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 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.
I don't think the state should pay for additional things that can be easily prevented.
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...
I mean, yeah it would be forced to "do" something which is carrying a child
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.
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 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.
I don't think the state should pay for additional things that can be easily prevented.
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...
I mean, yeah it would be forced to "do" something which is carrying a child
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.
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 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.
I don't think the state should pay for additional things that can be easily prevented.
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.
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 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.
I don't think the state should pay for additional things that can be easily prevented.
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.
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 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.
I don't think the state should pay for additional things that can be easily prevented.
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.