Women's Rights

[Beskar]

Oh, that doesn't collect evidence of rape - it collects a DNA sample. interesting that the poster equates this with guilt all by itself.

The poster should also say:
No matter the length of time since the event
No matter the lack of other evidence
No matter if she did in fact consent at the time - even a notarised, witnessed form probably isn't sufficient.

In fact, no matter what else - except incarceration in a police / jail cell.

You will be treated as a rapist and will be tried in the media if there is insufficient evidence under criminal law

Suddenly hookers don't seem such a bad option.

I saw the poster today, I cropped it. But my first thought was "That would probably hurt...", I simply wanted an excuse to post it.

My second thought was along the similar lines of yours, but I was thinking of woman-rape, homosexual activity and other scenarios.

[rory_20_uk]

Fun fact - women can't rape - at least not in the UK as the event needs to involve insertion of a penis into a body orifice.

Having fitted more male catheters than I'd've liked (i.e. above none) assuming the person with the swab isn't intentially rough (which is itself an assault charge against that person) it shouldn't hurt at all.

[Ironside]

Why do the pro-choice crowd focus so much on rape in every abortion thread, even when it only accounts for probably around 1% of abortions?

I think it is because they are trying to divert public indignation away from the main issue itself. It is just a cheap PR stunt, and I think it is because those on the liberal-left know on some level that abortion is wrong, and they are trying to convince themselves that they are progressive and that they have the moral high ground. The truth is in 99% of cases abortion has nothing to do with rape and it comes from the same school of thought as the ancient practice of leaving a newborn baby in the woods to die because you don't want to raise it.

It's because it's easy and still is an actual argument. Whenever a foetus gains personhood or not doesn't depend on if the mother got raped or not. Thus you can choose to pretend that you're consistant (as Horetore pointed out in the other thread) and have a horrible treatment of raped women or keep an inconsistant position (and thus being unable to truely claim moral high ground).

And sure, it has a pragmatic basis, 2000 years of suppression didn't root it out either. People are willing to risk death to do it after all. So you'll end up with a situation where it happens and will continue to happen and where there's no consistant position. Those spots are usually having a lot of pragmatism.

Never mind the shockingly bad arguments that go something like: "the baby will not be loved so it is cruel to not abort it", that for some reason are seen an acceptable within the pro-choice movement.

Ever heard the comment "a fate worse than death"? So the concept is general, whatever it applies here is more debatable.

Fun fact - women can't rape - at least not in the UK as the event needs to involve insertion of a penis into a body orifice.

Having fitted more male catheters than I'd've liked (i.e. above none) assuming the person with the swab isn't intentially rough (which is itself an assault charge against that person) it shouldn't hurt at all.

Why are the UK still so backward on the laws for that?

[HoreTore]

Fun fact - women can't rape - at least not in the UK as the event needs to involve insertion of a penis into a body orifice.

Having fitted more male catheters than I'd've liked (i.e. above none) assuming the person with the swab isn't intentially rough (which is itself an assault charge against that person) it shouldn't hurt at all.

Splitting hairs.

[Montmorency]

It's about as easy for a big bank to go under as it is for a man to be imprisoned on a rape verdict.

[HoreTore]

It's about as easy for a big bank to go under as it is for a man to be imprisoned on a rape verdict.

Indeed it is.

And just like a few men are ostracized by society after being falsely accused of rape, so are some women ostracized by society after reporting a rape. "That slut, why did she have to ruin that nice boys future?"

[Strike For The South]

When did this become about rape

[Greyblades]

Since rape became a more palatable discussion point than abortion apparently.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The practice of abortion is backwards, barbaric, laden with gender double standards and stereotypes that harm both women and men, and it is only accepted because we have yet to admit to ourselves that if you want to stop unintended pregnancy, you need to be practically throwing pills and condoms at young people. Can we finally heavily subsidize all forms of birth control for women and men, provide proper sex education, and make sure kids raised by the state are actually given a good, structured upbringing? The most disturbing trend about this subject is that while the pro-life crowd has always remained stuck in absurdity, the pro-choice group now seems content in pushing for an equally absurd society where abortion is normalized instead of pushing for a society where abortion is legal but not needed. Case in point, HoreTore.

EDITED: Came home angry, took out angry parts.

[Montmorency]

the pro-choice group now seems content in pushing for an equally absurd society where abortion is normalized instead of pushing for a society where abortion is legal but not needed.

Or even all of the above. They're not mutually exclusive. You'll find that pro-abortionists tend to be pro-contraceptive, at any rate.

[Brenus]

“Women aren't victims at all most of the time, just horney” We speak here of a right to act and do with themselves what they want. You want to restrict the right to abort for victims, not me, you put a moral value in a very simple fact.

“Bit naive about how women can be Brenus, if you ask me.” Yeah, working in a Criminal Court just blinds me. And as seduction is concerned, can’t complain, as former soldier or former member of Charities (Doctor Without Borders).

“If we are talking science then a fetuses absolutely counts as a live being.” So are cancer cells or Ebola viruses. Being a live form is not enough to qualify to be spared.

“Whatever helps you sleep at night” A nice balanced life…

“No matter the length of time since the event
No matter the lack of other evidence
No matter if she did in fact consent at the time - even a notarised, witnessed form probably isn't sufficient.” You should go to follow a rape case in a Crown Court, that will help you to understand that sensationalist newspapers mostly got it wrong.
And what wrong with the first one? A rape 25 years ago is not a rape?
Second one, what is the lack of other evidence?
As consent is involved: under aged girl and boy can’t consent (by law), as to consent once is not a blank check for the rapist to do what even he/she wants.

And, again, women can rape .

“Fun fact - women can't rape - at least not in the UK as the event needs to involve insertion of a penis into a body orifice” Nope. Rape category 3 involve all unwanted sexual activity (including possessing pictures of naked (pornographic) children and having sex with dead animals), rape category 2 involve penetration with object, fingers or penis. As I said, I work in a Crown Court, and I enter the cases.

“Why do the pro-choice crowd focus so much on rape in every abortion thread, even when it only accounts for probably around 1% of abortions?” Except of course it is the anti-abortion/enemies of freedom crowd that, knowing their position is weak on this point, is trying to defect this point and to make abortion the exception. I am for a total freedom of choice. You want to have un-wanted children, raise them. You don’t want un-wanted children, don’t have them, Simple.

[Fragony]

'You want to restrict the right to abort for victims.'

What, where did you read that I want to restrict the right to abort the right for adoption of victims, I don't want to restrict the right on abortion at all, I have been pretty clear on that.

I am in full support of the pro-choice crowd, but without having any sympathy for them. The better argument wins. Can I please keep for myself what I really think of it. I am perfectly capable of agreeing with something I don't really aprove. Is it an obligation that I aprove it as well? If so, why?

Am I supposed to respect their choice? Can't have that. I respect their rights, but not their choice. I find it despictable.

[Brenus]

“What, where did you read that I want to restrict the right to abort the right for adoption of victims, I don't want to restrict the right on abortion at all, I have been pretty clear on that.” Sorry, I misread, or misunderstand you.

“Am I supposed to respect their choice? Can't have that. I respect their rights, but not their choice.” Fair enough

[Beskar]

The practice of abortion is backwards, barbaric, laden with gender double standards and stereotypes that harm both women and men, and it is only accepted because we have yet to admit to ourselves that if you want to stop unintended pregnancy, you need to be practically throwing pills and condoms at young people. Can we finally heavily subsidize all forms of birth control for women and men, provide proper sex education, and make sure kids raised by the state are actually given a good, structured upbringing? The most disturbing trend about this subject is that while the pro-life crowd has always remained stuck in absurdity, the pro-choice group now seems content in pushing for an equally absurd society where abortion is normalized instead of pushing for a society where abortion is legal but not needed. Case in point, HoreTore.

EDITED: Came home angry, took out angry parts.

I think your post pretty much encompasses any common persons position on the issue.

Everyone can agree that after-birth abortion is tantamount to infanticide and everyone can agree that popping the day-after pill is not infanticide, nor is wearing a condom. Those that disagree are pretty much the 'loonies' in the debate.

It is why I pretty much say "Don't be a fool and wrap your tool".

[Fragony]

[QUOTE=Brenus;2053620759]“What, where did you read that I want to restrict the right to abort the right for adoption of victims, I don't want to restrict the right on abortion at all, I have been pretty clear on that.” Sorry, I misread, or misunderstand you.


Np at all

[a completely inoffensive name]

So are cancer cells or Ebola viruses. Being a live form is not enough to qualify to be spared.

So a healthy fetus is the same as cancer or ebola. Didn't realize they were that dangerous to a woman's health.

EDIT: Btw, I am curious as to how a woman has the ultimate supremacy over her body, but apparently she doesn't have ultimate supremacy over what she can wear on her head/face. Apparently, women are in total control of themselves unless they chose to do something that some French man thinks originates with men.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think your post pretty much encompasses any common persons position on the issue.

I disagree. The pro-choice side is becoming more radical and more people are buying into this new version. The idea that abortion is simply an expression of a woman akin to voting seems to be becoming more prevalent. Hence, why this very title is called "Woman's Rights" it deliberately structures the debate into people who are "for women's rights" and those that "want to take away women's rights".

Like many topics in the US. The middle ground is being eroded on both sides.

[Fragony]

I disagree. The pro-choice side is becoming more radical and more people are buying into this new version. The idea that abortion is simply an expression of a woman akin to voting seems to be becoming more prevalent. Hence, why this very title is called "Woman's Rights" it deliberately structures the debate into people who are "for women's rights" and those that "want to take away women's rights".

Like many topics in the US. The middle ground is being eroded on both sides.

Good post, I don't often fully agree with you. I don't exactly know where to draw the line, and very well know that. There are sooooo many good arguments on both sides.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Abortion is the one issue where I think that the 'liberals' are in fact fighting against the way of things. We are moving towards an increasingly tolerant, sanitized and harmonious world. Things like gay marriage, gender equality and the like are all going to become almost universally accepted and realised, because they fit into this new order. But abortion doesn't. As the Christian Right declines and the partisan aspect to the abortion debate disappears, the blinders will be removed and people will see that abortion is in fact not very palatable in a nice, whitewashed world where human dignity is God.

It is why I pretty much say "Don't be a fool and wrap your tool".

Please stop saying this. I am starting to picture you as Jeremy Kyle in my head.

[rory_20_uk]

Cobblers. Abortions fits right in with individual choice, and a new world where things are done humanely and not in dirty back street offices. And since abortion covers just taking a couple of pills and everything goes away it is fine.

Human dignity is control over what one wants - not balooning to a massive size, then tearing whilst discharging a mass of fluid and faeces to give birth to an unwanted child.

The Christian right is the only thing that is preventing everyone having this available - countries without their rearguard fight have abortions and for most people is a non-issue.

[Fragony]

You don't have to be a conservative christian to find it morally wrong. The right on abortion is a good thing don't get me wrong, but it's old-fashioned, an unwanted child can just be adaptod by loving parents who can't have one, there are plenty of those, this isn't the time of Dickens where the only option is dropping them at an orphanage. It simply isn't needed; killing it, or getting it in the first place. Drink less and carry a condom. Drink less and take the pill. You won't get an unwanted child that can't help that it is unwanted.

If you find condoms uncomfortable get them here http://mysize-condoms.com
If you don't take the pill and get knocked up, bugger, deal with it.

[HoreTore]

You don't have to be a conservative christian to find it morally wrong. The right on abortion is a good thing don't get me wrong, but it's old-fashioned, an unwanted child can just be adaptod by loving parents who can't have one, there are plenty of those, this isn't the time of Dickens where the only option is dropping them at an orphanage. It simply isn't needed; killing it, or getting it in the first place. Drink less and carry a condom. Drink less and take the pill. You won't get an unwanted child that can't help that it is unwanted.

I got my on-the-pill ex pregnant. And no, she wasn't sloppy in taking them either. It can happen. Luckily her own body squeezed the little bugger out on its own, so...

Anyway, why do you want to force women to go through the medical risks(including death) as well as financial losses to ultimately give up the child to adoption?

And no, there aren't plenty of people ready to adopt. Sorry.

[Fragony]

I got my on-the-pill ex pregnant. And no, she wasn't sloppy in taking them either. It can happen.

Of course it can, but that's a different situation. Condoms aren't foolproof either, I can know as I once shot myself in the eye with one, was a little too eager. Bit in general it can simply be avoided that you get someone pregnant, in general you can also avoid becomming pregnant. If an accident happens anway it's just that, and then I won't disagree with removing it. It's not the act but the mentality I am not comfortable with. I won't say anything mean unless you want my opinion, but you will get it if you do. In your case, an accident, they can happen and I wouldn't judge you if you had urged to have it removed, nor you girlfriend for having it removed.

[rory_20_uk]

Dealing with it is having an abortion.

In an "enlightened" world, people before having intercourse would have talked about whether this was for fun or procreation, as yes, people do both.

