Poposed Abortion Bill Would Force Rape Victims to Continue Pregnancy as "Evidence"

  • Thread starter Thread starter ringil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Republican Representative Cathryn Brown sponsors this legislation and represents Carlsbad New Mexico, where the Carlsbad Caverns are. National Park.

http://topworldtourism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Carlsbad_Caverns_photo_2.jpg

She represents her district, of course extreme leftists are going to make fun of this legislation.
Pro-life leader Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived in rape when her mother was abducted at knifepoint, says pro-lifers are guilty of discrimination if they are willing to compromise by including exceptions for rape in pro-life legislation.
Click to expand...
Speaking at the Law of Life Summit in Washington, D.C. the day before the 40th annual March for Life, she lamented that “so many people, pro-life people … think nothing of discriminating against children who are conceived in rape.”
Click to expand...
lifesitenews.com/news/we-are-not-cannon-fodder-woman-conceived-in-rape-calls-out-pro-lifers-over
Click to expand...
 
Just_Lurking said:
Nonetheless, even in this limited situation, the transparent ruse of “destruction of evidence” makes the whole thing just another embarrassment to Republicans. I guess some politicians really do want to wage a “war on women”.
Click to expand...
Only if you get your news from the likes of Rachel Maddow and participate in the war on life.
 
BroomWagon said:
And it’s a white woman Representative who has this legislation? Is it not??
Click to expand...
That just makes it a war on women by women, which is in fact very common. For example, most of the people in favor of female genital mutilation are the mothers themselves.

Here is an analogy: Suppose a legislator proposed a bill that in unsolved cases of vandalism of churches, the graffiti must be left up on the church walls until the statute of limitations is over, so as not to “destroy the evidence”. I trust we all can see that would be an attack on churches and churchgoers, regardless of the religious persuasion of the legislator. Basically, the law would just serve to give vandals an even greater ability to inflict their viciousness on their victims.
 
Just_Lurking said:
That just makes it a war on women by women, which is in fact very common. For example, most of the people in favor of female genital mutilation are the mothers themselves.
Click to expand...
That’s your view, that’s extreme and it seems nonsensical to bring in female mutilation that occurs in countries like Somalia and others Muslim countries.
Here is an analogy: Suppose a legislator proposed a bill that in unsolved cases of vandalism of churches, the graffiti must be left up on the church walls until the statute of limitations is over, so as not to “destroy the evidence”. I trust we all can see that would be an attack on churches and churchgoers, regardless of the religious persuasion of the legislator. Basically, the law would just serve to give vandals an even greater ability to inflict their viciousness on their victims.
Click to expand...
The Church is not bearing a Child, Anti-Lifers just can’t get into their heads we are talking about innocent people here.
 
Just_Lurking said:
That just makes it a war on women by women, which is in fact very common. For example, most of the people in favor of female genital mutilation are the mothers themselves.

Here is an analogy: Suppose a legislator proposed a bill that in unsolved cases of vandalism of churches, the graffiti must be left up on the church walls until the statute of limitations is over, so as not to “destroy the evidence”. I trust we all can see that would be an attack on churches and churchgoers, regardless of the religious persuasion of the legislator. Basically, the law would just serve to give vandals an even greater ability to inflict their viciousness on their victims.
Click to expand...
She’s in South Eastern New Mexico from a tiny town. You really think you have a right to impose your values on others? Even from another state??
 
BroomWagon said:
The Church is not bearing a Child, Anti-Lifers just can’t get into their heads we are talking about innocent people here.
Click to expand...
So why the lie about the reason for the law being to prevent destruction of evidence?
 
BroomWagon said:
She’s in South Eastern New Mexico from a tiny town. You really think you have a right to impose your values on others? Even from another state??
Click to expand...
I’m merely making my views on the subject known, as is my right under the First Amendment.
 
Just_Lurking said:
That just makes it a war on women by women, which is in fact very common. For example, most of the people in favor of female genital mutilation are the mothers themselves.

Here is an analogy: Suppose a legislator proposed a bill that in unsolved cases of vandalism of churches, the graffiti must be left up on the church walls until the statute of limitations is over, so as not to “destroy the evidence”. I trust we all can see that would be an attack on churches and churchgoers, regardless of the religious persuasion of the legislator. Basically, the law would just serve to give vandals an even greater ability to inflict their viciousness on their victims.
Click to expand...
False analogy.

In this case a father rapes his 16 year old step daughter. He gets her pregnant and as soon as he finds out he grabs her out of school and secretly hauls her off to get an abortion even though she doesn’t want one. If you had your way that wouldn’t be a crime and you have no issue with the way he’s covering it up.
 
I would find the culture of Machismo among Latinos much more of a war on women, most Hispanics are Democrats. That’s the real war on women and in Mexico, it’s totally out of control.

To compare pregnancy to female genital mutilation has to be one of those “wow, just wow!” moments. But with the respect for life today, it’s not surprising to hear such.
 
SamH said:
And you only have that right because your mom didn’t exercise her right to privacy.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It’s ironic to see statements against the first amendment ‘personalized’, in light of the second amendment discussions on these threads; accusing the opposition of a ‘knee jerk emotional response’ against a constitutional right. 🤷
 
Just_Lurking said:
So why the lie about the reason for the law being to prevent destruction of evidence?
Click to expand...
That, to me, is the problem. Putting forth legislation is fine, and Pro-Life legislation certainly so, but I believe that legislators should be clear that is what they are dong. The use of ruses gives bad publicity to the Pro-Life cause. People aren’t stupid. They will see through this stuff.
 
ringil said:
That, to me, is the problem. Putting forth legislation is fine, and Pro-Life legislation certainly so, but I believe that legislators should be clear that is what they are dong. The use of ruses gives bad publicity to the Pro-Life cause. People aren’t stupid. They will see through this stuff.
Click to expand...
Ruses?
 
ringil said:
Yes, using the cloak of “destroying of evidence” when the goal is to prevent an abortion. That is a ruse.
Click to expand...
How do you suggest it be written so that it is a felony?

The goal is to prevent someone with a vested interest (staying out of prison) from forcing another to have an abortion. Nothing in the bill makes it a crime for the person that was raped.
 
SamH said:
How do you suggest it be written so that it is a felony?

The goal is to prevent someone with a vested interest (staying out of prison) from forcing another to have an abortion. Nothing in the bill makes it a crime for the person that was raped.
Click to expand...
Are there laws in NM addressing when a rapist forces his victim to bathe after a rape?

The DNA of a child is no evidence of a consensual or forced sexual act.
 
ringil said:
Are there laws in NM addressing when a rapist forces his victim to bathe after a rape? .
Click to expand...
I don’t know - is there? Most likely there is a law addressing destruction of evidence.
ringil said:
The DNA of a child is no evidence of a consensual or forced sexual act.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But it is evidence of a sexual act. When the defense is “I didn’t have anything to do with that woman or that 15 year old girl” the living breathing DNA sample kind of destroys the claim.
 
Rence said:
It doesn’t. That representative is being ridiculously silly. I think her efforts will only harm pro-life efforts, but only time will tell.
Click to expand...
People on each side of the abortion debate already tend to view the other side as ridiculous extremists who will do anything to advance their cause. This proposed legislation only hardens that viewpoint.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
It’s ironic to see statements against the first amendment ‘personalized’, in light of the second amendment discussions on these threads; accusing the opposition of a ‘knee jerk emotional response’ against a constitutional right. 🤷
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top