Odd lingo used in abortion debate.
 

While I know this thread will devolve into the actual debate, I'm not posting this to argue towards or against abortion itself, I can't help but notice whenever the discussion of abortion happens you consistently see the subtopic brought up about "Victims of rape and victims of incest".

Why are these treated as two distinct separate categories? If someone is a 'victim' of incest and it results into a pregnancy is it a stretch to call that a subcategory of rape? If the incest was consensual then the female involved isn't a 'victim' so why is there the special categorization?

Prease exprain.

No daughter has 'consensual' sex with her father (which I presume is the kind of incest lawmakers had in mind) unless something is seriously fucked up with her childhood/home environment. Therefore victim would be more accurate description than "consensual."
I've only heard this kind of language in a political context. Not a philosophical or legal one, where people define their terminology with much greater precision.

Worst thread in RnF history.

What you are describing is child abuse/rape which isn't limited to incest-related situations. Why make the distinction?

I agree, I'm simply asking why.

What?

"...the sexual abuse of a child by a relative or other person in a position of trust and authority over the child. It is a violation of the child where he or she lives -- literally and metaphorically. A child molested by a stranger can run home for help and comfort. A victim of incest cannot."
Vanderbilt, Heidi. (1992, February). "Incest: A Chilling Report." Lears, p. 49-77.

The reason is probably because a lot of people still equate rape with a guy jumping out of a dark alley and ripping cloths off a stranger (even though its a minority of rape cases). So specifying incest appears more broad.
Politicians use language that sounds good to a huge unintellectual audience. They aren't going to bog themselves down with semantical technicalities. Generally they spend time trying to avoid stating specifics.

You're right about the 'semantical technicalities' part for sure. Perhaps I should be less focused on the proper use of language and more focused on it being another example of politicians betting on the masses' ignorance and them consistently winning such bets.

This weekend I heard John McCain say he wouldn't call Attorney General Holder a liar because "lie" is such a "definitive word". It's gotta be really tough to be a politician and never say anything.


Anyway, Kagatob, keep your hands off the kids. Incest is regarded as especially heinous and receives special emphasis because its gross and produces genetically redundant babies no one will ever love.

here is the problem with your statement: incest does not imply kids. there's another word for that: pedophilia.

it also does not imply unwilling participants. there's another word for that: rape.

therefore, incest does not imply "victims"

when two adults agree to have consensual intercourse, whether for the purpose of recreation or procreation, it's still just that. whether the participants are related or not is irrelevant.

the word incest is just a word used to add stigma and taboo to consensual intercourse.

this is just an example of republicans controlling your mind through language in law.