The GOP: Empowering rapists to choose the mother of their children

Great point. In the United States, there are between 17,000 and 32,000 rape-related pregnancies every year.
I'll also point out that, in most states, rapists get parental rights to their children, which ties the victim to her abuser for almost 19 years. Yes, yes, technically the victim can sever the parental-rights requirement but - like so many of these laws that put the "rights" of others over a woman's - it isn't easy:
One state doesn't allow severance at all; 25 others only allow it if the father is actually convicted of the rape, which only happens in 28 out of every 1,000 cases. Actually, out of those 25 states, a number of them only allow severance if the rapist is actually convicted of certain sexual offenses or degrees of assault that led to the conception of the particular child - so if the jury decides to convict of first-degree sexual assault and not rape, the rapist may still get to argue for custody or visitation.
Of the other 24 states, 18 require “clear and convincing evidence” that shows the rape led to the child in question; the other 6 require either clear and convincing evidence or a criminal conviction.
Fuck the Republicans and everyone else who's set up this entire "women are just brood mares" situation.
- I was 100% pro-choice but somehow this made me more pro-choice. Wtf...
  
  I’m at like 310% now and counting
  
  Abortion is a horrible medical procedure when you think about it. But guess what:
  we are horrible people that make it necessary.
  so is amputation, but its much better than the alternative.

The GOP is pro-choice, it would seem, just not for women.
- It’s a gender election. It really is.
  Men who haven’t figured out how to define themselves outside the sphere of a woman’s involvement, are trying to push back to a time where they no longer have to do just that. Like it’s an entitlement. Like we’re horses that should be properly stabled, by them.
  Look at the toxic weirdness of the Trump ticket. It’s not necessarily Republican, but it is MAGA.
  Enter Heritage foundation.
  And yes. Abortion bans do mean rapists are making these decisions because Trump has empowered them to do so. That’s what the laws mean, though people aren’t stating it in this way often enough.
  That it ended up being a career woman like Kamala on the other side of the ticket just emphasizes the MAGA drive to force masculinity into a very toxic place going forward.
  
  It’s a gender election. It really is.
  Is it tho? About 40% of GOP voters are women. Sure it's not 50%, but still much larger percentage than you'd think if it was a "war of the sexes" thing
- As our Lord intended
  
  May the Lord open.

Yes, but, safe abortion access should be available even to those who weren't raped.
- That's really missing the point.
  If a man rapes a woman and a child is born, the courts will give him shared custody. Choose to give the child up and the racist can block it and get full custody.
  There is a depth there that has no legal equivalent where the victim is punished. Closest I can think of is if a burglar breaks in, you have to give them a room in your house for the rest of your life or you can just give them the whole house.
- I don't think anyone is saying that only rape victims should be able to get an abortion.
  At least, not that I've seen.
  I'm sure someone with a fence wedged up their arse is going to say that or something similar...
  To anyone considering it: prosecuting and proving that something is rape in order to allow the woman to abort a pregnancy will take so long that the pregnancy will be over by the time you get a final verdict.
  Terminating a pregnancy is a personal choice and it should not be something that needs some kind of excuse to allow. It's a personal and medical procedure, by dragging it into the public, you're going to invite all kinds of HIPAA issues and you'll be unfairly exposing someone's medical situation to the public. To put it simply: you will make a very private medical decision, into a public record, for no good reason.
  To anyone still reading, if you don't already, please support bodily autonomy, and women's rights. I'm a guy and I approve this message. (Anyone who disagrees, can go to hell).

Fun fact: The bible does not condemn rape. The bible has a couple of rules requiring a victim to marry the rapist, but only if he gets caught.
Conservatives have never had a problem with rape. Never.
- There's also that wholesome bible story where Lot threw his daughters to a mob of rapists and was referred to as an "honorable man" for it.
  The bible is full of misogyny, incest, rape, and quite frankly doesn't treat women as people. It's a shitty book with shitty ideas from the bronze age.
- They do care about rape, but not quite the way you're thinking. Those rules you mentioned about having to marry the rapist? That's what they care about. Basically, young unmarried women are property of their fathers. When they marry, they become property of their husbands. If you rape an unmarried young woman, you're stealing her father's property, and the marriage pact sets it right.
  So it's actually much more fucked up then not having any problem with rape at all.

If I had a daughter, I'd be teaching her how to kill a man with a pencil.
- i wish we didn't live in a world where that was necessary ://
  
  So do I. I can't imagine being a parent right now.
- Magic trick
- Relevant part from Face Off
  I just now realized that they had professional scumbag, Danny 'Rapist' Masterson play the rapey douchebag in the first scene, too. Sometimes life is stranger than fiction.
  
  Sometimes life is stranger than fiction.
  Kind of like that Workaholics episode where Chris D'Elia plays a pedo.

I'm still a little surprised this alone isn't the end of the GOP, but then there are 432 other things that should have been too.
- Sure but demoncrats are having post birth abortions and controlling hurricanes and rigging elections and causing my taco bell dinner to cost more! So what's the problem with stopping blue haired nymphos from killing babies?
  -The average conservative voter
  Turns out you can get away with a lot of blatantly evil things if you just convince your entire voter base that the only reliable news source is a Republican owned "entertainment" propaganda outlet

is this referencing a specific new horrific policy?
or just all the horrific conservative policies denying women bodily autonomy?
looks like Kentucky is pro-rapist:
specifically pro-child rapist as well:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/19/us/abortion-ban-states-rape-exception/index.html
- I have no doubt a new horrific policy happened recently since its seemingly constant with them, so I'd guess yes to both.
  
  I tried to search it but there's like 50 different stories about the GOP and rape.
  okay, this is it.
  kentucky says you can't abort rape babies.
  https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/19/us/abortion-ban-states-rape-exception/index.html

That sentence makes JD Vance cream his pants

This made me think a little in the opposite direction as well, of the male being the victim, has there been any documented recourse there? I have no clue what I even think of that situation. Interested in other people's opinion.
- In the modern day or historically? And would the perpetrator in this case be a man or a woman?
  Because I can point you to an interview from about a decade ago where a prominent researcher of sexual assault (as in she coined the term "date rape" and is the origin of the 1 in 4 number you see sometimes) reacts in utter disbelief to the idea that a woman could rape a man, and when given an example where the man is drugged into compliance declares that situation to not be rape but just "unwanted contact".
  In the UK, a woman cannot commit rape by law unless she is trans (rape requires the perpetrator to penetrate the victim with the perpetrator's penis, cis women simply lack the equipment).
  In the US the definitions aren't that bad, but they're close. The FBI redefined rape a few years back in a way that allowed for the possibility of a woman committing it, but is also phrased in a way that implies only the penetrating party can rape.
  
  In the UK we do have laws that allow women to be convicted for rape in all but name. Assault by penetration (with an object or body part other than a penis) is not classed as rape but does allow for the same maximum sentence. Similarly forcing someone to have penetrative sex with you also carries the same maximum sentence. The definition difference is, to some degree at least, semantic.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_fatherhood

This is a horrible way to find out your mother is getting abused and was told that's what a relationship looks like
- Not necessarily. Some women are conditioned with some but not all of patriarchal views. My mom is very much supportive of women having their own independence, but she is still prude and blames raped women for what they wear or how they behaved.
  
  Victim blaming is a way to protect your own despair. "Surely it can't happen to just anyone! It must because of x reason!"
  You see this shit with everything that can simply happen. Disease, disaser, children born with disfigurements... Anything bad by chance.

I mean it shouldn't have to come this, but I wonder what would happen if all the women in these states just started wearing chasitiy belts, that they hold the key to. It only comes off if they feel comfortable. There has to be some sort of long wearing material by now.
- Or, we could torture & execute rapists instead of shifting blame/responsibility.

Where's the rest of that conversation? Seems like it was cherry picked for a nefarious purpose. I'll check that person's account for context
- Did you find anything? I can see why you’d say that, but nothing it it seems nefarious to me
  
  I did, actually. Mastodon is a pretty interesting site. It wasn't his original post, but I did find the ensuing conversation interesting.

It's funny, then you picture a coat hanger.