Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Raw Story: New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims With Jail Time

HeluCopter29

By HeluCopter29
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

twa

twa

Posted
Posted

I'll play more once you admit you were mistaken earlier

but something for you to ponder in the interim is does the bill change the penalty or likelihood of a conviction for compelling or coercing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
I'll play more once you admit you were mistaken earlier

  1. I wasn't "mistaken earlier".
  2. "play once more" implies that you've answered the question once.
    "abortion is not illegal " isn't a response to the question. It was an attempt to find some way to dodge answering the question.
    Rather like this post.
    1. My question was not "Is compelling or coercing someone into an abortion, already illegal?"
    2. If that had, indeed, been my question, then the answer to that question would have been "yes", too

(Rather like this one, too.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Is compelling or coercing someone into performing an illegal act, already illegal?

maybe you failed to grasp the answer earlier because you ignore that intent matters in crime and most certainly in a legal action.... abortion is not illegal

where is the illegal act by the mother?

Her intent if compelled /coerced is not the same as the one committing the crime

willful blindness on your part?

add

post 11 would probably rate as a lie by your usual standard that you regularly apply, but I'll leave it at you being mistaken

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted
Thee has to be a fetus, otherwise, no rape?

No you got that backwards... IF their is a fetus, that's evidence that it wasn't a rape because of the females ability to spontanously abort unwanted pregnancies...

So If she is pregnant that's evidence no rape took place... and of coarse if she's not pregnanant that's also evidence no rape took place... You know these republicans hate Shariha law.. but what they are proposing really sounds pretty close..... Or maybe dark agest witchcraft laws.... Throw the witch in the water with a 50 lb weight around her neck... if she drowns she's innocent.

---------- Post added January-27th-2013 at 07:30 PM ----------

Looks like it's not working.

I'm hoping Republicans as we know them go the way of the Do-Do bird. Need to have an adult alternative to the Democratic party, not some circus side show.

The problem is the GOP only lost the Presidency by like 2% of the popular vote... I don't think that's enough of a margin for them to execute a game change... So I think we are in for more of this strage behavior, until or if the people decide to send the GOP a real message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
maybe you failed to grasp the answer earlier because you ignore that intent matters in crime and most certainly in a legal action.... abortion is not illegal

where is the illegal act by the mother?

Her intent if compelled /coerced is not the same as the one committing the crime

willful blindness on your part?

Still playing the "if I pretend that the question implies something I can argue with, and then I argue with the thing I made up, then I can avoid answering the question that I don't want to answer" game?

Problem is, the question that you want to pretend I'm asking doesn't help you, either. (Which, I suppose, is why you not only won;t answer the question I asked, you won;t answer the question that you want to pretend I asked, either.)

Here, I'll help, by providing both the question I asked, and the one you want to pretend I asked:

1) Is compelling or coercing someone into destroying evidence, already illegal?

2) Is compelling or coercing someone into getting an abortion, already illegal?

----------

Y'see, that's the whole problem with your entire attempt to hijack the discussion away from the subject of the thread, and to pull the "but look! The law also has this other part that makes it illegal for rapists to force women (who want to carry their rape baby to term) into abortions that they don;t want, to hide the evidence. Therefore, this part over here is obviously the reason the law was written": The part you're trying to claim was the real motive, simply makes something that was already illegal, illegal. (In fact, it was illegal twice: Coercion and destroying evidence)

add

post 11 would probably rate as a lie by your usual standard that you regularly apply, but I'll leave it at you being mistaken

It is neither.

In order to be either, the statement would have to be untrue. And it is accurate.

We were discussing a law which makes it illegal for a woman to get an abortion, and you were (and still are) trying to pull a "but, look! Over here, it makes it illegal for a rapist to force a woman to have an abortion! (And pay no attention to the fact that that's already illegal.)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HeluCopter29

HeluCopter29

Posted
  • Author
Posted
maybe you failed to grasp the answer earlier because you ignore that intent matters in crime and most certainly in a legal action.... abortion is not illegal

where is the illegal act by the mother?

Her intent if compelled /coerced is not the same as the one committing the crime

willful blindness on your part?

add

post 11 would probably rate as a lie by your usual standard that you regularly apply, but I'll leave it at you being mistaken

You're missing Larry's training of logic I believe.

Abortion is legal

Abortion is legal because of a supreme court decision, not because of any laws therefore a law could potentially supersede a supreme court decision made 40 years ago.

Tampering with evidence is already illegal.

This law says that a fetus is evidence.

Therefore tampering or destroying a fetus (abortion) would be illegal if the mother is a rape victim.

Therefore, abortion in that case would be illegal.

The proposed law is not written with the intent of making tampering with evidence illegal because it already is. The GOP is about limited government and eliminating what (to them) are unnecessary laws. So why would the GOP make another law if that goes against there logic and mindset?

To make abortion illegal in certain cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

Larry read your original question again

helucopter,,,,,are you claiming aborting a child from a rape is illegal now???? (little flaw in your logic)

If so, why are ya'll worried at all about this bill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Meanwhile, as to the original topic:

1). Read the article linked from the OP. Wow, that's a site with a major agenda.

2). Read the actual law. (It's reall short. Two pages. And the only thing it does is add one sentence to an existing law. The one sentence is the one that somebody (twa?) already posted.)

3). There appeared to be absolutely nothing in the bill that would justify the article's claim of "aimed at throwing rape victims in jail if they refuse to honor their rapist’s right to control their body by carrying his child."

4). Read innocuously, it looks like the law actually doesn't criminalize anything that wasn't already illegal.

The existing paragraph a simply says that altering evidence is illegal.

The new paragraph b simply says that paragraph a includes abortions that were done for the purpose of altering evidence.

5). Read NON-innocuously?

I do find myself wondering: if . . .

A). A woman is raped.

B). The woman decides that she doesn't want to file charges. Or even report it.

C). The woman discovers she's pregnant.

D). She decides to abort.

Then is she guilty of destroying evidence (under the new law or existing law)?

After all, she literally is getting an abortion specifically for the purpose of concealing the fact that she was raped.

(I have trouble believing that this law was written for the purpose of criminalizing that scenario).

In short, I really don't see the reason for the melodramatic claim in the original piece. I think you have to be looking for something to get alarmed. (Although I will also agree that you EITHER have to look really hard for an agenda, OR conclude that the law does absolutely nothing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Henry

Henry

Posted
Posted

I really hate this debate.

That bill was VERY poorly worded. Considering the sensitivity of the issue (both issues of rape and abortion, for that matter) you would think lawmakers would be much more careful before unveiling a bill like that.

That said, the article in the OP is completely off the rails. It's one thing to point out a flaw in the wording, and even be critical of it. That article went way past that.

Doesn't help their cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
The crazy pro-lifers actually want to do this.

TWA is more of a trolling pro lifer so who the hell knows?

Bite me

you could read my answers to that question in many threads....or continue in your willful ignorance

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wrong Direction

Wrong Direction

Posted
Posted

This thread is a microcosm of what is wrong with politics today.

Some website (right or left) makes an outlandish claim.

Ideological supporters (right or left) over react and generalize the absurdity to the entire right or left.

People begin debating (which is good) but insert their negative stereotypes into the debate and ultimately make hurtful accusations about the opposing side.

After the debate has happened, someone brings some sense into the argument, but the public damage and stereotype-supporting news story has already had its effect.

Here's my theory: the 21st century bigot is prevelant everywhere I look. I heard about this story from someone I now consider a bigot last week. The stereotypes of either side from the other have just gone too damn far. And yes, I'm saying this is prevelant in all sides of our society. We've spent 45 years trying to teach America to understand the conditions that black people and women have been faced with in this country. For the most part, that's not a good thing, it's a great thing. Yet somehow, we've not taught ourselves to understand that every Christian Redneck, New York Jew, South Central Black Man or [insert any other negative stereotype you want] came out of the womb crying, laughed as a child when they were playing, cried when they were hurt and loved hugs and kisses from their family.

We're so divided by our culture that we all-too-frequently ascribe the worst intentions to those who disagree with us, look different or sound different. This degenerates into name calling and division, and the people who do it most are cultural bigots, in my opinion. It totally sickens me. I wish people would just talk about things and understand that deep down the vast majority of us might have 30-60 years of culture ingrained into us, but it doesn't mean we're all a bunch of mean-spirited neanderthals. Most people just want to be good people, and we're more likely to come together if we stop this nonsense.

My 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
Thanks Wrong Direction for giving me something more to think about. You appear to be the voice of reason.

He is not.

Leonard Nimoy is the Voice of Reason.

(Although James Earl Jones makes a pretty good Voice of Reason, too. In fact, a pretty good Voice of anything.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggo-toni

Riggo-toni

Posted
Posted

You've all got it backwards. Now that we know a woman doesn't get pregnant froma legitimate rape, thanks to her magically sperm repellent vagina, this law is to prevent a woman unjustly accusing a man of rape from having an abortion- because if she goes into court knocked up, everyone will know she's lying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wrong Direction

Wrong Direction

Posted
Posted

Dang. As if on cue. I wonder if Bay Buchanan sounds like James Earl Jones?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/bay-buchanan-trades-politics-for-real-estate/article/2519877#.UQbWDaU1lhQ

Bay Buchanan trades politics for real estate

...

But Bay Buchanan, a top Mitt Romney lieutenant who's been involved in politics ever since serving as treasurer of Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign, saw last November's loss as a signal to get out of presidential politics.

...

While Buchanan plans to keep her nose in political issues and will continue to give speeches, her famously combative TV debating days are over for now. "It's so negative and TV is more difficult than ever in the sense that it's really not an honest debate anymore," she said.

"I can't just live my life going on TV and being angry all the time," said Buchanan, author of the well-received recently released book "Bay & Her Boys, Unexpected Lessons I Learned as a (Single) Mom."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...