If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   That New Mexico Republican who wanted to make rape victims felons if they had an abortion would like you to know she's interested in "clarifying" her language   (foxnews.com) divider line 392
    More: Followup, New Mexico Republican, New Mexico, rape victim, state legislature, abortions, felony, legislators, Carlsbad  
•       •       •

12788 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2013 at 11:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



392 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-25 01:07:24 PM  

supayoda: Do they realize that a standard rape kit includes obtaining DNA evidence? Do they not also realize that DNA is not destroyed by an abortion?


Science is not exactly their strength.
 
2013-01-25 01:07:56 PM  

supayoda: Do they realize that a standard rape kit includes obtaining DNA evidence? Do they not also realize that DNA is not destroyed by an abortion?


Science has no place in the Republican party, unless that scientific advancement can some how make them a lot of money.
 
2013-01-25 01:08:18 PM  

supayoda: browntimmy: Oooh, new law idea for you, GOP: Women who have miscarriages should be tried with manslaughter.

It's been done already.


I ought to be shocked and disgusted that the GOP already proposed this but I think I have "farkup fatigue." That's when a group's policies have been so wrong . . . about so much . . . for so long, that when they proposed their latest fark-up, you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Meh. What did you expect?"
 
2013-01-25 01:08:32 PM  
/CSB

My wife teaches middle school special ED. Several times she has had 12-14 year old students come up pregnant. She pointed out to school officials that the police should be notified because someone has to be guilty of statutory rape if a retarded 12-14 year old is preggers. In all cases she was told NOYFB and GBTW.

In one case she plead with the grandma(the child's guardian) that the kid should have an abortion. Grandma said no way as grandma would be getting the checks from the government as the child's guardian.

/END CSB
 
2013-01-25 01:10:33 PM  

SkinnyHead: PsiChick: Because Fox News can't actually report worth shiat. What actually happened is that, in a bill titled basically 'ACT ABOUT RAPE AND INCEST VICTIMS' (don't remember the exact language--the thread should still be available in the Politics tab for everyone, and someone found a linky to the PDF, but it actually said 'rape and incest victims', that one I am not paraphrasing in the slightest), the woman said in legal jargon that it was illegal to give an abortion to a woman who was pregnant because the baby (not fetus) is evidence.

The title of the bill was "AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW; SPECIFYING PROCURING OF AN ABORTION AS TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE IN CASES OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL PENETRATION OR INCEST."


Well, well. Skinnyhead scores a point. It is true that Psichick was mistaken about the wording. It is also true that if a rape victim attempts to get an abortion she is procuring one. So, you've had a good day. You were actually correct on a literal level. Of course this would make no difference at all on a semantic level since the content, the meaning is the same even if Psichick got the wording differently.
 
2013-01-25 01:11:02 PM  

browntimmy: Oooh, new law idea for you, GOP: Women who have miscarriages should be tried with manslaughter.


mrshowrules: As I posted yesterday, if  you want to reach Skinnyhead on this topic, first you have imagine that a fetus is a young citizen being imprisoned and held without due process in a woman's vagina



Ack!! Stop giving them ideas!!!


/btw.. Babies come from a woman's uterus. Vaginas are the parts that straight guys and gay women like.
 
2013-01-25 01:11:22 PM  

NutWrench: supayoda: browntimmy: Oooh, new law idea for you, GOP: Women who have miscarriages should be tried with manslaughter.

It's been done already.

I ought to be shocked and disgusted that the GOP already proposed this but I think I have "farkup fatigue." That's when a group's policies have been so wrong . . . about so much . . . for so long, that when they proposed their latest fark-up, you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Meh. What did you expect?"


NutWrench: supayoda: browntimmy: Oooh, new law idea for you, GOP: Women who have miscarriages should be tried with manslaughter.

It's been done already.

I ought to be shocked and disgusted that the GOP already proposed this but I think I have "farkup fatigue." That's when a group's policies have been so wrong . . . about so much . . . for so long, that when they proposed their latest fark-up, you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Meh. What did you expect?"


It hasn't merely been proposed. It's existing law in some states.
 
2013-01-25 01:11:25 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Weaver95: I really don't understand this bizarre obsession the pro-life crowd has with punishing rape victims.  being forced to carry the product of rape full term has to be pretty damaging, not just mentally but financially.  look - I get the 'whole life is sacred' thing, I really do.  But here's the deal....if you want to force a woman to carry a rape baby full term, then do the following:

1. pay the rape victims medical costs.  ALL of 'em.  from psych counseling to pre-natal care up through medical expenses incurred during and immediately after giving birth.
2. help put the kid up for adoption, even if the kid is 'special needs' or has medical issues.  you wanted 'em born, you pay for 'em.
3. make it a law that rape victims *cannot* be fired under any circumstances while carrying the rape baby to term, oh and you are going to give their significant other (or person they designate) the same level of protection.  they'll need support, and you are going to damn well make sure they get it.
4. if they decide to keep the rape baby, then you pay the woman a stipend over and above food stamps that you WILL make sure she gets...this was about as unplanned a pregnancy as unplanned can get and you WILL make sure to help her with all her unexpected/unplanned for expenses during her first year with her new child.
5. her rapist pays child support.  yes, I realize that's probably something like...20 cents or something...but it's the thought that counts.

do ALL of the above, and i'll believe you give a damn about the rape victim.  Don't do it, or weasel dick your way out of it, and I'll know you're a religious moron who hasn't thought the issue through.

/Um ya, fark all that. That means WE the taxpayers are paying for a baby that isn't ours. not that we don't already, but how about making the guy who raped her pay. Make him work, and give the money to the girl and the kid. At least a portion to help / assist. Why should the taxpayers shoulder the whole burden?


What about cases where the girl gets pregnant by "raping" the man? I don't mean by overpowering and sexually violating him but rather through threats and coercion or good old fashioned sabotaging the contraceptives? Should she still be a recipiant of these benefits?

Also- I'm not really sure where you get this obssession that the prolife crowd wants to victimize the victim. As a matter of course, every life is sacred to them (including that of the mother) but I don't believe coercing a rape victim into having a child is part of that mandate.
 
2013-01-25 01:11:58 PM  

Kome: Except if there is already a law on the books prohibiting "tampering with evidence" (btw, lovely to see them objectify the fetus that they claim is a person as "evidence"; real consistent there) than this bill serves no purpose UNLESS there was another targeted audience besides people who would be considered criminals (or alleged criminals, technically) under current law. If that is not the case, then the time this lawmaker spent drafting the bill is wasted taxpayer money and an attempt by Republicans at expanding government authority. Pretty hypocritical both because it goes against their core platform of smaller government and because they are attacking democrats for trying the same thing with gun legislation (e.g. we don't need new laws to regulate guns since we already have laws against murder).

So which is it? Waste of taxpayer money and a blatant hypocrisy -or- ulterior motive intended to expand the sphere of who is considered a criminal to victims of crimes who wish to limit the magnitude of negative consequences of being victimized. You can't have it any other way.


Even though coercing an abortion to destroy evidence is probably illegal under a proper interpretation of existing laws against tampering with evidence, your average Chester does not have a GED in Law.  It is not unreasonable for the Legislature to spell it out for Chester to deter him from compounding his crime.
 
2013-01-25 01:12:08 PM  
Obviously I need to start using the preview button.
 
2013-01-25 01:13:13 PM  
Why are republican women so clueless about women?
 
2013-01-25 01:15:24 PM  

SkinnyHead: Although the clause regarding intent would seem to preclude rape victims from being charged, several critics read the bill as possibly including them

That's what I said in the other thread.  The bill as written would only apply to someone who acts with the specific intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.

It's good that she will clarify the language, but I'm not sure that will stop the dishonest left-wing media from distorting whatever language she uses.


Never mind the media.  It's social workers, police and prosecutors we need to worry about.

"Who fathered the baby you aborted?"  In some States (IDK about NM), a woman is pressured to name a father  in order to get social services.

"I don't wanna say.  I need/love him and don''t want him in trouble." Happens all the time in abusive/incestuous relationships.

"Fine, we'll charge you with tampering with evidence if you don't tell us."

Doesn't matter if the charge would stick, or if the DA would actually bring it.  The potential for intimidation of victims is in this law.

Change "any person" to "himself" and delete the rest of that sentence in cases of rape/incest.  I don't see how an abortion could throw suspicion upon someone else.
 
2013-01-25 01:16:49 PM  

supayoda: NutWrench: supayoda: browntimmy: Oooh, new law idea for you, GOP: Women who have miscarriages should be tried with manslaughter.

It's been done already.

I ought to be shocked and disgusted that the GOP already proposed this but I think I have "farkup fatigue." That's when a group's policies have been so wrong . . . about so much . . . for so long, that when they proposed their latest fark-up, you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Meh. What did you expect?"

NutWrench: supayoda: browntimmy: Oooh, new law idea for you, GOP: Women who have miscarriages should be tried with manslaughter.

It's been done already.

I ought to be shocked and disgusted that the GOP already proposed this but I think I have "farkup fatigue." That's when a group's policies have been so wrong . . . about so much . . . for so long, that when they proposed their latest fark-up, you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Meh. What did you expect?"

It hasn't merely been proposed. It's existing law in some states.


Attempting or sucessfully killing a fetus through intentional negligence/substance abuse is wrong? No way. I'm gonna have to have a serious talk about my congressman about this.
 
2013-01-25 01:18:21 PM  

ccundiff: DGS: david_gaithersburg: DGS: david_gaithersburg: So-called-progressives, doing their part to keep down the national reading level.

What does this even mean?

.
So you support victims of sexual abuse being forced by their abusers to have an abortion?

The bill is not needed, but the outrage is manufactured.

Nice! I ask you what it is you even mean and you're already positioning me! Thanks! I see I have you correctly marked as 'Derpy'.

/I can do it, too. Stupid, isn't it.

You can do that? I must investigate my Fark account
/And then mark him as extremely Derpy


Actually, you'll need to click on the user's name, at the beginning of a comment they've made. This will open up their user profile, and if you are logged in to Fark at the time, will allow you to put the user on either your 'favorites' list (and choose a color, which henceforth will be displayed as the background color any time they comment in a thread) or your 'ignore' list, and henceforth comments by them will not be visible to you (unless quoted by another Farker). Either choice will allow you to enter a label as well.

I recommend the 'ignore' list for real idiots like david_gaithersburg, who add absolutely zero to the discussion...
 
2013-01-25 01:19:26 PM  
So, does this mean that it's only rape if a woman is impregnated? The derp...it burns.
 
2013-01-25 01:19:59 PM  
I hereby announce the creation of a new political party. We are the "Reagan republicans." We support:

1. Small government.
2. Individual freedom.
3. Fiscal conservatism.
4. Individual responsibility.
5. Individual accountability.
6. Public safety
7. Advancing the fiscal solvency and independence of the United States of America.

In short, the GOP will HATE us, because we'll grouse about raising the debt ceiling regardless of if it's a Republican or Democrat in the white house. Small Government and Individual Freedom means we're keeping government OUT of vaginas nationwide.
 
2013-01-25 01:20:31 PM  

DGS: SkinnyHead: PsiChick: Because Fox News can't actually report worth shiat. What actually happened is that, in a bill titled basically 'ACT ABOUT RAPE AND INCEST VICTIMS' (don't remember the exact language--the thread should still be available in the Politics tab for everyone, and someone found a linky to the PDF, but it actually said 'rape and incest victims', that one I am not paraphrasing in the slightest), the woman said in legal jargon that it was illegal to give an abortion to a woman who was pregnant because the baby (not fetus) is evidence.

The title of the bill was "AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW; SPECIFYING PROCURING OF AN ABORTION AS TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE IN CASES OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL PENETRATION OR INCEST."

So you think any woman impregnated by a rapist is only behaving responsibly if she takes the fetus to term and can then show the state it really was the accused rapists child? That it is her duty to bear proof, and the rest of the discussion is without merit?

/deep thoughts with..


///Next up: How Republicans will pass a law stating that no female rape victim's case shall be investigated in any way until nine months after the alleged incident, by which time the rapist will have skipped the country and be outside US jurisdiction but we don't care because Jebus
 
2013-01-25 01:21:36 PM  

CheekyMonkey: ccundiff: DGS: david_gaithersburg: DGS: david_gaithersburg: So-called-progressives, doing their part to keep down the national reading level.

What does this even mean?

.
So you support victims of sexual abuse being forced by their abusers to have an abortion?

The bill is not needed, but the outrage is manufactured.

Nice! I ask you what it is you even mean and you're already positioning me! Thanks! I see I have you correctly marked as 'Derpy'.

/I can do it, too. Stupid, isn't it.

You can do that? I must investigate my Fark account
/And then mark him as extremely Derpy

Actually, you'll need to click on the user's name, at the beginning of a comment they've made. This will open up their user profile, and if you are logged in to Fark at the time, will allow you to put the user on either your 'favorites' list (and choose a color, which henceforth will be displayed as the background color any time they comment in a thread) or your 'ignore' list, and henceforth comments by them will not be visible to you (unless quoted by another Farker). Either choice will allow you to enter a label as well.

I recommend the 'ignore' list for real idiots like david_gaithersburg, who add absolutely zero to the discussion...


Or I could ignore everyone else and make it Fark minus Fark.
//I'm here for the entertainment
 
2013-01-25 01:21:49 PM  

orbister: Weaver95: ...and how often does this sort of thing happen?  I mean if she wants to pass a law about it, it's gotta be happening like...what?  three/four/200 times a day?  enough that this legislator sees incest victims being FORCED into abortions often enough to sit down and write a law about it anyways.  which implies some rather disturbing things about New Mexico.

There is a case going through the courts in the UK at the moment; a gang of men who over years raped, abused and pimped a succession of underage girls from chaotic families and children's homes. Several back street abortions have been alleged.

I have no problem with a law which says that forcing or compelling a rape or incest victim to have an abortion is a crime; there seems to be nothing to suggest that the woman in question would face criminal sanctions or that her freedom to choose a termination would be circumscribed.


I call situations like this the "Legal, But" approach. If you, as a legislator, can raise questions in the minds of law abiding citizens about the legality of their activities, many will choose not to exercise their rights. When "the clock is ticking" on getting an abortion, which is already a difficult *AND PERSONAL* decision, the last thing a rape victim needs is some legislation to navigate to make sure that she can continue to press charges against a rapist without putting herself on the wrong side of the law.

Whether this is reprehensible or just dumb as all fark depends entirely on whether we believe this Legal But situation was an intentional consequence of the bill or not.
 
2013-01-25 01:23:33 PM  

SkinnyHead: Kome: Except if there is already a law on the books prohibiting "tampering with evidence" (btw, lovely to see them objectify the fetus that they claim is a person as "evidence"; real consistent there) than this bill serves no purpose UNLESS there was another targeted audience besides people who would be considered criminals (or alleged criminals, technically) under current law. If that is not the case, then the time this lawmaker spent drafting the bill is wasted taxpayer money and an attempt by Republicans at expanding government authority. Pretty hypocritical both because it goes against their core platform of smaller government and because they are attacking democrats for trying the same thing with gun legislation (e.g. we don't need new laws to regulate guns since we already have laws against murder).

So which is it? Waste of taxpayer money and a blatant hypocrisy -or- ulterior motive intended to expand the sphere of who is considered a criminal to victims of crimes who wish to limit the magnitude of negative consequences of being victimized. You can't have it any other way.

Even though coercing an abortion to destroy evidence is probably illegal under a proper interpretation of existing laws against tampering with evidence, your average Chester does not have a GED in Law.  It is not unreasonable for the Legislature to spell it out for Chester to deter him from compounding his crime.


Because we have established - once again drawing a comparison to how Republicans think and act re: gun control - that criminals obviously don't seem to care about the laws, we can safely rule that out as plausible... unless of course this is still going to be filed under "hypocrisy", which is still a possibly valid interpretation. Especially since it would be easier to just spread that information along without the creation of a separate, specific law that only applies for a particular set of circumstances. Try again skippy.
 
2013-01-25 01:23:37 PM  

SkinnyHead: Tampering with evidence is a specific intent crime that requires an intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another. If the victim seeks an abortion without the intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another, it would not be considered tampering with evidence.


To be clear though: if a 16 year old girl procures an abortion in whole or in part to protect her 19 year old boyfriend, the specific intent element would be met.
 
2013-01-25 01:24:20 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: This and the anti-gay shiat pisses me off. I'm one of the few pro choice, pro gay marriage, atheist conservatives out there. DAMMIT!


You're not alone. I'm with you brah. Sadly, I'm afraid our party ain't what it used to be, and/or never grew up with the times. Wished we could get back on track, but I'm pretty sure the GOP is going to have to do a massive reboot otherwise we'll continue to have douche nozzles like this.

We're indeed a rare breed my friend.
/internets high five
 
2013-01-25 01:24:21 PM  

Weaver95: I am the reason the rum is gone.


Ah, rum. Rum is good. I want rum.
 
2013-01-25 01:24:34 PM  

pdee: /CSB

My wife teaches middle school special ED. Several times she has had 12-14 year old students come up pregnant. She pointed out to school officials that the police should be notified because someone has to be guilty of statutory rape if a retarded 12-14 year old is preggers. In all cases she was told NOYFB and GBTW.

In one case she plead with the grandma(the child's guardian) that the kid should have an abortion. Grandma said no way as grandma would be getting the checks from the government as the child's guardian.

/END CSB


So, Grandma told your wife all of that, huh? I'm sure she was looking forward to raising a baby at her advanced age, while simultaneously caring for the underaged mother for a couple hundred bucks extra a month.


/I call shenanigans
 
2013-01-25 01:24:46 PM  

Mike_1962: cubic_spleen: Republicans hate abortion because every aborted baby is one that won't grow up to be a soldier who will die fighting overseas for corporate profits. That is all Republicans are about. And for the Republicans who are also hardcore conservative evangelical Christians (i.e., all of them), poor people dying in the pursuit of rich people's monetary gain is the only way for poor people to get to heaven.

/all Republicans are really like this. The ones that say otherwise are in denial, or lying.

You're not helping. Go away and left derp elsewhere.


Since when is loathing StormFront, and its political (the Republican Party) and media (FOX News) wings, "left derp"? Res ipsa loquitur.
 
2013-01-25 01:28:40 PM  

orbister: Weaver95: ...and how often does this sort of thing happen?  I mean if she wants to pass a law about it, it's gotta be happening like...what?  three/four/200 times a day?  enough that this legislator sees incest victims being FORCED into abortions often enough to sit down and write a law about it anyways.  which implies some rather disturbing things about New Mexico.

There is a case going through the courts in the UK at the moment; a gang of men who over years raped, abused and pimped a succession of underage girls from chaotic families and children's homes. Several back street abortions have been alleged.

I have no problem with a law which says that forcing or compelling a rape or incest victim to have an abortion is a crime; there seems to be nothing to suggest that the woman in question would face criminal sanctions or that her freedom to choose a termination would be circumscribed.


Apparently they didn't take.
groundctrl.s3.amazonaws.com

Could the photographer have found a leveler stage to shoot this pic on?
 
2013-01-25 01:29:38 PM  

cubic_spleen: Republicans hate abortion because every aborted baby is one that won't grow up to be a soldier who will die fighting overseas for corporate profits. That is all Republicans are about. And for the Republicans who are also hardcore conservative evangelical Christians (i.e., all of them), poor people dying in the pursuit of rich people's monetary gain is the only way for poor people to get to heaven.

/all Republicans are really like this. The ones that say otherwise are in denial, or lying.


That's a bit of hyperbole right there, IMHO. I have relatives who are Republican who are nothing like this. Granted, the GOP left them back in 1980, but they still self-identify with the Party. ( they're pretty much "Country-Club" GOP'ers who view the fundamentalist Christian wing with disdain)

/ for all i know, they may have voted for Obama to protect their investments...(and that's something they would NEVER admit to...)
 
2013-01-25 01:31:21 PM  

trappedspirit: It clearly says "...with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime..."

There is a lot of manufactured rage in here over ignorance and lack of reading comprehension skills. I understand being stupid is sometimes frustrating and makes you angry, but...get over it


I know this is counter intuitive, but in legal language, intent does not equal motive. Applying for an abortion is intent to destroy the fetus. The fetus is evidence in this circumstance. Therefore, intent to destroy evidence is established. None of this speaks to motive which is, in fact, unrelated.
 
2013-01-25 01:32:34 PM  
t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-25 01:32:46 PM  

david_gaithersburg: DGS: david_gaithersburg: Can you provide a link to a story about "New Mexico republicans and their attempt to punish rape victims"? I'm reading a story about so-called-progressives manufacturing outrage over Republicans trying to punish the abusers of rape victims.

/Why are you pro rape?

True or false. If this bill was made into law, a woman that sought an abortion after being raped would be potentially hit with a third degree felony charge.

/heh, no, I don't actually expect you to answer. You just want people to play defense while you make absurd accusations.
//why are you pro government control?

.
I'm not a so-called-progressive, so chances are I'm not an attorney. It was a draft bill, the language is being revised. Even after the revision there is still fake outrage.

If a conservative told you the sky was blue you would begin foaming at the mouth.


It's not a "draft" bill after it's introduced to the legislature.
 
2013-01-25 01:34:47 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: SkinnyHead: Although the clause regarding intent would seem to preclude rape victims from being charged, several critics read the bill as possibly including them

That's what I said in the other thread.  The bill as written would only apply to someone who acts with the specific intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another.

It's good that she will clarify the language, but I'm not sure that will stop the dishonest left-wing media from distorting whatever language she uses.

Never mind the media.  It's social workers, police and prosecutors we need to worry about.

"Who fathered the baby you aborted?"  In some States (IDK about NM), a woman is pressured to name a father  in order to get social services.

"I don't wanna say.  I need/love him and don''t want him in trouble." Happens all the time in abusive/incestuous relationships.

"Fine, we'll charge you with tampering with evidence if you don't tell us."

Doesn't matter if the charge would stick, or if the DA would actually bring it.  The potential for intimidation of victims is in this law.

Change "any person" to "himself" and delete the rest of that sentence in cases of rape/incest.  I don't see how an abortion could throw suspicion upon someone else.


Those are valid concerns.  That's why the sponsor of the bill is adding clarifying language that "In no circumstance shall the mother of the fetus be charged."
 
2013-01-25 01:35:52 PM  
Over 200 posts and no chickenfarkers?

i1222.photobucket.com

/You're losing it, FARK.
 
2013-01-25 01:38:27 PM  

irreverend mother: browntimmy: Oooh, new law idea for you, GOP: Women who have miscarriages should be tried with manslaughter.

tell me where to send my rags for testing every time I have a period.

A great many products of conception never implant themselves and get flushed out when a woman has her monthly period. And who's going to be my llawyer? Because, I didn't even know anything happened. I was sitting here, voting and feeling moody and voom, another manslaughter down the tubes.


Heh. I don't think these guys have a lot of time for actual biology, so know, science and all...
 
2013-01-25 01:40:12 PM  

halleyscomet: I hereby announce the creation of a new political party. We are the "Reagan republicans." We support:

1. Small government.
2. Individual freedom.
3. Fiscal conservatism.
4. Individual responsibility.
5. Individual accountability.
6. Public safety
7. Advancing the fiscal solvency and independence of the United States of America.

In short, the GOP will HATE us, because we'll grouse about raising the debt ceiling regardless of if it's a Republican or Democrat in the white house. Small Government and Individual Freedom means we're keeping government OUT of vaginas nationwide.


So... Libertarianism? Add States' rights to your list and the party already exists. They even ran under the Republican banner last election. And the GOP hated them.
 
2013-01-25 01:40:24 PM  

mittromneysdog: SkinnyHead: Tampering with evidence is a specific intent crime that requires an intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another. If the victim seeks an abortion without the intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another, it would not be considered tampering with evidence.

To be clear though: if a 16 year old girl procures an abortion in whole or in part to protect her 19 year old boyfriend, the specific intent element would be met.


Tough call. If the parents of the girl have not filed rape charges or specifically accused the boy friend of any wrong doing and there is no crime of rape under investigation, I imagine she could legally get away with it. Was the girl forcibly raped but for some reason feeling compelled to protect her attackers identity.

But the answer would be yes if the 16 was attempting to thwart the identity of the father sole to avoid persecution of the law.
 
2013-01-25 01:43:02 PM  

Weaver95: I really don't understand this bizarre obsession the pro-life crowd has with punishing rape victims.  being forced to carry the product of rape full term has to be pretty damaging, not just mentally but financially.  look - I get the 'whole life is sacred' thing, I really do.  But here's the deal....if you want to force a woman to carry a rape baby full term, then do the following:

1. pay the rape victims medical costs.  ALL of 'em.  from psych counseling to pre-natal care up through medical expenses incurred during and immediately after giving birth.
2. help put the kid up for adoption, even if the kid is 'special needs' or has medical issues.  you wanted 'em born, you pay for 'em.
3. make it a law that rape victims *cannot* be fired under any circumstances while carrying the rape baby to term, oh and you are going to give their significant other (or person they designate) the same level of protection.  they'll need support, and you are going to damn well make sure they get it.
4. if they decide to keep the rape baby, then you pay the woman a stipend over and above food stamps that you WILL make sure she gets...this was about as unplanned a pregnancy as unplanned can get and you WILL make sure to help her with all her unexpected/unplanned for expenses during her first year with her new child.
5. her rapist pays child support.  yes, I realize that's probably something like...20 cents or something...but it's the thought that counts.

do ALL of the above, and i'll believe you give a damn about the rape victim.  Don't do it, or weasel dick your way out of it, and I'll know you're a religious moron who hasn't thought the issue through.


