Rape, Incest, and the 15 week limit

DGS49

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2012
15,863
13,401
2,415
Pittsburgh
The kerfuffle over the imminent discarding of Roe v Wade has brought increasing attention to the states that have imposed, or want to impose a firm 15-week limit on early-stage abortions, which coincides roughly with the "fetal heart beat" standard.

Lefties have a collective case of The Vapors because some or all of these measures don't have an exclusion for rape and/or incest. (More on this later).

So let's look at reality for a moment. Imagine a woman is raped and as luck would have it, she is impregnated. So statistically speaking, she would be in the middle of her menstrual cycle, and two weeks later...no period. Then four weeks after that...no period. Then four weeks after that...no period.

Do ya think she might have an inkling that she is preggles? Jesus fuck, how stupid will we suppose she is?

Another four weeks go by...no period. At this point she is fourteen weeks post rape. She has missed FOUR menstrual periods. And STILL after the passage of all that time, she can get an abortion in the States in question, with no problems.

FOLKS, the "rape&incest" thing is a non-issue. The woman in question has had figurative eons to consider her condition and what to do about it. There is no question that this victim has had EVERY OPPORTUNITY IN THE WORLD to get an abortion, and Planned Parenthood is probably beating down her door, offering to do it for free.

This is a phony-made-up issue.

Now to incest. If the impregnated female is younger than the applicable age of consent in her home State, then she has been raped, by definition. If the woman is beyond the age of consent and has NOT consented to the act of intercourse then she has been raped. If she is over the age of consent and engaged in intercourse with a family member voluntarily, then she should have no special treatment under the applicable abortion law. She gets fifteen weeks to decide, just like everybody else. Not every incestuous impregnation is a rape.

So in discussing this, it is unnecessary to mention "incest." It is just a matter of how to treat a woman who has been raped, either statutorily, or otherwise. Rape. That's it.
 
So let's look at reality for a moment. Imagine a woman is raped and as luck would have it, she is impregnated. So statistically speaking, she would be in the middle of her menstrual cycle, and two weeks later...no period. Then four weeks after that...no period. Then four weeks after that...no period.

Do ya think she might have an inkling that she is preggles? Jesus fuck, how stupid will we suppose she is?

That's not your problem or place to judge, mind your own business.
 
The kerfuffle over the imminent discarding of Roe v Wade has brought increasing attention to the states that have imposed, or want to impose a firm 15-week limit on early-stage abortions, which coincides roughly with the "fetal heart beat" standard.

Lefties have a collective case of The Vapors because some or all of these measures don't have an exclusion for rape and/or incest. (More on this later).

So let's look at reality for a moment. Imagine a woman is raped and as luck would have it, she is impregnated. So statistically speaking, she would be in the middle of her menstrual cycle, and two weeks later...no period. Then four weeks after that...no period. Then four weeks after that...no period.

Do ya think she might have an inkling that she is preggles? Jesus fuck, how stupid will we suppose she is?

Another four weeks go by...no period. At this point she is fourteen weeks post rape. She has missed FOUR menstrual periods. And STILL after the passage of all that time, she can get an abortion in the States in question, with no problems.

FOLKS, the "rape&incest" thing is a non-issue. The woman in question has had figurative eons to consider her condition and what to do about it. There is no question that this victim has had EVERY OPPORTUNITY IN THE WORLD to get an abortion, and Planned Parenthood is probably beating down her door, offering to do it for free.

This is a phony-made-up issue.

Now to incest. If the impregnated female is younger than the applicable age of consent in her home State, then she has been raped, by definition. If the woman is beyond the age of consent and has NOT consented to the act of intercourse then she has been raped. If she is over the age of consent and engaged in intercourse with a family member voluntarily, then she should have no special treatment under the applicable abortion law. She gets fifteen weeks to decide, just like everybody else. Not every incestuous impregnation is a rape.

So in discussing this, it is unnecessary to mention "incest." It is just a matter of how to treat a woman who has been raped, either statutorily, or otherwise. Rape. That's it.

You don't want to discuss it because not discussing it allows you to simply ignore a valid argument.

That won't happen...
 
How about we set the limit based on the number of weeks she is into her pregnancy, unless her life is in danger or the fetus is not viable.

The exceptions due to rape or incest means the woman only gains her right to her body after she has been violated by a man.
 
The kerfuffle over the imminent discarding of Roe v Wade has brought increasing attention to the states that have imposed, or want to impose a firm 15-week limit on early-stage abortions, which coincides roughly with the "fetal heart beat" standard.

Lefties have a collective case of The Vapors because some or all of these measures don't have an exclusion for rape and/or incest. (More on this later).

So let's look at reality for a moment. Imagine a woman is raped and as luck would have it, she is impregnated. So statistically speaking, she would be in the middle of her menstrual cycle, and two weeks later...no period. Then four weeks after that...no period. Then four weeks after that...no period.

Do ya think she might have an inkling that she is preggles? Jesus fuck, how stupid will we suppose she is?

Another four weeks go by...no period. At this point she is fourteen weeks post rape. She has missed FOUR menstrual periods. And STILL after the passage of all that time, she can get an abortion in the States in question, with no problems.

FOLKS, the "rape&incest" thing is a non-issue. The woman in question has had figurative eons to consider her condition and what to do about it. There is no question that this victim has had EVERY OPPORTUNITY IN THE WORLD to get an abortion, and Planned Parenthood is probably beating down her door, offering to do it for free.

This is a phony-made-up issue.

Now to incest. If the impregnated female is younger than the applicable age of consent in her home State, then she has been raped, by definition. If the woman is beyond the age of consent and has NOT consented to the act of intercourse then she has been raped. If she is over the age of consent and engaged in intercourse with a family member voluntarily, then she should have no special treatment under the applicable abortion law. She gets fifteen weeks to decide, just like everybody else. Not every incestuous impregnation is a rape.

So in discussing this, it is unnecessary to mention "incest." It is just a matter of how to treat a woman who has been raped, either statutorily, or otherwise. Rape. That's it.
So, Winston Churchhill asked a woman is she would have sex with him for a thousand pounds. She was like, "hell no". Then he asked if she would have sex with him for a million pounds to which she responded that she just might. Churchill replied, "We have established you are a whore, now it is just a matter of price". That applies here, if you are willing to provide an exception and allow an abortion in the case of rape or incest, then we have already established that you are not against killing an unborn child, now it . is just a matter of "terms".

If you want to ban abortion, then man the fuck up and ban abortion. No exceptions, NONE. Either you are against killing unborn babies are you are not. Moral consistency means something. Allowing exceptions is no different than Churchill's acquaintance.
 
So, Winston Churchhill asked a woman is she would have sex with him for a thousand pounds. She was like, "hell no". Then he asked if she would have sex with him for a million pounds to which she responded that she just might. Churchill replied, "We have established you are a whore, now it is just a matter of price". That applies here, if you are willing to provide an exception and allow an abortion in the case of rape or incest, then we have already established that you are not against killing an unborn child, now it . is just a matter of "terms".

If you want to ban abortion, then man the fuck up and ban abortion. No exceptions, NONE. Either you are against killing unborn babies are you are not. Moral consistency means something. Allowing exceptions is no different than Churchill's acquaintance.

So in the case of the mother's life being in serious danger, she dies because abortion bans should have no exceptions?
 
So in the case of the mother's life being in serious danger, she dies because abortion bans should have no exceptions?
I mean this is the classic Philosophy question concerning the trolley car. And yes, morally and ethically, there is only one right answer.
 
While we are what-if-ing. ;)

Say a young man and woman get it on and she gets preggers. They are tickled and decide to have the kid and get married well before it's born.

They find out (unknown to them) that they are first cousins.
 
While we are what-if-ing. ;)

Say a young man and woman get it on and she gets preggers. They are tickled and decide to have the kid and get married well before it's born.

They find out (unknown to them) that they are first cousins.
Wow, the total ignorance revealed in that post is mind boggling.
 
How about we set the limit based on the number of weeks she is into her pregnancy, unless her life is in danger or the fetus is not viable.

The exceptions due to rape or incest means the woman only gains her right to her body after she has been violated by a man.
You know Winter here is my opinion and the Op does make a valid point on this because in fifteen weeks it would be almost four cycles for a period, so the woman would know by the second cycle that she is pregnant and should make the choice…

Third trimester abortions are out of the question for me unless it is the woman health or incest because the raped victim already knows she is pregnant by then…

Personally women need to finally finish the ERA movement and do something if they want this right protected and if they fail then it is on them and they are to blame for failing future generations…
 
Wow, the total ignorance revealed in that post is mind boggling.

Ever been to WV? ;)

Jokes aside it could happen if the woman's uncle, for whatever reason, was estranged from the family and changed his name, had a son, and as fate would have it they hooked-up.

They could have both been living on their own by that time only to find out they were first cousins after she reported the joyous event to her family.

:oops8:
 
...
They find out (unknown to them) that they are first cousins.

Leave Madison Cawthorn's sex life out of it already :abgg2q.jpg:

Anywho, that apparently is an overstated risk of producing a three eyed baby.
 

Forum List

Back
Top