Rapist using Kansas Abortion Law Loophole

Man Who Allegedly Raped Underage Teen Cites Kansas Abortion Law To Argue His Innocence

www.investigationdiscovery.com...

Here is the quick rundown,

teen says she was raped by this guy,
she is under the age of consent
guy says it was consensual
lawyer is saying if age at conception starts life it makes her old enough for consent

“Because of recent statutory amendments establishing that life begins at fertilization, the alleged victim in this case should be considered by this court as nine months older than her date of birth,” said Overstreet. “Because of this, at the time of the alleged incident, the alleged victim would have been 16 years old and thus a charge of aggravated indecent liberties is factually impossible.”

Slippery slippery slope....


just a little side note, in some place in Japan and Korea you are considered 1 at birth, so there may be something to this.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Extremely slippery slope. It would be contradictory for Kansas to argue otherwise. Huge crime junkie here so I will be very interested to see how this plays out.

Even so, there would still be a rape case. There just wouldn't be an underage rape case.

I personally think the ruling that life starts at conception is the flawed law, but I am no lawyer.

“Because of recent statutory amendments establishing that life begins at fertilization, the alleged victim in this case should be considered by this court as nine months older than her date of birth,”

I guess i'm stupid, but why should she be considered 9 months older?

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

It looks like Kansas enacted a law that life starts at conception, when sperms meets egg. It would literally mean the first second of her life is when her parents did the dance , or I guess right after. The whole time in utero would be considered months of her life.

a reply to: headorheart

But that's the baby's life right? Why append 9 months to the woman's?

a reply to: JAGStorm

i cannot read your OP link [ geo block ] - but i read this story a few days ago

and nothing in read said " no consent "

the charge was ONLY " statutory rape "

which is why the absurd " defence stragegy " - came about

could you confirm ?

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

The woman who was allegedly raped was 16. They are charging the suspect with statutory rape. The suspect's defense team is saying that because of the Kansas law that deems life begins at conception, the woman is not 16 and is actually 17. Thus, the charge of statutory rape is void.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

This article reads otherwise:

"

When the teenager woke up, the door to the now-dark room was closed. Ross, who had not been present before, was undressing her as he held her down and raped her, she claimed.



According to the girl, she told him to stop and screamed, but he “pushed my head into the bed so that nobody could hear me.” The next day, she revealed to her mom what had happened and they went to the police.



Ross was charged with one count of rape using force or fear, but he claimed the sex was consensual."


Just quoted the part that references your question. I think this could play out a lot different if the woman in question was agreeing that it was consensual.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

“Because of recent statutory amendments establishing that life begins at fertilization, the alleged victim in this case should be considered by this court as nine months older than her date of birth,”

I guess i'm stupid, but why should she be considered 9 months older?

Because if life starts the second the sperm meets the egg, then technically she's older than her stated birthday. According to her birth certificate, she's 15 making the encounter statutory rape. But if you count the 9 months she was in the womb, you'd have to add 9 months to that which would have made her 16 at the time of the alleged statutory rape. Thus it would no longer be statutory rape in that state.

It's a rather clever, if not devious, way to use the right to life law(s) to the accused guy's advantage.

a reply to: headorheart.

AH, I was in the middle of responding when I got it lol.

So, they are adding 9 months from HER inception date, and not the baby's lol.

Got it. I've no idea where I got she was even pregnant from.

originally posted by: headorheart
a reply to: JAGStorm

Extremely slippery slope. It would be contradictory for Kansas to argue otherwise. Huge crime junkie here so I will be very interested to see how this plays out.

Even so, there would still be a rape case. There just wouldn't be an underage rape case.

I personally think the ruling that life starts at conception is the flawed law, but I am no lawyer.

Well...

New Oklahoma Bill Would Make Abortion Punishable By Life In Prison

www.refinery29.com...

a reply to: JAGStorm

Or even more contradictory:

Ohio Considering Bill That Could See Abortions Punishable By Death

What better way to be pro-life than executions?

originally posted by: headorheart
a reply to: JAGStorm

Or even more contradictory:

Ohio Considering Bill That Could See Abortions Punishable By Death

What better way to be pro-life than executions?

What!!!..........That is downright hysterical!

Slippery slope lmao.

What does legal consent age have to do with conception?

Go directly to jail, do not collect $200

originally posted by: headorheart
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

The woman who was allegedly raped was 16. They are charging the suspect with statutory rape. The suspect's defense team is saying that because of the Kansas law that deems life begins at conception, the woman is not 16 and is actually 17. Thus, the charge of statutory rape is void.

That's not how we calculate ages.

We start with the birth date not the conception date. Life may begin at fertilization but counting your age doesn't begin till you breathe fresh air.

Hopefully this guy is ready to be stuck in a cage for a few years because that's where he's going.

What a slimey lawyer too btw...

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: headorheart
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

The woman who was allegedly raped was 16. They are charging the suspect with statutory rape. The suspect's defense team is saying that because of the Kansas law that deems life begins at conception, the woman is not 16 and is actually 17. Thus, the charge of statutory rape is void.

That's not how we calculate ages.

We start with the birth date not the conception date. Life may begin at fertilization but counting your age doesn't begin till you breathe fresh air.

Hopefully this guy is ready to be stuck in a cage for a few years because that's where he's going.

What a slimey lawyer too btw...

Yeah, but if the law says life begins at conception, then technically everyone is 9 months older. It is a slimy move by a lawyer, but this is the difference between law and common sense.

a reply to: Edumakated

Yes "life begins" at conception.
Not age counting.

The custom of counting age from birth day is ancient and so therefore the precedent.

This lawyer attempted BS to set a new, completely ridiculous precedent.

a reply to: muzzleflash

The custom of counting age from birth day is ancient and so therefore the precedent.

That depends on the country as has already been stated.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Edumakated

Yes "life begins" at conception.
Not age counting.

The custom of counting age from birth day is ancient and so therefore the precedent.

This lawyer attempted BS to set a new, completely ridiculous precedent.

Age counting isn't legally defined which seems to be the problem. Yes, common sense says we count age from birth. However, the law says life (and therefore age as an extension) begins at conception making everyone 9 month's older.

This is typical legalese BS that can only take place in a court room full of lawyers.

Further the question isn't even if the suspect raped the girl, it is if it is statutory rape. In the real world, most of us would say it doesn't matter whether the girl was 15 or 16, just drag the dirtbag out back and double tap him. But in a court, it matters because the law is based on definitions.

I'm not saying it is right or wrong.

a reply to: Edumakated

Our system is common law though, and all you have to do to show and establish the custom is show at least 1 prior case that supports our custom of counting age.

In fact it doesn't even need to be from a binding court either, you can use any case law from any state to make a "convincing argument". Getting a local state decision (especially from a higher court) is best tho because it's binding on the court.