Tuesday, February 1, 2011

The Republicans take aim at pregnant rape victims.

He's not crying for pregnant rape victims.
Let's take a brief break from the man boobz on the internet to look at the man (and some women) boobz in Congress, specifically the Republicans (and a handful of Democrats) who are trying to push through a truly odious bill, The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, designed to make it harder for women who have been raped to get abortions. Here's how the SF Chronicle sums it up:

Current law allows federal funds (usually for Medicaid) to be spent on abortions only for women who have been raped or are the victims of incest. We think those restrictions are bad enough, but the new class of House Republicans want more. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would outlaw the use of federal funds for abortion except in the case of "forcible rape." The incest exemption would only apply to minors.

"Forcible rape" doesn't have a legal definition, but in general the idea is to exclude pregnancies that result from date rape, statutory rape or rapes that happen when women are physically incapacitated.

So if you're drugged and raped, and you get pregnant, too bad. If your father rapes you, and you get pregnant, too bad. Those rapes apparently don't count.

As Amanda Marcotte puts it, the bill's sponsors apparently

believe the misogynist stereotype that all women, especially those who claim to be ill or victims of crimes, are lying whores until proven otherwise.  Or just lying whores, regardless of the evidence they produce.  And so, to make sure those lying whores don’t get their hands on those delicious, orgasm-inducing uterine scrapings, the bill has language in it that, in essence, assumes that 70% of rape victims weren’t really raped.  The exception is only for “forcible rape”, which is vaguely defined, but in practice tends to mean that anything short of getting your ass beat down means you weren’t “really” raped.  Even if you’re a 13-year-old who was impregnated by a 30-year-old.  Also, if you happen to get pregnant by your abusive, rape-y father on your 18th birthday, you will get no funding to make sure you don’t give birth to your own brother.

In Salon, Sady Doyle puts the Republican push for the bill in a larger context, noting that the bill's reference to "forcible rape"

brings us back to an ancient, long-outdated standard of rape law: "Utmost resistance." By this standard, a rape verdict depended not on whether the victim consented, but on whether outsiders thought she resisted as hard as humanly possible. Survivors rarely measured up.

Meanwhile, Time magazine's Amy Sullivan tried to figure out if there really were a lot of "false rape claims" being by made by wily money-hungry young pregnant women in an attempt to bilk the government out of money.  The answer, of course, is no.

Eligibility rules ... differ by state, but many states are like Tennessee, which requires a doctor to certify that "there is credible evidence to believe that the pregnancy is the result of rape" and to attach "documentation from a law enforcement agency indicating the patient has made a credible report as the victim of incest or rape" before Medicaid will consider issuing payment for an abortion procedure. ...

So that scourge of false rape reports--or even, let's say, "non-forcible" rapes? It doesn't exist. I couldn't find numbers more recent than 2001, but these shocked me. In that year, the total number of abortions covered by Medicaid was 56. That's all abortions for cases in which the mother's life was in danger, the pregnancy was a result of incest, or in the case of rape. Another 25 were covered by state Medicaid programs. Even assuming that every single one of those abortions was to end a pregnancy caused by rape, that's 81 abortions paid for in part with taxpayer dollars. Nationwide. That's roughly $32,000 total for first trimester procedures.

So, yeah, this is not exactly what is busting the budget. Indeed, I imagine there are many rape victims who choose to pay out of pocket for an abortion, even if they can't really afford it, rather than going through the humiliation of trying to prove they've been raped to the satisfaction of government bureaucrats.

UPDATE: The Republicans have removed the "forcible rape" language from the bill. But there is still plenty about the bill to hate. 

If you're American, and want to do something about this bill, here's one practical suggestion: There are a number of Democrats who have signed on to co-sponsor the bill. I suggest you contact them and let them know how you feel. You can find info on how to contact them on Pandagon.

Or you can contact your representative by clicking on the banner below:


 
--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

100 comments:

  1. Reminds me of a story told by a male judge at a class I attended once.

    A woman came in asking for an injunction against harassment from the guy who raped her. The judge turned her down because she could not show a "series of events intending to harass the plaintiff" which was the legal standard at the time. Her question to the judge was "so I have to be raped more than once?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. And if you're the unborn child, too bad for you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry, John. You can't be "pro-life" unless you can bring yourself to give two shits about a baby after it's been born as well as before. Until then, anything you say is hypocritical bullshit. So, really, nothing new on that front.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And if you're the unborn child, too bad for you.

    You care about an unthinking clump of cells, but not about a living, thinking, feeling woman?

    That's just cold, man.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Triplanetary-not like she has any right to demand consideration. She is only there to incubate the male child.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Also, it's not like men go around raping women who don't deserve it. If she got knocked up, she was obviously asking for it.

    You know, even if she was a thirteen year old girl coerced by her older brother.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If she got knocked up, she was obviously asking for it.

    If she didn't fight back hard enough, she secretly wanted it.

    Plus she was clearly seducing him, doing sexy stuff like taking off her jacket.

    Okay, I'm making myself ill here, I'm going to stop.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The entire bill is fucked up.

    Right now some health insurance plans cover the cost of an abortion (mine, for example, pays 50%). It is totally their right to do this and is part of the free market system. But, under this law, individuals and companies can't use the tax deductions for buying health insurance if the plan pays for any part of an abortion except in cases of forcable rape.

    So, if your boss picked a plan because it had the best coverage and it just happens to also cover abortions... no tax credit for your company.

    The goal of this is to force insurance companies to not cover abortions at all or force people to have to convince their insurance carrier that they were raped before it could pay for the procedure. And that's what this is- a medical procedure. People have power over their own bodies. Full stop. End of story.

    For being the party that is about government staying out of people's lives they certainly seem to want to be involved in this. Can we call it a government takeover of healthcare?

    Don't get me wrong- the rape thing is all types of fucked up. But even if they changed the language this would still be a terrible bill.

    P.S. I'd love to see David's reaction to http://roissy.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/cheap-and-easy-ways-to-raise-your-value-to-a-girl/ why is it that the MRA guide to getting women is the same as the list of how to be an asshole that nobody likes? I mean, his plan might work but you'll end up attracting women with serious self-esteem issues and deep rooted problems. If you're into people who are emotionally damaged then go for it!

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you're into people who are emotionally damaged then go for it!

