If the fetus is really a special person with a soul yadda yadda like you and me, conscious adults, than how does it magically get its "right to life" revoked where rape exists? The only possible logical conclusion is that there is a legitimate purpose in sanctioning women legally based on whether they chose to have sex (in which case they are nasty sluts) or got raped (in which case a terrible crime was committed against their sacred virginity). Its obviously a matter of adjudicating sexuality.