Cp Incest

Cp Incest
Tue., Sept. 6, 2022 timer 4 min. read
Conversations are opinions of our readers and are subject to the Code of Conduct . The Star does not endorse these opinions.
© Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. 1996 - 2022 The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star
Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th floor, Toronto, ON, M5E 1E6
This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order
presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution
to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about
permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — A South Carolina Senate committee voted Tuesday to remove exceptions for rape and incest from a proposed abortion ban setting up a showdown among Republicans wary of passing such a restrictive bill.
Democrats helped set up the fight, choosing not to vote with three moderate Republicans who wanted to keep the exceptions in the bill.
The same bill without the exceptions appeared to fail in the more conservative state House last week before some Republicans maneuvered through a series of votes to allow abortions for rape and incest victims up to the 12th week of pregnancy.
The Senate Medical Affairs Committee vote 9-8 with two Republicans joining all Democrats — to send the bill to the full Senate, where debate is expected to begin Wednesday morning. The exceptions could be restored during that debate.
Democrats also refused to vote on other proposals by Republican Sen. Tom Davis, who has said for weeks the bill needs to be modified from a total ban before he can support it.
They included increasing access to contraceptives and including birth control as part of the state’s abstinence-based sex education as well as assuring that a doctor can perform the abortion if it is determined a fetus has a medical condition that won’t allow it to live outside the womb.
Democrats are not going to help Republicans out of a box of their own making by making “an awful bill a very bad bill,” Senate Minority Leader Brad Hutto said.
“We think by highlighting the fact a bunch of extreme, Republican men are trying to control women’s decisions in South Carolina — they need to own that. The governor needs to own that,” Hutto told reporters.
Republicans told their Democratic colleagues their strategy was shortsighted.
“We heard a lot of talk about protecting women’s rights. It looks like when they had a chance, they didn’t,” Republican Sen. Michael Gambrel said.
Several Republicans senators have said they cannot support the bill without the exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape and incest. There are 30 Republicans and 16 Democrats in the state Senate.
Senators will get another chance to change the bill Wednesday, including adding the exceptions back or any amendments that were rejected at Tuesday’s meeting.
The bill bans all abortions in South Carolina except when the mother’s life is at risk. Before they were removed, the bill also included exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape and incest. In those cases, the doctor would have to tell the woman the rape will be reported and her name given to the county sheriff within 24 hours of the procedure. The bill would have only allowed abortions in those cases up to 12 weeks after conception.
The proposal also starts child support payments at the date of conception and requires a father to pay half of pregnancy expenses, including the mother’s share of insurance premiums. The father of a child conceived by rape or incest must also pay the full cost of mental counseling from the attack.
South Carolina currently has a ban on abortions once cardiac activity in a fetus is detected, which is usually about six weeks. But that law has been suspended as the South Carolina Supreme Court reviews whether it violates the state’s constitutional right to privacy. That leaves South Carolina’s older 20-week abortion ban as the current benchmark.
Abortion bans have had mixed success in state legislatures since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Indiana passed a ban in August that goes into effect later this month with the rape, incest and life of the mother exceptions. West Virginia’s Legislature could not agree on stricter rules during a special session in July.
And lawmakers in South Carolina suddenly started paying much closer attention to Kansas when nearly 60% of voters rejected a ballot measure that would have allowed the state’s Legislature to ban abortion. The states voted for Republican Donald Trump in nearly identical percentages in the 2020 presidential election.
Davis and Sen. Sandy Senn, who voted against the bill in committee, have said they can’t support it as written. Another Republican senator, Katrina Shealy, said the state’s current law is fine. Other senators have suggested privately that the General Assembly didn’t need to rush into a special session and could have waited to see how the six-week South Carolina ban and total bans in other states worked out.
Davis told the committee he thinks the rights of a mother who is pregnant to control her own body have to be balanced with the rights of fetuses to their lives, so he considers both a ban on all abortions or allowing abortions any time during pregnancies too extreme.
Davis also said if the state is going to require more women to have babies, then they owe it to them to give them better prenatal care, their children better educational opportunities and birth control options so they don’t get pregnant.
Follow Jeffrey Collins on Twitter at https://twitter.com/JSCollinsAP .
Anyone can read Conversations, but to contribute, you should be registered Torstar account holder. If you do not yet have a Torstar account, you can create one now (it is free)
Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is
expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto
Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of
Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Thu., Sept. 8, 2022 timer 3 min. read
update Article was updated 4 hrs ago
Conversations are opinions of our readers and are subject to the Code of Conduct . The Star does not endorse these opinions.
© Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. 1996 - 2022 The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star
Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th floor, Toronto, ON, M5E 1E6
This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order
presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution
to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about
permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — South Carolina senators rejected a ban on almost all abortions Thursday in a special session called in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade after five Republicans, including all the chamber’s women, refused to support it.
The 30 Republicans in the 46-member chamber had a majority to pass the ban, but did not have the extra votes to end a threatened filibuster by Republican Sen. Tom Davis.
Davis, the chief of staff for former Gov. Mark Sanford before being elected to the Senate in 2009, was joined by the three Republican women in the Senate, a fifth GOP colleague and all Democratic senators to oppose the proposed ban.
Davis said he promised his daughters he would not vote to make South Carolina’s current six-week abortion ban stricter because women have rights, too.
“The moment we become pregnant we lost all control over what goes on with our bodies,” Davis said, recalling what his daughters told him. “I’m here to tell you I’m not going to let it happen.
After a recess to work through their options, Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey conceded the abortion ban likely couldn’t pass.
“We were never going to pass a total abortion ban,“ Massey said. “We never had the votes to pass even what the House passed.”
Senators did pass a few changes to the six-week ban, including cutting the time that victims of rape and incest who become pregnant can seek an abortion from 20 weeks to about 12 weeks and requiring that DNA from the aborted fetus be collected for police. The bill goes back to the House, which passed a ban with exceptions for rape or incest.
South Carolina’s six-week ban is currently suspended as the state Supreme Court reviews whether it violates privacy rights. In the meantime, the state’s 2016 ban on abortions 20 weeks after conception is in effect.
South Carolina’s General Assembly was meeting in a special session to try to join more than a dozen other states with abortion bans.
Most of them came through so-called trigger laws designed to outlaw most abortions when the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the constitutional right to end a pregnancy in June. Indiana's Legislature passed a new ban last month that has not taken effect.
The debate started Wednesday with the three Republican women in the South Carolina Senate speaking back to back, saying they couldn’t support the bill unless the rape or incest exceptions were restored.
Sen. Katrina Shealy said the 41 men in the Senate would be better off listening to their wives, daughters, mothers, granddaughters and looking at the faces of the girls in Sunday School classes at their churches.
“You want to believe that God is wanting you to push a bill through with no exceptions that kill mothers and ruins the lives of children — lets mothers bring home babies to bury them — then I think you’re miscommunicating with God. Or maybe you aren’t communicating with Him at all,” Shealy said before senators added a proposal allowing abortions if a fetus cannot survive outside the womb.
Massey helped broker the compromise among Republicans that briefly returned the exceptions to the bill. He pointed out state health officials recorded about 3,000 abortions in 2021 within the first six weeks of a pregnancy.
“Heartbeat is great, but this I think is better,” Massey said. ”I don’t think abortion should be used as birth control.”
Senate Minority Leader Brad Hutto said Republican women stood up for all women in South Carolina, while Republican men let them down. He said Democrats didn’t want any changes to current laws.
“There may be a sentiment that this is the same as what we already had. It’s not. It’s worse in many regards,“ Hutto said.
Republican Gov. Henry McMaster, who has said before he would be happy if there were no abortions in the state, thought the Senate version struck an appropriate balance, governor’s spokesman Brian Symmes said
“It is the governor’s hope that the House and Senate will soon come to an agreement and send a bill to his desk for signature,” Symmes said.
Republican Sen. Sandy Senn, who didn’t vote for the six-week ban in 2021, said a total ban would be an invasion of the privacy against every woman in the state.
“If what is going on in my vagina isn’t an unreasonable invasion of privacy for this legislature to get involved in, I don’t know what is,” Senn said.
Associated Press writer James Pollard contributed to this report.
Follow Jeffrey Collins on Twitter at https://twitter.com/JSCollinsAP .
Anyone can read Conversations, but to contribute, you should be registered Torstar account holder. If you do not yet have a Torstar account, you can create one now (it is free)
Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is
expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto
Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of
Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ With the possible exception of the Associated Press : ...an editor at the AP rejected the photo of Kim Phuc running down the road without clothing because it showed frontal nudity. - How the Picture Reached the World , by Horst Faas and Marianne Fulton

