I want to see this guy explain that to the 10 year old.
There are people out there that would be ok with doing this. I’ve met them and I never want to see them again.
I want him to BE that 10 year old girl
Oof. Yes. These people lack basic empathy.
And to his mistress getting an abortion abroad.
Hasn’t she suffered enough?
And it really would be so easy for them to AT LEAST argue from the perspective of “Allow abortion for 10 year olds”
I mean the concept is not difficult to grasp. They are comparing one horrific thing to a group of thirty thousand horrific things and choosing the lesser evil. They are not “okay” with ten-year olds being raped… Claiming so is a reading comprehension error.
The issue here is that we don’t agree with them that those 30k other “horrific” events are all that horrific.
This is very well said. So many people make this out to be a men vs. women power struggle when it is really focused on whether a fetus is human or not. That’s why well-informed women can be pro-life, and well-informed men can be pro-choice.
It isn’t about whether or not a fetus is human. It’s about bodily autonomy. Making it a question about a fetus’s humanity misses the point. It’s a question about whether or not a person has control over their own body.
In reality it is a question of getting the votes. The entire anti abortion agenda was started by the right because they needed a new topic after being pro segregation was not getting many votes anymore.
Exactly. It’s a fundamental difference of opinion, nothing else. We don’t know much about what a fetus can feel or sense prior to a certain number of weeks, in the normal case, I’m guessing. So opinions and assumptions, and straw men, take over the discourse and debates. It’s all set up to fail, and to keep your focus on something that can’t be resolved. Mission accomplished.
It is not about the fetus. It’s about the person carrying the fetus.
I mean, yes, for us who believe the fetus isn’t very “alive” before a certain age. I agree.
But not for everyone, sadly.
It doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not the fetus is alive. If a 30-year-old man could only survive by being attached to my body, I should still have the right to say whether or not he can remain attached to me, even if it kills him.
Listen, I’m on your side! Read my words here now, friend. I hear ya.
But for the people who think the fetus is a person at the moment of the sperm making contact with the egg, it’s all about the fetus. You get what I’m saying? One side is prioritizing the “wrong” thing, according to the other side. That’s the way she goes.
It’s important to not let the other side frame the debate. You shouldn’t debate to convince them. That’s practically impossible. How many times have you seen a zealot (religious or otherwise) change their mind due to argument? For me, I would say “absolutely never”.
Instead, you should argue for third parties watching the debate. Don’t let them set the ground rules as “Is a fetus a human life? Yes or no?” Let them argue “the right to life of a fetus” vs. “the right to control your own body”. That’s what the debate is really about, after all. Let people make an informed decision based upon the merits of the two positions.
I disagree that the difference is the perception of alive
It’s possible to both hold on to the inherent value of human life and make space to grieve abortions, AND prioritize the physical and mental wellbeing of the women who (for whatever reason) can’t or won’t go through a pregnancy, adoption and/or being a parent
Even with the assumption that a fetus is human and alive, it is important to acknowledge how horrific and traumatic it can be to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term
The realities of pregnancy is still quite taboo, so many aren’t aware of the medical risks, physical strain, bodily changes and risk of death that can be involved with pregnancy and birth.
Reminder that marginalized people also experience higher maternal and newborn mortality, and childbirth and pregnancy has higher risks if you’re for example poor, black or both
It’s one thing to choose to go through nine months of bodily changes, an invasive medical precedure like birth, and recovery willingly. It’s another to go through it against your will.
Abortion rights very much comes down to the discussion of who’s rights, wellbeing and bodily autonomy comes first. The unborn child or the woman and the body carrying the child. As well as who has more right to a future of their choosing.
On top of that, there’s the important conversations of the future lives for both the unwanted child and parents, and the socioeconomic issues. Both in terms of the rich always having access to abortions, regardless of laws and general accessibility, so that poor and disenfranchised people overwhelmingly are the ones affected when pregnancies are forced to be carried to term. As well as how our system is set up so many unwanted kids grow up in poverty. And just… The questions about what qualifies well or badly suited parents, and what kind of life an unwanted child is gonna have.
