Women have to PROVE they were raped

[skye]

No man is going to go to jail without evidence!!!

IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

That is the Law. Period,

 

[thanatos144]

Does it really shock anyone that progressives think a person should be able to commit fraud with ease to stay on welfare?

 

[thereisnospoon]

so yuou are okay if a woman says she was raped and she wasnt? is that okay to al the other victims because if it were revered, youd be screaming it.

How could that possibly be any of your business?

It becomes our business the moment she applies for welfare benefits. Assuming you realize who pays for said largess.

 

[Noomi]

This week, Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock became the latest in a string of Republicans to say really, really stupid things about women while campaigning for office in 2012. In a debate with Democratic opponent Joe Donnelly, Mourdock sought to explain his abortion stance by saying that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen.” Prior to that, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith compared rape to having a baby out of wedlock, saying if you “put yourself in a father’s situation” it’s a similar kind of thing. And we all remember Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin telling an interviewer “if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

What do all these men have in common aside from the fact that they are GOP standard-bearers for the U.S. Senate? To one degree or another, they are Christian fundamentalists.

The sheer number of these types of quotes that we’ve seen in 2012 got us wondering: Who says more antiquated things about women and families, Christian fundamentalists or Islamic fundamentalists? Here are nine stupid, backward, and often misogynistic quotes from nine different Islamic fundamentalist and Christian social conservative leaders. See if you can spot which one is which.

follow the link and take the quiz

Richard Mourdock rape scandal: spot the difference between the Christian social conservatives and the Islamic fundamentalists. - Slate Magazine

Doesn't surprise me to learn that these Repubs are Christians.

 

[thanatos144]

This week, Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock became the latest in a string of Republicans to say really, really stupid things about women while campaigning for office in 2012. In a debate with Democratic opponent Joe Donnelly, Mourdock sought to explain his abortion stance by saying that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen.” Prior to that, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith compared rape to having a baby out of wedlock, saying if you “put yourself in a father’s situation” it’s a similar kind of thing. And we all remember Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin telling an interviewer “if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

What do all these men have in common aside from the fact that they are GOP standard-bearers for the U.S. Senate? To one degree or another, they are Christian fundamentalists.

The sheer number of these types of quotes that we’ve seen in 2012 got us wondering: Who says more antiquated things about women and families, Christian fundamentalists or Islamic fundamentalists? Here are nine stupid, backward, and often misogynistic quotes from nine different Islamic fundamentalist and Christian social conservative leaders. See if you can spot which one is which.

follow the link and take the quiz

Richard Mourdock rape scandal: spot the difference between the Christian social conservatives and the Islamic fundamentalists. - Slate Magazine

Doesn't surprise me to learn that these Repubs are Christians.

Dont worry you will be able to selfishly kill your innocent unborn baby so you dont look fat in this country still.

 

[Katzndogz]

ThinkProgress may SAY that a woman has to prove she was raped. The law actually says she has to at least report that she was raped. Woman can't prove they were raped because proving a crime is a function of the state not individuals. If someone is arrested for theft, the victim does not have to prove they were robbed, the state does that.

A woman claiming that she was raped is reporting a crime. The crime will be identified. The rapist arrested and prosecuted. Most women who claim they were raped but really weren't don't want the man arrested nor do they want them prosecuted. The women weren't raped at all.

 

[mystic]

I'm a staunch bleeding heart liberal...yet I support a bill that would allow not increasing assistance benefits for women who have more children while already receiving help for the ones they have.
I think we do need to remove the "incentive" of more children meaning a larger check. I don't think it's such a large percentage of women who do this, but I do think that percentage is growing and needs to be addressed.
It's not that I have a problem with my tax dollars supporting women with children, it's that I am very concerned about the standard of living and life conditions of any children born to women who had them as a way to receive more funds. As well as being concerned about their contribution to society when grown.
I think the bill was trying to accomplish this while protecting rape victims but it's unnecessary and invasive.
Women the world over become pregnant and decide to keep the baby do so without receiving any assurance of an income increase.

 

[mystic]

And for those of you who want to deny welfare to women and children altogether because of your tax burden.....really?
Do you really think you're going to see a decrease in your taxes if welfare was completely abolished?
I kinda tend to think they'll just find some other uses for the extra money saved.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Pennsylvania Bill Would Reduce Welfare Benefits For Women Who Cannot Prove They Were Raped | ThinkProgress

or lose food stamps.

We need a section devoted to the War On Women. But, since there is none, I'm putting this article here.

Note that there was also a Dem on this little holier than thou posse -

Pennsylvania lawmakers — State Reps. RoseMarie Swanger (R), Tom Caltagirone (D), Mark Gillen (R), Keith Gillespie (R), Adam Harris (R), and Mike Tobash (R) — don’t want their state’s welfare program to provide additional benefits for that newborn. If a woman gives birth to a child who was conceived from rape, she may seek an exception to this rule so that her welfare benefits aren’t slashed, but only if she can provide proof that she reported her sexual assault and her abuser’s identity to the police...

I don't even have to ask how the rw's here feel about this. They'll just love it, I'm sure. Force women to bear babies they can't care for but then, take away assistance.

The child that may come from rape aside....

I am always puzzled as to why any woman would get pregnant if she is dependent on government for some or all of her financial needs? Any ideas why?

A bigger check!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Pennsylvania Bill Would Reduce Welfare Benefits For Women Who Cannot Prove They Were Raped | ThinkProgress

or lose food stamps.

We need a section devoted to the War On Women. But, since there is none, I'm putting this article here.

Note that there was also a Dem on this little holier than thou posse -



I don't even have to ask how the rw's here feel about this. They'll just love it, I'm sure. Force women to bear babies they can't care for but then, take away assistance.

The child that may come from rape aside....

I am always puzzled as to why any woman would get pregnant if she is dependent on government for some or all of her financial needs? Any ideas why?

About a third of all pregnancies are "accidental" or unplanned. If you can't afford birth control pills, I would think that percentage would go up.

Time for contraceptives in the water supply.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The bill is designed to remove the incentive of low income women who are on assistance to have more children they cant afford.

That is not a bad thing.

But they will be expected to pay for their own abortions to prevent them from getting more welfare. You can't have it both ways.

I would be perfectly fine with state funded abortions. As long as the people in that state vote for it.

I would be fine with PAYING welfare cases to be permanently sterilized! Write them a check for $5000 if they agree to permanent sterilization.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It's nothing new that sometimes people have claimed to have been raped just to get even with the man in their lives .... and it was a lie.

You will have your day in Court to prove it., and if you can not prove it will be dismissed.

That is the Law,

There have been times when a rape victim has not been believed and the rapist has walked free.

There have also been cases where the "victim" simply made the whole thing up, and utterly ruined the life of a man who did nothing wrong except go out with a psychotic bitch.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If the rapist uses a condom, there is no physical evidence. Often there isn't, and cases can rely only on the testimony of the victim.

Forensic evidence is a must, fibres, hair, anything. You see... you have to prove it. Otherwise is your word against the other one.

Often there IS no physical evidence. You wear gloves, so no fingerprints, a ski mask takes care of any loose hairs, a condom prevents semen so no DNA. A rapist can be very careful in this day and age. Many rapists won't leave any DNA at all, yet they are still caught and jailed.

Do you think a rapist who doesn't leave any physical evidence behind should walk free because his victim failed to find some DNA?

Do YOU think that I should be able to be convicted of rape based solely on your say-so?!?! If so, you desperately need professional help.

 

[Jarlaxle]

But she can care for it because the social safety net will provide the resources.

And on what planet do you think you're going to get legislatures to pass laws that say that poor women cannot have abortions,

nor can they keep their baby?

Who is going to vote for that?

Because some women have children to get the extra check....dont even tell me you dont know about that

If you get pregnant have the kid, but just because you're irresponsible doesnt mean you get to kill the kid or get cash for having the baby. You're like eveyone else, have the kid and do with what you have....I can post stories and videos of women have multiple kids by multiple fathers....that's rediculous

I have a step granddaughter who lives her life like that. She currently has four children, all from different men, who cannot be identified. Whenever she wants a raise, she has another baby.

A poster child for sterilization.

 

[nitroz]

How does one prove that they were raped?

 

[cutter]

The bill is designed to remove the incentive of low income women who are on assistance to have more children they cant afford.

That is not a bad thing.

To the libs it's a small price to pay for future democratic votes. Increases in welfare for more kids is an investment in guaranteeing the liberal agenda.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Pennsylvania Bill Would Reduce Welfare Benefits For Women Who Cannot Prove They Were Raped | ThinkProgress

or lose food stamps.

We need a section devoted to the War On Women. But, since there is none, I'm putting this article here.

Note that there was also a Dem on this little holier than thou posse -



I don't even have to ask how the rw's here feel about this. They'll just love it, I'm sure. Force women to bear babies they can't care for but then, take away assistance.

The child that may come from rape aside....

I am always puzzled as to why any woman would get pregnant if she is dependent on government for some or all of her financial needs? Any ideas why?

Im puzzled as to why you would think any woman would get pregnant just to use the government for help.
That's not how it typically works, but hey onward with the stupid!

It's been common practice for 5 decades.

 

[hazlnut]

Pennsylvania Bill Would Reduce Welfare Benefits For Women Who Cannot Prove They Were Raped | ThinkProgress

or lose food stamps.

We need a section devoted to the War On Women. But, since there is none, I'm putting this article here.

Note that there was also a Dem on this little holier than thou posse -

Pennsylvania lawmakers — State Reps. RoseMarie Swanger (R), Tom Caltagirone (D), Mark Gillen (R), Keith Gillespie (R), Adam Harris (R), and Mike Tobash (R) — don’t want their state’s welfare program to provide additional benefits for that newborn. If a woman gives birth to a child who was conceived from rape, she may seek an exception to this rule so that her welfare benefits aren’t slashed, but only if she can provide proof that she reported her sexual assault and her abuser’s identity to the police...

I don't even have to ask how the rw's here feel about this. They'll just love it, I'm sure. Force women to bear babies they can't care for but then, take away assistance.

And for all the Non-rape victims, they get to watch their baby starve to death.

 

[thereisnospoon]

so yuou are okay if a woman says she was raped and she wasnt? is that okay to al the other victims because if it were revered, youd be screaming it.

so....you're ok with the alleged victim of a violent crime having to prove her situation is real? What if the perpetrator gets off on a technicality? What if the woman, in a state of emotional trauma does the one thing they tell those victims not to do, but often happens.....they take a shower and scrubs DNA evidence off of them? What if the alleged perpetrator is a boyfriend or husband?

Guess that's alright.

"What if"....The liberal mindset is permanently on "what if"..
Rule Number One...Never ask "what if " questions because the answers have been given already.
Now,to keep you entertained.....
Let's skip the emotional nonsense of "what if"..
In order for a prosecution to move forward, there must be sufficient evidence so that the People can prove their case. The DA can move forward with eye witness testimony which must be corroborated by another party. Testimony of the victim. Circumstantial evidence....Of course physical evidence is the strongest. The others are much harder to use in a prosecution to get a conviction.
Without physical evidence, it can become "she said. He said"...

 

[thereisnospoon]

so....you're ok with the alleged victim of a violent crime having to prove her situation is real? What if the perpetrator gets off on a technicality? What if the woman, in a state of emotional trauma does the one thing they tell those victims not to do, but often happens.....they take a shower and scrubs DNA evidence off of them? What if the alleged perpetrator is a boyfriend or husband?

Guess that's alright.

I have no problem with a rape having to be proven.....what next people on disability will have to prove they are disabled...liberals always said rape should allow abortions, but now they upset people are calling their bluff

If you dont want people off on technicalities dont vote democrat

As for evidence, educate people and let them know to report asap. Rape needs to be reported and they do need to get evidence

Snd who cares if its a husband or boyfriend....if its rape its wrong

It's harder to prove.....You don't get it.....if the perpetrator is found innocent....what does that mean for the woman? Guess she's fucked against her will.....again.

If the suspect is found no guilty in a trial by jury of his peers, then that is that.