-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Victim of a marital rape in Arkansas? Your rapist can now sue you if you try to abort
- Thread starter stilgar
- Start date
- Status
It's fucking ridiculous.
"Nobody should have more rights than anyone else! I can't have abortions, so neither can women!"
I dunno. I'm over reaching. The news of the last two weeks is starting to really get to me.
killer rin
Member
Then don't rape your wife and instead talk to her and get her to agree to have a child with you. Then you won't have to worry about it.
InfiniteBento
Member
Womens sole purpose in life is to breed.
Strap us down to stations and label us "meat toilets" while you're at it because it's obvious that in many places we amount to fucking nothing.
Strap us down to stations and label us "meat toilets" while you're at it because it's obvious that in many places we amount to fucking nothing.
badblue
Gold Member
It's a shame that being a man, and wanting to discuss these things makes you automatically a misogynist. Because I think these are things that need to be talked about.
It's not even the "very bad people" that make the debate impossible. It's that the other side thinks that if you have a different opinion then they do, you are a "very bad person"
With that being said, a Victim of rape should have 100% access to abortion. A woman should always have access to abortion.
BUT... if a woman in a long term loving relationship with a man gets pregnant and the doctors advise her that there is no risk to either her or the child in carrying it to term ad she wants to abort it, and the man wants to keep the child, we should not be automatically saying "her body, her choice" there needs to be more discussion.
Not hate. Not vitriol. Discussion.
This perceived in-equality is what gives rise to to toxic woman-hating MRA groups. Because if you reverse it, to the man not wanting the child and the woman does, men get told, "if you didn't wan the kid, shouldn't have had sex" and you become a woman hater if you tell a pregnant woman "if you didn't want the kid, shouldn't have had sex."
I read about this yesterday and it's terrifying and disheartening. We're quickly turning into a country where, if I had a daughter, I feel like I'd have to promote abstinence, for her own safety and well-being.
It's true that pregnancy isn't always hard. I've heard of women with "unicorn" pregnancies that go amazingly and they get a happy-high from hormones. But those are called "unicorn" pregnancies for a reason. Pregnancy is usually somewhere from "pretty bad" to "goddamn torture." And the risk of death is fourteen times higher in the United States, than the risk from an abortion.
The constant nausea and exhaustion for months, alone, is terrible. And these are the lesser symptoms. That's before you get to things like high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia and hemorrhaging. None of these are all that uncommon. I experienced two of them. I was perfectly healthy pre-pregnancy, but pregnancy put me at risk of having a stroke, because that just happens in 10% of pregnancies.
We've all treat child birth too lightly, because it's common, but it's mostly a goddamn nightmare, if we're all being honest. Forcing women to continue with a pregnancy, is unimaginable cruelty and it's the reason why stricter abortion laws don't actually decrease the amount of abortions, they just increase the amount of illegal abortions and raise death rates.
It's true that pregnancy isn't always hard. I've heard of women with "unicorn" pregnancies that go amazingly and they get a happy-high from hormones. But those are called "unicorn" pregnancies for a reason. Pregnancy is usually somewhere from "pretty bad" to "goddamn torture." And the risk of death is fourteen times higher in the United States, than the risk from an abortion.
The constant nausea and exhaustion for months, alone, is terrible. And these are the lesser symptoms. That's before you get to things like high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia and hemorrhaging. None of these are all that uncommon. I experienced two of them. I was perfectly healthy pre-pregnancy, but pregnancy put me at risk of having a stroke, because that just happens in 10% of pregnancies.
We've all treat child birth too lightly, because it's common, but it's mostly a goddamn nightmare, if we're all being honest. Forcing women to continue with a pregnancy, is unimaginable cruelty and it's the reason why stricter abortion laws don't actually decrease the amount of abortions, they just increase the amount of illegal abortions and raise death rates.
I would assume any couple would discuss it since they're both supposedly adults who cared about each other enough to get married but at the end of the day, only one person will be pregnant. It's that simple. There is an inequality in how it is treated because biologically there is an inequality in terms of who carries the burden of the pregnancy. You either accept that or take the alternative where a woman has to give up autonomy over their own body against their will in favour of the father.
There is always a risk from pregnancy and the conditions that I listed in my prior post (high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia), they don't develop/ aren't discovered until the 2nd trimester. Even if you avoid one of these conditions throughout the entirety of the pregnancy, there will still be a risk of hemorrhaging during childbirth and there will still be risks associated with the pain medication used (for example, there's a risk of permanent nerve damage from epidurals).
This is why it's so important for women to have the ability to choose if they want to proceed. There's usually no way of knowing if you're one of the women whose life will be at risk, until...your life is at risk.
Why not? It's her body, it's her choice. Want a kid? Find a woman that wants one with you, simple as that. You think there will be a healthy relashionship after the man forced his wife/gf through an unwanted pregnancy anyway? Great way to start a familly.
supermarioworldE
Banned
How in the fuck can this be legal? Don't women have enough shit to deal with, without the government infringing upon the rights to their own fucking bodies? That rape and incest are even included in this should be clear that they dont give a single shit about the physical or mental well being of those women affected. I pray that as many people of the opposite sex can leave this backwards state as soon as possible.
badblue
Gold Member
I understand 100% of what you are saying, but I cannot get behind it. A momentary loss of autonomy seems like a small thing when the opposite is decades of fighting and possible financial ruin, or even jail.
