• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Abortion and rape

Ed

Philosopher
E
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,658
There is an interesting case brewing in Kansas regarding a Dr's abortion practice. One aspect is that of his performing late term aboprtions, another (and the point of this thread) concerns rape.

In Kansas, if a girl 14 or yournger is pregnant it is rape, cut, done, end of discussion. The question is should records of these children be made availabe to the Attorney General for investigation and possible prosecution of the father?

While I am very conscious of the abortion (and firearm) slippery slope, which indeed exists, and which makes me averse to any laws limiting abortion, this is a case where, I think, criminal law must trump privacy or concerns about limitations to abortion.

So, should Dr's report cases where a child presents as a candidate for abortion?
 
Is this the one which keeps it a secret from the young girls and their parents that their medical records are being pulled?

I thought it was more about a grandstanding anti-abortion politician pulling an end run around Roe, than any real concern for the victims of statutory rape, but I honestly hadn't looked into it that much.
 
crimresearch said:
Is this the one which keeps it a secret from the young girls and their parents that their medical records are being pulled?

I thought it was more about a grandstanding anti-abortion politician pulling an end run around Roe, than any real concern for the victims of statutory rape, but I honestly hadn't looked into it that much.
Click to expand...

Don't know that it's a secret. Evidentially the records would go to a Judge and be sealed and the AG would not know the names.

Don't know about grandstanding and I resent that you would suggest that any elected official would do so.:D BUT 14 years old? Regardless of the motivation of the AG it appears to me that this is beyond the pale.
 
Ed said:
In Kansas, if a girl 14 or yournger is pregnant it is rape, cut, done, end of discussion.
Click to expand...
Just curious: Does this apply even if the boy is 14 or younger himself?
 
Bjorn said:
Just curious: Does this apply even if the boy is 14 or younger himself?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's what he meant by "cut, done, end of discussion"

When the children are within a certain age range (I believe 2 years) the only difference is that there is a lesser maximum penalty.
 
aerocontrols said:
Yes. That's what he meant by "cut, done, end of discussion"

When the children are within a certain age range (I believe 2 years) the only difference is that there is a lesser maximum penalty.
Click to expand...
Curious still: How come the girl is raped, and not the boy?
 
Gee Bjorn, I don't know... :rolleyes:

Why don't you tell us how many pregnant 14 year old BOYS you have in *your* country?
;)
 
crimresearch said:
Gee Bjorn, I don't know... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Neither do I - that's why I asked. Is it so unthinkable that the girl might be the active one, pushing for this new experience?

I ask because I read today about a boy who was 'sexually abused' by an older girl when he was twelve. The article didn't specifically say 'raped', although they had sex, and I wondered why.

Why don't you tell us how many pregnant 14 year old BOYS you have in *your* country? ;)
Click to expand...
None, of course. But I always thought that the sex act itself was the rape, not pregnancy or no pregnancy? And by the way, my country is your country .... :p
 
So having a womb is the important thing? If an 11 yo boy has sex with a 14 yo girl, the boy is guilty of rape? If the guy doesn't know she's underage, or is mentally incomptent, he's still guilty of rape? Heck, there are even ways to get pregnant without sex. Still rape? I think that these sort of laws devalue the term "rape". Not that I think it's okay, but it's not the same as an actual sexual assault.

I think that confidentiality is very important. Certainly more important that catching someone who "raped" a girl who doesn't want him prosecuted.
 
Art Vandelay said:

I think that confidentiality is very important. Certainly more important that catching someone who "raped" a girl who doesn't want him prosecuted.
Click to expand...


But the first premise, prevents you from knowing the second premise.

See the problem with your conclusion?
 
Bjorn said:
Curious still: How come the girl is raped, and not the boy?
Click to expand...

Sorry. They are both guilty of the level 5 felony, committing indecent liberties with a child, unless they are married.
 
In Washington state, the 24 month difference is the key to whether it is considered a crime and the sex makes no difference.

However, there are other laws that lead to bizarre cases. I know a man who when he was 14 dated a 12 year old (but more than 24 months younger.) They had sex together and it was forgotten for few years. When the girl was in high school she told this to her guidance councelor. The guidance councelor told the police (as was legally required to) and, since the man was now 18, he was tried as an adult.

He was convicted and will be a registered sex offender for 15 years. But even then, he will not get his life back. Because he and the girl were dating and the sex was defined as rape (consensual but still rape according to state law), he was also convicted of domestic abuse. So for the rest of his life, he will be a registered domestic abuser.

