kallend 2,182 #51 January 26, 2013 Republicans would be far better off keeping their noses out of womens' reproductive organs, and devote some effort to trying to help fix the economy instead.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #52 January 26, 2013 Quote Republicans would be far better off keeping their noses out of womens' reproductive organs, See?? They can't even do that right. "Muffy, you look marvelous! Did you get a nose job?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #53 January 26, 2013 QuoteOK, let's get down to brass tacks, shall we? The bill was a barely, barely disguised anti-abortion bill. Its design was first and foremost to intimidate women and especially doctors and abortion clinics for fear of ideologically or politically motivated criminal prosecution (if I was a doctor's lawyer, I'd certainly caution her about the newly-enhanced risk of prosecution and/or jeopardy to her license to practice); and now that the sponsor's been caught with her sensible, plain white panties down, she's trying to rehabilitate.... mainly herself. Just a slow train wreck. So please - let's not be naive and let a discussion about the shoddy drafting of the facade blind us to the true original intent of the bill and true original motivation of its sponsor. I guess I'm not the only cynic here.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #54 January 26, 2013 Quote "if it saves just a few extra children, it's worth it." Déjà vu!!I have to remind myself that this board is full of partisans. Let's all tacitly agree that the VAST majority of humans don't condone rape. Let's assume that those evil republicans, for the most part, would like to see that rapists don't go unpunished. Currently, if a woman is raped by someone she knows and does not immediately report it (read: rape investigation, hospital rape kits, etc). How would the prosecution have a case against the alleged perpetrator with no physical evidence? Let's assume the magic juices do in fact flow when a woman is raped and god does His thing and she becomes "with child". That DNA in that fetus/child is now admissible evidence... i would think that the DNA evidence would go along way to helping a prosecutor get a rape convention when other DNA evidence is not present. I personally don't like new laws, but I also don't care for rapists and I think that women having free access to abortions has great social benefits. So for me it boils down to this: What is more likely? Will it have the net effect of making it more difficult for my favorite meth head with little future prospects from having an abortion or will it put more rapists in prison? I think it's the latter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #55 January 26, 2013 QuoteWhat is more likely? Will it have the net effect of making it more difficult for my favorite meth head with little future prospects from having an abortion or will it put more rapists in prison? I think it's the latter. Unless you can demonstrate to me with real statistics, and not just a few random anecdotes in a population of 300 million, that it's not a solution in search of an actual problem, then I think it's the former; or at the very least (setting aside the "meth head" strawman), it will effectively prevent more women in that state from being able to obtain an abortion. As I said above, if such a law were enacted in my jurisdiction, my legal advice to any clients who are doctors or work in abortion clinics would be to never participate in another abortion again in that state due to the newly-enhanced risk of harassment-by-prosecution presented by that law. Even if a person is ultimately acquitted - after arrest, administrative license "review" (and probable suspension pending trial, with reciprocity in every other state he/she is licensed in, which is standard procedure), prosecution and a full trial - the real-world cost to that person - financial, social, career - could be devastating and permanent. Anyone who thinks that risk would not have a drastic chilling effect on abortions in that state is being very naive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #56 January 27, 2013 QuoteQuoteWhat is more likely? Will it have the net effect of making it more difficult for my favorite meth head with little future prospects from having an abortion or will it put more rapists in prison? I think it's the latter. Unless you can demonstrate to me with real statistics, and not just a few random anecdotes in a population of 300 million, that it's not a solution in search of an actual problem, then I think it's the former; or at the very least (setting aside the "meth head" strawman), it will effectively prevent more women in that state from being able to obtain an abortion. As I said above, if such a law were enacted in my jurisdiction, my legal advice to any clients who are doctors or work in abortion clinics would be to never participate in another abortion again in that state due to the newly-enhanced risk of harassment-by-prosecution presented by that law. Even if a person is ultimately acquitted - after arrest, administrative license "review" (and probable suspension pending trial, with reciprocity in every other state he/she is licensed in, which is standard procedure), prosecution and a full trial - the real-world cost to that person - financial, social, career - could be devastating and permanent. Anyone who thinks that risk would not have a drastic chilling effect on abortions in that state is being very naive. QuoteUnless you can demonstrate to me with real statistics, and not just a few random anecdotes in a population of 300 million, that it's not a solution in search of an actual problem, then I think it's the former; I can't and I agree, but that does not seem to stop the other myriads of new laws every year. The major effect that I would foresee would be some policy, if not already in place, of taking and keeping DNA samples of aborted fetuses, as a form of liability protection. That said, I think it would be an extra tool for prosecutors to purse rapists with. It would be political suicide if someone tried to use the law to try and make some moral statements regarding abortion. While there are some "Progressives" and "Conservatives" who would like to paint the abortion issue as highly divisive among the American people...it's not. It's just another issue that dumb ass democrats and republicans still like to debate over, even though the issue has been settled. The majority of Americans support a woman's right to have the same, if not increased, access to abortions. Period. A more interesting debate would be, is abortion a good thing for society? Unfortunately, the "pro-abortion" camp is still debating the issue within the context of quality of life and equality for women while the "anti-abortion" camp is using moral arguments like murder, etc. Both camps seem to be afraid to look at abortion from a purely economic standpoint because it's seems to close to eugenics, recognize abortion is a good thing for all of us and move on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #57 January 27, 2013 QuoteIt would be political suicide if someone tried to use the law to try and make some moral statements regarding abortion. Let's hope you're correct. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/john-boehner-abortion-march-for-life_n_2552597.htmlMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bertt 0 #58 January 27, 2013 Let's let Bobby Jindal weigh in on this. (He's Asian and those Asian guys are really smart.) QuoteLouisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has a blunt message for the GOP: “Stop being the stupid party.” The potential 2016 presidential contender gave the keynote speech at a meeting of the Republican National Committee on Thursday, arguing that the party must adjust its message to attract a broader segment of the country. “We’ve got to stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults,” he said. “We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. I’m here to say we’ve had enough of that.” You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #59 January 27, 2013 Jindal is an American of Indian descent. Not the ones who live in teepees Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
promise5 17 #60 January 27, 2013 I'll say it once again. Tighten the loopholes that let rapist walk on technicalities. Strengthen our current laws. Also, abortion is not a "good" thing.No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #61 January 27, 2013 QuoteI'll say it once again. Tighten the loopholes that let rapist walk on technicalities. Strengthen our current laws.. As someone who's practiced law for 25 years I can tell you that it's largely a layman's myth that that happens much at all. Most often, if the woman reports it, the man will be prosecuted and then it will be in a jury's hands; and most juries, even urban ones, tend to convict in rape cases. The main evidentiary exception is when the physical evidence like DNA, etc proves a no-match to the defendant. People often presume that loopholes and technicalities exist, because it so frequently gets said, in contexts where in fact it's usually not the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #62 January 27, 2013 QuoteQuoteI'll say it once again. Tighten the loopholes that let rapist walk on technicalities. Strengthen our current laws.. As someone who's practiced law for 25 years I can tell you that it's largely a layman's myth that that happens much at all. Most often, if the woman reports it, the man will be prosecuted and then it will be in a jury's hands; and most juries, even urban ones, tend to convict in rape cases. The main evidentiary exception is when the physical evidence like DNA, etc proves a no-match to the defendant. People often presume that loopholes and technicalities exist, because it so frequently gets said, in contexts where in fact it's usually not the case. Gary Dotson. Convicted before DNA evidence available, on the say-so of a lying bitch.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #63 January 27, 2013 Quote I think the intent is to prevent abortions for rape victims under the pretext that you need a baby for prosecution of a rape. How anyone could twist things beyond that simplicity is beyond me. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #64 January 27, 2013 Quote Republicans would be far better off keeping their noses out of womens' reproductive organs, and devote some effort to trying to help fix the economy instead. Hip Hip Hooray!!!! I agree with Kallend! The world ends tomorrow. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #65 January 27, 2013 QuoteGary Dotson. Convicted before DNA evidence available, on the say-so of a lying bitch. Yes, and Barry C. Scheck with The Innocence Project has done wonders correcting the fallibilities of American justice.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #66 January 27, 2013 QuoteThe world ends tomorrow. What type of foolish thinking is this? The world will not end on 01/28/13. Or perhaps I'm just quoting you a little out of context. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #67 January 27, 2013 Quote Quote The world ends tomorrow. What type of foolish thinking is this? The world will not end on 01/28/13. Or perhaps I'm just quoting you a little out of context. I don't see any smilies so I have to assume you are serious. So...WTF? My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #68 January 27, 2013 I knew I forgot something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
promise5 17 #69 January 27, 2013 QuoteQuoteI'll say it once again. Tighten the loopholes that let rapist walk on technicalities. Strengthen our current laws.. As someone who's practiced law for 25 years I can tell you that it's largely a layman's myth that that happens much at all. Most often, if the woman reports it, the man will be prosecuted and then it will be in a jury's hands; and most juries, even urban ones, tend to convict in rape cases. The main evidentiary exception is when the physical evidence like DNA, etc proves a no-match to the defendant. People often presume that loopholes and technicalities exist, because it so frequently gets said, in contexts where in fact it's usually not the case.Just simply saying it does happen.No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #70 January 27, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'll say it once again. Tighten the loopholes that let rapist walk on technicalities. Strengthen our current laws.. As someone who's practiced law for 25 years I can tell you that it's largely a layman's myth that that happens much at all. Most often, if the woman reports it, the man will be prosecuted and then it will be in a jury's hands; and most juries, even urban ones, tend to convict in rape cases. The main evidentiary exception is when the physical evidence like DNA, etc proves a no-match to the defendant. People often presume that loopholes and technicalities exist, because it so frequently gets said, in contexts where in fact it's usually not the case.Just simply saying it does happen. Well, one can say anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #71 January 27, 2013 Gary Dotson...looked up the story. Certainly plenty of blame on the girl. More on the police and prosecutor. Agents of the government that is so virtuous that ordinary citizens need never worry or own firearms as a counter to tyranny.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #72 January 27, 2013 Good thing this ain't no gun thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #73 January 27, 2013 I'm working on it. Give me a chance. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
promise5 17 #74 January 27, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Quote I'll say it once again. Tighten the loopholes that let rapist walk on technicalities. Strengthen our current laws.. As someone who's practiced law for 25 years I can tell you that it's largely a layman's myth that that happens much at all. Most often, if the woman reports it, the man will be prosecuted and then it will be in a jury's hands; and most juries, even urban ones, tend to convict in rape cases. The main evidentiary exception is when the physical evidence like DNA, etc proves a no-match to the defendant. People often presume that loopholes and technicalities exist, because it so frequently gets said, in contexts where in fact it's usually not the case. Just simply saying it does happen. Well, one can say anything. One can also speak from experience. But, I'll step out of the convoNo matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #75 January 28, 2013 Guns! Guns! Guns! Oh, and boobies....I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
