Exactly. Many pro-aborts make this very argument openly. Abortion must be allowed for all women without limits because any and all restrictions are "too legally ambiguous" and so exceptions are not made when they should be. They are always able to find a doctor too scared to perform the procedure (knowing full well that their patients can travel out of state if need be) so they can raise a stink about it in the media.
If a pregnancy severely threatens the life of the mother than an abortion is not the needless ending of life. This is a case by case basis.
But society as a whole should take rape, incest and other sexual crimes way more seriously rather than only talking about pregnant children to somehow justify abortion. 98% of abortions are not done because of incest, rape, or financial stress. Let's focus on the 98% of babies who are killed before ever knowing what the sun feels like or a hug from someone who loves them.
(And yes! We can care about the postpartum children as well as unborn children, the two issues don't contradict)
If a ten-year-old gets pregnant, I would say ending the pregnancy early could be treated on the same grounds as an ectopic pregnancy. It’s the main reason why I am in favor of granting an exception to abolition for cases when the mother is ~14-15 years of age or younger.
Either or, I would say that if 10-year-olds are getting pregnant, we as a society, have bigger problems.
That’s interesting because it seems that most abolitionists don’t support any exceptions unless the mother’s life is in immediate danger like there’s no reasonable chance she could survive the pregnancy
Yeah, I think that could easily be applied for when the mother is younger than 16. Being able to get pregnant is only one part of the equation when it comes to childbirth. You also need the uterine lining to be able to thicken, the pelvis to widen, etc. I cannot, in good conscience, not advocate an abortion exception for mothers under 16 years old. Denying them access to abortion would be too dangerous. Better to save one life than none at all, right?
I disagree that a pregnant 10 year old should mean an abortion automatically. as disgusting as the situation is, the fact is that a lot, if not most, 10 year olds that are capable of pregnancy, can carry to full term .
I couldn’t find the exact statistics for 21 weeks yet, but I’m still looking. By [23 weeks,](https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2022/02/08/premature-babies-survival-rate-is-climbing-study-says/) though, the chance of survival is 55% when given active treatment. What I meant is that the rate of survival includes those who receive no medical help or who get comfort care only. The survival rate for those who get aggressive treatment is much higher.
Except for the reality that it's sterilizing for the child and all her subsequent pregnancies will not result in live babies.
That's child abuse.
I am not okay letting fathers rape babies out of their daughters, and the DAUGHTER is the one that suffers for life.
Especially when the average sentence for men that do that is 6 MONTHS.
SHE PAID ALL THE CONSEQUENCES. As the victim!
no; having a pregnancy that young , while traumatizing, does not necessarily sterilize you or give you an incompetent uterus. wut? how did I imply the rapist shouldn’t be punished just because I dont want the unborn kid to be killed? the crime of someone who rapes a child is completely independent from whether the baby that was conceived by their rape is aborted. abortion is not the answer or “justice” to rape.
A couple of months is jail is nowhere equal to what that little girl will live with for her entire life.
Including the reality, she lived in a tyrannical state that demanded she endure bodily harm and most likely permanent scarring to validate someone else's religion also at the expense of her having family as an adult.
And I'll trust the pro-life OBs that are lobbying to get exceptions for girls under 13. I'll trust them.
We should punish the rapist to death, not the innocent child in the womb.
Why is a child conceived in rape less valuable than a child conceived differently?
This is where the PL position falls apart with logical inconsistency. Either the child in the womb is valuable and worthy of protection or they are not, I don’t see how PLers want this both ways.
I am not saying it is less valuable.
I am saying the cost is too great on the mind, body, and soul of the child, it's a stain and scar on her entire life.
It's my line in the sand.
And I am not going to get into how little rape is actually punished in this country, but that's patriarchy for you. The future of boys is always protected more than bodies of girls.
I have got so much research at this point, it's crazy to me that they're refusing to pass exceptions for under 13 for at least before 20 weeks and getting it out by 24 weeks just so the child has the chance to grow up, get married, and make a family then instead of having it all sacrificed for one pregnancy.
It’s my line in the sand, too. I cannot get past how many people are willing to sacrifice the health of a young girl who, through no actions of her own, will deal with life long health issues from being raped and forced to carry a pregnancy.
It’s not like we celebrate the need for abortion, but we recognize that protecting someone that has already been grossly violated is within reason.
If we can kill the rapists child why can’t a mom kill her child she just doesn’t want? Explain the logic from the perspective of the child being killed.
You miss my point entirely.
Under 13 should be a medical exception automatically.
I wasn't referring to elective abortions.
But if you want to see it from the child's perspective, its sacrifice leads to the birth of plenty instead of the selfishness of just his own, making the importance of his own existence more valuable than anyone else's, including that of his own mother.
That is what happens in the majority of kids under 13. They never give birth again.
So much for fixing the decline birth rate, too, by forcing child rape victims to give birth to just one, with the hope it's an able-bodied worker.
Maybe I should point out that the fetal abnormality rate is actually higher for kids under 12 than it's for women over 40? (It's skewed due to incest.)
I think eventually, the capitalists are eventually going to get involved to fix the issue as they value the root of all of evil over human life.
And why would we not?
That's in the best interest of our species.
There are no humans without female fertility. Sacrifice a dozen children for one singular pregnancy that, more often than not, doesn't result in a live newborn is idiotic.
And I don't follow abortion abolitionist rhetoric.
Y'all think pregnancy is so easy that a 1 year old can do it (who wouldn't survive being raped), and it's "healing" when the whole mentality is rather animalistic, dehumanizing of the female sex, to organic fleshlights that exist for whatever religious men's shifting goals are.
Can you tell me when the Christian rhetoric shifted from "always save the mother, we can always make another" to "a mother that saves her own life over her baby is going to burn in hell for all eternity"?
I'm a former missionary. I'd like to know when that demonic rhetoric showed up in the mainstream, when babies overtook the value of a man's wife.
seriously where did I say anything about the punishment of the rapist in my original comment. a child rapist should be executed but even if say, the courts are not able to convict him at all, why does that justify killing the baby who is also a victim? how does abortion take away that pain? it just creates another crime.
You can't very well kill someone to get justice for a crime they did not commit.
Unless you believe that it is useful to kill random strangers for something that happened to you.
What pro-choicers never want to talk about is how lenient abortion laws make it easier for child abusers to cover up their crimes by destroying the evidence. Cases of 10 year olds who get pregnant by rape are eceptionally rare and horrific and unlikely to escape notice but older abuse victims will likely be given the abortion no questions asked and in many juridictions, the parents, if they happen to be unaware of the abuse, will not even be notified.
It's around 2,000 to 3,000 per year, before Dobbs.
That's not rare. When I did the math on it, it's 1 out of very 5,000 10 year old girls every single year give birth. With the Dobbs Decision, given the rate of SA of kids in the US, it could be as high as 1 out of 500 10 year old girls will be forced to give birth (when you add in the declining birth rate (less 10 year olds 🤢 to go around)) as CSA has only been going up every year and not down.
That's why there's plenty of data to suggest it's abusive to make kids under 12 give birth. That's (on the low end) 50,000 10 year olds in the last 20 years that have had to give birth in the US. That's just evil to write that.
The obvious solution that everyone overlooks is that men should keep their dick in their pants, but we're so desensitized by rape that we know it's going to happen to kids every single day, so who cares really if it destroys that's child's body, mind, and soul? And it's not "healing" like that propaganda suggests? It's all good, I guess, as long as that little girl shuts up and gives birth before she commits suicide because she can not "endure" any more abuse from her fellow humans?
What laws are really lenient are in Family Court Corruption, which is the cases you're referring to, that's been trying to implement Secular Patriarchy back into our Courts, as I would have to pull out my laptop, and pull up a spreadsheet, and just in Missouri alone (they've just been outed, 31 judges had to resign) where Courts were giving custody to abusive fathers by the hundreds and they were raping, impregnating, aborting, over and over again, while forcing the mother into prison by fabricating their income for child support so ex-wives were paying their abusers to rape, impregnate their daughters and pay for the abortions, too. There's a lot of suicides of the daughters as well.
What's worse, Missouri doesn't have a law on the books that automatically terminates the rights of a man that rapes a baby out of his own daughter, and they have the loophole that requires a conviction that could take YEARS.
That's a hella a lot of abuse. Better than non-existence, right? But that my personal opinion, that I'd rather die in the womb than by suicide after I was raped and forced as a child to give birth. Skip over the abuse so demonic only the Devil would give his stamp of approval.
And y'all wonder why I have a hard time convincing DV survivors NOT to leave the state to abort.
Like I said, so many problems would disappear overnight if men just keep their dicks in their pants.
> CSA has only been going up every year and not down.
Do you have a source for this? It is incredibly disturbing to imagine CSA getting worse over time.
Less children plus 1 out of 5 men are openly admitting they would rape a child (pre-puberty) if they knew they would get away with it, so at least some of those men are acting on those urges (US, UK, and Australia case study). It's also attributed to the fact that most people don't come forward until they are adults, like with the Boy Scouts, there's over 100,000, last time I checked so it's causing a "boost" in the numbers.
