The average c/WTF enjoyer
I mean the concept is not difficult to grasp. They are comparing one horrific thing to a group of thirty thousand horrific things and choosing the lesser evil. They are not "okay" with ten-year olds being raped... Claiming so is a reading comprehension error.
The issue here is that we don't agree with them that those 30k other "horrific" events are all that horrific.
I want to see this guy explain that to the 10 year old.
There are people out there that would be ok with doing this. I’ve met them and I never want to see them again.
And to his mistress getting an abortion abroad.
This is one of those topics that people like to force their views on others and not care about the consequences. Another good example is porn. "I don't think people should watch porn" is something people actually vote for. Yet all the studies performed show sexual assaults and rapes increase everywhere you ban porn. So forcing their views on people has real consequences and they just don't want to acknowledge them.
A vote to ban porn is a vote to increase rapes and sexual assaults. Yes that includes more children being raped as well.
A vote to ban abortions doesn't stop abortions, all it does is increase the number of mother's and babies dying from unsterilized attempts at aborting, children being thrown in dumpsters, buried alive, left outside, dropped at fire departments, put into underfunded orphan systems that have more kids than they can get adopted BEFORE you took away their safer way of not abusing a child.
The only thing these votes do is take away people's choice, and hurt people.
A vote to ban abortion or porn is a vote to hurt people.
With the porn issue, as well as prostitution, you have the unfortunate conflation of two different positions: "I don't want bad things to happen to women", and "I want everyone to follow my moral code".
It's an unfortunate reality that increases in demand for industries that can leverage human trafficking leads to an increase in human trafficking. It's not irrational for someone to be concerned with that.
For those people, discussion about how legalization has aggregate benefits, or how the legalization enables regulations that permit the outcomes to be better even though it's more common.
With the latter group you really can't argue effectively because their position wasn't arrived at out of concern for outcomes. Sexual assault being bad doesn't make something else not bad.
You can have decreased rapes, sexual assaults and sex trafficking. Sex trafficking isn't directly correlated with sex work as many have tried to make it out to be. Better to decriminalize and regulate something than to ban it entirely and force it into "back alley" transactions where there is no protections.
If a sex worker says no to something and someone does it anyways, they cant go to the police and say they were raped.. because they were involved in a criminal act and would be arrested. Decriminalization allows protections that aren't vigilante justice to be formed. It isn't a friend of theirs kicking someone's ass or breaking their legs/killing them.
Who raped you? Well here's his name and credit card information so you can track him down.
The number of people dying from alcohol poisoning is down drastically since we decriminalized and regulated it. It didn't increase the number of people making moonshine, it decreased it.
Okay, what the fuck is up with the rape apologetics and anti-bodily autonomy chubs in these comments?
Likely trolls or sock puppets meant to try and legitimize their pro-rape position. Spoiler, it doesn't work NEARLY as well as they think it does.
And yet, the ghouls won the election.
Maybe it works better than we give it credit for.
More like the Democratic Party lost the election.
I can only guess what the context here is but to imply that "they're fine with kids getting raped" is almost definitely an extremely dishonest strawman of what they're actually trying to say. This type of bad-faith dunking on people you disagree with only makes them dig down their heels even deeper and, I'd argue, is only making things worse.
If I had to steelman their position without knowing full context, I'm assuming that what they're trying to say is that abortion shouldn't be legal just because of the comparatively small number of cases where it perhaps would be justified (incest/rape) because it opens the door to a huge number of what they see as unecessary abortions.
If one truly cares about changing minds rather than scoring worthless internet points then you need to take down the foundations - not break the windows. Breaking windows is fun and easy but it doesn't achieve anything. Listen to what people are saying and challenge their core beliefs.
If I had to steelman their argument I'd wonder if they are properly informed about the very real, well documented physical risks to children from getting pregnant and carrying to term. Death is one option, but long term physical disability due to spinal and hip fractures aren't unheard of. As well as a long list of other physical and psychological effects I'm not gonna put here.
So what I'm gathering is that this person is either very, VERY uneducated about the physical consequences of childbirth, both for adults and children, and just how frequently children are sexually assaulted.
Either they're very ignorant, possibly willfully, or they are straight up a troll. Poe's law makes it increasingly difficult to tell these days. Ignorance can be a temporary state of being, but would they care about medical data? Who knows.
But even when steelmaning the argument, they deserve to be called out on not even considering a middle ground where 10 year old rape victims are not allowed an abortion. Because “opening up doors” is a too big a cost for them.
I agree to a certain degree, that twisting someone’s pretty shitty argument isn’t helping the discourse. So my response isn’t really directed at you.
Steelmanning an argument doesn't make it immune to refutation. It just means you're refuting the strongest possible version. In this case, the argument is so inherently fucked up that even the steelman version is still a "what the fuck?"
There have been 0 unnecessary abortions performed on earth. There have been billions of unnecessary rapes. The world would be a better place if we had had more abortions and less rapes.
I think the point of their argument, not that I agree with them, is that they see any abortion as straight up murder, so in their mind child rape is an acceptable consequence because the alternative is child murder.
That's why this argument is so pervasive in keeping the masses separated, it's a choice between the left's bodily autonomy and the religious right's believing life starts at conception. Neither side is willing to concede an inch to the other because it's not an argument where you can compromise.
If I had to steelman their position without knowing full context, I'm assuming that what they're trying to say is that abortion shouldn't be legal just because of the comparatively small number of cases where it perhaps would be justified (incest/rape) because it opens the door to a huge number of what they see as unecessary abortions.
Ok, but on the other hand, I feel like the position of "make all abortions illegal, even though I acknowledge that there are known cases and examples where abortion is justified" is still less reasonable than "make abortion illegal, but make exceptions where abortion is justified". Like, it would be super easy to have and justify that more nuanced opinion, and it would prevent them from being "dunked on" by people extrapolating their position to "you're ok with child rape and unnecessary forced pregnancies/births".
Who the fuck said we had to choose either? We can live in a world with neither, and that world requires women's rights, including the right to abortion.
The real kicker is: no amount of 10yo parents is going to prevent abortions. We've been through this whole song and dance before. The abortions didn't stop, just a lot more women died.
They want to go back to women dying from abortions, because they think women who get abortions are murderers who deserve to die. Until it’s someone they know and suddenly the reasons for the abortion matter and they’re the special exception.
nOt In My ChRiStIaN nAtIoN
It doesn't even stop any other abortions though. It actually increases the number of abortions.
This gets somehow worse the more carefully I read it.
So, checking my notes, what I've got is that...
He wants to stop 30k+ abortions (I assume all abortions, more or less) And for that he's fine with having the "occasional" rape-incest baby.
Rape because there's no way for a 10 year old to mentally grasp the responsibility and weight of consent, so even if they said the right words that they consented, which they almost certainly did not, they wouldn't be properly informed of what they're consenting to, making the consent completely devoid of any meaning, aka, making it rape.
He values the lives of unwanted potential people, who are little more than parasites sucking life from the mother until they can sustain themselves without the need to leech another lifeform for existence.... Above all women, and even child mothers that are victims of incest and rape.
And they see this as the moral choice?
Can we let Luigi go? His job isn't finished. There's still a lot of bottom feeding scum around that need to be... Ahem dealt with.
Here's a fucked up article about study done in states with abortion restrictions. Around 64,000 babies born from SA in states with abortion restrictions. And somehow we're the extremists for not wanting that, for wanting all women to have a choice.
I hate to say this but babies being found in garbage bins is about to be a fairly regular occurrence.
It's funny that one instance of child rape apologia creates so much more in these comments. There are some real debate lords(/trolls) out here making arguments that would be immediately tossed if faced with a child victim in real life.
We also shouldn’t have to rely on these cases to protect a woman’s inherent right to her body.
Why do I suspect that they would be okay with 30,000 10 year olds being forced to give birth to their fathers child to prevent 1 abortion?
What that person meant was basically the difference between left and right or pro and anti abortion:
There right wants to ban abortion for everyone in fear of even 1 abortion that would have been a perfectly fine baby. (Which they would perceive as murder)
The left wants to allow abortions for everyone in fear of even one forced birth leading to a death. A death that was preventable by a abortion.
The right of a baby to live DOES NOT "TRUMP" THE RIGHT OF THE WOMAN TO CHOOSE. End of debate.
They are incredibly different perspectives.
We have to embrace false dichotomies because the only alternative is cannibalism.