    And then join an MRA site and complain about it!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Every woman impregnated against her will was once an unborn child.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ Missy

    Seriously! I saw the headline to Roissy's latest blog post on the Boob Roll and clicked, because I was curious about it. I thought it would be full of things like, "If your buddy has a nicer car than yours, borrow it for an evening," or "Make friends with the waitstaff at a small, classy bistro so you can impress her when you take her there."

    Instead, I ended up reading something that cross references pretty well with the Abuser Red Flag List put out by Heartless Bitches International: http://heartlessbitchesinternational.com/rants/manipulator/redflaglist.shtml.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Captain Bathrobe said:

    "Sorry, John. You can't be "pro-life" unless you can bring yourself to give two shits about a baby after it's been born as well as before. Until then, anything you say is hypocritical bullshit. So, really, nothing new on that front."

    triplanetary said:

    "You care about an unthinking clump of cells, but not about a living, thinking, feeling woman?"

    Wow, the bigotry!

    Just because John's a man, it's automatically assumed that he may not give a shit about children. heh dumbass feminists

    ReplyDelete
  15. Missy and Lady Vic: HA! I saw that and said to myself, "oh, more of the same old 'treat them like crap and they'll worship you' PUA crap from Roissy." Maybe I'm becoming jaded. I'll give it another look. ....

    ReplyDelete
  16. Every woman impregnated against her will was once an unborn child.

    And I commit genocide every time I wash a load of socks. So what?

    ReplyDelete
  17. No, Nick, I assume he doesn't give a shit about kids because he strikes me as the kind of person who doesn't give a shit about kids. Most pro-lifers don't--at least not after the kids are born. They shed crocodile tears for the poor baybeez while they're in the womb, then complain bitterly about having to pay taxes to those same kids once they're out. If John is not one of those types then he's free to say so, but I don't plan on holding my breath until he does.

    ReplyDelete
  18. That should have read: "pay taxes to help those same kids."

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Every woman impregnated against her will was once an unborn child."

    That depends on when you believe existence begins.

    Because there is nothing it is like to be a three-week old fetus, I was not the fetus. I began to exist when I had my first thought and I will cease to exist when I have my last.

    But even if you believe that existence begins before that, you have the problem of agency. The mother, whose body the fetus feeds off of, has agency over the body. Even if the fetus exists as a person its host has the right to determine if it can continue to exist. You can no more force a mother to allow a fetus to continue to grow in her womb than you could force her to donate a kidney to save another person.

    ReplyDelete
  20. In most Western countries abortion is not a big issue between feminists and MRAs.

    Rules in most EU-countries are about as follows:

    1 - a woman can decide alone - but only up to 12 to 14 weeks pregnancy. At that time, nobody can see and know, that this woman is pregnant. The abortion must be done by a medical doctor, otherwise she would break the law.
    Often chemical abortion works and no surgery is required.

    2 - No medical doctor or nurse, neither independent nor as employee in a hospital, can be forced to carry out or to assist for an abortion.

    3 - After that time, 14 months pregnant, the child must be carried out and after birth it will be taken away (the mother will not see it even for a moment) for adoption. The woman might claim if asked by co-workers etc. that the baby was still-born, she can show even a medical certificate to the employer that she was admitted to a hospital for giving birth and was released from the hospital without the child.

    What's the problem?

    Of course laws in EU are not the best solution for feminists, but also not the best solution for anti-abortion-activists, but we all understand, you must arrange something 'in the middle', otherwise this discussion will never finish.

    it seems, US-feminists with their hateful rhetoric are just not mature enough to find an acceptable solution, even demanding very late abortion - see the following link and comments (by Amanda Marcotte)

    http://scribe.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/philly-doctor-case-shines-light-access-issues

    LATE abortions should be outlawed.

    ReplyDelete
  21. What's the problem?

    The problem is that a) third-trimester abortions are sometimes medically necessary, and b) no woman should ever, ever be forced to endure nine months of pregnancy because she was raped. If she chooses to, fine, but she should not be forced. And a woman who can't afford an abortion and can't receive ANY insurance or government assistance is being forced, make no mistake.

    you must arrange something 'in the middle', otherwise this discussion will never finish.

    Well, no. When one of the sides is a bunch of authoritarian, moralistic, woman-controlling asses, you don't need a solution that falls "in the middle."

    ReplyDelete
  22. @ David:

    It'd be interesting to see a comparison between Roissy's advice and Nightstorm's personal list of why having a girlfriend is a pain in the ass.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If feminists are pro abortion fine. Let feminsts pay for them. Don't make people who hate abortion and have a moral objection to them pay for them.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  24. 1. It is not just feminists who are prochoice.

    2. People who are prochoice believe abortion is a right.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yohann's comment is gibberish. Abortion laws vary wildly within the EU, from liberal in the Netherlands to a near-total ban in Ireland. And you can't adopt out a 14 week foetus because it is 3 inches long.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @ Sandy

    Fair enough.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. MissPrism: Abortion laws vary wildly within the EU, from liberal in the Netherlands to a near-total ban in Ireland

    I said in MOST EU-countries and not in all EU-countries.

    Abortion laws do not vary 'wildly' within the EU, and in Netherlands - that's more the exception - it's 21 weeks, but for sure it is not, what US-feminists are demanding - they demand abortion rights up to giving birth.

    Ireland as the Catholic stronghold is against abortion but due to EU-regulation the Irish government cannot hold you back to cross the border of this little country for an abortion elsewhere and as EU-citizen, you do not need even a passport for your trip.

    For sure abortion is not a big issue in EU for most feminists and MRAs, there is no hateful feminist rhetoric and no much objection by MRAs to the present regulations.

    There is also wide support in EU for pregnant women who want to get rid of their unwanted child immediately after birth.

    Abortion is for sure much better regulated in EU than in USA.

    Also some Asian countries have lenient rules regarding abortion, like Japan, Singapore or China.

    ReplyDelete
  29. richard said...
    If feminists are pro abortion fine. Let feminists pay for them. Don't make people who hate abortion and have a moral objection to them pay for them.


    It depends, it's different from country to country.

    Here in Japan, neither abortion nor birth are covered by the National Health Insurance.
    Whatever the woman will decide, she has to pay in any case, abortion or birth.

    Japan does not consider a healthy pregnancy to be an illness, nor being an injury out of an accident.

    However, for any medical treatment in Japan you have to pay a part out of your own wallet, usually 10 to 30 percent of the medical bill.


    Generally, women have the choice of condoms, contraceptives, calculating their days of conception and if carefully done, pregnancy can be avoided in case of consenting adults.

