https://undelete.pullpush.io/ works. Example with the link in this post:
https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/worldnews/comments/1dn571n/uae_abortion_now_allowed_in_rape_incest_cases_as/la0gqrl/?sort=controversial
Doesn't capture everything and sometimes nothing so not nearly as good as the old tools like removeddit, but still works enough to see some juicy stuff
[Undelete is picking up a couple of the deleted comments...](https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/worldnews/comments/1dn571n/uae_abortion_now_allowed_in_rape_incest_cases_as/la0gqrl/?sort=controversial)
It did pretty effectively until someone came along with a method of getting around the API restrictions; not as reliable as the ones pre-API fucktangle, but reliable enough to still check.
Anyone wants to bookmark it for easy access, this one opens a new tab/window with the current Reddit URL in the address bar entered automatically into the new pullpush service:
`javascript:void(open(location.href.replace(/:\/\/([\w-]+.)?(reddit\.com\/r|reveddit\.com\/v)\//i, "://undelete.pullpush.io/r/")))`
I never understood pro-lifers in favor of exceptions for rape or incest. Like, you believe that the fetus is a living human and that its right to life supersedes the mother's right to bodily autonomy. Why are you suddenly okay with killing it because its father did something wrong?
Fortunately I can just be pro-choice and not have to tie myself into knots over this.
Yep. Same reason some are willing to carve out exceptions for IVF.
Granted SOME are hardline extremists, all abortion is baby murder and thus no exceptions ever including IVF. But many, probably a majority, know that "abortion is baby murder" is inflammatory and sells but don't in any way believe it.
Edit: ok well they're all hardline extremists but y'know, different flavors.
I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine, who is pro-life.
She said that she is okay with abortion where there has been rape, sexual assault, or where there are serious risks to the mother or baby. What she refused to agree with is what she called “abortion as a contraceptive”, i.e. being irresponsible because then you can just abort. She said she couldn’t reconcile it morally, whereas she could where there were other circumstances.
I countered with the fact that women have a right to bodily autonomy, and in any event forcing a woman to have a child they did not want, regardless of how or why it was conceived, is likely to result in a miserable outcome for everyone etc, but that might give you some insight into the moral standpoint these people take.
Are there even people who actually do that though? It sounds wildly inconvenient and unpleasent.
It's like asking, "Well if everyone had universal healthcare are people going to look before crossing the street?"
Just because you can go to the hospital doesn't mean you want to get hit by a car.
No who you replied too, my pro-life family members use Fox news as their sources, essentially they are told "This is being used as contraceptive!" with no evidence for that, and they suck it up like vacuum because it was *their media* that confirms their biases.
With a little effort, you can find quite literally any system being abused.
Are there women (or men pushing women into) using abortion in some form as a contraceptive, *absolutely*
Are they a statistically significant amount of people, *no*
To use an example of comparably stupid misuse of healthcare, there are people who call the ambulance as a taxi to the hospital, rather than as emergency health care
Using them as an example of why ambulances are bad would be madness
My sister did it a couple of times. She absolutely refuses to take any medication, even tylenol, so no birth control. There's a bunch of hypocrisy on her end. But she's quite literally the only person I've ever met like that....and frankly for the best. She's since had 3 kids all taken by CPS.
They are, had an abortion class in med school, and my teaacher, who's a doctor at a public abortion clinic, said that when they see the same girl in a relative short period of time, they have to talk to her and at least recommend long action contraceptives.
Not only are they forcing a woman to have a child they did not want, they are forcing a woman that they deemed "irresponsible" to have a child that they did not plan for.
What's ethically less acceptable: killing a fetus that never knew it existed, or condemning a person to have been born unwanted and raised by unprepared, unwilling or irresponsible parents for the rest of their life.
Nobody can make that choice except for the mother.
I mean it's all about hurting people who did something "wrong". So yes, that's working as designed for them. The child and the mother get to be miserable and have an awful life and to pro-lifers that's a *good* thing. It's why they're so monstrous.
There's also a shitty element of "if we make more people have babies they don't want, we'll have more kids we can either funnel into the military and into work release prison programs for cheap corporate labor, and that's if we don't work on repealing the child labor laws because John Galt wannabe ass wants his mad max harem with a child mining creche that he lords over like an evil god."
And then the even more shitty people who believe in some kind of upcoming race war and think the only preparation is to end feminism and force people to have more babies, and anything else results in ruin.
> What she refused to agree with is what she called “abortion as a contraceptive”, i.e. being irresponsible because then you can just abort. She said she couldn’t reconcile it morally, whereas she could where there were other circumstances.
A better counter would have been that 1) this doesn't happen to a meaningful degree (Law of Truly Large Numbers). It's a strawman pro-lifers came up with. and 2) abortion isn't cheap. Condoms are several orders of magnitude less expensive as a method of birth control. Abortion is also rather unpleasant for a couple days from what I've heard.
This is a good argument for rational people, but it assumes rationality on the part of the pro-life friend.
Your counter implies the existence of three groups: the groups she is explicitly okay with getting abortions, the extremely tiny number of "abortions as a contraceptive" people, and then people who have other emergency and unexpected pregnancies.
She almost certainly considers group 3 *to be* group 2 as well.
Even in the UK where abortion is free and most abortion is a chemical abortion via medication taken at home, it still doesn't happen to any statistically significant extent and long-term contraception is very common even amongst young people.
> serious risk to mother or baby.
This is what gets me. All childbirth is a serious risk. Its an insanely major and invasive medical procedure even in the most ideal cases.
Donald Trump has literally said that when he becomes president, he will make it so that “the only genders recognized by the United States government are male and female”, they’re practically screaming from the rooftops now
Yeah I was just about to post this same thing. Like if you think that abortion is murder, full stop, then reape or incest or any of those things shouldn't matter to you. You're taking the life of a person because of the actions of someone they had zero contact with.
Since they do make those exceptions though, it's pretty clear that is was never about "saving the life of the child", it was just about controlling and punishing women.
>Yeah I was just about to post this same thing. Like if you think that abortion is murder, full stop,
It stops right there and jumps to this
>just about controlling and punishing **certain** women.
Conservatives wife's and mistresses get abortions all the time, but for them it's allowed because insert x reason even though they don't think that should apply to other women with the same reason.
Simply put *rules for thee not for mee*
There are always attenuating circumstances. Like, I don’t think we should be killing random innocent dogs. But if one is asymptomatically carrying a disease that might put people’s life at risk, then it is acceptable to put it down, even if it isn’t the dog’s fault.
Also, a lot of people think killing animals is ok, as long as we eat them
Animals are a *completely* different category lol. Replace dog with baby in your comment and see if you still agree with it.
I am as pro-choice as it gets but for people that believe the fetus is a human being I don't understand how there are any extenuating circumstances based on the actions of *other people* that can make you justify killing it if you are taking the stance that it is a human life.
I mean, I'd rather pro-life people be inconsistent in their views rather than trying to ban any abortion for any reason whatsoever. Yeah it's inconsistent, but insisting on the consistency is either going to have no effect at all, or result in those people going "holy shit you're right- let's ban it in all cases!"
Which is actually what's going on now politically.
Just saying, not really any good result from trying to force them to look at the inconsistency in my opinion.
Well that's why I don't take that tact when speaking with pro-life people.
I only bring it up in this context discussing with other pro-choice people the logical inconsistency of these beliefs because it isn't about being consistent or actually caring about human lives, it's about punishing and controlling women. If it was *really* about human life then their only exceptions would be for risk to the life of the mother.
