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.
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."
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'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.
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.
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.
No and they’ll admit it. They just want to punish women for having sex.
If men gave birth, abortion would be a sacrament.
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.
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.
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
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.
It doesn't even stop any other abortions though. It actually increases the number of abortions.
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.
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.
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?"
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
There is no rape too vile that I will not accept it as the price of killing people by taking away their healthcare.
Maybe I should put quotes around that. Eh, I bet it won't misused against me.
Also those numbers are going to be way off unless you're counting things like ectopic pregnancies.
It's too bad you think your Invisible Friend in the Sky who created the infinitely complex universe only gave you those two extreme opposite alternatives to choose from.
What a cunt
And the post starts by calling us ghouls, lol.
Epstein didn't kill himself, as evidenced by this mf
"I tell my daughters, 'Well, if rape is inevitable, you should just lie back and enjoy it,'" Regan joked on a Facebook livestream.
"That was a shameful comment," said Amber Harris, a Republican strategist, of Regan's rape remarks. The livestream's host, Adam de Angeli, told WXMI that Regan "misspoke," adding, "Maybe not the best analogy, but he was speaking extemporaneously."
That’s exactly it. When not given carefully prepared speaking points, the right says exactly what they really mean and what they really feel, which in this case is “rape is going to happen to women and they should ‘just enjoy it.’” They want a society like that.
Fuck that piece of trash
That's why I feel very happy to send rapist to prison. I'm sure they will very much enjoy it.
Has he tried taking his own advice?
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.
rapists shouldn't get a say in their children's lives. period. at all.
We have to embrace false dichotomies because the only alternative is cannibalism.
I'm pro-choice, but I feel like the counter here was made in bad faith and there were more meaningful ones to choose from.
Well, they're saying that they're okay with a child giving birth, which is just as bad.
they're fine with child rape. that enough right there disqualifies whatever other opinions they hold. they're wrong.
(i hope) they are a troll, don't engage
The only ghoul in that post is the op and accepting a 10 year old pregnancy proves it
The abortion isn't gonna unrape the girl, just saying
Rightists are powerless against their own mental degeneracy, it’s hard-coded in the sewage that is their DNA
In my country:
- the payment for all the exams done during the pregnancy cost €0
- The delivery itself costs €0
- if the woman was working, will continue to get full salary until the baby is 5 months old (can opt for longer but then the salary is reduced)
- The government will pay to the parent a monthly check of some hundreds euro (according to the income)
- Preschool is free (although need to pay canteen fees)
I'm guessing the poster is from that country where if you aren't insured you're going to pay 20k for the delivery and then you're going to financially struggle until the end, right?
In that country people is choosing abortion not because having a baby is unaffordable, but only because they're evil monsters
Wait, did I misunderstood the comment or is it anti abortion?
No, it's to point out that this "anti abortion" policy is all about punishing those whores that had sex outside wedding, as if it's something you do alone and not with a man.
If they really care about minimizing the abortion rate, they should enact policies that help the woman after birth, and not give decades of financial struggles as "punishment for having fun that night"
Personally, I am pro-"let the people do what the fuck they want with their bodies"
The original comment is creepy but the response is nonsense. Are you, the reader of my comment, doing everything possible to prevent rape? Really, everything? Do you ever sleep? Well then, what a weird way of saying you're ok with rape.
Shut up, trash mouth. Think before you speak.
Huh.
Are you doing, um, anything to even help? I doubt it.
Besides, what a pants a fire level of stupid you're putting on display. Since I sleep, I'm also ok with rape?
What the fuck ever. Weirdo.
You have a point, but you chose the wrong argument. Drag disagrees with you, but wants to see people discuss the best version of your argument, so:
As long as giving birth is legal, then rape victims will give birth to rape babies. They'll be pressured into it, or lack education, or develop an attachment to the baby. If we as a society have decided rape babies should never be born, and there is no acceptable circumstance, then we should simply outlaw giving birth. If it's illegal to have a baby, there will be no rape babies. This is the only way to stop all of them.
If you think making birth illegal is a bad idea, because you think restricting everyone's liberty is worse than letting rape victims give birth to rape babies, then there is a situation where you think rape babies are an acceptable sacrifice. This isn't a judgement, it's just a point about the reply in the image. Everyone is willing to accept rape babies in some situations. The reply is hypocrisy.
This reads like mental gymnastics to blame everyone but rapists for this problem. Obviously the victim should have the right to choose what to do like they should be able to if they have sex with someone, and me saying that doesn't make me "okay with rape" or "okay with rape babies". The comment you're replying to is a shit take and I don't get why you would take the time to try to rewrite it in order to defend it.