    It's difficult to understand, why you should pay for the dentist yourself in Canada or USA and why abortion should be paid by the health insurance in these 2 countries.

    I do not talk here about rape, incest, pregnant younger than the age of consent etc... that's a different matter.

    Some people always demand, that health care and many other expenses should be totally free. This will never be the case. You cannot have it all. We know the communist system failed miserably. The state cannot pay for everything.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Here is a map and summary of abortion laws in Europe, so we're arguing about facts rather than subjective assessments of the word "wildly".
    Http://news.BBC.co.uk/1/hi/6235557.stm

    Note that Ireland isn't even the most restrictive state in the EU for abortion regulations, as Malta's ban does not include an exemption for the life of the pregnant woman. Poland only allows abortion to save the woman's life or health. Sweden allows abortion on request up to 18 weeks, Romania to 14 weeks, Netherlands provides abortions free of charge up to 13 weeks on request but up to 24 if the woman says she is in distress, and so on. I count that as "wildly", you may not.


    The procedure you claimed was in place in "most" EU countries, Yohann, in which a three inch foetus can be removed from the womb and put up for adoption, is imaginary and impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  31. MissPrism: The procedure you claimed was in place in "most" EU countries, Yohann, in which a three inch foetus can be removed from the womb and put up for adoption, is imaginary and impossible.

    Thanks for this link, it's a good summery of the situation in Europe.

    I think you misunderstood something out of my comment, Sorry, I do not really understand what you mean with this reply above.

    Anyway, distances between EU-countries are short, so what you cannot get in one country you get in another even without a passport, and when it's too late or the woman cannot decide for an abortion, it is easy for her after birth to give away her newborn.

    I think, in EU is much easier than in USA, abortion is not such a big issue.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It's a little disingenuous to say that feminists are demanding 'abortion up till birth,' when the distinction that we would simply like medically necessary abortions to be available.

    Available as necessary. Not available on demand. Seriously, no one is arguing for that. I'm totally fine with elective abortions being restricted to the first trimester as they are. (If only anti-choice activists would stop trying to make barriers and delays to care)

    It just doesn't make sense to ban late abortions without regard to circumstance.

    No one is carrying a pregnancy for eight months and suddenly deciding they want to pop in for an abortion on their lunch break. These are people (couples, even!) who are making a heartwrenching decision they don't want to make, to end a pregnancy they wanted to keep, and the least we could do is not throw legal roadblocks in to make things more difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Actually, Yohan, I live and work in Japan, am on the national health program, and should I ever get pregnant (which will not be happening), I am entitled to quite a bit of pregnancy benefits, equal to two thirds of my salary for "42 days before delivery and 56 days after delivery" .. .If I were a man with an unemployed, pregnant wife, I would be entitled to 350,000 yen per child of birth expenses.

    Of course, it isn't considered and illness, but it's not an entirely out of pocket affair either. I don't know what the situation is in America, but I'd wager it's better here.

    (I just read this off the 2007 copy of my statement of benefits, which is the only one I could find lying around the house. I believe I left the more current one at the office, but it's probably more or less the same I suppose.)

    Ah, and I'm the same poster as 'Megan' ... accidentally commented with the wrong account at first.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Megan

    As an MRA from Europe and not religious, I do not have any problem about 'medically necessary' abortions at any time in case of an accident or during a dangerous illness etc.

    I do not have any problem with abortion on demand during the first 12 weeks in most EU countries (and in some Asian countries, too).

    Might be Malta and Ireland are against it, but the majority of the EU-countries ... France, Germany, Italy and many others consider this as a good compromise for both groups, pro-life and pro-choice. You cannot please everybody regarding abortion, and the solution is somewhere between, just my opinion.

    Unfortunately USA is a legal chaos because of different laws in different federal states, with very aggressive pro-lifers often religious motivated on one side and hateful feminists for pro-choice under any circumstances on the other side.

    No one is carrying a pregnancy for eight months and suddenly deciding they want to pop in for an abortion on their lunch break.

    I am not so sure, I want to see 'late abortion on demand' without any medical reason to be outlawed. If you are 8 months pregnant, give birth one month later and give the child free for adoption.

    ReplyDelete
  35. cactuar-tamer said...
    Actually, Yohan, I live and work in Japan, am on the national health program, and should I ever get pregnant (which will not be happening), I am entitled to quite a bit of pregnancy benefits, equal to two thirds of my salary for "42 days before delivery and 56 days after delivery" .. .If I were a man with an unemployed, pregnant wife, I would be entitled to 350,000 yen per child of birth expenses.


    Yes, you can sign up for support/benefits when you register your pregnancy in the ward office in Japan.

    You will have to follow all procedures, like all required medical checks.

    However, as far as I know, if anything is paid to you and how much, depends on your income.

    Japan is considering low income people including foreigners with proper visa.

    If your application is successful, a good part of your expenses will be paid back within 3 months or so, I think.

    -----

    About abortion, this has for sure to be paid out of your own wallet. That's your private matter in Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  36. > Every woman impregnated against her will was once an unborn child.

    Not sure how this got interpreted as a pro-life comment.

    I'm making the same point our Captain Bathrobe was making upthread. If you claim to care about the rights of unborn children, then you'd better still care about their rights in the event that once born, they are impregnated against their will.

    Apologies for being terse, but this is a perfect example of how it's practically impossible to discuss this issue. People on both sides are just chomping at the bit to get their talking points out, and if you do what I did and twist some of the "other" side's rhetoric to make a point, it goes whoosh.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Joe: If you claim to care about the rights of unborn children, then you'd better still care about their rights in the event that once born, they are impregnated against their will

    The unborn one is first, the born one is the follow-up step and is ready for life after several months.

    If we do not care about the unborn ones and abort them all before they are born, how can we take care about children after birth?

    From where should these children come from?

    ReplyDelete
  38. I feel like fainting-does anyone notice that Yohan is being, for once, rather sensible about an issue?

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Anyway, distances between EU-countries are short, so what you cannot get in one country you get in another even without a passport, and when it's too late or the woman cannot decide for an abortion, it is easy for her after birth to give away her newborn."

    1. She has to pay to travel, pay for the abortion, pay to return.

    2. "Easy to give away her newborn." You clearly have never been pregnant. There is a huge wash of hormones that makes it possible for a woman to not kill the screaming pooping runt but instead love it. That makes it very much *not* easy to give it away. Even if her pregnancy is comfortable and easy, which most are not.

    You have to pay just to leave your car on a parking lot, and if the owner of the lot wants it removed, it is removed. Women have more rights than parking lots.

    ReplyDelete
  40. > If we do not care about the unborn ones and abort them all before they are born ...

    Who proposed aborting all fetuses? That would be insane. I thought this thread was about abortion in the case of rape.

    I agree with you that the policy solution to the vexing ethical dilemmas around abortion is "somewhere between" the extremes.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jin-Yohan once again leaves out some facts while painting Japan as an abortion paradise.

    Not only does a person have to pay out of pocket for the abortion, but an abortion at 8 weeks will run you roughly (in US $) $1000. And it just goes up from there. You also need the father (or a man you trust to lie and pretend to be the father) to sign off on it. No abortion without a man's permission.

    Then there's the social aspect. Japanese doctors still discourage the birth control pill and women have grown to fear it, men shun condoms, and many rely on the "fingers crossed" method of birth control. Due to the culture, a lot of women don't feel equipped to argue (this is true in America and more true in Japan) for a condom or to argue against sex. Raping your girlfriend probably won't get you arrested, either. (Neither will beating your girlfriend--another matter entirely!) Sex ed is sorely lacking in Japan, so let's say she gets pregnant as a result of this and kind of does not want to have a baby yet ...

    Social attitudes dictate that basically you "should" have the baby if you can afford it. The general attitude is that if the father can afford to raise the child, you have the baby. If he can't, you don't. So not only are you dealing with a culture that's weird about birth control and where women have little agency when it comes to sex and where you need a man's permission for an abortion ... but then you also basically are at his whim with regards to having the baby. He wants the baby? You have the baby, unless you have a very sympathetic male friend and a lot of cash. He doesn't want the baby? You go get an abortion.

    Not exactly the most progressive, abortion-happy-friendly culture.

    ReplyDelete
  42. > Every woman impregnated against her will was once an unborn child.

    Not sure how this got interpreted as a pro-life comment.


    I'm just hazarding a guess here, Joe, but it may have been interpreted as a pro-life comment because it sounds similar to something that is often said (and not only by men) to women who are either contemplating abortion or discussing abortion in general, "Don't forget that YOU were once an unborn child, and so YOU could have ended up being aborted!"
    Not to say that statements such as that are not said to men who are discussing abortion, I simply don't know whether they are or not.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Most pro-lifers don't--at least not after the kids are born. They shed crocodile tears for the poor baybeez while they're in the womb, then complain bitterly about having to pay taxes to [help] those same kids once they're out.

    Those are my thoughts EXACTLY about most pro-lifers. One day they're out picketing abortion clinics and hospitals that provide abortions, and the next day they're out picketing social assistance offices for providing assistance to "lazy" single parents.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Most pro-abortion people that I've run across demand that pro-lifers either (A) become socialists or else (B) concede that an abortion is somehow humane to the abortion victim, namely the child, because otherwise that child would have been born into a life of poverty. And yet these same people support the criminalization (rightly so) of homicide against born children, even if the homicide was ostensibly done due to poverty reasons. This reveals a stark double standard, and a hypocrisy, by such pro-abortion ideologues; they say one thing (murder motivated by poverty should be illegal) but do another (abortion should be legal due to poverty).

    I believe that every parent is morally obligated to protect and provide for their offspring, and I believe that a fertilized egg is every bit as human as a fully-grown adult (it's certainly not a cow or a chicken; it's manifestly human). The difference is only a matter of development.

    Pro-abortion people also claim that legal abortion is justified because any fetus is not yet viable (i.e. it can't survive outside the womb). But the point in time where viability exists is variable, and with improved technology has been pushed back further and further in time. The premise behind the pro-abortion position about viability is that if a human being is not self-sufficient for survival, then it is justified for those who are responsible for that that human being to snuff out their life; responsibility for a life somehow justifies homicide against that life. If someone kills a dependent human being (such as a premature baby, or a hospital patient in a coma) merely because their life is dependent on the resources and attention of another person, most pro-abortion supporters agree that such a thing should be illegal. But this reveals another hypocrisy: they think that it should be legal to kill an unborn human being for being dependent on its mother, but illegal to kill a born human being for being dependent. (Some pro-abortion supporters, however, are frightfully consistent on this matter, supporting the killing not only of dependent unborn human beings but also the killing of vulnerable and dependent born human beings).

    You don't have to be a socialist to expect parents to nurture and protect their offspring; just because the polis isn't responsible for the welfare of newborn babies this doesn't justify arbitrarily killing them off.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Viability has been arrested at about 23 weeks for fifteen years John. There are exceptions to the rule (apparently one infant was born at 21 weeks and six days) however those are incredibly rare and require extreme measures to save the baby's life. Most of the time there is massive brain damage to the baby because of the measures having to be taken.

    So the claim that it has been pushed back further and further is simply not true-it has moved one week in thirty years (24 weeks was the extreme when I was born in 1979 and now it is 23 weeks.)

    Also, in a case like Tom DeLay's father, he had to be on a machine to live and most pro-choice and anti-choice people are fine with someone being removed from life support.

    ReplyDelete
  48. chocomintlipwax said... Jin-Yohan once again leaves out some facts while painting Japan as an abortion paradise.
    Not only does a person have to pay out of pocket for the abortion, but an abortion at 8 weeks will run you roughly (in US $) $1000.


    I never said in this thread that abortion in Japan is free of charge, I said exactly the opposite and why should medical care of any kind be free of charge for everybody? In many countries, USA etc., you even have to pay for the dentist...

    You also need the father (or a man you trust to lie and pretend to be the father) to sign off on it. No abortion without a man's permission.

    Not true...

    Raping your girlfriend probably won't get you arrested, either. (Neither will beating your girlfriend--another matter entirely!)

    That's again not true... I wonder your source of your information...

    About rape - Japan is not feminist orientated, to sleep with a boy checking into a hotelroom together and after a few weeks later you regret, claiming rape - this will bring you to nowhere...

    Luckily our laws here are different from those in USA and why should they not be different?

    There is no reason why laws should be the same in USA and in Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Of course there is Yohan-it is because the US is superior to everyone else so you must follow us slavishly. ;p

    ReplyDelete
  50. These arguments seem to assume there's some chance in heck of this getting passed and turned into law.

    The Republicans do not control the Senate. And in the amazing miracle that this was to somehow get through the Senate and become a law for the President to sign, does anyone here really believe that:
    A. President Obama would sign it?
    B. The Senate majority would be enough to over-ride the veto?

    This is much ado over nothing as the whole bill merely serves symbolic purposes to some Republican senators in the House.

    Lastly, if I was going to mess with anything in the current law, I would take out or reform the statutory rape exception. Somehow, I'd rather not be paying for the abortion from a 16 year old girl who got preggers from consensual sex with her 19 year old boyfriend, though I suppose 13 and 45 is another matter entirely. Still I will never consider stat rape to be real rape because the essence of rape is coercion, not consent, nor do I view it as the business of feminists, chauvinists , or the government to tell people of sexually reproductive viable ages that they cannot consent to sex.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Joe said...
    .....I thought this thread was about abortion in the case of rape.

    I agree with you that the policy solution to the vexing ethical dilemmas around abortion is "somewhere between" the extremes.


    Well, i would say, generally about abortion and not only about rape (if we start like that, feminists and MRAs will never end to discuss what rape really is)

    Yes, I agree with you too - the solution is somewhere between, but where is somewhere, is the question. Regardless if rape or not or whatever the reasons might be for demanding an abortion, the question is more about TIME, running out of time.

    You cannot ask courts for permission for interpretation of a difficult situation etc, as you are running out of time while being pregnant.

    What is still acceptable by MOST pro-lifers (MRAs etc, worldwide and not only USA-related) and what is still acceptable by MOST pro-choice people (feminists etc, worldwide and not only USA-related)?

    Many people (most? I don't know), me included, consider 12 - 14 weeks as reasonable and acceptable for making a decision about abortion for the pregnant woman.
    In most (but not all) EU-countries you find laws regulating abortion with such or similar time-limits. Not bad and it seems to work, and abortion in EU is not such an big issue anymore as it is in the USA for most people.

    As one said here in this thread, not all pro-choice people are feminists, and you might add, not all MRAs are religious and totally into pro-life.

    The question is also coming up if abortion should be free of charge - why should medical assistance generally be free of charge? Medical doctors are not supposed to work for free.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Elizabeth said...
    Of course there is Yohan-it is because the US is superior to everyone else so you must follow us slavishly.


    I am not so sure, as China is not far away from Japan and I don't think, the Chinese consider US to be superior to everyone. More the opposite...

    ReplyDelete
  54. @Elizabeth:

    The reason why pro-abortion supporters even mention the issue of viability is to justify abortions of non-viable fetuses by saying that the aborted child is wholly dependent upon the mother in order to survive. But there is some enthusiasm among feminists about the artificial womb, which supposedly would allow children to gestate outside of the mother's womb, freeing the mother from the physical trials of pregnancy. Assuming that the artificial womb is technologically feasible, then viability would be pushed back all the way to the time at which the fertilized egg begins its existence within the artificial womb.

    Regardless of whether viability is pushed back even further or remains where it is today, the point is that when pro-abortion supporters invoke the concept of viability, their argument rests on the philosophical foundation that homicide is justified if a dependent human being is killed by the person(s) that their life depends upon. This fundamental belief could be used to justify anything from infanticide, to child-murder, to non-consensual euthanasia and everything in between.

    ReplyDelete
  55. John Dias:

    You totally forgot about the whole "bodily autonomy" thing, didn't you?

    That being said, I'd be far more comfortable with women's absolute control of reproduction (or their additional choices of having the sprat and not having to raise or care for it) if they had the responsibilities to go along with this power. Right now they could abort my kid or bring Junior or Juniorette to term and make me pay for it.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Elizabeth said...
    I feel like fainting-does anyone notice that Yohan is being, for once, rather sensible about an issue?


    Well, the legal situation about rape/abortion is also an important issue for MRAs, concerning especially married men and father's rights.

    Can you imagine, you are married, with wife and children, and some gangsters are attacking your wife and she gets pregnant because of that?

    How can this family be forced to accept this child among their other children? How can you be a father for this unwanted child?

    Generally, I think, 12 - 14 weeks should be OK to regulate such sensitive issues regarding abortion for any woman. I consider 3 months as a good time-out. The woman should decide alone during this time, no questions, no objections.

    However if feminists argue, it's OK for the girl because her boyfriend disappeared to demand an abortion after being 8 months pregnant AND even is demanding the health care should pay for that because she is now psycho - that's an absolutely NO. She should give birth and go ahead with adoption in such a situation.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yohan-what I said was a joke. You were supposed to laugh and go "whatever."

    John-I addressed your concerns and by the way, in my view, the woman outranks the fetus. She gets consideration before the fetus does. That said-I fully support both comprehensive sex ed including teaching that sex can wait for BOTH genders and empowerment for both genders in learning to say no when they are not ready, as well as prenatal and post natal assistance for women of all levels of society.

    ReplyDelete
  58. That is why I am shocked you are being reasonable about this Yohan-most of what you are saying is a compromise between the extreme of John in saying NO WAY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE and the opposite of THE WOMAN DECIDES WHENEVER SHE WANTS TO.

    ReplyDelete
  59. jupiter9 said...
    (Yohan) Anyway, distances between EU-countries are short, so what you cannot get in one country you get in another even without a passport...

    1. She has to pay to travel, pay for the abortion, pay to return.


    You can nowhere in this world expect, that any medical care you request is 24/365 available in front of your house free of charge.

    There are plenty of people who pay for any kind of medical care. Are all dental works free of charge? Do you not pay for your eye-glasses? You want to remove a scar or wart?

    What about visiting a spa for elderly people who are suffering of rheumatism?
    Do they not travel? Do they not have various expenses in relation to their medical problem?

    Even with health care insurance you have to pay sometimes for certain expenses at least a part by yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Elizabeth said...
    That is why I am shocked you are being reasonable about this Yohan-


    MRAs are not all the same, some are religious, some are not - some are from USA, some are from Europe or elsewhere, etc. etc.

    Some men will be even very happy if their girlfriend agrees with abortion - not all men (and not all women) like a family with children...

    Opinions of men regarding abortion are very much divided.

    Just my opinion: Men cannot know easily, if a woman is pregnant within the first 3 months. - So why to create legal problems for her which are unnecessary?

    ReplyDelete
  61. "I believe that every parent is morally obligated to protect and provide for their offspring, and I believe that a fertilized egg is every bit as human as a fully-grown adult (it's certainly not a cow or a chicken; it's manifestly human). The difference is only a matter of development."

    A tumor is human and alive. You must allow it to grow freely, then, right?

    Your belief that a fertilized egg is equal to a fully-grown adult isn't shared by everyone.