Reducing abortion rights to the dehumanization of fetuses is missing the crux of the problem. Additionally, that reduction is part of the reason too many men who are careless, bordering on callus, when it comes to safe sex, cause they view the “removal of a bunch of non-alive cells” to be “no big deal”, ignorant to the impact both pregnancy, abortion and birth can have on women’s body and mind. As well as a potential child, of course, and not having to battle with the moral dilemma if human life and giving side for what could have been
There are people in my life who’ve had abortions, and people who chose to carry to term. It cannot be overrated how undeniably life-changing a child is - good and bad. It’s a massive, life long responsibility, that should not be taken lightly. For people who aren’t ready for that… I don’t wish that for anyone.
Tl;Dr Even with the presumption that life begins at conception, access to abortion is vital
Agree completely. It’s not a matter of black or white at all. There’s definitely a wide spectrum of gray to this debate and many factors and aspects to consider.
My wife had an abortion before I met her, she has told me about her feelings surrounding that. She recalls sitting on the toilet and then this lump just kind of fell out into the toilet. (She took some type of pill and so this occurred at home.) It was very emotional, despite just looking basically like a heavy period lump.
My point is merely that I’m generalizing the arguments that each side has against the other side. One side argues the value of human life as a quantitative value, and the other as a qualitative value, to put it very briefly.
If it’s murder, it’s a genocide. If it isn’t, it’s infringing women’s rights. Sadly this makes the problem unignorable, and idiots tend to be the loudest.
This is one of those topics that people like to force their views on others and not care about the consequences. Another good example is porn. “I don’t think people should watch porn” is something people actually vote for. Yet all the studies performed show sexual assaults and rapes increase everywhere you ban porn. So forcing their views on people has real consequences and they just don’t want to acknowledge them.
A vote to ban porn is a vote to increase rapes and sexual assaults. Yes that includes more children being raped as well.
A vote to ban abortions doesn’t stop abortions, all it does is increase the number of mother’s and babies dying from unsterilized attempts at aborting, children being thrown in dumpsters, buried alive, left outside, dropped at fire departments, put into underfunded orphan systems that have more kids than they can get adopted BEFORE you took away their safer way of not abusing a child.
The only thing these votes do is take away people’s choice, and hurt people.
A vote to ban abortion or porn is a vote to hurt people.
With the porn issue, as well as prostitution, you have the unfortunate conflation of two different positions: “I don’t want bad things to happen to women”, and “I want everyone to follow my moral code”.
It’s an unfortunate reality that increases in demand for industries that can leverage human trafficking leads to an increase in human trafficking. It’s not irrational for someone to be concerned with that.
For those people, discussion about how legalization has aggregate benefits, or how the legalization enables regulations that permit the outcomes to be better even though it’s more common.With the latter group you really can’t argue effectively because their position wasn’t arrived at out of concern for outcomes. Sexual assault being bad doesn’t make something else not bad.
You can have decreased rapes, sexual assaults and sex trafficking. Sex trafficking isn’t directly correlated with sex work as many have tried to make it out to be. Better to decriminalize and regulate something than to ban it entirely and force it into “back alley” transactions where there is no protections.
If a sex worker says no to something and someone does it anyways, they cant go to the police and say they were raped… because they were involved in a criminal act and would be arrested. Decriminalization allows protections that aren’t vigilante justice to be formed. It isn’t a friend of theirs kicking someone’s ass or breaking their legs/killing them.
Who raped you? Well here’s his name and credit card information so you can track him down.
The number of people dying from alcohol poisoning is down drastically since we decriminalized and regulated it. It didn’t increase the number of people making moonshine, it decreased it.
So, in case the main point of that part of my comment wasn’t clear: I agree that legalization gives better opportunities to reduce harm, and that the goal is reduced net harm.
That being said, there’s empirical evidence that legalization does increase human trafficking: https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/
Tldr: legalization makes a substitute for trafficking available, but it also increases demand. Unlike alcohol, you can’t scale the population of willing women on demand, so if demand scales faster than the substitute trafficking can increase past what was there before.
Something being the right way to reduce harm doesn’t mean it doesn’t have downsides, or increase another sort of harm to a lesser degree than what’s reduced.
Being able to acknowledge and address the dual nature of harm reduction mechanisms is important to discussing them frankly.I like that they threw in that there is a significant increase in trafficking in countries that practice democracy. That would mean to me that trafficking can be reduced by procedures and punishments.
I’m not sure why we think the demand increases when it is legal, I would have assumed the demand was equal, but I can’t imagine the U.S. being the hodgepodge of beliefs, nationalities, and body types it is would have much of a demand for importing sex workers. (But I’m sure I’m wrong there). What stops people now? Like when people sell videos, articles of clothing, and such on sites like Only fans and what not is there policies that somehow punish people for offering more money for someone to meet up?
