By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Rapists can now sue victims seeking abortions

UnderstatedCornHole on 04 February 2017
TheLastStarFighter said:
Lafiel said:

so political correct, can't take some locker room talk. sad!

You seem to not understand the terms politically correct or locker room talk.  He's hoping for a man's innocent daughter to be raped. That is an awful thing and would never be said in any locker room I've been in. What sports do you play?

Although your last sentence is hilarious and I laughed I think he is making a satirical observation on the concept of locker room talk and the "sad" bit is obviously a take on Trump Twitterisms.



Around the Network
monocle_layton on 04 February 2017
UnderstatedCornHole said:
monocle_layton said:

 

it's a good thing adoption exists. look at the benefits:

1) the woman doesn't have to go through birth! 

2) No more fighting over abortions and other nonsense

3) You get to save a kid from being homeless the rest of his life (or dying if he/she is from a poor country)

 

Sounds neat, doesn't it? I honestly wouldn't mind adopting all my future kids. I'd happily ignore judgemental people and prefer to take care of one of the several billion kids already alive. My kids don't need to be made from me just to deserve love.

That's an amazing statement to make and it's inspirational if I'm honest. You have just cut through that superstition thing about blood / adoption.

It's made me think a bit about that. I think this is something we are taught in society subtly that adoption is a kind of thing you only do if you can't have kids yourself. But the way you put it just cuts that idea into the superstition it unknowingly is.

Thanks, appreciated.

People in my culture act like a kid not from you is somehow inferior for no magical reason.

 

I've never understood why adoption isn't popular. It solves population issues, helps children from war torn countries, allows a woman to have a child without going through the pain of childbirth, and prevents a child from being born without approval from both parents. You need to sign papers to adopt a child. All you need to have a baby is some sperm which can come by accident.

 

It isn't really a political or religious thing now that I think about it. Just our ignorance 



eva01beserk on 05 February 2017
MTZehvor said:
I do think the thread title is a bit misleading, as, according to the article, only the wife's husband is allowed to sue her. Unless the husband is the rapist, the rapist won't be the one suing.

With that said, I agree, the law is a terrible idea across the board, even if you are pro life. The potential to threaten a rape victim with a lawsuit is not the way to support your position. The admittedly small silver lining is that this will likely very rarely happen, if ever.

At no point is the woman ever sued. The one getting sued by this law is only the doctor. And thats only if he does the surgery without the knowladge of the father. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

eva01beserk on 05 February 2017
HollyGamer said:
eva01beserk said:

The way you reworded it would make the last sentence redundant. Did you even proof read?

Edit: It dosent matter anyways, that the victim could sufer such actions is still barbaric.

Well barbaric or not it proven effective , well and also we had many dead penalty happen in western country as well.  . And yet it also prove how ignorant your comment is. 

O really? you are comparing the death penalty of a woman for getting a crime comited on her to the west here where people only get deth penalty for murder, and in some places it has to be extreme like mass murder, or a bunch of kids being eaten. you dont see the diference in thouse 2 situations and im the one thats ignorant.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

eva01beserk on 05 February 2017
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
A rapist suing for abortion of an unborn child is an admission of guilt that they committed rape.
In a country where abortion is illegal, women having an abortion are charged and convicted for murdering an unborn child.

Again, the women is never sued at any moment. Only the doctor gets sued. And a rapist case would get thrown out.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Around the Network
eva01beserk on 05 February 2017
Yerm said:
eva01beserk said:

why would it matter where you go? any place is better right? youll make money there since its better.

more goes into it than that, you have to realize that, even if this is a joke response

I definetly do. everyone here knows my coment is a joke. you know as well. But im thinking your comment is not a joke wich is why is why im worried. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Player2 on 05 February 2017
Pineapple said:
Player2 said:

I can do better. If I've read it correctly, a father who raped his underage daughter can sue because neither rape nor incest are good enough abortion reasons in the eyes of the masterminds behind this bill:

(...)

(C) If the woman who received a dismemberment abortion in 35 violation of this subchapter is a minor or has died as a result of the 36 dismemberment abortion, the parents or legal guardians of the woman who 1 received a dismemberment abortion in violation of this subchapter. 2

(...)

I'm not terribly used to American legal language, but I think that is an incorrect interpretation. Your statement is a continuation of

"(b) A cause of action for civil damages against a person who has purposely violated this subchapter may be maintained by:"

Together, the two mean that if the person who had the abortion was a minor, the parents may sue the doctor.

 

I have no idea what's happening in this thread. People are following an utterly rabid interpretation of the law, and then assuming the lawmaker are idiots based on their strange interpretation.

This is a somewhat odd law, but it's by no means diabolical.

@bolded: Now think what happens if the father of a minor raped said minor so is also the father of the unborn child.



bdbdbd on 05 February 2017
VGPolyglot said:

What? When did I say that everyone else should be targeted? And when did I say that it was the fault of the victim? Actually, most of the time we have to defend the victims when they're women and when a Muslim isn't involved, because it can be played out two different ways:

 

1. The rapist is not a Muslim, so a lot of people may resort to blaming the woman for what she wore or for not being careful enough

2. The rapist is a Muslim, and a lot of people's racism trump their sexism, so they will correctly defend the victim, but not because they really care about the victim, but because it can push their agenda fearmongering against Muslims.

I don't know. That's what the SJW's do. I don't know if you said or think that it's the fault of the victim, but that what the SJW's think.

1. Nope, this is not what happens. I think you mean the cases where consent is given and someone changes her mind afterwards, which constitutes as false rape claims. I haven't seen any other cases. Of course there's people that are close to the guy who did it or his fans that blame the victim, but that's the minority that blame the guy who did it when it's someone else in question.

2. That's a strawman you're making there, but actually proving my point; every time a muslim is charged for rape, that is because of racism. 

VGPolyglot said:

It depends. If it's a poor woman, she'll definitely be punished. If it's the wife of some rich oil guy, I'm almost sure that it'd be the perpetrator that'd be punished.

A rich oil guy just gets himself a new wife or two, as he already has many of them. You do understand that it's a country where a camel is worth more than a woman.

UnderstatedCornHole said:
monocle_layton said:

 

it's a good thing adoption exists. look at the benefits:

1) the woman doesn't have to go through birth! 

2) No more fighting over abortions and other nonsense

3) You get to save a kid from being homeless the rest of his life (or dying if he/she is from a poor country)

 

Sounds neat, doesn't it? I honestly wouldn't mind adopting all my future kids. I'd happily ignore judgemental people and prefer to take care of one of the several billion kids already alive. My kids don't need to be made from me just to deserve love.

That's an amazing statement to make and it's inspirational if I'm honest. You have just cut through that superstition thing about blood / adoption.

It's made me think a bit about that. I think this is something we are taught in society subtly that adoption is a kind of thing you only do if you can't have kids yourself. But the way you put it just cuts that idea into the superstition it unknowingly is.

Thanks, appreciated.

You know guys, only the number three was a valid point. Someone's giving birth to the child anyway, and if you're about to fight for abortion, you're not going to adopt anyone in any case, and besides even if you'd adopt someone, you'd still have have to worry about abortions the same way you'd worry about them even if you did not adopt anyone. 

The only way to reproduce is to have kids your own. Abortion can't replace that. 



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

eva01beserk on 05 February 2017
Player2 said:
Pineapple said:

I'm not terribly used to American legal language, but I think that is an incorrect interpretation. Your statement is a continuation of

"(b) A cause of action for civil damages against a person who has purposely violated this subchapter may be maintained by:"

Together, the two mean that if the person who had the abortion was a minor, the parents may sue the doctor.

 

I have no idea what's happening in this thread. People are following an utterly rabid interpretation of the law, and then assuming the lawmaker are idiots based on their strange interpretation.

This is a somewhat odd law, but it's by no means diabolical.

@bolded: Now think what happens if the father of a minor raped said minor so is also the father of the unborn child.

The father would go to jail, then loose the power to consent over the kid, then the mother can do wha ever she wants. You fail to realise, that just because the father has a say in it, dosent mean he will by default win the case, or even have a case. More often than not, the court will still side with the mother.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

eva01beserk on 05 February 2017
bdbdbd said:
VGPolyglot said:

What? When did I say that everyone else should be targeted? And when did I say that it was the fault of the victim? Actually, most of the time we have to defend the victims when they're women and when a Muslim isn't involved, because it can be played out two different ways:

 

1. The rapist is not a Muslim, so a lot of people may resort to blaming the woman for what she wore or for not being careful enough

2. The rapist is a Muslim, and a lot of people's racism trump their sexism, so they will correctly defend the victim, but not because they really care about the victim, but because it can push their agenda fearmongering against Muslims.

I don't know. That's what the SJW's do. I don't know if you said or think that it's the fault of the victim, but that what the SJW's think.

1. Nope, this is not what happens. I think you mean the cases where consent is given and someone changes her mind afterwards, which constitutes as false rape claims. I haven't seen any other cases. Of course there's people that are close to the guy who did it or his fans that blame the victim, but that's the minority that blame the guy who did it when it's someone else in question.

2. That's a strawman you're making there, but actually proving my point; every time a muslim is charged for rape, that is because of racism. 

VGPolyglot said:

It depends. If it's a poor woman, she'll definitely be punished. If it's the wife of some rich oil guy, I'm almost sure that it'd be the perpetrator that'd be punished.

A rich oil guy just gets himself a new wife or two, as he already has many of them. You do understand that it's a country where a camel is worth more than a woman.

UnderstatedCornHole said:

That's an amazing statement to make and it's inspirational if I'm honest. You have just cut through that superstition thing about blood / adoption.

It's made me think a bit about that. I think this is something we are taught in society subtly that adoption is a kind of thing you only do if you can't have kids yourself. But the way you put it just cuts that idea into the superstition it unknowingly is.

Thanks, appreciated.

You know guys, only the number three was a valid point. Someone's giving birth to the child anyway, and if you're about to fight for abortion, you're not going to adopt anyone in any case, and besides even if you'd adopt someone, you'd still have have to worry about abortions the same way you'd worry about them even if you did not adopt anyone. 

The only way to reproduce is to have kids your own. Abortion can't replace that. 

Theres a whole lot of people who should not be reproducing in this world.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.