This.👇🏻
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (163)
sorted by:
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?
You keep writing "Murder an innocent person" incorrectly, if you're down for the murder of innocent parties you're unwittingly advocating for the honour killing of rape victims they're innocent too as you lot keep harping on about, "Don't victimise the innocent don't victimise the innocent" before saying how you needs must have the "right" to murder a human life, it's frankly psychotic.
Who cares if the carrier is miserable when held against the context of murdering a child? If the mother doesn't grow to want it, put it up for adoption.
You're clearly not that well acquainted with the concept of abortion-regret. Why does the trauma of carrying it outweigh the trauma of having killed someone? You need to look up what "motivated reasoning" is.
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.
I agree wholeheartedly, this is why being a rapist is general is such an aggravating factor, because of what you've laid out. If there are complications in the pregnancy you simply do your best to save both the mother and child, if the child dies as an unintended consequence of the intervention then so be it.
In the context of what we're discussing that's a very, very dangerous thing to say when you take it to it's logical conclusions. The commons surplus exists to serve human life, else what is it there for exactly?
You need rape related pregnancy divorced from common-law or married couples as a generalised rate over the population per annum, it's going to be a tiny figure, just buy one less F35 that year, or give one less billion to Ukraine, it's not a money issue, and even if it were, a society that does not defend the utterly helpless against arbitrary murder is not one worth saving anyway.
Lastly...
No, the rapist forced that circumstance upon the woman, and he is lawfully executed for it, the status quo now is carrying the child, the "DO"ing part is over. The state merely says "Do not kill children". It is not an active "DO" on the state's part, it is a DO NOT.
The mother being forced by the rapist into being an unwilling landlord to an unwanted tenant is of course, horrific, execute the rapist, carrying the child can be whatever adjective you desire it to be, the noun "murder" beats it.
Billions of women have survived pregnancy. It is one of their primary bioligical functions.
Rape and incest babies are tragic but the baby is innocent and should not suffer for the crimes of the father.
If it helps just realize that the forcing the woman to carry to term is a part of the crime commited againat her. Some women chose to keep their rape babies and raise them too