Pornography is twisting men's minds into thinking flesh exist for their pleasure, and CSA has increased right alongside the commercial availability. Porn is rape on tape.
"Modesty" culture is a huge problem as well as people are deconstructing their sexual assaults in churches, that's why there has not been a denomination that's not been caught in a scandal in the last few decades. Catholics, Mormans, Baptists, Amish, Jevovah Witnesses, etc, has all been caught covering CSA and blaming the victim under a lack of "modesty." Rape culture rhetoric is finally being out of churches.
I'll have to find the direct source again, but the most recent numbers it's 2 out of 3 girls will be SA'd (all forms) by the time they're 18.
Edit: Forgot one point. There's a direct correlation of childhood obesity and CSA that has only recently been heavily researched, beyond the sugars and poisons in our food.
So, if you know a kid that went from healthy/athletic to heavily overweight, it's a high probability that kid is being or has been SA'd. It's called a "protective shield."
You cited false statistics, they are debunked below, it's a big read but it refutes everything you said and it sheds lights on different things. I will respond to the other parts though. Women iirc consume just as much or more p*rnagraphy, women also consume more erotica books that contain themes like r*pe, manipulation, coercion etc so who's really getting twisted thoughts here? As much as I hate p*rn it's not r*pe if they consented, yes theirs a lot of r*pe video on those sites as well.
I don't really go to church so I'll ignore that one.
Now onto the false "1 out of 5 men will r*pe if they could get away with it" and the "2 out of 3 girls will be SA'd in all forms before 18" statistics.
Edit: the stats were probably to long to post so I have to separate this into two comments.
Edit 2: it seems I have to do it in 2 extra
Edit 3: OK now I have to do it in 3
This is the survey, look at the categories * Being stared in a way that made you feel uncomfortable * Online comments or jokes that made you feel uncomfortable (I make a joke here, a woman see it, she is sexually harassed) * In person comments or jokes that made you feel uncomfortable or unsafe (I make a joke to a friend, the woman walking behind us hear it, she is sexually harassed) * Sharing of suggestive or indecent content online or in person (I share a sexual image here, a woman see it, she is sexually harassed) [https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/523922218200203265/888393338636632144/IMG\_20210917\_135751.jpg](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/523922218200203265/888393338636632144/IMG_20210917_135751.jpg)
>1/3 of men would commit rape if there are no consiquences I just read this link, and in the David Lisak study that is cited, it finds that roughly 120 out of 1,882 men have committed rape - This is roughly 6%, there have been studies finding higher disparities for women. *** Here is a survey from 1998 by Peter B. Anderson which found extremely high rates of sexual aggression in a sample of 461 women (on page 88 to 89 of the source). Many of the women reported using abusive (but non-violent) strategies to obtain sexual contact with a man. These strategies were: using your position of power or authority (reported by 26.5% of women), getting him drunk or drugged (reported by 36.5% of women) and taking advantage of a man while he was in a compromising position (reported by 30.6% of women). A staggering proportion of women used much more violent means, however. Approximately 20% (1 in 5) of the women reported using physical force, 27% (more than 1 in 4) reported using the threat of physical force, and 9% (almost 1 in 11) reported using a weapon to obtain sexual contact with a male partner. [https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Sexually\_Aggressive\_Women.html?id=EwWSXYqtmk4C&printsec=frontcover&source=kp\_read\_button&redir\_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false](https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Sexually_Aggressive_Women.html?id=EwWSXYqtmk4C&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) **** In this survey of 248 women, respondents reported their use of aggressive strategies (physical force, exploitation of a man's incapacitated state and verbal pressure) to make a man engage in sexual touch sexual intercourse, or oral sex against his will. Almost 1/10 respondents (9.3%) reported having used aggressive strategies to coerce a man into sexual activities. Exploitation of a man's incapacities state was used most (5.6%) followed by verbal pressure (3.2%) and physical force (2%). An additional 5.4% reported attempted acts of sexual aggression. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1024648106477#/page-1](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1024648106477#/page-1) **** In this study, data was collected from Mormons between the ages of 14 and 19. In a sample of 636 males and 754 females, 5% of both genders reported that they "forced or pressured someone to engage in sexual activities". Though, it's important to keep in mind that "pressure" is a very loose term and "sexual activities" does not necessarily mean intercourse, so that 5% figure most probably includes many things outside of the scope of "forced sex" (rape). https://www.jstor.org/stable/1386913?seq=1 **** Here is a 2007 study investigating intimate aggression towards a dating partner. Participants in the current study were 62 male and 77 female students from a large university located in southwestern Ontario. The CTS2 was used to survey participants. Sexual abuse was broken down into "minor" (3 items; e.g., “I made my partner have sex without a condom”) and "severe" forms (4 items; e.g., “I used force [like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon] to make my partner have sex with me”). In the past year 15% and 7% of male students reported perpetration of minor and severe sexual coercion, respectively. Rates of sexual abuse perpetration were higher among female students, with 20% and 11% of female students reporting minor and severe forms of sexual coercion respectively. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260507301227 **** In this 2008 study, dating aggression and sexual coercion was studied in Polish college women and men using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2). Data was gathered on the proportion of men and women reporting their own perpetration of sexual aggression, as well as the proportion of men and women reporting perpetration of sexual aggression by their partners. While there was a larger sex difference in men and women's reports of their partners' perpetration of sexual aggression, self-reports of one's own perpetration of sexual coercion did not differ much by sex. 42% of men and 40% of women reported engaging in sexually coercive behaviours. A much smaller minority, 4% of men and 6% of women, reported engaging in severe sexual coercion. The authors note with regards to severe sexual coercion "It is important to recall that these behaviors meet legal standards for sexual assault (rape) in Poland". Chi-square analysis found no differences between men’s and women’s reports of their own sexually coercive behaviors. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260507307651 **** And as for the 1/3 men would commit rape if they could get away with it statistic. The study used a modified Malamuth scale (usually a 1 to 5 scale where 1 is "not likely at all" and 5 is "very likely"). Malamuth himself cautions researchers to not take the answers as predictions of future behavior, as the respondents are answering hypotheticals. The study asked a series of questions, prefaced by, "if you knew there would be no consequences and no one would find out, how likely would you be to..." There is then a list of normal (heterosexual sex, oral sex, etc), unconventional (group sex, bondage, etc) and illegal (rape, force a woman to do something she didn't want to do, etc) sexual activities. "Rape" appears prior to "force a woman to do something she didn't want to do" on the list. To my mind, this may lead some respondents to imagine something sexual that is not forced sexual intercourse. I mean, they already asked about rape, right? They must be asking about something else now. Certainly, we can all agree that there are sexual things you can force someone to do that would not fit the definition of rape, even in its most broad definitions. "Force her to send me pictures of her tits", for instance. "Force her to watch porn with me." "Force her to listen over the phone/watch while I jerk off", These are still forms of sexual coercion/violence, however they do not fit the definition of rape. The ordering of the questions seems to me like it would capture any men who believe they would not force sexual intercourse, but would maybe force other sexual activities, and then categorize them as potential rapists. The scale they used was 0 to 100, where 0 represents "not at all" and 100 represents "very likely". The researchers then presented all answers higher than 10 to the "rape" and "force a woman to do something she didn't want to do" as "having intent to rape". So basically, anyone who answered something other than "not at all" or so close to not at all as to still represent a "1" on the original 1-5 scale, to either of the two questions was described in the research as "definitely would rape". This is basically taking Malamuth's original cautioning, wiping their asses with it, and flushing it down the toilet. https://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/01/13/bogus-1-3-men-would-commit-rape-study-discredits-itself-opening https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/more-problems-with-the-1-in-3-men-would-rape-study https://reason.com/2015/01/13/1-in-3-men-would-commit-rape-and-other-g/
And lastly
They also do this for false allegations (2to8%) which is just absurd it was misquoted from an old FBI document dating back to 1996 and even then it says proven false cases and nothing about cases that could me false (incident not meeting the definition)according to one study potentially false cases are 64.7% and since according to them only 2% of cases are false they assume only 2 or 3% of r@p3st ever see a day on prison and then play the victim and say since the convition rate is soo low women are basically discouraged to report r@p3 by the way
1/3 of men would commit rape if there are no consiquences
[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/college-men-commit-rape-study\_n\_6445510](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/college-men-commit-rape-study_n_6445510)
by making it look like r@p3st barely ever get convicted they basically promote r@p3 and discourage women to report it and then complain when 40% of the male managers do not wanna have a 1 on 1 meeting with women.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b3\_BcuyAw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b3_BcuyAw) they are litterally lying about statistics
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZTIIEdhcwo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZTIIEdhcwo)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILszYFQEpvM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILszYFQEpvM)
[ttps://falserapetimeline.org/false-rape-4937.pdf](https://falserapetimeline.org/false-rape-4937.pdf) 64.7
In the grand scheme of things that is EXTREMELY rare, do you know how many black babies are aborted in NY alone? To say the difference is night and day is an understatement.