Can’t say I’ve ever tried to pay someone for sex, and I’m sure many wouldn’t be into it if it were decriminalized, but I do have to say I would feel safer knowing they were affiliated with something that ensured they were tested regularly.
STI test panels we should really figure out how to make cheaper and more available. If counties really cared about falling birthrates you’d think they would promote subsiding such and not be so anti-promiscuity, promote health care availability for mothers and children, daycares, schools. I’d laugh to see a government pushing propaganda that pregnant women are very attractive in mainstream media. Operation MILF media
What stops people now? Like when people sell videos, articles of clothing, and such on sites like Only fans and what not is there policies that somehow punish people for offering more money for someone to meet up?
Most services that are sex work adjacent are extremely paranoid about not becoming associated with prostitution. The website itself can be held liable if they’re found to harbor it.
Additionally, the risk of criminal penalties deters people, as well as the risk of social embarrassment from something coming to light. Legalization removes those concerns, and so demand increases.
To continue with the prohibition comparison: prohibition can never succeed, but it does reduce consumption. There’s a segment of the population who would be willing to partake in whatever is being prohibited, but isn’t interested enough to break the law of work through the criminal connections needed to make it happen.The import of sex workers isn’t really to do with the physical diversity. It’s more to do with the willingness of the people, or lack thereof. Tricking someone from a poor country into coming to the US and then extorting them into prostitution is unfortunately often more cost effective than charging people more money.
It’s why you see so many billboards and signs around international airports informing potential victims of human trafficking that they have rights and can get help.
It’s why countries with more prosperous economies and democracies have higher levels of trafficking into them. People, on average, have more economic opportunities that don’t involve prostitution and a greater tendency towards self determination.
Exactly. Often when people spout fundamentalist (i.e. stridently unlistening) opinions about abortion, porn, and other hot-button topics like (fundamentalist AKA naive) capitalism, etc I wish they would just study some of the spectacular historical failures at iron-fist methods (orthogonally to their respective ethical for/against arguments). The (alcohol) prohibition and “war on drugs” should be enough reference material alone to see that they don’t achieve their stated goals, they just increase income for the people with a hazy enough moral code to play the system. Eventually it ends up looking like the primary goal often is in fact increasing said income…
A vote to ban abortions doesn’t stop abortions, all it does is increase the number of mother’s and babies dying from unsterilized attempts at aborting, children being thrown in dumpsters, buried alive, left outside, dropped at fire departments, put into underfunded orphan systems that have more kids than they can get adopted BEFORE you took away their safer way of not abusing a child.
and that’s if they survive.
multiple women have died in texas because of scumfuck Abbot and chickenshit doctors.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/10/30/texas-abortion-ban-josseli-barnica-death-miscarriage/
Okay, what the fuck is up with the rape apologetics and anti-bodily autonomy chubs in these comments?
Likely trolls or sock puppets meant to try and legitimize their pro-rape position. Spoiler, it doesn’t work NEARLY as well as they think it does.
And yet, the ghouls won the election.
Maybe it works better than we give it credit for.
More like the Democratic Party lost the election.
Oh it definitely does, Lemmy just likes to believe it doesn’t.
Really? Who are you who are so wise in the ways of Lemmy?
Who the fuck said we had to choose either? We can live in a world with neither, and that world requires women’s rights, including the right to abortion.
The real kicker is: no amount of 10yo parents is going to prevent abortions. We’ve been through this whole song and dance before. The abortions didn’t stop, just a lot more women died.
They want to go back to women dying from abortions, because they think women who get abortions are murderers who deserve to die. Until it’s someone they know and suddenly the reasons for the abortion matter and they’re the special exception.
Obligatory The Only Moral Abortion is my Abortion
nOt In My ChRiStIaN nAtIoN
Hot take. Jesus would be anti child rape and pro abortion.
Jesus would at least take accountability. He would recognize those children not being born is only a result of our ineffectual society and their warped priorities.
Woosh
Who the fuck said we had to choose either?
They did, and pointing that out will (I’m guessing) be met with some form of covering their ears and saying “nah nah nah I can’t hear you.”
I’ve seen the sort. When confronted with the real-world results of their moralizing, they retreat to quoting cherry-picked Bible verses and posting pictures of fetuses (“look how human she looks!”).
Look how human she looks! Unknowingly points at pig fetus
“It was all part of god’s plan for you to have this [pig] baby!”
You know that episode of Futurama where Bender needs an update to be compatible with the new kind of robot, and he ends up living out a fantasy of escaping to an island of discarded robots where he lead an uprising?
There are people who need to be forced to live out their own personal Eraserhead.
Random question but I’m just wondering your position on this. Is the burden of proof on pro-choice or pro-life advocates when it comes to the humanity of a fetus? In other words, should abortion be legal until we can prove that a fetus is human or should it be illegal until we can prove it isn’t? Just genuinely curious.
They’re saying that an incestuous rape baby being born every year is a lesser evil than abortions being legal. They’re wrong, but insofar as they believe that, they’re not going to support a woman’s right to choose.
We can live in a world with neither
We can decrease the amount of evil in the world but we’ll never get rid of it entirely.
Did you not read their post?
How does protecting abortion rights prevent abortions?
I don’t agree with them but at least I understand their position.
Have you not paid attention to the world?
Abortion rights are almost always bundled with women’s rights, medical care and contraception access. As a result, those societies with the easiest access to abortions actually have the lowest amount of abortions than societies that criminalize it. Coincidentally it also has the lowest number of women’s deaths, but I can already guess that you don’t care about that part. They are also societies where it is less likely that a child is raped by her father and forced to give birth at 10, since women’s rights are more ingrained in culture, but I already know that by this point you stopped reading.
Fuck, you didn’t even manage to make it through my comment either.
That’s amazing.
I can only guess what the context here is but to imply that “they’re fine with kids getting raped” is almost definitely an extremely dishonest strawman of what they’re actually trying to say. This type of bad-faith dunking on people you disagree with only makes them dig down their heels even deeper and, I’d argue, is only making things worse.
If I had to steelman their position without knowing full context, I’m assuming that what they’re trying to say is that abortion shouldn’t be legal just because of the comparatively small number of cases where it perhaps would be justified (incest/rape) because it opens the door to a huge number of what they see as unecessary abortions.
If one truly cares about changing minds rather than scoring worthless internet points then you need to take down the foundations - not break the windows. Breaking windows is fun and easy but it doesn’t achieve anything. Listen to what people are saying and challenge their core beliefs.
If I had to steelman their argument I’d wonder if they are properly informed about the very real, well documented physical risks to children from getting pregnant and carrying to term. Death is one option, but long term physical disability due to spinal and hip fractures aren’t unheard of. As well as a long list of other physical and psychological effects I’m not gonna put here.
So what I’m gathering is that this person is either very, VERY uneducated about the physical consequences of childbirth, both for adults and children, and just how frequently children are sexually assaulted.
Either they’re very ignorant, possibly willfully, or they are straight up a troll. Poe’s law makes it increasingly difficult to tell these days. Ignorance can be a temporary state of being, but would they care about medical data? Who knows.
I think the point here is that they’re willing to “sacrifice” a few 10-year-olds if it means saving tens of thousands of other children aborted yearly for what they see as lesser reasons.
Though I don’t agree with their view, if a religious person genuinely believes that life begins at conception and sees no difference between ending the life of a 10-day-old embryo and a 10-year-old child - because they believe both lives are equally valuable - then I can’t entirely fault their reasoning. In this case, the issue lies with their false, unscientific religious beliefs, not necessarily their stance on abortion. If you truly believe that life starts at conception, being against abortion is a perfectly logical position to take.
Eh, not really. In a vacuum, sure, but if a 10-year-old becomes pregnant, then that life is surely suffering, and probably also in danger from the pregnancy. If the pregnancy were to go awry, that could end both lives. If the pregnancy went off without a hitch, then another life has been introduced into a place of suffering.
But the wellbeing of this particular 10-year-old or their child isn’t the point here. If someone believes that life begins at conception and that all life is sacred, then being anti-abortion is a perfectly logical stance. Otherwise, they’d effectively be okay with the act of murdering unwanted children.
A person with this belief might still acknowledge that there are situations where abortion could be justified. However, they may fear that allowing it, even in narrow cases, creates a slippery slope that could lead to thousands of unnecessary abortions.
Religious people literally worship suffering, you won’t convince them with this argument.
Religious people literally worship suffering,
Specifically, Christians. There are plenty of religions that have no problem with abortion (and are against suffering).