    ReplyDelete

  62. 1 -
    JohnDias
    I believe that a fertilized egg is every bit as human as a fully-grown adult

    2 -
    jupiter9
    A tumor is human and alive. You must allow it to grow freely, then, right?


    These are truly best examples for explaining the extreme point of view from both sides.

    1 -
    Something must be wrong here, but I do not know really how to explain it. Let me try.

    I do not think, a human fertilized egg is as human as a fully-grown adult.

    It's about to say a chicken and an egg is the same food.

    What is next? PETA telling me not to eat chicken because chicken are smart, and in future PETA will tell me not to eat eggs, because they are as animals as chicken?

    2 -
    To compare a human foetus with a malicious tumor is bizarre.

    It is also highly derogatory towards pregnant women who do not consider an abortion and are looking forward to birth.

    Pregnancy is NOT an internal ailment.

    ReplyDelete
  63. John Dias

    Just to clarify:

    Does this mean you support demands that fathers pay child support

    ReplyDelete
  64. @jupiter9:

    "A tumor is human and alive. You must allow it to grow freely, then, right?"

    No tumor will ever become an adult human being over time. But a human child will most certainly grow into an adult, given time and nourishment. The fact that the child is not an adult does not strip the child of its humanity.

    "Your belief that a fertilized egg is equal to a fully-grown adult isn't shared by everyone."

    I quote the great Morpheus, from the Matrix:

    "My beliefs do not require them to." :-)

    Nevertheless, when Roe v. Wade is overturned, the states will once again have legal authority to set abortion policy by the will of the people, and in several states at least, this will in fact reflect the majority view of the people. Speaking of majorities, according to a Zogby poll, a majority of people surveyed support legal restrictions on abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest or threat to the mother's life. [Source]

    ReplyDelete
  65. @Kave:

    "Just to clarify, does this mean you support demands that fathers pay child support?"

    Why should you have to pay child support if you're a fit parent who legally has at least 50% parenting time? So to sum up, NO.

    ReplyDelete
  66. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  67. @ClarenceComments:

    "John Dias: You totally forgot about the whole 'bodily autonomy' thing, didn't you?"

    See the second comment in this thread, written by me. I most certainly respect the unborn child's right to bodily autonomy. (And yes, I realize that your question emphasizes the mother's point of view, but I prioritize the right of the child as highest except in cases where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, such as with an ectopic pregnancy).

    ReplyDelete
  68. Kave said...
    Kave said...
    John Dias
    Just to clarify:
    Does this mean you support demands that fathers pay child support


    @Kave

    Do you support jail sentences for dead-beat mothers, who fail to pay child-support to fathers if the children are living with him and not with her?

    ReplyDelete
  69. John Dias: Speaking of majorities, according to a Zogby poll, a majority of people surveyed support legal restrictions on abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest or threat to the mother's life.

    Interesting reading about the situation in USA,
    these results are a surprise as you might expect the entire female population is with vote for the feminists.

    I see, my opinion, 3 months legal, is truly an outsider opinion without any hope of majority, but I am not living in the USA.

    Abortions legal for any reason during first 3 months 25%

    It would be interesting if there are some new data available, this poll is from April 2004, about 7 years ago. Also typically for the USA, different regions often show very different results.

    In EU and and in some Asian countries, most people have no problem with the 'first 3 months regulation'.

    About Europe, I found this link posted by MissPrism as very informative. She does not share my opinion about the abortion issue, but this is another matter. 12-14 weeks is very common.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6235557.stm

    ReplyDelete
  70. John Dias said:

    I believe that every parent is morally obligated to protect and provide for their offspring.

    Unless their a dad. For the record I believe if a bio dad does not choose to be one he should not be forced.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Here is the thing about the 50/50 custody arguement. If the children are old enough to take care of themselves then it works fine. But if they are young someone has to stay home with them. Why would I pay 14$ an hour to hire a full-time nanny when their mother is there?

    Parenting is a full-time job. If you have a full-time job then someone else needs to be there for the kids.

    ReplyDelete
  72. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  73. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  74. @Kave:

    "Why would I pay 14$ an hour to hire a full-time nanny when their mother is there?"

    Because in divorce, the Family Court could see this as a sign that you're de-facto ceding your parenting time to the other parent, and this will give the other parent the right to demand that you lose whatever percentage of parenting time that the other parent was exercising during your time (even though you were paying her).

    It's all about court-imposed obligations. The divorced mother shouldn't be exempt from being just as much of a financial provider as you are. In my state, California, you're entitled by statute to submit a motion to the family court to order the other parent to seek full-time work, and in the alternative to impute income to the other parent. A divorcing providing father should definitely utilize his rights to obligate the other parent to provide an equal financial share, hopefully to whatever degree that the net child support obligor ends up paying close to zero to the other parent. If you both have equal parenting time percentages, then you should both be providing and parenting equally; child support obligations (and the related penalties for not paying child support, such as incarceration, wage garnishments and loss of driving license) should be out of the picture entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  75. "No tumor will ever become an adult human being over time."

    You haven't met my ex-boyfriend.

    Many fertilized eggs don't become adult human beings, either. Estimates are that about half of them just don't make it, for various reasons.

    If God/Nature/chance throws away half of them, what's the big deal if we throw away a few more? They're apparently not all that valuable.

    An unwanted pregnancy and a tumor are equally valuable to the woman carrying them.

    ReplyDelete
  76. jupiter9 said...
    An unwanted pregnancy and a tumor are equally valuable to the woman carrying them.


    What an ugly despicable view about human life -
    what else can we expect from feminism?

    Pregnancy is NOT an internal ailment!

    ReplyDelete
  77. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  78. @jupiter9:

    "An unwanted pregnancy and a tumor are equally valuable to the woman carrying them..."

    But the intrinsic value of an intact living human being vastly exceeds a that of unliving flesh that -- in itself -- is not now, nor ever was, an intact human being. The intrinsic value of human life is not nullified simply because a particular child is callously not wanted by its mother. Subjective valuations of human life are transitory anyway; what if the mother values the baby long enough to give birth, but thereafter stops wanting the baby? Does that justify her (or anyone else) dismembering the baby in cold-blooded murder? In any humane and decent paradigm, not at all.

    "If God/Nature/chance throws away half of them, what's the big deal if we throw away a few more?"

    Untold legions of born people die for various reasons every day, all over the world -- whether due to acts of God, nature or chance. Are you suggesting that it's no big deal if a few more not only die, but are intentionally butchered through dismemberment or chemical burning? There's simply no morally justified defense to your reasoning; in my view it's completely indefensible.

    Yohan wrote:

    "What an ugly despicable view about human life- - what else can we expect from feminism?"

    It's not just feminism that reasons this way, but any belief system that reduces the perceived inherent value of a human being to that conferred upon it by one specific other. But yes, to the degree that the feminist ideologue places such a low value on the life of a defenseless baby that she supports dismembering and/or chemically burning that baby for completely elective reasons, feminism loses all moral credibility in my view.

    ReplyDelete
  79. jupiter9 said... An unwanted pregnancy and a tumor are equally valuable to the woman carrying them

    It's a big difference between an UNWANTED pregnancy done out of consensual sex resulting of missing contraceptives and condomes - or a pregnancy due to FORCED sexual contact against the will of the woman (violent rape).

    MOST unwanted pregnancies are NOT forced and can be easily avoided if proper prevention is taken seriously by the woman.

    Growing of tumors, an internal ailment, cannot be avoided by swallowing a pill or using condoms.

    To compare cancer with a pregnancy considering both to be equal annoyances - that's truly feminist cruel mindset.

    ReplyDelete
  80. http://www.thelocal.se/19392/20090512/

    Sweden rules 'gender-based' abortion legal
    Swedish health authorities have ruled that gender-based abortion is not illegal according to current law and can not therefore be stopped

    I personally find gender-specific abortion especially despicable.

    First check out the gender of the foetus, the future 'mother' (I do not call this monster to be a mother!) expects a girl, and it is a girl, that's OK. And if it is a boy, it's for abortion.

    Even medical doctors in Sweden were expressing concern, as they feel pressured to examine the foetus’s gender without having a medically compelling reason to do so, according to this article.

    In Sweden legal, up to 18 weeks and the health insurance pays. -

    What a shame - that's feminism at its finest.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Actually Yohan, a pregnancy can kill a woman. So it can be considered an ailment.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "But the intrinsic value of an intact living human being vastly exceeds a that of unliving flesh that -- in itself -- is not now, nor ever was, an intact human being. The intrinsic value of human life is not nullified simply because a particular child is callously not wanted by its mother."

    How far can we take this?

    If you rape a woman and get her pregnant, then that pregnancy could result in a miraculous, wonderful baby and human being!

    Not only do you have a responsibility to stop women who were raped from getting abortions. You have a moral duty to impregnate as many women as possible, regardless of their desire to be pregnant or be a mother.

    Yohan: "It's a big difference between an UNWANTED pregnancy done out of consensual sex resulting of missing contraceptives and condomes - or a pregnancy due to FORCED sexual contact against the will of the woman (violent rape)."

    They're both people though! No abortion can be allowed, all women who get abortions should be charged with murder! It doesn't matter how she got pregnant. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  83. .... No abortion can be allowed, all women who get abortions should be charged with murder! It doesn't matter how she got pregnant. Right?


    No, this is not my opinion, if you read back.

    I said several times in this thread, as an MRA from Europe living in Japan, I consider

    abortion, 12-to-14-weeks (3-months)/the pregnant woman decides/no questions

    as it is done in many EU-countries (Germany, Austria, Italy, France and also in some Asian countries etc.) as the best solution.

    I consider it to be somewhere in the middle between pro-life and pro-choice and the best solution I have seen so far. Nowadays abortion is not a big issue in most parts of EU and Japan, Singapore etc...

    How far can we take this?
    If you rape a woman and get her pregnant, then that pregnancy could result in a miraculous, wonderful baby and human being!


    It matters a lot for many married MRAs (like myself), how their wives got pregnant and who is the father.

    Why should I support a child - in case of rape but also paternity fraud - despite I am not the biological father?

    You should understand that not all MRAs are from USA and/or are not always religious motivated like Muslims or Catholics.

    Among MRAs the opinion about abortion is divided, and not only among MRAs.

    I doubt if all feminists agree to gender-specific abortion (girls OK, boys away) or to abortion a few weeks before birth, because a woman is suddenly getting psycho because she regrets her one-night-stand 7 or 8 months ago.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Elizabeth said...
    Actually Yohan, a pregnancy can kill a woman. So it can be considered an ailment.


    A pregnancy/birth is a natural condition for a woman serving reproduction of humans and is not an ailment.

    Medical checkups are recommended of course to monitor pregnancy and to discover any problem as soon as possible.

    I do not know about any country, any government, any social framework in this world, where pregnancy is considered to be an illness beginning with the first day of conception.

    Conception = sexually transmitted infection?

    Women are waiting frequently for sperm from donors, does that mean they PAY to be infected with a sexually transmitted deadly disease?

    Feminists are even attacking MRAs are cruel, as we are strongly against sperm-donorship out of many reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I have never in my life heard of anyone aborting male fetuses for being male. Girls, yes. That's illegal in both China and India, and yet remains very common in both countries. Now they have way more men than women, and in China it's not unheard of to round up women in the countryside to kidnap them and take them somewhere to marry off to men elsewhere.

    But Jin-Yohan is worried about the undocumented and imaginary genocide of male fetuses in Sweden.

    On one hand we have a real crisis as the result of abortions based on fetal sex ... on the other hand we have one imagined in Jin-Yohan's head. But no, let's not concern ourselves with the REAL and FEMALE fetuses getting aborted because of their sex. Let's concern ourselves with the imaginary male ones.

    ReplyDelete
  86. @jupiter9:

    "How far can we take this?
    If you rape a woman and get her pregnant, then that pregnancy could result in a miraculous, wonderful baby and human being!
    Not only do you have a responsibility to stop women who were raped from getting abortions. You have a moral duty to impregnate as many women as possible, regardless of their desire to be pregnant or be a mother."


    I'm grateful to have an opponent as shrill as you are. It illustrates to the world just how utterly reasonable it is that abortion is a heinous and violent act that should be done away with in almost all cases. Keep on helping me.

    ReplyDelete
  87. chocomintlipwax said...
    I have never in my life heard of anyone aborting male fetuses for being male. Girls, yes. That's illegal in both China and India, and yet remains very common in both countries.


    Abortion is legal in China and India regardless if the foetus is male or female - so what is your problem?

    You should be very happy about the legal situation regarding abortion in India and China, much better than in USA.

    Feminists consider a human foetus as tumor, as an internal ailment.

    And you are concerned about abortions in China?
    Why?

    Now they have way more men than women...in China...

    Is this a problem for feminists? I am not sure how to understand this comment.

