Quantcast
Rapists can now sue victims seeking abortions

Forums - Politics Discussion - Rapists can now sue victims seeking abortions

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.



Around the Network

wow. So much FUD and misinformation. it only allows the spouse. if you choose to marry a rapist, divorce them and you are fine. Not rapists, but the spouse. Women have this great tool they can use to avoid this issue, just sy no to marriage and you are OK. It is a CHOICE to get married. Heaven forbid your'e with someone long enough to determine they wont rape you before you marry them. And if you feel they will, perhaps choose to divorce them.



After being raped I'd just let him win the case and then file bankruptcy. No way I'd want to be dealing with this.



eva01beserk said:
I looked up some info of what your talking about. I even went to wikipedia since you recomended it. What I saw was just more backing to my argument. 

this is what your source, wikipedia said about your nation

Indonesia[edit]

The United Nations Multi-country Study on Men and Violence studied three different sites of Indonesia (Jakarta, rural Java, and Jayapura). In the rural area, the lifetime prevalence of perpetration of rape towards a female/females was 19.5% and gang rape 7%. When rapists were asked why they perpetrated their last non-partner rape, 76.5% of the men in the three areas averaged cited sexual entitlement, 55.2% entertainment-seeking, and 29.7% anger/punishment.[41]

Even saudi arabia wich you praised so much has one of the highest unreported rape amounts in the world because women are afraid to come forth.

Lifetime prevalence is 19.5%, and that's in one rural area. By comparison, in the US, prevalence is about 17% (that's across the entire country).

But hey, good job trying to cast Indonesia as being particularly bad for it. Cherry-picking and ignoring both context and relative numbers is a good way to win an award for particularly blatant usage of logical fallacies.



UnderstatedCornHole said:

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.

People have abortions because they don't want their kids to have certain genes, the father isn't interested in raising the kid, and of course, their situation in life isn't suitable to have kids. This is why they use protection, but accidents happen.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Around the Network

Fake news is fake - there will be no case where a rapist successfully forces a mother to not have an abortion against her will.

The article is full of could be-would be dribble and should not be considered a legit news source.



thranx said:
wow. So much FUD and misinformation. it only allows the spouse. if you choose to marry a rapist, divorce them and you are fine. Not rapists, but the spouse. Women have this great tool they can use to avoid this issue, just sy no to marriage and you are OK. It is a CHOICE to get married. Heaven forbid your'e with someone long enough to determine they wont rape you before you marry them. And if you feel they will, perhaps choose to divorce them.

Most rape victims are raped by someone that they know, so it's a good chance that if a woman is raped that it's her spouse that did it.



numberwang said:

Fake news is fake - there will be no case where a rapist successfully forces a mother to not have an abortion against her will.

The article is full of could be-would be dribble and should not be considered a legit news source.

I'd love to see your definition of a legit news source. 



From the actual text of the bill, linked in the second paragraph of the article linked in the OP's post:

"20-16-1803. Ban on dismemberment abortion:
(d) This subchapter does not prohibit an abortion by any other method for any reason, including rape or incest."

Note: The only method addressed by the bill is dismemberment abortion.

Even if you didn't read the bill, the twitter quote from Mayberry, included in the article linked by OP, negates the need for this discussion:

"Woman is never held liable. No civil damages possible for someone guilty of criminal conduct. Read the bill. Protecting babies, not rapists"

Headline is dead wrong.



Primary sources foremost, not second-hand commentary in particular when they come with speculative and triggering headlines.