This.👇🏻
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (163)
sorted by:
No, I don't think it's worse, especially considering the pregnancy can be terminated early, long before the fetus is viable. Not only would the woman have to live with the trauma of being raped (or even raped from a family member incest baby), which will be the case no matter what, but then suffer the physical affects from the pregnancy and raising a child that bears a resemblance to her rapist. Highly likely the woman would grow to resent the child, and the foster care system is historically not kind to children.
Absolutely would argue that's worse than an abortion. A woman should have the right to carry/raise a child that she is ready and willing to.
This is the wrong construct. A toddler is not viable unless someone cares for it.
Viability is a red herring. Don’t fall for it.
That's because you're a retard, you think "muh trauma" is worse than being murdered. The mother is not required to keep the child, she can put it up for adoption. Look, anyone sane can accept that carrying an unwanted child is going to be a rough time for the mother, however the pregnancy came about, however:
Murdering a child - is worse than being pregnant for 9 months in a manner you'd have rather not. This point is not disputable. Give the mother state funded counselling and monetary aid however it needs to be done. Just don't kill children. It's a simple premise.
She does have that right already lol, what you're really asking for and unable to type out is that women should have the right to arbitrarily murder their child because having it would be inconvenient. If it's some solace for you I believe rapists should be burned alive in the public square.
So now we have a woman being raped, and because of this the taxpayers not only have to pay for the child’s care, but the woman’s trauma as well having to carry her rapists baby?
A woman shouldn’t be forced to carry a child of rape, is what I’m actually asking for
She is not being "forced" to DO anything, she is forbidden from murdering a child because she was a victim of a crime. You're conflating two different things in your head, which is understandable because all the messaging about this stuff is purposefully put into the muddy puddles.
Yes, lol, if the state forbids you from killing the child and you cannot work while carrying it then of course the state should foot the bill, as well as counselling, the state is de facto guardian of women's vaginas when out walking the streets so they and or the rapist are financially liable. There's nothing bizzare or surprising about this. You're aware that the state pays for prisoners in prisons and all manner of dumb shit like infinite aid to foreign countries right? Do you not see that you're now scrabbling at an economic argument over the principle argument which is - do not kill innocent children - ?
Forbidding someone to do something is forcing them to do something else, in this case not being able to abort a product of rape. By forbidding her from aborting the kid, you're forcing her to have that trauma at the forefront of her mind, every day for the rest of her life. Do you not think that would make someone miserable, and grow to resent the kid?
I mean, yeah it would be forced to "do" something which is carrying a child to term that is a product of rape. That's pretty fucked up.
She's a victim of a crime, but on top of that she has to put her body through the physical toil of the consequence of that crime. Incredibly fucked up. Pregnancy isn't something that has no side effects to a woman's body. There can often be complications that arise from it. To put a victim through that on top of being raped is some wild bullshit.
I'm aware that there are other things that the state pays for. I don't think the state should pay for additional things that can be easily prevented.