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 04:48:00 PM  

Tigger: 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.

Jesus shiat farking christ were you raped by an intelligent point and now you have to just abort them?


*snert*
 
2013-01-25 04:50:51 PM  

Tigger: 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.

Jesus shiat farking christ were you raped by an intelligent point and now you have to just abort them?


He's pro-choice, as long as it's not the mother making the choice. (Sorry, couldn't just pass it up).
 
2013-01-25 04:53:17 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: 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.


It isn't just about DNA evidence.  Abort early enough and the pregnancy is never apparent to third parties who might persuade the victim to go to the cops.
 
2013-01-25 04:53:54 PM  

Skyrmion: 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...


I would not discorage the abortion though I would want to prosecute her if for attempting to hide her crime- whether it be lying about who the father was all the way to thinking that an abortion would hide the identity of the rapist who, in this particular situation, would be the mother herself.

Allow the abortion- prosecute mother for statutory rape, incest, etc.
 
2013-01-25 04:54:54 PM  

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.


I suspect you are a horrible person to spend any time with. So, bye.
 
2013-01-25 04:59:36 PM  

clowncar on fire: 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)


Sigh. Why do you people insist on making more important moral, ethical, and legal issues a partisan pissing contest?

Don't you think your energies could be better spent paying attention to the details than the us/them bullshiat you seem to love so much?
 
2013-01-25 05:00:10 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Karma Curmudgeon: 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.

It isn't just about DNA evidence.  Abort early enough and the pregnancy is never apparent to third parties who might persuade the victim to go to the cops.


Not every rape gets a rape kit and the resulting dna. Most rape goes unreported but does not mean charges cannot come up at a later date. Aborted fetus or full term- still carries the dna of both the parents. On this theory, it stands to reason that if the fetus was aborted and destroyed, the evidence of rape (in cases where no rape kit was administered) would be gone too.

At least that would be the line of thinking going through the mind of the rapist who coerces the victim into an abortion.
 
2013-01-25 05:05:44 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: clowncar on fire: 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)

Sigh. Why do you people insist on making more important moral, ethical, and legal issues a partisan pissing contest?

Don't you think your energies could be better spent paying attention to the details than the us/them bullshiat you seem to love so much?


I'm 100% with you on this. I'm not even sure if this is an issue worthy of the title of partisan. It's not everyday you actually get to cross the path of a ragin' democrat so you gotta make hay when the opportunity arises. The only reason the partisan point even grew wings is that this bill was initiated by a republican as opposed to a democrat senator, and you know where that's going lead you in the non-partisan land of Farkinstan.
 
2013-01-25 05:08:35 PM  

clowncar on fire: Agent Smiths Laugh: clowncar on fire: 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)

Sigh. Why do you people insist on making more important moral, ethical, and legal issues a partisan pissing contest?

Don't you think your energies could be better spent paying attention to the details than the us/them bullshiat you seem to love so much?

I'm 100% with you on this. I'm not even sure if this is an issue worthy of the title of partisan. It's not everyday you actually get to cross the path of a ragin' democrat so you gotta make hay when the opportunity arises. The only reason the partisan point even grew wings is that this bill was initiated by a republican as opposed to a democrat senator, and you know where that's going lead you in the non-partisan land of Farkinstan.


So you believe that people are forced into abortions so often that a law like this is warranted?
 
2013-01-25 05:17:49 PM  

Mrtraveler01: clowncar on fire: Agent Smiths Laugh: clowncar on fire: 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)

Sigh. Why do you people insist on making more important moral, ethical, and legal issues a partisan pissing contest?

Don't you think your energies could be better spent paying attention to the details than the us/them bullshiat you seem to love so much?

I'm 100% with you on this. I'm not even sure if this is an issue worthy of the title of partisan. It's not everyday you actually get to cross the path of a ragin' democrat so you gotta make hay when the opportunity arises. The only reason the partisan point even grew wings is that this bill was initiated by a republican as opposed to a democrat senator, and you know where that's going lead you in the non-partisan land of Farkinstan.

So you believe that people are forced into abortions so often that a law like this is warranted?


No. I believe too many people get hooked up in partisan rhetoric to be able to look at all sides objectively- what were you reading?

But to answer the obtuse portion of your response- no I don't believe so many people are forced into abortions, but that there may be enough cases where this law would certainly clear up any abiguities in the definition of tampering with evidence in a case where an abortion was indeed the product of someone attempting to hide the identity of another. Like billions of other laws on the books that go throughout most of their existance unexercised, there good to have when clerification is needed.
 
2013-01-25 05:23:09 PM  

clowncar on fire: Mrtraveler01: clowncar on fire: Agent Smiths Laugh: clowncar on fire: 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)

Sigh. Why do you people insist on making more important moral, ethical, and legal issues a partisan pissing contest?

Don't you think your energies could be better spent paying attention to the details than the us/them bullshiat you seem to love so much?

I'm 100% with you on this. I'm not even sure if this is an issue worthy of the title of partisan. It's not everyday you actually get to cross the path of a ragin' democrat so you gotta make hay when the opportunity arises. The only reason the partisan point even grew wings is that this bill was initiated by a republican as opposed to a democrat senator, and you know where that's going lead you in the non-partisan land of Farkinstan.

So you believe that people are forced into abortions so often that a law like this is warranted?

No. I believe too many people get hooked up in partisan rhetoric to be able to look at all sides objectively- what were you reading?

But to answer the obtuse portion of your response- no I don't believe so many people are forced into abortions, but that there may be enough cases where this law would certainly clear up any abiguities in the definition of tampering with evidence in a case where an abortion was indeed the product of someone attempting to hide the identity of another. Like billions of other laws on the books that go throughout most of their existance unexercised, there good to have when clerification is needed.


And there's the rub. Is there any data on how many rape victims are forced by their rapists to have abortions in order to cover their tracks?
 
2013-01-25 05:24:55 PM  

clowncar on fire: But to answer the obtuse portion of your response


How is that an obtuse question to ask?

clowncar on fire: no I don't believe so many people are forced into abortions


I don't think so either.

clowncar on fire: but that there may be enough cases where this law would certainly clear up any abiguities in the definition of tampering with evidence in a case where an abortion was indeed the product of someone attempting to hide the identity of another.


If this did happen enough that there would be a need for a law like this, don't you think we would've heard about these cases already?
 
2013-01-25 05:25:52 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: And there's the rub. Is there any data on how many rape victims are forced by their rapists to have abortions in order to cover their tracks?


That's such an obtuse question for you to ask.
 
2013-01-25 05:27:59 PM  

what_now: You guys know that no one gets an abortion at gun point, right? And the abortion provider talks to you for a while to make sure that's really what you want and that no one is forcing you to have the procedure?

Are some women pressured into having an abortion? Absolutely. All the time.

This bill wouldn't STOP that from happening, its a ham fisted attempt to make aborting even more difficult on women. The idea that a live baby is needed for DNA is ridiculous to anyone smart enough to SPELL DNA.


Mostly by men.

I've know at least a half-dozen women who had an abortion because the zygote's father badgered her into it.

/few of them ended up contributing any $ to pay for the actual procedure
 
2013-01-25 05:29:56 PM  

clowncar on fire: Skyrmion: 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...

I would not discorage the abortion though I would want to prosecute her if for attempting to hide her crime- whether it be lying about who the father was all the way to thinking that an abortion would hide the identity of the rapist who, in this particular situation, would be the mother herself.

Allow the abortion- prosecute mother for statutory rape, incest, etc.


If you're threatening to prosecute the woman for having the abortion (on the grounds that she's trying to destroy evidence of her rape and incest) then you are also discouraging her from having that abortion. Whether that's what you really wanted to be doing or not.

IMO the whole point of incest laws in the first place is that we don't want inbred incest-babies running around. I'm against any law that would discourage abortion in those cases.
 
2013-01-25 05:34:13 PM  
"How often does this really happen?" seems to be a common gripe in the comments. I think statutory rape is being forgotten. I expect that may be more common - older guy gets a younger girl pregnant, and before she starts showing, push her to get an abortion. Hence avoid daddy's wrath.

I guess what I don't get is that if this law is passed, then to be convicted by this law, you'd have to prove not only the coercion, but the rape itself. So, why not just charge them with the rape? It seems like a tack-on charge that's not needed (even assuming the very best of intentions from the author).
 
2013-01-25 05:42:27 PM  

Huggermugger: what_now: You guys know that no one gets an abortion at gun point, right? And the abortion provider talks to you for a while to make sure that's really what you want and that no one is forcing you to have the procedure?

Are some women pressured into having an abortion? Absolutely. All the time.

This bill wouldn't STOP that from happening, its a ham fisted attempt to make aborting even more difficult on women. The idea that a live baby is needed for DNA is ridiculous to anyone smart enough to SPELL DNA.

Mostly by men.

I've know at least a half-dozen women who had an abortion because the zygote's father badgered her into it.

/few of them ended up contributing any $ to pay for the actual procedure


I'm OK with that. While I ultimately think abortion legally has to be the woman's choice, it takes a wretched human being to make a parent out of a person who doesn't want to be one.

Besides, if you don't want a baby badly enough to overcome a little pushback, maybe you shouldn't be in the new-human-creation business. It's kind of a big deal.

That said, those guy's are real assholes for not ponying up the $$$.
 
2013-01-25 06:03:14 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?


Do you realise that there will be damn little DNA evidence left if the rape and abortion happened weeks or months before the woman was able to go to the police?
 
2013-01-25 06:03:23 PM  
As the dust settles, it looks to me like Brown is trying to do two things:

1. Make it easier to bring a tampering charge against sexual predators. Yes, the existing general tampering statute covers coerced abortions, but a more specific provision makes prosecution easier and convictions more likely.

2. Protect women from being coerced into abortions if they don't want abortions.  People may say, "Who in her right mind would NOT want an abortion after rape or incest?"  But that's not evidence that Brown is being disingenuous.  (Also, it's not exactly pro-choice.  It's not for us to judge what any woman does with her fetus, right?)

Her first stab at a bill was awful.  But she very quickly attempted to correct her blunder.  That's not the typical  reaction of "war on women" types; they tend to double down on their agendas. So I'm inclined to think Brown is an incompetent law-writer but not malicious.

Is Brown partially motivated by her pro-life/anti-abortion feelings?  Sure; she'll be gratified if her bill results in fewer abortions.  But she's not trying to punish women who freely choose abortions.  She's trying to protect them from coerced abortions.
 
2013-01-25 06:10:56 PM  

Latinwolf: 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.


You think rape victims always report the crime while there is still DNA evidence around? Or you think they shouldn't be able to report it when the DNA evidence is gone?
 
2013-01-25 06:12:42 PM  

Weaver95: 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.


Your believe that medical professionals are always involved in abortions is touchingly innocent.
 
2013-01-25 06:12:55 PM  
Gee, I've been having to say it a lot lately, but... NUMBERS FIVE. Yeah, I know nobody actually looks it up. So I'll just get it for you.

5:14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:

5:15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.

5:16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD:

5:17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:

5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:

5:19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:

5:20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:

5:21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;

5:22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.

5:23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:

5:24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.

5:25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:

5:26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.

5:27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

5:28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

5:29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;

5:30 Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.

5:31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

Read your own holy book and weep, biatches. Not only does the bible condone abortion, and child murder, and rape, and slavery, but here you have proof that your own church leaders are lying to you about "the bible says every life is sacred." Here it is, in black and white. A christian approved method, where an abortion my be performed (And sterilization! Yoinks!), by a priest, inside of a church.

Now, I've already had this discussion with fundie relatives... "But it doesn't say abortion! It says nothing about a baby!" Read it again. Note that during this whole method where one curses an unfaithful woman, is it specified any concern whatsoever over whether or not she is pregnant. Not only that, but if she was unfaithful, the curse is intended to permanently sterilize. So if the woman were pregnant, no concern is given whether or not she is pregnant, and if she is, she's given something intending to "make her belly swell" and "her thigh to rot". But please, try the whole "I gave that biatch thigh rot. Fetuses love thigh rot." angle.
 
2013-01-25 06:14:24 PM  

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

Because I'm pregnant. End of discussion.


But you are nine months pregnant and your contractions have started.
 
2013-01-25 06:20:00 PM  

what_now: Did you mean the Scottish County of Oban?


Oban isn't a county. It's a town in Argyllshire.
 
2013-01-25 06:23:27 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So you believe that people are forced into abortions so often that a law like this is warranted?


Even in the US not many people are murdered, and hardly anybody does insider trading.
 
2013-01-25 06:23:36 PM  

Huggermugger: what_now: You guys know that no one gets an abortion at gun point, right? And the abortion provider talks to you for a while to make sure that's really what you want and that no one is forcing you to have the procedure?

Are some women pressured into having an abortion? Absolutely. All the time.

This bill wouldn't STOP that from happening, its a ham fisted attempt to make aborting even more difficult on women. The idea that a live baby is needed for DNA is ridiculous to anyone smart enough to SPELL DNA.

Mostly by men.

I've know at least a half-dozen women who had an abortion because the zygote's father badgered her into it.

/few of them ended up contributing any $ to pay for the actual procedure


Really? I'm curious, are you a social worker or something, or do you just happen to know large amounts of women who are careless or uninformed? Also were they raped? 'Cause that si different you know...
 
2013-01-25 06:26:32 PM  

Skyrmion: clowncar on fire: Skyrmion: 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...

I would not discorage the abortion though I would want to prosecute her if for attempting to hide her crime- whether it be lying about who the father was all the way to thinking that an abortion would hide the identity of the rapist who, in this particular situation, would be the mother herself.

Allow the abortion- prosecute mother for statutory rape, incest, etc.

If you're threatening to prosecute the woman for having the abortion (on the grounds that she's trying to destroy evidence of her rape and incest) then you are also discouraging her from having that abortion. Whether that's what you really wanted to be doing or not.

IMO the whole point of incest laws in the first place is that we don't want inbred incest-babies running around. I'm against any law that would discourage abortion in those cases.


You missed the part where i said have the abortion. The law simply an attempt to define the unacceptable behavior of attempting to tamper with rape evidence and is not designed to prevent an unwanted child from being aborted. As another poster pointed out, it would be difficult to prove difference in conspiracy to tamper with evidence- as in the case of a women who chose to abort to protect the identity of the father as opposed to deciphering any other rational for aborting an unwanted product of a rape. Such a law may not prevent abortion as a result of coercion but it may at least help define, identify, and isolate the act. And that my friends, is why this bill is pro-victim.

Yea! Another re-wording on the definition of tampering. But as you can see from the scope of the definition as defined by our own little forum; not an easy task.
 
2013-01-25 06:32:05 PM  

orbister: 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?

Do you realise that there will be damn little DNA evidence left if the rape and abortion happened weeks or months before the woman was able to go to the police?


Not if she's pregnant, and if she has already aborted, this law becomes irrelevant. It is not going to provide a retroactive remedy (well, it won't provide any remedy at all). It is targetted at such a small population that its only reality based value is precedent for delaying or preventing an abortion.
 
2013-01-25 07:02:16 PM  
Oh Rapepublicans...on the wrong side of pretty much everything.

No, really, this makes assloads of sense. The most sensible solution to bring down the rate of abortions is to criminalize rape victims seeking one, because nothing says "pro life" more than forcing a rape victim to carry through a pregnancy she has been emotionally and physically scarred by, and is in no way prepared to have.

And hey, even if you succeed in legally forcing her to keep the kid, you're going to make sure the victim's life remains a living hell by slashing the safety net benefits that help single parents, and reducing the adoptive parent pool by railing against adoption for gay couples.

Republicans - protecting zygotes more than the living.
 
2013-01-25 07:30:57 PM  

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

Because I'm pregnant. End of discussion.

But you are nine months pregnant and your contractions have started.


And third trimester abortions are already illegal except for immediate threat of the mother's life. Try again.
 
2013-01-25 07:33:34 PM  

Zerochance: Oh Rapepublicans...on the wrong side of pretty much everything.

No, really, this makes assloads of sense. The most sensible solution to bring down the rate of abortions is to criminalize rape victims seeking one, because nothing says "pro life" more than forcing a rape victim to carry through a pregnancy she has been emotionally and physically scarred by, and is in no way prepared to have.

And hey, even if you succeed in legally forcing her to keep the kid, you're going to make sure the victim's life remains a living hell by slashing the safety net benefits that help single parents, and reducing the adoptive parent pool by railing against adoption for gay couples.

Republicans - protecting zygotes more than the living.


Should have been the first, and only, post.
 
2013-01-25 07:40:58 PM  

clowncar on fire: If you're threatening to prosecute the woman for having the abortion (on the grounds that she's trying to destroy evidence of her rape and incest) then you are also discouraging her from having that abortion. Whether that's what you really wanted to be doing or not.

IMO the whole point of incest laws in the first place is that we don't want inbred incest-babies running around. I'm against any law that would discourage abortion in those cases.

You missed the part where i said have the abortion. The law simply an attempt to define the unacceptable behavior of attempting to tamper with rape evidence and is not designed to prevent an unwanted child from being aborted. As another poster pointed out, it would be difficult to prove difference in conspiracy to tamper with evidence- as in the case of a women who chose to abort to protect the identity of the father as opposed to deciphering any other rational for aborting an unwanted product of a rape. Such a law may not prevent abortion as a result of coercion but it may at least help define, identify, and isolate the act. And that my friends, is why this bill is pro-victim.

Yea! Another re-wording on the definition of tampering. But as you can see from the scope of the definition as defined by our own little forum; not an easy task.


Nope, I didn't miss anything. My point is that it doesn't matter what you think the law is designed to do. It doesn't matter if you say, "have the abortion". The fact is that if you criminalize the act of having the abortion in any way, you are discouraging it from occurring.
 
2013-01-25 08:11:56 PM  

Mike_1962: Huggermugger: what_now: You guys know that no one gets an abortion at gun point, right? And the abortion provider talks to you for a while to make sure that's really what you want and that no one is forcing you to have the procedure?

Are some women pressured into having an abortion? Absolutely. All the time.

This bill wouldn't STOP that from happening, its a ham fisted attempt to make aborting even more difficult on women. The idea that a live baby is needed for DNA is ridiculous to anyone smart enough to SPELL DNA.

Mostly by men.

I've know at least a half-dozen women who had an abortion because the zygote's father badgered her into it.

/few of them ended up contributing any $ to pay for the actual procedure

Really? I'm curious, are you a social worker or something, or do you just happen to know large amounts of women who are careless or uninformed? Also were they raped? 'Cause that si different you know...


I'm old (mid 50s). I've known people who've had all sorts of things happen to them. I've known several people who've been murdered, lots of women who've been raped, people who've been mugged and shot at and struck by lightning and bitten by snakes and fallen out of windows and been dosed with LSD and roofies, people who've had electroshock treatment and been held prisoner in foreign countries and slept with celebrities and done all sorts of things. And I haven't even led a particularly adventurous life, but I do listen to people when they talk about their lives.

Many, many men are very ambivalent about fatherhood or their wife's/partner's pregnancy. My father pushed my mother through a plate-glass sliding door when she was seven months pregnant. My own husband at times expressed anger about my pregnancy, and more than once asked me to get an abortion, even though he loved our daughter and fought like a tiger for custody when we were divorced. It's a sad reality that most people, men and women, fear the bonds of parenthood, and men in particular are sometimes terrified of responsibility and being trapped with a woman by fatherhood.
 
pc
2013-01-25 09:34:30 PM  
i45.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-25 11:51:23 PM  
There's no way she can walk this one back. She made her intent perfectly clear.
 
2013-01-26 07:49:39 AM  

Mugato: So it's not just the GOP men who are obsessed with rape. That's good to know. The GOP are equal opportunity rape-obsessed psychopaths.


Yes. THIS.
 
2013-01-26 08:04:55 AM  

Zerochance: Oh Rapepublicans...on the wrong side of pretty much everything.


I personally don't get it. Individual Republicans might be complete arse-backwards morans, but the GOP itself is not. They have to know that their reputation with voters (except for the far-Right extremists) is trashed, and continuing to attack women, gays and minorities in general just doesn't wash with the electorate at large. The GOP has to know that trying to roll back the clock on Roe vs. Wade, which is supported by 70% of the population, is really bad politics. Most of all, the GOP leadership have to see what has been happening to their party the last decade or so and think "We'll never win the Presidency again, unless things change for us, and soon!"

But are they doing anything? Are they putting their extremists in-check? Are they telling their pundits to moderate their tone, and drop the attacks on women, gays and minorities? Are they stopping legislation such as this from seeing the light of day, destroying it before it can further tarnish their brand?

No, and that makes me wonder... Are the GOP elite tanking their brand on purpose? The only reason I can think they would do such a thing is if they are happy being the minority party, and blaming the Democrats for whatever might go wrong. They don't want to lead, they want to Troll.
 
2013-01-26 01:02:57 PM  

MmmmBacon: No, and that makes me wonder... Are the GOP elite tanking their brand on purpose? The only reason I can think they would do such a thing is if they are happy being the minority party, and blaming the Democrats for whatever might go wrong. They don't want to lead, they want to Troll.


t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-26 01:36:10 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.


You know who else was "consistent?"
 
2013-01-26 01:37:20 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: She's trying to protect them from coerced abortions.


There is no such thing.
 
2013-01-26 02:38:51 PM  

whidbey: 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.

You know who else was "consistent?"


glengarvin.com
 
2013-01-26 04:42:50 PM  
Pure farking evil. Well you've done it again Republicans, I am speechless.
 
Displayed 42 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