By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
UnderstatedCornHole on 06 February 2017
Edit Thread
bdbdbd said:
VGPolyglot said:

What? When did I say that everyone else should be targeted? And when did I say that it was the fault of the victim? Actually, most of the time we have to defend the victims when they're women and when a Muslim isn't involved, because it can be played out two different ways:

 

1. The rapist is not a Muslim, so a lot of people may resort to blaming the woman for what she wore or for not being careful enough

2. The rapist is a Muslim, and a lot of people's racism trump their sexism, so they will correctly defend the victim, but not because they really care about the victim, but because it can push their agenda fearmongering against Muslims.

I don't know. That's what the SJW's do. I don't know if you said or think that it's the fault of the victim, but that what the SJW's think.

1. Nope, this is not what happens. I think you mean the cases where consent is given and someone changes her mind afterwards, which constitutes as false rape claims. I haven't seen any other cases. Of course there's people that are close to the guy who did it or his fans that blame the victim, but that's the minority that blame the guy who did it when it's someone else in question.

2. That's a strawman you're making there, but actually proving my point; every time a muslim is charged for rape, that is because of racism. 

VGPolyglot said:

It depends. If it's a poor woman, she'll definitely be punished. If it's the wife of some rich oil guy, I'm almost sure that it'd be the perpetrator that'd be punished.

A rich oil guy just gets himself a new wife or two, as he already has many of them. You do understand that it's a country where a camel is worth more than a woman.

UnderstatedCornHole said:

That's an amazing statement to make and it's inspirational if I'm honest. You have just cut through that superstition thing about blood / adoption.

It's made me think a bit about that. I think this is something we are taught in society subtly that adoption is a kind of thing you only do if you can't have kids yourself. But the way you put it just cuts that idea into the superstition it unknowingly is.

Thanks, appreciated.

You know guys, only the number three was a valid point. Someone's giving birth to the child anyway, and if you're about to fight for abortion, you're not going to adopt anyone in any case, and besides even if you'd adopt someone, you'd still have have to worry about abortions the same way you'd worry about them even if you did not adopt anyone. 

The only way to reproduce is to have kids your own. Abortion can't replace that. 

Well no not really, well not at all.

People have abortions because they are worried about the responsibility they will be taking on and the impact on their life.

Or....

Let's not mince words here and just be completely honest, they don't want to exchange their life for a load of hassle. That;s the reason, the only other reason for an abortion is health grounds and that is entirely a different discussion but that number is miniscule in comparison and cannot be mitigated socailly.

If you *knew* that any baby you are carrying will see a good home by adoption and there was going to be zero negative stigma from going through that process, and we weren't taught to be so suprstitious through media (for example where an adopted person "searches for her REAL parents...blah blah" I think most people and by most I mean almost all would be happy to go through pregnancy assuming they are already 4-6 weeks in.

I've been in a relationship where we had an abortion and I can tell you now, and - including talking to various people in support groups etc that 9/10 would be ok with that, or more. There is a massive stigma around adoption.

Anecdotal? Yep. Would you get better empyrical data by researching and asking a load of people who haven't had an abortion and blindly make this political? Nope.