So basically because he had consensual sex with his girlfriend while he was 14, he will live under a cloud for the rest of his life. BTW, if he had not admitted the sex, he probably would have been scott free because there was not enough evidence to convict w/o his confession.

Justice? You tell me.

CBL
 
Ed said:
There is an interesting case brewing in Kansas regarding a Dr's abortion practice. One aspect is that of his performing late term aboprtions, another (and the point of this thread) concerns rape.

In Kansas, if a girl 14 or yournger is pregnant it is rape, cut, done, end of discussion. The question is should records of these children be made availabe to the Attorney General for investigation and possible prosecution of the father?

While I am very conscious of the abortion (and firearm) slippery slope, which indeed exists, and which makes me averse to any laws limiting abortion, this is a case where, I think, criminal law must trump privacy or concerns about limitations to abortion.

So, should Dr's report cases where a child presents as a candidate for abortion?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Although I think the definition of rape (as summarised above) is wrong.
 
I don't know how the Kansas statute is worded....certainly the idea of a barely 11 year old boy being convicted of rape, because a not quite 15 year old girl initiated sex seems counterintuitive, and I would have expected something along the lines of the already mentioned '24 month rule'.

And there will always be some grey areas regarding statutory rape...but as I posted originally, I am skeptical that this is anything other than anti-abortion grandstanding.
 
Confidentiality

I believe that the confidentiality is more important here.

Stupid to try and pursue some guy who the 14 year old willingly had sex with. Yea, yea, I know what the law says, but this most likely needs to be changed and updated.

This is just trying to open a can of worms that should most likely remain shut. Most things become a big deal, because folks make them a big deal. There are more important things to pursue than investigating consensual sexual relationships of people of this age.
 
First of all, I think it's fairly obvious that the AG is less concerned with preventing pre-marital sex and more concerned with making abortion as uncomfortable in Kansas as possible.

Second, medical records are and should remain private unless consent is given. Period.

Regarding the Age of Consent issue...Some states have a standard AOC "age;" in Georgia, for example, it's sixteen. This doesn't make sense to me; I have no problem with a 17-year-old having consensual sex with a 15-year-old. On the other side of that, who wants a 45-year-old man scoping out high schools for 16-year-old girls? Tell me that's not predatory, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

To me, the sort of law Pennsylvania has makes the most sense. In PA, someone over 18 can have sex with someone under 18 as long as there's less than four years' difference in age. So an 18-year-old can have sex with a 14-year-old, but a 20-year-old can't. And a 17-year-old can have sex with a 21-year-old.

I'm not sure how much you're going to be able to regulate sex between underage people. Experimentation is a natural part of growing up. Who didn't start being interested in the opposite (or same, for that matter) sex when they were 12 or 13, sometimes earlier? As sexual maturity gets earlier, culturally if not biologically, it's going to become more and more difficult to regulate underage sexual behavior.

The problem with AOC laws, and sexual laws in general, is that some arbitrariness is always present. At some point, you have to draw some sort of line. There's no easy solution, either. You can always cite outrageous applications, and you'd be right, too. The question is, how do we address the issue rationally, logically, and preserving the rights of all, without religious moralizing and scare tactics?
 
I'm curious... what happens if a 14 year old girl actually physically forces sex on a 30 year old guy? Is he still guilty of rape, "cut, done, end of discussion"?

I accept there may be practical difficulties with this scenario but supposing these are overcome, what does the law have to say about that?
 
Confidentiality

I believe that the confidentiality is more important here.

Stupid to try and pursue some guy who the 14 year old willingly had sex with. Yea, yea, I know what the law says, but this most likely needs to be changed and updated.

This is just trying to open a can of worms that should most likely remain shut. Most things become a big deal, because folks make them a big deal. There are more important things to pursue than investigating consensual sexual relationships of people of this age.

Again, this law needs to be revised. Kinda ridiculous the way it stands now.
 
Seismosaurus said:
I'm curious... what happens if a 14 year old girl actually physically forces sex on a 30 year old guy? Is he still guilty of rape, "cut, done, end of discussion"?

I accept there may be practical difficulties with this scenario but supposing these are overcome, what does the law have to say about that?
Click to expand...


The law has long recognized that minors can form the criminal intent needed to be guilty of a crime.

So an adult can be the victim of rape by a juvenile, if it can be demonstrated that one of the 2 types of force was employed.
Gender should not be an issue...if it would be rape for a juvenile male to force an adult, it should be rape for a juvenile female to force someone.

Note that such forcible rape is not the type of statutory rape being discussed in the rest of this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom