Karma Kicks Party Mom with a Roundhouse!

[Jester]

I'm not sure. Since there are other ways to avoid pregnancy without having to be on a specific medication/have an IUD, that might be seen as overstepping boundaries.

Also, the plea deal simply says she should not have more kids. How she goes about preventing it is up to her. Dictating how she would do it would be equivalent to telling a convicted drunk driver they can't buy liquor....and then marking their ID and alerting all the liquor stores in the area. A bit much for a court, honestly.

I'm wondering if those "impotent rapists" are just claiming that they're impotent to prove their innocence? I have heard of chemical castration for rapists and sex offenders however, so technically they DO have something there....

Impotent, not infertile. Meaning they had trouble getting an erection during the rape, not that they can't conceive.

You can be the most virile motherfucker on the planet, and there could still be times when you can't get your flat at full attention. Doesn't make you any less of a rapist, though.

I'm pretty sure this falls under cruel and unusual punishment. ... even if it's a "choice".

I don't think it does, pretty much because it WAS a choice. And it's not permanently banning her from childbirth. Merely saying she can't have any kids during her probation (13 years), and even then, it leaves open the possibility for repetitioning the court to shorten that time frame if she can show she has become a responsible adult.

[fireheart17]

Impotent, not infertile. Meaning they had trouble getting an erection during the rape, not that they can't conceive..

I'm not 100% clear on how broad the definition of rape in the United States is, but my point was that a guy could claim that he couldn't rape anyone because he couldn't keep an erection. Ejaculation is not necessary for rape. If you happen to get a trial full of the undereducated (those that aren't aware that rape does not need a penis) then there's a chance that an impotent man could claim that he can't physically rape anyone. Of course, there are the psychological effects...

The definition down here is pretty much the unwanted, non consensual and intentional act of inserting a body part or object into the mouth, anus or vagina. (For some reason, some of the combos that spring to mind don't particularly make sense I.e. forcefully inserting a ball gag into the mouth...(object to mouth))

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I'm pretty sure this falls under cruel and unusual punishment. If the ACLU sues on her behalf and loses, I'd be extremely surprised.

I honestly don't believe she should have any more kids since she's proven she is unable to be a halfway decent parent as it is, but it's a pretty crazy punishment to give her, even if it's a "choice".

It's not a punishment, it's a stipulation of her probation. She decided that not having any more children was worth it to not serve jail time.

Just like people deciding not having alcohol as a stipulation of not going to jail is worth it.

Just like people deciding being on anti-psychotic drugs as a stipulation of not going to jail is worth it.

If she (or either of the two other examples) had decided "No it's not worth it" and gone to jail, they'd still not be able to have children, drink alcohol, or refuse take their anti-psychotic drugs (depending on where they are locked up, a jail or a psyche ward.)

So it's; A ) be able to continue outside life with a stipulation of no more kidlets, or B ) be locked up and be damn sure you won't have kidlets or really any other freedoms.

[Jester]

I'm not 100% clear on how broad the definition of rape in the United States is

Nonconsensual sexual activity forced upon someone by another, generally speaking.

...a guy could claim that he couldn't rape anyone because he couldn't keep an erection.

As you know, rape does not have to be penile in nature.

Ejaculation is not necessary for rape.

Nor is an erection. But again, you know this, based upon your comments.

If you happen to get a trial full of the undereducated (those that aren't aware that rape does not need a penis) then there's a chance that an impotent man could claim that he can't physically rape anyone.

The blame for that disaster would fall squarely at the feet of the defendant's lawyer, for (A) allowing such an ignorant jury to be seated, and (B) not adequately showing that rape can be and is far more than a guy sticking his penis somewhere it isn't wanted.

[Lace Neil Singer]

If all rapists needed a penis, then women rapists wouldn't exist.