Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 108

Thread: Post rape/incest termination is interfering with the evidence?

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4,199
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Post rape/incest termination is interfering with the evidence?

    No matter how fruitcakey things get here, you can be sure that somewhere in the American backwoods, they're going to be much much fruitcakier.

    A lawmaker in New Mexico is introducing a bill which could lead to three year prison sentences for rape or incest victims if they procure a termination of the pregnancy. The basis for this proposed law is that such a termination constitutes tampering with the evidence.

    It's hard to know where to start with such lunacy. For starters, it seems that state Representative Cathrynn Brown (yes, a woman but unsurprisingly a Republican) has never heard of DNA analysis on foetuses. But then, coming from the party that speaks of "legitimate rape", the only wonder is that the proposed three year sentence isn't even longer.

    New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4,199
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    If someone feels like moaning about yet another abortion thread, feel free. When I came across this story last night, I wasn't going to start a thread on it but lo and behold, I see that overnight, yet another abortion thread has been started with the mods taking no action.

    So, there seems to be no point in restraining oneself. When it comes to abortion threads, it's a free for all. If the mods are going to start cutting down, I'm happy for this thread to be merged somewhere as long as the one from last night about the Washington pro-life rally is treated the same way.

    Consistency is the key.

    *Looking at Sync*

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member stopdoingstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    east and west
    Posts
    22,738
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    A more entertaining argument would be that abortion denies the kid a future Tarantino-syle revenge on the rapist(s) of his mother.
    Faoi mhóid bheith saor

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member WTTR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Watcher, Paul Henry
    Posts
    5,250
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I would think it a spurious reason why a lady should carry the child after being raped; even though I agree with the eventual outcome.

    There is no real legitimate argument for aborting as a result of rape. Here is an answer to back up this statement that I submitted on another thread.

    Abortion should not be permitted in Rape cases.


    Your argument for exceptional cases goes back, I guess, to the beginning of time i.e. eating the apple

    • However, we might leave these people in the garden and go forward scores of thousands of years to roughly two thousand, five hundred years ago; when Sophocles and Plato grappled this question.

      You are trying to make the case for the exceptional situation, which I can fully sympathise with you and understand. You have by your answer accepted that I have made a good case for greater number of situations that may arise.

      You have to remember as well that we are not dealing with an inanimate object (materialism); it is proven that the baby in the womb, has a full and distinctive human genome, is self aware and has the capacity to grow into a full life outside the womb.

      Our two friends have agreed that the number one Principle of Reason is that the best opinion or theory is the one that explains the most data i.e. the Principle of Complete Explanation.
      .
    • If as you think that the victim of rape should not be re-victimised; this is bringing in a subjective opinion which ranks second to the more objective one of not taking a life.

      In effect, satisfying the victim of rape does not justify the means of doing so. In other words, one cannot use an evil means to achieve a good end! (Augustine)
      .
    • Another argument against your exceptional case is that long held legal opinion that "hard cases make bad law". Although Equity should be used to mitigate the hardship: proper counselling as to the value of life.
    No warning can save a people determined to grow suddenly rich. - Lord Overstone.
    Hadn't met any Irish people that were afraid of anything - Christine Lagarde. 2008.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Debater
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Here there and everywhere.
    Posts
    40,585
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    What an idiotic suggestion.

    I guess that the paramedics who move the victim of a shooting are interfering with evidence. Ditto the doctors who remove the bullet, stitch the wounds, and clean any gunpowder residue from the skin.

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member WTTR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Watcher, Paul Henry
    Posts
    5,250
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    This was my previous post in the same thread

    I do not buy this argument that abortion is a logical follow on to rape. The act of rape is an abomination of the primary and glorious role that women have in the continuation of the human race. For rape to happen; there is most probably a breakdown in community relations somewhere back the line. If a woman is with child after a rape; this subsequent event is the start of a new life which must be cherished and protected. It is a new beginning, a new hope; a new light that out of badness; goodness emerges.

    I am trying to think of an example in a different scenario which can give somewhat of an indication to what I am trying to say. I think of Hitler and his multitude of inglorious actions in defilement of the true nature of mankind. What light came from this dark period in the history of mankind?

