Who the fuck said we had to choose either? We can live in a world with neither, and that world requires women's rights, including the right to abortion.
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2024
1086 points (96.9% liked)
WTF
779 readers
4 users here now
The average c/WTF enjoyer
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Who the fuck said we had to choose either?
They did, and pointing that out will (I'm guessing) be met with some form of covering their ears and saying "nah nah nah I can't hear you."
I've seen the sort. When confronted with the real-world results of their moralizing, they retreat to quoting cherry-picked Bible verses and posting pictures of fetuses ("look how human she looks!").
load more comments
(2 replies)
The real kicker is: no amount of 10yo parents is going to prevent abortions. We've been through this whole song and dance before. The abortions didn't stop, just a lot more women died.
They want to go back to women dying from abortions, because they think women who get abortions are murderers who deserve to die. Until it’s someone they know and suddenly the reasons for the abortion matter and they’re the special exception.
They're saying that an incestuous rape baby being born every year is a lesser evil than abortions being legal. They're wrong, but insofar as they believe that, they're not going to support a woman's right to choose.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Got it.
You want to require 30,000 kids to be born to parents who don't want them, just so you can force a 10-year-old victim to birth her rapist's baby.
You want to require hundreds of loving mothers to endanger their lives by insisting that they continue to carry doomed pregnancies long after doctors have proven the fetus cannot survive and is in excruciating pain even before it is born. Why? So you can force a 10-year-old to bear her rapist's child?
Go to hell, Kaya.
They all want to ban abortions but they don't want their tax dollars "wasted" on healthcare for the mother/child, on school lunch programs, on food banks, on welfare for struggling families or bear any responsibility at all for the wellbeing of the child after its born.
Seems to me they don't care about the children at all in most cases.
load more comments
(3 replies)
You missed an important bit. They want the ten year old raped and forced to carry their fathers child every year
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Here's a fucked up article about study done in states with abortion restrictions. Around 64,000 babies born from SA in states with abortion restrictions. And somehow we're the extremists for not wanting that, for wanting all women to have a choice.
Jesús Christ that’s so much more than I thought
Stop self-censorship. You can and should write what these fucks want to hide. Do not help them disguise these facts
load more comments
(1 replies)
It doesn't even stop any other abortions though. It actually increases the number of abortions.
I hate to say this but babies being found in garbage bins is about to be a fairly regular occurrence.
In the age of DNA, it's going to be dangerous to do that. We need more of the safe boxes at fire stations. Of course, we also need rights, abortions, contraception, and family planning to be widely available, too.
a person who throws a baby in the trash isn't one who's thinking clearly. it's fear, panic and desperation. deterrents are not going to be a factor.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If you don't find the baby, no DNA. So much MUCH darker prospects..
load more comments
(2 replies)
I can only guess what the context here is but to imply that "they're fine with kids getting raped" is almost definitely an extremely dishonest strawman of what they're actually trying to say. This type of bad-faith dunking on people you disagree with only makes them dig down their heels even deeper and, I'd argue, is only making things worse.
If I had to steelman their position without knowing full context, I'm assuming that what they're trying to say is that abortion shouldn't be legal just because of the comparatively small number of cases where it perhaps would be justified (incest/rape) because it opens the door to a huge number of what they see as unecessary abortions.
If one truly cares about changing minds rather than scoring worthless internet points then you need to take down the foundations - not break the windows. Breaking windows is fun and easy but it doesn't achieve anything. Listen to what people are saying and challenge their core beliefs.
If I had to steelman their argument I'd wonder if they are properly informed about the very real, well documented physical risks to children from getting pregnant and carrying to term. Death is one option, but long term physical disability due to spinal and hip fractures aren't unheard of. As well as a long list of other physical and psychological effects I'm not gonna put here.
So what I'm gathering is that this person is either very, VERY uneducated about the physical consequences of childbirth, both for adults and children, and just how frequently children are sexually assaulted.
Either they're very ignorant, possibly willfully, or they are straight up a troll. Poe's law makes it increasingly difficult to tell these days. Ignorance can be a temporary state of being, but would they care about medical data? Who knows.
load more comments
(9 replies)
But even when steelmaning the argument, they deserve to be called out on not even considering a middle ground where 10 year old rape victims are not allowed an abortion. Because “opening up doors” is a too big a cost for them.
I agree to a certain degree, that twisting someone’s pretty shitty argument isn’t helping the discourse. So my response isn’t really directed at you.
Steelmanning an argument doesn't make it immune to refutation. It just means you're refuting the strongest possible version. In this case, the argument is so inherently fucked up that even the steelman version is still a "what the fuck?"
There have been 0 unnecessary abortions performed on earth. There have been billions of unnecessary rapes. The world would be a better place if we had had more abortions and less rapes.
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
I want to see this guy explain that to the 10 year old.
There are people out there that would be ok with doing this. I’ve met them and I never want to see them again.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I mean the concept is not difficult to grasp. They are comparing one horrific thing to a group of thirty thousand horrific things and choosing the lesser evil. They are not "okay" with ten-year olds being raped... Claiming so is a reading comprehension error.
The issue here is that we don't agree with them that those 30k other "horrific" events are all that horrific.
load more comments
(19 replies)
Why do I suspect that they would be okay with 30,000 10 year olds being forced to give birth to their fathers child to prevent 1 abortion?
load more comments
(2 replies)
A major problem with abortion on condition of rape is that it motivates false accusations.
It is an evil law supported by people who don't care about male victims.
Do you have any evidence for that claim?
Fear of reprisal, not wanting to get the offender in trouble or a belief that law enforcement would not help matters prevented most victims of rape from reporting what happened to them, the federal report said.
What’s happening is that people who are experiencing rape are not being allowed to choose abortion,”
“Highly stigmatized life events are hard to measure. And many survivors of sexual violence do not want to disclose that they went through this incredibly stigmatizing traumatic life event,”
Even in states with exceptions for rape, very few people got an abortion—likely because of fear and intimidation, Dickman speculates.
Yeah, it seems to be quite the opposite if I'm reading this correctly. The only ones hurt by the exceptions are the victims themselves, as always.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
This is one of those topics that people like to force their views on others and not care about the consequences. Another good example is porn. "I don't think people should watch porn" is something people actually vote for. Yet all the studies performed show sexual assaults and rapes increase everywhere you ban porn. So forcing their views on people has real consequences and they just don't want to acknowledge them.
A vote to ban porn is a vote to increase rapes and sexual assaults. Yes that includes more children being raped as well.
A vote to ban abortions doesn't stop abortions, all it does is increase the number of mother's and babies dying from unsterilized attempts at aborting, children being thrown in dumpsters, buried alive, left outside, dropped at fire departments, put into underfunded orphan systems that have more kids than they can get adopted BEFORE you took away their safer way of not abusing a child.
The only thing these votes do is take away people's choice, and hurt people.
A vote to ban abortion or porn is a vote to hurt people.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Okay, what the fuck is up with the rape apologetics and anti-bodily autonomy chubs in these comments?
load more comments
(5 replies)
It's funny that one instance of child rape apologia creates so much more in these comments. There are some real debate lords(/trolls) out here making arguments that would be immediately tossed if faced with a child victim in real life.
There is no rape too vile that I will not accept it as the price of killing people by taking away their healthcare.
Maybe I should put quotes around that. Eh, I bet it won't misused against me.
Also those numbers are going to be way off unless you're counting things like ectopic pregnancies.
view more: next ›