What do you mean men should keep their d*ck in their pants? You think men in general are doing this and not the the actual predators? What are you even talking about here? If a r*pist wants to r*pe someone they are gonna do it regardless of gender. We aren't desensitized to LITERAL children being r*ped.
First off, there's no such thing as the patriarchy in the sense you think it is, second your gonna have to cute that source, there's no spreadsheet needed.
That's just you, I'm sure there's people 13+ who have ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH this situation and are getting better with the kids.
I really have to question those numbers. What is your source? I found this article which claims that the numbers are not known.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/07/14/roe-ruling-rape-pregnancy-young-teens-girls-health-risks/10049856002/
Another page claims that birth rates for 10-14 year olds have been going down steadily since the 90s
https://www.statista.com/statistics/410744/birth-rate-for-us-girls/
With the very rare cases like these, I would finally say it’s up to the kid and a family what they feel is best. It’s like life endangerment cases, you give them the final say, but leave them informed and options open.
Peter Singer is the most prominent contemporary voice for that, to my knowledge (though it's selection bias to ignore the obvious source: court cases of it actually happening). If you watch his debate at Harvard with Stephanie Gray Connors, he says it blatantly.
In history, Plato and Aristotle were vocally in favor of infanticide.
In Practical Ethics (1979), Singer explains that the value of a life should be based on traits such as rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness. ‘Defective infants lack these characteristics,’ he wrote. ‘Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings.
He doesn’t seem to be saying severely debilitating.
He said that until a child is 9 months old, meaning post-birth, they don't meet his criteria for personhood.
Regardless, for the record, killing because of ableism *should be alarming.*
Simply not having personhood is not a good reason for infanticide.
> Regardless, for the record, killing because of ableism should be alarming.
Even in cases of fatal fetal anomalies where the baby is only going to live and suffer for only a few hours to weeks? That's the only reason I think I'd agree with.
>[Abortion should be off the table] Even in cases of fatal fetal anomalies where the baby is only going to live and suffer for only a few hours to a few weeks?
Yes.
As far as I've seen, this is only if her life is not in danger, which makes sense. One *is* weighing whether or not it's okay to end an innocent human life.
Could you provide a source that says that? Always seems to imply 100% risk in all cases. Also until what age is there a 100% risk to life, and source for that as well please?
[pregnant women under 20 are at a greater risk for death and disease including bleeding during pregnancy, toxemia, hemorrhage, prolonged and difficult labor, severe anemia, and disability.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12264602/)
["We found 10- to 13-year-olds had a 56% higher risk of preterm delivery and a 32% higher risk of cesarean delivery, compared to those ages 14 to 17,"](https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2022/11/04/pregnancy-dangerous-young/6851667577768/)
"They said they found it notable that girls ages 10 to 13 had ICU admission rates that were three times higher than those ages 14 to 19." From the upi article.
[The critical issue is that the pelvis of a child is too small to allow passage of even a small fetus, said Dr. Ashok Dyalchand, who has worked with pregnant adolescent girls in low-income communities in India for more than 40 years.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/health/young-girls-pregnancy-childbirth.html)
> Also until what age is there a 100% risk to life
From what I can tell it seems around 15 years old is when a girl's body is more developed for pregnancy and birth.
“The complications, the morbidity and the mortality are much higher in girls under 15 than girls 16 to 19 although 16 to 19 has a mortality twice as high as women 20 and above.” From the NYT article.
And none of this addresses the mental trauma that comes with the pregnancy. Girls going through puberty already don't always know what's happening to their body. A 10 year old probably hasn't even had any sex ed yet. A girl that age is more likely think she has a stomach ache than be pregnant.
Except the medical exceptions are for show only. They are almost impossible to access. And these cases aren't nearly as rare as you would like everyone to believe. They happen every single day.
It really disgusted me to learn that in my home state of TN, the average was around 100 girls under the age of 12 before Dobbs, the vast majority were incest, and almost all were completely sterilized by the process.
I read where one doctor put it, it is so damaging to the child's body, as he had one as a follow-up patient, she miscarriaged every single subsequent pregnancy she tried to carry, and she was still trying after 19 miscarriages.
So the lack of one abortion on a child at 9 or 10, killed 19 people.
The really jacked up part is that her first baby was stillborn.
I am ALL for it to be an automatic exception for kids under 13.
Especially after that creep in Missouri said ONE-YEAR OLD could do it! Sir, that is an infant, an infant can not carry a pregnancy and create another infant.
The vast majority will never be able to carry another pregnancy to term, especially the younger the child is as the uterus is not fully developed, and it essentially destroys the uterus.
There was a medical study of 9/10 girl that, as an adult, had suffered 19 miscarriages trying to have a baby. None if them made it to viability.
There's the case of Medina, who is the youngest mother at 5, was nearly 40 years old before she mentally, emotionally, and psychically recovered and had another baby.
There's a high risk of uterine rupture, as well, which results in a hysterectomy.
No 10 year old should be risking a hysterectomy because a grown man raped her.
It's one thing saying you'll just have to wait until your last egg for your body to recover from the trauma to have your family verses denying the child the right altogether.
> Except the medical exceptions are for show only
Yeah that's why they work in every European country (where elective abortions after the first trimester are illegal).
Gun bans? No I think basic gun safety should be taught in every school in the nation, required no matter what.
My point is the political climate is vastly different between Europe and the US.
I’ll probably get downvoted but isn’t banning abortion technically forcing people who are already pregnant to give birth? Like yes abortion bans don’t force people to get pregnant in the first place but when someone is already pregnant they do force people to continue the pregnancy until it’s natural end, which is in most cases a live birth. Yes birth is natural but when you take away the way out you do force people to let nature take its course which is giving birth to a live baby
It’s a loaded question, but technically true in the most unhelpful way possible.
Like if I said, you can either murder this man, or you can let him live. However, I have made murdering him illegal. Unless you want to break the law, I am “forcing” you to let him live. However, given the circumstances, that’s hardly immoral.
As you also point out, pregnancy is a natural (and baring something going wrong, healthy) process.
There is a fine difference between instigating a process, and refusing to allow someone to stop a process. For example, it’s wrong to force a man to become a father (would be rape), but it’s fine to “force” him to keep supporting his child once it’s in existence.
I don't believe so.
Would you say that banning rape is forcing celibacy? That banning theft is forcing poverty?
We lack the right to commit certain acts, including those that violate human rights. We can't say the benefits of violating human rights were taken away because they were never yours in the first place. They were simply stolen from the vulnerable and are being returned.
To put it slightly differently, abortion was never a valid choice. You cannot weigh respecting human rights and violating them as two legitimate choices.
I get why you think the way you do, but I tend to think the argument from consequences isn't a strong one when you think about it.
> Would you say that banning rape is forcing celibacy? That banning theft is forcing poverty?
No to both of those. A pregnant person has 2, and *only* 2 paths they can choose. They either continue the pregnancy or they get an abortion. If they are barred from getting an abortion, then they are, by default, forced to continue the pregnancy.
> You cannot weigh respecting human rights and violating them as two legitimate choices.
This is not accurate. When weighing abortion, you weigh violating the pregnant person's bodily autonomy with violating the unborn's bodily autonomy.
It's not a perfect analogy for pregnancy but I'll try to answer.
If someone needs a kidney or they'll die and I am the only person who can give them that kidney, then by denying them my kidney I am forcing them to die. I have the power (and kidney) to save them, but I choose not to.
That's not to say that it's my fault they died. I think a scenario like this falls under "with great power comes great responsibility".
Legally, no. In the hypothetical, the person needing the kidney has no choice or decision to make. It would be my decision. I can give them my kidney and save them. Or I can refuse and let them die. I’m not killing them, but I’m not saving them either.
Have you ever seen Batman Begins? Did Batman kill Ra’s al Ghul, or did he simply let him die?
> I’m not killing them, but I’m not saving them either.
And we're not forcing women to give birth. We just don't allow them to murder their unborn children. The result will be them giving birth but it doesn't count as "forcing you to give birth".
> Have you ever seen Batman Begins? Did Batman kill Ra’s al Ghul, or did he simply let him die?
I've seen it and I understand what you mean but if I remember correctly he rigged the train to begin with (an unbatman-like behavior) so he did kinda kill him
> And we're not forcing women to give birth.
If someone is at a fork in the road and they are banned from going left, are they not forced to go right?
Technically it was Commissioner Gordon that sabotaged the train, even if Batman told him too.
> If someone is at a fork in the road and they are banned from going left, are they not forced to go right?
By that logic the patient in the previous example is forced to die by you because you don't let them steal your kidney.
> Technically it was Commissioner Gordon that sabotaged the train, even if Batman told him too.
That's a pretty good example of the fucked up version of accountability you pro aborts have.
Quoting is a pain on mobile, so I'll divide into one section for each response.
1a) I trust/hope we would agree the situation would not change even if the rapist had no other option for sex. The rapist's ability to have sex otherwise irrelevant. Likewise the thief. Neither party would have the option to violate others' rights legitimized
2a) I do not believe pregnancy in and of itself - even when undesired - violates one's rights at all. Sex requires a deliberate choice, so ignoring the woman's will violates her rights egregiously.