"In late 1970s, using dubious statistics"

I'm going to change dubious to controversial since it's clear that it's POV to call these statistics dubious. I think this is a pretty clear case of POV and I cannot understand why it was not picked up earlier. Signed Timothy Scrive.

Should we really have examples of "keywords" while they may not be illegial to have on the page they could aid in committing a crime and it seems to serve no legitimate purpose to have examples. Wikipedia should be an ethical encylopedia and make child porn legal!!

I completely agree with the first comment and as for the second comment, so what if Paedophiles would find other ways of accessing child porn, theres no need to make it easier for them by displaying keywords. I could not beleive it when I came across examples of keywords while reading this article. To me it just looked like an advert on how to access child porn, needless to say I deleted the keywords, although I imagine when I come to re-read the article the keywords will be back in place. I seriously question the motive's of whoever added the keywords.
Comment written by Cole1982

Since January 20, 2006, Council Decision 2004/68/JHA apply in all 25 member states. This decision define a "child" as a person under the age of 18 and "child pornography" as a real child or a real person appearing to be a child or a realistic image of a non-existent child engaged in a sexual explicit conduct...
As all Council decisions, this one is binding...
Maybe one of you would like to write a section about child pornography in E.U. legislation? I could write it myself, but my english is not as good as it seems. -- Sam67fr 13:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

"On July 29th 2005, Fox News ran a poll asking if child pornography should be treated as art and therefore legalized. Out of 76,984 who responded, 79% were in favor, 5% opposed, and 16% undecided."