    For mainland China the last estimate of 2010 shows 686 million males and 649 million females, this is about 5.4 percent or 37 million women missing out of the entire population.

    Still, presently are more women in China living than the entire population (males and females together) of USA, Japan, Philippines and Vietnam together...

    Don't be worried when listening to Fox News.

    All people living in Asia know, the Chinese will not die out soon. They even give money to make it possible for the Americans to pay the interests for their loans to manage their ballooning budget deficit.

    ReplyDelete
  88. chocomintlipwax said... on the other hand we have one imagined in Jin-Yohan's head...

    Jin-Yohan - indeed, this is the first time I am called on in Arabic.

    In Arabian culture a 'JIN' is not necessarily bad, but might be bad, good, neutral and even benevolent in a certain situation when facing humans.

    ReplyDelete
  89. John Dias, so do you agree that abortion is wrong in all cases? If so, then you own the "shrillness."

    Feminists simply want to have the choice to do with their bodies what they want. They generally do not define a zygote as a person. Out of that comes the pro-choice position that they don't have to follow anyone else's guidelines on whether they are allowed to have an abortion, at least before viability.

    Not only does prop 3 say "I won't pay for your abortion." It says, "you can't put your money in a health savings account and use it for an abortion." It says, "you can't select insurance coverage that includes abortion."

    Birth control fails. Circumstances change. You're basically saying that you cannot trust women to make their own decisions about their own bodies. That's absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Feminists consider a human foetus as tumor, as an internal ailment.

    This brings to my mind an exchange between RomanCandle and jupiter9 in this thread:

    RomanCandle >> "I doubt Roissy tortures cats, either. It's called hyperbole, and it's Roissy's bread and butter."

    jupiter9 >> "When feminists use hyperbole it's taken dead serious. How interesting when the tables are turned."

    So when men use hyperbole in hopes of better illustrating a point, it's stupid for it not to be understood as such. But if feminists use hyperbole in hopes of better illustrating a point...

    ReplyDelete
  91. Pam: "So when men use hyperbole in hopes of better illustrating a point, it's stupid for it not to be understood as such. But if feminists use hyperbole in hopes of better illustrating a point..."

    ReplyDelete
  92. Pam: "So when men use hyperbole in hopes of better illustrating a point, it's stupid for it not to be understood as such. But if feminists use hyperbole in hopes of better illustrating a point..."

    /golf clap

    ReplyDelete
  93. It seems, jupiter9 and Pam are now running out of arguments, they complain about hyperboles...

    On one side, feminists are demanding abortion a few days before the tumor is ready for birth, and on the other side feminists are lining up begging men for sperm-donations to carry out artificial insemination.

    This is the macabre, cruel and strange world of feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Who's complaining about hyperboles? I'm not, and it doesn't look like jupiter9 is, either. Just pointing out the fact that men don't corner the market on their usage when trying to illustrate a point.

    So some feminists don't want to give birth or have children and some do. I'm willing to bet that there are some non-feminists who want to have children and some who don't. That's macabre, cruel and strange?

    What I find macabre, cruel and strange is that the (mainly) Republicans who don't want abortions funded out of their tax dollars (nor, for that matter, do they want their tax dollars spent on social programs, including support for children who were not aborted) don't seem to mind a huge chunk of their tax dollars feeding the war machine of American Imperialism. Goodness knows that children, including those not yet born, aren't slain due to war.

    ReplyDelete
  95. @Yohan

    Sorry, but I wanted to pick at something Yohan said earlier in the comments that has been bothering me.

    "Can you imagine, you are married, with wife and children, and some gangsters are attacking your wife and she gets pregnant because of that?

    How can this family be forced to accept this child among their other children? How can you be a father for this unwanted child?"

    I just have one question to ask, which I think is a very important one where a woman's choice is concerned.

    Mr. Yohan, in a hypothetical situation where the wife a MRA activist was raped and became pregnant, would you expect that woman to have an abortion at the request of her husband, even if she didn't want to?

    ReplyDelete
  96. @atuinsails

    Very reasonable question.

    As I said in my earlier postings in this thread, opinions about abortion are divided. It's not only about pro-life-MRAs and pro-choice-feminists.

    I can only speak for myself and family, we are from EU/Japan, nobody of us has a deep religious background, nobody is into USA-politics.

    In many EU-countries and some Asian countries the woman decides alone within 12 to 14 weeks after obligatory counselling and 3 days to reconsider her decision of requesting an abortion - and most people in Europe think, that's a good solution somewhere in the middle for all of us.

    The next choice for the wife is directly after birth, the woman can decide if she prefers adoption or not. If she decides for adoption, the child will be taken away immediately after birth, she will not even see it for one moment.

    About my own family members I know they will not wait, but go ahead with chemical abortion and other medical treatment immediately after the rape-crime to prevent pregnancy and STD-related infections.

    In case of rape our family will be more worried about STDs than about pregnancy/abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  97. "About my own family members I know they will not wait, but go ahead with chemical abortion and other medical treatment immediately after the rape-crime to prevent pregnancy and STD-related infections."

    Even if the rapist is a family member or trusted friend? Even if it's date rape? Even if it's statutory rape?

    ReplyDelete
  98. @jupiter9

    Why not?

    Yes, in any case of unwanted sexual contact all of my family members will look immediately for medical advice to prevent STD-related infections. That's for sure.

    About pregnancies in general, my 2 daughters and their husbands are not interested into pregnancy/own children anyway and my wife is too old for that.

    We have a family life and there are no secrets between us, we all know each other, health insurances will pay the most part of these medical fees anyway...

    Everybody of us has enough money to look up a private medical clinic, if they really want to keep something done in secret.

    There are plenty of ladies' clinics in all major Japanese cities with medical doctors, correcting everything which is outside of the Japanese health insurance cover, your nose, your ears, your X-feet, your teeth, skin problems and are also ready for abortion.

    -----

    About abortion as I said, that's not a big issue in Japan/China and in many EU-countries for MRAs like me who are not concerned about religion and are not living in USA. -

    The woman pays for it and it will be done, and how can I know if a woman is 3 months pregnant or not?

    About children in general, there are MILLIONS of poor children around in neighbouring countries near Japan, any age, any gender, any health condition - your choice if you like children and do not want to have your own ones, the question is only for how many children you want to take care.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Yohan, many do not think as you do. Many think "date rape" is impossible for example, and only the stranger assaulting you from the bushes at night with a gun is really rape.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis