Should it be a major felony crime for a man to make a woman pregnant w/o consent?

[minnie616]

The Obamaphone...nice. It's like the "Batphone", only free.

Actually there is no Obamaphone...it is a Bush Phone since the program was started when GW Bush was President.

GOP debunked: 'Obama phone' does not exist, program started in 2008 under Bush

read more:
GOP debunked: 'Obama phone' does not exist, program started in 2008 under Bush - Detroit liberal | Examiner.com

 

[calamity]

Actually there is no Obamaphone...it is a Bush Phone since the program was started when GW Bush was President.


read more:
GOP debunked: 'Obama phone' does not exist, program started in 2008 under Bush - Detroit liberal | Examiner.com

You mean the info provided to us by a conservative was wrong? Shock.

 

[Henrin]

Most likely the same way a lot of tough to prove criminal cases get solved. A confession from the perp.

Why would he ever confess? Is it going to be one of those cases where they harass the guy for ten hours straight?

 

[joko104]

Why would he ever confess? Is it going to be one of those cases where they harass the guy for ten hours straight?

Why does anyone confess? Police brutality and abuse? Is that what you are claiming? No guilty person confesses?

 

[Henrin]

Why does anyone confess? Police brutality and abuse? Is that what you are claiming? No guilty person confesses?

Why in the world would you confess in this situation? They is no possible way they can prove any wrong doing and therefore no reason to not just sit there and do nothing. Of course, they will keep your ass in there forever to get what they want.

Really though, the only reliable way to get a confession is to abuse the situation. It's like what they do when they want your DNA but you refuse. What do they do next? They offer you a drink of course. What do you think the drink is for? Abuse. They know if you drink from the cup they have your ass.

 

[joko104]

Why in the world would you confess in this situation? They is no possible way they can prove any wrong doing and therefore no reason to not just sit there and do nothing. Of course, they will keep your ass in there forever to get what they want.

Really though, the only reliable way to get a confession is to abuse the situation. It's like what they do when they want your DNA but you refuse. What do they do next? They offer you a drink of course. What do you think the drink is for? Abuse. They know if you drink from the cup they have your ass.

Message number # 305 to help me find your claim that all confessions come from police abuse for the future.

OK, we got it. YOU HATE HATE HATE police because almost all of them are ABUSERS! Most criminal convictions come from confesses and EVERY PERSON who confesses was ABUSED by the police.

What a joke! Blinded by hatred leading to denial of reality. Every person the police talk to of potential criminal action answer "I refuse to answer under the 5th amendment" and anyone who instead talks to the police is ONLY because the police are abusing him/her.

Foolish too. It does not take a confession to obtain an conviction or have proof. I could list off numerous examples, but since you are convinced in your hatred of police and prosecutors, there is no point to bother doing so.

 

[choiceone]

It takes two to have a baby. If either one is an imbecile such that he/she is not aware off the consequences of ignoring the use of birth control, then they are both equally accountable. Stupidity is no defense. If a man ignores a woman's plea not to have unprotected intercourse and he continues against her will.... I call that rape.

After all, a woman (or teenager) can now get the morning-after pill. All they need to do is call the Rx on their Obamaphone to see if they have it in stock.

Agreed about the claim regarding rape - that's why I cited the UK article on the judgment that sex with consent can still be rape in that circumstance: Sex with consent

 

[Henrin]

Message number # 305 to help me find your claim that all confessions come from police abuse for the future.

OK, we got it. YOU HATE HATE HATE police because almost all of them are ABUSERS! Most criminal convictions come from confesses and EVERY PERSON who confesses was ABUSED by the police.

The person is either stupid or the police abused the situation to get a confession.

What a joke! Blinded by hatred leading to denial of reality. Every person the police talk to of potential criminal action answer "I refuse to answer under the 5th amendment" and anyone who instead talks to the police is ONLY because the police are abusing him/her.

Foolish too. It does not take a confession to obtain an conviction or have proof. I could list off numerous examples, but since you are convinced in your hatred of police and prosecutors, there is no point to bother doing so.

The case we were talking about the person in question was accused of punching holes in a condom. How do you prove that he did that? You really don't. You need a confession from the man and if he is at all knowledgeable of the situation he will know there is no way for the state to prove their case. Why would he confess? Would you confess to punching holes in a condom? Well, would you?

 

[American]

No, that's not the question. The question is not sex without consent. It is making her pregnant without her express consent to be made pregnant.

You can't make her pregnant without her ovulating, therefore if you have sex with her, and she ovulates.....that's implied consent.

 

[joko104]

You can't make her pregnant without her ovulating, therefore if you have sex with her, and she ovulates.....that's implied consent.

Consented to ovulate???

 

[minnie616]

The person is either stupid or the police abused the situation to get a confession.



The case we were talking about the person in question was accused of punching holes in a condom. How do you prove that he did that? You really don't. You need a confession from the man and if he is at all knowledgeable of the situation he will know there is no way for the state to prove their case. Why would he confess? Would you confess to punching holes in a condom? Well, would you?

There have been cases where men use a safety pin or a straight pin to make tiny pin pricks in the condoms that most people would not see unless they examined the package and/ or the condom closely.

A lot of people confess to things especially when they feel what they did was justified.

After all he was just increasing his "chances of making her pregnant". ( your words not mine.)

 

[joko104]

The person is either stupid or the police abused the situation to get a confession.



The case we were talking about the person in question was accused of punching holes in a condom. How do you prove that he did that? You really don't. You need a confession from the man and if he is at all knowledgeable of the situation he will know there is no way for the state to prove their case. Why would he confess? Would you confess to punching holes in a condom? Well, would you?

In short, in fact men have been caught doing so, including on video.

People confess all the time. They get captured on video. They are tape recorded. They brag to friends. They post it on forums. They email to others. Computers save all keystrokes whether you know it or not, and exactly everything posted or done online is required to be preserved. Most criminal cases are solved by confessions. Directly to the police and/or indirectly to others. Very few people who commit crimes keep it to themselves. Very few.

You also have a bizarre AND WRONG definition of "abuse" in your claim that if police gain a person's DNA that is per se abuse to you. Police have been doing that with fingerprints for over 100 years. DNA is no different. There is NO abuse if the police get your DNA, none, zero, unless they forcibly take it from you. No different than taking your picture or recording your voice to comparisons.

Of course, none of this actually addresses the question of what the law should be, does it? Just questioning how difficult to prove it. Lots of crimes are difficult to prove. That is no reason to not have the activity illegal. None whatsoever.

 

[Henrin]

In short, in fact men have been caught doing so, including on video.

They been caught putting holes in a condom with the intent to make a woman pregnant on video? Lol! Some dudes are just so ****ing stupid.

People confess all the time. They get captured on video. They are tape recorded. They brag to friends. They post it on forums. They email to others. Computers save all keystrokes whether you know it or not, and exactly everything posted or done online is required to be preserved.

Yeah, I know.

Most criminal cases are solved by confessions. Directly to the police and/or indirectly to others. Very few people who commit crimes keep it to themselves. Very few.

I still don't understand why you would confess to a crime. It's just so stupid.

You also have a bizarre AND WRONG definition of "abuse" in your claim that if police gain a person's DNA that is per se abuse to you. Police have been doing that with fingerprints for over 100 years. DNA is no different. There is NO abuse if the police get your DNA, none, zero, unless they forcibly take it from you. No different than taking your picture or recording your voice to comparisons.

DNA is my property, so what exactly gives them the right to take it against my wishes and use it against me? It's abuse pure and simple. The funny thing is they're using deception on someone that they are trying to convict for deception. :lamo Do you honestly think offering someone a drink and then using that cup for DNA and or fingerprints is not deception? There is no way I would convict anyone that got caught using such tactics, none.

"Can you open the door for me" Classic trap for this kind of crap.

 

[joko104]

They been caught putting holes in a condom with the intent to make a woman pregnant on video? Lol! Some dudes are just so ****ing stupid.



Yeah, I know.



I still don't understand why you would confess to a crime. It's just so stupid.



DNA is my property, so what exactly gives them the right to take it against my wishes and use it against me? It's abuse pure and simple. The funny thing is they're using deception on someone that they are trying to convict for deception. :lamo Do you honestly think offering someone a drink and then using that cup for DNA and or fingerprints is not deception? There is no way I would convict anyone that got caught using such tactics, none.

"Can you open the door for me" Classic trap for this kind of crap.

There is nothing illegal or generally wrong with police deception, unless they make a promise and then don't keep it. When you leave behind DNA or fingerprint it isn't yours anymore.

Yeah, obviously you should never, ever be on a criminal trial jury.

What seems your frustration is the concept that even though you are smart enough to not talk to the police, you might well get caught for a crime anyway.

Most people don't share your view. Most people want criminals caught and to most people the question is whether or not the person is guilty, not whether they like the police practices to caught the person. Obviously you see a criminal trial is foremost putting police practices on trial - even if entirely legal and common.

Would admit that in potential jury questioning? "If the police did something I personally don't like I'll absolutely find the person not-guilty."

Of course, by your identical logic, the police could not take rape-kit DNA samples of a victim because the semen/sperm is the property of the man. Yours really is an E X T R E M E position.

 

[Henrin]

There is nothing illegal or generally wrong with police deception, unless they make a promise and then don't keep it. When you leave behind DNA or fingerprint it isn't yours anymore.

Yes, I believe they call it abandonment or some other kind of lame excuse. Like the guy that leaves a coke can in their trash that they just use for DNA evidence. The state uses the same excuse to allow people to sell your stuff too. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense in either case.

Yeah, obviously you should never, ever be on a criminal trial jury.

Because my view of DNA being property of the owner is so horrible.

 

[Henrin]

Would admit that in potential jury questioning? "If the police did something I personally don't like I'll absolutely find the person not-guilty."

Yes. If I find that they gathered the evidence in an unethical manner I will find the individual/s not guilty of all charges regardless of actual guilt. If they want to win cases all they have to do is learn to behave.

 

[Henrin]

Of course, by your identical logic, the police could not take rape-kit DNA samples of a victim because the semen/sperm is the property of the man. Yours really is an E X T R E M E position.

That is not the same. When the man willingly put the semen in the woman he involved himself in a transaction and it became the property of the woman.

I would however say that like always the DNA should not be stored by the government. There should be no DNA or fingerprint databases of any kind.

 

[mac]

That's because as a man you exempt yourself from all your moral ragings and therefore men can kill all "unborn babies" they want to and otherwise have total moral exemption in relation to children - born or not.

No, it's because you exempt the woman from responsibility...in such a way as to imply the poor wittle lady is incapable of defending herself from the facts of life nad the evil men that take advantage of her poor wittle self.

 

[choiceone]

No, it's because you exempt the woman from responsibility...in such a way as to imply the poor wittle lady is incapable of defending herself from the facts of life nad the evil men that take advantage of her poor wittle self.

joko does not imply that women are incapable of defending themselves. We created NOW. We created NARAL. We vote, and in a greater percentage than do men. A woman, Sarah Weddingon, took Roe v Wade to the Supreme Court and won the case. And when Sandra Day O'Conner was made an SC justice, she supported Roe v Wade. We've been doing all right defending ourselves so far, and in the end we'll defeat the evil you represent.

 

[Gaius46]

Should it be a major felony crime for a man to make a woman pregnant w/o consen

In case no one has cited this link yet, it's directly relevant reading:

Sex with consent

That's a sensible ruling. Consent was conditioned and when those conditions were no longer present neither was consent though the judge also sensibly noted that accidents can and will happen.

 

[Muhammed]

Why would he ever confess?

Because anyone who is stupid enough to do that would most likely also be stupid enough to start blabbing about it.

 

[joko104]

That is not the same. When the man willingly put the semen in the woman he involved himself in a transaction and it became the property of the woman.

I would however say that like always the DNA should not be stored by the government. There should be no DNA or fingerprint databases of any kind.

Then if the person puts his DNA in the trash it is the property of the trash can owner - or if he leaves a cup with the police then it is the property of the police.

What about fingerprints, I suppose you think criminals own those too.

 

[joko104]

Yes. If I find that they gathered the evidence in an unethical manner I will find the individual/s not guilty of all charges regardless of actual guilt. If they want to win cases all they have to do is learn to behave.

Like I said, you do not care about guilt or innocents, nor law. Rather, you put the police on trial to your own personal standards and if they don't measure up, you'd let a serial rapist go free to punish the police for acting within the law but in a way that someday could prove you committed a crime. Swell. Like I said, you should never be allowed on a jury - now I'll add civil jury too - as you will just recreate your own rules.

 

[joko104]

That is not the same. When the man willingly put the semen in the woman he involved himself in a transaction and it became the property of the woman.

I would however say that like always the DNA should not be stored by the government. There should be no DNA or fingerprint databases of any kind.

What happened to your "consent" theory about women? Huh? You consented to touching the cup. You consented to leaving it behind. You knew your DNA was on it. You voluntarily put your DNA on it. You could have refused to touch the cup, but you consented to do so. The police didn't force you to touch the cup. Therefore, you are 100% to blame for your DNA on the cup and whatever results come from it.

BY TOUCHING THE CUP YOU CONSENTED TO WHOEVER HAS THE CUP HAVING YOUR DNA. And if that sends you to prison for life YOU are the only person to blame, it is 100% your responsibility.

Now, if the police forcibly grabbed you and forcibly put your hand on the cup, well that's assault and therefore it could not be used.

That is 100% exactly your logic against women on abortion.

But like I point out over and over, anti-abortion men are pure hypocrites who always exempt themselves from their own logic.

 

[Henrin]

Then if the person puts his DNA in the trash it is the property of the trash can owner - or if he leaves a cup with the police then it is the property of the police.

What about fingerprints, I suppose you think criminals own those too.

Yes, the trash is the states property, but since the individual that threw the can away did not consent to the transfer of ownership of the DNA or fingerprints on the can they may not act towards the DNA or fingerprints or use them against the individual.