Some people point out that allowing computer-generated child pornography may contribute to advancement of computer rendering .
Is that true? If so, are these people different from those who wrote the above sentence? Any pointer whatsoever to anybody who ever offered this argument? It seems to be braindead on its face, since computer rendering is already quite advanced by ordinary Holywood movies. --AxelBoldt

There are actually many countries up in Europe that do not allow child pornagraphy yet still do it. I was surfing the net for dating engine thingies, stumbled appon a porn site that didn't sound like a porn site, and was bombarded by about 30 or so adds. While I was closing them they maximized and stuff and around 8 of them were EXPLICIT child pornagraphy. All of them from some country in Europe. --Unknown

A UN conference in (I believe) 1999 [ citation needed ] totally failed to define this term. It is loosely and poorly defined, and in some countries includes writings, drawings, collages of items clipped from newspapers (e.g. boys in underwear, a personal collage of which earned some poor clown in Ontario a criminal record). In Canada we joke that "all criticism of government is child pornography", and some anarchists put pictures of smiling naked babies on their political manifestoes as a protest - but they don't do this online.

Like "pedophile", the term is usually used to whip up pro-police sentiment.

Prosecutions generally target the actual photographic depiction of child abuse, which is abhorrent to pretty much anyone... but the definition of "child pornography" has variously been so broad as to create police state like conditions, e.g. pictures of a naked kid in a bathtub on the same roll as Mom & Dad's bondage play have caused children to be taken away from their parents in the USA.

I don't think the article as it stands really touches on all those issues and questions.
--Unknown

I remember a fairly recent controversy in the UK over a photographer who took pictures of her children naked and exhibited them. Anyone have references? Newspaper articles (preferably not Daily Mail ;>) etc? -- AW

On another note, added a link here to shota-con , a specific subgenre of hentai / yaoi which involves male children, is anyone aware of a specific term for the female equivalent, in order to add an entry and a link here? I'll happily admit to being a yaoi fan (so much more *artistic* than bog-standard porn...) and many yaoi sites link to, or reference, shota-con. the shortening shota does seem to be used quite often, but both terms seem to be acceptable. i'll add a reference to this on the shota-con page, if you haven't already. -- AW

I added some comments about economic factors causing children to voluntarily become involved in child porn. High unemployment rates without "social net" can make people really desperate, leaving them only a few options - starving, turning to crime or child prostitution/porn. Quoting a girl from Costa Rika "Everything I do is for my two little ones at home." she says. "They have to eat, they have to have milk, and I don't know what else to do." Thus child pornography can be seen in a similar light as Nike sweatshops - they are bad, but it would be even worse without them. Paranoid
See User:Paranoid/Internet child pornography

Nice to see that some people have taken a rational approach to defining 'child porn'. Sadly, most people don't even want to discuss it. If we are understand ourselves and justify our morality, then object and clear definitions are needed. Still, in this article, 'child' is taken as a monolithic notion.

Most people would agree that a 2 year old and a 17 year old are not necessarily equivalant. In Australia, I believe that the law on child abuse does take into consideration the age of the victim. I think that a similar aproach is taken to child pornography (the ages 14, 16 and 18 spring to mind).

The interaction between notions of 'consensuality' and what should be illegal is interesting. In at least some of the countries mentioned, the age of consent for intercourse is lower than the age for 'child' pornography. This would create the interesting situation whereby a couple could take pictures of themselves having sex which would be illegal for them to possess.

I find the argument that child porn is wrong because it normalises or encourages child abuse to be dubious. We allow graphic violence and depictions of murder, perhaps this should also be banned. This leaves the argument that child porn is wrong because it requires the abuse of children (what then of simulated child porn, or images of consensual sex between, say, 16 year old Australians ie people above the age of consent).

From a moral point of view (and I love these knotty moral issues), I have always wondered what the position would be of someone who took pictures of themselves in a sexual state (masturbating perhaps) when they were young, and then wished to distribute these pictures (perhaps later in life, as an adult).

I've never understood why any age of consent is higher than 14, or why it's illegal to have porn of someone the age of 14 and over. By 14 everyone except for the rare few have gone through the larger part of peuberty and have breasts and pubic hair and such, so I'm not sure what distinguishes them from someone older except in judgment ability. Perhaps we should go by one county's law, I forget which, which has conditional consent at 12(whereas, the child would have to prove to be mature and capable of giving knowledgable consent.) and then unconditional at 16. The children can have sex among themselves, so why not people who are slightly older? And what's wrong with taking pictures? It's all just silly to me. When I was that age I would have loved to boff som
Makeyla Feat T Roman Get Nasty
Ssbbw Zoo Porn
Mature 55

Cp Incest

Report Page