Yes, I suppose I should have been specific…
Even ignorong all those risks there’s also simply not being into having children and wanting to live without them.
But you need to understand that to a religious person this is a completely insane thing to say. You can’t simply kill a person just because you don’t want to be inconvenienced by having to take care of them. They see abortion as an equivalent to killing a 3-year-old who refuses to eat their vegetables.
Except these same people very often don’t believe in welfare, socialised medicine, believe in overseas military intervention, etc.
Not that such views are expressed in OP, maybe they’re actually very principled on this matter (e.g. 1 fetus aborted is equal to one Palestinian kid being blown up, or one homeless person dying to exposure). But I’ve pretty much always found these things are a package deal.
I think this also ignores the history of anti-abortion politics. Even for Catholics it’s a relatively recent invention, let alone american protestants, and it always seems to rear its head during fears of demographic decline. The individual (stated) belief follows the political and material circumstances before it.
There have been 0 unnecessary abortions performed on earth. There have been billions of unnecessary rapes. The world would be a better place if we had had more abortions and less rapes.
I’m sure that there have been abortions performed without the consent of the abortee (?) In that case, I would deem them unnecessary. (Although, a much stronger word is more appropriate.)
Im not sure what term to use there either, I think the abortee might be the fetus. Aborter I’m guessing. Although if it was without consent then the aborter may be a staircase or a car crash?
Sometimes people will force their partner to get an abortion, because they don’t want to have to deal with the kid. That’s a quotidian example.
Thats a very subjective statement though. What is a “necessary” abortion? If you define any abortion that the woman wants as necessary, then sure, but there are other perspectives as well.
If it was necessary for someone involved, it was necessary.
You have the same thought process that allows health insurance companies to decline paying for cancer treatments. If they are not involved, not the person or their doctor, why is “necessity” a thing they can make a judgement on? Is the person making that decision an oncologist? Did they provide an alternate treatment plan?
It’s the person asking if the abortion is necessary the woman or their gynecologist? Obstetrician? Yoga instructor? Are they providing an alternate treatment plan?
If it was necessary for someone involved, it was necessary.
This reasoning can be used to justify a whole bunch of acts
Yeah, like most personal freedoms boil down to first party judgements being more valid than 3rd party.
So is the world being a better place. Some people think the world would be a better place if humanity wasn’t here. Some don’t. Some people like turtles, and those who don’t like turtles are wrong.
But even when steelmaning the argument, they deserve to be called out on not even considering a middle ground where 10 year old rape victims are not allowed an abortion. Because “opening up doors” is a too big a cost for them.
I agree to a certain degree, that twisting someone’s pretty shitty argument isn’t helping the discourse. So my response isn’t really directed at you.
Steelmanning an argument doesn’t make it immune to refutation. It just means you’re refuting the strongest possible version. In this case, the argument is so inherently fucked up that even the steelman version is still a “what the fuck?”
I think the point of their argument, not that I agree with them, is that they see any abortion as straight up murder, so in their mind child rape is an acceptable consequence because the alternative is child murder.
That’s why this argument is so pervasive in keeping the masses separated, it’s a choice between the left’s bodily autonomy and the religious right’s believing life starts at conception. Neither side is willing to concede an inch to the other because it’s not an argument where you can compromise.
so in their mind child rape is an acceptable consequence
For what it’s worth, this happens in both scenarios, so to them it’s rape or rape + murder. Which is why the reply is useless
Though like the bible says; all women should have an abortion to prove they are faithful. If the child is the husband’s then god will protect it
If I had to steelman their position without knowing full context, I’m assuming that what they’re trying to say is that abortion shouldn’t be legal just because of the comparatively small number of cases where it perhaps would be justified (incest/rape) because it opens the door to a huge number of what they see as unecessary abortions.
Ok, but on the other hand, I feel like the position of “make all abortions illegal, even though I acknowledge that there are known cases and examples where abortion is justified” is still less reasonable than “make abortion illegal, but make exceptions where abortion is justified”. Like, it would be super easy to have and justify that more nuanced opinion, and it would prevent them from being “dunked on” by people extrapolating their position to “you’re ok with child rape and unnecessary forced pregnancies/births”.
Thank you. Here and in your answers down below you show that you are willing to honestly think about the position the other side has. I greatly appreciate that (in general, not only in regards to this topic) for the reasons you listed above. If you realy want to get trough to another person, taking their position serious and trying to understand it is the first step, that is misses so many times for a trough a way “gotcha” moment nowadays.
