Headcases make bad law

There are several good arguments for not overturning Roe v Wade

…I’m just not sure “I’m in a relationship with a rapist and might get pregnant” is one of them. And besides, wouldn’t this be covered under a rape exemption?

There seems to be a school of thought – another example is here – that US society and the entire legal system should be arranged primarily for the benefit of women who have found themselves in bad relationships.

Share

23 thoughts on “Headcases make bad law

  1. I see why you find her fascinating and worthy of study, but… wow, just wow.

  2. As with the case of Laurie Penny and Oliver Kamm, it’s not so much them as individuals I’m interested in but that they’re handy examples of the mindsets I wish to talk about.

  3. I always find shit like this hard to get my head around.

    You live in the US buy a gun and call the cops.

    If your ‘rape’ it’s not serious enough to go to the police over it’s not serious enough for me to worry about or give weight to in an argument.

    The idea that the biggest problem with being regularly abused and raped is that a condom wasn’t used is insane.

  4. “wouldn’t this be covered under a rape exemption”

    To state the obvious, only if there was a rape exemption.

    If Roe v Wade were overturned, by a fresh set of judges who thought that a constitutional right to “privacy” had been extended too far by it, would they say that somehow rape victims nevertheless have such a right? Or would rape victims be left relying on state legislatures to codify such an exemption?

    There are clearly arguments that abortion should be decided at a state rather than federal level, that it should be decided by elected legislatures rather than by the courts, and that the constitution should not be radically reinterpreted in ways that would be shocking to those who originally framed it. There is also a clear argument that current jurisprudence protects rape victims by giving a constitutional right to access abortion and that tearing up the case law may well result in that right being eroded and potentially, particularly for women in more conservative states, removed. So it is rational for women’s rights activists to oppose such a change.

  5. In her head maybe. Calling bullshit on this one – bet the bloke couldn’t get away quick enough.

  6. I don’t like the “rape exemption” in any situation. In the UK it applies to benefits: you can only claim Child Tax Credit or Universal Credit for two children, unless the third was “conceived as a result of a non-consensual act (including rape)”.

    It’s bad enough applied to benefits, where there’s plenty of time to argue the toss; but with abortion you might be at 19.5 weeks and have mere days to present sufficient evidence that your sex was non-consensual. Would the father be allowed to make the case for the opposition? The mind boggles.

  7. but with abortion you might be at 19.5 weeks and have mere days to present sufficient evidence that your sex was non-consensual.

    And what were you doing the other 19 of those weeks?

  8. I think the most disturbing thing is the way this contentious issue has split in the US on party political lines: the result is two tribes screeching at each other.
    There is no possibility of compromise between the two factions, so this poisons the whole political landscape. That does not bode well for a democracy based upon compromise and tolerance.
    If there is a hope, the US needs to elevate this issue away from party lines.

    On the issue itself, I can only defer to Ron Paul’s majestic summary, and as a doctor himself, he could not be undecided.
    Someday, someone, somewhere, may do an analysis on the population effect of (mass) abortions, asuming IQ is hereditary as claimed, but it will generate even more manufactured outrage.

  9. 1 Has the lady heard of no contraceptive other than IUD and condoms? Perhaps someone should tell her about the pill.
    2 If the husband is in fact abusive letting him know that she is leaving is dangerous- what better way to enrage him. Just get out, and do it in a hurry. That her instinct for survival hasn’t driven her to this makes me doubt that she is meaningfully abused.
    3 allowing the words of the constitution to be twisted to justify one law sets a precedent for them to be twisted to favour another which other you may not like. It also means that nobody can be sure that their actions are legal until a judge has pronounced, reading the law yourself or having a lawyer do it for you provides no assurance.
    To make any law effective requires the overwhelming consent of the people, and quite obviously there is no such overwhelming consent for the outlawing of abortion. No 55% in favour is not an overwhelming majority.
    Hence laws should be passed by Congress if this is a federal matter and by the States otherwise defining when and how abortion is legal, and Roe v Wade set aside.
    Similarly with other pieces of judicial activism.
    The passing of laws is the exclusive duty of legislatures, the consistent application of those laws is the duty of judges.

  10. If Trump wanted to settle this (and troll the Left massively), he’d propose a federal law bringing the US into line with e.g. Sweden. And market it as such.

    The howling from the left would be priceless (where absolutism is mainstream), and those of all but the most absolutist the anti-abortion lobby would likely say “oh, that’s not too unreasonable as a compromise”.

  11. To be fair, not everyone can take birth control pills. I tried them and in two days I was in the emergency room with a busting headache and a blood pressure of 200/something.

  12. On the subject of Abortion. A law that penalises doctors for carrying them out is essentially giving a monopoly to back street abortionists.
    IF there is to be a law banning abortion the it is the woman who must pay the price. I believe Mr. Trump cooled a few heads by pointing this out.
    The price whatever it is must be clear and obvious long before conception, and should in my view be of a sort that can be rescinded in the case of rape or any other exception that the law allows. As far as possible it should be refundable.
    Pogonip : sorry to hear that, hope all’s now well. But yours is a rare case, and as the heading almost said hard cases make bad law.

  13. “and that the constitution should not be radically reinterpreted in ways that would be shocking to those who originally framed it.”

    Or rather, if you want to do that, have the balls to propose it as an amendment properly and see whether or not the rest of the country actually agrees with you rather than just the nice sorts of people you have at your dinner parties.

  14. Incidentally, is this not a case ‘my body my choice’ when it comes to men and condoms?

  15. During the Rotherham case, and no doubt many others as well, the abusers were able to cover up their abuse in part by bullying their victims into getting abortions. The evidence was thus got rid of, whilst the hospital staff didn’t raise the alarm, because the NHS in England has an unofficial official policy that abortion on demand is good and that any questioning into why somebody wants to get one is verboten. So, I don’t think it’s obvious that liberal abortion laws work in favour of rape victims; often it seems to be the other way around.

    (Also, rape abortions are usually justified on the grounds of the mother’s mental health, but I don’t think there’s much in the way of evidence that women who abort after being raped actually have better mental health outcomes than women who choose to keep the child. I’m open to correction on this point, though.)

    Do “pro-prevention” types realize how many fuckhead men there are out there who just flat out refuse to use condoms

    No doubt this is a very oppressive and patriarchal sentiment, but is there any reason why Miss Wilson can’t just choose not to have sex with these men?

  16. US society and the entire legal system should be arranged primarily for the benefit of women who have found themselves in bad relationships.

    Aaron Clarey refers to this as “President Boyfriend” (coined during the Obama era).

    It’s increasingly looking like our mistake was giving women the vote.

  17. A baby conceived in rape is a victim just as much as the mother, why kill the baby? rapist yes but baby no, never.

  18. Conservative christians and other cucks think abortion is bad because they’re virtue-signalling idealists.

  19. “Conservative christians and other cucks think abortion is bad because they’re virtue-signalling idealists.”

    Funny that you consider “idealist” to be an insult.

Comments are closed.