Agree. Well partially. I do think that the origin of the political impetus for anti-choice/pro-abortion stuff is a combination of political manipulation, controlling and punishing women, and [X factor], but on the individual level I believe some people truly do hold sincere convictions about every [fetus] deserves a chance at life, and/or abortion is murder.
Again I do agree the root/origin of the 'pro-life' movement is control of women, punishment for the "wrong" kind of sex, and political power/control though.
??? That's because you don't see the fetus as a human life. We aren't talking about people like you and me here though.
The argument is that for people who *do* see it as a human being, it is logically inconsistent to have exceptions for rape because you are killing a human being because of something someone else did when the fetus is blameless.
In addition to the failure of the dog analogy the other commenter made, a second problem with the extenuating circumstances argument is that it also confers different status on, to use the pro-life terms, preborn humans versus postbirth humans. Some pro lifers might say that abortion is ok in the case of rape, but I think no one would say it's ok to kill a 6 month old because it was the product of rape. But why, if you sincerely believe the embryo is a person, would abortion be ok but infanticide not? I think the answer is we all intuitively understand that abortion is different, and I think that understanding comes down to a recognition that an embryo isnt a person.
Some arguments that I think are unnavailing are that embryos are less capable of pain, because it would be wrong to kill people who have a lower capacity for pain (like people in vegetative states) against their will. There's also an argument that if the woman doesnt get an abortion she has committed to keeping the kid, but that's just a variance in where we assign the point where life begins, but if a pro lifer says that life begins at conception then having any time after conception to decide to abort still entails assigning a relatively lower value of the life before some point than after, which is inconsistent with life beginning at conception.
Yeah, I do think fetuses should have a different status before and after birth. They should definitely have a different status early on, when they’re not even conscious
Im pro choice but at times when debating with pro lifers you gotta start making compromises if you don't want to be harassed for it.
(especially in a Texas middle school where the moment you say you're completely pro choice people will absolutely hound you for an hour... Even my teacher started talking shit bro it was crazy... No River. its not the same as shooting your 7 yr old sister)
Though I think that has the unintentional consequence of prolifers creating exceptions instead of realizing that their mindset is flawed
In my experience most pro-lifers do in fact think abortion in the case of rape is sad because it’s a loss of life, but they just believe that being forced to give birth to a rapist’s baby is so terrible it is understandable that a victim chooses to terminate.
There’s also the element of “responsibility”. Having sex and knowing the risks is different than being a victim.
If you view it as a self defense argument, you can view consensual sex as also consenting to the possibility of pregnancy and therefor you lose the right to self defense if you do get pregnant. In the case of rape though you don't consent. Plus the blame on the "murder" of the fetus now shifts from the mother to the rapist, so the mother doesn't hold any moral fault for getting the abortion.
I'm pro choice though
I've had this argument before. Why is the assumption of a risk of an undesired outcome (in this case an unwanted pregnancy) grounds for restriction or punishment? It seems weird that simply "risking the pregnancy" deprives the mother (and only the mother) of such a fundamental right as bodily autonomy, yeah?
Also, the responsibility for the "murder" (from the anti-abortion perspective) doesn't magically shift to the rapist. It would certainly be convenient for that position to avoid either the hypocrisy of abortion exemptions or the horror of not having those exemptions, but it doesn't add up. The anti-abortion position assumes the unborn child to be a person with rights, not an asset to take from the father if he is a rapist.
Put another way, are we demanding a pregnancy from rape be aborted in all cases to punish the child (or the rapist by proxy)? Or do we provide an option as a reconigition of the right to self-defense?
>Why is the assumption of a risk of an undesired outcome (in this case an unwanted pregnancy) grounds for restriction or punishment? It seems weird that simply "risking the pregnancy" deprives the mother (and only the mother) of such a fundamental right as bodily autonomy, yeah?
It doesn't if you take a hardline stance on bodily autonomy, but most pro-lifers don't see it as an immutable right (and I would say lots of pro-choicers don't either, like in the case of mandatory vaccinations, or even stuff like corrective surgeries for kids).
>Also, the responsibility for the "murder" (from the anti-abortion perspective) doesn't magically shift to the rapist. It would certainly be convenient for that position to avoid either the hypocrisy of abortion exemptions or the horror of not having those exemptions, but it doesn't add up. The anti-abortion position assumes the unborn child to be a person with rights, not an asset to take from the father if he is a rapist.
If a serial killer ties you and another person up, puts a gun to your head, and says kill the other person or I kill you, are you morally responsible for the murder? The other person has a right to life.
Mandatory vaccine policies do not allow us to literally strap someone down and put a needle in their arm. Employment and entry into certain public facing spaces may require these, but that does not in and of itself rise to the level of a question of bodily autonomy.
Corrective surgeries for kids is a case where a guardian must represent someone's interests where they are not able to give consent. This isn't a disregard for bodily autonomy but rather a case where its protection has logistical challenges.
I submit that we as a society care a whole lot more about bodily autonomy than you realize. Organ donation is the go-to example, but this also concerns the acceptable level of force (i.e. lethal) when protecting oneself from rape.
>If a serial killer ties you and another person up, puts a gun to your head, and says kill the other person or I kill you, are you morally responsible for the murder? The other person has a right to life.
This situation does not map to pregnancy in the case of rape, barring a life threatening complication.
This is only a contradiction if you think anti-choicers care about the fetus.
Once you realize it's about punishing women, their entire world view suddenly shows consistency.
I have the uncomfortable position of not buying the clump of cells argument but still being pro choice.
To me it's killing something, but the least bad of a bunch of awful options available right now. And at some point medical technology may advance to the point where it's no longer the case.
What is it killing tho? Technically cancer is living cells and we have no issues with killing that.
Miscarriages supposedly happen to like 15-40% of pregnancies.
> A miscarriage usually occurs because the pregnancy is not developing properly
If even your body can go nah.. this isn't going to work out why can't we do the same thing socially?
Humans have been using/finding herbs that can act as contraceptive/abortive going back to early history. It's either that or survival of the fittest.. expect some of them to starve.
I mean.. abortion isn't even a human made idea.
> Animals, on the other hand, have relatively “easy” contraception methods. Armadillos can “pause” their pregnancy if food becomes scarce. Some mammals (such as rats, mice and cats) can reabsorb the fetuses if there’s too much danger to raise them (excessive population, not enough food, too many predators around). Birds can push excess eggs out of the nest before they hatch. Infanticide is more common, however; new-borns with something wrong can be rejected or even outright killed by the mother. For instance, Tasmania Devils only have 4 teats, so the first 4 babies to make it to the pouch and latch on will grow, and the others (which can be up to 30) will be eaten by the mom to stimulate milk production.
> Miscarriages supposedly happen to like 15-40% of pregnancies.
>
>> A miscarriage usually occurs because the pregnancy is not developing properly
>
> If even your body can go nah.. this isn't going to work out why can't we do the same thing socially?
It's a Trolley Problem; if your body naturally rejects the fetus you're not causally involved by making the decision.
You don't need to convince me, I'm already pro choice. I'm just not going to pretend abortion isn't killing a fetus.
Those who are insecure in their values have to tell themselves it's not really alive or it's just a parasite. I'm not insecure in my beliefs. Bodily autonomy is the reason I'm pro choice. Despite the fact that it is in fact killing a fetus.
It's genuinely a weird viewpoint to think of an early zygote as equivalent of a fully cooked one though, which anti-choicers do all the time.
How much it's expelling a "clump of cells" (since it is just a sphere at the point of implantation) vs killing a potential-human varies. It's not the only abortion, but it is the most common, which makes all the "baaaaabies" rhetoric just seem bizarre vs the reality.