I wouldn’t worry about trying to convince zealots. Probably the best you can hope for is changing the minds of third parties watching your debate. Argue for them, not your opponent.
Got it.
You want to require 30,000 kids to be born to parents who don’t want them, just so you can force a 10-year-old victim to birth her rapist’s baby.
You want to require hundreds of loving mothers to endanger their lives by insisting that they continue to carry doomed pregnancies long after doctors have proven the fetus cannot survive and is in excruciating pain even before it is born. Why? So you can force a 10-year-old to bear her rapist’s child?
Go to hell, Kaya.
They all want to ban abortions but they don’t want their tax dollars “wasted” on healthcare for the mother/child, on school lunch programs, on food banks, on welfare for struggling families or bear any responsibility at all for the wellbeing of the child after its born.
Seems to me they don’t care about the children at all in most cases.
No and they’ll admit it. They just want to punish women for having sex.
If men gave birth, abortion would be a sacrament.
I mean, this one specifically cares that a child might not be forced to birth her father-rapist’s baby.
She seems to care quite a bit.
All they care about is punishing “slutty leftist women” for having sex. They’re sure the laws will never negatively impact people they care about, just their enemies.
You missed an important bit. They want the ten year old raped and forced to carry their fathers child every year
I mean after a year the child is no longer 10, so at this point we are scarring a new child every year.
That’s the whole point. These people get off on human suffering.
It doesn’t even stop any other abortions though. It actually increases the number of abortions.
deleted by creator
?
Pocket Reply, my bad.
All good
Here’s a fucked up article about study done in states with abortion restrictions. Around 64,000 babies born from SA in states with abortion restrictions. And somehow we’re the extremists for not wanting that, for wanting all women to have a choice.
I had a friend in college who was a rape baby
Her mother abused and neglected her so badly that she wished she was aborted. There were several suicide attempts. She only still exists because of her step dad.
You aren’t doing these children any favors by forcing them to exist.
Jesús Christ that’s so much more than I thought
Stop self-censorship. You can and should write what these fucks want to hide. Do not help them disguise these facts
SA?
Sexual Assault I assume.
Rape, but everyone censors themselves nowadays because bad words
They’re censoring themselves because .ml censors the words fully if they don’t.
booooo
I hate to say this but babies being found in garbage bins is about to be a fairly regular occurrence.
In the age of DNA, it’s going to be dangerous to do that. We need more of the safe boxes at fire stations. Of course, we also need rights, abortions, contraception, and family planning to be widely available, too.
a person who throws a baby in the trash isn’t one who’s thinking clearly. it’s fear, panic and desperation. deterrents are not going to be a factor.
And we already have a problem with women who have wanted pregnancies having severe mental illness episodes.
If you don’t find the baby, no DNA. So much MUCH darker prospects…
DNA isn’t magic, they still need a suspect to compare against.
Yes, but they have more and more samples to which to compare.
It’s funny that one instance of child rape apologia creates so much more in these comments. There are some real debate lords(/trolls) out here making arguments that would be immediately tossed if faced with a child victim in real life.
We also shouldn’t have to rely on these cases to protect a woman’s inherent right to her body.
An Unborn child isn’t “her body” (Let’s see how you spin this as a “Rape Apology”)
Nothing to spin. It isn’t a child. It’s a fetus. That’s the whole crux of the debate. You think it’s a person, many of us do not. If this argument was the slam dunk you think it is then the entire debate wouldn’t exist.
Are you so arrogant as to think you’ve solved arguably the most challenging and controversial ethics question of the modern era?
It’s using her body so she has every right to remove it in the same way it’s legal to shoot someone who’s on top raping her.
It’s not her body. It’s a parasite
deleted by creator
This gets somehow worse the more carefully I read it.
So, checking my notes, what I’ve got is that…
He wants to stop 30k+ abortions (I assume all abortions, more or less) And for that he’s fine with having the “occasional” rape-incest baby.
Rape because there’s no way for a 10 year old to mentally grasp the responsibility and weight of consent, so even if they said the right words that they consented, which they almost certainly did not, they wouldn’t be properly informed of what they’re consenting to, making the consent completely devoid of any meaning, aka, making it rape.
He values the lives of unwanted potential people, who are little more than parasites sucking life from the mother until they can sustain themselves without the need to leech another lifeform for existence… Above all women, and even child mothers that are victims of incest and rape.