Late to the party... but for what it's worth:

I love you.
 
2013-01-25 01:43:25 PM  
But I thought you can't get pregnant from a rape.
 
2013-01-25 01:46:09 PM  
GOP:

Abortion only for rape victims.
Rape victims must not abort because it's "evidence".

Right.

FSM, I hate these people with the white hot heat of a thousand suns.
 
2013-01-25 01:50:27 PM  

david_gaithersburg: clowncar on fire: Drewdad: Rapeublican.

Care to cite where republicans are pro-rape or has this become such a repeated lie around these parts that's its accepted as truth.

I'm not saying the GOP hasn't made a few boneheaded comments regarding the topic of rape but I'm having trouble finding a source where rape has specifically been mentioned as part of their agenda.

[www.blogster.com image 500x607]


5/10
 
2013-01-25 01:52:37 PM  

clowncar on fire: mittromneysdog: SkinnyHead: Tampering with evidence is a specific intent crime that requires an intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another. If the victim seeks an abortion without the intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion of the commission of a crime upon another, it would not be considered tampering with evidence.

To be clear though: if a 16 year old girl procures an abortion in whole or in part to protect her 19 year old boyfriend, the specific intent element would be met.

Tough call. If the parents of the girl have not filed rape charges or specifically accused the boy friend of any wrong doing and there is no crime of rape under investigation, I imagine she could legally get away with it. Was the girl forcibly raped but for some reason feeling compelled to protect her attackers identity.

But the answer would be yes if the 16 was attempting to thwart the identity of the father solely to avoid persecution of the law.


Statutory rape is a rather gray area legally so it would probably require redefining rape and how the law would apply as in the case of the 16yr old, as she willingly (no force or coercion) had relations with her older boyfriend who just so happened to fall into current definition of statutory rape as a function of age rather than action- especially in the abscence of criminal charges filed by either parents.
 
2013-01-25 01:53:22 PM  
GAAAAAH! What a dusgusting, ostensibly female, ostensibly human, being. The way so many of these far-right farktards couch their bigotry and authoritarianism in victim-protective language makes me feel physically ill.

I don't know if she wants this bill passed because Baby Jesus Tears, or because her jowl-like, coarsely-haired haired vagina is visited only by her swollen, sausage stinking fingers or the yeast infection medication applicator, but either way, her simian, water retentive ass should be pummeled until it is the consistency of a rich strawberry paste. Her party and its constituents as well. GAAAAH!

/GAAAAAAAAAAH!!!
 
2013-01-25 01:55:44 PM  

david_gaithersburg: clowncar on fire: Drewdad: Rapeublican.

Care to cite where republicans are pro-rape or has this become such a repeated lie around these parts that's its accepted as truth.

I'm not saying the GOP hasn't made a few boneheaded comments regarding the topic of rape but I'm having trouble finding a source where rape has specifically been mentioned as part of their agenda.

[www.blogster.com image 500x607]


Do you know why I've not put you on ignore yet? It's because you are so damn consistent about coming down on the wrong side of every issue. It's comedy gold. I can enter just about any controversial thread and wager a very safe bet that I'll find you there advocating for the derpiest side of the debate. It's come to be something I look forward to. The laughter is medicinal.

I once thought you were just a troll, but the consistency of your vapid defense of your positions has convinced me otherwise. And that just makes it all the more amusing for me.

It saves me a lot of work too. I don't have to point out the idiocy of a position when you come around and make it blatantly obvious by supporting it. Thank you for that.
 
2013-01-25 01:57:01 PM  

halleyscomet: I hereby announce the creation of a new political party. We are the "Reagan republicans." We support:

1. Small government.
2. Individual freedom.
3. Fiscal conservatism.
4. Individual responsibility.
5. Individual accountability.
6. Public safety
7. Advancing the fiscal solvency and independence of the United States of America.

In short, the GOP will HATE us, because we'll grouse about raising the debt ceiling regardless of if it's a Republican or Democrat in the white house. Small Government and Individual Freedom means we're keeping government OUT of vaginas nationwide.


To be a true Reagan Republican, you'd need to add three items to your agenda (and remove number three because Reagan was all for running up the debt):
1. Kill unions.
2. Shift tax burden from the rich to the poor.
3. Kill off the middle class.
Or do these show up in your "mission accomplished" list?

/Reagan was an evil, anti-American SOB.
 
2013-01-25 01:59:09 PM  

pdee: /CSB

My wife teaches middle school special ED. Several times she has had 12-14 year old students come up pregnant. She pointed out to school officials that the police should be notified because someone has to be guilty of statutory rape if a retarded 12-14 year old is preggers. In all cases she was told NOYFB and GBTW.

In one case she plead with the grandma(the child's guardian) that the kid should have an abortion. Grandma said no way as grandma would be getting the checks from the government as the child's guardian.

/END CSB


How sad. Don't know the rules where you live. Here teachers and medical providers are state mandated to call social work or CPS for evaluating (not instant removal) children's circumstances in those kinds of situations and then following up if necessary.
 
2013-01-25 02:01:12 PM  
Anyone else notice the poll on the side about women in combat roles with less than 14% of people agreeing with it completely, and about 60% who think that it was better before? I'm guessing this is how most bills that are against women's rights get passed.
 
2013-01-25 02:01:21 PM  

halleyscomet: I hereby announce the creation of a new political party. We are the "Reagan republicans." We support:

1. Small government.
2. Individual freedom.
3. Fiscal conservatism.
4. Individual responsibility.
5. Individual accountability.
6. Public safety
7. Advancing the fiscal solvency and independence of the United States of America.

In short, the GOP will HATE us, because we'll grouse about raising the debt ceiling regardless of if it's a Republican or Democrat in the white house. Small Government and Individual Freedom means we're keeping government OUT of vaginas nationwide.


Reagan was a stupid actor saying lines. He was as much a statist as any recent president. Why don't you simply join the Libertarian Party? They stand for all your seven points, and they've been around since the seventies. And yes, the GOP hates them.
 
2013-01-25 02:01:46 PM  

Contents Under Pressure: GOP:

Abortion only for rape victims.
Rape victims must not abort because it's "evidence".

Right.

FSM, I hate these people with the white hot heat of a thousand suns.


Reading comprehension: just how hard is it? GOP understands the need- and right-- not to be compelled to have a baby resulting in rape (doesn't mean we don't expect you not to carry through your responsibilities in either preventing babies or taking care of the ones you do make). What GOP's also understand is that some bad daddies may want to coerce you to have a baby you don't want to abort or that you might try to protect a criminal by tampering with evidence (having the abortion for the intent of covering/altering/tampering with evidence) so this bill simply clerifies another facette of tampering with evidence- which, as we already know, is illegal anyhow.

Care to share exactly how this is a "partisan" issue?
 
2013-01-25 02:02:16 PM  

CheekyMonkey: DGS: david_gaithersburg: So-called-progressives, doing their part to keep down the national reading level.

What does this even mean?

What does anything david_gaithersburg say ever mean?

\I'll give you a hint: derp
\\there's a reason he's on my ignore list
\\\I got tired of reading his unfunny, unintelligent troll comments


I resisted putting anyone on ignore for a long time, but eventually I realized that some posters are not actually giving a point of view or even trolling. Their sole purpose seems to be to generate static in order to degrade the thread. So, I started to ignore the most egregious space wasters. I still try not to ignore someone on the basis of disagreement...it can be a fine line though.
 
2013-01-25 02:02:38 PM  
Rape Baby is a great name for a band.
 
2013-01-25 02:03:46 PM  

clowncar on fire: Contents Under Pressure: GOP:

Abortion only for rape victims.
Rape victims must not abort because it's "evidence".

Right.

FSM, I hate these people with the white hot heat of a thousand suns.

Reading comprehension: just how hard is it? GOP understands the need- and right-- not to be compelled to have a baby resulting in rape (doesn't mean we don't expect you not to carry through your responsibilities in either preventing babies or taking care of the ones you do make). What GOP's also understand is that some bad daddies may want to coerce you to have a baby an abortion you don't want to abort have or that you might try to protect a criminal by tampering with evidence (having the abortion for the intent of covering/altering/tampering with evidence) so this bill simply clerifies another facette of tampering with evidence- which, as we already know, is illegal anyhow.

Care to share exactly how this is a "partisan" issue?

 
Displayed 50 of 392 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report