0
Im-Wide-Awake 0 points ago +1 / -1

As it stands there is no lawful execution for rapists. Many instances rapists aren’t caught. It seems there is currently more resources being used to first punish the woman than the rapist. Putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.

I sincerely hope none of your loved ones have to go through this ordeal, being impregnated through rape. But if one does, I hope you can realize better their perspective.

Take care.

0
Im-Wide-Awake 0 points ago +1 / -1

The pill isn’t a fail safe. That’s part of the issue

0
Im-Wide-Awake 0 points ago +1 / -1

I think the biggest thing to understand is that the pain is anything but temporary.

1
Im-Wide-Awake 1 point ago +2 / -1

And many others have not. So why force people to take that risk?

The mother shouldn't have to suffer the crimes of her rapist either, beyond just the rape itself, but the 9 moths following carrying a baby to term, and the post-partum depression that is incredibly common after that.

If it helps just realize that the forcing the woman to carry to term is a part of the crime commited againat her

Uh, it doesn't help at all. In fact it's the primary reason why I think this is a bad thing, since we have a procedure available that can prevent this.

0
Im-Wide-Awake 0 points ago +1 / -1

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.

2
Im-Wide-Awake 2 points ago +4 / -2

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

-1
Im-Wide-Awake -1 points ago +3 / -4

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.

3
Im-Wide-Awake 3 points ago +5 / -2

I think it’s incredibly awful to say that a woman raped has to still carry a baby to term. Pregnancy does a significant ordeal to a woman’s body.

0
Im-Wide-Awake 0 points ago +1 / -1

Unfortunately a lot of states currently have rules that do not make exceptions for rape or incest. It’s despicable

1
Im-Wide-Awake 1 point ago +1 / -0

I mean…that sort of proves my point right? There was a lawsuit because the practice by Dillard’s was invasive.

I’m baffled that you still encounter it regularly, and if you genuinely still do I’m not sure why you don’t also file a lawsuit, because I certainly would. Don’t know why you’ve ever put up with something like that.

2
Im-Wide-Awake 2 points ago +2 / -0

There’s an easy answer for this: things change. The opinions of a person back in the late 1800’s don’t affect the opinions of a person today. So what if Susan B Anthony disagreed with a stance a person has now? Do feminists have to agree with everything she says no matter what?

Honestly don’t understand this angle

2
Im-Wide-Awake 2 points ago +2 / -0

Bud correcting the use of a phrase isn’t narcissism, nor is it trolling. Also not really getting what you mean by “perception is everything.”

1
Im-Wide-Awake 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m flattered you think so but I’m just pointing out that you’re misusing the phrase.

“Saying the quiet part out loud” is when someone speaks about the things they publicly support but accidentally reveals their nefarious ulterior motive.

0
Im-Wide-Awake 0 points ago +1 / -1

You guys know that’s not what “the quiet part out loud” means, right?

-1
Im-Wide-Awake -1 points ago +1 / -2

I’m with you. It’s pretty funny how quickly people will jump to random numbers and fishbowls as “proofs”

by BQnita
1
Im-Wide-Awake 1 point ago +1 / -0

Are you suggesting that smoking is actually good for you?

I understand that there are people who smoke that die of old age, but how many smokers do you know with chronic coughs? With tracheotomies? With lung cancer?

Just because not everyone gets affected by it, doesn’t mean it’s healthy

by BQnita
1
Im-Wide-Awake 1 point ago +2 / -1

100%. Plus, the email is over 2 years old. Once upon a time people were saying that smoking cigarettes is good for you. After more studies were done, we learned that it wasn’t true.

Stances change as people acquire new information.

-1
Im-Wide-Awake -1 points ago +1 / -2

So...the suspicion is this is a woman who didn't have a big social media presence? So what?

1
Im-Wide-Awake 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think you're dreaming bud. You and I will both be dead long before anything like what you're describing becomes reality

5
Im-Wide-Awake 5 points ago +5 / -0

100%. I don’t know why so often people just take some random Twitter post as true without at all taking the effort to verify sources

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›