I support abortion on demand without apology, and I think people overly lean on the idea it's just a clump of cells, but it's not a baseless assertion.
I'm not anti choice. So obviously I agree it's odd to treat both as equal. But neither of them are just a clump of cells.
I reject all the cope arguments and subscribe entirely to the bodily autonomy argument. That's all.
Where do you draw the line of life then? Some christians believe you shouldn't masturbate since all of the sperm should only be used to make babies. Otherwise it's 'wasted'. That sperm 'could' have become a fetus.. and rubbing it into a tissue means youve killed its chances of becoming a fetus. Every month I bleed and yet again my body is naturally expelling potential life. But that is what it is.. potential.
There is no 'coping' as you said. I simply believe a fetus has not gained sentience. It's not truly alive yet.
It doesn't mean we can't still mourn the loss of the potential life..many women still do struggle with the choice or struggle with the loss after a miscarriage.
That's not even accurate. In many abortions it's not a fetus and whether you call it "killing" is a subjective moral judgement not an irrefutable fact.
I am also pro-choice, but this argument is very vulnerable.
Cancer cells are indeed living tissue, but they are a poor comparison to an embryo/fetus/unborn child/whichever label is applicable, as the cancer is not going to develop into a new person with associated rights and protections.
The miscarriage rate is certainly relevant to the discussion on enforcing anti-abortion policy and the horrors of criminalizing reproductive biology, but it doesn't actually address the moral reasoning of abortion.
The examples of the reproduction of other mammals is likewise not compelling. It is an informal fallacy, the naturalistic fallacy, to assume phenomena found in nature as being inherently good or desireable. Just because something is a certain way doesn't automatically mean it ought to be that way, especially for beings who aren't necessarily viewed as moral agents.
But worst of all, this comparison directly equates abortion to the infanticide common to the mammalain species that are cited in this paragraph. Protip: it is a bad idea to justify infanticide, particularly in the context of current social policy decisions.
There will never be a medical technology that makes 100% of pregnancies 100% safe amd 100% desirable.
Abortion has been a part of life and medicine for thousands of years and will be an important part of medicine for generations to come.
Abortions are lifesaving and necessary part of medicine.
No. But there may one day be medical technology that makes non fatal abortions a practicality. Or that makes unintended pregnancy impossible, or some unknown third option that's better. Y'all need to read. I'm pro choice. Stop trying to convince me. I already am, and unlike most, I'm not insecure about it. Because I'm pro choice even though I see it, correctly, as killing a living thing.
[I think this essay by Judith Jarvis Thomson](https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm) might be useful; even when assuming a right to life from the moment of conception, this essay outlines a compelling defense of abortion rights.
I was listening to a podcast about abortion and evangelical church. The priest who is more progressive, explained as there are 3 exceptions. “Rape”, “incest”, and “hear me out”. Basically they think their case is different and they are entitled to be heard.
My abortion is the moral abortion is the common arguement.
Lots of these right wingers think other women are evil sluts, but they're special and deserve special treatment.
Nevermind the fact that abortion exceptions aren't guarantees they just give you the opportunity to beg.
To play devil's advocate: There are legal exceptions for actual murder too. Self defense, insanity, accidents, war, etc. Plus you have non-legal but (for some people) socially justifiable reasons for murder like revenge or vigilante justice. If you believe that abortion is murder shouldn't it also have its exceptions?
Of course there are legal/societal exceptions to murder that pro-lifers (at a minimum tacitly) support that don't have any basis in the Bible. And that's more fleshed out textually than anything related to abortion. Plus the only justification for murder that maps onto a justification for abortion is "life of the mother" (self defense). Since abortion in the case of rape is punishing the victim (if you consider the unborn fetus as the victim) and not the criminal it doesn't fit any legal or biblical laws around judicial killing.
Yeah but this isn't about allowing abortion if, for instance, it would put the mother at risk to carry the pregnancy to term (=self-defence), it's about allowing the abortion *for something the baby had nothing to do with*.
The idea is that the baby is still innocent but carrying a pregnancy to term as a rape victim is so horrifically traumatic that it’s understandable a victim will terminate. It’s like self defense against extreme psychological torture.
*I’m pro-choice just playing devils advocate
The reponse (or really extension) to this reasoning is that unwanted pregnancy can be extremely traumatic even without it being a result of rape. We have horrifying records of the harm women have put themselves through to defend themselves from unwanted pregnancies, particularly when and where abortion was outlawed. Sometimes they even die.
I cannot even begin to describe the visceral desperation it takes for someone to do that to herself.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you. Unfortunately the response to that is usually some variant of that being a failing of the mother since you should be responsible for your own actions, and that pregnant women just need to “man up”. Rape victims get excepted from that logic.
Being forced into childbirth against your will by the government is always horrifically traumatic.
Don't pretend like anti-chociers give a damn about what's traumatic for women and girls.
I personally agree, just as someone with a family of pro-life except for rape I’m explaining the logic.
Even then, I think forced pregnancy is horrific, but being a rape victim does add a new layer of horrible to it.
I think that if we want to win arguments against the other side you need to understand how their viewpoint works. Anti-choicers aren’t exactly all mustache twirling villains who hate women, a lot of them genuinely believe a fetus is a life. It’s helpful to understand the other side instead of just pointlessly demonizing them. Pro-lifers already give a lot of dumb arguments to pick apart without inventing new ones or ignoring real ones.
> Anti-choicers aren’t exactly all mustache twirling villains who hate women,
They dont twirl mustaches but they genuinely are misogynists. Denying theyre misogynist is not being charitable. It's whitewashing. Maybe they don't have women but they don't respect them as equals or think they deserve the same rights.
> a lot of them genuinely believe a fetus is a life.
And those people don't support rape and incest exceptions. if it were based on whether were alive, exceptions would be untenable.
> It’s helpful to understand the other side instead of just pointlessly demonizing them.
I do understand the other side and I'm not saying they're misogynists to "demonize" them. You cannot address women's issues if you're upset by people pointing out misogyny exists.
It's not really an argument against pro-choice, more of a whataboutism to try and twist pro-choice people into knots. Basically summed up as "how can you support women's right to choose if I have to get vaccinated".
To which there are many responses, ranging from "same reason you can't smoke in public", to "not all pro-choice people are pro-mandatory vaccination".
I do think they are a bit different since vaccines are for the great good. If you are infected you aren't just risking your own life.. you are risking the lives of anyone who you come in contact with.
Viruses can spread very quickly and deadly viruses can kill a large number of people. With globalization it can travel the world over fairly easily.
Without vaccinations humans would simply not be able to live so close together and in such quantities as we do now. We are fortunate that plagues aren't more common considering we have some [industries set up to unintentionally make some powerful viruses](https://www.mspca.org/animal_protection/factory-farming-pandemic/).
It's one thing if you are allergic to the vaccine or it will make you very sick and allowances/exceptions should be made... But I really think they should be the exception rather than the rule. As long as enough people get vaccinated we should have enough herd immunity to limit the spread of the virus.
Family planning, birth control, abortion is also fairly important for the public as well. If every family had 9 or so kids the population would go out of control and we would simply not be able to feed them. In the past we could sustain those large family sizes but that's because you'd expect to lose a few and there was still significant land to spread to.
If you wish to end up like Herman Cain, you're more than welcome to follow his lead. Mandatory vaccination doesn't bother me at all.
The thing about pro-choice is that *it doesn't necessarily lead to abortions* - the woman is free to choose whether to abort *or* keep the fetus. Pro-*life* itself is a massive contradiction because guess what happens when a woman is forbidden to have an abortion?
***BOTH the fetus and the mother die.***
It's no coincidence that maternity mortality rates shot up throughout the Bible Belt as a direct consequence of the repeal of *Roe v. Wade*.
"Why is killing it outside the womb immoral, but killing it inside the womb moral?"
Simple, because inside the womb it's part of the woman's body, and thus her body her choice comes into play.
Outside the womb, it's not part of the woman's body, and thus she would not be able to terminate it.
A pregnant person who gets an abortion has consented to it. A pregnant person who’s been murdered hasn’t.
Pregnant women are still warned against drinking/smoking while pregnant, JUST IN CASE they want the baby. It's basically just a good habit to install regardless.
>just pointing out that saying “collect semen… that’s all they have to do” is a pretty dumb take.
>>It’s not. If there is any, they’ll collect it. Yeah? Never heard a story about rape have you? You think men will just pull out before they cum?
Wont somebody please slap this redditor in the face with a used condom
Seriously, absolutely no empathy. Like he thinks a woman would be in the right mental state after SA to go "right, let's get to the bathroom and collect that semen and get right to the police!".
> I don’t need comebacks, dude. Why does an argument need to be about dissing someone else? That’s like arguing with my girlfriend but each argument I need to have a comeback. Grow up, kid. That’s not how arguing works.
I’m struggling between “this guy’s poor girlfriend” and “there’s no way this guy has a girlfriend.”
Also, lol on the idea of digitally recording farts being mature; everyone knows the only mature way to capture farts is on vinyl.
You may be surprised to learn that some of the most highly-regarded flatulence available on LP was mastered from digital sources.
(I’m trying but failing to come up with a “Mystic Toots Orchestra” joke, alas.)
This person is taking no prisoners:
> Then the father can take the fetus and gestate it himself.
> Oh he can't do that? Then he can fuck right off. He gets no say over a woman's body just because his genetic material is inside.
You just know that the “abortion is only okay if it’s rape” people are the same people that will go on about false accusations ruining men’s lives. Like, hey, what do you think is going to happen if you tell women that they’re only allowed to get an abortion if they say that someone raped them?
The overwhelming majority seem in favor of the news though? And the dude who's being an asshole is seeing a ton of pushback and downvotes.
I guess I'm just not sure how an unpopular opinion is proof that the sub is bad.
>rape is insanely hard to proof dumbfuck
>rape exceptions are almost useless because most rape is a she said/ he said situation, you would need video proof or witnesses
>only 3 % of all rape cases result in a conviction, its almost legal at that point everywhere
Is this really true? I know it's very hard to prove but 97% being aquited sounds insane. I guess it depends on the location.
This is for the US, but according to this from 2019 (source below) Roughly 18% lead to an arrest at all and only 7% lead to a conviction.
https://www.uml.edu/news/stories/2019/sexual_assault_research.aspx
This (UK) source here seems to say that the conviction rate is 75% but this appears to be specifically for cases go to trial
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/feb/juries-convict-defendants-rape-more-often-acquit
This Washington Post article claims that, including estimated numbers for unreported sexual assault, the number is a .7% Felony Conviction
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/06/less-than-percent-rapes-lead-felony-convictions-least-percent-victims-face-emotional-physical-consequences/
The 3% number appears to be From Al Jazeera I believe as this is the closest I could find regarding it
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/5/7/why-do-so-few-rapes-result-in-a-conviction
Those numbers sound about right.
>I know it's very hard to prove but 97% being aquited sounds insane.
A conviction requires the suspect to first be charged with a crime before they can be convicted in a court of law.
[The overwhelming majority of reported rapes do not result in a criminal charge](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48095118), and thus the overwhelming majority of rapists are never convicted.
Since prosecutors can decide who they want to charge they can maintain relatively high conviction rates (60%) regardless of the above.
And if pressures exist here for women to not report, I must imagine in the UAE there are *tons* of pressures and circumstances where in a woman would not report
Even in your comment you can't even entertain the possibility of the victim being anything other than a woman and the assailant being anything other than a man.
If you want people to take rape seriously, your own biases are a good place to start.
Also remember that prosecutors ONLY PROSECUTE when they are very sure they will win. If they're given a case that's a 60 percent chance they're found not guilty, they will choose to not prosecute. It's a "waste" of resources to prosecute cases they are not absolutely sure they can win. Rape is like the hardest crime to prove. So it's not often cases are so strong they prosecute. Hence the low percentage of rape cases actually found guilty
>You don’t have to cum to rape someone.
Why is this upvoted? This is true but also meaningless when discussing pregnancy via rape.
The actual response to 'well you can just collect sperm to convict someone of rape.' is that you have to prove the lack of consent not just that sex happened, that's why its so difficult to prosecute and why 'we'll let you get an abortion if you were raped' is a bullshit response to the actual problem.
How would rape exceptions work anyway (spoiler alert they dont) .
False rape accusations are mostly an MRA boogeyman.
However....if you had to accuse someone of rape to access an abortion, I can't imagine that would do good things for the criminal justice system.
It's an nonsense unenforcable policy that would only ever benefit rich white women with expensive laywers.
Snapshots:
1. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240624092356/https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1dn571n/uae_abortion_now_allowed_in_rape_incest_cases_as/la0gqrl/?sort=controversial) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1dn571n/uae_abortion_now_allowed_in_rape_incest_cases_as/la0gqrl/?sort=controversial "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
*I am just a simple bot, __not__ a moderator of this subreddit* | *[bot subreddit](/r/SnapshillBot)* | *[contact the maintainers](/message/compose?to=/r/SnapshillBot)*
Bro deleted their account and top comment. How do I enjoy my popcorn now?
https://undelete.pullpush.io/ works. Example with the link in this post: https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/worldnews/comments/1dn571n/uae_abortion_now_allowed_in_rape_incest_cases_as/la0gqrl/?sort=controversial Doesn't capture everything and sometimes nothing so not nearly as good as the old tools like removeddit, but still works enough to see some juicy stuff
You fucking legend, thank you!
Ffs, a lot of that happening recently. Time to go back to using archive links until *that* mod decides its against the rules again
Honestly fuck that guy.
which janny is this
Probably u / t a k e i t t o c i r c l e j e r k or whatever his name was
Oh wow everyone used to love them so much!
did the api shit break him
nah no one ever really liked me that much
I mean... yes, with good reason to be quite blunt.
like what!
u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK
don't do that
Why not?
archives suck for a lot of users and usually don't even capture the drama
I see, thanks for the clarification
[Undelete is picking up a couple of the deleted comments...](https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/worldnews/comments/1dn571n/uae_abortion_now_allowed_in_rape_incest_cases_as/la0gqrl/?sort=controversial)
woah what i thought the reddit api change killed all those kinds of sites
It did pretty effectively until someone came along with a method of getting around the API restrictions; not as reliable as the ones pre-API fucktangle, but reliable enough to still check. Anyone wants to bookmark it for easy access, this one opens a new tab/window with the current Reddit URL in the address bar entered automatically into the new pullpush service: `javascript:void(open(location.href.replace(/:\/\/([\w-]+.)?(reddit\.com\/r|reveddit\.com\/v)\//i, "://undelete.pullpush.io/r/")))`
I never understood pro-lifers in favor of exceptions for rape or incest. Like, you believe that the fetus is a living human and that its right to life supersedes the mother's right to bodily autonomy. Why are you suddenly okay with killing it because its father did something wrong? Fortunately I can just be pro-choice and not have to tie myself into knots over this.
Because it’s not about saving the fetus. It’s about punishing the mother for having sex.
It's almost like conservatives are full of shit.
They stand for nothing.
In case you guys didn’t know, Republicans have the same policy as Saudi Arabia too. For the same reasons. Be sure to bring that up
Yep. Same reason some are willing to carve out exceptions for IVF. Granted SOME are hardline extremists, all abortion is baby murder and thus no exceptions ever including IVF. But many, probably a majority, know that "abortion is baby murder" is inflammatory and sells but don't in any way believe it. Edit: ok well they're all hardline extremists but y'know, different flavors.
I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine, who is pro-life. She said that she is okay with abortion where there has been rape, sexual assault, or where there are serious risks to the mother or baby. What she refused to agree with is what she called “abortion as a contraceptive”, i.e. being irresponsible because then you can just abort. She said she couldn’t reconcile it morally, whereas she could where there were other circumstances. I countered with the fact that women have a right to bodily autonomy, and in any event forcing a woman to have a child they did not want, regardless of how or why it was conceived, is likely to result in a miserable outcome for everyone etc, but that might give you some insight into the moral standpoint these people take.
Are there even people who actually do that though? It sounds wildly inconvenient and unpleasent. It's like asking, "Well if everyone had universal healthcare are people going to look before crossing the street?" Just because you can go to the hospital doesn't mean you want to get hit by a car.
No who you replied too, my pro-life family members use Fox news as their sources, essentially they are told "This is being used as contraceptive!" with no evidence for that, and they suck it up like vacuum because it was *their media* that confirms their biases.
With a little effort, you can find quite literally any system being abused. Are there women (or men pushing women into) using abortion in some form as a contraceptive, *absolutely* Are they a statistically significant amount of people, *no* To use an example of comparably stupid misuse of healthcare, there are people who call the ambulance as a taxi to the hospital, rather than as emergency health care Using them as an example of why ambulances are bad would be madness
My sister did it a couple of times. She absolutely refuses to take any medication, even tylenol, so no birth control. There's a bunch of hypocrisy on her end. But she's quite literally the only person I've ever met like that....and frankly for the best. She's since had 3 kids all taken by CPS.
[удалено]
Oh, she was educated. She's just a nut.
So no pill...what was her argument against condoms, IUD, etc., etc.? Do they still make copper IUDs, or are those all hormonal now though
She won't do anything that requires going to a doctor. Hence the hypocrisy lol.
It used to be common here in Greece. Ironically, it used to be more common when abortion was illegal.
They are, had an abortion class in med school, and my teaacher, who's a doctor at a public abortion clinic, said that when they see the same girl in a relative short period of time, they have to talk to her and at least recommend long action contraceptives.
Sure, but imagine thinking the solution to that problem is to take away people's access to safe abortion.
Agree, i wonder what that kind of people think about sex ed too.
It's almost as if the current conservative ideologies exacerbate all of the things they are so up in arms about stamping out.
Not only are they forcing a woman to have a child they did not want, they are forcing a woman that they deemed "irresponsible" to have a child that they did not plan for. What's ethically less acceptable: killing a fetus that never knew it existed, or condemning a person to have been born unwanted and raised by unprepared, unwilling or irresponsible parents for the rest of their life. Nobody can make that choice except for the mother.
I mean it's all about hurting people who did something "wrong". So yes, that's working as designed for them. The child and the mother get to be miserable and have an awful life and to pro-lifers that's a *good* thing. It's why they're so monstrous.
There's also a shitty element of "if we make more people have babies they don't want, we'll have more kids we can either funnel into the military and into work release prison programs for cheap corporate labor, and that's if we don't work on repealing the child labor laws because John Galt wannabe ass wants his mad max harem with a child mining creche that he lords over like an evil god." And then the even more shitty people who believe in some kind of upcoming race war and think the only preparation is to end feminism and force people to have more babies, and anything else results in ruin.
Cruelty is always involved.
> What she refused to agree with is what she called “abortion as a contraceptive”, i.e. being irresponsible because then you can just abort. She said she couldn’t reconcile it morally, whereas she could where there were other circumstances. A better counter would have been that 1) this doesn't happen to a meaningful degree (Law of Truly Large Numbers). It's a strawman pro-lifers came up with. and 2) abortion isn't cheap. Condoms are several orders of magnitude less expensive as a method of birth control. Abortion is also rather unpleasant for a couple days from what I've heard.
This is a good argument for rational people, but it assumes rationality on the part of the pro-life friend. Your counter implies the existence of three groups: the groups she is explicitly okay with getting abortions, the extremely tiny number of "abortions as a contraceptive" people, and then people who have other emergency and unexpected pregnancies. She almost certainly considers group 3 *to be* group 2 as well.
Even in the UK where abortion is free and most abortion is a chemical abortion via medication taken at home, it still doesn't happen to any statistically significant extent and long-term contraception is very common even amongst young people.
> serious risk to mother or baby. This is what gets me. All childbirth is a serious risk. Its an insanely major and invasive medical procedure even in the most ideal cases.
This is how I feel about the conservatives suddenly up in arms about IVF access. Like, if it's a life inside a uterus isn't it still one outside?
I feel ivf is proof that it's literally just about stopping any form of birth control. Don't be surprised when they go for the pills next tbh
They also target trans medical care for the same reason. It's not about protecting kids it's about enforcing a view of sex and gender.
Donald Trump has literally said that when he becomes president, he will make it so that “the only genders recognized by the United States government are male and female”, they’re practically screaming from the rooftops now
Yeah
Yeah I was just about to post this same thing. Like if you think that abortion is murder, full stop, then reape or incest or any of those things shouldn't matter to you. You're taking the life of a person because of the actions of someone they had zero contact with. Since they do make those exceptions though, it's pretty clear that is was never about "saving the life of the child", it was just about controlling and punishing women.
>Yeah I was just about to post this same thing. Like if you think that abortion is murder, full stop, It stops right there and jumps to this >just about controlling and punishing **certain** women. Conservatives wife's and mistresses get abortions all the time, but for them it's allowed because insert x reason even though they don't think that should apply to other women with the same reason. Simply put *rules for thee not for mee*
There are always attenuating circumstances. Like, I don’t think we should be killing random innocent dogs. But if one is asymptomatically carrying a disease that might put people’s life at risk, then it is acceptable to put it down, even if it isn’t the dog’s fault. Also, a lot of people think killing animals is ok, as long as we eat them
Animals are a *completely* different category lol. Replace dog with baby in your comment and see if you still agree with it. I am as pro-choice as it gets but for people that believe the fetus is a human being I don't understand how there are any extenuating circumstances based on the actions of *other people* that can make you justify killing it if you are taking the stance that it is a human life.
I mean, I'd rather pro-life people be inconsistent in their views rather than trying to ban any abortion for any reason whatsoever. Yeah it's inconsistent, but insisting on the consistency is either going to have no effect at all, or result in those people going "holy shit you're right- let's ban it in all cases!" Which is actually what's going on now politically. Just saying, not really any good result from trying to force them to look at the inconsistency in my opinion.
Well that's why I don't take that tact when speaking with pro-life people. I only bring it up in this context discussing with other pro-choice people the logical inconsistency of these beliefs because it isn't about being consistent or actually caring about human lives, it's about punishing and controlling women. If it was *really* about human life then their only exceptions would be for risk to the life of the mother.
Agree. Well partially. I do think that the origin of the political impetus for anti-choice/pro-abortion stuff is a combination of political manipulation, controlling and punishing women, and [X factor], but on the individual level I believe some people truly do hold sincere convictions about every [fetus] deserves a chance at life, and/or abortion is murder. Again I do agree the root/origin of the 'pro-life' movement is control of women, punishment for the "wrong" kind of sex, and political power/control though.
I would argue that an animal’s life is worth more than the life of a fetus early on during conception. So I don’t see the problem
??? That's because you don't see the fetus as a human life. We aren't talking about people like you and me here though. The argument is that for people who *do* see it as a human being, it is logically inconsistent to have exceptions for rape because you are killing a human being because of something someone else did when the fetus is blameless.
In addition to the failure of the dog analogy the other commenter made, a second problem with the extenuating circumstances argument is that it also confers different status on, to use the pro-life terms, preborn humans versus postbirth humans. Some pro lifers might say that abortion is ok in the case of rape, but I think no one would say it's ok to kill a 6 month old because it was the product of rape. But why, if you sincerely believe the embryo is a person, would abortion be ok but infanticide not? I think the answer is we all intuitively understand that abortion is different, and I think that understanding comes down to a recognition that an embryo isnt a person. Some arguments that I think are unnavailing are that embryos are less capable of pain, because it would be wrong to kill people who have a lower capacity for pain (like people in vegetative states) against their will. There's also an argument that if the woman doesnt get an abortion she has committed to keeping the kid, but that's just a variance in where we assign the point where life begins, but if a pro lifer says that life begins at conception then having any time after conception to decide to abort still entails assigning a relatively lower value of the life before some point than after, which is inconsistent with life beginning at conception.
Yeah, I do think fetuses should have a different status before and after birth. They should definitely have a different status early on, when they’re not even conscious
Is this you coming out in favor of eating aborted fetuses?
I don’t think that would be healthy
Don't knock it til you try it.
Do you realize that all pregnancy and childbirth put people's life at risk? Forcing people into childbirth is no small ask.
Im pro choice but at times when debating with pro lifers you gotta start making compromises if you don't want to be harassed for it. (especially in a Texas middle school where the moment you say you're completely pro choice people will absolutely hound you for an hour... Even my teacher started talking shit bro it was crazy... No River. its not the same as shooting your 7 yr old sister) Though I think that has the unintentional consequence of prolifers creating exceptions instead of realizing that their mindset is flawed
Because it's about punishing the woman for having sex and nothing else.
In my experience most pro-lifers do in fact think abortion in the case of rape is sad because it’s a loss of life, but they just believe that being forced to give birth to a rapist’s baby is so terrible it is understandable that a victim chooses to terminate. There’s also the element of “responsibility”. Having sex and knowing the risks is different than being a victim.
If you view it as a self defense argument, you can view consensual sex as also consenting to the possibility of pregnancy and therefor you lose the right to self defense if you do get pregnant. In the case of rape though you don't consent. Plus the blame on the "murder" of the fetus now shifts from the mother to the rapist, so the mother doesn't hold any moral fault for getting the abortion. I'm pro choice though
I've had this argument before. Why is the assumption of a risk of an undesired outcome (in this case an unwanted pregnancy) grounds for restriction or punishment? It seems weird that simply "risking the pregnancy" deprives the mother (and only the mother) of such a fundamental right as bodily autonomy, yeah? Also, the responsibility for the "murder" (from the anti-abortion perspective) doesn't magically shift to the rapist. It would certainly be convenient for that position to avoid either the hypocrisy of abortion exemptions or the horror of not having those exemptions, but it doesn't add up. The anti-abortion position assumes the unborn child to be a person with rights, not an asset to take from the father if he is a rapist. Put another way, are we demanding a pregnancy from rape be aborted in all cases to punish the child (or the rapist by proxy)? Or do we provide an option as a reconigition of the right to self-defense?
>Why is the assumption of a risk of an undesired outcome (in this case an unwanted pregnancy) grounds for restriction or punishment? It seems weird that simply "risking the pregnancy" deprives the mother (and only the mother) of such a fundamental right as bodily autonomy, yeah? It doesn't if you take a hardline stance on bodily autonomy, but most pro-lifers don't see it as an immutable right (and I would say lots of pro-choicers don't either, like in the case of mandatory vaccinations, or even stuff like corrective surgeries for kids). >Also, the responsibility for the "murder" (from the anti-abortion perspective) doesn't magically shift to the rapist. It would certainly be convenient for that position to avoid either the hypocrisy of abortion exemptions or the horror of not having those exemptions, but it doesn't add up. The anti-abortion position assumes the unborn child to be a person with rights, not an asset to take from the father if he is a rapist. If a serial killer ties you and another person up, puts a gun to your head, and says kill the other person or I kill you, are you morally responsible for the murder? The other person has a right to life.
Mandatory vaccine policies do not allow us to literally strap someone down and put a needle in their arm. Employment and entry into certain public facing spaces may require these, but that does not in and of itself rise to the level of a question of bodily autonomy. Corrective surgeries for kids is a case where a guardian must represent someone's interests where they are not able to give consent. This isn't a disregard for bodily autonomy but rather a case where its protection has logistical challenges. I submit that we as a society care a whole lot more about bodily autonomy than you realize. Organ donation is the go-to example, but this also concerns the acceptable level of force (i.e. lethal) when protecting oneself from rape. >If a serial killer ties you and another person up, puts a gun to your head, and says kill the other person or I kill you, are you morally responsible for the murder? The other person has a right to life. This situation does not map to pregnancy in the case of rape, barring a life threatening complication.
At least legally, you are. Traditionally duress has not been accepted as a defence to murder.
That's not how consent works. You don't consent to getting pregnant, otherwise birth control wouldn't be needed.
This is only a contradiction if you think anti-choicers care about the fetus. Once you realize it's about punishing women, their entire world view suddenly shows consistency.
I have the uncomfortable position of not buying the clump of cells argument but still being pro choice. To me it's killing something, but the least bad of a bunch of awful options available right now. And at some point medical technology may advance to the point where it's no longer the case.
What is it killing tho? Technically cancer is living cells and we have no issues with killing that. Miscarriages supposedly happen to like 15-40% of pregnancies. > A miscarriage usually occurs because the pregnancy is not developing properly If even your body can go nah.. this isn't going to work out why can't we do the same thing socially? Humans have been using/finding herbs that can act as contraceptive/abortive going back to early history. It's either that or survival of the fittest.. expect some of them to starve. I mean.. abortion isn't even a human made idea. > Animals, on the other hand, have relatively “easy” contraception methods. Armadillos can “pause” their pregnancy if food becomes scarce. Some mammals (such as rats, mice and cats) can reabsorb the fetuses if there’s too much danger to raise them (excessive population, not enough food, too many predators around). Birds can push excess eggs out of the nest before they hatch. Infanticide is more common, however; new-borns with something wrong can be rejected or even outright killed by the mother. For instance, Tasmania Devils only have 4 teats, so the first 4 babies to make it to the pouch and latch on will grow, and the others (which can be up to 30) will be eaten by the mom to stimulate milk production.
> Miscarriages supposedly happen to like 15-40% of pregnancies. > >> A miscarriage usually occurs because the pregnancy is not developing properly > > If even your body can go nah.. this isn't going to work out why can't we do the same thing socially? It's a Trolley Problem; if your body naturally rejects the fetus you're not causally involved by making the decision.
You don't need to convince me, I'm already pro choice. I'm just not going to pretend abortion isn't killing a fetus. Those who are insecure in their values have to tell themselves it's not really alive or it's just a parasite. I'm not insecure in my beliefs. Bodily autonomy is the reason I'm pro choice. Despite the fact that it is in fact killing a fetus.
It's genuinely a weird viewpoint to think of an early zygote as equivalent of a fully cooked one though, which anti-choicers do all the time. How much it's expelling a "clump of cells" (since it is just a sphere at the point of implantation) vs killing a potential-human varies. It's not the only abortion, but it is the most common, which makes all the "baaaaabies" rhetoric just seem bizarre vs the reality. I support abortion on demand without apology, and I think people overly lean on the idea it's just a clump of cells, but it's not a baseless assertion.
I'm not anti choice. So obviously I agree it's odd to treat both as equal. But neither of them are just a clump of cells. I reject all the cope arguments and subscribe entirely to the bodily autonomy argument. That's all.
Where do you draw the line of life then? Some christians believe you shouldn't masturbate since all of the sperm should only be used to make babies. Otherwise it's 'wasted'. That sperm 'could' have become a fetus.. and rubbing it into a tissue means youve killed its chances of becoming a fetus. Every month I bleed and yet again my body is naturally expelling potential life. But that is what it is.. potential. There is no 'coping' as you said. I simply believe a fetus has not gained sentience. It's not truly alive yet. It doesn't mean we can't still mourn the loss of the potential life..many women still do struggle with the choice or struggle with the loss after a miscarriage.
That's not even accurate. In many abortions it's not a fetus and whether you call it "killing" is a subjective moral judgement not an irrefutable fact.
I am also pro-choice, but this argument is very vulnerable. Cancer cells are indeed living tissue, but they are a poor comparison to an embryo/fetus/unborn child/whichever label is applicable, as the cancer is not going to develop into a new person with associated rights and protections. The miscarriage rate is certainly relevant to the discussion on enforcing anti-abortion policy and the horrors of criminalizing reproductive biology, but it doesn't actually address the moral reasoning of abortion. The examples of the reproduction of other mammals is likewise not compelling. It is an informal fallacy, the naturalistic fallacy, to assume phenomena found in nature as being inherently good or desireable. Just because something is a certain way doesn't automatically mean it ought to be that way, especially for beings who aren't necessarily viewed as moral agents. But worst of all, this comparison directly equates abortion to the infanticide common to the mammalain species that are cited in this paragraph. Protip: it is a bad idea to justify infanticide, particularly in the context of current social policy decisions.
There will never be a medical technology that makes 100% of pregnancies 100% safe amd 100% desirable. Abortion has been a part of life and medicine for thousands of years and will be an important part of medicine for generations to come. Abortions are lifesaving and necessary part of medicine.
No. But there may one day be medical technology that makes non fatal abortions a practicality. Or that makes unintended pregnancy impossible, or some unknown third option that's better. Y'all need to read. I'm pro choice. Stop trying to convince me. I already am, and unlike most, I'm not insecure about it. Because I'm pro choice even though I see it, correctly, as killing a living thing.
[I think this essay by Judith Jarvis Thomson](https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm) might be useful; even when assuming a right to life from the moment of conception, this essay outlines a compelling defense of abortion rights.
I was listening to a podcast about abortion and evangelical church. The priest who is more progressive, explained as there are 3 exceptions. “Rape”, “incest”, and “hear me out”. Basically they think their case is different and they are entitled to be heard.
My abortion is the moral abortion is the common arguement. Lots of these right wingers think other women are evil sluts, but they're special and deserve special treatment. Nevermind the fact that abortion exceptions aren't guarantees they just give you the opportunity to beg.
Yup, that exactly is "hear me out".
Because that's the compromise that makes it palatable
To play devil's advocate: There are legal exceptions for actual murder too. Self defense, insanity, accidents, war, etc. Plus you have non-legal but (for some people) socially justifiable reasons for murder like revenge or vigilante justice. If you believe that abortion is murder shouldn't it also have its exceptions? Of course there are legal/societal exceptions to murder that pro-lifers (at a minimum tacitly) support that don't have any basis in the Bible. And that's more fleshed out textually than anything related to abortion. Plus the only justification for murder that maps onto a justification for abortion is "life of the mother" (self defense). Since abortion in the case of rape is punishing the victim (if you consider the unborn fetus as the victim) and not the criminal it doesn't fit any legal or biblical laws around judicial killing.
Yeah but this isn't about allowing abortion if, for instance, it would put the mother at risk to carry the pregnancy to term (=self-defence), it's about allowing the abortion *for something the baby had nothing to do with*.
The idea is that the baby is still innocent but carrying a pregnancy to term as a rape victim is so horrifically traumatic that it’s understandable a victim will terminate. It’s like self defense against extreme psychological torture. *I’m pro-choice just playing devils advocate
The reponse (or really extension) to this reasoning is that unwanted pregnancy can be extremely traumatic even without it being a result of rape. We have horrifying records of the harm women have put themselves through to defend themselves from unwanted pregnancies, particularly when and where abortion was outlawed. Sometimes they even die. I cannot even begin to describe the visceral desperation it takes for someone to do that to herself.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you. Unfortunately the response to that is usually some variant of that being a failing of the mother since you should be responsible for your own actions, and that pregnant women just need to “man up”. Rape victims get excepted from that logic.
Being forced into childbirth against your will by the government is always horrifically traumatic. Don't pretend like anti-chociers give a damn about what's traumatic for women and girls.
I personally agree, just as someone with a family of pro-life except for rape I’m explaining the logic. Even then, I think forced pregnancy is horrific, but being a rape victim does add a new layer of horrible to it. I think that if we want to win arguments against the other side you need to understand how their viewpoint works. Anti-choicers aren’t exactly all mustache twirling villains who hate women, a lot of them genuinely believe a fetus is a life. It’s helpful to understand the other side instead of just pointlessly demonizing them. Pro-lifers already give a lot of dumb arguments to pick apart without inventing new ones or ignoring real ones.
> Anti-choicers aren’t exactly all mustache twirling villains who hate women, They dont twirl mustaches but they genuinely are misogynists. Denying theyre misogynist is not being charitable. It's whitewashing. Maybe they don't have women but they don't respect them as equals or think they deserve the same rights. > a lot of them genuinely believe a fetus is a life. And those people don't support rape and incest exceptions. if it were based on whether were alive, exceptions would be untenable. > It’s helpful to understand the other side instead of just pointlessly demonizing them. I do understand the other side and I'm not saying they're misogynists to "demonize" them. You cannot address women's issues if you're upset by people pointing out misogyny exists.
[удалено]
Why?
[удалено]
Explain, why is bodily autonomy a weak argument, and how is mandatory vaccination an example?
It's not really an argument against pro-choice, more of a whataboutism to try and twist pro-choice people into knots. Basically summed up as "how can you support women's right to choose if I have to get vaccinated". To which there are many responses, ranging from "same reason you can't smoke in public", to "not all pro-choice people are pro-mandatory vaccination".
One example of what? Explain your point fully, you're not being clear.
So you have no examples and just wanna jerk off over scary vaccines, got it.
I do think they are a bit different since vaccines are for the great good. If you are infected you aren't just risking your own life.. you are risking the lives of anyone who you come in contact with. Viruses can spread very quickly and deadly viruses can kill a large number of people. With globalization it can travel the world over fairly easily. Without vaccinations humans would simply not be able to live so close together and in such quantities as we do now. We are fortunate that plagues aren't more common considering we have some [industries set up to unintentionally make some powerful viruses](https://www.mspca.org/animal_protection/factory-farming-pandemic/). It's one thing if you are allergic to the vaccine or it will make you very sick and allowances/exceptions should be made... But I really think they should be the exception rather than the rule. As long as enough people get vaccinated we should have enough herd immunity to limit the spread of the virus. Family planning, birth control, abortion is also fairly important for the public as well. If every family had 9 or so kids the population would go out of control and we would simply not be able to feed them. In the past we could sustain those large family sizes but that's because you'd expect to lose a few and there was still significant land to spread to.
If you wish to end up like Herman Cain, you're more than welcome to follow his lead. Mandatory vaccination doesn't bother me at all. The thing about pro-choice is that *it doesn't necessarily lead to abortions* - the woman is free to choose whether to abort *or* keep the fetus. Pro-*life* itself is a massive contradiction because guess what happens when a woman is forbidden to have an abortion? ***BOTH the fetus and the mother die.*** It's no coincidence that maternity mortality rates shot up throughout the Bible Belt as a direct consequence of the repeal of *Roe v. Wade*.
[удалено]
You're conflating babies with undeveloped embryos. They are not the same.
[удалено]
"Why is killing it outside the womb immoral, but killing it inside the womb moral?" Simple, because inside the womb it's part of the woman's body, and thus her body her choice comes into play. Outside the womb, it's not part of the woman's body, and thus she would not be able to terminate it. A pregnant person who gets an abortion has consented to it. A pregnant person who’s been murdered hasn’t. Pregnant women are still warned against drinking/smoking while pregnant, JUST IN CASE they want the baby. It's basically just a good habit to install regardless.
Which is why I'm against mandatory vaccination and pro choice
Yeah, abortion is fucking awesome!!
I said I'm pro choice
Forgive me, it’s hot today and my brain is melting. I shall amend my nah to a yeah
>just pointing out that saying “collect semen… that’s all they have to do” is a pretty dumb take. >>It’s not. If there is any, they’ll collect it. Yeah? Never heard a story about rape have you? You think men will just pull out before they cum? Wont somebody please slap this redditor in the face with a used condom
Seriously, absolutely no empathy. Like he thinks a woman would be in the right mental state after SA to go "right, let's get to the bathroom and collect that semen and get right to the police!".
My rapist couldn’t finish because he was too drunk. I think he also rediscovered his conscience halfway through too.
Hope his dick falls off
Let it go necrotic first
Fuck, i am so sorry you had to go through that
Filled with concrete.
Filled with cum and tied off. Forbidden water balloon.
This was what i had in mind yes
No cum in condom, so it can’t possibly have been used. Checkmate, libz.
> I don’t need comebacks, dude. Why does an argument need to be about dissing someone else? That’s like arguing with my girlfriend but each argument I need to have a comeback. Grow up, kid. That’s not how arguing works. I’m struggling between “this guy’s poor girlfriend” and “there’s no way this guy has a girlfriend.” Also, lol on the idea of digitally recording farts being mature; everyone knows the only mature way to capture farts is on vinyl.
You may be surprised to learn that some of the most highly-regarded flatulence available on LP was mastered from digital sources. (I’m trying but failing to come up with a “Mystic Toots Orchestra” joke, alas.)
Sigh, of course
This person is taking no prisoners: > Then the father can take the fetus and gestate it himself. > Oh he can't do that? Then he can fuck right off. He gets no say over a woman's body just because his genetic material is inside.
Pretty sure I've just lost brain cells reading that.
*Suffer with me*
You just know that the “abortion is only okay if it’s rape” people are the same people that will go on about false accusations ruining men’s lives. Like, hey, what do you think is going to happen if you tell women that they’re only allowed to get an abortion if they say that someone raped them?
Classic R slash WorldNews
“The only circumstance when abortion is okay is when an Israeli missile destroys the maternity wing of a Palestinian hospital.”
The overwhelming majority seem in favor of the news though? And the dude who's being an asshole is seeing a ton of pushback and downvotes. I guess I'm just not sure how an unpopular opinion is proof that the sub is bad.
> I guess I'm just not sure how an unpopular opinion is proof that the sub is bad. Welcome to SRD
I blocked that sub *ages* ago and am better off for it. One of the most astroturfed subs on this site.
Hey now, they took a break from glazing Israel whenever they kill Palestinian babies
Shush now, that baby was armed!
But have you considered that the babies were antisemetic?
This means they're already more progressive than some American states.
Some US states really got caught lacking when a middle eastern country is beating them in something regarding women's rights.
>rape is insanely hard to proof dumbfuck >rape exceptions are almost useless because most rape is a she said/ he said situation, you would need video proof or witnesses >only 3 % of all rape cases result in a conviction, its almost legal at that point everywhere Is this really true? I know it's very hard to prove but 97% being aquited sounds insane. I guess it depends on the location.
This is for the US, but according to this from 2019 (source below) Roughly 18% lead to an arrest at all and only 7% lead to a conviction. https://www.uml.edu/news/stories/2019/sexual_assault_research.aspx This (UK) source here seems to say that the conviction rate is 75% but this appears to be specifically for cases go to trial https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/feb/juries-convict-defendants-rape-more-often-acquit This Washington Post article claims that, including estimated numbers for unreported sexual assault, the number is a .7% Felony Conviction https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/06/less-than-percent-rapes-lead-felony-convictions-least-percent-victims-face-emotional-physical-consequences/ The 3% number appears to be From Al Jazeera I believe as this is the closest I could find regarding it https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/5/7/why-do-so-few-rapes-result-in-a-conviction
Those numbers sound about right. >I know it's very hard to prove but 97% being aquited sounds insane. A conviction requires the suspect to first be charged with a crime before they can be convicted in a court of law. [The overwhelming majority of reported rapes do not result in a criminal charge](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48095118), and thus the overwhelming majority of rapists are never convicted. Since prosecutors can decide who they want to charge they can maintain relatively high conviction rates (60%) regardless of the above.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
And if pressures exist here for women to not report, I must imagine in the UAE there are *tons* of pressures and circumstances where in a woman would not report
Sex outside of marriage is illegal so….
Even in your comment you can't even entertain the possibility of the victim being anything other than a woman and the assailant being anything other than a man. If you want people to take rape seriously, your own biases are a good place to start.
Also remember that prosecutors ONLY PROSECUTE when they are very sure they will win. If they're given a case that's a 60 percent chance they're found not guilty, they will choose to not prosecute. It's a "waste" of resources to prosecute cases they are not absolutely sure they can win. Rape is like the hardest crime to prove. So it's not often cases are so strong they prosecute. Hence the low percentage of rape cases actually found guilty
>You don’t have to cum to rape someone. Why is this upvoted? This is true but also meaningless when discussing pregnancy via rape. The actual response to 'well you can just collect sperm to convict someone of rape.' is that you have to prove the lack of consent not just that sex happened, that's why its so difficult to prosecute and why 'we'll let you get an abortion if you were raped' is a bullshit response to the actual problem.
How would rape exceptions work anyway (spoiler alert they dont) . False rape accusations are mostly an MRA boogeyman. However....if you had to accuse someone of rape to access an abortion, I can't imagine that would do good things for the criminal justice system. It's an nonsense unenforcable policy that would only ever benefit rich white women with expensive laywers.
Does the one commenter think sperm DNA is different than other collecting ways of DNA?
I was once a jizz covered egg and you were too. I need this flair
Snapshots: 1. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240624092356/https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1dn571n/uae_abortion_now_allowed_in_rape_incest_cases_as/la0gqrl/?sort=controversial) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1dn571n/uae_abortion_now_allowed_in_rape_incest_cases_as/la0gqrl/?sort=controversial "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") *I am just a simple bot, __not__ a moderator of this subreddit* | *[bot subreddit](/r/SnapshillBot)* | *[contact the maintainers](/message/compose?to=/r/SnapshillBot)*
The UAE has fallen to Woke.