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  
•       •       •

12784 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
 
2013-01-25 09:26:50 AM
Why do people who will never have sex again spend so much time thinking about it?
 
2013-01-25 09:34:15 AM
Gee you think?
 
2013-01-25 09:36:30 AM
Paraphrase of "I'm a dim bint that wants to be re-elected so I won't have to work for a living."
 
2013-01-25 09:42:13 AM
she's a coont.  I don't think I can be any more clear than that.
 
2013-01-25 09:45:03 AM

ManateeGag: she's a coont.  I don't think I can be any more clear than that.


She's an elected coont. And that makes it worse.
 
2013-01-25 09:48:32 AM
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.
 
2013-01-25 10:03:54 AM

syrynxx: Why do people who will never have sex again spend so much time thinking about it?


They're mad that other people are having all the fun. And they want to stop those other people from having any fun AT ALL COSTS.
 
2013-01-25 10:27:01 AM
Rep. Cathrynn Brown, a Republican from Carlsbad, said Thursday she will revise the bill, which she said was intended to target perpetrators of rape or incest who try to cover their tracks by forcing their victims to have abortions.

...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.

Another point - a live fetus and a dead one both contain DNA evidence.  DNA doesn't just evaporate after an abortion.  i'm sure that if you really needed evidence of incest (or rape I suppose) wouldn't it be more efficient to say that the remains of the fetus could be frozen and used for evidence as well?  why does the law force a rape victim to carry the rape baby to term?  that seems pretty cruel to me.
 
2013-01-25 10:27:24 AM
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.
 
2013-01-25 10:31:00 AM
Yeah, "clarify."  You mean you got caught.  It's your bill, don't tell me you didn't know what was in it.
 
2013-01-25 10:37:58 AM
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.
 
2013-01-25 10:38:37 AM
As I noted last night, just get to bottom line: legalize rape and incest, outlaw abortion. It's quick and simple and meets all the requirements Republicans want.
 
2013-01-25 10:39:10 AM

GAT_00: Yeah, "clarify."  You mean you got caught.  It's your bill, don't tell me you didn't know what was in it.


In all fairness I'm sure it was written by some organization with the word "family" in its name.
 
2013-01-25 10:57:28 AM
DRTFA, but is this an "I'm sorry you got offended" apology?
 
2013-01-25 10:57:47 AM
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!
 
2013-01-25 11:01:34 AM

doyner: GAT_00: Yeah, "clarify."  You mean you got caught.  It's your bill, don't tell me you didn't know what was in it.

In all fairness I'm sure it was written by some organization with the word "family" in its name.


Actually, I'd bet ALEC wrote it.
 
2013-01-25 11:03:38 AM

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.
 
2013-01-25 11:06:47 AM

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.
 
2013-01-25 11:08:19 AM
She should. The law was badly written. And also a fight she probably didn't need to pick at this time.
 
2013-01-25 11:08:35 AM
Sorry... what we meant to say was that anyone who has an abortion or participates in any procedure that might cause harm or discomfort to a fetus should be summarily executed.

We apologize for any confusion.

Love,
The GOP
 
2013-01-25 11:09:33 AM
Tomorrow's headline: 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 AGAIN because now all the "Small government" teabaggers are threatening to primary her out in favor of an armadillo that goes into "terror ball mode" whenever it sees a person darker than a cafe latte.
 
2013-01-25 11:09:53 AM
Rapeublican.
 
2013-01-25 11:10:07 AM
I fully believe that Scumbag Steve the chairman of the RNC.
 
2013-01-25 11:10:11 AM
But yeah, there's no war on women. We're just being "over sensitive".
 
2013-01-25 11:10:26 AM
That poor, poor chicken. I guess maybe Republicans just don't care anymore since they are going to game the electoral college in such a way they can hardly ever lose.
 
2013-01-25 11:10:58 AM
So-called-progressives, doing their part to keep down the national reading level.
 
2013-01-25 11:12:26 AM
Oh, love the red banner at the top of the article. Can someone please explain why Obam isn't sitting in jail?
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-25 11:13:38 AM

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


What does this even mean?
 
2013-01-25 11:14:15 AM
latimesblogs.latimes.com
the GOP would be a much more appealing party if they would just shut up and try and run the country instead of leading from a pulpit.
 
2013-01-25 11:15:14 AM
The bill's language states that the crime "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."

Although the clause regarding intent would seem to preclude rape victims from being charged, several critics read the bill as possibly including them. Brown said she will clarify the language to remove any ambiguity.



Kind of looks like a non-story to me.

But go ahead with the outrage.
 
2013-01-25 11:16:18 AM

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.


Dude, where are the sparkly, crying eagless and the cries to take back America for the Real Americans? I'm disappointed.

/no, seriously, I couldn't agree more
 
2013-01-25 11:17:01 AM

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.
 
2013-01-25 11:17:05 AM
Pretty typical politician, open your food hole without thinking and then backtracking when you are either completely wrong or hit 10 on the scale of DERP.
 
2013-01-25 11:17:07 AM
Sounds like somebody's daughter is a little late this month.
 
2013-01-25 11:17:33 AM
The GOP Model of "It's Ok When We Have It Happen To Us"

1) Propose legislation that punishes victim.
2) Have someone in your family that is a victim in the same scenario.
3) Do mental gynmastics until you vomit to come up with an exception as to why #2 isn't like #1.
4) Don't punish the family member.
5) Profit.
 
2013-01-25 11:17:40 AM

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...
 
2013-01-25 11:18:28 AM

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


Did you just count to potato?
 
2013-01-25 11:19:10 AM

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


how often does that even happen?  because i'm thinking it's gotta be pretty damn rare.  also, a live fetus and a dead one both have DNA evidence, right?  so can't you just use the dead fetus as your evidence anyway?
 
2013-01-25 11:20:12 AM

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.


pro lifers only care about a 'baby' until it's actually born.
 
2013-01-25 11:20:41 AM
That's nice... Though, I'm really not interested in listening to any of your regressive nonsense wrapped up in a prettier package.

At least have the faith of your convictions and stand by the ridiculous bullshiat you claim to believe, you twat.
 
2013-01-25 11:21:21 AM

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.
 
2013-01-25 11:22:19 AM

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.
 
2013-01-25 11:22:45 AM

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?
 
2013-01-25 11:22:55 AM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Sorry... what we meant to say was that anyone who has an abortion or participates in any procedure that might cause harm or discomfort to a fetus should be summarily executed

because all life is sacred.

We apologize for any confusion.

Love,
The GOP


FTFY
 
2013-01-25 11:23:03 AM
I thought that women can't get preggers from teh rape.
 
2013-01-25 11:23:21 AM
Yeah, keep defending a law to make rape victims felons. That won't backfire AT ALL.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-25 11:23:40 AM

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.


So is forcing the rape victim to marry the rapist.  And execution for homosexuals.
 
2013-01-25 11:23:52 AM

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.


that's what jesus is for. duh. you pray to him and give yourself to him and have him in you and you'll be ok. unless jesus was the gardner who got you pregnant.
 
2013-01-25 11:24:03 AM
Although the clause regarding intent would seem to preclude rape victims from being charged, several critics read the bill as possibly including them

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

It's good that she will clarify the language, but I'm not sure that will stop the dishonest left-wing media from distorting whatever language she uses.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-25 11:24:18 AM

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

What does this even mean?

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

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


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

For the record, the bill is atrocious. I believe in consent. Not 'no means no' but 'yes means yes' and not otherwise. I don't support anyone being forced by their abusers to do a damn thing, and I certainly don't support the abuse in the first place. To say this is manufactured outrage is to try and undermine what this bill would have potentially done, and you're absurd with your intended minimization. Shocking, I tell you, just shocking. :|

If a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, I support her right to choose. This is an issue between her, her healthcare provider(s), and any potential partner(s) that need to be involved in the decision making. The state doesn't get to decide if the person is making the right choice.. or are you against personal liberty?

/I can do it, too. Stupid, isn't it.
 
2013-01-25 11:24:20 AM

Weaver95: 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.


clearly the women were asking to be raped. good, non-raped women stay home, waiting for their husband where it is safe

Their was a "fresh air" segment about 5 years ago. Minister was talking about why he supported the DEMS after being a GOP for most of his life. He pointed out that the DEMS did things to REDUCE the number of abortions.
Sex education = less unplanned pregnancies.
Free birth control = less unplanned pregnancies.
Welfare = method to help single women raise a child on their own.
better education of poor people = less unplanned pregnancies.
better work/job opportunities

well you get the picture.
the minister was quite outspoken about how these basic things did more to reduce abortion than what the GOP was doing.

So why are all these anti-choice people still voting GOP? Oh wait, sex is EVIL.
farkem

/csb
 
2013-01-25 11:24:27 AM
Christian fundamentalists are worse than Al-Queda.
 
2013-01-25 11:24:35 AM

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.


Well, before anyone is brought before a judge someone has to charge him because they think he may have broken laws. Can you specifically name three of the 20 you can think of off the top of your head?

Difficulty: Presidenting while black is not a crime.
 
2013-01-25 11:24:56 AM

what_now: Yeah, keep defending a law to make rape victims felons. That won't backfire AT ALL.


it's like the GOP refuses to understand the consequences of laws like this one would have for rape victims.  it's bizarre.
 
2013-01-25 11:24:58 AM

macadamnut: Sounds like somebody's daughter is a little late this month.


and uncle bob has been looking nervous again
 
2013-01-25 11:25:33 AM

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.


...are you having a stroke?
 
2013-01-25 11:25:52 AM

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

What does this even mean?

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

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

Nice! I ask you what it is you even mean and you're already positioning me!


It is easier to argue with things he pretended someone said than anything they actually say.
 
2013-01-25 11:26:02 AM
It's what I've come to expect from the Legitimate Rape Party.

So, carry on, assholes. I like it when you make public statements that make it absolutely clear nobody with a brain should vote for you. Makes it easier to remember at election time.

Another entry for my Assholish Things Republicans Have Said and Who Said Them spreadsheet.
 
2013-01-25 11:26:17 AM

what_now: Yeah, keep defending a law to make rape victims felons. That won't backfire AT ALL.


WHY are we having so much trouble attracting women and young people to the GOP?
I am so confused. We are clearly the moral party!!!

/LOL
 
2013-01-25 11:26:56 AM

GAT_00: Yeah, "clarify."  You mean you got caught.  It's your bill, don't tell me you didn't know what was in it.


She didn't , these aren't even her pants.
 
2013-01-25 11:27:25 AM

BalugaJoe: Christian fundamentalists are worse than Al-Queda.


actually, they're about the same level of thuggery, at least when it comes to social issues and controls on society.  its just that one side worships Allah and the other side worships a different flavor of Allah.
 
2013-01-25 11:28:15 AM
Can you say Crawdaddy
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-25 11:28:29 AM

jst3p: DGS: david_gaithersburg: DGS: david_gaithersburg: So-called-progressives, doing their part to keep down the national reading level.

What does this even mean?

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

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

Nice! I ask you what it is you even mean and you're already positioning me!

It is easier to argue with things he pretended someone said than anything they actually say.


Too true. I begin to think Orly Taitz is his personal heroine.. a true patriot that is just misunderstood.
 
2013-01-25 11:28:58 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: The bill's language states that the crime "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."

Although the clause regarding intent would seem to preclude rape victims from being charged, several critics read the bill as possibly including them. Brown said she will clarify the language to remove any ambiguity.


Kind of looks like a non-story to me.

But go ahead with the outrage.


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

You can legalize DNA-testing aborted fetuses. Or you can claim a human baby is evidence in a rape case, and since court cases take more than nine months...
 
2013-01-25 11:29:17 AM
Republican plan:

Propose law: Death penalty for anyone who isn't a white christian
Public: This is an outrage!
Politician: No no, let me clarify, what I meant was free American flags for everyone. Damn liberal media
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-25 11:29:26 AM

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.


No, but your spin is manufactured.

Sin_City_Superhero: I thought that women can't get preggers from teh rape.


No, but if she gets an abortion then she is destroying evidence that she wanted it.
 
2013-01-25 11:29:45 AM

what_now: 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.

...are you having a stroke?


www.bitcandy.com
 
2013-01-25 11:30:09 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: She should. The law was badly written. And also a fight she probably didn't need to pick at this time.


So she resign her office right? Clearly she is unqualified to write bills and is a clear and present danger to society. Wait, she thinks she is right and just needs to reword the bill? ROFL

Isnt it ALREADY illegal to force someone to have an abortion against their will?
Pretty certain that abortion is a WOMAN'S choice and all she has to do is say no. Right??
Wouldnt that make the abortion doctor a murderer if he aborted against her will??

no new laws!! enforce current laws!!
 
2013-01-25 11:30:14 AM
Sound like common sense abortion control. Why do you need an abortion?
 
2013-01-25 11:30:54 AM
Andrew Wiggin:
pro lifers only care about a 'baby' until it's actually born.

That's how it seems to me. After birth, you're on your own. Don't you dare ask for help.
 
2013-01-25 11:31:06 AM

Weaver95: what_now: Yeah, keep defending a law to make rape victims felons. That won't backfire AT ALL.

it's like the GOP refuses to understand the consequences of laws like this one would have for rape victims.  it's bizarre.


It's curious... If these people were just cynical opportunists, they would have seen the results of the last presidential election as a clear indication they need to change their policies and "core beliefs" to better attract voters.

But, the actions and words coming from the GOP in recent weeks seem to be indicating these people are true believers.

It really seems these assholes don't disagree with the fundamentalist nonsense being spewed by their more vocal members, they just object to them actually saying it in public.

How anyone with half a brain can remain part of a party like that or vote for these regressive morons is beyond me...
 
2013-01-25 11:31:15 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Tomorrow's headline: 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 AGAIN because now all the "Small government" teabaggers are threatening to primary her out in favor of an armadillo that goes into "terror ball mode" whenever it sees a person darker than a cafe latte.


And in New Mexico, that's pretty much everyone.

/New Mexican family
 
2013-01-25 11:31:28 AM
Keep clarifying how much you hate rape victims, GOP. It's totally working for you. Don't listen to the dum libz, they're just out to bring you down.
 
2013-01-25 11:32:11 AM
What's the difference in killing them outside the womb or inside. Dead baby either way.
 
2013-01-25 11:32:15 AM
Why not force rape victims to marry the rapists, thereby preserving evidence until death do they part.

Speaking of...tell me again, please; how exactly is fundy Christianology any different than fundy Islam?
 
2013-01-25 11:33:13 AM

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.


It's because they believe that, in roughly 100% of the cases (give or take 0%), when a woman claims rape, she's lying.
 
2013-01-25 11:33:15 AM
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.
 
2013-01-25 11:33:25 AM

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.


The Rapeublican party has left many people behind. The choices are either to go to the fascists or the Libertarians. I would not be surprised one bit to see the ranks of the Libertarians start to swell.
 
2013-01-25 11:33:30 AM

Evil Mackerel: GAT_00: Yeah, "clarify."  You mean you got caught.  It's your bill, don't tell me you didn't know what was in it.

She didn't , these aren't even her pants.


when was the last time that the GOP read one their own bills? wrote their own bills?
not saying that the DEMS are any better, but you cant use that defense when the bill is a POS
 
2013-01-25 11:33:34 AM

Weaver95: what_now: Yeah, keep defending a law to make rape victims felons. That won't backfire AT ALL.

it's like the GOP refuses to understand the consequences of laws like this one would have for rape victims.  it's bizarre.


No, they understand it very well. Since they can't get it outlawed everywhere, they just make it as difficult as possible to obtain legally. They make it onerous for doctors to provide.

If they can't get actual elimination of abortion, they'll settle for virtual elimination of it by restricting it as much as possible.

They don't care about rape victims. I'm convinced most of them believe there aren't that many rape victims to worry about. Not surprisingly, they often have the same retrograde beliefs about sex crimes as they do about sex in general.
 
2013-01-25 11:34:05 AM
Scumbucket got caught. Hands off other people's pipes and such, please, Lady Scumbucket.
 
2013-01-25 11:35:15 AM

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!


I am also.
 
2013-01-25 11:35:31 AM
Did anyone else read the while article? This would have made it another charge to force someone to get an abortion to try to cover up a crime that already happened. So this didn't create new crime at all but no one else here can get over the foaming at the mouth that seems to happen when someone talks about rape.
 
2013-01-25 11:35:35 AM

Weaver95: 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.


They can claim to hold all life sacred (unless it conflicts with our nation's interests or is convicted of a capital crime) but that doesn't mean they feel they have to take care of the little bastard. Again, I'm not defending them, I'm just trying to explain their "logic".
 
2013-01-25 11:35:48 AM
Repubs--even their women are in favor of rape.

They're creepy and they're kooky
Mysterious and spooky
They're altogether ooky
...the REPUBS!
 
2013-01-25 11:35:57 AM

Earpj: Andrew Wiggin:
pro lifers only care about a 'baby' until it's actually born.

That's how it seems to me. After birth, you're on your own. Don't you dare ask for help.


THEY are NOT pro-life. it is a bullshiat label. THEY are anti-abortion. THEY are pro control-women.
But those labels dont score as well as pro-life!!

/if only they were pro-compassion.
 
2013-01-25 11:36:30 AM

jst3p: You should audit an 8th grade civics class sometime.


Whoa there... He's got to get out of the Fourth Grade before he can do that. Baby step, man. Baby steps.
 
2013-01-25 11:36:31 AM

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.



Agreed. So many of those fundie anti-choice derpers cling to -- and try to inflict -- the "all life is sacred" tenet and THEN say "But we will permit exceptions in the cases of rape and incest."

They don't even see the stupidity in maintaining both assertions.
 
2013-01-25 11:36:40 AM

Weaver95: I really don't understand this bizarre obsession the pro-life crowd has with punishing rape victims.


Well, they're women... right?
 
2013-01-25 11:37:04 AM
Nope, I don't think we need any "clarification" to understand you just fine.
 
2013-01-25 11:37:16 AM

GAT_00: Yeah, "clarify."  You mean you got caught.  It's your bill, don't tell me you didn't know what was in it.


At least Feinstein *owns* her crap nugget. I swing back and forth on whether she's brilliantly falling on her sword to prove once and for all that the democrats don't want to take your guns, or if she's still that fanatical about it and this isn't theater at all. But she put that bill out there knowing that she was going to be torn apart for weeks in the press, and when she started getting torn apart in the press she didn't back away from the bill.

Courage is a weird thing.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-25 11:38:22 AM

namatad: Earpj: Andrew Wiggin:
pro lifers only care about a 'baby' until it's actually born.

That's how it seems to me. After birth, you're on your own. Don't you dare ask for help.

THEY are NOT pro-life. it is a bullshiat label. THEY are anti-abortion. THEY are pro control-women.
But those labels dont score as well as pro-life!!

/if only they were pro-compassion.


+eleventy you.
 
2013-01-25 11:39:56 AM

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


The title of the bill was "AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW; SPECIFYING PROCURING OF AN ABORTION AS TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE IN CASES OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL PENETRATION OR INCEST."
 
2013-01-25 11:40:06 AM
Such a typical woman, one minute she wants raped women to carry their child the next she's not about that anymore. Broads, amirite?!
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-25 11:40:26 AM

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

/Why are you pro rape?


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

/heh, no, I don't actually expect you to answer. You just want people to play defense while you make absurd accusations.
//why are you pro government control?
 
2013-01-25 11:41:13 AM

Weaver95: david_gaithersburg: .
So you support victims of sexual abuse being forced by their abusers to have an abortion?

how often does that even happen?  because i'm thinking it's gotta be pretty damn rare.  also, a live fetus and a dead one both have DNA evidence, right?  so can't you just use the dead fetus as your evidence anyway?


then the question becomes how long do abortion places keep the fetus. I would guess most people forced to do this are told to say it was form one night stand or such and that they don't know who the father is. In other words the place doing the abortion don't know what really on. I think this law was ment to be more of ok if we find out daddy is rapping his little girl then makes her get a abortion to cover it up. Hes going be charged with more then the rape charges.
 
2013-01-25 11:41:31 AM
I'm surprised that this came from a New Mexico representative. Arizona? Yes. New Mexico? not so much.

I'm totally not surprised this came from a Republican, though.
 
2013-01-25 11:41:34 AM

Drewdad: Rapeublican.


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

I'm not saying the GOP hasn't made a few boneheaded comments regarding the topic of rape but I'm having trouble finding a source where rape has specifically been mentioned as part of their agenda.
 
2013-01-25 11:41:45 AM

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.


The results of when dumb people vote for dumb candidates who come up with dumb laws. This type of candidate, regardless of party although favors the GOP lately, gets voted in because the groups that support them know most people will not vote in local/state elections. With a little organization in reaching out to the elderly, taking mail in ballots to the court house, and their supporters they are all but a shoo in to get elected. The way to get rid of them is the rest of us need to vote in our local/state elections more. I am seeing this in my state where the elephants and fundies have taken over the state government and made us a laughing stock.
 
2013-01-25 11:41:51 AM
These people aren't pro-life, they're simply pro-birth.
 
2013-01-25 11:42:19 AM

Thisbymaster: Did anyone else read the while article? This would have made it another charge to force someone to get an abortion to try to cover up a crime that already happened. So this didn't create new crime at all but no one else here can get over the foaming at the mouth that seems to happen when someone talks about rape.


Yeah. I think the wording is just a little weird.

Also, if she is forced to get an abortion, the evidence would possibly be gone before any charges could be brought. 
I can *kinda* see where they're going with it.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-25 11:42:24 AM

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

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


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

/deep thoughts with..
 
2013-01-25 11:42:32 AM

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

/Why are you pro rape?


did you bother to even read the article this thread is attached too...?  or did you just have a stroke and I missed it...?

lemme ask you this: how often do you think a rapist actually manages to force his rape victim(s) to have an abortion?  just give me a round number.
 
2013-01-25 11:43:28 AM
I am willing to bet that she wrote the bill herself. I have seen stuff from state legislators that appear to be written by a foreigner with little experience in English.
 
2013-01-25 11:43:55 AM

namatad: Earpj: Andrew Wiggin:
pro lifers only care about a 'baby' until it's actually born.

That's how it seems to me. After birth, you're on your own. Don't you dare ask for help.

THEY are NOT pro-life. it is a bullshiat label. THEY are anti-abortion. THEY are pro control-women.
But those labels dont score as well as pro-life!!

/if only they were pro-compassion.


Very true. Pro-life would have to also include anti-death penalty, wouldn't it?
 
2013-01-25 11:45:07 AM

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

/Why are you pro rape?

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

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


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

If a conservative told you the sky was blue you would begin foaming at the mouth.
 
2013-01-25 11:46:01 AM
I wonder what the GOP's position is on men who were convicted of rape before the age of DNA analysis who have tried for years, or decades, to have the evidence to be re-examined, because they claim that DNA analysis will exonerate them?

I wonder what your typical GOP (and for that matter, Democratic) DA up for re-election would have to say about that?
 
2013-01-25 11:46:25 AM

Weaver95: david_gaithersburg: .
So you support victims of sexual abuse being forced by their abusers to have an abortion?

how often does that even happen?  because i'm thinking it's gotta be pretty damn rare.  also, a live fetus and a dead one both have DNA evidence, right?  so can't you just use the dead fetus as your evidence anyway?


Excellent point!

/I doubt most rape or incest victims would have to be "forced" to have an abortion.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-25 11:47:05 AM

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

/Why are you pro rape?

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

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

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

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


And if Obama said that he loved breathing, you'd be blue in the face.
 
2013-01-25 11:47:31 AM
Oooh, new law idea for you, GOP: Women who have miscarriages should be tried with manslaughter.
 
2013-01-25 11:47:32 AM

what_now: Look, I think you're in the wrong thread. I know you want to blather about how recess appointments are only for white men with crazy mustaches, but we're talking about why the GOP hates women.


He is talking about that. Hillary just biatched slapped his party in public and this the only way he can deal with it. He's at the "Deflection" stage of GOP anger.
 
2013-01-25 11:47:48 AM

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

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


i'm pretty sure the outrage is real.  the GOP has been pretty consistent with their 'pro-rape' message.  what I can't figure is how the GOP decided this was going to help them take back Congress.  the rest of the country is looking at the Republican party in horror and disgust.
 
2013-01-25 11:48:07 AM

clowncar on fire: Drewdad: Rapeublican.

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

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


www.blogster.com
 
2013-01-25 11:48:45 AM
New law. Women who are not in the kitchen are arrested. This would keep them from getting raped, educated, and voting Thus solving every GOP issue in one fell swoop.
 
2013-01-25 11:49:29 AM

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.


It's actually pretty consistent if you keep in mind the difference between sins of commission vs. sins of omission. In term of domestic policy, conservatives frequently frame moral obligation in terms of what you shouldn't do, not what you should actually do instead.
 
2013-01-25 11:50:11 AM

david_gaithersburg: clowncar on fire: Drewdad: Rapeublican.

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

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

[www.blogster.com image 500x607]


Nice to see you are publishing a page out of the GOP play-book.
 
2013-01-25 11:50:17 AM
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.
 
2013-01-25 11:50:22 AM

OooShiny: how exactly is fundy Christianology any different than fundy Islam?


They differ only in where they strap the explosives. Fundie Islamists wear the bombs on themselves, Fundie Christianists try to strap it on the whole country.
 
2013-01-25 11:50:42 AM

david_gaithersburg: [derpage]

a

re you ok?  you aren't making much sense.  is there a medical condition we should be aware of...?
 
2013-01-25 11:51:40 AM
Hey GOP, own up to your crazy. Stop apologizing for it.
 
2013-01-25 11:52:07 AM

give me doughnuts: Nice to see you are publishing a page out of the GOP play-book.


Well, he was a socialist after all. Just like black people are socialism.
 
2013-01-25 11:53:22 AM

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, it would still be used as ammunition by conservatives and now the phantom of the "welfare queen" will be replaced by the phantom of the "rape queen" who is falsely claiming rape to cash in.

I can see lawyers defending their clients instead of "she is a known slut and look how she dressed" they will be trying to get the alleged victim's financial records entered in as evidence.
 
2013-01-25 11:53:54 AM
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
 
2013-01-25 11:54:14 AM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: It's what I've come to expect from the Legitimate Rape Party.

So, carry on, assholes. I like it when you make public statements that make it absolutely clear nobody with a brain should vote for you. Makes it easier to remember at election time.

Another entry for my Assholish Things Republicans Have Said and Who Said Them spreadsheet.


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.
 
2013-01-25 11:54:44 AM

macadamnut: give me doughnuts: Nice to see you are publishing a page out of the GOP play-book.

Well, he was a socialist after all. Just like black people are socialism.


He was a nationalistic authoritarian who was convinced of the natural superiority of Caucasians.

Just like the GOP's base.


p.s. You misspelled "SOSHLIZMS!"
 
2013-01-25 11:56:07 AM

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


I see a beach and a pier. I guess is just shows us all what we want to see!
 
2013-01-25 11:56:49 AM

Weaver95: Another point - a live fetus and a dead one both contain DNA evidence. DNA doesn't just evaporate after an abortion. i'm sure that if you really needed evidence of incest (or rape I suppose) wouldn't it be more efficient to say that the remains of the fetus could be frozen and used for evidence as well? why does the law force a rape victim to carry the rape baby to term? that seems pretty cruel to me.


I think it means that if a coerced girl goes in for an abortion the staff there won't collect samples and preserve evidence and just chuck it all in a biomedical waste bin because the victim isn't saying "Oh, yeah, and BTW, the daddy raped me. He's the one who drove me here today too."
 
2013-01-25 11:56:52 AM

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

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


...Wow, I spectacularly misremembered  that one, thanks for catching that.

/Same end effect, though; even using TFA's text you can see that, presuming the trial takes a normal length of time (criminal trials I've known have taken about a year to come to court), the woman would be forced to carry to term because 'evidence'.
 
2013-01-25 11:56:55 AM

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.


You're a farking idiot, you know that, right. No one above supported forced abortions, you made an outrageous claim about Obam(a), and then you admit that a bill is not needed but dismiss the negative consequences that a bill worded as this one would have in a state that has been shown to go after morality using the police force. You are a bad human being, a sorry Christian, and just a worthless POS in general.
 
2013-01-25 11:57:30 AM
So, the rapist will have to pay the victim's father 50 shekels and two cows when he marries the victim?
 
2013-01-25 11:57:48 AM
Um, if she's clarified the language to cover only rapists who would force their victims to get abortions, then HOW IS THAT NOT ALREADY ILLEGAL?!!
 
2013-01-25 11:57:58 AM

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, it woul ...


I would rather occasionally let someone game the system than leave a rape victim with nowhere to turn and no options.
 
2013-01-25 11:58:14 AM

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.
 
2013-01-25 11:58:18 AM

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

What does this even mean?

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

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

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

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


You can do that? I must investigate my Fark account
/And then mark him as extremely Derpy
 
2013-01-25 11:58:29 AM

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


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

A great many products of conception never implant themselves and get flushed out when a woman has her monthly period. And who's going to be my llawyer? Because, I didn't even know anything happened. I was sitting here, voting and feeling moody and voom, another manslaughter down the tubes.
 
2013-01-25 11:59:14 AM

doyner: In all fairness I'm sure it was written by some organization with the word "family" bigot in its name.


Same thing. They're interchangeable.
 
2013-01-25 11:59:32 AM

clowncar on fire: Drewdad: Rapeublican.

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

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


You're right. I think they should clarify their stance on rape and rape babies. They should speak at great length, in fact, about rape. They should be sure to use the word rape more often so that their true arguments about rape can be more easily found by internet searches for rape.

It's going to happen anyway. Might as well enjoy it.
 
2013-01-25 12:00:28 PM

GAT_00: doyner: GAT_00: Yeah, "clarify."  You mean you got caught.  It's your bill, don't tell me you didn't know what was in it.

In all fairness I'm sure it was written by some organization with the word "family" in its name.

Actually, I'd bet ALEC wrote it.


Lawmakers should have to write their bills with a #2 pencil with bipartisan witnesses present.
 
2013-01-25 12:03:51 PM

OooShiny: Why not force rape victims to marry the rapists, thereby preserving evidence until death do they part.

Speaking of...tell me again, please; how exactly is fundy Christianology any different than fundy Islam?


That is what the Bible says. A rapist is to marry the woman and pay her family.
 
2013-01-25 12:04:13 PM
Yeah. "Clarifying" it after some people told the dumbass that all we'd need to do was to cryo-freeze the aborted fetus for DNA testing later, most likely.
 
2013-01-25 12:04:25 PM

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

/Why are you pro rape?

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

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

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

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


If a conservative told me the sky was blue, I'd walk outside, verify that indeed it was the case, and carry on. You see, that's the difference between conservatives and, well, anyone else. We're more than happy to verify if something is true, and if it is, move on. The problem is that conservatives get proven wrong, then doggedly insist that the evidence is a Photoshop, that Obama isn't a citizen, that global warming isn't happening, that the Founding Fathers had zero intention of this being a "Christian nation", etc etc etc.
By the way, on that last bit, if you take the time to go to the Library of Congress and read some of the letters from Madison, Jefferson and others who signed the Constitution, you'll find my statement to be abundantly correct.
 
2013-01-25 12:05:42 PM

Weaver95: I would rather occasionally let someone game the system than leave a rape victim with nowhere to turn and no options.


And I agree. However I'm worried about people claiming all women who try to use these benefits are trying to game the system (or juries being prejudiced about rape victims because the sneaky suspicion she's here for the $$$). Women feel enough guilt about taking WIC and that's available to everyone and doesn't require proof of a crime.
 
2013-01-25 12:06:06 PM

Weaver95: david_gaithersburg: .
So you support victims of sexual abuse being forced by their abusers to have an abortion?

how often does that even happen?  because i'm thinking it's gotta be pretty damn rare.  also, a live fetus and a dead one both have DNA evidence, right?  so can't you just use the dead fetus as your evidence anyway?


It's probably not as rare as you think, but that doesn't matter. There are quite a few laws that cover what this would anyway. That's the smell test for all of this nonsense.
 
2013-01-25 12:06:40 PM

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.


Yeah, and I agree it's consistent. Still very wrong though. Ordered evil instead of chaotic evil.
 
2013-01-25 12:06:43 PM

Darth_Lukecash: ManateeGag: she's a coont.  I don't think I can be any more clear than that.

She's an elected coont. And that makes it worse.


She's a "Republicoont". Is that a word? It should be.
 
2013-01-25 12:07:21 PM
Since tinyhead had his ass handed to him on every birth certificate thread, he is now going to double down on the rape issue? Carry on, you valiant patriot, carry on
 
2013-01-25 12:09:57 PM
Every time I read one of these threads, I have the same thoughts.

1. Incest and rape crimes are terribily under-reported. 2.The statistics on exactly who is getting an abortion aren't easy to find nor totally reliable because it means a woman has to share this incredibily stigmatized information with others. Just based on info from a friend that's an abortion counselor, it's not always who you think it is.

The amount of control a person has on someone that has been sexually abused could easily lead down a path of a "forced" abortion... I haven't read the bill but we should tread carefully to ensure courts couldn't charge a doctor or woman seeking an abortion on their own. I haven't gotten an abortion myself, but it seems that this type of discussion is held before the procedure itself with the woman and her doctor.
 
2013-01-25 12:10:42 PM

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
 
2013-01-25 12:12:58 PM

machodonkeywrestler: 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.

You're a farking idiot, you know that, right. No one above supported forced abortions, you made an outrageous claim about Obam(a), and then you admit that a bill is not needed but dismiss the negative consequences that a bill worded as this one would have in a state that has been shown to go after morality using the police force. You are a bad human being, a sorry Christian, and just a worthless POS in general.


Look, a sociopath is not necessarily an idiot. Please don't insult idiots by lumping this sociopath in with them. Lots of idiots are nice people.
 
2013-01-25 12:14:04 PM

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

What does this even mean?

What does anything david_gaithersburg say ever mean?

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


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.
 
2013-01-25 12:14:54 PM

PsiChick: Same end effect, though; even using TFA's text you can see that, presuming the trial takes a normal length of time (criminal trials I've known have taken about a year to come to court), the woman would be forced to carry to term because 'evidence'.


There is nothing in the proposed bill that I can find that would require a victim to carry the baby to term to preserve evidence.  It says 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.

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

 .
 
2013-01-25 12:15:39 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 12:17:08 PM

Weaver95: david_gaithersburg: .
I'm not a so-called-progressive, so chances are I'm not an attorney. It was a draft bill, the language is being revised. Even after the revision there is still fake outrage.

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

i'm pretty sure the outrage is real.  the GOP has been pretty consistent with their 'pro-rape' message.  what I can't figure is how the GOP decided this was going to help them take back Congress.  the rest of the country is looking at the Republican party in horror and disgust.


Don't pick on Gaithersburg. He's above average intelligence in Florida.
 
2013-01-25 12:17:32 PM

SkinnyHead: PsiChick: Same end effect, though; even using TFA's text you can see that, presuming the trial takes a normal length of time (criminal trials I've known have taken about a year to come to court), the woman would be forced to carry to term because 'evidence'.

There is nothing in the proposed bill that I can find that would require a victim to carry the baby to term to preserve evidence.  It says 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.

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

 .


How is that not already illegal?
 
2013-01-25 12:17:39 PM
a57.foxnews.com


"Why, why, why, WHY is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to f*ck in the first place, huh?" - George Carlin
 
2013-01-25 12:22:09 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.


After careful study, I believe there is an element of trolling. He may very well believe what he writes, but many of his comments are phrased to "tweak" the opposition. I'm not generally opposed to this, if it's done with humor, but his comments are utterly lacking in both humor and devoid of intelligent thought.
 
2013-01-25 12:22:19 PM

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

Agrees

/pre-natal, you're fine
//post-natal, you're farkED
 
2013-01-25 12:22:32 PM

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

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

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


The smartest approach I've heard in a long time.
 
2013-01-25 12:22:53 PM
spells her name with the same dexterity used to create the bill.
Kathryn = ok
Catherine = ok
Cathrynn = made up like the reasoning behind my new bill
 
2013-01-25 12:26:54 PM
GOP: "We must protect the chance of a fetus to be born... but once said fetus is born and she gets raped, then tough shiat".
 
2013-01-25 12:29:29 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 12:30:35 PM

GAT_00: doyner: GAT_00: Yeah, "clarify."  You mean you got caught.  It's your bill, don't tell me you didn't know what was in it.

In all fairness I'm sure it was written by some organization with the word "family" in its name.

Actually, I'd bet ALEC wrote it.


Well, ALEC is the Koch Family Legislative Foundation.
 
2013-01-25 12:30:47 PM

coco ebert: SkinnyHead: PsiChick: Same end effect, though; even using TFA's text you can see that, presuming the trial takes a normal length of time (criminal trials I've known have taken about a year to come to court), the woman would be forced to carry to term because 'evidence'.

There is nothing in the proposed bill that I can find that would require a victim to carry the baby to term to preserve evidence.  It says 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.

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

 .

How is that not already illegal?


It probably is already illegal under existing law.  I'm not arguing for or against the bill.  I'm arguing against the attempt to demonize the lawmaker who proposed the bill and by extension, the entire GOP, by dishonestly mischaracterizing what the bill does.
 
2013-01-25 12:33:05 PM
Prepare for the sudden influx of murder-babies!

blog.zap2it.com
 
2013-01-25 12:33:34 PM

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

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


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.
 
2013-01-25 12:34:27 PM
Lawyers and politicians love finding loopholes in the language of laws. Some make very good careers off of it. A law for something as narrow and rare as this needs to be equally narrow and precise in wording.
 
2013-01-25 12:35:58 PM

SkinnyHead: coco ebert: SkinnyHead: PsiChick: Same end effect, though; even using TFA's text you can see that, presuming the trial takes a normal length of time (criminal trials I've known have taken about a year to come to court), the woman would be forced to carry to term because 'evidence'.

There is nothing in the proposed bill that I can find that would require a victim to carry the baby to term to preserve evidence.  It says 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.

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

 .

How is that not already illegal?

It probably is already illegal under existing law.  I'm not arguing for or against the bill.  I'm arguing against the attempt to demonize the lawmaker who proposed the bill and by extension, the entire GOP, by dishonestly mischaracterizing what the bill does.


If it's already illegal, then what is the motivation behind proposing such a law? I don't think it's unreasonable to infer that she meant something else with the law originally and is now trying to backtrack.
 
2013-01-25 12:36:01 PM
niftycraft.com
 
2013-01-25 12:36:47 PM

Earpj: Andrew Wiggin:
pro lifers only care about a 'baby' until it's actually born.

That's how it seems to me. After birth, you're on your own. Don't you dare ask for help.


Well, duh. Didn't you know that babies come with bootstraps?
 
2013-01-25 12:37:06 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 12:39:02 PM

KrispyKritter: Smelly Pirate Hooker: It's what I've come to expect from the Legitimate Rape Party.

So, carry on, assholes. I like it when you make public statements that make it absolutely clear nobody with a brain should vote for you. Makes it easier to remember at election time.

Another entry for my Assholish Things Republicans Have Said and Who Said Them spreadsheet.

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.


They exist, but they're poorly designed. A spreadsheet is easier to read and update.
 
2013-01-25 12:39:40 PM

SkinnyHead: PsiChick: Same end effect, though; even using TFA's text you can see that, presuming the trial takes a normal length of time (criminal trials I've known have taken about a year to come to court), the woman would be forced to carry to term because 'evidence'.

There is nothing in the proposed bill that I can find that would require a victim to carry the baby to term to preserve evidence.  It says 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.

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

 .


So what evidence is being tampered with?
 
2013-01-25 12:40:12 PM

SkinnyHead: It probably is already illegal under existing law. I'm not arguing for or against the bill. I'm arguing against the attempt to demonize the lawmaker who proposed the bill and by extension, the entire GOP, by dishonestly mischaracterizing what the bill does.


If that's what upsets you so, then here's an idea: stop advocating legislation that limits the rights of rape victims or even threatens them with criminal prosecution. Doesn't seem too difficult, and yet it seems to be for elected members one major political party.
 
2013-01-25 12:40:50 PM

Weaver95: I would rather occasionally let someone game the system than leave a rape victim with nowhere to turn and no options.


Echoes of Blackstone.

Someday I will buy you a beer. Or whatever it is you drink.
 
2013-01-25 12:42:08 PM

unlikely: Weaver95: I would rather occasionally let someone game the system than leave a rape victim with nowhere to turn and no options.

Echoes of Blackstone.

Someday I will buy you a beer. Or whatever it is you drink.


I am the reason the rum is gone.
 
2013-01-25 12:43:38 PM
If she were consistent with her beliefs she wouldn't back down from her original position. If you really believe that abortion is murder, it's perfectly reasonable and consistent to claim that having been impregnated by a horrendous act of violence, doesn't give you the right to commit the murder of an innocent third person (the human being inside you).
 
2013-01-25 12:48:09 PM
This is just another example of a crime that almost never happens--like voter fraud--that repubs suddenly decide requires legal remedy. The fact that the side effects of the proposed solution--voter suppression in the case of voter ID laws or, in this case, criminalization of the rape victim -- massively outweigh the proposed benefits leads to the suspicion that there is some ulterior motive involved. Such indeed was the case in the voter fraud issue, as evidenced by Mike Turzai's bragging about how voter ID laws would deliver the state for Romney. Can we be faulted for assuming that a law that, on the face of it, supports the rapist's right to continue to mistreat his victim constitutes a "pro-rape" attitude on the part of the repubs? In the final analysis. only women get abortions. If abortion is a crime, every woman is a potential criminal and deserves whatever unpleasantness befalls her, just as every Latino is a potential illegal alien and every black in a hoodie is a potential mugger. Right, repubs?
 
2013-01-25 12:48:31 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 12:49:27 PM
It's almost as if she encountered a group of people that were not republicans.
 
2013-01-25 12:49:33 PM

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.


yeah, but their women just do and say what the men tell them.
 
2013-01-25 12:51:02 PM
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
 
2013-01-25 12:51:17 PM

clowncar on fire: Drewdad: Rapeublican.

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

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


Rhetoric aside, I'll conced that the vast majority of republicans are not pro-rape. So for the love of god, stop sending representatives of your party to Congress who make statements or attempt to make law that minimalizes rape and the consequences thereof. The Republicans are very much the authors of their own misfortune in this.
 
2013-01-25 12:54:00 PM
The bill's language states that the crime "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."

/thread over, you have to have intent to destroy the evidence, this would preclude the victim getting an abortion. Non story.
 
2013-01-25 12:55:11 PM

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

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


You're not helping. Go away and left derp elsewhere.
 
2013-01-25 12:55:15 PM

SkinnyHead: coco ebert: SkinnyHead: PsiChick: Same end effect, though; even using TFA's text you can see that, presuming the trial takes a normal length of time (criminal trials I've known have taken about a year to come to court), the woman would be forced to carry to term because 'evidence'.

There is nothing in the proposed bill that I can find that would require a victim to carry the baby to term to preserve evidence.  It says 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.

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

 .

How is that not already illegal?

It probably is already illegal under existing law.  I'm not arguing for or against the bill.  I'm arguing against the attempt to demonize the lawmaker who proposed the bill and by extension, the entire GOP, by dishonestly mischaracterizing what the bill does.


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

So which is it? Waste of taxpayer money and a blatant hypocrisy -or- ulterior motive intended to expand the sphere of who is considered a criminal to victims of crimes who wish to limit the magnitude of negative consequences of being victimized. You can't have it any other way.
 
2013-01-25 12:56:42 PM

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

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

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


/Um ya, fark all that. That means WE the taxpayers are paying for a baby that isn't ours. not that we don't already, but how about making the guy who raped her pay. Make him work, and give the money to the girl and the kid. At least a portion to help / assist. Why should the taxpayers shoulder the whole burden?
 
2013-01-25 12:57:10 PM
It's getting increasingly difficult to find wire hangers anymore. Probably a plot by the pro-life groups.
 
2013-01-25 12:58:43 PM
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.

I think there's a word for this. Women who support hardline Conservative policies. I can't quite think of it, though,
 
2013-01-25 12:58:45 PM

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


It's been done already.
 
2013-01-25 12:59:44 PM

Quinzy: 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!

I am also.


second

/throw in pro gun and agnostic you got yourself a deal there brother
 
2013-01-25 01:00:27 PM

Weaver95: I really don't understand this bizarre obsession the pro-life crowd has with punishing rape victims. ...


Many are motivated by fear. If they can convince themselves that bad things only happen to bad people, then they don't need to fear bad things. Consequently, anyone who has bad things happen to them must be bad as well, and that's how the universe is balanced.

(I have another theory: The world is incredibly complex, and the intellectually lazy amongst us may have a temptation to split things into a more simplistic black & white perspective. Anything that might support the notion that there are shades of gray is therefore black (or white, depending on the color they associate with "not me.") )
 
2013-01-25 01:00:54 PM

Weaver95: 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.


You couldn't really have a rapist pay child support as it gives him some financial power over the victim, you would have to organize it so the government pays out regardless, and then can chase up the rapist if they can.
 
2013-01-25 01:01:03 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 01:02:11 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Why should the taxpayers shoulder the whole burden?


Because the Republicans are the ones trying to have government shoved up the woman's vagina. If they want that, then guess what? Taxpayers are forced to go along for the ride. If you object to this as a taxpayer (probably the least enlightened reason to object to this, but a legitimate objection nonetheless), then you need to let Republicans know to keep government's hands away from vaginas.
 
2013-01-25 01:03:53 PM

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

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

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


THIS!
 
2013-01-25 01:04:00 PM

Heathen: Quinzy: 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!

I am also.

second

/throw in pro gun and agnostic you got yourself a deal there brother


Ditto.

The things which keep me from suggesting I'm Republican is their decision in the '70s to go this absurd Taliban level of religious tomfoolery. Up until then the Republican party was all for scientific advancement, supported unions, and women's causes.

"Government out of people's lives! Unless... you know, they're gay. Or atheist/agnostic/Jewish/Muslim. Or women. In THOSE cases, government should totally tell you what to do. But other than THAT...."
 
2013-01-25 01:04:34 PM
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?
 
2013-01-25 01:05:06 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 01:06:27 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 01:06:59 PM
Bit'O'Gristle The bill's language states that the crime "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."

/thread over, you have to have intent to destroy the evidence, this would preclude the victim getting an abortion. Non story.


Depends on interpretation really. One interpretation is that any woman who seeks an abortion because she got pregnant by rape is inherently seeking to destroy evidence of a crime. In the woman's mind, however, she is destroying the evidence of a violent crime for her own benefit and not to help the rapist get off.

If you consider the fetus that the woman was forced to create and doesn't want to birth "evidence".
 
2013-01-25 01:07:24 PM

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


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

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


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

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

It's been done already.


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

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

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

/END CSB
 
2013-01-25 01:10:33 PM

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

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


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

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


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



Ack!! Stop giving them ideas!!!


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

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

It's been done already.

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


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

It's been done already.

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's been done already.

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

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

It's been done already.

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

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


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

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

What does this even mean?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/deep thoughts with..


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

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

What does this even mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Weaver95: I am the reason the rum is gone.


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

pdee: /CSB

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

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

/END CSB


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

/Why are you pro rape?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

i1222.photobucket.com

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Right.

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

david_gaithersburg: clowncar on fire: Drewdad: Rapeublican.

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

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

[www.blogster.com image 500x607]


5/10
 
2013-01-25 01:52:37 PM

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

david_gaithersburg: clowncar on fire: Drewdad: Rapeublican.

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

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

[www.blogster.com image 500x607]


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

pdee: /CSB

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

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

/END CSB


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

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

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

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


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

Contents Under Pressure: GOP:

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

Right.

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


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

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

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

What does this even mean?

What does anything david_gaithersburg say ever mean?

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


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

clowncar on fire: Contents Under Pressure: GOP:

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

Right.

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

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

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

 
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.
 
2013-01-25 03:11:26 PM

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!


I think of him like a cancer.

And I think of talking to him like smoking a pack of unfiltered cigarettes.
 
2013-01-25 03:13:02 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:14:25 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:16:43 PM
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.
 
2013-01-25 03:17:08 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:17:10 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:20:33 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:20:53 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:23:02 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:23:10 PM

RedTank: 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.


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.
 
2013-01-25 03:24:29 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?


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.
 
2013-01-25 03:24:44 PM

RedTank: 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.


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.
 
2013-01-25 03:25:44 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:27:02 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:32:52 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:33:18 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:35:07 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:35:33 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:38:43 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:38:54 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:39:54 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:40:42 PM
i449.photobucket.com

/Va-jayjays do NOT belong to the state.
/I only rent them once in a while. It's cheaper that way.
 
2013-01-25 03:41:36 PM

RedTank: 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.


right now we seemed determined to repeat the mistakes of the past.
 
2013-01-25 03:45:03 PM

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 . . .
 
2013-01-25 03:45:14 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:49:29 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:56:37 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.


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.
 
2013-01-25 03:58:39 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 03:59:43 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 a pretty bullshiat "what if" you're pulling out of thin air there.
 
2013-01-25 04:00:29 PM

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....
 
2013-01-25 04:01:36 PM

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?
 
2013-01-25 04:11:18 PM

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".
 
2013-01-25 04:11:35 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 04:13:18 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 04:13:21 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 04:15:19 PM
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?
 
2013-01-25 04:16:37 PM

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?
 
2013-01-25 04:16:44 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 04:19:54 PM

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)
 
2013-01-25 04:20:12 PM

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?
 
2013-01-25 04:22:31 PM

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?
 
2013-01-25 04:26:11 PM

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'.
 
2013-01-25 04:26:47 PM
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...
 
2013-01-25 04:29:44 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 04:30:46 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 04:38:37 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 04:39:31 PM

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.
 
2013-01-25 04:40:56 PM
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.
 
2013-01-25 04:44:29 PM

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?
 
2013-01-25 04:44:53 PM

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.
 
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 392 of 392 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report