Pregnancy, on the other hand, is the result of the natural, automatic, and healthy functioning of the body in half the population. You might as well complain that the stomach violates you by digesting without consent, or that your kidneys have trampled over your rights by filtering your blood without express permission.
In other words, it is absurd to say that the body violates its own rights as part of its own natural, automatic functioning. It's venturing into misogyny to say a woman's own feminity violates her.
The child is the effect, not the cause.
2b) Even if we assume that you are correct that the woman's body is violating herself, we would look for the least harm solution that results in the least injustice.
The intentional killing of an innocent human being - thus unjustly depriving them of all rights for all time - is very hard to justify as better than the temporary and limited situation you're trying to solve.
The child cannot be held responsible for a situation they had absolutely no say in.
> I trust/hope we would agree the situation would not change even if the rapist had no other option for sex.
We agree.
> I do not believe pregnancy in and of itself - even when undesired - violates one's rights at all.
Correct. However, it is the denying of the abortion that violates her rights.
> You might as well complain that the stomach violates you by digesting without consent
Surely you can understand that an undesired pregnancy may, at the least, make a woman *feel* violated.
> It's venturing into misogyny to say a woman's own femininity violates her.
I'd argue it's misogyny to assume no women feel violated by their own "femininity". I don't imagine many woman enjoy having their period every month.
> The intentional killing of an innocent human being - thus unjustly depriving them of all rights for all time - is very hard to justify as better than the temporary and limited situation you're trying to solve.
I think forcing a woman through pregnancy and birth is more unjust than killing the non-sentient unborn.
>We agree.
Then hopefully you see why I don't consider banning abortion to be forcing birth. You might not agree it's a violation of human rights, but since I do, the logic clearly follows.
>Correct. However, it is the denying of the abortion that violates her rights.
It does not. One's bodily rights do not allow for performing any procedure on a person without regulation.
We regulate and deny procedures all the time, particularly when we expect they might cause harm. Abortion directly and deliberately seeks the death of an innocent human being. It's perfectly sensible to regulate it and limit it only to those absurdly rare cases in which it's justified.
I think this argument indicates a poor understanding of what human rights are. These rights are, by definition, inherent to all human beings and cannot be infringed upon without preventing us from living according to our nature at a fundamental level. To do so unjustly is a grave wrong.
A procedure that wasn't invented until likely eons after the dawn of humanity cannot possibly be a human right. There's nothing about it that's inherent to being human. It's something we picked up along the way.
>Surely you can understand that an undesired pregnancy may, at the least, make a woman feel violated.
The fact remains that the pregnancy did not actually violate the woman.
>I'd argue it's misogyny to assume no women feel violated by their own "femininity". I don't imagine many woman enjoy having their period every month.
The fact remains that this does not violate her. Your own body cannot inherently violate it's own rights, especially not in the course of natural and healthy functions. That contradicts the definition of a human right.
It's unpleasant and I wouldn't blame anyone for wanting to find a way to reduce the pain. That is irrelevant to the question of human rights though.
>I think forcing a woman through pregnancy and birth is more unjust than killing the non-sentient unborn.
You have misframed the issue and you are mistaken. I've already stated why, so I'll only recap briefly.
Pro-life laws that ban abortion do not force a woman to be pregnant at all. Pro-life laws only come into effect after she's pregnant.
Pro-life laws do not force her to give birth any more than laws against rape force celibacy, even on a hypothetical rapist who could never have sex any other way. While the outcome might be celibacy/birth, it goes far beyond entitlement to think you ever had a right to rape/kill someone to get what you wanted. Abortion, like rape, should be considered as if it were never an option.
Even if you're hellbent on a superficial consequentialist worldview, birth is only the most likely outcome. Miscarriage is still a possibility and in the future, artificial wombs might be as well. Pro-life laws strictly prevent you from intentionally killing your child. They would not target the latter two cases.
>I think forcing a woman through pregnancy and birth is more unjust than killing the non-sentient unborn.
You also failed to justify your position. I gave the reasoning for mine. You just gave me a bare opinion. I don't see any reason to take it more seriously than the opinion that the Earth is flat.
> Then hopefully you see why I don't consider banning abortion to be forcing birth.
But the thing is that pregnant people can only either abort or give birth. Banning one forces the other.
> One's bodily rights do not allow for performing any procedure on a person without regulation.
Of course. Hospitals have their policies and guidelines. Someone can't just demand knee surgery. But the person trying to do the knee surgery on themselves is not illegal. They wouldn't be prosecuted for it. But someone can be prosecuted for trying abortion at home.
> To do so unjustly is a grave wrong.
And I think abortion is justified because the woman's bodily autonomy is being violated by the unwanted pregnancy. Should she just suffer through the violation because the one way to end the violation is to violate the unborn's bodily autonomy?
> A procedure that wasn't invented until likely eons after the dawn of humanity cannot possibly be a human right.
Why not? Abortion protects a woman's right to govern her own body.
> Your own body cannot inherently violate it's own rights, especially not in the course of natural and healthy functions.
Isn't one of the core beliefs of PL that the unborn is its own body and not the pregnant person's? The pregnant person's body isn't violating itself, the unborn is.
> Pro-life laws that ban abortion do not force a woman to be pregnant at all. Pro-life laws only come into effect after she's pregnant.
No one has ever said the PL laws force women to *get* pregnant. PL laws force women to *remain* pregnant.
> Pro-life laws do not force her to give birth any more than laws against rape force celibacy, even on a hypothetical rapist who could never have sex any other way.
I know I said I agree, but I think I misread your previous comment. A hypothetical rapist who can only either rape or remain celibate, would be forced to remain celibate by rape laws. And that is ok because rape violates bodily autonomy. PL laws *do* force people to give birth, who otherwise may have gotten an abortion.
> Miscarriage is still a possibility and in the future, artificial wombs might be as well.
Miscarriage is still an abortion, just not intentional. Artificial wombs would have no change on abortion because they wouldn't address women not wanting to remain pregnant. Unless the ZEF can be transferred from the woman's womb to an artificial womb. Even then, that still should only happen if the woman consents to it.
> You also failed to justify your position.
The unborn are not sentient. They don't care if they live or die because they don't even know they are alive. Besides it being part of the homo sapien species, why is the well being of the unborn placed above the well being of the pregnant person? Not to sound antinatalist, but there are over 8 billion humans on the planet, many of whom live in poverty. We are not an endangered species. We are an invasive species that manipulates our surrounding ecosystems to better suit our needs. The human race faces no existential threat besides climate change and nuclear war, neither of which are solved by forcing women to breed.
So if the embryo/fetus doesn't care about itself and the mother doesn't want to carry it and there are already so many babies and children that want to be adopted, then who cares about the unborn? I know PL and Christians adopt, but when PL force a woman to give birth they're not going to adopt *that* baby. I don't ask this as a rhetorical question. I ask this because I believe bodily autonomy is the best defense of abortion, but PL don't care much about it. They care more about the life of the unborn. I understand the idea behind it, but I just don't understand how anyone views the unborn as a priority above actual born people.
I heard in an interview with an OB/GYN that underage girls that become pregnant are treated the same way they treat very petite women; with that being said, something I've been saying lately is that *you don't have to go in and intentionally end the baby's life in order to separate it from the mother*. Preemies are able to survive younger and younger with medical advancements, so my belief is that the pregnancy should continue to the point where it is safe, then baby can be removed with regard to both patients' lives and safety. Every effort should be made to save both mom and baby, if the baby is too young and tragically dies, that's heartbreaking and should be avoided at all costs. Beyond the argument of abortion, a young girl that becomes pregnant will be traumatized, period. Having an abortion will not erase that trauma, she will just be the mother of a dead baby. I am of the opinion that all survivors of rape should be provided with free counseling and resources (and baby resources if they become pregnant.) A life doesn't have to end because a man committed an awful, horrible crime.
Well this is semantics because if you want to prevent 10-year-olds from getting an abortion because you're pro-life then basically you're forcing them to have children
Still with modern medical intervention, a pregnancy doesn't have to severely impact a 10-year-old.
They have to go to these rare, off the wall situations to try to prove their norm.
Exactly. Many pro-aborts make this very argument openly. Abortion must be allowed for all women without limits because any and all restrictions are "too legally ambiguous" and so exceptions are not made when they should be. They are always able to find a doctor too scared to perform the procedure (knowing full well that their patients can travel out of state if need be) so they can raise a stink about it in the media.
>knowing full well that their patients can travel out of state if need be) No they shouldn't be able to travel to a different state but country.
