Rape, OK!

May 13, 2010

TRIGGER WARNING This post and its links contain information about sexual assault and/or violence against women which may be triggering to survivors.

Let’s be clear: the Oklahoma legislature has instituted legal rape (though the law is temporarily suspended).

And, no, it is not OK because it’s common practice to receive a pap smear or other vaginal exam as part of medical care.

“Tenured Radical”:

Don’t you think that there is a difference between giving someone an ultrasound/vaginal exam to promote good health and one that is done to punish women who want to access their legal right to abortion? Just like there is a difference between consensual sexual intercourse and having sex with someone because he won’t let you out of the car until you do?

“Historiann”:

The difference between your pap smear and the Oklahoma law just vetoed [passed] is that no one has passed a law requiring you to submit to your pap smear on pain of criminal prosecution. The problem is the coercive arm of the state, not the specific form of a given medical procedure.

“skylanda”:

A point of technical clarification: An ultrasound is done before every abortion in this country…an ultrasound through the abdomen, which is done to date the pregnancy and ensure it is within legal dates. Requiring an ultrasound through the vagina is an additional burden that serves no clinical purpose other than to harass women (nevermind the providing doctors) with an invasive, unnecessary procedure that can be doubly traumatic for those whose pregnancies resulted from penetration they did not consent to in the first place. The sanctimonious whining about “holocaust” and “murder” – that women would change their mind if they just saw that little baby first? Every women already gets an ultrasound first. Just not one by phallic probe up the vagina.

And, no, it’s not OK because it can be looked at as a take-it-or-leave-it package deal.  A woman cannot refuse, and a doctor cannot choose to offer, an abortion option without it. The threat of force and the seriousness of pregnancy do not allow for genuine consent.

And, no, it’s not OK because you can “just” go to another state. Unreasonable demands undermine consent, amount to victim-blaming, and presuppose the legitimacy of the law.

And, no, it’s not OK because she might have something inserted into her vagina anyway to perform the desired abortion. Any amount of time that someone’s body is violated that is longer than they consent to (and, again, consent is impossible under this law) is too long.

And, no, it wouldn’t be OK if a provision was added exempting victims of rape or incest. The very act itself is rape. “Being raped once is “Oklahoma, OK”,…but being raped twice is an act to which the state cannot consent?”

4 Responses to “Rape, OK!”

  1. Danny Says:

    Disgusting. No: appalling. No: mortifying.

  2. Chris George Says:

    “And, no, it’s not OK because you can “just” go to another state. Unreasonable demands undermine consent, amount to victim-blaming, and presuppose the legitimacy of the law.”

    To some extent, I think it is valid. The “State” is an artificial legal border, but even in anarchist communities, I think it’d be safe to say that abortion would be illegal in some places, if not lots of places. And I’m not convinced that abortion is against libertarian ethics either, quite the opposite actually. I think prohibition is an untenable solution to abortion so I wouldn’t support it, but I don’t see prohibition of it as being antithetical to anything regarding anarchism or libertarianism and could exist with both.

  3. Neverfox Says:

    The “State” is an artificial legal border, but even in anarchist communities, I think it’d be safe to say that abortion would be illegal in some places, if not lots of places.

    I am writing from the position that it is not legitimate to use force to prohibit abortion, and as such, a “love it or leave it” argument is not legitimate. My post should be read starting from the premise that it is unlibertarian to restrict a woman’s choice (see below). Given that premise, the statement seems as appropriate as a statement about taxation or any other claim that if you don’t like the aggression, go elsewhere.

    And I’m not convinced that abortion is against libertarian ethics either, quite the opposite actually.

    Did you mean to say “that abortion is compatible with” or something like that?

    I don’t see prohibition of it as being antithetical to anything regarding anarchism or libertarianism and could exist with both.

    I don’t really want this particular post to be a discussion of the legitimacy of abortion but rather the issue of institutionalized rape given that a woman has the right to voluntarily seek and obtain an abortion. I’ll just say that my basic position, that a woman has no moral obligation to let an unwanted fetus use her body as an incubator, is expressed in detail here. In other words, I do think that a prohibition (de jure or de facto) on abortion is about as antithetical to libertarianism as anything can be.


  4. Just when I think the bags of shit in office can’t sink any lower.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: