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

[twa]

So maybe what's needed is a bill to address this problem? 'Cause if Cathrynn Brown's bill was really intended as anything more than political grandstanding, then surely she could write something a little more reasonable, and stand a realistic chance of actually helping to prosecute the rapists.

you mean like this?

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

with a simple exclusion for the mother?

gee ...she did that
I would certainly agree the exclusion should have been thought of before she submitted it, but bills are regularly cleaned up in the process

[Barney B]

you mean like this?

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

with a simple exclusion for the mother?

gee ...she did that
I would certainly agree the exclusion should have been thought of before she submitted it, but bills are regularly cleaned up in the process

Nope, not like that.

[twa]

Nope, not like that.

Like what then?
to prosecute it would require demonstrating a rape occurred(or incest) and intent to destroy evidence of it....and the mother is excluded

[Larry]

have you read the submitted bill? (rhetorical question since you obviously have not)

the wording was poor,but the intent was not at the pregnant

Really?

Right now, who has the authority to order an abortion?

(I'll give you a hint. It's 1) The mother, 2) Nobody else.)

So please, explain to us in detail how you get from that current status to "we need to pass a law to make it illegal for rapists to force women to get abortions".

I'd love to see this dance.

Or, better yet, since you want to pull the "the submitted bill" card, how about you furnish us with the part that refers to rapists compelling his victim to abort?

---------- Post added January-27th-2013 at 02:48 PM ----------

you mean like this?

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

with a simple exclusion for the mother?

gee ...she did that
I would certainly agree the exclusion should have been thought of before she submitted it, but bills are regularly cleaned up in the process

Or how about leaving out the words "procuring or facilitating an abortion"?

You know, punishing the force or coercion, instead of the abortion?

Or, better yet, how about simply leaving the existing laws against destruction of evidence, on the books?

Where've I heard that phrase "just enforce the existing laws"?

[twa]

Larry , are you unaware of girls /women being forced to do things(including abortions) ??

I realize it is not common,but then murder or mass shootings are not either......just trivial things


why don't you at least acknowledge you missed the compel or coerce before we move on

[Larry]

Larry , are you unaware of girls /women being forced to do things(including abortions) ??

I realize it is not common,but then murder or mass shootings are not either......just trivial things


why don't you at least acknowledge you missed the compel or coerce before we move on

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

[twa]

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

abortion is not illegal

[Larry]

abortion is not illegal

Ah, so you do recognize that the law was written for the purpose of prohibiting something that wasn't illegal, before the law. The abortion.

Coercion is already illegal.
Destroying evidence is already illegal.
Heck, talking about or planning destroying evidence is illegal. (Conspiracy.)

So, I kinda have to conclude that the purpose of the law was to prohibit the only thing the law mentions, that isn't already illegal.

[twa]

About what I would expect as a reply

how is it making abortion illegal with a exclusion for the mother?...you know, the person you already said must authorize it.

of course your scenario also leaves out the ever increasing abortificants(which they can be forced or tricked into consuming) and ignores the evidence being destroyed removes the evidence of that itself.

what % of women having abortions feel coerced or forced do you think?......does the % naturally climb in cases of incest and in abusive relationships?
Of course abusing women is also already illegal ,as is rape........or shooting innocents

convicting someone of rape w/o evidence is rather difficult,how much more so would it be in the case of forced abortions?
Would the law empower a victim or punish them in your mind?......honestly



as a sidenote on abortion and the children of rapists,might I recommend reading Victims and Victors [Acorn Books, 2000]

[Larry]

About what I would expect as a reply

Long as you've decided to move from ignoring the things you want to hide from, and claiming that other people aren't responding: \

You feel like answering the question I already asked? you know:

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

[twa]

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

[Larry]

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.)

[twa]

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

[JMS]

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.

[Larry]

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.)"