And they see this as the moral choice?
Can we let Luigi go? His job isn’t finished. There’s still a lot of bottom feeding scum around that need to be… Ahem dealt with.
See I like that you acknowledge that they’re possibly people because the entire debate on that is a smokescreen to distract from the fact that people or not they don’t have a right to use the mothers body as life support.
This is a good point. In every other context, nobody is forced to help anyone else.
You’re not forced to give up your kidney because Jimmy over there needs it and you’re the only match. You get to choose whether to help Jimmy.
This is the only context where someone is forced into giving aide to another living thing whether they want to or not.
We have laws against being cruel to animals, and harming our fellow humans, but there are no laws against not helping except for this. That’s an incredibly powerful argument. Thanks.
At some point I wrote an ode to “A Modest Proposal” where I suggest that men be required to provide anatomical gifts to their progeny (blood, skin, and any duplicate organ including eyes) to even out the cost to the mother in the creation of a child. The increased gravity of the gift is evened out by the decreased likelihood- giving a kidney would be harder on the body, but is less likely to be needed.
rapists shouldn’t get a say in their children’s lives. period. at all.
Why do I suspect that they would be okay with 30,000 10 year olds being forced to give birth to their fathers child to prevent 1 abortion?
Now that is a proper strawman
It is if we assign that extreme view to the person, but if not, it’s a great thought experiment to examine their viewpoint. If one incest baby born to a 10-year-old is okay to stop 30,000 abortions, but 30,000 incest babies to stop one abortion is unacceptable, then there’s a threshold in the middle somewhere.
Where’s the line? What’s the ratio of incest babies-to-abortions at which it crosses over from acceptable to not?
What that person meant was basically the difference between left and right or pro and anti abortion:
There right wants to ban abortion for everyone in fear of even 1 abortion that would have been a perfectly fine baby. (Which they would perceive as murder)
The left wants to allow abortions for everyone in fear of even one forced birth leading to a death. A death that was preventable by a abortion.
The right of a baby to live DOES NOT “TRUMP” THE RIGHT OF THE WOMAN TO CHOOSE. End of debate.
They are incredibly different perspectives.
A major problem with abortion on condition of rape is that it motivates false accusations.
It is an evil law supported by people who don’t care about male victims.
Do you have any evidence for that claim?
Fear of reprisal, not wanting to get the offender in trouble or a belief that law enforcement would not help matters prevented most victims of rape from reporting what happened to them, the federal report said.
What’s happening is that people who are experiencing rape are not being allowed to choose abortion,”
“Highly stigmatized life events are hard to measure. And many survivors of sexual violence do not want to disclose that they went through this incredibly stigmatizing traumatic life event,”
Even in states with exceptions for rape, very few people got an abortion—likely because of fear and intimidation, Dickman speculates.
Yeah, it seems to be quite the opposite if I’m reading this correctly. The only ones hurt by the exceptions are the victims themselves, as always.
Dickman speculates.
I would use a penname if it were my job to write about that kind of stuff…
Lamo that’s the real name
That’s pretty much what I expected.
Why not both?
People who have been raped – could be too intimidated, but that doesn’t speak for those who haven’t.
I know that the “false accusation” crowd is vastly overexaggerated, but if you HAD to report a rape to get access to an abortion when you needed one, it could actually cause motivation for it, too.
And then that circles back, people assuming that when you’re reporting a rape it might be a false accusation because you want an abortion.
The only issue I have with that is how this accuses victims without much evidence and distracts from the major harm of these policies. But besides that, yeah, it creates that incentive even if the victims tend not to take advantage and erodes the credibility of victims. It’s so messed up.
Have some Lemmy Gold fellow egalitarian.
Who are they calling ghouls with thoughts like that
What percentage of cases would this even apply to?
Weird and fucking disturbing that you manage to make men out to be the victims here.
The vast majority of rape accusations are, in fact truthful. Like, fucking overwhelmingly so. But, who cares about the ‘females’ right?
Honestly, this is the kinda statement I’d expect from a rapist, simply due to the utterly vile lack of empathy for women.
And besides, who is gonna try make an accusation of rape, even when that is literally what happened, when there is no damn chance of a conviction in time to get the abortion.
You’re fucking weird
Edit: I’m just gonna go ahead and say it: I don’t believe this has ever, or will ever happen. Absolutely no man is getting accused of rape just so the women can get an abortion. Fucking zero. None.
