Rape Logic

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

"Mr. Anderson, you allege that on the night of 14 December 2010, the defendant robbed you on the corner of 24th St. and Broadway Ave. Am I correct in this?"

"Yes. He robbed me. Took my wallet."

"He took your wallet, Mr. Anderson? You mean, surely, that he tore your pants off and physically removed your wallet with his own hands?"

"Well no, it wasn't quite like that..."

"Well what was it like, Mr. Anderson?"

"He told me to give him his wallet and threatened me."

"And did you hand over your wallet, Mr. Anderson?"

"Well... well yes I did."

"So you willingly removed your own wallet and transferred possession of said wallet to the defendant?"

"No, he robbed me! He said he had a gun!"

"Did he, Mr. Anderson? Did he really say that?"

"Yes!"

"My client denies any such thing. What do you have to say?"

"He said he had a gun, and to give him his wallet."

"And did the defendant touch or harm you in any way?"

"Well... no... nothing happened like that... I was afraid!"

"Did you tell him that?"

"What? No! What kind of question is that?"

"So here we are left to believe only your word, Mr. Anderson? Your word that you freely handed over your wallet to the defendant, with no signs of violence, no evidence of any untoward actions, and yet you insist on wasting our time with this?"

"I was robbed!"

"That is precisely the issue under question, Mr. Anderson. Simply repeating yourself doesn't help. Mr. Anderson... were you drinking on the night of 14 December 2010?"

"Well yes... I was coming home from a pub I was at with my friends."

"Really, Mr. Anderson. How much did you drink?"

"Well I don't know really... a few beers, a couple shots... there was a birthday..."

"Ah, so it would be safe to say that you were suffering from, let us say, impaired faculties?"

"I know what happened to me!"

"Do you, Mr. Anderson? I can have an expert testify before the court that even moderate alcohol consumption greatly affects memory."

"This is insane!"

"No, Mr. Anderson, this is Conservative Court."

Comments

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

Statutory rape differs from forcible rape in that statutory rape does not involve force or threats. For instance, if a girl is 15 and has sex with a guy who is 26, that is statutory rape, even though both parties are perfectly willing and nobody is traumatized (except maybe her parents and a few million religious fundamentalists). So no, statutory rape is not forced. The reason it's a crime is because society wants to protect those below the age of consent from older people who might want to prey on them sexually, seduce or coerce them into sex when they are not old enough to be considered able to consent lawfully. Thus it's "statutory," that is, defined by statute or law.

The anti-abortion folks are trying to separate out the people who willingly have sex from those who do so against their will, and then punish the former if they get pregnant. It's perfectly illogical IMO. Either the baby deserves the right to life or it doesn't. The behavior of its parents shouldn't be part of the equation.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The anti-abortion folks are trying to separate out the people who willingly have sex from those who do so against their will, and then punish the former if they get pregnant.

Incorrect. The law in question only addressed federal funding for the abortion. There is no punishing of anyone involved.