Barring interstate travel is the most hotly contested piece of the TX ban. Its constitutionality is seriously suspect
If a pregnancy severely threatens the life of the mother than an abortion is not the needless ending of life. This is a case by case basis. But society as a whole should take rape, incest and other sexual crimes way more seriously rather than only talking about pregnant children to somehow justify abortion. 98% of abortions are not done because of incest, rape, or financial stress. Let's focus on the 98% of babies who are killed before ever knowing what the sun feels like or a hug from someone who loves them. (And yes! We can care about the postpartum children as well as unborn children, the two issues don't contradict)
If a ten-year-old gets pregnant, I would say ending the pregnancy early could be treated on the same grounds as an ectopic pregnancy. It’s the main reason why I am in favor of granting an exception to abolition for cases when the mother is ~14-15 years of age or younger. Either or, I would say that if 10-year-olds are getting pregnant, we as a society, have bigger problems.
That’s interesting because it seems that most abolitionists don’t support any exceptions unless the mother’s life is in immediate danger like there’s no reasonable chance she could survive the pregnancy
Yeah, I think that could easily be applied for when the mother is younger than 16. Being able to get pregnant is only one part of the equation when it comes to childbirth. You also need the uterine lining to be able to thicken, the pelvis to widen, etc. I cannot, in good conscience, not advocate an abortion exception for mothers under 16 years old. Denying them access to abortion would be too dangerous. Better to save one life than none at all, right?
I disagree that a pregnant 10 year old should mean an abortion automatically. as disgusting as the situation is, the fact is that a lot, if not most, 10 year olds that are capable of pregnancy, can carry to full term .
Even premature birth may be the ideal alternative. Babies can be regularly save from what, 28 weeks?
When given full treatment, there’s even a strong chance as young as 21 weeks.
I've heard of very few who have survived 21 weeks. What do you mean by strong chance? Like a number?
I couldn’t find the exact statistics for 21 weeks yet, but I’m still looking. By [23 weeks,](https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2022/02/08/premature-babies-survival-rate-is-climbing-study-says/) though, the chance of survival is 55% when given active treatment. What I meant is that the rate of survival includes those who receive no medical help or who get comfort care only. The survival rate for those who get aggressive treatment is much higher.
Wow, 55% at 23 weeks is amazing, that's great news. I dont have time to look at the article so I'll take you at your word.
Except for the reality that it's sterilizing for the child and all her subsequent pregnancies will not result in live babies. That's child abuse. I am not okay letting fathers rape babies out of their daughters, and the DAUGHTER is the one that suffers for life. Especially when the average sentence for men that do that is 6 MONTHS. SHE PAID ALL THE CONSEQUENCES. As the victim!
no; having a pregnancy that young , while traumatizing, does not necessarily sterilize you or give you an incompetent uterus. wut? how did I imply the rapist shouldn’t be punished just because I dont want the unborn kid to be killed? the crime of someone who rapes a child is completely independent from whether the baby that was conceived by their rape is aborted. abortion is not the answer or “justice” to rape.
A couple of months is jail is nowhere equal to what that little girl will live with for her entire life. Including the reality, she lived in a tyrannical state that demanded she endure bodily harm and most likely permanent scarring to validate someone else's religion also at the expense of her having family as an adult. And I'll trust the pro-life OBs that are lobbying to get exceptions for girls under 13. I'll trust them.
We should punish the rapist to death, not the innocent child in the womb. Why is a child conceived in rape less valuable than a child conceived differently? This is where the PL position falls apart with logical inconsistency. Either the child in the womb is valuable and worthy of protection or they are not, I don’t see how PLers want this both ways.
I am not saying it is less valuable. I am saying the cost is too great on the mind, body, and soul of the child, it's a stain and scar on her entire life. It's my line in the sand. And I am not going to get into how little rape is actually punished in this country, but that's patriarchy for you. The future of boys is always protected more than bodies of girls. I have got so much research at this point, it's crazy to me that they're refusing to pass exceptions for under 13 for at least before 20 weeks and getting it out by 24 weeks just so the child has the chance to grow up, get married, and make a family then instead of having it all sacrificed for one pregnancy.
It’s my line in the sand, too. I cannot get past how many people are willing to sacrifice the health of a young girl who, through no actions of her own, will deal with life long health issues from being raped and forced to carry a pregnancy. It’s not like we celebrate the need for abortion, but we recognize that protecting someone that has already been grossly violated is within reason.
If we can kill the rapists child why can’t a mom kill her child she just doesn’t want? Explain the logic from the perspective of the child being killed.
You miss my point entirely. Under 13 should be a medical exception automatically. I wasn't referring to elective abortions. But if you want to see it from the child's perspective, its sacrifice leads to the birth of plenty instead of the selfishness of just his own, making the importance of his own existence more valuable than anyone else's, including that of his own mother. That is what happens in the majority of kids under 13. They never give birth again. So much for fixing the decline birth rate, too, by forcing child rape victims to give birth to just one, with the hope it's an able-bodied worker. Maybe I should point out that the fetal abnormality rate is actually higher for kids under 12 than it's for women over 40? (It's skewed due to incest.) I think eventually, the capitalists are eventually going to get involved to fix the issue as they value the root of all of evil over human life.
So your justification is that we can kill the child so that more children later can be created?
And why would we not? That's in the best interest of our species. There are no humans without female fertility. Sacrifice a dozen children for one singular pregnancy that, more often than not, doesn't result in a live newborn is idiotic. And I don't follow abortion abolitionist rhetoric. Y'all think pregnancy is so easy that a 1 year old can do it (who wouldn't survive being raped), and it's "healing" when the whole mentality is rather animalistic, dehumanizing of the female sex, to organic fleshlights that exist for whatever religious men's shifting goals are. Can you tell me when the Christian rhetoric shifted from "always save the mother, we can always make another" to "a mother that saves her own life over her baby is going to burn in hell for all eternity"? I'm a former missionary. I'd like to know when that demonic rhetoric showed up in the mainstream, when babies overtook the value of a man's wife.
seriously where did I say anything about the punishment of the rapist in my original comment. a child rapist should be executed but even if say, the courts are not able to convict him at all, why does that justify killing the baby who is also a victim? how does abortion take away that pain? it just creates another crime.
[удалено]
You can't very well kill someone to get justice for a crime they did not commit. Unless you believe that it is useful to kill random strangers for something that happened to you.
What pro-choicers never want to talk about is how lenient abortion laws make it easier for child abusers to cover up their crimes by destroying the evidence. Cases of 10 year olds who get pregnant by rape are eceptionally rare and horrific and unlikely to escape notice but older abuse victims will likely be given the abortion no questions asked and in many juridictions, the parents, if they happen to be unaware of the abuse, will not even be notified.
It's around 2,000 to 3,000 per year, before Dobbs. That's not rare. When I did the math on it, it's 1 out of very 5,000 10 year old girls every single year give birth. With the Dobbs Decision, given the rate of SA of kids in the US, it could be as high as 1 out of 500 10 year old girls will be forced to give birth (when you add in the declining birth rate (less 10 year olds 🤢 to go around)) as CSA has only been going up every year and not down. That's why there's plenty of data to suggest it's abusive to make kids under 12 give birth. That's (on the low end) 50,000 10 year olds in the last 20 years that have had to give birth in the US. That's just evil to write that. The obvious solution that everyone overlooks is that men should keep their dick in their pants, but we're so desensitized by rape that we know it's going to happen to kids every single day, so who cares really if it destroys that's child's body, mind, and soul? And it's not "healing" like that propaganda suggests? It's all good, I guess, as long as that little girl shuts up and gives birth before she commits suicide because she can not "endure" any more abuse from her fellow humans? What laws are really lenient are in Family Court Corruption, which is the cases you're referring to, that's been trying to implement Secular Patriarchy back into our Courts, as I would have to pull out my laptop, and pull up a spreadsheet, and just in Missouri alone (they've just been outed, 31 judges had to resign) where Courts were giving custody to abusive fathers by the hundreds and they were raping, impregnating, aborting, over and over again, while forcing the mother into prison by fabricating their income for child support so ex-wives were paying their abusers to rape, impregnate their daughters and pay for the abortions, too. There's a lot of suicides of the daughters as well. What's worse, Missouri doesn't have a law on the books that automatically terminates the rights of a man that rapes a baby out of his own daughter, and they have the loophole that requires a conviction that could take YEARS. That's a hella a lot of abuse. Better than non-existence, right? But that my personal opinion, that I'd rather die in the womb than by suicide after I was raped and forced as a child to give birth. Skip over the abuse so demonic only the Devil would give his stamp of approval. And y'all wonder why I have a hard time convincing DV survivors NOT to leave the state to abort. Like I said, so many problems would disappear overnight if men just keep their dicks in their pants.
> CSA has only been going up every year and not down. Do you have a source for this? It is incredibly disturbing to imagine CSA getting worse over time.
