Is this rape? [W:111]

[Excon]

Re: Is this rape?

trying to change the law, links, facts, and science that support what i ACTUALLY said isnt going to fool anybody.
Facts win again.
still waiting for you to post ONE fact that makes my statement and the law, links, facts, and science that support it wrong. ONE. Such a simple request yet you choose to dodge it.

Facts did win. You were wrong as shown.



The law you provided.

(a) Rape.— Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by—

(1) using unlawful force against that other person;
(2) using force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping;
(4) first rendering that other person unconscious; or
(5) administering to that other person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or consent of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;
is guilty of rape and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.​

Rape under this law requires a sexual act.

Under this law, what is a sexual act?

(g) Definitions.— In this section:

(1) Sexual act.— The term “sexual act” means—

(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or
(B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.​

None of that happened, and therefore it is not rape.

The following is you being wrong from the get.

where did the needle go?
regardless the womb is part of her sexual organs (genitalia) and its rape.

It is not rape under the law you provided.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Is this rape?

Facts did win. You were wrong as shown.



The law you provided.

(a) Rape.— Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by—

(1) using unlawful force against that other person;
(2) using force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping;
(4) first rendering that other person unconscious; or
(5) administering to that other person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or consent of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;
is guilty of rape and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.​

Rape under this law requires a sexual act.

Under this law, what is a sexual act?

(g) Definitions.— In this section:

(1) Sexual act.— The term “sexual act” means—

(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or
(B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.​

None of that happened, and therefore it is not rape.

The following is you being wrong from the get.

​

It is not rape under the law you provided.

Translation: you still got nothing, thats what I thought.

Nothing you posted changes my statement, nothing lol
my statement still stands, please post ONE fact that makes it not true. ONE, why do you keep dodging this request.

also what you just quoted of me was when i thought the penetration went through the vagina as the OP cleared up, being dishonest and out of context wont work, NOBODY is fooled. nice try that lie also completely fails. Facts win again and my statement stands. Keep trying to change it though it wont work and its funny.

there was a forced, non-consensual violation of the womb/uterus which is a sex organ/gential and that fits the law of rape/sexual assault (multiple links were provided) until anybody can provide somethign that suggests otherwise which hasn't happened yet

 

[Excon]

Re: Is this rape?

Translation: you still got nothing, thats what I thought.

Nothing you posted changes my statement, nothing lol
my statement still stands, please post ONE fact that makes it not true. ONE, why do you keep dodging this request.

also what you just quoted of me was when i thought the penetration went through the vagina as the OP cleared up, being dishonest and out of context wont work, NOBODY is fooled. nice try that lie also completely fails. Facts win again and my statement stands. Keep trying to change it though it wont work and its funny.

there was a forced, non-consensual violation of the womb/uterus which is a sex organ/gential and that fits the law of rape/sexual assault (multiple links were provided) until anybody can provide somethign that suggests otherwise which hasn't happened yet

Still failing and flailing I see.
You are wrong, have been continually shown to be wrong, and yet here you are still denying it. That is called lying and being dishonest.
It is nothing but Par for the course with you.


This is your statement and it is untrue.

where did the needle go?
regardless the womb is part of her sexual organs (genitalia) and its rape.

No, it wasn't rape by the law you later provided. You can't change that. You are wrong and have been shown to be wrong.

Nor would any Military Prosecutor read the Law the way you inaccurately do to charge Sexual assault.


So stop dodging and deflecting. Answer the question. Do you really not understand that the other information you linked to matters no to the law?
I bet you will refuse to answer and dodge and deflect again.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Is this rape?

1.)Still failing and flailing I see.
You are wrong, have been continually shown to be wrong, and yet here you are still denying it. That is called lying and being dishonest.
It is nothing but Par for the course with you.
2.)This is your statement and it is untrue.

​

3.)No, it wasn't rape by the law you later provided. You can't change that. You are wrong and have been shown to be wrong.
Nor would any Military Prosecutor read the Law the way you inaccurately do to charge Sexual assault.
4.) So stop dodging and deflecting. Answer the question.
5.) Do you really not understand that the other information you linked to matters no to the law?
6.) I bet you will refuse to answer and dodge and deflect again.

1.) facts, links and the law prove this false
2.) nope 100% factualy false again, as pointed out and this thread and that link proves that statement was based on vaginal penetration (making it 100% right LOL) and then the op said his example wouldn't be like that
3,) see #1
4.) nothing was dodged lol
5.) i understand it all and it all supports my statement.
6.) havent done this one time and i answered you again but you still havent provide ONE single fact that proves my statement false. not one. You tried to change it and make up a lie about what it and the law is but they have all failed and been proven wrong. One fact to support your failed claim is all you need, ONE.This statement remains true: "there was a forced, non-consensual violation of the womb/uterus which is a sex organ/genital and that fits the law of rape/sexual assault (multiple links were provided) until anybody can provide somethign that suggests otherwise which hasn't happened yet"
Why cant you simply prove my statement wrong how many times have you dodged this?
Facts win again and my statement stands.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Re: Is this rape?

But both were bypassed by injecting the sperm directly into the womb. A needle is not considered a sex organ by any person or law that I am aware of. A sex toy to some BDSM people maybe, but not a sex organ.

Well... Nor is a dildo but I'm sure if you forcefully insert something like that into a woman you can get a rape charge, or maybe sexual harassment.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Re: Is this rape?

Somehow 5 people voted no...

 

[Excon]

Re: Is this rape?

1.) facts, links and the law prove this false
2.) nope 100% factualy false again, as pointed out and this thread and that link proves that statement was based on vaginal penetration (making it 100% right LOL) and then the op said his example wouldn't be like that
3,) see #1
4.) nothing was dodged lol
5.) i understand it all and it all supports my statement.
6.) havent done this one time and i answered you again but you still havent provide ONE single fact that proves my statement false. not one. You tried to change it and make up a lie about what it and the law is but they have all failed and been proven wrong. One fact to support your failed claim is all you need, ONE.This statement remains true: "there was a forced, non-consensual violation of the womb/uterus which is a sex organ/genital and that fits the law of rape/sexual assault (multiple links were provided) until anybody can provide somethign that suggests otherwise which hasn't happened yet"
Why cant you simply prove my statement wrong how many times have you dodged this?
Facts win again and my statement stands.

Stop being dishonest. You are wrong, and were shown to be wrong.
And I already proved that.

You said it's rape and by the law you provided, it is not rape.
So stop being dishonest.

 

[Excon]

Re: Is this rape?

Somehow 5 people voted no...

Under the provided law, it isn't.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Is this rape?

Somehow 5 people voted no...

I really dont know how. Based on law rape/sexual assault charges easily apply and can be failed. Now WINNING rape may be hard and some states do specifically mention intercourse which i think is a TERRIBLE way to define rape but in those states rape couldn't happen. Maybe those people are from one of those states, that would be a fair assessment. But the OP didnt specific a state so im going off of general law and sexual assult also came up. So the requirements needed foe a charge of rape/sexual assault are easily met.

If im on a jury this goes no lower than sexual assault for me depending on the state if its a state where the law supports it i go no lower than rape for this sick asshole.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Is this rape?

1.)Stop being dishonest. You are wrong, and were shown to be wrong.
2.)And I already proved that.
3.)You said it's rape and by the law you provided, it is not rape.
4.)So stop being dishonest.

1.)so you have that ONE fact that supports your false claim now and makes my statement wrong? please present it. THank you
2.) false no facts support you this is why i keep asking for them
3.) I said it was ONLY rape when i thought the OPs scenario was through the vagina, thread proves this after that as pointed out to you already my narrative never changed one time. Nobody will believe otherwise because the thread isnt going anywhere.
4.) havent been one time.
Facts win again

again let me know when you have one fact that supports you. Thank you.

 

[Gina]

Re: Is this rape?

Stop being dishonest. You are wrong, and were shown to be wrong.
And I already proved that.

You said it's rape and by the law you provided, it is not rape.
So stop being dishonest.

1.)so you have that ONE fact that supports your false claim now and makes my statement wrong? please present it. THank you
2.) false no facts support you this is why i keep asking for them
3.) I said it was ONLY rape when i thought the OPs scenario was through the vagina, thread proves this after that as pointed out to you already my narrative never changed one time. Nobody will believe otherwise because the thread isnt going anywhere.
4.) havent been one time.
Facts win again

again let me know when you have one fact that supports you. Thank you.

Moderator's Warning:

You two need to stop lacing your posts with bait. The back and forth is unproductive. Stick to commenting on the topic, please.

 

[NoC_T]

Re: Is this rape?

Tell 'em, fem.

 

[DA60]

In this hypothetical no actual intercourse takes place nor is there any sexual activity of any kind. Please feel free to come up with other methods how this might happen. Also there is no question here as to whether the woman was violated or otherwise harmed. That's a given. Answer the question given.

A woman is on the surgery table and during the procedure the doctor (could be male or female) uses a hypodermic to inject live sperm straight into the woman's womb. Is the woman a victim of rape?

And you started this thread why exactly?

 

[molten_dragon]

Re: Is this rape?

Yes. (And maybe other things...)



USDOJ: Attorney General Eric Holder Announces Revisions to the Uniform Crime Report’s Definition of Rape

By this definition (and my own), what the guy did is not rape.

 

[Excon]

Re: Is this rape?

3.) I said it was ONLY rape when i thought the OPs scenario was through the vagina,

:doh
:lamo



Post #53, I quoted the link you provided (the UCMJ) and stated that it was not rape under that law, while providing the definition from that law which applicable. Definition (g.) 1), (g.) 2) was included for completeness.

You replied with "wrong per the definition you just provided" and highlighted a portion of the definition (g.) 2) which does not matter to it being rape or not.

Which of course is wrong, as what I stated was in regards to the question of the OP. Is it rape? Which of course, as shown it is not.

The question is of rape.

(a) Rape.— Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by—

(1) using unlawful force against that other person;
(2) using force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping;
(4) first rendering that other person unconscious; or
(5) administering to that other person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or consent of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;​

is guilty of rape and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

[...]

(g) Definitions.— In this section:

(1) Sexual act.— The term “sexual act” means—

(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or
(B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.​

​

It wasn't a sexual act, which requires the penetration of the vulva or anus or mouth. WHich id not happen in the scenario given.

The fact remains that it is not rape under the law you provided.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Is this rape?

Bank rapists.

Yeah, that'll fly.

Ladies and gentlemen! The winner of the completely non-sequitur award!

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Is this rape?

Can anybody tell me what they think the defense would be to not have this in the rape/sexual assault arena?
Per the laws posted I see no way to not have it there.

We have had rape/sexual assault for hetero males using broom sticks on another hetero's but so why could this not fit?
there was a forced, non-consensual violation of the womb/uterus which is a sex organ/genital and that fits the law of rape/sexual assault (multiple links were provided) I dont see anyway to exculde this case or any defense that would be sound.

Does anybody know of a legal list that specifically excludes the uterus? because so far all the list provided here by multiple posters includes it.

I think this is the best way to look at this scenario.

Its court day, the prosecution has presented what i said above there was a forced, non-consensual violation of the womb/uterus which is a sex organ/genital and that fits the law of rape/sexual assault and thats what we are going for.

What would the defense come up with to make the judge say, no way that doesn't apply. Mind you other court cases about broomsticks etc can be referenced.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Is this rape?

Holy hell people! I just posted it this morning and look at all this. An additional 10 pages. I shutter at what I might find when I get back. I'm heading out on a week's camping so after tonight (or tomorrow morning at the latest) I won't be able to post again until next Sunday or later. So I'm not ignoring you, I'm just not in a Wi-Fi campground.....on purpose!

This is your scenario. Please add more information.
Such as which State. As the previously provided UCMJ Law, which only applies to those in the Military does not indicate it is rape.

Violated and harmed can happen even with consent. So was consent given at all, even if fraudulently?
Was she aware this was going to happen?

What was the Doctors intent?

I apologize if it wasn't clear, and I can see where you might not want to assume such details especially here. The intent is malicious or at least unethical on the doctor's part. The victim is unaware of the doctor's intent. No part of the procedure would have anything to do with the doctor injecting anything into the uterus. Does that cover your questions?

:2funny:

Earth to AgentJ, the question is; "Is this rape?

Stick to the question and stop trying to change the goal posts to make it about sexual contact.

Facts and evidence prove you wrong, again.
The question; "Is this rape", is about rape. Not sexual contact.
You are trying to move the goal posts to make it about something that it is not.

Sorry Excon, but sexual contact is part of the rape definition, therefore it is a legitimate point to bring up.

technically yes..

How so?

It was a violation of the woman's body. Impregnating without consent is rape.

Sperm comes from a male penis aka sex organ. Or did you think it just magically appears in a syringe? Impregnation without consent is categorized as a sex crime.

Please show me where that is stated. Is there any law that states such? What is the definition of rape and how does this scenario fall under that definition? Which law states that impregnation without consent in and of itself a sex crime? Or is all this just simply your opinion?

How about if someone went around violating women with a cucumber instead of a syringe? Would that be rape?

Well... Nor is a dildo but I'm sure if you forcefully insert something like that into a woman you can get a rape charge, or maybe sexual harassment.

Can you bypass the vulva and vagina to get the cucumber or dildo into the uterus? I can't, but I can make the bypass with a needle. Please maintain comparability.

In California the charge would be rape with a foreign object. It doesn't even require the live sperm. It could be a cucumber, a dildo...a finger....whatever.

Under what criteria would it qualify as rape? Please cite.

Where is there a law that says an injection is a rape. Please link me to people who have been convicted under such a law.

As far as I'm aware, there have never been any convictions for rape based on such.

I love you Chris, but there can't be a conviction until there is actually a case that falls under this scenario. As far as I know this idea popped into my head through the random connection of other ideas. I've never heard of such a case.

No mention of being charged with rape in this particular case where a doctor injected his own sperm into his patients and actually fathered children.

Hang on there. Reread the OP. I did note that the doctor could have been a woman. BTW a link to what was below that would have been nice.

So? It was still a violation of their uterus since they did not agree to be impregnated by HIM. That's like saying if I want sex, it's already for any man to just take it from me? That wouldn't be rape because I'm horny or something? I don't think it works that way. The point is, that injecting a person is not sexual in nature, even if it is sperm.

Sorry Chris, I'm with J on this one aspect. What you are talking about something different. It was a violation of trust, but not a sexual violation.

Exactly. No where is it written in law that an injection is equal to sex or sexual assault, regardless of what is in that injection. There have been cases where people have injected others with the AIDS virus (a sexually transmitted disease), and they were not charged with rape either.

Not comparable as they didn't inject the virus into the uterus or anything else related to sexual activity, sex organs or anything listed in the law. J is noting that it is not the contents of the needle that causes the action to be considered rape but where specifically the needle goes. And I'll have to agree with him on the premise of location determines whether it is rape or not. I just don't agree that uterus is on that list. See the next post before you respond to this J.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Is this rape?

Part 1 (or 2 if you prefer)

and theres your mistake. per links already prpvided gential were NOT bypassed, the the uteris is gential. Gential is inside and out and includes the uterus/womb a sexual organ.

THe defense wouldnt work unless the just ignored what sexual organs and gential factual are

Could you cite for me what parts of those linked articles brings you to conclude that the uterus is included in genitals? It looked to me as if the one law (which we later learn is the UCMJ, is very specific as to what was considered sexual organs for the purposes of sexual assault/rape. See below. The legal dictionary states nothing about what body parts are involved in rape.

1.) what law are you basing this on though.
Why is it rape/sexual assault to hold a guy or girl down and violate thier ass with a broom stick

ass is NOT a sexual organ and neither is a broom stick

I think you are over thinking sexual act with a sex organ needing to get off sexuall, that doesn not have to happen.

breasts are not sexual organs but if i hold a woman down and lick them and suck them and touch them is that also not sexual assault?

sorry we just disagree none of that would sway me on a jury if i was using law and science.

2.) i understand i just dont see how violating a sex organ is not sexual

In the links you provided anus and breast were listed as organs if violated constituted rape. Uterus was not on the list. So the fact that you don't think that the anus is not a sexual organ or that the breast are a sexual organ is irrelevant. As you like to point out the facts are against you and the fact is that the law does indeed consider the anus and breast sexual organs at least for the purpose of sexual assault and/or rape. The law doesn't agree with you on this aspect.

what LAW do you base this on?

That would be the one that you linked to:

(a) Rape.— Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by—
(1) using unlawful force against that other person;
(2) using force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping;
(4) first rendering that other person unconscious; or
(5) administering to that other person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or consent of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;

(g) Definitions.— In this section:
(1) Sexual act.— The term “sexual act” means—
(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or
(B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

what makes it a factual sexual manner and violating a uterus not?

Well I just proved about the anus and broomstick with your very own link. As to the uterus:

Sexual contact.— The term “sexual contact” means—
(A) touching, or causing another person to touch, either directly or through the clothing, the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, or degrade any person; or

Since the law notes that the genitalia can be touched either through the clothing or directly, and it is damn near impossible to touch the uterus short of cutting (not even fisting can do it. Don't ask me how I know), I would say that it is a good bet that the law, as provided in your links, does not consider the uterus as part of the genitalia.

of course they can be compared a broom in the but involves ZERO sex organs or objects yet violating the womb/uterus is directly violating a sex organ/gential.

law and science is against them

Yeah no. Just quoted the applicable parts, so please cite which part you believe support your position. You might be able to claim medical science on your side (although I would more trust an actual medically trained professional for that call.) but I've just shown that law isn't on your side in this case.

already did multiple times lol
rape legal definition of rape. rape synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally | LII / Legal Information Institute

come on chris we are only 4 pages deep , keep up!

EDIT:

also in case you want the links for gential/sex organs
Uterus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sex organ - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Female Reproductive System: Organs, Function, and More

Dude, post #19 only is not multiple times. Post #16 for the links added in under the edit. You're spelling is off and now your counting is off. Did you miss your coffee this morning?

1.) that is simply not true i posted the links multiple times as did other posters and i even posted them to you

It's only been twice at this point in the thread. Others keeping your links in a quote of your post doesn't count towards you posting multiple times.

vagonal penatration is factually not need for rape per the laws already posted.

do you know what the legal definition of rape/sexual assault is?
its been posted multiple times please read it.

rape legal definition of rape. rape synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally | LII / Legal Information Institute

True on the first line, but Chris was responding to Moot's inappropriate comparison of the cucumber to the needle. the needle is only important in the fact that it can be used bypassing the vulva and vagina to reach the uterus whereas the cucumber can't...at least not without a couple more steps that the needle requires, but that's a whole other scenario that we really don't want to go to.

3 times now. Now we are starting to move into multiple times, finally, maybe.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Is this rape?

Part 2 (or three depending on how you are counting)

Really?
What the **** do you call that?

U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part II › Chapter 47 › Subchapter X › § 920
10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally

Do you really not know what Chapter 47 is?

Figures. :doh

U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part II › Chapter 47
10 U.S. Code Chapter 47 - UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

10 U.S. Code Chapter 47 - UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE | LII / Legal Information Institute

He's got you there J. I followed the links at the top of the page on up and indeed you cited the UCMJ.

I made no direct link to UCMJ that was another poster.

Please provide the ID and post number of who provided the link to the UCMJ first. I will say that it is you. At the top of the page that you linked to in post #19 it reads:

Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part II › Chapter 47 › Subchapter X › § 920

With the exception of subsection 920, all the path points are links. If you click on Chapter 47 you get:

10 U.S. Code Chapter 47 - UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

You are the first to link to the UCMJ. Since that particular Chapter 47 that you linked to is part of the UCMJ you did indeed link directly to the UCMJ. You cannot escape this fact. Please prove otherwise. For the record I didn't realize it until I followed the path links back.

also what you just quoted of me was when i thought the penetration went through the vagina as the OP cleared up, being dishonest and out of context wont work, NOBODY is fooled. nice try that lie also completely fails. Facts win again and my statement stands. Keep trying to change it though it wont work and its funny.

Your links came in under posts #16 and #19 which is after both Beaudreaux and I made clear that the vagina was not involved in posts #6 and #7. You acknowledged us in Posts #10 and #11. So the laws that Excon quoted are from links that you posted after you saw and responded to indicating that the vagina was not involved in the scenario.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Is this rape?

1.)
Could you cite for me what parts of those linked articles brings you to conclude that the uterus is included in genitals? It looked to me as if the one law (which we later learn is the UCMJ, is very specific as to what was considered sexual organs for the purposes of sexual assault/rape. See below. The legal dictionary states nothing about what body parts are involved in rape.
2.)In the links you provided anus and breast were listed as organs if violated constituted rape. Uterus was not on the list. So the fact that you don't think that the anus is not a sexual organ or that the breast are a sexual organ is irrelevant. As you like to point out the facts are against you and the fact is that the law does indeed consider the anus and breast sexual organs at least for the purpose of sexual assault and/or rape. The law doesn't agree with you on this aspect.
3.)That would be the one that you linked to:
4.)Well I just proved about the anus and broomstick with your very own link. As to the uterus:
5.)Since the law notes that the genitalia can be touched either through the clothing or directly, and it is damn near impossible to touch the uterus short of cutting (not even fisting can do it. Don't ask me how I know), I would say that it is a good bet that the law, as provided in your links, does not consider the uterus as part of the genitalia.
6.) Yeah no. Just quoted the applicable parts, so please cite which part you believe support your position. You might be able to claim medical science on your side (although I would more trust an actual medically trained professional for that call.) but I've just shown that law isn't on your side in this case.
7.)True on the first line, but Chris was responding to Moot's inappropriate comparison of the cucumber to the needle. the needle is only important in the fact that it can be used bypassing the vulva and vagina to reach the uterus whereas the cucumber can't...at least not without a couple more steps that the needle requires, but that's a whole other scenario that we really don't want to go to.

3 times now. Now we are starting to move into multiple times, finally, maybe.

1.) sure you even posted one yourself
rape legal definition of rape. rape synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally | LII / Legal Information Institute
Uterus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sex organ - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Female Reproductive System: Organs, Function, and More

these 5 links are the support for my statement which i havent been able to see anythign that proves it false.
there was a forced, non-consensual violation of the womb/uterus which is a sex organ/genital and that fits the law of rape/sexual assault (multiple links were provided) I dont see anyway to exclude this case or any defense that would be sound.

2.) no no no I didnt say "i" dont think so i was saying to others that thier definitions dont matter and what one may think is a "logical" definition doesnt change the law. I was using the logic in reverse to show it was wrong.

3.) my links include genitalia and sexual intrusion which support me and again
4.) yes i agree you misunderstood that whole conversation. I was using it for SUPPORT not saying it was wrong lol
5.) and links already prove this false as it is factually part of genitalia. until there is a law link saying its not we have to go by dictionaries, science and how the law is written.
ANd you can tell me your story later lol
6.) again you simply misunderstood what i was doing. I was being sarcastic to show chris her opinion of organs is meanignless. the law is 100% on my side

7.) this doesnt change anything nor do i think it was a wrong compassion for chris. For tyour OP yes I agree 100% but since chris kept saying sex needs to happen his example was perfect and showed heres to be false.

 

[Jerry]

In this hypothetical no actual intercourse takes place nor is there any sexual activity of any kind. Please feel free to come up with other methods how this might happen. Also there is no question here as to whether the woman was violated or otherwise harmed. That's a given. Answer the question given.

A woman is on the surgery table and during the procedure the doctor (could be male or female) uses a hypodermic to inject live sperm straight into the woman's womb. Is the woman a victim of rape?

No, it's not sexual. It's battery and malpractice.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Is this rape?

Part 2 (or three depending on how you are counting)
1.)He's got you there J. I followed the links at the top of the page on up and indeed you cited the UCMJ.
2.)Please provide the ID and post number of who provided the link to the UCMJ first. I will say that it is you. At the top of the page that you linked to in post #19 it reads:

With the exception of subsection 920, all the path points are links. If you click on Chapter 47 you get:

You are the first to link to the UCMJ. Since that particular Chapter 47 that you linked to is part of the UCMJ you did indeed link directly to the UCMJ. You cannot escape this fact. Please prove otherwise. For the record I didn't realize it until I followed the path links back.
3.)Your links came in under posts #16 and #19 which is after both Beaudreaux and I made clear that the vagina was not involved in posts #6 and #7. You acknowledged us in Posts #10 and #11. So the laws that Excon quoted are from links that you posted after you saw and responded to indicating that the vagina was not involved in the scenario.

1.) no i cited CORNELL that made reference to UCMJ and other laws and it was only ONE of my links. Another person directly sited UCMJ which is what i said, he got nothing
2.) lol i dont know but im not going back, I thought it was maggie or somebody im not sure, i honestly cant remember. i know somebody quoted the fed or department of justice or somethign simmilare but the point was mine was a CORNELL law link where many things including the UCMJ was, but there was no direct link to a UCMJ site. If this is wrong let me know though because ill admit. seem to me though he said i was qouting UCMJ directly and that wasnt the case nor does it really matter unless your op would claim a state where rules/laws are different.
3.) correct I eventually acknowledge you and didnt read the whole thread to that point as I was having muiltiple conversations. Once i learned what you meant per our conversation my statement has not changed :shrug:

all my links and statement stand once i knew what you meant and they still stand now. Like i told him i have referred to rape/sexual assault, genitalia and sexual intrusion in posts 13,19,26,33,38,42,45,46,57,58,61,68,72,77,78,82,83 and probably more. Thats all I wrote down on my little pad here the first time i looked to prove the other poster wrong. I wasn't doing that twice lol

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Is this rape?

and just because it required it's own response (not to mention 2 parts again):

Can anybody tell me what they think the defense would be to not have this in the rape/sexual assault arena?
Per the laws posted I see no way to not have it there.

So let's go back to your links that you have been so lovingly referring to:

Female Reproductive System: Organs, Function, and More
Sex organ - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Uterus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
rape legal definition of rape. rape synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally | LII / Legal Information Institute

So starting with your next paragraph:

We have had rape/sexual assault for hetero males using broom sticks on another hetero's but so why could this not fit?

We start with your UCMJ link from Cornell (the 5th one in case you all didn't realize it):

(a) Rape.— Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by—
(1) using unlawful force against that other person;
(2) using force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any person;

Which is then followed by:

(g) Definitions.— In this section:
(1) Sexual act.— The term “sexual act” means—
(B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

So we have no doubt here that a broomstick up the but(sic) without consent is indeed rape. Of course J you have no issues with this part and you've noted that you wholly agree with it. So now let's look at the uterus:

Just for context let's include that whole section and just just what was included to cover the butt and the broomstick. Since we can see from above that rape requires a sex act:

(g) Definitions.— In this section:
(1) Sexual act.— The term “sexual act” means—
(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or
(B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

I'm seeing no mention of sexual organs in general nor reproductive organs in general nor the uterus specifically. But wait we still have other links...

From the legal dictionary(4th link above):

Rape

A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will.

Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion. Rape laws in the United States have been revised over the years, and they vary from state to state.

Historically, rape was defined as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The essential elements of the crime were sexual penetration, force, and lack of consent.

Rape or sexual assault statutes carefully define the type of contact that constitutes rape. In Hawaii, for example, the term sexual penetration is defined as "vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, analingus, deviate sexual intercourse, or any intrusion of any part of a person's body or of any object into the genital or anal opening of another person's body … however slight." Sexual contact is "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person … or of the sexual or other intimate parts of the actor by the person, whether directly or through the clothing or other material intended to cover the sexual or other intimate parts" (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-700 [1996]).

Didn't find much else that might apply to which body parts, but please feel free to quote them specifically. So nothing really there that would classify the uterus as a sexual organ. But is the uterus a sexual organ? For this we would have to look at the other articles I guess since there is nothing in the two law links.

So let's start with the more reliable; WebMD (1st link):

Hmmm...seems that there is nothing there about sex organs. The whole article is about reproductive organs. So unless we find something that directly links a reproductive organ to sexual activity (since we can see from artificial reproduction that reproduction is not dependent upon sexual activity), I honestly don't see where this article applies. But again, if there is a specific passage quote it!

 

[maquiscat]

So onto the wikis! Although I hope that J never scoffs at someone using wiki articles. I can't remember if he has, but I'll be remembering after this.

From the Simple English Wiki (link #2):

The sex organs, which scientists call the genitalia or genitals, are the parts of the body that allow sexual reproduction (the making of young) to take place. They are also for urination (peeing), to remove waste products from the body. While all animals have sex organs, this article is about the sex organs of human beings.

The genitals are the main parts of the human body that make men and women different. Some parts of the genitals are outside the body, while other parts are inside. In a man, his external genitals are the penis and the scrotum (a bag that contains the testicles). Inside his body the testicles produce sperm and a substance called testosterone which makes a person grow into a man and to feel like a man. Other glands produce a fluid called semen. The part of a woman's genitals that is outside her body is called the vulva. Inside her body are the vagina, which holds the penis during sexual intercourse; the uterus (womb), in which a baby grows when the woman is pregnant; the ovaries, which produce ova (egg cells) and a substance called estrogen which makes a person grow into a woman and to feel like a woman; and the Fallopian tubes, which connect the ovaries to the uterus.

So this so far is our only link between the uterus and sex organs. And it's a rather weak one at that being wiki. Regardless there is nothing else in the article that would even begin to cover the context of rape. And certainly nothing to connect it with any law link to this thread so far, which has been only the UCMJ.

So what does the final link have for us?

Standard wiki vice simple english, but aside from simply calling the uterus a sex organ (with no citation in either article to note a distinction or none between sexual organs and reproductive organs), there is nothing here either to support the inclusion of the uterus within the context of rape. Once again, if there is something I missed in either wiki, by all means cite it.

there was a forced(true), non-consensual(true) violation (true) of the womb/uterus(true) which is a sex organ/genital and that fits the law of rape/sexual assault (multiple links were provided) I don't see anyway to exculde this case or any defense that would be sound.

So the only thing that is up for conjecture is whether or not the uterus is recognized by law as being an organ that can be violate in the context of rape. According the the UCMJ and Hawaii, no. I am certainly willing to see laws from other states if you think that they will support your argument, but so far all your posted links don't really amount to much in support of the scenario doctor (who once again may be male or female) being guilty of rape specifically. Sexual assault is a slim to none chance, but it looks like slim is heading for the door. Assault, malpractice and many other things, yes! But rape.....tain't happen'

Does anybody know of a legal list that specifically excludes the uterus? because so far all the list provided here by multiple posters includes it.

It would seem to me that a legal list of what needs to be violated to be legally considered rape would be an inclusive list and not a list of what parts excluded from rape. Can you show me any legal list that says (in effect will do) "rape occurs when any body part is violated except the following"? Somehow I doubt it. I'm willing to bet that all the list specifically spell out which body parts are affected.

I think this is the best way to look at this scenario.

Its court day, the prosecution has presented what i said above there was a forced, non-consensual violation of the womb/uterus which is a sex organ/genital and that fits the law of rape/sexual assault and thats what we are going for.

What would the defense come up with to make the judge say, no way that doesn't apply. Mind you other court cases about broomsticks etc can be referenced.

The legal definition of rape is brought up, followed by the legal definition of sexual act and viola': not rape.