Skip to main content

The Prolife movement are no better than rapists

They both believe that someone else is entitled to someone else's body and want to take it by force.
Victim blaming women who have been raped:
"Whats a little rape? Its not worth taking another human life through self defense or imprisoning them over. You should have thought about what you were wearing or where you were walking. You knew the risks. Its your own fault. Just lie down and take it and you will probably be fine."
How prolife sounds:
Whats a little pregnancy? Its not worth taking another human life. You should have thought about that before you had sex. You knew the risks. Its your own fault. Its only 9 months imprisonment inside your own body providing life support against your will and a birth. Stop exaggerating and just lie down and take it. Inconvenient risks are negligible and worth subjecting you to. Complications or death are rare, and even though we don't know the likelihood that you will suffer them, we are willing to force you to accept the risks. We think you will probably be fine though and if it turns out you aren't... well... we get to remain consequence free, so we are willing to risk it.
They will argue that they are clearly not for rapist rights because rapists are committing violence, causing harm, and, coincidentally enough, women have basic rights to not be violated! (Only in the case of rape though.) But just because one persons attempt is bad, while the other ones is innocent or nonexistent, is missing the point completely..
"Oh, you mean the fetus doesn't mean to harm or violate me? Well that changes everything! SURE! It can use my body then! Of course! I am such a horrible person for thinking I owned my body and all of its parts. (And clearly my uterus belongs to the fetus.) I forgot that my bodily rights were contingent upon weather you intended to harm and violate me. I forgot that my bodily rights were contingent on what role I played in your need. You have a good reason to strip me of my rights. That changes everything!"
Its as if woman are designed for their bodies and wills to be violated and used by others. Their vagina by men, their uterus by their children. Consent is irrelevant, the fact that you have a uterus is all the consent that is required should you find yourself with child.
When it comes to them addressing rape themselves, one of the most disgusting lines I have heard is that "abortion doesn't unrape a woman, it just adds more violence." That is all well and fine coming from a woman who chooses to keep her rape pregnancy, who finds this empowering. But this logic has to come from within. It cannot be TOLD to someone else. To apply this logic to every rape victim and mandate laws based around this narrative that can just as equally be dis-empowering to a woman... well that also just adds to the violence and oppression her rapist committed upon her! Thank you so much for telling women, not how they could feel, but how they must feel. Because your bans of abortion in the case of rape do just that you sick fucks.
When the prolife movement uses this line, they fully mean that the violence carried out is the responsibility of the woman who was raped.
No.
This is just wrong.
The subsequent trauma of finding out she is pregnant, the subsequent emotional battle she has to grapple with on if abortion or birth is the right choice, and the resultant abortion should that be the best option.... ALL of that is on the rapist and the rapist ONLY. His violation of her did not end when he withdrew his penis. She did not do anything immoral. She was subjected to yet further use of her body against her will because of the rapists actions. If prolifers want to blame, shame, or criminalize anyone for the act of abortion after a rape, it should be the rapist. Nothing but supportive narrative should be provided to the woman. And ''abortion doesn't unrape a woman, it just adds more violence'' is so unbelievably insensitive and vile. This person clearly does not understand that a rape victim had her body, her agency, and her desires completely disregarded because someone else had benefit to be gained from doing so. This line... does the exact same fucking thing.. They are saying her body, her agency, and her desires mean NOTHING and our bans are going to further disregard that in favor of someone who has benefit to be gained from doing so.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fetal Awareness

  Fetal Pain This topic is being included in our wiki because it is one of the bigger considerations for those on the fence about where they stand on the issue. The ability for a fetus to feel pain is inconclusive at this point in time. One thing, however, is clear - a pregnant person will also feel pain at the time of onset of labor and delivery. Drugs can only be used so much, and they can wear off prior to or during delivery. She will also experience pain after birth, while she heals and especially if she has a c-section. She will be unable to take narcotic pain meds if she plans on breastfeeding as it can be passed through breastmilk. And breastfeeding itself, can be painful, especially in the beginning. And that is nothing to say of the pains felt throughout pregnancy, including the emotional impact it has on a person who is unable to access abortion and is compelled to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Likewise, the pain of having to give up the child, who by the time of delive...
Post a Comment
Read more

''Why Mothers Don’t Have The Right To Refuse Babies The Use Of Their Wombs'' & a rebuttal as to why they actually do

My rebuttal is to this Federalist article: ''Why Mothers Don’t Have The Right To Refuse Babies The Use Of Their Wombs'' This prolife article argues that prenatal humans have to belong somewhere. If not the womb, then where? ''For most pro-choice advocates, the right to abortion hinges on affirming that a pregnant woman has the right to refuse her child residence in her body. But then the question may be asked, if a prenatal human being does not belong in her mother’s womb, where does she belong? The answer? Nowhere.'' You can ask that if you wish. My answer would be that it is irrelevant to the very first statement. ''It is implausible to claim a child does not belong in the place she began to exist and the only place she can survive: in the nurture and care her mother’s body naturally provides. This has been the case for virtually all of humanity since our history began. The mother’s womb is the rightful place of a child in t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Parthood view of pregnancy makes more sense than the containment view

  This will be a summary of a journal called Were you a part of your mother? that discusses two different views on the relationship between a pregnant person and a fetus. This journal entry refers to the pregnant person as the gravida and the fetus as the foster, so I will be referring to them with those terms as well. One view is the containment view and the other is the parthood view. The containment view seems to be a fairly commonly held view, one that I have seen both sides of the argument hold, so I will be focusing on the parthood view. I believe that the parthood view has a stronger logical standing. I will be summarizing it below by following the four criteria presented for what makes something a whole organism and what is a part of that whole organism. Following that will be the objections and how they can be addressed. I will not address every piece of criteria presented, but will do my best to condense down key points of this 55 minute read. Here is a mini table of co...
Post a Comment
Read more