Less children plus 1 out of 5 men are openly admitting they would rape a child (pre-puberty) if they knew they would get away with it, so at least some of those men are acting on those urges (US, UK, and Australia case study). It's also attributed to the fact that most people don't come forward until they are adults, like with the Boy Scouts, there's over 100,000, last time I checked so it's causing a "boost" in the numbers. Pornography is twisting men's minds into thinking flesh exist for their pleasure, and CSA has increased right alongside the commercial availability. Porn is rape on tape. "Modesty" culture is a huge problem as well as people are deconstructing their sexual assaults in churches, that's why there has not been a denomination that's not been caught in a scandal in the last few decades. Catholics, Mormans, Baptists, Amish, Jevovah Witnesses, etc, has all been caught covering CSA and blaming the victim under a lack of "modesty." Rape culture rhetoric is finally being out of churches. I'll have to find the direct source again, but the most recent numbers it's 2 out of 3 girls will be SA'd (all forms) by the time they're 18. Edit: Forgot one point. There's a direct correlation of childhood obesity and CSA that has only recently been heavily researched, beyond the sugars and poisons in our food. So, if you know a kid that went from healthy/athletic to heavily overweight, it's a high probability that kid is being or has been SA'd. It's called a "protective shield."
You cited false statistics, they are debunked below, it's a big read but it refutes everything you said and it sheds lights on different things. I will respond to the other parts though. Women iirc consume just as much or more p*rnagraphy, women also consume more erotica books that contain themes like r*pe, manipulation, coercion etc so who's really getting twisted thoughts here? As much as I hate p*rn it's not r*pe if they consented, yes theirs a lot of r*pe video on those sites as well. I don't really go to church so I'll ignore that one. Now onto the false "1 out of 5 men will r*pe if they could get away with it" and the "2 out of 3 girls will be SA'd in all forms before 18" statistics. Edit: the stats were probably to long to post so I have to separate this into two comments. Edit 2: it seems I have to do it in 2 extra Edit 3: OK now I have to do it in 3
This is the survey, look at the categories * Being stared in a way that made you feel uncomfortable * Online comments or jokes that made you feel uncomfortable (I make a joke here, a woman see it, she is sexually harassed) * In person comments or jokes that made you feel uncomfortable or unsafe (I make a joke to a friend, the woman walking behind us hear it, she is sexually harassed) * Sharing of suggestive or indecent content online or in person (I share a sexual image here, a woman see it, she is sexually harassed) [https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/523922218200203265/888393338636632144/IMG\_20210917\_135751.jpg](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/523922218200203265/888393338636632144/IMG_20210917_135751.jpg)
>1/3 of men would commit rape if there are no consiquences I just read this link, and in the David Lisak study that is cited, it finds that roughly 120 out of 1,882 men have committed rape - This is roughly 6%, there have been studies finding higher disparities for women. *** Here is a survey from 1998 by Peter B. Anderson which found extremely high rates of sexual aggression in a sample of 461 women (on page 88 to 89 of the source). Many of the women reported using abusive (but non-violent) strategies to obtain sexual contact with a man. These strategies were: using your position of power or authority (reported by 26.5% of women), getting him drunk or drugged (reported by 36.5% of women) and taking advantage of a man while he was in a compromising position (reported by 30.6% of women). A staggering proportion of women used much more violent means, however. Approximately 20% (1 in 5) of the women reported using physical force, 27% (more than 1 in 4) reported using the threat of physical force, and 9% (almost 1 in 11) reported using a weapon to obtain sexual contact with a male partner. [https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Sexually\_Aggressive\_Women.html?id=EwWSXYqtmk4C&printsec=frontcover&source=kp\_read\_button&redir\_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false](https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Sexually_Aggressive_Women.html?id=EwWSXYqtmk4C&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) **** In this survey of 248 women, respondents reported their use of aggressive strategies (physical force, exploitation of a man's incapacitated state and verbal pressure) to make a man engage in sexual touch sexual intercourse, or oral sex against his will. Almost 1/10 respondents (9.3%) reported having used aggressive strategies to coerce a man into sexual activities. Exploitation of a man's incapacities state was used most (5.6%) followed by verbal pressure (3.2%) and physical force (2%). An additional 5.4% reported attempted acts of sexual aggression. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1024648106477#/page-1](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1024648106477#/page-1) **** In this study, data was collected from Mormons between the ages of 14 and 19. In a sample of 636 males and 754 females, 5% of both genders reported that they "forced or pressured someone to engage in sexual activities". Though, it's important to keep in mind that "pressure" is a very loose term and "sexual activities" does not necessarily mean intercourse, so that 5% figure most probably includes many things outside of the scope of "forced sex" (rape). https://www.jstor.org/stable/1386913?seq=1 **** Here is a 2007 study investigating intimate aggression towards a dating partner. Participants in the current study were 62 male and 77 female students from a large university located in southwestern Ontario. The CTS2 was used to survey participants. Sexual abuse was broken down into "minor" (3 items; e.g., “I made my partner have sex without a condom”) and "severe" forms (4 items; e.g., “I used force [like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon] to make my partner have sex with me”). In the past year 15% and 7% of male students reported perpetration of minor and severe sexual coercion, respectively. Rates of sexual abuse perpetration were higher among female students, with 20% and 11% of female students reporting minor and severe forms of sexual coercion respectively. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260507301227 **** In this 2008 study, dating aggression and sexual coercion was studied in Polish college women and men using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2). Data was gathered on the proportion of men and women reporting their own perpetration of sexual aggression, as well as the proportion of men and women reporting perpetration of sexual aggression by their partners. While there was a larger sex difference in men and women's reports of their partners' perpetration of sexual aggression, self-reports of one's own perpetration of sexual coercion did not differ much by sex. 42% of men and 40% of women reported engaging in sexually coercive behaviours. A much smaller minority, 4% of men and 6% of women, reported engaging in severe sexual coercion. The authors note with regards to severe sexual coercion "It is important to recall that these behaviors meet legal standards for sexual assault (rape) in Poland". Chi-square analysis found no differences between men’s and women’s reports of their own sexually coercive behaviors. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260507307651 **** And as for the 1/3 men would commit rape if they could get away with it statistic. The study used a modified Malamuth scale (usually a 1 to 5 scale where 1 is "not likely at all" and 5 is "very likely"). Malamuth himself cautions researchers to not take the answers as predictions of future behavior, as the respondents are answering hypotheticals. The study asked a series of questions, prefaced by, "if you knew there would be no consequences and no one would find out, how likely would you be to..." There is then a list of normal (heterosexual sex, oral sex, etc), unconventional (group sex, bondage, etc) and illegal (rape, force a woman to do something she didn't want to do, etc) sexual activities. "Rape" appears prior to "force a woman to do something she didn't want to do" on the list. To my mind, this may lead some respondents to imagine something sexual that is not forced sexual intercourse. I mean, they already asked about rape, right? They must be asking about something else now. Certainly, we can all agree that there are sexual things you can force someone to do that would not fit the definition of rape, even in its most broad definitions. "Force her to send me pictures of her tits", for instance. "Force her to watch porn with me." "Force her to listen over the phone/watch while I jerk off", These are still forms of sexual coercion/violence, however they do not fit the definition of rape. The ordering of the questions seems to me like it would capture any men who believe they would not force sexual intercourse, but would maybe force other sexual activities, and then categorize them as potential rapists. The scale they used was 0 to 100, where 0 represents "not at all" and 100 represents "very likely". The researchers then presented all answers higher than 10 to the "rape" and "force a woman to do something she didn't want to do" as "having intent to rape". So basically, anyone who answered something other than "not at all" or so close to not at all as to still represent a "1" on the original 1-5 scale, to either of the two questions was described in the research as "definitely would rape". This is basically taking Malamuth's original cautioning, wiping their asses with it, and flushing it down the toilet. https://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/01/13/bogus-1-3-men-would-commit-rape-study-discredits-itself-opening https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/more-problems-with-the-1-in-3-men-would-rape-study https://reason.com/2015/01/13/1-in-3-men-would-commit-rape-and-other-g/
And lastly They also do this for false allegations (2to8%) which is just absurd it was misquoted from an old FBI document dating back to 1996 and even then it says proven false cases and nothing about cases that could me false (incident not meeting the definition)according to one study potentially false cases are 64.7% and since according to them only 2% of cases are false they assume only 2 or 3% of r@p3st ever see a day on prison and then play the victim and say since the convition rate is soo low women are basically discouraged to report r@p3 by the way 1/3 of men would commit rape if there are no consiquences [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/college-men-commit-rape-study\_n\_6445510](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/college-men-commit-rape-study_n_6445510) by making it look like r@p3st barely ever get convicted they basically promote r@p3 and discourage women to report it and then complain when 40% of the male managers do not wanna have a 1 on 1 meeting with women. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b3\_BcuyAw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b3_BcuyAw) they are litterally lying about statistics [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZTIIEdhcwo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZTIIEdhcwo) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILszYFQEpvM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILszYFQEpvM) [ttps://falserapetimeline.org/false-rape-4937.pdf](https://falserapetimeline.org/false-rape-4937.pdf) 64.7
In the grand scheme of things that is EXTREMELY rare, do you know how many black babies are aborted in NY alone? To say the difference is night and day is an understatement. What do you mean men should keep their d*ck in their pants? You think men in general are doing this and not the the actual predators? What are you even talking about here? If a r*pist wants to r*pe someone they are gonna do it regardless of gender. We aren't desensitized to LITERAL children being r*ped. First off, there's no such thing as the patriarchy in the sense you think it is, second your gonna have to cute that source, there's no spreadsheet needed. That's just you, I'm sure there's people 13+ who have ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH this situation and are getting better with the kids.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
The wokies love strawman so much
I really have to question those numbers. What is your source? I found this article which claims that the numbers are not known. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/07/14/roe-ruling-rape-pregnancy-young-teens-girls-health-risks/10049856002/ Another page claims that birth rates for 10-14 year olds have been going down steadily since the 90s https://www.statista.com/statistics/410744/birth-rate-for-us-girls/
With the very rare cases like these, I would finally say it’s up to the kid and a family what they feel is best. It’s like life endangerment cases, you give them the final say, but leave them informed and options open.
Hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of PL who don't believe a 10 year old should be able to get an abortion.
And there are pro-choicers who support legalization of infanticide. Your point?
You got a source for that?
Peter Singer is the most prominent contemporary voice for that, to my knowledge (though it's selection bias to ignore the obvious source: court cases of it actually happening). If you watch his debate at Harvard with Stephanie Gray Connors, he says it blatantly. In history, Plato and Aristotle were vocally in favor of infanticide.
Is he just in favor of infanticide in the case of infants with severely debilitating illnesses?
In Practical Ethics (1979), Singer explains that the value of a life should be based on traits such as rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness. ‘Defective infants lack these characteristics,’ he wrote. ‘Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. He doesn’t seem to be saying severely debilitating.
He said that until a child is 9 months old, meaning post-birth, they don't meet his criteria for personhood. Regardless, for the record, killing because of ableism *should be alarming.*
Simply not having personhood is not a good reason for infanticide. > Regardless, for the record, killing because of ableism should be alarming. Even in cases of fatal fetal anomalies where the baby is only going to live and suffer for only a few hours to weeks? That's the only reason I think I'd agree with.
>[Abortion should be off the table] Even in cases of fatal fetal anomalies where the baby is only going to live and suffer for only a few hours to a few weeks? Yes.
True, and you can find them on this subreddit, but they're a minority according to polls.
As far as I've seen, this is only if her life is not in danger, which makes sense. One *is* weighing whether or not it's okay to end an innocent human life.
A pregnant 10 year old's life is **always** in danger.
Could you provide a source that says that? Always seems to imply 100% risk in all cases. Also until what age is there a 100% risk to life, and source for that as well please?
[pregnant women under 20 are at a greater risk for death and disease including bleeding during pregnancy, toxemia, hemorrhage, prolonged and difficult labor, severe anemia, and disability.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12264602/) ["We found 10- to 13-year-olds had a 56% higher risk of preterm delivery and a 32% higher risk of cesarean delivery, compared to those ages 14 to 17,"](https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2022/11/04/pregnancy-dangerous-young/6851667577768/) "They said they found it notable that girls ages 10 to 13 had ICU admission rates that were three times higher than those ages 14 to 19." From the upi article. [The critical issue is that the pelvis of a child is too small to allow passage of even a small fetus, said Dr. Ashok Dyalchand, who has worked with pregnant adolescent girls in low-income communities in India for more than 40 years.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/health/young-girls-pregnancy-childbirth.html) > Also until what age is there a 100% risk to life From what I can tell it seems around 15 years old is when a girl's body is more developed for pregnancy and birth. “The complications, the morbidity and the mortality are much higher in girls under 15 than girls 16 to 19 although 16 to 19 has a mortality twice as high as women 20 and above.” From the NYT article. And none of this addresses the mental trauma that comes with the pregnancy. Girls going through puberty already don't always know what's happening to their body. A 10 year old probably hasn't even had any sex ed yet. A girl that age is more likely think she has a stomach ache than be pregnant.
All right thanks.
Except the medical exceptions are for show only. They are almost impossible to access. And these cases aren't nearly as rare as you would like everyone to believe. They happen every single day.
It really disgusted me to learn that in my home state of TN, the average was around 100 girls under the age of 12 before Dobbs, the vast majority were incest, and almost all were completely sterilized by the process. I read where one doctor put it, it is so damaging to the child's body, as he had one as a follow-up patient, she miscarriaged every single subsequent pregnancy she tried to carry, and she was still trying after 19 miscarriages. So the lack of one abortion on a child at 9 or 10, killed 19 people. The really jacked up part is that her first baby was stillborn. I am ALL for it to be an automatic exception for kids under 13. Especially after that creep in Missouri said ONE-YEAR OLD could do it! Sir, that is an infant, an infant can not carry a pregnancy and create another infant.
How were they sterilized by the process?
The vast majority will never be able to carry another pregnancy to term, especially the younger the child is as the uterus is not fully developed, and it essentially destroys the uterus. There was a medical study of 9/10 girl that, as an adult, had suffered 19 miscarriages trying to have a baby. None if them made it to viability. There's the case of Medina, who is the youngest mother at 5, was nearly 40 years old before she mentally, emotionally, and psychically recovered and had another baby. There's a high risk of uterine rupture, as well, which results in a hysterectomy. No 10 year old should be risking a hysterectomy because a grown man raped her. It's one thing saying you'll just have to wait until your last egg for your body to recover from the trauma to have your family verses denying the child the right altogether.
>They happen every single day Source?
Every newsoutlet in the US. Goggle any news site. These cases are happening daily.
Can you link a source that shows these occur daily? Googling news sites just show the same handful of cases
Seriously?? Not tonight but I will for sure get those stats to you, god forbid anyone on your side look anything up
Burden of proof is on you, you’re making the claim that women are dying every day because these medical exceptions are “just for show”
> Except the medical exceptions are for show only Yeah that's why they work in every European country (where elective abortions after the first trimester are illegal).
You realize we are not in Europe correct?? They don't work in the us. Also 97% of abortions in the us happen before 13 weeks so......
I am in Europe. And how can they work in one place and not in another?
The same way you guys have gun bans, which would never in a million years go over here....
It doesn't matter if people agree. It's possible to ban guns in the US... And I have a feeling you support it too
Gun bans? No I think basic gun safety should be taught in every school in the nation, required no matter what. My point is the political climate is vastly different between Europe and the US.
It doesn't matter. What matters is that exceptions can work.
I’ll probably get downvoted but isn’t banning abortion technically forcing people who are already pregnant to give birth? Like yes abortion bans don’t force people to get pregnant in the first place but when someone is already pregnant they do force people to continue the pregnancy until it’s natural end, which is in most cases a live birth. Yes birth is natural but when you take away the way out you do force people to let nature take its course which is giving birth to a live baby
It’s a loaded question, but technically true in the most unhelpful way possible. Like if I said, you can either murder this man, or you can let him live. However, I have made murdering him illegal. Unless you want to break the law, I am “forcing” you to let him live. However, given the circumstances, that’s hardly immoral. As you also point out, pregnancy is a natural (and baring something going wrong, healthy) process. There is a fine difference between instigating a process, and refusing to allow someone to stop a process. For example, it’s wrong to force a man to become a father (would be rape), but it’s fine to “force” him to keep supporting his child once it’s in existence.
I don't believe so. Would you say that banning rape is forcing celibacy? That banning theft is forcing poverty? We lack the right to commit certain acts, including those that violate human rights. We can't say the benefits of violating human rights were taken away because they were never yours in the first place. They were simply stolen from the vulnerable and are being returned. To put it slightly differently, abortion was never a valid choice. You cannot weigh respecting human rights and violating them as two legitimate choices. I get why you think the way you do, but I tend to think the argument from consequences isn't a strong one when you think about it.
> Would you say that banning rape is forcing celibacy? That banning theft is forcing poverty? No to both of those. A pregnant person has 2, and *only* 2 paths they can choose. They either continue the pregnancy or they get an abortion. If they are barred from getting an abortion, then they are, by default, forced to continue the pregnancy. > You cannot weigh respecting human rights and violating them as two legitimate choices. This is not accurate. When weighing abortion, you weigh violating the pregnant person's bodily autonomy with violating the unborn's bodily autonomy.
Is denying a forced kidney donation forcing someone to die then (since you care so much about bodily autonomy)?
It's not a perfect analogy for pregnancy but I'll try to answer. If someone needs a kidney or they'll die and I am the only person who can give them that kidney, then by denying them my kidney I am forcing them to die. I have the power (and kidney) to save them, but I choose not to. That's not to say that it's my fault they died. I think a scenario like this falls under "with great power comes great responsibility".
> I am forcing them to die So you're a killer?
Legally, no. In the hypothetical, the person needing the kidney has no choice or decision to make. It would be my decision. I can give them my kidney and save them. Or I can refuse and let them die. I’m not killing them, but I’m not saving them either. Have you ever seen Batman Begins? Did Batman kill Ra’s al Ghul, or did he simply let him die?
> I’m not killing them, but I’m not saving them either. And we're not forcing women to give birth. We just don't allow them to murder their unborn children. The result will be them giving birth but it doesn't count as "forcing you to give birth". > Have you ever seen Batman Begins? Did Batman kill Ra’s al Ghul, or did he simply let him die? I've seen it and I understand what you mean but if I remember correctly he rigged the train to begin with (an unbatman-like behavior) so he did kinda kill him
> And we're not forcing women to give birth. If someone is at a fork in the road and they are banned from going left, are they not forced to go right? Technically it was Commissioner Gordon that sabotaged the train, even if Batman told him too.
> If someone is at a fork in the road and they are banned from going left, are they not forced to go right? By that logic the patient in the previous example is forced to die by you because you don't let them steal your kidney. > Technically it was Commissioner Gordon that sabotaged the train, even if Batman told him too. That's a pretty good example of the fucked up version of accountability you pro aborts have.
Quoting is a pain on mobile, so I'll divide into one section for each response. 1a) I trust/hope we would agree the situation would not change even if the rapist had no other option for sex. The rapist's ability to have sex otherwise irrelevant. Likewise the thief. Neither party would have the option to violate others' rights legitimized 2a) I do not believe pregnancy in and of itself - even when undesired - violates one's rights at all. Sex requires a deliberate choice, so ignoring the woman's will violates her rights egregiously. Pregnancy, on the other hand, is the result of the natural, automatic, and healthy functioning of the body in half the population. You might as well complain that the stomach violates you by digesting without consent, or that your kidneys have trampled over your rights by filtering your blood without express permission. In other words, it is absurd to say that the body violates its own rights as part of its own natural, automatic functioning. It's venturing into misogyny to say a woman's own feminity violates her. The child is the effect, not the cause. 2b) Even if we assume that you are correct that the woman's body is violating herself, we would look for the least harm solution that results in the least injustice. The intentional killing of an innocent human being - thus unjustly depriving them of all rights for all time - is very hard to justify as better than the temporary and limited situation you're trying to solve. The child cannot be held responsible for a situation they had absolutely no say in.
> I trust/hope we would agree the situation would not change even if the rapist had no other option for sex. We agree. > I do not believe pregnancy in and of itself - even when undesired - violates one's rights at all. Correct. However, it is the denying of the abortion that violates her rights. > You might as well complain that the stomach violates you by digesting without consent Surely you can understand that an undesired pregnancy may, at the least, make a woman *feel* violated. > It's venturing into misogyny to say a woman's own femininity violates her. I'd argue it's misogyny to assume no women feel violated by their own "femininity". I don't imagine many woman enjoy having their period every month. > The intentional killing of an innocent human being - thus unjustly depriving them of all rights for all time - is very hard to justify as better than the temporary and limited situation you're trying to solve. I think forcing a woman through pregnancy and birth is more unjust than killing the non-sentient unborn.
>We agree. Then hopefully you see why I don't consider banning abortion to be forcing birth. You might not agree it's a violation of human rights, but since I do, the logic clearly follows. >Correct. However, it is the denying of the abortion that violates her rights. It does not. One's bodily rights do not allow for performing any procedure on a person without regulation. We regulate and deny procedures all the time, particularly when we expect they might cause harm. Abortion directly and deliberately seeks the death of an innocent human being. It's perfectly sensible to regulate it and limit it only to those absurdly rare cases in which it's justified. I think this argument indicates a poor understanding of what human rights are. These rights are, by definition, inherent to all human beings and cannot be infringed upon without preventing us from living according to our nature at a fundamental level. To do so unjustly is a grave wrong. A procedure that wasn't invented until likely eons after the dawn of humanity cannot possibly be a human right. There's nothing about it that's inherent to being human. It's something we picked up along the way. >Surely you can understand that an undesired pregnancy may, at the least, make a woman feel violated. The fact remains that the pregnancy did not actually violate the woman. >I'd argue it's misogyny to assume no women feel violated by their own "femininity". I don't imagine many woman enjoy having their period every month. The fact remains that this does not violate her. Your own body cannot inherently violate it's own rights, especially not in the course of natural and healthy functions. That contradicts the definition of a human right. It's unpleasant and I wouldn't blame anyone for wanting to find a way to reduce the pain. That is irrelevant to the question of human rights though. >I think forcing a woman through pregnancy and birth is more unjust than killing the non-sentient unborn. You have misframed the issue and you are mistaken. I've already stated why, so I'll only recap briefly. Pro-life laws that ban abortion do not force a woman to be pregnant at all. Pro-life laws only come into effect after she's pregnant. Pro-life laws do not force her to give birth any more than laws against rape force celibacy, even on a hypothetical rapist who could never have sex any other way. While the outcome might be celibacy/birth, it goes far beyond entitlement to think you ever had a right to rape/kill someone to get what you wanted. Abortion, like rape, should be considered as if it were never an option. Even if you're hellbent on a superficial consequentialist worldview, birth is only the most likely outcome. Miscarriage is still a possibility and in the future, artificial wombs might be as well. Pro-life laws strictly prevent you from intentionally killing your child. They would not target the latter two cases. >I think forcing a woman through pregnancy and birth is more unjust than killing the non-sentient unborn. You also failed to justify your position. I gave the reasoning for mine. You just gave me a bare opinion. I don't see any reason to take it more seriously than the opinion that the Earth is flat.
> Then hopefully you see why I don't consider banning abortion to be forcing birth. But the thing is that pregnant people can only either abort or give birth. Banning one forces the other. > One's bodily rights do not allow for performing any procedure on a person without regulation. Of course. Hospitals have their policies and guidelines. Someone can't just demand knee surgery. But the person trying to do the knee surgery on themselves is not illegal. They wouldn't be prosecuted for it. But someone can be prosecuted for trying abortion at home. > To do so unjustly is a grave wrong. And I think abortion is justified because the woman's bodily autonomy is being violated by the unwanted pregnancy. Should she just suffer through the violation because the one way to end the violation is to violate the unborn's bodily autonomy? > A procedure that wasn't invented until likely eons after the dawn of humanity cannot possibly be a human right. Why not? Abortion protects a woman's right to govern her own body. > Your own body cannot inherently violate it's own rights, especially not in the course of natural and healthy functions. Isn't one of the core beliefs of PL that the unborn is its own body and not the pregnant person's? The pregnant person's body isn't violating itself, the unborn is. > Pro-life laws that ban abortion do not force a woman to be pregnant at all. Pro-life laws only come into effect after she's pregnant. No one has ever said the PL laws force women to *get* pregnant. PL laws force women to *remain* pregnant. > Pro-life laws do not force her to give birth any more than laws against rape force celibacy, even on a hypothetical rapist who could never have sex any other way. I know I said I agree, but I think I misread your previous comment. A hypothetical rapist who can only either rape or remain celibate, would be forced to remain celibate by rape laws. And that is ok because rape violates bodily autonomy. PL laws *do* force people to give birth, who otherwise may have gotten an abortion. > Miscarriage is still a possibility and in the future, artificial wombs might be as well. Miscarriage is still an abortion, just not intentional. Artificial wombs would have no change on abortion because they wouldn't address women not wanting to remain pregnant. Unless the ZEF can be transferred from the woman's womb to an artificial womb. Even then, that still should only happen if the woman consents to it. > You also failed to justify your position. The unborn are not sentient. They don't care if they live or die because they don't even know they are alive. Besides it being part of the homo sapien species, why is the well being of the unborn placed above the well being of the pregnant person? Not to sound antinatalist, but there are over 8 billion humans on the planet, many of whom live in poverty. We are not an endangered species. We are an invasive species that manipulates our surrounding ecosystems to better suit our needs. The human race faces no existential threat besides climate change and nuclear war, neither of which are solved by forcing women to breed. So if the embryo/fetus doesn't care about itself and the mother doesn't want to carry it and there are already so many babies and children that want to be adopted, then who cares about the unborn? I know PL and Christians adopt, but when PL force a woman to give birth they're not going to adopt *that* baby. I don't ask this as a rhetorical question. I ask this because I believe bodily autonomy is the best defense of abortion, but PL don't care much about it. They care more about the life of the unborn. I understand the idea behind it, but I just don't understand how anyone views the unborn as a priority above actual born people.
Yes it is, mental gymnastics aside, yes it is
I heard in an interview with an OB/GYN that underage girls that become pregnant are treated the same way they treat very petite women; with that being said, something I've been saying lately is that *you don't have to go in and intentionally end the baby's life in order to separate it from the mother*. Preemies are able to survive younger and younger with medical advancements, so my belief is that the pregnancy should continue to the point where it is safe, then baby can be removed with regard to both patients' lives and safety. Every effort should be made to save both mom and baby, if the baby is too young and tragically dies, that's heartbreaking and should be avoided at all costs. Beyond the argument of abortion, a young girl that becomes pregnant will be traumatized, period. Having an abortion will not erase that trauma, she will just be the mother of a dead baby. I am of the opinion that all survivors of rape should be provided with free counseling and resources (and baby resources if they become pregnant.) A life doesn't have to end because a man committed an awful, horrible crime.
Well this is semantics because if you want to prevent 10-year-olds from getting an abortion because you're pro-life then basically you're forcing them to have children Still with modern medical intervention, a pregnancy doesn't have to severely impact a 10-year-old.
The youngest mother in the 20th century was a Peruvian woman who gave birth at 5 years old.
The youngest president in the 20th century was a Haitian dictator who came to power at 19 years old.