[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Saya

Absolutely not, quite the opposite. Like I've said twice in this thread now, I would never have an abortion, but my religious beliefs are not that of others so when arguing about abortion I cannot allow my religion or very subjective morals to come into play. A woman is pregnant, and doesn't want to give birth. Pregnancy, I'm not sure if you're aware, is not an easy thing and like I've already mentioned, abortion is safer than giving birth. Its her medical condition, her body and her choice alone, not the man she slept with.

As far as whether or not pregnancy is easy, I can only go but what I've seen. What I've seen is that every time my wife was pregnant, it was quite easy for her. In the end, though, she got a bit lucky, I guess. C-sections.

You're putting the responsibility on the **** victim to prove she was ***** otherwise she can't have her abortion.

It's up to the **** victim to prove that they were *****, regardless.

For a lot of women its not that easy.

I never said it would be easy. I know first-hand that it's not easy.

What I'm suggesting is that young scared women being abused by someone they may have trusted might not just be able to easily report their abuse.

That's why children should be taught that if something happens, and they have no idea if it's bad or not, they should talk to an adult.

There is only a 16% conviction rate for a rapist in America:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information...eporting-rates

You know, I followed the sources that site claimed, and couldn't seem to locate any specific statistics about **** convictions. Maybe I missed it.

The issue of how many are falsified however is plagued with bad research on both sides, and is rarely ever touched. Its hard to say because a lot of studies who place that number as high include when victims recant, which is not an admission of guilt but an unwillingness to go through with legal proceedings. And of course the coverage on the falsified reports can make victims become targets, even if they have been ***** but can't prove it.

I didn't mean to imply that women are lying about being ***** though that certainly would qualify as "even if they're innocent." I was thinking more along the lines of cases such as mistaken identity or circumstantial evidence.

Bullshit, its different for every situation and for every individual. If a husband rapes, if a woman rapes a man, if a father rapes you, if a stranger tackles you in the bushes, if you wake up after someone slipped something in your drink and you're all alone in a motel room and don't even know what happened, everyone is going to have a completely different reaction. I know women who have been ***** who have completely derealized the situation, they never cried over it or felt fear, they just can't really feel like its real. I've known women who completely broke down and I know women who did a good job at acting and keeping up a front. I know men who have been ***** who would bottle it all inside, because they're men, right? I know men who hit rock bottom and couldn't get back up, I know men and women who dealt with it very well and never let it bring them down. I have known many people who have been sexually assaulted, I don't know a single one who reported it.

If someone forces their dick into you, you're going to have marks from forced entry. If you struggled, you'll probably have even more marks. If you were tied up, you'd have marks from that. The point is, there is almost always visible evidence of ****.

As for psychologically, you're right, different people react differently. But even then, criminal psychologists are trained to identify when a person is reacting to a ****.

See above for date **** scenario, but also many people do not know that a spouse can **** their spouse,

This would still result in the above-mentioned physical evidence.

might not think that if you're drunk or asleep that it counts if it was a boyfriend or a husband, might not think it counts at all if you are drunk,

The whole "if you're drunk you were *****" bullshit is exactly that. Unless, of course, someone got someone else drunk just so they could fuck them. Beyond that, drunkeness does not equal non-consentual. If both parties were drunk, who ***** who?

might think that because they were not able to say no that it meant it wasn't ****, if they were coerced into saying yes, if a lover manipulates them afterwards and says things like "you enjoyed it/you were asking for it by doing/wearing variable z",

In this day and age, I'd be amazed if there were really that many people who didn't know that those things are not okay.

if a child is ***** they might not even know what it was.

Like I said above, they should be taught to go to an adult if they're not sure.

Also for men they're supposed to enjoy sex, right? See the thread about the hairdresser ****** a man for comments on if men are even able to be ***** at all.

I'm well aware of people's opinions on the matter. A man can be ***** by a woman. That's all I have to say about that.

And thats extremely hard for them to do, and even if they do there's only a 16% chance they will get justice at all.

So they shouldn't try at all? They should just roll over and take it? You might as well say that they were asking for it.

Because you merely shrugged the issue of **** victims off as "well they should just come forward", meaning they get punished for not being able to or unwilling to report what happened to them. Thats fucking sick.

What's fucking sick is that I say that **** victims should come forward, and you argue against it.

she said: "Pro-choice and being okay with abortion are two very different things", I'm sorry for assuming you could look back and read. Not everyone who is pro choice will be willing to get an abortion, as simple as that.

"Pro-choice and being okay with abortion are two very different things."

"Not everyone who is pro choice goes out every weekend and has an abortion."

Your statement doesn't match up with hers.

I don't think getting the kid he wanted is equal to the punishment of pregnancy and the lack of the right to choose what to do with one's own body.

You're right, 18 years of responsibility and hard work is not comparable to 9 months of discomfort. Women are lucky.

As for "the lack of the right to choose," that's exactly what you're arguing for.

And domestic abuse can also hard to prove, especially non physical abusers. But better err on the side of safety and treat all women like liars and make them have your babies, right?

Again, criminal psychologist. (And I don't mean the ones who talk to criminals, I mean the ones who help investigators determine if a criminal complaint is valid. I'm not sure if that's the proper term.)

I doubt many women will get an abortion willy nilly while being in a stable relationship without putting the father into consideration. A man should not have legal rights over a woman's body.

And a woman should not have legal rights to deny a man his own rights.