    • I think of all the German babies that were born, suppositively to build up the Super Race. These children later went on to build a very successful country from the ashes of the Nazi regime. We, today, are looking to the children of those children for succour in our hour of need.
    • I think of the autobahns running the length and breath of Germany that were build by his regime in the 30s. The “peoples’ car” founded by Ferdinand Porsche under the Nazi Regime. These helped to instil in the post war Germans a confidence that they need not use military methods to display their ingenuity and desire for dominance; I am sure that these roads also encouraged the further development of the motor car; an industry that has been/still is dominated by post war Germany.


    The victorious Allied forces did not destroy the autobahns or kill the children so nourished by the Nazi regime, in order to obliterate the memory of fowl deeds as sign of atonement. I shudder to think, if the war took place under the social regime currently in the Victorious Allied countries; that they would have acted differently?
    No warning can save a people determined to grow suddenly rich. - Lord Overstone.
    Hadn't met any Irish people that were afraid of anything - Christine Lagarde. 2008.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Debater
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Here there and everywhere.
    Posts
    40,585
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WTTR View Post
    I would think it a spurious reason why a lady should carry the child after being raped; even though I agree with the eventual outcome.

    There is no real legitimate argument for aborting as a result of rape. Here is an answer to back up this statement that I submitted on another thread.

    Abortion should not be permitted in Rape cases.
    The argument that the victim of the rape has dominion over her own body is legitimate enough for me.

  8. #8

    Default

    If they're being consistent, presumably they would also want to criminalize a woman who has a shower following a rape, before evidence can be collected.
    Repeal the 27th.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WTTR View Post
    There is no real legitimate argument for aborting as a result of rape.
    Here is one modified from an example in a recent thread:

    Suppose I've got a child who will die unless she receives a kidney transplant, and you're the only person I can find who is a match. You refuse, pointing out that you have a right not to be forced to donate your kidney, even to save my child's life. I agree with this, but point out that new technology will allow me to return your kidney to you once my child is healthy enough (a process that will take nine months). Yet still you refuse, again pointing out that you have the right to retain your kidney, even if I only want to borrow it temporarily.

    You wake up the next morning to discover that I have drugged you while you slept and removed your kidney against your wishes. You're angry about this, and demand that I be punished for my assault upon you. I'm arrested and sent to prison, but at least my child will live because now that your kidney is inside her, you have no right to demand it back until nine months have elapsed.

    Does that account seem correct to you?
    Repeal the 27th.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member WTTR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Watcher, Paul Henry
    Posts
    5,250
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Des Quirell View Post
    The argument that the victim of the rape has dominion over her own body is legitimate enough for me.
    Cut and Paste facility is the best discovery ever.

    Here is an argument against your above belief

    You mean that since a child in the womb (who has been objectively verified and publicly proven to have the genome of a human person as soon as it is in zygote stage i.e. a couple of days old and is different from the mother's genome) is depended on the mother; that that somehow gives her the right to end the life of the child.

    If this was the case; who else would qualify as a dependent? A person with physical challenges? A one year old? A ten year old? An elderly person? Is the humanity of these people questionable because of their dependence on others?

    Your statement would make it a subjective decision whether many human persons would be allowed live or not. In fact, Hitler could have used it as a reason to exterminate some gypsies; who depended on begging from those of the so called purer race for a living.

    Your reasoning would go against Universal Principles; in this case The Principle of Objective Evidence (Plato and Aristotle). In fact if the objective evidence in relation to the DNA of a zygote and the follow on foetus and baby, that has the genome of a living person outside the womb, was known earlier in the last century; it is inconceivable that the decision in the Roe v. Wade case, which allowed abortions in the USA, would ever have been made in the Supreme Court.

    Why the US Supreme Court does not now reverse this decision in the light of scientific research indicates that the morality of the Human Race is breaking down; resulting in the millions of deaths of babies with the real live genome of a person?

    In fact your argument can be used to disrespect living Human Beings that are different e.g. colour, race or those people or nations who are up to their necks in Debt and are seen as a burden to the rest of the world.
    No warning can save a people determined to grow suddenly rich. - Lord Overstone.
    Hadn't met any Irish people that were afraid of anything - Christine Lagarde. 2008.

Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •