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  
•       •       •

12776 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 02:04:11 PM

clowncar on fire: 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.


I must have missed the part where the miscarriages were intentional. There's also the potential situation where a woman might have been drinking and/or smoking before she discovered her pregnancy and it leads to a miscarriage, not to mention the many cases where no evidence has shown that the mother's actions caused the miscarriage in any way. In some cases there isn't even any evidence of the mother using any questionable substances at all during her pregnancy.

What you do see talked about a lot is that prior to abortion being legalized many women found themselves under investigation after a miscarriage to determine whether or not they were guilty of causing it. In any case... Yes, this has been a thing where miscarriages have been considered manslaughter.
 
2013-01-25 02:06:32 PM
Just remember a fetus is a person, unless it is going to cost them money
 
2013-01-25 02:08:00 PM
finally got to page 6 after a few tries. Apparently the mods have been deleting some posts, I wonder who's?
 
2013-01-25 02:10:09 PM

clowncar on fire: 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.

This may also include victims who seek an abortion for the intent of covering the identity of the rapist. As much as there are those who would drool all over themselves by calling this "prosecuting the victim", what we really have is a seperate criminal act of covering up/destroying of evidence in a criminal case.

I don't believe this bill was about criminalizing abortion resulting from rape as a way to compell women to have rape babies so much as a way to define/prevent the act of destrotying evidence intentionally during an active criminal case which may include both the rapist and their victim. In short- have an abortion if you need. Do not encourage or engage in abortion if you are attempting to avoid prosecution for the act of rape or an attempt to hide the identity of the perpurtrator.


If a rape victim (except for statuatory rape) wants to protect the perpetrator (get a dictionary btw) they don't charge them with rape, or refuse to cooperate with the prosecution. Rape is difficult to prove already, not on physical grounds, but on the grounds of intent, consent, coercion, etc.
 
2013-01-25 02:11:27 PM

Mike_1962: 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.


Evidence is not being destroyed though. It's simply being removed. The DNA is still there and usable.
 
2013-01-25 02:14:44 PM

ccundiff: 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

See, I haven't figured him out. Is he a troll? If he is, he is the worst ever. It is easier to believe that he actually believes what he says (and believes that what he says makes sense) than to believe that anyone is that bad of a troll.


Pretty sure he is using an ALT to work this thread as well.
 
2013-01-25 02:15:05 PM

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


In the words of the famous lawyer Elle Woods, "For that matter, any masturbatory emissions, where the sperm is clearly not seeking an egg, could be termed reckless abandonment"
 
2013-01-25 02:16:09 PM
The My Little Pony Killer: Mike_1962: 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.

Evidence is not being destroyed though. It's simply being removed. The DNA is still there and usable.


And as pointed out before, when the rape victim first reported the crime, the rape kit used would include collecting DNA evidence so that evidence is already there. Under the logic being claimed here, if the rape victim didn't get pregnant, there would be no evidence of the rape.
 
2013-01-25 02:16:11 PM

lyanna96: 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.


That's how it is here in Massachusetts, as well...

Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect
 
2013-01-25 02:19:31 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Mike_1962: 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.

Evidence is not being destroyed though. It's simply being removed. The DNA is still there and usable.


It is the act of attempting to tamper with evidence and not necessarily the success of its removal that they are going after here.

What if a victim wants to keep her child- as in the case of statutory rape-- but that it is in best interest of the father that that child be aborted? Surely the evidence- be it word of the mother, or post abortion dna-- would remain. But is not the act of attemting to alter or remove such evidence through a possibly unwanted abortion still wrong? That is what this bill is attempting to define/clerify.

Any law is subject to a whole bunch of "what if's". You do your best to cover a majority of circumstance and append it as needed.
 
2013-01-25 02:24:04 PM

Darth_Lukecash: 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 are in the wrong party.

Abandon it.


There are a lot of us who don't fit the one-dimensional paradigm. It's very unfortunate that the USA has a two-party system. More than two parties would serve us all better, I think. As would a different voting system, such as approval voting.

Still, I tend to agree that, of the two choices, Democrats may fit jehovahs witness protection better.

And yes, I know that the USA has other political parties, such as the Green Party, the Justice Party, and the Libertarian Party, among others. But we still effectively have a two-party system, at present.
 
2013-01-25 02:26:08 PM
p.twimg.com

Well, if she had an abortion then it wasn't legitimate rape. Because we all know that a woman's body has a way of shutting these things down.
 
2013-01-25 02:27:07 PM
More useless garbage meant to punish women and stop abortions. What else is new?
 
2013-01-25 02:27:36 PM
Dollars to donuts this is an ALEC written bill and they just found some GOP woman dumb enough to sponsor it.
 
2013-01-25 02:27:37 PM

clowncar on fire: Weaver95: LaraAmber: 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.

Those are interesting ideas, but now you've provided a financial incentive for a woman to claim rape over another cause of her pregnancy. Already women's claims of rape are considered suspect from day one unless she shows up in the ER on the brink of death. Even if no woman ever falsely claimed rape to get this help ...

And where are we going to get the money to fund and enforce this little project?

Reading comprehension: no one is forcing anyone to have a baby. This is an attempt at criminalizing a behavior if the intent is to hide/damage evidence during its commission. I do agree on some of the finer points like making babby daddy pay support (though who would want to have contact with someone who had previously attacked you), provide assistance in the adoptive process should the victim carry to full term, or offer tax breaks/ renumerative benefits for those who choose to carry to full term. If paying the costs of birthing is the deciding factor of whether to keep or not- maybe having the abortion would be preferable in this circumstance as childcare is rift with endless expenses- each begging the question of whether an abortion have been a better decision.


Look people. I'm willing to concede that the women bringing this bill is incompetent to write a clear and true bill, but is nonetheless innocent of malicious and machiavellian motives. Further, I am willing to concede that her intent was as stated; to protect victims. I also recognize that the bill is going back to be reworded to remove ambiguity and prevent misinterpretation, whether honest or malicious.

The fact remains, IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM, the bill does in fact provide standing for the court to forbid an abortion until it's too late when used by an unscupulous anti-choice prosecutor or potentially a civil litigator. Your country has become the poster child for "letter of the law" instead of "spirit of the law". It behooves you to hold your lawmakers to a hell of a lot higher standards than this unnecessary POS.
 
2013-01-25 02:28:40 PM

clowncar on fire: It is the act of attempting to tamper with evidence and not necessarily the success of its removal that they are going after here.


no, this law is an attempt to back door outlawing abortions.  if this was about evidence, the law would say that the medical professionals were to take DNA samples after the abortion and forward them to a lab as evidence.  after all, there's just as much DNA evidence in a dead fetus as there is in a live one.
 
2013-01-25 02:29:07 PM

clowncar on fire: The My Little Pony Killer: Mike_1962: 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.

Evidence is not being destroyed though. It's simply being removed. The DNA is still there and usable.

It is the act of attempting to tamper with evidence and not necessarily the success of its removal that they are going after here.

What if a victim wants to keep her child- as in the case of statutory rape-- but that it is in best interest of the father that that child be aborted? Surely the evidence- be it word of the mother, or post abortion dna-- would remain. But is not the act of attemting to alter or remove such evidence through a possibly unwanted abortion still wrong? That is what this bill is attempting to define/clerify.

Any law is subject to a whole bunch of "what if's". You do your best to cover a majority of circumstance and append it as needed.


That's already covered through obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, and a myriad of other laws.

Why do you need a special law just for abortions when your scenario is already covered by existing law?
 
2013-01-25 02:29:44 PM

Weaver95: clowncar on fire: It is the act of attempting to tamper with evidence and not necessarily the success of its removal that they are going after here.

no, this law is an attempt to back door outlawing abortions


If you use the back door there is no need for an abortion.
 
2013-01-25 02:31:01 PM
It always amazes me that women who have a chance at advancing an understanding of their gender could really be that dedicated to being that self-hating.
 
2013-01-25 02:32:58 PM

Weaver95: ...and how often does this sort of thing happen?


As often as women pretend to have been raped just to get an abortion.
 
2013-01-25 02:33:15 PM

whidbey: It always amazes me that women who have a chance at advancing an understanding of their gender could really be that dedicated to being that self-hating.


A testament to the power of religious belief.
 
2013-01-25 02:35:56 PM

HelloNeuman: 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

This might help relieve some of your derp:
Just one day after quietly introducing a whopper of a bill that would categorize abortions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest as "tampering with evidence," New Mexico State Rep. Cathrynn N. Brown found herself doing some swift damage control.

As it still currently appears on the New Mexico Legislature's page, Bill HB206 is blazingly, insanely straightforward. It explains that "tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime" and states "whoever commits tampering with evidence shall be punished" with varying degrees of felony charges. Isn't it sweet when politicians try to defend the cause of "life" by categorizing fetuses as "evidence"? As one skeptic pondered Thursday, "So I assume, as evidence, the court will be holding the fetus in a locker and destroying it after trial?"

But Brown's clever ruse to redefine a woman's constitutional right as criminal tampering didn't go over very well, and as the bill made national headlines Thursday, Brown not so coincidentally removed her contact information from her legislature page. But her personal Web page, which greets visitors with a photo from the governor's prayer breakfast, tells a tale of somebody who's been trying to tweak the narrative. There's a record of two now-deleted posts entered on Thursday evening, followed by a statement from Brown that reads, "This is the bill that I will introduce that protects women and girls from incest and other sex crimes: It makes it clear that the mother of the fetus would never be charged. This bill ensures the prosecution of the offender and protection of the victim."

In the bill's newly gussied up language, it specifies that "a person who commits sexual penetration or incest and who procures an abortion of a fetus resulting from the crime with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime is guilty of tampering with evidence, prohibiting prosecution of the mother of the fetus ... In no circumstance shall the mother of the fetus be charged." So if you're a rapist and you try to get your victim to have an abortion, you're in trouble. Because that happens every day. Brown's apparent interest in protecting women should be taken within the context of her other pursuits, however, like serving on the board of Carlsbad's Right to Life chapter, and posting images from the Life Issues Institute on her Facebook page. The Institute describes its mission as "assuring ... equal protection under the law for all living humans from the beginning of their biological life at fertilization."

In a Thursday feature that ran in the Carlsbad Current-Argus, Brown, an experienced attorney, told Milan Simonich that the bill had been drafted too quickly and an "error" had caused it to be introduced before it was ready. "I missed this one," she explained. Albuquerque Rep. Nate Gentry supported Brown's assertion, adding, "She's horrified."

What a perfectly apt word. "Horrified" is exactly how one should feel about Brown's sneaky, cruel and desperately punitive-to-victims bill. Too bad she's horrified at being exposed for such a dumb, callous attempt to criminalize reproductive rights instead of at the idiotic obstacles continually thrown in the path of women seeking safe, legal abortions. But if you're looking for proof of the callousness of the antiabortion movement and the extreme lengths to which they'll go, you can at least give credit to Brown for providing the one thing she seems to care so very much about. Evidence.


Very illuminating. Thanks.
 
2013-01-25 02:37:46 PM

Latinwolf: The My Little Pony Killer: Mike_1962: 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.

Evidence is not being destroyed though. It's simply being removed. The DNA is still there and usable.

And as pointed out before, when the rape victim first reported the crime, the rape kit used would include collecting DNA evidence so that evidence is already there. Under the logic being claimed here, if the rape victim didn't get pregnant, there would be no evidence of the rape.


You are assuming only forcible and reported rape. There are circumstances of assault where the rape may go intentionally unreported or report may be delayed until the pregnancy is verified.

Pregnancy, whether terminated voluntarily or not, may be the result of a rape but not necessarily the hard evidence of it. Attempting to tamper with evidence- or what you believe to be the only evidence of a crime-- is still a crime.

This is not unlike selling fake explosives to a terrorist and arresting him for it later. Even with a "boom" occurring (similar to evidence in rape case) the criminal was arrested for his actions as he believed them to result in an explosion.
 
2013-01-25 02:38:52 PM

Weaver95: whidbey: It always amazes me that women who have a chance at advancing an understanding of their gender could really be that dedicated to being that self-hating.

A testament to the power of religious belief.


Yeah well since you're talking about the Judeo-Christian tradition, certainly. Very patriarchal. Now if she had been a Wiccan priestess...;)
 
2013-01-25 02:41:23 PM

paygun: Sound like common sense abortion control. Why do you need an abortion?


Because I'm pregnant. End of discussion.
 
2013-01-25 02:42:36 PM
Well, if you really do consider a fetus to be a "person", then killing them would be wrong regardless of the origin of that "person". This position -- while not one I agree with -- is at least self-consistent.
 
2013-01-25 02:44:00 PM
Smelly Pirate Hooker: Another entry for my Assholish Things Republicans Have Said and Who Said Them spreadsheet.

KrispyKritter:you have a great idea right there, and one that is long overdue. a website and maybe a book of collected over the top, OMG i can't believe they just said that direct quotes from the lips of the mentally deficient in office. that web site and book should be fully exploited weeks before elections take place. people are busy; people have short memories. to remind voters of what they are truly, honestly dealing with before they cast a vote would be doing this country a great service.

I too would like to subscribe to the spreadsheet's RSS feed. If you don't have time for a web page, how about a Google Drive public share?

Plllllleeezzzzz? For Jesus? How about Double Jesus Lopez O'Hoolihan?

/actually, I'm serious. I really want to subscribe.
 
2013-01-25 02:46:16 PM

jshine: Well, if you really do consider a fetus to be a "person", then killing them would be wrong regardless of the origin of that "person". This position -- while not one I agree with -- is at least self-consistent.


On the other hand, if you consider a fetus a person, that person is either a perpetrator of or accomplice in ongoing sexual assault over the course of ~40 weeks.
 
2013-01-25 02:46:23 PM

clowncar on fire: Empty Matchbook: Weaver95: Mugato: 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.

I'm pro-choice (meaning I don't really care but I don't think a woman should be made to have a kid she doesn't want) but if you're a religious fanatic who believes that life begins when the guy nuts inside a woman and that all life is sacred (none of them believe that one), believing that a woman should carry a rape baby is at least internally consistent with their twisted viewpoint. It's not the kid's fault what the terms were under which he was conceived.

If this sounds like I'm supporting pro-life people, I'm not, I'm just saying forcing the woman to keep the rape baby is consistent with what they claim to believe. I hope that came across correctly.

sure, but it's not very logical.  you can't say 'all life is sacred' then turn around and do NOTHING to help that life grow and become meaningful.  you might as well give birth and then abandon the kid on a barren windswept mountain top.  that's also logically consistent with the pro-life view.

[img.timeinc.net image 360x235]

Agrees

/pre-natal, you're fine
//post-natal, you're farkED
Your view of what a pro-lifer is a bit skewed. Pro-life is really about not bailing out on your responsibilities as a parent- not just before the child is born but for the entirety of its life. Being responsible does not mean waiting for hand-outs so in this aspect the pro-lifers seem a bit heartless. It's about bringing a life into the world, offering protection for that life that others would not value.

What pro-life is not about is taking responsibilty where you fail. You don't want a child or can't afford the expenses of caring for that life- fine. Put it off until you can.

I am pro-choice by the way. I would prefer that people think things through a little more when hopping in the sack though. People who believe "having a baby" will solve any of life's little problems should probably be mentally evaluated before being allowed to engage in any further contact with the opposite sex.


Um, no. In fact, hell no. Maybe the idealized "pro-life" position is as you say. Maybe the "silent majority" (thanks Nixon) lives up to what you maintain. Oh, wait...the truth is when reality comes crashing down that their little snoflake has been gettin boinked on a regular basis, and now is not so 'regular' a whole lot of these hyper responsible folks discover the joys of pragmatism. The reality is so far away from what your saying that you really are a clown car on fire. So, you're pro-choice? I guess from your own statements you are anti responsibility. Pro choice? Please...
 
2013-01-25 02:48:59 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-25 02:49:56 PM

alywa: The GOP has a fundie problem that doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. Just like Militant Islam is bad for all Muslims, rabid "conservatism" (ie anti-abortion in all cases, pro NRA in all cases, anti-environment, anti-science, anti-gay) is bad for everyone who wants smaller government and more individual freedoms.

Face it GOP... your current party is made up predominantly of fascists and Dominionists. For every rational "fiscal" conservative there are 2 ignorant farksticks like this woman who are making you all look bad. Plus, they are noisy, making the problem worse. You can blame the "liberal" media all you want, but look in the mirror. It's you that keep voting these lunatics into office.

I'm sure as hell not voting for anyone I've seen recently who has an R after their name. It isn't just an image problem, it's the fact that for the most part your party is so farking wrong about so many different subjects. Most of these areas really aren't even up for debate... there is little nuance in believing rape victims should be force to carry to term their "gift from God". It is just wrong, period.


Much as we'd like to believe that the Rape-ublican Party is on the wrong side of history, there is discouraging evidence that their attitudes are more widely shared around the world. Just look at much of Africa, especially Uganda and Nigeria, where homophobia seems as natural as breathing. Look at Russia, where autocracy and homophobia are becoming enshrined in legislation. Look at Hungary, where the extreme Right seeks to strangle all opposition -- cultural as well as political. That's not even including worldwide Islamism. Xenophobia, theocracy, fascism, hatred and fear are trending like crazy all over the world.

Thank goodness for these United States of America, as we seem to be bucking the trend. Never thought I'd ever feel that way.
 
2013-01-25 02:50:28 PM

The Homer Tax: clowncar on fire: The My Little Pony Killer: Mike_1962: 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.

Evidence is not being destroyed though. It's simply being removed. The DNA is still there and usable.

It is the act of attempting to tamper with evidence and not necessarily the success of its removal that they are going after here.

What if a victim wants to keep her child- as in the case of statutory rape-- but that it is in best interest of the father that that child be aborted? Surely the evidence- be it word of the mother, or post abortion dna-- would remain. But is not the act of attemting to alter or remove such evidence through a possibly unwanted abortion still wrong? That is what this bill is attempting to define/clerify.

Any law is subject to a whole bunch of "what if's". You do your best to cover a majority of circumstance and append it as needed.

That's already covered through obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, and a myriad of other laws.

Why do you need a special law just for abortions when your scenario is already covered by existing law?


Because people keeping using the "but what about" clause in an effort to circumvent the existing laws regarding evidence. People keep testing laws and new laws get added to patch up the holes in the old ones.

This law hardly seems partisan though as it is never in the interest of a victim to be coerced into an abortion should the rapist believe he is actually hiding or damaging evidence.
 
2013-01-25 02:54:12 PM

SkinnyHead: Trayal: SkinnyHead: 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.

But the intent of the law is to prevent an abortion, when having an abortion does not destroy any DNA evidence. If it was really about preserving evidence, then they'd just make a law that requires genetic samples of all aborted tissue to be preserved for a reasonable amount of time.

It is to prevent an abortion when the intent of the abortion is to cover up a sex offense.  Suppose Uncle Chester impregnates an underage family member.  If the baby is born, that baby will haunt Chester as living proof of the crime for as long as the baby lives.  If Chester coerces the victim to abort the baby to avoid that possibility, then Chester has compounded his crime and deserves additional punishment.


It is already illegal to coerce. Proof of paternity does not preclude an abortion since preservation of evidence is not dependant on carrying to term. Your reasoning has no logical or legal value. And for the love of god, give that poor chicken a break.
 
2013-01-25 02:55:08 PM

clowncar on fire: This law hardly seems partisan though as it is never in the interest of a victim to be coerced into an abortion should the rapist believe he is actually hiding or damaging evidence.


How often do pro-lifers really think this happens?
 
2013-01-25 02:57:25 PM
When I think of abortion I like to think about this:

If all the babies aborted in the United States (around 50 million according to several anti-abortion groups - which is probably a gross overestimation) had been born...

I wonder what party the majority of these aborted babies would have ended up voting for? Ironically I'll bet it wouldn't be for the people who want to save them now.
 
2013-01-25 02:58:18 PM

sheep snorter: [i.imgur.com image 500x619]


You don't get out enough. Poor kids are getting fatter everyday living off all that love from the rest of America. It's the kids in middleclass families that go to bed hungry at night because their parents make just enough not to recieve assistance and at the same time are required to share their "love" with the families who need more lovin' that they have failed to provide themselves.

You say someday the poor are gonna rise up against their rich oppressors? I think it will be more like- sorry but the gravy train done run out of gravy.
 
2013-01-25 02:58:29 PM

Tenga: It's getting increasingly difficult to find wire hangers anymore. Probably a plot by the pro-life groups.


Not sure about this, but it has the sparkling wit and humour of 4th grade 'dead baby' jokes.
 
2013-01-25 03:00:18 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.


LOL
so a party of like 3 votes?
plus, some or most of these are mutually exclusive
public safety would include free housing, food and heathcare, how can anyone be safe without those basic things?
all consensual crimes would become legal, ALL drugs, prostitution, gambling.
 
2013-01-25 03:02:26 PM

ciberido: SilentStrider: DRTFA, but is this an "I'm sorry you got offended" apology?

No so much that as a "no, of course we'd NEVER use the proposed law THAT way, even though, yes, I suppose technically we could and you oh-so-cynically accuse us of having that in mind" clarification.


THIS. It's sad that it actually has to be spelled out.
 
2013-01-25 03:02:41 PM

RedTank: When I think of abortion I like to think about this:

If all the babies aborted in the United States (around 50 million according to several anti-abortion groups - which is probably a gross overestimation) had been born...

I wonder what party the majority of these aborted babies would have ended up voting for? Ironically I'll bet it wouldn't be for the people who want to save them now.


That would be a 15% spike in welfare applications tipping the scale of Americans dependant on the other half for survival well over 50%. Wow.
 
2013-01-25 03:04:15 PM
I wish Democrats would stop encouraging Republicans from raping that chicken.
 
2013-01-25 03:04:57 PM

Mike_1962: SkinnyHead: Trayal: SkinnyHead: 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.

But the intent of the law is to prevent an abortion, when having an abortion does not destroy any DNA evidence. If it was really about preserving evidence, then they'd just make a law that requires genetic samples of all aborted tissue to be preserved for a reasonable amount of time.

It is to prevent an abortion when the intent of the abortion is to cover up a sex offense.  Suppose Uncle Chester impregnates an underage family member.  If the baby is born, that baby will haunt Chester as living proof of the crime for as long as the baby lives.  If Chester coerces the victim to abort the baby to avoid that possibility, then Chester has compounded his crime and deserves additional punishment.

It is already illegal to coerce. Proof of paternity does not preclude an abortion since preservation of evidence is not dependant on carrying to term. Your reasoning has no logical or legal value. And for the love of god, give that poor chicken a break.


Look at who you're talking to. It's SkinnyHead. He raises an entire farm of chickens to fark!
 
2013-01-25 03:05:07 PM

Mrtraveler01: clowncar on fire: This law hardly seems partisan though as it is never in the interest of a victim to be coerced into an abortion should the rapist believe he is actually hiding or damaging evidence.

How often do pro-lifers really think this happens?


I think the base assumption from most pro-life types is that women are lying whores and need to be strictly controlled for their own good.
 
2013-01-25 03:05:51 PM

clowncar on fire: You say someday the poor are gonna rise up against their rich oppressors? I think it will be more like- sorry but the gravy train done run out of gravy.


How much do you think these people actually get from the gov't?
 
2013-01-25 03:06:19 PM
clowncar on fire:
You say someday the poor are gonna rise up against their rich oppressors? I think it will be more like- sorry but the gravy train done run out of gravy.

so...you just slept your way through the OWS protests then...?

times they are a'changing!
 
2013-01-25 03:06:37 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.


It already is a crime.
 
2013-01-25 03:07:43 PM

clowncar on fire: Poor kids are getting fatter everyday living off all that love from the rest of America


Poor people are getting fatter because the type of foods that lead to obesity are a lot cheaper.

By your "logic," if poor people are fat due to the large amount of food they're eating, shouldn't rich people have the highest obesity rate in the country?
 
2013-01-25 03:09:07 PM

HighOnCraic: clowncar on fire: Poor kids are getting fatter everyday living off all that love from the rest of America

Poor people are getting fatter because the type of foods that lead to obesity are a lot cheaper.

By your "logic," if poor people are fat due to the large amount of food they're eating, shouldn't rich people have the highest obesity rate in the country?


Hummingbirds tongues are very low fat.
 
2013-01-25 03:09:35 PM

Weaver95: Mrtraveler01: clowncar on fire: This law hardly seems partisan though as it is never in the interest of a victim to be coerced into an abortion should the rapist believe he is actually hiding or damaging evidence.

How often do pro-lifers really think this happens?

I think the base assumption from most pro-life types is that women are lying whores and need to be strictly controlled for their own good.


As well as devilish seductresses, temptresses, betrayers, witches, et al.

One does not have to look hard to find the religious backing for such misogynistic mentalities.

To such minds it is part of god's established order.
 
2013-01-25 03:10:46 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?"


Good lord.
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report