And just how many abortions have been approved so far due to rape? I bet that’s also zero.
Disgusting. Just fucking completely disgusting. There’s are NO MALE VICTIMS TO ANTI ABORTION LAWS. Yeesh
Keep your incel shit to yourself. Fuck
Their point was that incentivising rape allegations as a means to permit an abortion will lead to a non-zero number of instances where false allegations will occur. This is correct. Men weren’t being victimized, and comparing this guy with a rapist is immature and downright disrespectful to victims of rape.
If you are ok with a few more instances of men being falsely accused of rape for the greater good of women, then your thinking is analogous to the person in the original post who was ok with 1 person being raped to stop the killing of thousands of unborn babies.
No. That is a bizarre assumption. No, an allegation is not sufficient for any of these backwards evil laws. And a conviction will never happen in time.
So, bullshit. This will not increase the number of false accusations, which, again, is a fucking tiny percentage.
Women are dying, in horrible agony. Loves are being ruined. And no, even if there was an increase in false accusations, which no there won’t be, but if there were?? I couldn’t care less.
The pathetic and disgusting desire to make this about men is inexcusable. Fuck that bullshit. And, btw, that asshole I replied to sounds like a psychotic fucking abuser. It’s true. So blow me if you don’t like it, I don’t fucking care.
The massive fucking amount of fear, pain, and death inflicted on women by this shit. If your honestly concerned about a complete fucking false danger to men? Go play a rousing game of hide and go fuck yourself.
You really invalidate your position when you state that you wouldn’t even care if more false accusations increase. You are making this a men vs. women issue which is it absolutely not. This tribalism is not only unproductive it’s destructive. I know plenty of informed women who are against abortion and plenty of informed men who favor it.
You have an awful lot of faith in humanity if you think any law won’t get weaponized for evil when possible. But I guess a man wrongfully going to jail for 10-20 years for rape isn’t evil in your eyes, or you have gaslight yourself into believing that men are never victims.
False accusations are, statistically speaking, completely insignificant. You clearly have no idea how stupidly small the percentage is.
Even so, a salary accusation just does compare to the damage caused to the women and children involved. So why the fuck would I care about men put in a situation where they might have to flee to another state or some shit.
Tribalism? What the fuck are you even on about?! I care about the increase in human suffering. Fuck your tribalism bullshit, I didn’t give a shit about the talking heads and echo chambers.
And these laws will be weaponized. And the suffering, pain, and death inflicted on the women and children… Honestly, your entire argument fucking disgusts me to the very core.
The bigotry in your arguments is astounding. Not to mention the hypothetical harm your defending is just utterly asinine. Even if there’s an increase, false accusations still won’t be statistically significant on any level. But, oh my god, think of the poor…manly men??? Fuck that entire idea is stupid
You have no basis for your claim of false rape accusations being statistically insignificant. Only 2-5% of rape cases result in a conviction, which is the only provable statistic that is relevant, which suggests that 95%+ of rape accusations are false (obviously the legal system isn’t 100% just, my point is you have no evidence or basis for your claim).
“I care about the increase in human suffering”. Like I said in my first reply, this is the same argument used in the original post, which everyone in this thread is shitting on. Take a good long look at your morals because they seem to be very extreme and unstable.
Women are dying, in horrible agony.
The answer is no conditions for abortion. Not purely inconsiderate supremacist conditions as a compromise with those who’s vision of natalism is to punish every pregnancy, instead of making families an affordable option to pursue happiness. Conditional permissions and social aid, is a compromise among fascists.
About half of rape allegations reported to police are already false, defined as complainant saying there was no rape after proper police investigation/interrogation. Kanin and others replicated the studies.
Your over the top feminist supremacist hasbara that “only rapist incels can care about the much more violent victimization of men through police detention” should be self censored for obvious evil. Your BS not only directly encourages prosecuting the very high level of false claims made for vengence, attention, or responsibility avoidance, you foster a new policy category of a reward motivation.
About half of rape allegations reported to police are already false
It seems like this number varies from 1% to 70% depending on what measurements you take. Rape is nearly impossible to prove or disprove, as the action usually happens in private and even if there’s DNA evidence, you can just say it was consensual, so I’m not sure how you can get to the matter that any percent are true or false with any certainty.
Maybe the complainant said there was no rape after being intimidated, or deciding that the legal battle isn’t worth it?