100%
I found this post really inappropriate from a moderator. His views are different but he's followed all rules and has been civil. If you are by nature or incident sensitive to the subject being debated, it might be best to observe passively instead.
A very tricky subject. I had a friend who was married and went through an aborted pregnancy with his wife. She was excited at first but then got scared and aborted without telling him. Mentally destroyed him. Led to depression and she in the end, after a couple years, divorced him for "not having enough ambition in life."
Generally I think women should always have the choice. But when you enter marriage with plans for a family, and it wasn't an accident or non consensual she became pregnant, then I see where the husband should have a say.
I saw several times through this thread displays of absolutism. It's a logical fallacy to pretend the world is so black and white. "Then you're not REALLY pro-choice!" The world is gray. Controversial subjects often have gray solutions as well.
badblue
Gold Member
According to the CDC
That is an extremely small number given the number of pregnancy that do happen.
woman: "her body, her choice"
man: "don't want a kid, don't have sex. There is no other choice."
If a couple in a relationship is having this discussion, the relationship is most likely already over. As no matter what the dessision is, someone is lost in a big way.
And I found a woman that wants to have a child with me, but there is nothing stopping her from changing her mind tomorrow.
Your "momentary loss of autonomy" can result in
Psychologically:
Permanent resentment
Ptsd
Post natal depression
Suicide
Phobias (of being touched, running risk of pregnancy again )
The feeling of less than human as you are reduced to an incubator
Physiologically:
Permanent bodily damage (be it muscular, incontinence ect)
Diabetes
Death
So, in your mind, how many women have to be forced into losing their lives, before the loss of life outweighs the feelings of the men in their lives?
Even if rare, you're still saying this loss of life is acceptable and that, for these women, their husbands should be allowed to give them a death sentence.
Oh look, the misogynist pro-lifers are already shitting on the thread from a great height. I'm shocked!
This must be like a wet dream to them. Deprive women if any say they have over their bodies and force them to carry an unwanted child to term through nine months of hell. Sounds completely fair to me!
This must be like a wet dream to them. Deprive women if any say they have over their bodies and force them to carry an unwanted child to term through nine months of hell. Sounds completely fair to me!
MetroidPrimeRib
Banned
The people passing and applauding this are also terrified of Shariah Law...
toddhunter
Member
America: where muslim extremists gaining power would be a pleasing step forward.
Of course not all of America... but that is being fixed.
Of course not all of America... but that is being fixed.
I think we may actually be looking at the "death rattle" or death grasp of this kind of thinking. That violent spasm of energy just before everything settles down. In one sense, unless Trump gets his way, this type of thinking is unsustainable in the long run simply because of education and immigration. White majority will, inevitably, give way to a majority that isn't white on a long enough scale of time.
I think on some level, the white supremacists, and white privilege advocates in America realize this, and are trying to lay in as much "final groundwork" now for their legacy as they can before they lose that ability to do so.
It's pretty much like that creepy scene in the Dark Crystal where the dying Skesis emperor grabs at his staff one more time as the other Skekses are moving on it and rasps "MINE! I AM STILL EMPEROR!" before finally collapsing into dust.
excelsiorlef
Member
The subjugation of women isn't a "white" problem that will die with white supremacy. I think every race and culture has happily oppressed women for almost the entirety of human history. It's optimistic to expect this thinking to die, just as minority populations grow.
Kitsunebaby
Member
It's her body that has to endure the pregnancy. It's her choice to decide if she wants to. There really isn't any more to it than that.
Seeing those posts defending this law... what the hell is wrong with you? A rape is already a traumatic experience that the person most likely never forget and will haunt for their entire life, now forcing a woman to carry a fetus, product of a rape? Do you care more about that unborn creature than the woman who will have more traumas knowing inside her is a fetus that she never wanted and will have financial problems and health problems because of this shit?
This just... disgusts me. It is awful and extremely disappointing people think like that.
Freedom of speech, whatever. You don't have any right to force a woman carry that fetus if she doesn't want to. Period.
This just... disgusts me. It is awful and extremely disappointing people think like that.
Freedom of speech, whatever. You don't have any right to force a woman carry that fetus if she doesn't want to. Period.
excelsiorlef
Member
So essentially in the end the only choice should be the man's choice, you know the one who won't be forced into a medical condition against their will, and by the way forced birth you inherently have to include laws to ensure compliance which means a massive restriction on what women can eat, do, etc.. because you'd have to make sure they aren't trying to cause themselves a miscarriage against the man's will. This would also then entail a need to criminally investigate every miscarriage to rule out self-inducement, which would probably result in many false positives resulting in women who already were forced against their will to remain pregnant being punished despite complying to the draconian rule of Man.
But seeing as how you think a man's wallet is more important than a woman's life and health it's pretty clear your proprieties are warped.
There are two ways to interpret this IMO, and by all means feel free to elaborate if I am wrong.
1) This doesn't even make sense anyway because a man's wallet would only take the financial hit you are so concerned about if the pregnant woman opted to keep the baby, if she had an abortion there's no wallet hit. The only way to avoid the wallet hit would be if we enacted a law that says a man can force a pregnant woman to have an abortion.
2) You somehow mean a wife having an abortion against the husband's will would result in divorce and thus the husband having to go into financial ruin because of that. Which also then assumes that it is the man who is the bread winner and thus with the most finances to lose which yeah no always. This interpretation also ignores that you know forcing a wife to carry a child against her will is probably a good ticket to divorce too.
Can't figure out where jail comes unless you mean failure to pay child support which again hi only happens if there's no abortion.
Angelus Errare
Banned
There really isn't a gray area. If you enter a marriage and your wife gets pregnant that doesn't automatically equate to her having to have a child because you're married. If your wife doesn't want a kid and she ends up pregnant and she still doesn't want a child then why does the husband's opinion suddenly matter more?
If you marry a woman who has told you she doesn't want kids then the issue is with the husband and his delusion/gamble that she'll change her mind once she is pregnant.
The only discussion in this situation should be between the two people in question. The man has the right to voice his opinion, the woman has the right to ignore his feelings, or take them into account when making her decision, and whether they choose to remain together, childless, she changes her mind and allows the pregnancy to continue, or they separate, is no one's business but theirs. There absolutely does not need to be an overarching discussion that implies a societal or, worse, theological expectation which implicitly or explictly supersedes the rights of an individual with regard to her own body, much less fundamentalist nutjobs enacting legislation with the intent of institutionalizing their warped, intrusive points of view.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Then there you go, marry a woman who wants kids and all of these aforemetioned scenarios are solved. Versus forcing a woman who doesn't want a child to go through pregnancy for 9 months.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Since this is in cases of rape specifically, the father can go fuck himself and die in a fire for all I'm concerned.
SpaceCadetKeon
Banned
Fuck my state so much. I'll be calling Asa's office about this first chance I get.
Pretty much. Fucking sad.
badblue
Gold Member
This list can be applied to pregnancy in any situation. Pregnancy is difficult on the body. I am not discounting that.
In my mind ZERO women should be forced into loosing their lives by anyone. You seem to be hinging your argument on a 100% chance of a woman's death if she carries an unwanted child to term, which is simply not the case. I could list off a lot of things that have a higher fatality rate which we do every day.
In a perfect world, I agree with you.
excelsiorlef
Member
No you're just saying a man should be allowed to force a woman to go through that because of his feelings
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Just cut it to the stoning of rape victims, Trump-erica.
It's obvious that the reason they're enacting this horrendous law is so that Republicans can challenge and strike down Roe v. Wade by making appeal after appeal after this inevitably goes to court and is deemed unconstitutional until it hits the Supreme Court of the United States. How long before it reaches the SCOTUS (again) and what are the chances of it standing vs. struck down assuming Gorsuch is successfully nominated?
Demoskinos
Member
The only part of this that unfortunately surprises me is that its Arkansas and not Texas that drafted this. Both seem to be real neck and neck on trying to rob women of their rights.
Demoskinos
Member
Nah, man there is no grey area here. A woman's body is her own period end of fucking discussion. What you described is a real shitty situation and sure probably should have been handled differently but in the end a Woman's body is her own. No man should ever have a say in what she does or doesn't do with it.
I would love to see you list another thing, with a higher fatality rate, that is involuntary.
If you honestly believe that ZERO women should be forced to lose their lives, then you should be against a law that allows men to prevent an abortion. Because abortions are fourteen times safer than childbirth. Childbirth does pose a risk of death. And it is guaranteed that if a law like the one articulated in Arkansas exists, women will eventually die as a direct result from it. Even if the chance of dying in childbirth is small, it would only be a matter of time, before a death results.
Until and unless ZERO women are dying from childbirth, this law creates a right for husbands to potentially sentence their wives to death. Until and unless childbirth carries no risk of death, you can't escape the worst-case scenario application of this law.
Also, this is still putting aside the physical torture of the 9 months preceding childbirth, which deserves some consideration as well.
It's a shame you think this way. The other side thinks the same way, only championing different values. "Women get to have the final say over their bodies, end of discussion," versus, "No one is allowed to deny life and opportunity on an innocent, end of discussion."
When you fail to realize and acknowledge how complicated the issue is, no wonder you don't see any progress. Both sides are in gridlock and not giving an inch. The current administration, whatever it is at the given moment, attempts to reflect only their values when a sensible solution is completely possible and practical.
Prax
Member
Even if we were the reach the point the fetus could be teleported outside a pregnant person into some incubator harmlessly, you can bet there will be a "pro-uterus" movement or whatever to keep the baby inside the person as some kinda housing/tenant rights for the fetus in order to control women anyway.
hey_monkey
Banned
But but but let's really discuss this whole her body her choice thing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked