Suppose a serial killer/rapist/torturer wanted to make a bet with you?

[gigi]

And I believe YOU miss the point. I really don't care what you think, I know what I believe. You are not going to change my mind. And you are not making a whole lot of sense...I think you need to take a breath and relax. You're showing your hateful, spiteful self. You should really pay attention to how you come across sometimes. If you think you're going to get anyone to listen to your rantings, you are crazy. Well, maybe the other crazy's will.....

Caroljo I think I get where you're coming from. I don't agree with rape incest exceptions. But it's a bit of a hoot to watch someone who has brought up rape and incest to try and paint the anti-abortion person as cold and incompassionate, now use common ground she's found with you as a stick to try and beat you with. It just goes to show how disingenuous and how truly disinterested in women's suffering she is. Someone who truly felt that rape and incest victims need access to abortion because she truly felt that abortion provided some sort of relief or remedy, would be so happy to find a concession from an anti-abortion person like yourself. Instead, she goes for the two cent talking point. I don' t think she has the capacity to discuss anything beyond canned, tired, old talking points. If you say something to her that she can't readily address with one of those, well, she'll just throw one out there anyway. In this discussion, she didn't bring any compassion for the rape and incest victims she brings up. She shows that she only used the plight of victimized women as a mere debate tactic and then abandoned the issue.

As I mentioned, I disagree with your opinion, but it's easy to see that your concessions on this one really are the result of your compassion.

 

[Caroljo]

Caroljo I think I get where you're coming from. I don't agree with rape incest exceptions. But it's a bit of a hoot to watch someone who has brought up rape and incest to try and paint the anti-abortion person as cold and incompassionate, now use common ground she's found with you as a stick to try and beat you with. It just goes to show how disingenuous and how truly disinterested in women's suffering she is. Someone who truly felt that rape and incest victims need access to abortion because she truly felt that abortion provided some sort of relief or remedy, would be so happy to find a concession from an anti-abortion person like yourself. Instead, she goes for the two cent talking point. I don' t think she has the capacity to discuss anything beyond canned, tired, old talking points. If you say something to her that she can't readily address with one of those, well, she'll just throw one out there anyway. In this discussion, she didn't bring any compassion for the rape and incest victims she brings up. She shows that she only used the plight of victimized women as a mere debate tactic and then abandoned the issue.

As I mentioned, I disagree with your opinion, but it's easy to see that your concessions on this one really are the result of your compassion.

I didn't use to have ANY concessions when it comes to abortion. I still don't like that a woman can have an abortion for any reason, even rape/incest. But I also have come to believe that there are exceptions, especially if it's a very young girl.

Ya....I don't think Renee would EVER admit that I'm right about anything! Lol! I've come to expect it. She also would never admit that liberals were wrong about anything. She reminds me of the cartoon of a man sitting at the computer, his wife is yelling at him to come to bed, and he screams 'NO! Someone is wrong on the Internet!'.....

 

[Renee]

Good morning, Renee, this whole discussion has been about protecting the woman's right to refuse a mans advances, and if forcibly raped then the law should step in. But to be fair to the man, a woman needs to be able to prove that she was raped, because it is a big penalty if the man is convicted. By the same token if the woman can prove that she was raped, she should not be forced to bear that mans child. It is too invasive to her life. I just want to be fair to all parties, and also to the child.

It is very hard for a woman to prove rape and that is why so many rapists get off but when someone is convicted and gets a ten year sentence , I know it isn't just her word against his. I am very familiar with rape laws and played a role in modifying them with millions of other men and women, Years ago all a man had to do was bring a friend to say she was a slut. .. Abortion and rape are two separate issues. I don't think a woman has to bear a child against her will for any reason, whether it be rape or whether she just isn't ready for a child.

 

[Renee]

Yes, there are victims on both sides of the issue, but I would think he would be out by now if he was sentenced to ten years. And you are correct that he will be on an abuser list until he can prove his innocence, and that is one of the hazards of being a man. It says a lot about being careful who you are with, and not just a quicky one night stand.

Why is being an abuser a hazard to being a man? One in four women are sexually assaulted .....that is a hazard.

 

[Renee]

Caroljo I think I get where you're coming from. I don't agree with rape incest exceptions. But it's a bit of a hoot to watch someone who has brought up rape and incest to try and paint the anti-abortion person as cold and incompassionate, now use common ground she's found with you as a stick to try and beat you with. It just goes to show how disingenuous and how truly disinterested in women's suffering she is. Someone who truly felt that rape and incest victims need access to abortion because she truly felt that abortion provided some sort of relief or remedy, would be so happy to find a concession from an anti-abortion person like yourself. Instead, she goes for the two cent talking point. I don' t think she has the capacity to discuss anything beyond canned, tired, old talking points. If you say something to her that she can't readily address with one of those, well, she'll just throw one out there anyway. In this discussion, she didn't bring any compassion for the rape and incest victims she brings up. She shows that she only used the plight of victimized women as a mere debate tactic and then abandoned the issue.

As I mentioned, I disagree with your opinion, but it's easy to see that your concessions on this one really are the result of your compassion.

Sorry that you are missing the point. I think you sound like a mean spirited woman to think I don't care about women...a little reversal there. The point that went over your head is the hypocrisy of carol. She says all fetuses are children and at the same time says it is ok to kill a rapists child, I respect you A lot more because you believe in no exceptions. I totally disagree with you but at least you are not a hypocrite about the topic.
So you really think I don't want women to have abortions because they are raped? I want a women to make this personal choice. I am sorry the point went over your head .

 

[Renee]

I didn't mean he was still in prison, he got out...but that he'll pay for this forever since he's on the abuser list.

And so will his victim. My daughter was raped at 15 and it took her years to get over the trauma.

 

[Renee]

Actually the SC did NOT render any such decision, NS. The RVW case reads that the court cannot determine when life begins and suggests that the matter be left up to science and medicine. Science and medicine have since determined beyond doubt that at conception, a new human life, with its own DNA, begins.

The sanctity of life isn't lost. It's completely disregarded and disrespected.

Row v wade says no such thing

 

[Caroljo]

And so will his victim. My daughter was raped at 15 and it took her years to get over the trauma.

Ok Renee....HE WAS ALL AT FAULT AND THAT GIRL COULDN'T HAVE SCREWED HIM OVER. Is that what you wanted to hear?

 

[Renee]

Ok Renee....HE WAS ALL AT FAULT AND THAT GIRL COULDN'T HAVE SCREWED HIM OVER. Is that what you wanted to hear?

Not at all.....why would I want that? All I know is it is very difficult to prosecute a rape case and the evidence has to be so conclusive and to get ten years means they had all they needed. Or DO you want to hear...IT WAS ALL HER FAULT, SHE WASNT REALLY RAPED , SHE JUST DIDNT LIKE THIS POOR INNOCENT GUY.

 

[gigi]

Row v wade says no such thing

Yeah it does:

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. "

Keep in mind that was written in 1973, prior to unmistakable proof that the fetus is alive, with a beating heart, and moving by one month.

 

[Renee]

Ok Renee....HE WAS ALL AT FAULT AND THAT GIRL COULDN'T HAVE SCREWED HIM OVER. Is that what you wanted to hear?

What was the evidence he was convicted on? Her word against his doesn't come to trial. I know that for a fact

 

[Renee]

Yeah it does:

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. "

Keep in mind that was written in 1973, prior to unmistakable proof that the fetus is alive, with a beating heart, and moving by one month.

In 1972 they knew when the heart beat..this is not from roe v wade.

 

[gigi]

Sorry that you are missing the point. I think you sound like a mean spirited woman to think I don't care about women...a little reversal there. The point that went over your head is the hypocrisy of carol. She says all fetuses are children and at the same time says it is ok to kill a rapists child, I respect you A lot more because you believe in no exceptions. I totally disagree with you but at least you are not a hypocrite about the topic.
So you really think I don't want women to have abortions because they are raped? I want a women to make this personal choice. I am sorry the point went over your head .

She's not a hypocrite. She's caught between knowing that an unborn human being is alive, with a natural, God given right to continue living, and her compassion for a rape victim. You brought up rape and incest. She conceded that she could understand abortion under these circumstances. And now you're calling her a hypocrite for seeing a point the proabortion people bring up all the time.

 

[Caroljo]

Row v wade says no such thing

The Court did not accept arguments that the fetus be regarded as a person within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). "There is no medical or scientific proof that life is present from conception," wrote the Court.
[W]e need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins, when those trained in the respective fields of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus. The judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Row+vs.+Wade

 

[Caroljo]

In 1972 they knew when the heart beat..this is not from roe v wade.

It is....read the link I gave you.

 

[gigi]

What was the evidence he was convicted on? Her word against his doesn't come to trial. I know that for a fact

There was a case on TV a couple of years ago about a guy who went to prison for rape. He maintained that the sex between him and his accuser was consentual. He was convicted. After 7 years, she confessed to having lied about being raped by him. And she begged to do the rest of his sentence.

 

[Caroljo]

What was the evidence he was convicted on? Her word against his doesn't come to trial. I know that for a fact

I didn't attend the trial. But you seem hell bent on making sure he was at fault...I supposed to you the man is ALWAYS at fault....so there, I'll let you believe what you want.

 

[gigi]

In 1972 they knew when the heart beat..this is not from roe v wade.

It is from RVW.

 

[Renee]

There was a case on TV a couple of years ago about a guy who went to prison for rape. He maintained that the sex between him and his accuser was consentual. He was convicted. After 7 years, she confessed to having lied about being raped by him. And she begged to do the rest of his sentence.

Oh..ok you're friend is innocent ..she lied of course

 

[Renee]

I didn't attend the trial. But you seem hell bent on making sure he was at fault...I supposed to you the man is ALWAYS at fault....so there, I'll let you believe what you want.

Most rapists get off. I am not sure of anything, but there had to be a lot of proof to convict him. Yes, I am more concerned about the millions of rape victims whose rapists go on to rape again. What evidence did they have against him? You don't seem to answer that