clowncar on fire: 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.

Typical Small Government Republican

"We need fewer, not more laws!"

"Unless I'm trying to regulate something I don't like."

Protip: when this is your position on *everything* people stop taking you seriously.

lyanna96: 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.

Well, the guys at least. I think the gay girls are more into the exterior parts...of course I could be mistaken.

So she writes a bill that will prosecute rapists who try to make their victims get an abortion to cover up the crime. Some people make the debatable claim the language in the bill is too broad and could cause the victims to be prosecuted. She says she'll clarify it to make sure that doesn't happen and somehow the liberals are upset at this?

The (D)erp brigade strikes again.

Trayal: SkinnyHead: It is to prevent an abortion when the intent of the abortion is to cover up a sex offense.

But if having an abortion wouldn't cover up the sex offense (i.e. if DNA evidence would be preserved) then there would be no reason to force an abortion to cover up the offense.

Given that it is already a crime to take any action that destroys evidence (obstruction of justice), and already a crime to force an abortion onto any woman, this law doesn't add anything but an additional barrier to abortion rights.

We're having too much fun ridiculing, but the real issue is what you just said.

Mugato: How much do you think these people actually get from the gov't?

Weaver95: so...you just slept your way through the OWS protests then...?

times they are a'changing!

The idea that "poor" people will one day rise up against the "rich" is something that rich people like to tell themselves in order to justify their greed while at the same time demonizing the poor.

Then ignorant poor people like to perpetuate that idea to sound tough and smart and it just feeds into the rich person's stereotypical expectations of the poor. Rich people (and everyone to a degree, it's just that rich people get more say because money = speech) have a problem with blowing things out of proportion in order to gain influence and power through fear, don't give them a reason.

Brubold: So she writes a bill that will prosecute rapists who try to make their victims get an abortion to cover up the crime. Some people make the debatable claim the language in the bill is too broad and could cause the victims to be prosecuted. She says she'll clarify it to make sure that doesn't happen and somehow the liberals are upset at this?

The (D)erp brigade strikes again.

Critical thinking isn't really one of your strong points is it?

You, like too many others, just skim the surface and never actually immerse your brain.

Kome: 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.

Which raises an interesting -- if completely academic -- question: what is the youngest person ever convicted of a felony in the US? Would an infant (or fetus) be able to commit criminal acts in a legal sense? My guess would be no...

On a similar note, if an infant somehow got a hold of a loaded gun and shot someone, he/she would be unlikely to be charged with anything.

Brubold: So she writes a bill that will prosecute rapists who try to make their victims get an abortion to cover up the crime. Some people make the debatable claim the language in the bill is too broad and could cause the victims to be prosecuted. She says she'll clarify it to make sure that doesn't happen and somehow the liberals are upset at this?

The (D)erp brigade strikes again.

Why would she need to make a law that ALREADY EXISTS? It's back-door abortion blocking, pure and simple.

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?

Noone forces the poor to buy the types of food the y purchase. They do have that option of choice. My point is that there are a lot of kids going hungry tonight in families that make enough money to avoid the impovished level (thus receive little in assistance) and as a result, do not have that option of choosing healthy- or unhealthy-- foods as there is no money for it.

I did not eat a hell of a lot of sugared cereals growing up, nor did we have snacks hanging about the house as my mom was a teacher and my father had chosen the path of the starving artist. As a result, we had little money for food in general. If i did have a hankering for soda or devil dogs, I could usually find these treats in some of my friends' homes as neither of their parents had held a job in years and foodstamps seemed to cover all that stuff.

cubic_spleen: 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.

Oh, c'mon. Leave the generalizing and demonizing to them.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Brubold: So she writes a bill that will prosecute rapists who try to make their victims get an abortion to cover up the crime. Some people make the debatable claim the language in the bill is too broad and could cause the victims to be prosecuted. She says she'll clarify it to make sure that doesn't happen and somehow the liberals are upset at this?

The (D)erp brigade strikes again.

Why would she need to make a law that ALREADY EXISTS? It's back-door abortion blocking, pure and simple.

Oh good grief. No it isn't. She was trying to do a good thing. A rare accomplishment from a member of our government. She's not in the same category as the GOP morons who want to tell us all about how women's bodies react to rape and how great rape babies are. The reaction to what this woman was trying to do is (D)erp. Plain and simple.

Brubold: Keizer_Ghidorah: Brubold: So she writes a bill that will prosecute rapists who try to make their victims get an abortion to cover up the crime. Some people make the debatable claim the language in the bill is too broad and could cause the victims to be prosecuted. She says she'll clarify it to make sure that doesn't happen and somehow the liberals are upset at this?

The (D)erp brigade strikes again.

Why would she need to make a law that ALREADY EXISTS? It's back-door abortion blocking, pure and simple.

Oh good grief. No it isn't. She was trying to do a good thing. A rare accomplishment from a member of our government. She's not in the same category as the GOP morons who want to tell us all about how women's bodies react to rape and how great rape babies are. The reaction to what this woman was trying to do is (D)erp. Plain and simple.

I agree with brubold. We need more laws to make sure that things that are already illegal are extra illegal. More, redundant laws are always good. stupid Dimocrats.

Weaver95: all I know is that rich folks got REAL worried about OWS.  worried enough that the FBI reactivated COINTELPRO and local cops when off on 'em often enough for the casual brutality to end up on youtube.

it's a start.  where it goes from here, who can say?  try to remember that it took years of abuse for this country to get worked up enough to break free of England and kick off the Revolutionary war.  And it took decades to get the South to start the civil war.  we could be in similar times right now.  difficult to say where you are in the cycle when you happen to be caught up in that wheel yourself.

Yeah, but it doesn't have to be that way. I believe in cycles also but I also believe in humanities ability to control our own future. There are other ways of getting things done rather than killing people.

That being said, if there is ever a 2nd revolutionary war then I don't think it will be a rich vs. poor situation even though that ideal could be a factor and maybe only a factor because people perpetuate, exaggerate, and corrupt the relationship between the classes for their own gains.

I don't think people should ever sit ideally by while they are exploited or brushed aside but I also don't think people should blow things out of proportion when it comes to what's best for this entire country.

Mugato: And the notion that someday the People are going to have to rise up against the oppressive government with violence is what gun nuts tell themselves to justify their arsenals. Neither scenario is going to happen but fear is a powerful motivator.

Very true. It's a very similar situation sort of on the otherside of the coin.

Brubold: Keizer_Ghidorah: Brubold: So she writes a bill that will prosecute rapists who try to make their victims get an abortion to cover up the crime. Some people make the debatable claim the language in the bill is too broad and could cause the victims to be prosecuted. She says she'll clarify it to make sure that doesn't happen and somehow the liberals are upset at this?

The (D)erp brigade strikes again.

Why would she need to make a law that ALREADY EXISTS? It's back-door abortion blocking, pure and simple.

Oh good grief. No it isn't. She was trying to do a good thing. A rare accomplishment from a member of our government. She's not in the same category as the GOP morons who want to tell us all about how women's bodies react to rape and how great rape babies are. The reaction to what this woman was trying to do is (D)erp. Plain and simple.

The very fact that you equate the objections raised to a political affiliation indicates just how much thought you've actually put into the topic. That you also seem to think that explains everything does not do you credit.

Did you actually read any of the valid points made by other in this thread?

I find it very unlikely that you did.

Brubold: Keizer_Ghidorah: Brubold: So she writes a bill that will prosecute rapists who try to make their victims get an abortion to cover up the crime. Some people make the debatable claim the language in the bill is too broad and could cause the victims to be prosecuted. She says she'll clarify it to make sure that doesn't happen and somehow the liberals are upset at this?

The (D)erp brigade strikes again.

Why would she need to make a law that ALREADY EXISTS? It's back-door abortion blocking, pure and simple.

Oh good grief. No it isn't. She was trying to do a good thing. A rare accomplishment from a member of our government. She's not in the same category as the GOP morons who want to tell us all about how women's bodies react to rape and how great rape babies are. The reaction to what this woman was trying to do is (D)erp. Plain and simple.

You can get DNA from a dead fetus as easily as you can from a live one. I also want to see actual documented numbers of rapists who forced their victims to have abortions to cover their tracks.

Sorry, this still smacks of victim-punishing and anti-abortion. If she didn't want it to sound that way, she should have done a better job of writing it up in the first place.

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.

Ah, no. Resist the urge to demonize. Reagan was a well meaning but economically naive man; a true product of his upbringing. At least I believe that to be the case. Remember, your president is just the faceman for an administration. He can supply direction, but is vulnerable to manipulation from advisors. Reagan seriously screwed the pooch for your nation economically, but that was not what he hoped for.

The Homer Tax: clowncar on fire: 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 ...

I'm not defending the creation of more more law- it's actually sad that you keep having people dumb enough to repeatedly test some pretty common sense law in the first place.

Ex. Posted speed is 55mph. Seems simple enough except: yeah, but my car is made to do 80, what if there are no other cars on the road, what if my wife is having a baby, what if I'm trying to outrun a cheetah, etc.

I understand there is a point to where a law should be tested, but there appear to be bodies of people who dedicate every waking moment of their day trying to tangle up the wheels of justice with "what-ifs" simply out of spite and as a result, laws are constantly appended to shut these idiots down (see Windows based programs).

Most laws today are obvious: (not aimed at you in particular by the way) in case you're too farkin' stupid to figure it out- here it is in black and white. Yeah, people are that stupid.

/Va-jayjays do NOT belong to the state.
/I only rent them once in a while. It's cheaper that way.

clowncar on fire: 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?

Noone forces the poor to buy the types of food the y purchase. They do have that option of choice.


You're right. They could choose to eat Boca Burgers--they're nice and healthy, and they don't cost much more than fatty ground beef . . .

Weaver95: right now we seemed determined to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Perhaps. But don't fall victim to a sort of self-fulling prophacy. Don't assume it will happen unit it's very clear that it will.

clowncar on fire: The Homer Tax: clowncar on fire: 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 ...

I'm not defending the creation of more more law- it's actually sad that you keep having people dumb enough to repeatedly test some pretty common sense law in the first place.

Ex. Posted speed is 55mph. Seems simple enough except: yeah, but my car is made to do 80, what if there are no other cars on the road, what if my wife is having a baby, what if I'm trying to outrun a cheetah, etc.

I understand there is a point to where a law should be tested, but there appear to be bodies of people who dedicate every waking moment of their day trying to tangle up the wheels of justice with "what-ifs" simply out of spite and as a result, laws are constantly appended to shut these idiots down (see Windows based programs).

Most laws today are obvious: (not aimed at you in particular by the way) in case you're too farkin' stupid to figure it out- here it is in black and white. Yeah, people are that stupid.

No, you are defending more, redundant laws. All the non- sequiturs in the world won't change this.

You're just OK with these unnecessary laws because they further the agenda of the political party you support.

There's a word for this, it's called "hypocrisy." People who act like you are called "hypocrites." I'd make up a new word for it, but that woul be redundant, like this unnecessary law.

clowncar on fire: 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.

Hmmm. Pro-choice, yet strangely not really...Oh, and those welfare people in their mansions and cadillacs livin' high on the hog...

Sounds like you done run out of credibility...IMO.

Agent Smiths Laugh: 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!

Heh. Good point.

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 a pretty bullshiat "what if" you're pulling out of thin air there.

Mike_1962: demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.

Ah, no. Resist the urge to demonize. Reagan was a well meaning but economically naive man; a true product of his upbringing. At least I believe that to be the case. Remember, your president is just the faceman for an administration. He can supply direction, but is vulnerable to manipulation from advisors. Reagan seriously screwed the pooch for your nation economically, but that was not what he hoped for.

So, let me get this straight: when a democratic president suffers economic woes following the tenureship of the republican president proceeding him, the troubled economy is directly a result of the actions of that republican president. However, should that same democrat see economic prosperity than these are the results of his own efforts and not the work of the man before him? Riiiiigght....

clowncar on fire: 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.

Who do you propose is going to take care of all these potentially unwanted children. The rapist father?

Weaver95: if you want to force a woman to carry a rape baby full term, then do the following:

And that Weav, is the post that put you from "Cool Dude Green" to "Awesome Farker who I would buy a beer anytime Blue".

The My Little Pony Killer: 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 a pretty bullshiat "what if" you're pulling out of thin air there.

Simple scenario- girl wants to keep her baby. Boyfriend, who may be facing statutory rape charges due to age discrepencies, unemployment due to unprofessional relationship, or finding himself in the middle of a divorce as a result of his adulterous behavior pushes for an abortion may even use the threat of leaving her, shaming her, coercion, etc. He convinces her that all their shared troubles would be resolved as a result of this abortion and she bites.

This would hardly be called an incidental "what if" as this scenario probably occurs all too frequently.

david_gaithersburg: Weaver95: david_gaithersburg: what_now: david_gaithersburg: Oh, love the red banner at the top of the article. Can someone please explain why Obam isn't sitting in jail?

Obam? Do you mean President Obama? He's not in jail because he hasn't broken and laws.

Did you mean the Scottish County of Oban? Now while I don't agree with wars of resources, we could make an exception for them...

.
He should be brought before a court of law for a judge to decide if any laws have been broken. I can think of at lease twenty laws off the top of my head that he appears to have violated. One of them is in that big red headline.

um...what are you talking about?

Federal Appeals Court Gives Obama The Smack Down For Violating His Oath Of Office For The Eight Hundredth Time

Good to see you living up to your "threadshiatting troll" Farky. Keep livin' da dream.

The My Little Pony Killer: 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 a pretty bullshiat "what if" you're pulling out of thin air there.

Particularly since ultimately the choice to abort rests with the host. The evidence may be preserved, but according to "letter of the law" it has in fact been tampered with.

Shouldn't the crime be forcing a woman to have an abortion against her own will? Why does this need to be specific to rape/incest?

The My Little Pony Killer: clowncar on fire: 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.

Who do you propose is going to take care of all these potentially unwanted children. The rapist father?

You misunderstood- if you don't want the baby than don't have it. Get the abortion. If you think you're altering/ tampering with evidence (intent) via an abortion- Then you will be charged with tampering. Not so hard when you open your eyes, is it?

Weaver95: why does the law force a rape victim to carry the rape baby to term? that seems pretty cruel

Looks like you answered your own question.

Way to go, R(ape) Party! Nice job staying in the news, you farking neanderthal morons.

Evil High Priest: Weaver95: why Where does the law force a rape victim to carry the rape baby to term? that seems pretty cruel

Looks like you answered your own question.

Way to go, R(ape) Party! Nice job staying in the news, you farking neanderthal morons.

Way to go dummicrat, way to spin a story enough to work it into a frothy rage (not all dems- just this particular one)

clowncar on fire: You misunderstood- if you don't want the baby than don't have it. Get the abortion. If you think you're altering/ tampering with evidence (intent) via an abortion- Then you will be charged with tampering. Not so hard when you open your eyes, is it?

I'm confused. Who is being charged with tampering?

Pincy: clowncar on fire: You misunderstood- if you don't want the baby than don't have it. Get the abortion. If you think you're altering/ tampering with evidence (intent) via an abortion- Then you will be charged with tampering. Not so hard when you open your eyes, is it?

I'm confused. Who is being charged with tampering?

Would the female be charged with tampering if she gets the abortion out of her own free will?

clowncar on fire: Mike_1962: demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.

Ah, no. Resist the urge to demonize. Reagan was a well meaning but economically naive man; a true product of his upbringing. At least I believe that to be the case. Remember, your president is just the faceman for an administration. He can supply direction, but is vulnerable to manipulation from advisors. Reagan seriously screwed the pooch for your nation economically, but that was not what he hoped for.

So, let me get this straight: when a democratic president suffers economic woes following the tenureship of the republican president proceeding him, the troubled economy is directly a result of the actions of that republican president. However, should that same democrat see economic prosperity than these are the results of his own efforts and not the work of the man before him? Riiiiigght....

Not at all, though far too many maintain the position you describe. Reality is a lot more complex. Economic cycles tend to be just that, cycles. Political influence may mitigate or exacerbate ongoing trends. In the case of Reagan he espoused an idea that might (maybe) have had some validity 30 years in his past. Even some of his closest advisors disagreed with the 'trickle down' theory of economic development. In hindsight it is of course considered shortsighted at best, and a cynical redistribution favouring the wealthy at worst. In the case of Bush Jr., it would appear to be a perfect storm of stupidity and greed. Be that as it may, neither Obama or Clinton deserve any more credit than that they helped to provide an environment that allowed (and allows) the economy to recover and flourish 'organically'.

Even if you added language to exempt a rape victim from being charged, I hate this law.

Let's say an adult woman has incest and statutory-rape-sex with her 13 year old son and gets pregnant. Do you really want to discourage her from getting an abortion? I don't.

I'm sure if you're against abortion in general, you'd be against it here, too. But it seems to me that if there were ever a time that called for it...

Pincy: clowncar on fire: You misunderstood- if you don't want the baby than don't have it. Get the abortion. If you think you're altering/ tampering with evidence (intent) via an abortion- Then you will be charged with tampering. Not so hard when you open your eyes, is it?

I'm confused. Who is being charged with tampering?

Either a) the defendant (rapist) who attempts to coerce the girl into an abortion as he considers the child to be evidence of his actions that will likely get him convicted or b) any one who does so specifically to alter the outcome of a criminal case or believes that in doing so, could hide the identity of the person who has been accused of the rape. Same rules would apply to tampering with evidence.

Get an abortion because the child is unwanted- thumbs up. Get an abortion in the belief that a crime or the identity of a criminal is being hidden - thumbs down. So yes, a victim could technically be charged for tampering- although it's more like intent to tamper-- if that were proven to be the case.

clowncar on fire: If you think you're altering/ tampering with evidence (intent) via an abortion- Then you will be charged with tampering.

Honest questions here: how is it legally possible to prove this intent beyond a reasonable doubt? Additionally, how would one prevent abuse of this law in cases of trying to prosecute intent on part of the victim when there was none?

I really don't see much to gain from a law like this, while there is much potential for victims being further abused, intentionally or unintentionally.

clowncar on fire: Pincy: clowncar on fire: You misunderstood- if you don't want the baby than don't have it. Get the abortion. If you think you're altering/ tampering with evidence (intent) via an abortion- Then you will be charged with tampering. Not so hard when you open your eyes, is it?

I'm confused. Who is being charged with tampering?

Either a) the defendant (rapist) who attempts to coerce the girl into an abortion as he considers the child to be evidence of his actions that will likely get him convicted or b) any one who does so specifically to alter the outcome of a criminal case or believes that in doing so, could hide the identity of the person who has been accused of the rape. Same rules would apply to tampering with evidence.

Get an abortion because the child is unwanted- thumbs up. Get an abortion in the belief that a crime or the identity of a criminal is being hidden - thumbs down. So yes, a victim could technically be charged for tampering- although it's more like intent to tamper-- if that were proven to be the case.

That's what I thought you were implying, that a woman could be charged with a crime for having an abortion. Doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. Of course I'm a man, so I'd never be charged for tampering with evidence by having an abortion. I guess I'll leave it up to the ladies to tell you just how awful an idea this is.

Trayal: clowncar on fire: If you think you're altering/ tampering with evidence (intent) via an abortion- Then you will be charged with tampering.

Honest questions here: how is it legally possible to prove this intent beyond a reasonable doubt? Additionally, how would one prevent abuse of this law in cases of trying to prosecute intent on part of the victim when there was none?

I really don't see much to gain from a law like this, while there is much potential for victims being further abused, intentionally or unintentionally.

Which is why this feels like a back-door anti-abortion attempt. Another obstacle to hurdle over, women will become afraid to do anything because now they'll be charged with "obstructing justice" for getting an abortion. I'm still trying to find information that such things as are being argued for this being done happen with the frequency required for it.

What about a law that protects victims of rape and incest from harassment if they choose not to keep the baby. I'm geussing there are more victims who are threatened to carry to term than are forced to get an abortion.

clowncar on fire: Pincy: clowncar on fire: You misunderstood- if you don't want the baby than don't have it. Get the abortion. If you think you're altering/ tampering with evidence (intent) via an abortion- Then you will be charged with tampering. Not so hard when you open your eyes, is it?

I'm confused. Who is being charged with tampering?

Either a) the defendant (rapist) who attempts to coerce the girl into an abortion as he considers the child to be evidence of his actions that will likely get him convicted or b) any one who does so specifically to alter the outcome of a criminal case or believes that in doing so, could hide the identity of the person who has been accused of the rape. Same rules would apply to tampering with evidence.

Get an abortion because the child is unwanted- thumbs up. Get an abortion in the belief that a crime or the identity of a criminal is being hidden - thumbs down. So yes, a victim could technically be charged for tampering- although it's more like intent to tamper-- if that were proven to be the case.

Good god man! I understand arguing the fine points of a debate. You are arguing the equivalent of the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin for a vanishingly small set of cases. Most if not all issues are already covered by existing law. Whatever the re-wording says, the bill as drawn up produces far more potential for harm (intentionally or not) then it produces benefits. If the bill is reworded competently, that might change. As things stand, knowing how lawyers will parse each word and phrase, the law potentially felonizes rape and incest victims. Was that the intent...well, I doubt it. If passed into law, would this interpretation be exploited? Yes. If if it could be construed as being a defence strategy for an accused, a defence lawyer would be duty bound to take advantage of it.