The Amazing Race   American Idol   The Apprentice   The Bachelor   The Bachelorette   Big Brother   The Biggest Loser
Dancing with the Stars   So You Think You Can Dance   Survivor   Top Model   The Voice   The X Factor       Reality TV World
   
Reality TV World Message Board Forums
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats, but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are encouraged to read the complete guidelines. As entertainment critic Roger Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
"Well the good news is..."
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
 
Previous Topic | Next Topic 
Conferences Off-Topic Forum (Protected)
Original message

Snidget 43862 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-24-13, 01:19 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Snidget Click to send private message to Snidget Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
"Well the good news is..."
A Republican in office believes a woman who has been raped can get pregnant...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/24/new_mexico_legislation_would_criminalize_abortions_in_cases_of_rape.html


Deck the Halls with Sigs of Tribe

  Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

  Table of Contents

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
 RE: Well the good news is... dabo 01-24-13 1
   RE: Well the good news is... Estee 01-24-13 2
       RE: Well the good news is... dabo 01-24-13 5
 RE: Well the good news is... AyaK 01-24-13 3
   RE: Well the good news is... Snidget 01-24-13 4
       RE: Well the good news is... AyaK 01-25-13 7
           RE: Well the good news is... cahaya 01-26-13 13
               RE: Well the good news is... Starshine 01-26-13 14
                   RE: Well the good news is... cahaya 01-27-13 15
   RE: Well the good news is... dabo 01-25-13 6
 Story is false AyaK 01-25-13 8
   RE: Story is false Snidget 01-25-13 9
       RE: Story is false dabo 01-25-13 10
           RE: Story is false dabo 01-26-13 12
       RE: Story is false AyaK 01-27-13 17
   RE: Story is false dabo 01-25-13 11
       RE: Story is false AyaK 01-27-13 16

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

dabo 25344 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-24-13, 02:01 PM (EST)
Click to EMail dabo Click to send private message to dabo Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
1. "RE: Well the good news is..."
LAST EDITED ON 01-24-13 AT 02:04 PM (EST)

What an insane piece of legislation. At first I thought this would be someone trying to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape. But, nope, just read the thing itself, it would make abortion illegal only in cases of rape or incest. By making it tampering with evidence of a crime.

In other words, ladies, you get raped in New Mexico, best wait until you find out if you get pregnant from it before reporting the rape.

I doubt this could get passed through a legislation composed entirely of hard-right social conservatives, it's that stupid.

ETA: Yep, illegal in cases of incest too.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 55195 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-24-13, 02:23 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Estee Click to send private message to Estee Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
2. "RE: Well the good news is..."
LAST EDITED ON 01-24-13 AT 06:23 PM (EST)

There is no such thing as a law too stupid to pass. And if all else fails, argue it until three in the morning and once you're the only voter still awake, go for it. Works for Ireland.

But when you define this under terms of evidence destruction? Then there's a chance someone up the line, post-passage (in that state or some other), will decide this has a legal point and let it stand. In that sense, it's not 'crazy enough to work', it could wind up as a brilliant strike to set up a foundation for other states to follow. It just only works for cases of assault unless you define any form of sex as criminal, which would have to include marital to make sure there's no base left uncovered.

...

...that one's going to need a few days.

By the way, we are at the point where, after seeing Snidget's headline (and not yet knowing the bill's nature or that the creator was female), my mind automatically completed it with "...because he's the one who raped her and now he's demanding custody of the child."

After some thought, I revised that last to "and was just awarded custody of the child."

Some additional pondering threw in "plus support payments from the mother."

But I guess that was too far for New Mexico to go today. We'll see how Arizona does tomorrow.

ETA: Found the bureaucratic fun part: write the law properly and you might have to legally prove any pregnancy had not been the result of rape or incest and if you didn't have that proof, out the door you go so as not to interfere with any potential investigation.

I'm thinking stacks of affidavit forms next to the bed, neutral third-party witnesses, video recording with audio confirmation required from all parties every thirty seconds on the sweep, and a notary public on 24-hour call.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 25344 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-24-13, 09:20 PM (EST)
Click to EMail dabo Click to send private message to dabo Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
5. "RE: Well the good news is..."
LAST EDITED ON 01-24-13 AT 10:13 PM (EST)

I'm not even going to get into the vast multitude of problems there would be with considering a fetus as evidence of a crime, just will point out that were it evidence it would be precisely the same evidence regardless of whether it were living or unliving.

Here's a LOL from the Peanut Gallery (comments section) of the cited article (going off on a tangent):

Pedoviejo2 (poster)

She says she has changed the language of the bill:

UPDATE: Carlsbad legislator says she will file substitute bill for one criminalizing abortion in rape cases

Posted at: 01/24/2013 10:28 AM | Updated at: 01/24/2013 1:40 PM
By: Tracy Dingmann, KOB.com

The Carlsbad legislator who filed a bill that could criminalize abortions for rape victims is now saying she will change the language of the bill to make it clear she is referring to a rapist who coerces the victim to have an abortion, not the victim.

Isn't it already not his decision, and would it not already be illegal for him to force his own decision upon her in any manner?

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

AyaK 10083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-24-13, 06:21 PM (EST)
Click to EMail AyaK Click to send private message to AyaK Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
3. "RE: Well the good news is..."
LAST EDITED ON 01-24-13 AT 06:23 PM (EST)

The bill has no chance of passing, even in a Republican legislature, but Weigel's column is interesting to me for one reason -- he continues the Democrats' front on the war on science.

Here is what Weigel wrote:

They talk about it because they deeply believe that life begins at the moment of conception. Most Republicans do.

Yes, and so do virtually all scientists. For Weigel to write this in this manner betrays a deep conviction that science must align itself with Weigel's political views. Watch out, Dave -- that way lies another group of science deniers called creationists, who are mostly Republicans! Your two groups won't get along very well!

There isn't any way to reconcile what Weigel wrote and what scientists believe -- it's not just a "typo" kind of error. But the widely-accepted idea that life begins at the moment of conception doesn't dictate the legal answer in the way that Weigel seems to believe -- unless you're a highly-politicized Democrat who wants to claim for purely partisan reasons that you follow scientific principles.

Why doesn't the idea that life begins at creation end the legal debate? Because the law has always recognized a right to end life in certain cases. In fact, the Supreme Court's approach to this matter is entirely consistent with that type of balancing of interests between two lives, whether or not Weigel wants to recognize it.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Snidget 43862 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-24-13, 07:30 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Snidget Click to send private message to Snidget Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
4. "RE: Well the good news is..."
I do have a bit of a scientific problem giving full human rights to the fertilized egg. Just because the sperm hits doesn't mean it can actually develop into a human being. There are any number of early developmental mishaps and sometimes all you get is placenta or other random bits, but if you say anything that develops from a fertilized egg has equal or more rights to life than the mother...or do you then revoke those rights from that bit of chromosomal uniqueness later?

Part of the problem of knowing all the various assorted things that can go wrong and how they do so with startling regularity. Luckily most of these tissues with their own unique sets of chromosomes end it on their own, but I do worry that there are those who would, if allowed, prevent any medical intervention to save the life of the mother even when what is killing her will never have a heartbeat, will never take a breath. It came from a sperm and an egg touching, it must be a human being!

So I kinda do want to wait for the part that will be fetus rather than placenta to make it's appearance, but that is splitting the hair with a microtome.

I don't have your faith that these laws can't be passed. The only good thing is maybe they'd work a little harder to convict the rapist if they have to get that conviction before they can put the woman who they think probably deserved what she got in jail.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

AyaK 10083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-25-13, 01:19 PM (EST)
Click to EMail AyaK Click to send private message to AyaK Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
7. "RE: Well the good news is..."
I do have a bit of a scientific problem giving full human rights to the fertilized egg. Just because the sperm hits doesn't mean it can actually develop into a human being. There are any number of early developmental mishaps and sometimes all you get is placenta or other random bits, but if you say anything that develops from a fertilized egg has equal or more rights to life than the mother...or do you then revoke those rights from that bit of chromosomal uniqueness later?

Both you and dabo correctly focus on the point that the question of when life begins and the question of what rights are associated with the beginning of life are two entirely separate questions -- which is a point that Weigel seems to miss.

If we gave "full human rights" to a fertilized egg, that would mean that we should try to make sure that every fertilized egg implants, and that we should try to prevent spontaneous miscarriages. Both ideas are as unscientific as the idea that life begins at some time other than conception.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

cahaya 18904 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-26-13, 03:03 AM (EST)
Click to EMail cahaya Click to send private message to cahaya Click to view user profile Click to send message via ICQ Click to check IP address of the poster
13. "RE: Well the good news is..."
As a person of both critically-minded science and open-minded spirit, I concur with the view that a new life begins upon conception with recombined DNA from two parents. Having said that, evolutionary nature is such that newly created life is subject to circumstance and not all newly created life is viable.

Whether and especially when to attribute "personhood" (or sentient humanness) to this new life has long been subject to scientific, religious and legal question with traditions dating back for millennia. Just when does this new life become a viable sentient being?

And what is at question here is: What are the rules of the society and culture in which it arises?


Capn's temple lions

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Starshine 4934 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Stuff Magazine Centerfold"

01-26-13, 08:59 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Starshine Click to send private message to Starshine Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
14. "RE: Well the good news is..."
Rules change, and keeping up with them causes problems.

In my Grandmothers day if there were some abnormality with a baby a nurse would smother it as they felt that was the best thing for both mother and child. These days we would consider that to be murder.

Generally the abortion yes/no debate has finished over here, yes it is a woman's right to decide, the debate now is on up to what point?

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

cahaya 18904 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-27-13, 01:35 AM (EST)
Click to EMail cahaya Click to send private message to cahaya Click to view user profile Click to send message via ICQ Click to check IP address of the poster
15. "RE: Well the good news is..."
In short, do what's practical in conformance with social, legal and religious limits, which vary over time as social cultures evolve.

Another question is just how much government should be involved in these type of decisions.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 25344 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-25-13, 01:28 AM (EST)
Click to EMail dabo Click to send private message to dabo Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
6. "RE: Well the good news is..."
LAST EDITED ON 01-25-13 AT 02:30 AM (EST)

But the widely-accepted idea that life begins at the moment of conception doesn't dictate the legal answer in the way that Weigel seems to believe --

Well, the statement by Weigel is simply that one side believes life begins at conception and the other side doesn't believe that, as if that is why the two sides disagree. It isn't and never has been the case. It keeps coming up for several reasons:

1. Social conservatives continuously repeat that they believe life begins at conception, and they are pro-life, and they oppose abortion, connecting it all. And as if people on the left are arguing that life does not begin at conception; which no one really should but perhaps some do, I don't recall that though.

Digression: It could be argued that sperm and ova are living tissue and so conception, the joining of the two, isn't the starting point of life at all. This, though, is a ridiculous argument, or an argument of ridiculousness, just as irrelevant under the law as whether there is life at conception. It need never be mentioned on this thread again.

2. The pro-choice side really isn't organized anymore, it is in a defensive posture of simply responding to whatever the pro-life side comes up with, maintaining simply that abortion is and should continue to be legal and available.

3. Not enough people on either side bother to find out what abortion law actually does center upon. It's no more about what is life than it is about what is human than it is about what is property. It's about at what point does living human tissue become an individual that can have protection of the law.

More or less.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

AyaK 10083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-25-13, 06:20 PM (EST)
Click to EMail AyaK Click to send private message to AyaK Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
8. "Story is false"
LAST EDITED ON 01-25-13 AT 06:23 PM (EST)

As I should have expected, the alleged story is false.

The bill itself disproves the story. Here is the text:

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.

Notice that this is not a strict prohibition on an act. It includes what is known as a mens rea ("guilty mind") provision, making such an act a crime only when done with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime. A woman who permits DNA testing of the aborted fetus has clearly not destroyed evidence of the crime.

I have a real question about when this bill would actually apply (perhaps in cases of incest). But it doesn't prevent a woman from voluntarily aborting her rapist's baby, as Weigel alleged.

Apparently Dave Weigel is not only conducting a partisan war on science but also a partisan war on truth.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Snidget 43862 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-25-13, 06:55 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Snidget Click to send private message to Snidget Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
9. "RE: Story is false"
LAST EDITED ON 01-25-13 AT 07:01 PM (EST)

Well even the person that drafted it agrees the original language implied they could and might have to be charging the woman that got the abortion even if the woman who wrote it wanted to make it that it would just apply to the man who committed the rape or incest.

http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_22442626/new-mexico-abortion-bill-sparks-controversy

It isn't always easy to find an article that doesn't throw some political spin on things.

Now I do hope she really did just have editing issues, but I suspect there are those that would try to find a way to punish a victim. After all, rape victims are rarely treated well, even in our legal system.

ETA: After all, how many women do not report rapes and would be doing what they need to do to intentionally destroy the evidence it happened. All it takes is making in ONLY when coerced, not because you facilitated the abortion by driving your friend to the clinic or because you procured one by driving yourself and paying for it out of pocket.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 25344 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-25-13, 08:00 PM (EST)
Click to EMail dabo Click to send private message to dabo Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
10. "RE: Story is false"
LAST EDITED ON 01-25-13 AT 08:01 PM (EST)

Well, it was a fun little feeding frenzy while it lasted. Wait a sec...

Call To Arms!

NM Representative Cathrynn Brown (R-Deep Red Southern Section) gets to try to weasel out of her original bill's language tonight on CNN's "The Anderson Cooper Show." ... Don't let her spin her way out of this one!

Not that I think NM is really what we normally call a "Southern" state or particularly "red" even. I just have to wonder what loophole exists in their current laws that she thinks makes this bill necessary (regardless of what constitutes "evidence" or willingness to destroy it).

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 25344 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-26-13, 02:24 AM (EST)
Click to EMail dabo Click to send private message to dabo Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
12. "RE: Story is false"
Just to update, she wasn't on 360 tonight. Apparently the dailykos people picked up on the fact she had been contacted about appearing, jumped to she would from some comment she was considering it, kplooyey, or whatever. Or maybe just maybe folks got confused about the anniversary of Roe v Wade being today.

It's all show-biz.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

AyaK 10083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-27-13, 02:10 AM (EST)
Click to EMail AyaK Click to send private message to AyaK Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
17. "RE: Story is false"
Perhaps, but the mens rea requirement seems perfectly clear. I believe that what she wasn't expecting is that the bill would become so controversial when it is really so inconsequential.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 25344 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-25-13, 08:12 PM (EST)
Click to EMail dabo Click to send private message to dabo Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
11. "RE: Story is false"
A woman who permits DNA testing of the aborted fetus has clearly not destroyed evidence of the crime.

And this DNA is evidence of what crime? The fetus itself is evidence simply of fertility.

I suppose in cases of incest that DNA evidence of paternity might hold up, though with close relatives sharing DNA traits already I don't know if it could be considered reliable. But in a rape case DNA doesn't prove rape, only paternity.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

AyaK 10083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

01-27-13, 02:07 AM (EST)
Click to EMail AyaK Click to send private message to AyaK Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
16. "RE: Story is false"
In statutory \rape, which is the only case where I can think of that this provision might come into play, the DNA itself would provide evidence of the crime.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top


Lock | Archive | Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
about this site   •   advertise on this site  •   contact us  •   privacy policy   •