Given barring surgical removeal of parts of the reproductive tract is the only way to prevent fertilisation 100% of the time, a discussion ensures that one can then deal with it as they see fit.

For those who view all live as sacred, I hope you're donating all your spare income to charities to help look after all the people in need on the planet.

[Fragony]

I don't view all life as sacred, I just don't consider an abortion to be something that should be taken so lightly, especially when it comes with the triumph it seems to be welcomed with, this ain't the nineteenth century anymore, in the nineenth century it could destroy your life if you had an unwanted child and it was pretty damn mean to expect someone to just deal with it, knowing that it's unreasonable to ask that from someone. In 2014, is it really just reasonable? There are other options, feminists gloat over the fact that they can just kill it a little bit too much for my tastes, as if they are celebrating it. I am not against it, but I don't like the militant way the discussion is held.

[rory_20_uk]

Sorry, but removing a blastocyst is not the same as garotting a toddler. By c. 22 weeks things are swinging but only thanks to massive medical input as otherwise the foetus would have something like a 99%+ mortality rate.

I really don't see why there is a discussion at all - it is for the individual and that is the end of it - I have as much emotive involvement as whether someone takes caffinated or decaffinated coffee.

I would probably say there should be a discussion about couples who were trying for a child then later on the woman unilaterally decides to have an abortion, but that is a fraction of the total number. You'd have to be pretty messed up to intentionally get pregnant, wait for a bit then have an abortion just for kicks.

[Fragony]

I'd say they are a little bit to happy with being able to, without denying their right to do so, I can't see it as women's rights, but I have to look at it like that regardness. Women's rights activists are mentally still stuck in the minus fifties, when there was then absolutily something to get worked up about. Now they are professionally angry about things. Feminism has gone too far. It isn't about women's rights anymore at all. There is an almost fatalistic ingredient to 'I just want it'.

[rory_20_uk]

That I agree with. We do so often get things where if men and women are not "equal" then This Is A Problem. Be it:

Number of CEOs who are women (that more women don't want to be CEOs is not relevant)
Portrayal of women in computer games (and men in computer games are "normal"? Look at Gears of War for one of a myriad of examples - males just as likely to get body dysmorphia over this as women over large breasts - and boob jobs are a lot safer than steroids).
Time spent doing housework (after lambasting men for not doing any ended with 65% of women don't trust men to do it right - we are apparently both lazy and useless as a gender)
Pornography - women get paid more for their roles and yes the women aren't "normal" but then neither are the men.

Women should have rights, as should men. But equal opportunity is not equal outcome. Both genders should have equal access to abortions, and in existing relationships both should have similar rights over the foetus if there was pre-agreement to have a child - rather like the movement for verbal agreement for sex at all points (whatever the hell that means) there should be similar agreement over if the intent is to have a child.

[Beskar]

Of course it can, but that's a different situation. Condoms aren't foolproof either, I can know as I once shot myself in the eye, was a little too eager. Bit in general it can simply be avoided that you get someone pregnant, in general you can also avoid becomming pregnant. If an accident happens anway it's just that, and then I won't disagree with removing it. It's not the act but the mentality I am not comfortable with. I won't say anything mean unless you want my opinion, but you will get it if you do. In your case, an accident, they can happen and I wouldn't judge you if you had urged to have it removed, nor you girlfriend for having it removed.

The first bit made me laugh a little.

But I agree, I am not at all comfortable with anything past the first trimester as a matter of 'choice', it falls in the territory of 'exceptions to the rule' such as, life-endangerment and other such things. Most laws and regulations in countries recognise this and thus it serves as a good middle ground position.

[Ironside]

I'd say they are a little bit to happy with being able to, without denying their right to do so, I can't see it as women's rights, but I have to look at it like that regardness. Women's rights activists are mentally still stuck in the minus fifties, when there was then absolutily something to get worked up about. Now they are professionally angry about things. Feminism has gone too far. It isn't about women's rights anymore at all. There is an almost fatalistic ingredient to 'I just want it'.

Eh, do you have any serious debate at it in the Netherlands? I see ignorant teenagers who takes things too easy (that's a shock) and on the other side some worries about it going towards shaming women who gets an abortion.

The US climate is quite different, with the federal legal right being extremely tolerant, while several states having movements that wants to forbid any abortion. Those movements or people encuraged by the movements do harassments, crippling legal obligations to shut down abortion clinics, bomb threats, bombings and murders.