29 replies to this topic

[Simbi Laveau]

praetorian-legio XIII, on 25 January 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

I don't get it. Can't they run DNA testing on the aborted fetus as evidence of the crime?

It seems having the victim of a sexual assault carry an unwanted and unplanned baby to term, then give birth is ,IMO, just down right cruel. It seems once again the victim is the one being punished.

With idiots like lawyer Brown in power, its no wonder our judicial system is so screwed up.

Funny you should mention that,because yyeesss .DNA of a fetus can be run just as easily ,which shows how messed up this,woman's,agenda is .

[Simbi Laveau]

Rafterman, on 25 January 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

And folk accuse the NRA of an all-or-nothing approach to guns - the same can be said about the pro-abortion folks.



http://www.foxnews.c...test=latestnews

A New Mexico state legislator is under fire for a proposal critics say could lead to felony charges against rape victims seeking an abortion, but the legislator maintains the measure is being misrepresented.

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.

New Mexico's Democratic Party chairman calls it an "atrocious piece of legislation."

Brown is an attorney who sits on the state Legislature's Judiciary Committee. She was not immediately available when contacted Thursday by FoxNews.com.

Uh huh....
Let's see how she ratifies it.
Lets just say i would guess she knew exactly what she was doing,but didn't expect it to make the news.
Here,the news called it a backdoor attempt to make abortion illegal ,and it absolutely implied the victim was the one breaking the law if they got an abortion .

[Simbi Laveau]

ouija ouija, on 25 January 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

She's labelling a baby 'evidence'!!!!
And what happens to the 'evidence' after a trial?

No one knows...maybe she can,take it home and raise it .

[aztek]

wow, what a pasionate fighter for womens rights, lol.

what is next? women will not have a right to say NO.

Edited by aztek, 25 January 2013 - 09:12 PM.

[AsteroidX]

These are the infringements of the Constitution that us 2nd Amendment nuts are talking about. Put the pieces together and its being shredded. Now we are losing the right to have a say how are own bodies work. In several instances now. Big Soda ban in New York and the big one GMO in food.

[cormac mac airt]

Simbi Laveau, on 25 January 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

http://usnews.nbcnew...new-mexico?lite

A New Mexico law maker,a woman no less ,wants to pass a bill criminalizing abortion ,after rape or incest ,claiming the baby is evidence of the rape ,ergo ,its destruction of evidence .
She works with pro lifers ,and doesn't say what to do with the unwanted child after its born .

Can we say ,MORON .

One has to wonder if she'd think the same way if SHE was one of the women this bill would affect. This is disgusting.

cormac

[Ryinrea]

I still can't wrap my head around it even after reading it several times.. Can't they get evidence from things like DNA,  Amino Fluids and things like that.. Why would they need the Baby unless they think the woman is; telling a lie and thus wants to see if the baby has his features. Also, what would happen to the baby after the trial....

[cormac mac airt]

Ryinrea, on 25 January 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

I still can't wrap my head around it even after reading it several times.. Can't they get evidence from things like DNA,  Amino Fluids and things like that.. Why would they need the Baby unless they think the woman is; telling a lie and thus wants to see if the baby has his features. Also, what would happen to the baby after the trial....

Sounds pretty obvious to me. This is an attempt to circumvent a woman's rights, after having been raped, and forcing her to have the child. Whether she wants it or not. And yes, DNA would be perfect evidence.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 25 January 2013 - 10:36 PM.

[Lilly]

IMO the only motivation there is an attempt to circumvent Roe vs Wade. The anti-abortion people are looking for any method to make any abortion illegal.

[AsteroidX]

A women has a right to do what she wants with an unwanted pregnancy regardless. I understand theres an opposing view to this and I get it. But I think legislation like this supports why we need to keep abortion legal. Period.

[rashore]

I kind of wonder what's supposed to happen to the kid after it's born too... If it's considered evidence prior to it's birth, shouldn't that then mean that the police should have to take the evidence into their custody? And then what? Or if it isn't considered evidence after birth, why in the eff not, what has changed?

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

That's the thing matrix. I don't see pro lifers doing their obligation of adoption. My stance is very simple. I am pro choice yet in my home my family has decided we will not abort unless mother and child may die. You see my wife and I made that choice. And if I were arrogant enough to force my own choice on others then I would be obligated to take responsibility for my forcing others to do as I chose. Which means in simple terms if you are pro life take responsibility for your actions and adopt one of the many children in the system. They need good families. If you refuse to try to adopt then there is something terribly wrong with your forcing your opinion on others against their will. I'm not saying abortion as a contraceptive is good or morally sound. But, that's my choice to make and no one has any right to impose that choice on anyone else.
Just to reiterate if your pro life what have you done to take responsibility for your stance? If you have adopted then Im proud of you for being mature and responsible if not?.... then honestly I can't be very proud of you for showing the illusion of caring and morality.

As to the OP ... this is a bad decision on its own merits.

All the above is opinion made by choice. Luckily I have this choice. I choose life but you can live with any decision you make by current law.

[Frank Merton]

Ryinrea, on 25 January 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

I still can't wrap my head around it even after reading it several times.. Can't they get evidence from things like DNA,  Amino Fluids and things like that.. Why would they need the Baby unless they think the woman is; telling a lie and thus wants to see if the baby has his features. Also, what would happen to the baby after the trial....

You got it right.  This is lawyer tactics to confuse the issue.  Technically the fetus is evidence, and technically one cannot destroy evidence.  That the evidence can be gotten other ways is conveniently ignored.

[Betrayal of Humanity]

New born babies are the easiest and most sought after to adopt, it's the children who were actually wanted by there parents in the first place that make up most of the children in the system. So how about we start letting people kill there unwanted older children?

I would gladly take a child that was born of rape into my family. It is not the child's fault and they should not be killed for it.

Being allowed to murder your unborn/born child has nothing to do with women's rights.

Edited by Betrayal of Humanity, 27 January 2013 - 12:05 PM.

[Rafterman]

Simbi Laveau, on 25 January 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

Uh huh....
Let's see how she ratifies it.
Lets just say i would guess she knew exactly what she was doing,but didn't expect it to make the news.
Here,the news called it a backdoor attempt to make abortion illegal ,and it absolutely implied the victim was the one breaking the law if they got an abortion .

But that's not what the proposed law says - see, there's this little word called INTENT written into it.

I'm wiling to give her the benefit of the doubt that it was just a poorly written bill that she has not agreed to rework.  We'll have to wait and see what come of the redo.