WTF

I want to see this guy explain that to the 10 year old.

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.

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.

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.

Okay, what the fuck is up with the rape apologetics and anti-bodily autonomy chubs in these comments?

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.

Got it.

You want to require 30,000 kids to be born to parents who don't want them, just so you can force a 10-year-old victim to birth her rapist's baby.

You want to require hundreds of loving mothers to endanger their lives by insisting that they continue to carry doomed pregnancies long after doctors have proven the fetus cannot survive and is in excruciating pain even before it is born. Why? So you can force a 10-year-old to bear her rapist's child?

Go to hell, Kaya.

It doesn't even stop any other abortions though. It actually increases the number of abortions.

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.

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?

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.

A major problem with abortion on condition of rape is that it motivates false accusations.

It is an evil law supported by people who don't care about male victims.

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.