Pregnant Rape Victims
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
RED ALERT MUST READ

Paducah, KY

#1 Jan 24, 2013
A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico has introduced a bill that would require women that become pregnant as a result of rape to carry the pregnancy to term or go to prison. Under the proposed law if a rape victim got an abortion she would be committing a felony for "destroying evidence". Conceivably this "destroying evidence" doctrine could be used to prevent a woman from using even the "morning after" pill.

This from the news:

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-mexico-pos ...+(Business+Insider)
sugar baby

Tucker, GA

#2 Jan 24, 2013
RED ALERT MUST READ wrote:
A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico has introduced a bill that would require women that become pregnant as a result of rape to carry the pregnancy to term or go to prison. Under the proposed law if a rape victim got an abortion she would be committing a felony for "destroying evidence". Conceivably this "destroying evidence" doctrine could be used to prevent a woman from using even the "morning after" pill.

This from the news:

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-mexico-pos ...+(Business+Insider)
that is crazy. I've always said if I was to ever get raped and got pregnant that I wouldn't have an abortion. Because I couldn't kill the baby. But that's just me but I know others don't have that same view so this law is crazy. I know a man had to come up with this one a stupid man at that.

“Dewey Beats Truman!”

Since: Apr 12

Here

#3 Jan 24, 2013
Just like the hypocrites of the Catholic church who are claiming that a fetus is a baby if it comes to abortion, but if one of their Catholic hospital's commits malpractice that causes miscarriage, they say it's just a fetus again!
RED ALERT MUST READ

Providence, KY

#4 Jan 24, 2013
sugar baby wrote:
<quoted text>
that is crazy. I've always said if I was to ever get raped and got pregnant that I wouldn't have an abortion. Because I couldn't kill the baby. But that's just me but I know others don't have that same view so this law is crazy. I know a man had to come up with this one a stupid man at that.
No. The bill was introduced by a woman, New Mexico State Representative Cathrynn Brown.

If the bill was to become law New Mexico rape victims would be charged with a felony and three years in prison if they fail to carry their pregnancies to term. Because it would technically be destroying evidence a woman who was raped in the state of New Mexico would be charged with a crime even if she left the state and got an abortion in another state or in a foreign country. That would apply even to a woman who was not a resident of New Mexico but was raped while passing through the state.

“Dewey Beats Truman!”

Since: Apr 12

Here

#5 Jan 24, 2013
So couldn't you just have the abortion clinic keep what they scrape out and turn it over to the authorities to "preserve" the evidence. Even though the evidence is really sperm, most of which got naturally destroyed in its trip and the particular sperm that impregnates no longer exists once it fertilizes. But hey why rely on actual science when crafting laws?
RED ALERT MUST READ

Providence, KY

#6 Jan 24, 2013
the real anonymouse wrote:
So couldn't you just have the abortion clinic keep what they scrape out and turn it over to the authorities to "preserve" the evidence. Even though the evidence is really sperm, most of which got naturally destroyed in its trip and the particular sperm that impregnates no longer exists once it fertilizes. But hey why rely on actual science when crafting laws?
That is common sense but the rules concerning physical evidence or all kinds are very strict. You are not supposed to alter anything. If you do the evidence becomes inadmissible in court. This law is a through the back door attempt to use the rules of evidence to affect a ban on abortions in case of rape. If abortion in the case of rape could be banned in this way it would make banning all other abortions much easier.

This bill is a potential legal bombshell in another way that its author did not anticipate or intend, even if it does not pass. It opens the door for defense lawyers to claim that if a rape victim uses the "morning after" pill or gets an abortion she tampered with evidence--and thus that the physical evidence of rape is inadmissible in court.

“Dewey Beats Truman!”

Since: Apr 12

Here

#7 Jan 24, 2013
RED ALERT MUST READ wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not supposed to alter anything.
Once fertilization occurs, the "evidence" is already being altered by the natural growth process. It is no longer sperm once fertilization occurred. Abortion would not alter the evidence already collected in a rape kit. It would not change DNA either. Rapists are scum, but I would not advocate forcing a rapist who had testicular cancer to keep his nuts because they are "evidence". So why force a woman to keep a child born of rape? Technically she wouldn't be able to put it up for adoption either since that would be hiding evidence, right? There is so much about this proposed law that are illogical and nonsensical.
Life no matter what

Nebo, KY

#8 Jan 24, 2013
This is just hysterical pro-abortion propaganda. Even if the law passes it will be a symbolic statement against the murder of unborn children.

No woman who is a genuine victim of rape would ever be charged under it. It is almost impossible for a rapist to get a woman pregnant. The official figure is 5 in every 100 reported rapes. The truth of those 5 women’s claims that they were raped is doubtful. It is a medical fact that a woman cannot get pregnant unless she has an orgasm. An orgasm occurs only about 1 in 3 times when a woman is trying to have one. It will not happen if she is being raped. For one thing a rape just happens too fast.
gooby

Newburgh, IN

#11 Jan 24, 2013
Life no matter what wrote:
This is just hysterical pro-abortion propaganda. Even if the law passes it will be a symbolic statement against the murder of unborn children.
No woman who is a genuine victim of rape would ever be charged under it. It is almost impossible for a rapist to get a woman pregnant. The official figure is 5 in every 100 reported rapes. The truth of those 5 women’s claims that they were raped is doubtful. It is a medical fact that a woman cannot get pregnant unless she has an orgasm. An orgasm occurs only about 1 in 3 times when a woman is trying to have one. It will not happen if she is being raped. For one thing a rape just happens too fast.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is by far the dumbest, most ignorant statement ever made on this topic this side of a certain Republican named Akin.
time to move on

Owensboro, KY

#12 Jan 24, 2013
Life no matter what wrote:
This is just hysterical pro-abortion propaganda. Even if the law passes it will be a symbolic statement against the murder of unborn children.
No woman who is a genuine victim of rape would ever be charged under it. It is almost impossible for a rapist to get a woman pregnant. The official figure is 5 in every 100 reported rapes. The truth of those 5 women’s claims that they were raped is doubtful. It is a medical fact that a woman cannot get pregnant unless she has an orgasm. An orgasm occurs only about 1 in 3 times when a woman is trying to have one. It will not happen if she is being raped. For one thing a rape just happens too fast.
Please please tell me this is a joke (not funny in the least). Otherwise do EVERY woman a favor and shut the F%^K up!!!!!!
Geneologist

Nortonville, KY

#13 Jan 25, 2013
time to move on wrote:
<quoted text>
Please please tell me this is a joke (not funny in the least). Otherwise do EVERY woman a favor and shut the F%^K up!!!!!!
It is probably no joke. I have run into several people who believe what that statement says.

The idea that a woman has to have an orgasm to get pregnant has deep historical roots. It was in medical books published 200 years ago. Medical experts abandoned the idea well before the Civil War but it hung on in popular culture for at least another 50 years.

I don't know how the idea could have been resurrected in the 21st century and gained traction among pro-life activists, but it has.
Liar

Hopkinsville, KY

#14 Jan 25, 2013
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.

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.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/24/ne...
Pro-Life

Kuttawa, KY

#15 Jan 25, 2013
The United States will not regain the favor of God until this amendment becomes part of our Constituion:

Section 1. Neither the United States nor any State shall deprive any human being, from the moment of conception, of life without due process of law; nor deny to any human being, from the moment of conception, within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall deprive any human being of life on account of illness, age, or incapacity.

Section 3. Congress and the several States shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
time to move on

Owensboro, KY

#16 Jan 25, 2013
That is ridiculous. The United States government should have no business deciding what is best for a woman. Period. I bet you scream about the right to bear arms, yet want to take away a woman's right no to bear the child of incest and rape. I think if there really were a god, which I do not, he has his priorities way off.
MomX3

Central City, KY

#17 Jan 25, 2013
time to move on wrote:
That is ridiculous. The United States government should have no business deciding what is best for a woman. Period. I bet you scream about the right to bear arms, yet want to take away a woman's right no to bear the child of incest and rape. I think if there really were a god, which I do not, he has his priorities way off.
Your priorities are misplaced. I have all the compassion possible for rape victims. This argument is not about the women. It is about the unborn children. The most helpless victims of all. They are entitled to that most basic of all rights - to be born and live their life.
Puzzled

Paducah, KY

#19 Jan 25, 2013
Spicy wrote:
<quoted text>
Even in a case involving incest? Does the mother have no say so on that matter?
What difference does it make whether the semen that started a fetus inside a 13 year old girl's womb came from her father or an escaped convict like Willie Horton?

“Dewey Beats Truman!”

Since: Apr 12

Here

#20 Jan 25, 2013
Of course pro-life people are pro-incest and pro-rape. The bible is full of it and most of it is "justified" by their so called "loving God" within that text. Deviants will defend deviance. Look at the decades they hid pedophile priest from the long arm of the law. This is not moral or ethical behavior.
Geneologist

Nortonville, KY

#21 Jan 25, 2013
the real anonymouse wrote:
Of course pro-life people are pro-incest and pro-rape. The bible is full of it and most of it is "justified" by their so called "loving God" within that text. Deviants will defend deviance. Look at the decades they hid pedophile priest from the long arm of the law. This is not moral or ethical behavior.
I wouldn't go that far, but a lot of them have a kind of disconnect in their thinking. Because an individual would not do something "deviant" that individual tends to refuse to believe that anyone else in the group with which they identify would do it either. When an outsider makes an accusation against a prominent figure in their group they instinctively defend that person.

That applies to a whole range of things. Just look at the knee-jerk reaction when the West Point domestic terrorism report came out about the potential for the lunatic fringe of fundamentalist Christians to engage in terrorism. Some people reacted as if the report had said, "The Southern Baptist Convention is planning a terrorist campaign against the U.S. government."
Geneologist

Nortonville, KY

#22 Jan 25, 2013
Pro-Life wrote:
...nor deny to any human being, from the moment of conception, within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.
Do you really know what kind of can of legal vipers this phrase in your amendment would open up?

For one thing, every time a woman had a miscarriage there would have to be a police investigation and a coroner's inquest to determine the cause of the fetus's death. It would open the potential for a jealous prosecutor to charge her with manslaughter if he thought she had in some way contributed to the miscarriage, say by doing work that was too hard or exercise that was too strenuous.
What & Why

Oak Grove, KY

#23 Jan 25, 2013
It's all up to the individual. They have to pay for the decisions they make!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hopkinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Possum Eaters In Pembroke 4 min DeQuan 13
Shopping complex 39 min Hire 1
270 Entertainment 41 min Yuck 6
Drug addicts 1 hr Jason 9
Commonwealth attorneys race 2 hr Trump 62
woodshed 2 hr Cust 7
steve tucker post taken down 2 hr The Preacher 2
Garry and Trent Haddock 10 hr Upper 35

Hopkinsville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hopkinsville Mortgages